US press and publishing

Subterms

    Latest story

    213 Shares79 Views

    I chaired the FCC. The 60 Minutes settlement shows Trump has weaponized the agency | Tom Wheeler

    by

    It is time to unfurl the “Mission Accomplished” banner at the Federal Communications Commission (FCC). Paramount Global, the parent of CBS Television, has agreed to pay $16m to settle a lawsuit brought by Donald Trump over the editing of a 60 Minutes interview with Kamala Harris. Presumably, the FCC can now cease its slow-walking of the Paramount-Skydance Media merger.Just two days after the president took office, the agency’s new chair, Brendan Carr, inserted the FCC into the issues in the Trump lawsuit that alleged “news distortion”. As the New York Post headlined: “Trump’s FCC pick Brendan Carr says ‘60 Minutes’ editing scandal could affect Paramount-Skydance merger review.”That lawsuit was filed in the final week of the 2024 presidential campaign under the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Act, a statute historically used against false advertising. The case was filed in a single-judge federal district court that one legal publication characterized as “a favored jurisdiction for conservative legal causes and plaintiffs”. CBS characterized the case as “without merit”.The 60 Minutes broadcast aired in October; the day before, a different excerpt had appeared on Face the Nation. Soon after, the Center for American Rights – a group that describes itself as “a public interest law firm dedicated to protecting Americans’ most fundamental constitutional rights” – filed a complaint at the FCC alleging CBS had engaged in “significant and substantial news alteration”. The complaint was dismissed as seeking “to weaponize the licensing authority of the FCC in a way that is fundamentally at odds with the First Amendment”. Immediately upon becoming the FCC chair, Carr reversed that decision and ordered a formal proceeding on the matter (but let stand the dismissal of a complaint against a local Fox station over its 2020 election coverage).The election of Trump and the installation of a Trump-appointed FCC chair transformed the Paramount/CBS merger from a review of the public interest merits of the transfer of broadcast licenses into a broader question that included the 60 Minutes editing. Carr told an interviewer: “I’m pretty confident that the news distortion complaint over the 60 Minutes transcript is something that is likely to arise in the context of the FCC review of that transaction.”The formal paperwork for FCC approval of the license transfers was submitted 10 months ago, on 6 September 2024. Now that the lawsuit has been settled, it will be interesting to see how quickly the FCC acts.The CBS case is just one example of the tactical leverage the Trump FCC regularly exerts over those it regulates. Carr, who wrote the FCC chapter in the “Project 2025” Maga blueprint, has not been shy about using this authority to achieve such political goals.Even before formally assuming the FCC chair position, Carr began exercising chair-like authority to advance the Maga agenda. This began with a letter to the CEOs of Alphabet (Google and YouTube), Meta (Facebook and Instagram), Microsoft and Apple alleging: “you participated in a censorship cartel … [that is] an affront to Americans’ constitutional freedoms and must be completely dismantled.” Going beyond traditional FCC authority, he threatened: “As you know, Big Tech’s prized liability shield, Section 230, is codified in the Communications Act, which the FCC administers.” Carr suggested he might investigate whether those editorial decisions were made in good faith.Recently, Carr conditioned the approval of Verizon’s acquisition of Frontier Communications on Verizon agreeing to drop its corporate diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) policies. Continuing his anti-diversity efforts, he launched an investigation into Comcast Corporation because it promotes DEI as “a core value of our business”.In his pre-FCC chair days, Carr championed press freedom. In a 2021 statement, he wrote: “A newsroom’s decision about what stories to cover and how to frame them should be beyond the reach of any government official.” Once he became Trump’s FCC chair, however, he not only picked up on the 60 Minutes matter, but also launched an investigation into the public broadcasters NPR and PBS “regarding the airing of … programming across your broadcast member stations”.The FCC’s regulatory authority directly covers about one-sixth of the American economy while also affecting the other five-sixths that rely on the nation’s communications networks. What was once an independent, policy-based agency has been transformed into a performance-based agency, using any leverage it can discover or invent to further the Trump Maga message.

    Tom Wheeler was the chair of the Federal Communications Commission from 2013 to 2017 More

    More stories

    • 175 Shares111 Views

      in US Politics

      Struggling in politics? Consider a war – the media will help | Margaret Sullivan

      by

      “You furnish the pictures. I’ll furnish the war,” was the storied response of the newspaper magnate William Randolph Hearst to Frederic Remington after the illustrator was sent to Cuba to cover an insurrection and cabled back to the boss that there was little going on.Much has changed since that famous (if true) exchange of the late 19th century, in the heyday of sensationalism known as yellow journalism.But one thing that hasn’t changed is that there’s nothing like military conflict to capture the attention of the public, with plenty of help from the media. And the media – whether a tabloid newspaper or a cable news network – benefits, too.These days, Donald Trump’s recent strike on Iran has proved the point once again, with the media’s attention intensely focused on Operation Midnight Hammer, as it was dramatically dubbed.First the emphasis was on the threat of attacks to Iran’s budding nuclear arsenal, then on the possibility of all-out global war, then on the strikes themselves and then the announcement of a supposed ceasefire.All to the greater glory of Trump, at least as he tells it.For those who are trying to bring public attention to other important matters – even matters of life and death – that’s a frustrating reality.Jennifer Mascia knows this all too well.She is a founding reporter for the Trace, a non-profit news site dedicated to tracking the epidemic of gun violence in America and trying to do something about it, through exploring solutions.When elected officials in Minnesota were shot earlier this month – the former state House speaker Melissa Hortman and her husband were killed, and the state legislator John Hoffman and his wife were wounded – it was a huge story.Huge, but fleeting.“Pitted against a global conflict, domestic news doesn’t really stand a chance,” said Mascia, who previously contributed to the now-defunct Gun Report at the New York Times, begun by the then columnist Joe Nocera.That’s true for domestic news that, in an earlier era, would have commanded the media’s attention for many days, if not weeks. The Minnesota violence was even more newsworthy because of an early manhunt and disinformation swirling around the apparent assassin’s political leanings.Still, coverage seemed to disappear in the blink of an eye.“The Trump era has all but ensured that important news will get smacked out of the news cycle in favor of the latest development in Trumpworld,” Mascia wrote to me in an email, after we had talked by phone.Mascia is quick to clarify that she’s not suggesting that the media ignore what the chaotic president is doing.“It’s important that we cover Trump’s constitutional breaches. We shouldn’t become numb or complacent in the face of eroding democracy,” she said.But it was remarkable to see how quickly the Minnesota shootings faded from media attention. A CNN contributor herself, Mascia is often called in to provide perspective for “Day Two” of coverage after the initial reporting of gun-related news. But often these days, she notes, there is no Day Two.By then, the media has moved on.“Maybe if the Israel-Iran war wasn’t going on, we’d still be talking about it,” she said. “Anderson Cooper would be broadcasting from Melissa Hortman’s funeral. But instead, he’s in Tel Aviv.”And, of course, this extends to all sorts of other subjects, not just gun violence.Those who try to focus attention on voting rights, the rule of law, crucial supreme court decisions, widespread citizen action such as the vast “No Kings” protests – to mention just a few – may get a modicum of attention.But nothing compares to a show of military force. And Trump, always attuned to how he’s being perceived, is well aware of that.“A spectacular military success,” he crowed after the strikes. “A historic success,” echoed his defense secretary. Pete Hegseth couldn’t countenance being asked actual questions and claimed the press was trying to distort the story “for their own political reasons to try to hurt President Trump or our country”.Was the administration’s bragging accurate? Perhaps not, said intelligence reports that indicated the strikes may have only added months to the time Iran needs to produce the material for a nuclear weapon.But no matter.The strikes – from the lead-up to the aftermath – sucked up all the oxygen in the media universe for many days.Even by Thursday early afternoon, the top four news articles (plus one photo) on the Washington Post mobile app, for example, were Iran-related.And Fox News, of course, remained largely a cheering section.Whatever the effect on world peace, military conflict sure is good for ratings, as William Randolph Hearst knew in his bones.“Historians point to the Spanish-American war as the first press-driven war,” noted a PBS article accompanying the film Crucible of Empire.It wouldn’t be the last.

      Margaret Sullivan is a Guardian US columnist writing on media, politics and culture More

    • 150 Shares199 Views

      in US Politics

      The mainstream media has enabled Trump’s war on universities | Jason Stanley

      by

      US universities are facing the Trump regime’s fury. The justification given by the regime is that universities are run by leftist ideologues, who have indoctrinated students to adopt supposedly leftist ideological orientations, as well as hostility to Israel, anti-whiteness and trans inclusivity. Donald Trump and his allies believe the election gave them the mandate to crush America’s system of higher education. But what may be less clear is that it is the mainstream media’s obsession with leftists on campus that has led to the current moment.The US mainstream media has waged a decade-long propaganda campaign against American universities, culminating in the systematic misrepresentation of last year’s campus anti-war protests. This campaign has been the normalizing force behind the Trump administration’s attack on universities, as well as a primary cause of his multiple electoral successes. Unless the media recognizes the central role it has played, we cannot expect the attack to relent.It is easy to pinpoint the time that US confidence in higher education started to drastically plummet – the year was 2015. For those of us who have followed this attack throughout the last decade, there is no surprise about this date. It was the year that a spate of political attacks against universities started to emerge, resurrecting the 1980s and 90s conservative panic about “political correctness on campus”, except this time in mainstream media outlets.In 2016, the media scholar Moira Weigel, in an article in the Guardian entitled “Political correctness: how the right invented a phantom enemy”, laid out in detail how this attack, suddenly legitimized by mainstream media outlets, led to Trump’s 2016 victory. Weigel singles out an enormously influential piece in the Atlantic by Jonathan Haidt and Greg Lukianoff, “The coddling of the American mind”. In it, Haidt and Lukianoff decried the supposed trend of shielding students from “words, ideas, and people that might cause them emotional discomfort”. Haidt and Lukianoff’s goal was to suggest that younger generations were “coddled” and protected from emotional harm by college campuses, beginning a trend of infantilizing college students.From 2015 on, much of the mainstream media went on a crusade to vilify universities for political correctness. The Trump regime’s vicious targeting of US universities was justified and normalized by a decade of panicked op-eds about leftists on campus in the New York Times, which included laying the basis for the administration’s cynical attack on DEI (to understand the staggering number of concern-trolling op-eds about leftists on campus the New York Times has published over the last decade, consider this article in Slate, by Ben Mathis-Lilly, about this exact topic; it was published in 2018.)There have always been excesses of what was called “political correctness” and now is called “wokeness”. During times of moral panic, excesses are held up as paradigms. One might single out attempts to de-platform speakers as one such excess. To judge by the mainstream media, there have been a wave of such attempts. The organization that counts them, the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (Fire), has recorded 1,740 attempts to de-platform speakers at colleges and universities over the last two decades or so. That sounds like a lot. However, the methodology for counting a “de-platforming attempt” includes petitions calling for the speaker’s invitation to be canceled or withdrawn – so if a dozen people sign a petition to revoke a speaker’s invitation, it counts as an “de-platforming attempt”, even when (as is often the case) nothing comes of it. Even in the case of successful de-platforming attempts, a speaker whose talk is postponed or who is reinvited counts as a case, as is when a venue has to be switched from one on-campus auditorium to another (say, for safety concerns). This methodology blatantly inflates the prevalence of problematic cancellations of speakers (given that de-platforming attempts count towards evaluating a university’s position on Fire’s influential “Campus Free Speech Rankings”, this methodology also distorts public conversation about the topic). Fire unquestionably does good things. But its very existence depends on fanning the flames of moral panic about universities.More generally, in many cases of university actions that can legitimately be regarded as problematic, the fault was not “political correctness” or “wokeness”, but a corporate and legalistic environment at universities that requires the investigation of every complaint, no matter how overblown. We college professors are fairly uniformly opposed to this culture. But it is hardly the fault of leftists.Finally, no one should mistake an epidemic of faculty members performatively quitting their jobs with an epidemic of firings. When a university fires an academic for their speech, that is a crisis. When a faculty member chooses to resign rather than face student opprobrium, that is just life.It may surprise the reader to learn that during the last decade, the main “chill” at universities has not been “leftists on campus”. It has instead been a relentless attack on college professors and students by rightwing outlets. In 2016, Turning Point USA introduced its “Professor Watchlist”, targeting supposedly radical professors on campus. Campus Reform is an outlet devoted to reporting on liberal professors for their speech – for example, by student reports, social media usage or academic publications. For around a decade, Rod Dreher used his position as a senior editor at the American Conservative to target leftist academics, often to devastating effect. And Canary Mission has steadily and for many years targeted professors for their advocacy for the Palestinian cause. These are hardly the only, or even the most powerful, outlets involved in this long assault (I have not even mentioned Fox News). University professors are terrified of being targeted by these organizations.Major mainstream media outlets have consistently failed to report on the rightwing media assault on college professors over the last two decades. This exacerbated the effects of these attacks. In 2016, when Dreher targeted me in several posts for an offhand comment I made on a private Facebook post, I was inundated by hate mail and phone calls to my office. This was my first experience with such an attack; it deeply destabilized me. In the meantime, my colleagues assured me that Dreher was simply a worried liberal with the sorts of concerns about free speech on campus they had been reading about in the liberal media they consumed (Dreher has since moved to Budapest, Hungary, where he is a fellow at the Danube Institute, a thinktank funded by Viktor Orbán autocratic government).Finally, last year, the media committed its worst error yet, for months erasing the participation of sizable numbers of Jewish students in the protests on college campuses in support of divesting from US military support for Israel, including as movement leaders. In truth, there is a generational conflict about Israel among American Jews. As many American Jews under 40 believe that Israel is committing genocide in Gaza as believe this claim to be antisemitic (about one-third). The media’s complete erasure of the large group of American Jews, especially younger American Jews, critical of Israel’s actions in Gaza, has allowed the Trump regime to conduct its dismantling of the US higher education system under the pretext of fighting antisemitism.None of this is to deny the obvious fact that college professors skew heavily Democratic. In some disciplines, there are clear reasons for this. Sociology has few Republican voters, because rightwing ideology since the 1980s has generally rejected its metaphysical presuppositions – such as the existence and importance of societies. Women and gender studies, Middle Eastern studies, and African American studies are disciplines whose very existence is directly and regularly attacked by Republican politicians. But the fact is that the partisan tilt of universities has basically nothing to do with these departments.A study of my university by a conservative campus group found that out of 23 professors in the chemistry department whose political affiliation could be identified, 19 were Democrats and one was a Republican. Astronomy, Earth and planetary sciences, economics, molecular biophysics and biochemistry were all departments with zero professors with Republican affiliations. According to this study, biology and biomedical sciences at Yale had 229 professors with Democratic party affiliations, and eight with Republican party affiliations. None of these are areas in which it makes sense to speak of political bias. As the “asymmetric polarization” of the Republican party has accelerated over the last decade, is it any wonder that there are fewer and fewer professors who vote for Trump’s Republican party? Why would academics vote for a party that is now bent on dismantling the US system of higher education?Unfortunately, instead of debunking the media-driven moral panic about leftists on campus, universities have largely accepted the premises of the drivers of this panic – that there is a problem on campus exemplified by the fact that few professors support Trump (“intellectual diversity”), and that protests against Israel’s actions in Gaza (with large representations of Jewish students) were antisemitic. Even universities that are challenging the Trump regime’s assault seem to accept its nonsensical premises that college students have been overly protected from controversial speech, and, simultaneously, that Jewish students must be shielded to the maximum extent of the law from criticism of Israel’s actions.In the meantime, the media has elevated some of the very academics most responsible for the moral panic, such as Steven Pinker, who has described universities as having a “suffocating leftwing monoculture”, into spokespersons for universities, and continues to trumpet the propaganda that led to this moment. For example, the New York Times columnist Thomas Edsall, who has long promoted the moral panic about “wokeness” that fuels the Maga movement, still simply pre-supposes that “ideological conformity and past failures to restrain antisemitism” are “vulnerabilities” of the current US higher education system.According to the agents of the moral panic, the blame for Trump’s all-out assault on the American system of higher education falls squarely on supposed “leftists on campus” whose actions supposedly undermined trust in these institutions. But the fault, instead, lies squarely with those responsible for driving this moral panic. The mainstream media has delivered the Republicans a win in a multidecade long propaganda war against academia, one that began with William F Buckley in the 1950s. Within the university, powerful actors are superficially standing against the Trump regime’s attack, while implementing its agenda themselves (giving the lie to the absurd pre-supposition that universities are run by gender studies departments).The “war on woke” is the calling card of the global fascist right. Orbán’s attack on Central European University for “gender ideology” began his destruction of Hungarian democracy. Putin justified his full-scale invasion of Ukraine by appealing to the supposed dangers Ukraine’s liberal democracy poses for traditional gender roles. Americans should hold mainstream media’s Trump enablers responsible for Trump and his actions, and not let them pretend otherwise. As we witness the entire research apparatus of the US being taken down in the name of attacking DEI, trans rights and antisemitism, the mainstream media must halt its absurd fantasy that leftists control universities, and focus instead on the problem it has spent the last decade enabling – namely, fascism.

      Jason Stanley is Jacob Urowsky professor of philosophy at Yale University. He is the author of Erasing History: How Fascists Rewrite the Past to Control the Future More

    • 225 Shares99 Views

      in US Politics

      Yes, the media’s Biden coverage was flawed. But its reporting on Trump was far worse | Margaret Sullivan

      by

      With a new book out about Joe Biden’s failed re-election campaign, a media reckoning is in full swing.It goes something like this: mainstream journalism failed the voters. Reporters were complicit; they didn’t tell us how much the elderly president had declined. They didn’t dig beneath the surface of what Biden aides were doing as they covered up the physical and cognitive decline of the leader of the free world.And some of that is valid, no doubt. Under fire in recent days, CNN’s Jake Tapper, co-author of Original Sin: President Biden’s Decline, Its Cover-up, and His Disastrous Choice to Run Again, has even nodded to his own role in downplaying Biden’s increasing frailty.There’s plenty of blame to go around for Biden’s ultimate loss – and the horrors that it brought the whole world in the election of Donald Trump to a second term. Bruce Springsteen laid it out to a concert audience last week as he opened his European tour: “My home, the America I love, that has been a beacon of hope and liberty for 250 years, is currently in the hands of a corrupt, incompetent and treasonous administration.”As a media critic, I’m always happy to see a good reckoning for the mainstream press.But this one makes me wonder. When is the reckoning coming for the failures to cover Trump effectively?At what point will there be a general acknowledgment and some serious self-scrutiny about the way big media failed to adequately convey what would happen if Trump were elected again?“I have a hard time watching journalists high-five each other over books on [the White House] covering up for Biden,” wrote the political scientist and scholar Norman Ornstein, one of the sanest commentators about politics in recent years.It’s “a diversion from their own deep culpability in Trump’s election”.What would be the elements of this reckoning?Here’s Ornstein again on what the mainstream press wrought with their hubris and their failures.“False equivalence, normalizing the abnormal, treating Trump as no real danger were the norm, not the exception.”From 2015 – when Trump first declared his candidacy for president – right through the 2024 election, the press in general didn’t get across the reality.When the New York Times infamously set the tone in 2016 by vastly overplaying the supposedly shocking scandal of Hillary Clinton’s use of a personal email server, that was only the beginning. But it was a consequential beginning since, even in our fragmented and polarized media system, the Times was then, and is now, still extremely influential.I’ve long believed that Times editors were so dedicated to proving that they could be tough on Candidate Clinton – convinced she would be the president and that Trump was no real threat – that they went way overboard.Was the fault for electing Trump entirely theirs or even the fault of the mainstream media in general led by them? Of course not. But they played a destructive role, one that has never been adequately acknowledged.Then, during Trump’s first term – and especially during the 2024 campaign – the mainstream press constantly normalized the would-be autocrat.The ever-so-apt term “sanewashing” was born to describe what was going on, and the media’s role. Talk about a cover-up. Trump’s rallies were exercises in lunacy, as he spun tales about sharks and Hannibal Lecter, rambling for hours.But the coverage seldom came close to getting across the reality. Instead, we’d hear descriptions about his “freewheeling” style or “brash” approach.skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotionAs for the autocracy in waiting, there were excellent stories about the blueprint for his second term known as Project 2025, but it was far from obvious whether news leaders stopped to ask if voters really understood the stakes. Now we see the Trump administration quite literally enacting that same Project 2025 that he claimed he barely knew anything about.Horserace coverage prevailed, day after day. And then, when Biden’s decline became impossible to ignore – after that earth-shattering presidential debate last June – news organizations changed their tune.For weeks, there was nothing but “hey, Biden is old” coverage, once again failing to put the emphasis where it belonged: on the dangers of a Trump presidency.Heads of news organizations and reporters themselves are fond of distancing themselves from their real mission at times like these: to communicate the reality of an election’s actual stakes. Instead, they talk in lofty terms of merely covering the news, as if their daily decisions about the volume, choice and tone of coverage didn’t matter.It certainly mattered just before the 2016 election, when the entire top of a front page – and many an evening newscast – were given over to the reigniting of the justice department’s investigation of Clinton’s emails.It certainly mattered when influential opinion sections were ceaselessly baying about Biden’s cognitive decline last summer in order to force him out of the race.Despite wishful thinking, there’s no such thing as “just the facts” or complete neutrality, because editorial decisions and reporting choices always matter.What do you investigate? What is the precise wording of that news alert? How prominently do you display that story? Whom do you quote and to whom do you grant anonymity? What photo do you choose? Do you use terms like “straining the bounds of propriety” to describe what looks more like a bribe?So if the media were going to put their thumb on the scale – as they inevitably do – they ought to have done so in defense of democracy, the rule of law and human decency.The failure to do so is playing out in our shattered world, and at a frightening pace.That’s a reckoning we ought to have, but I doubt we ever will.

      Margaret Sullivan is a Guardian US columnist writing on media, politics and culture More

    • 225 Shares129 Views

      in US Politics

      The loss of editorial freedom at 60 Minutes is a sorry milestone for US media | Margaret Sullivan

      by

      There have been so many red alerts for press freedom in the United States over the past few months that it can be hard to know which ones really matter.The one at CBS’s 60 Minutes really matters.It came as a one-two punch. First, Bill Owens, the highly respected executive producer of the venerable news show stepped down, writing in a letter to employees that he no longer felt he had crucial editorial independence. It had become clear, he wrote, “that I would not be allowed to run the show as I have always run it”.Although he wasn’t specific, corporate interference was clearly the problem, as the network’s parent company, Paramount, has been trying to get federal approval for a big media merger.Owens’s departure was a shocker, but one that was mostly felt internally at CBS and in media-watching circles.Last Sunday night, the problem went public – dramatically so. One of the most well-known faces of 60 Minutes, the correspondent Scott Pelley, closed out the program with a remarkable statement to the audience. He praised Owens and made the context painfully clear.“Stories we’ve pursued for 57 years are often controversial – lately, the Israel-Gaza war and the Trump administration,” Pelley said. “Bill made sure they were accurate and fair … but our parent company, Paramount, is trying to complete a merger. The Trump administration must approve it. Paramount began to supervise our content in new ways.”Pelley said that, to date, no story had been killed but that Owens “felt he lost the independence that honest journalism requires”.Pelley’s comments were picked up widely, and now the world knows that viewers can no longer fully trust what they see on the Sunday evening show that has done such important and groundbreaking journalism for decades.Of course, as with so many of the red alerts mentioned above – lawsuits, threats, changes in long-held practices that protect the public’s right to know – the problem involves Donald Trump’s overweening desire to control the media. Controlling the message is what would-be authoritarians always do.Trump sued 60 Minutes for $20bn a few months ago, claiming unfair and deceptive editing of an interview with his then rival for the presidency, Kamala Harris. And his newly appointed head of the Federal Communications Commission, Brendan Carr, took an aggressive approach by reopening an investigation into CBS over supposed distortion of the news. The editing of the Harris interview, by all reasonable accounts, followed standard practices.What has happened with 60 Minutes is a high-octane version of what is happening everywhere in Trump 2.0.Those who could stand up to Trump’s bullying are instead doing what scholars of authoritarianism say must be avoided, if democracy is to be salvaged. They are obeying in advance.Not everyone, of course. It’s inspiring to see prominent institutions – Harvard and other universities, many law firms, Georgetown law school and the Associated Press – refusing to buckle.They may pay a price. Perhaps a lucrative merger won’t go through, perhaps important federal grants will be lost, perhaps they’ll lose access to news sources, or be punished in some other way. But they’ll have their reputations and integrity intact.skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotionFor universities, for law firms and certainly for media companies like CBS, that’s extremely important.And what’s more, yielding to Trump’s bullying is never successful in the long run. The goalposts of appeasement will be moved, again and again.Just think of what happened with Jeff Bezos, who has put at risk the editorial independence of the Washington Post, which he owns, in order to please Trump and protect the fortunes of his companies, including Amazon.Did all his bending the knee – including killing a Post endorsement of Harris just before the election – buy him long-term protection? Certainly not. When Amazon reportedly planned to display the cost of Trump’s tariffs next to prices on the site, the White House went ballistic, calling it a “hostile and political act”.You can guess what happened next. Amazon buckled, disavowing and scrapping the plan.If the rich and powerful won’t stand up to Trump, what hope can there be for the disenfranchised and powerless?Journalists at 60 Minutes are telling us that Shari Redstone, the executive and heiress who is the controlling shareholder of Paramount, is doing real damage by appearing to intrude into her venerable show’s independence. She may get the merger she wants but only at great cost to the journalism of which she should be a stalwart steward.There was another road to take – certainly a less traveled one but one with a far better destination in mind.

      Margaret Sullivan is a Guardian US columnist writing on media, politics and culture More

    • 125 Shares199 Views

      in US Politics

      Journalists defend press freedom at muted White House correspondents’ dinner

      by

      Journalists rallied in defence of press freedom on Saturday, insisting they “are not the enemy of the people” at a Washington media gala snubbed by Donald Trump.The White House Correspondents’ Association (WHCA) dinner was a muted affair with no US president, no comedian and notably fewer politicians or Hollywood stars than in past years.The event took place under the shadow of a second Trump administration that has launched a wave of fresh attacks on freedom of the press, barring the Associated Press from the presidential pool and moving to shut down the Voice of America broadcaster.In a typical year the president attends the WHCA dinner to congratulate journalists on their work, give a jokey speech and take it on the chin as a comedian jabs at their expense. But Trump, who has branded the media “the enemy of the people”, gave the dinner a wide berth during his first term and stayed away again this time.Eugene Daniels, who leads the WHCA, noted that presidents from both sides of the political spectrum are invited every year. “We don’t invite presidents of the United States to this because it’s for them,” he said. “We don’t invite them because we want to cosy up to them or curry favour.“We don’t only extend invites to the presidents who say they love journalists or who say they’re defenders of the first amendment and a free press. We invite them to remind them that they should be.”Daniels then showed a video montage of past presidents, from Ronald Reagan to Joe Biden, addressing the dinner with self-deprecating jokes while also expressing their admiration for the press and its central importance in safeguarding democracy. Trump was conspicuous by his absence.As guests watched, Daniels continued: “We journalists are a lot of things. We are competitive and pushy. We are impatient and sometimes we think we know everything, but we’re also human. We miss our families and significant life moments in service to this job.“We care deeply about accuracy and take seriously the heavy responsibility of being stewards of the public’s trust. What we are not is the opposition, what we are not is the enemy of the people and what we are not is the enemy of the state.” The giant ballroom erupted in applause.The Trump administration has had multiple skirmishes with the press in recent months. Federal funding for public broadcasters NPR and PBS is under threat. Trump has also launched legal assaults on private network CBS and the local Des Moines Register newspaper in Iowa, and brought to heel ABC, which paid $15m under threat of a libel lawsuit.The dinner announced scholarships for aspiring journalists and paid tribute to trailblazing figures in White House press history. It presented awards recognising excellence in reporting, writing and visual journalism. Winners delivered acceptance speeches that were careful not to criticise Trump directly but did unite around the theme of defending the first amendment, which protects freedom of speech.Alex Thompson of Axios, who won an award for coverage of Biden, silenced a room that was otherwise buzzing all night when he called out the media for failing to adequately investigate Biden’s mental acuity. The issue blew up when the 81-year-old gave a disastrous debate performance four months before the election.“President Biden’s decline and its cover up by the people around him is a reminder that every White House, regardless of party, is capable of deception,” Thompson said. “But being truth tellers also means telling the truth about ourselves.“We, myself included, missed a lot of this story and some people trust us less because of that. We bear some responsibility for faith in the media being at such lows. I say this because acknowledging errors builds trust and being defensive about the further erodes it. We should have done better.”It was a night of few laughs. The WHCA had invited then cancelled comedian Amber Ruffin after she referred to the Trump administration as “kind of a bunch of murderers” and asserted that “nobody wants” Trump to attend the dinner.Ruffin was excoriating in her response to being dropped, telling talk show host Seth Meyers: “We have a free press so that we can be nice to Republicans at fancy dinners. That’s what it says in the first amendment.”The dinner – a formal occasion where the dress code is tuxedos and gowns – has in past years hosted celebrities such as George Clooney, Carrie Fisher, Tom Hiddleston Scarlett Johansson, Sean Penn and Steven Spielberg. Not on Saturday, although Jason Isaacs, the British actor who stars in the latest series of The White Lotus, put in an appearance.White House officials and members of Congress were also unusually scarce but did include Amy Klobuchar, a Democratic senator for Minnesota. She told the Guardian: “I thought it was great. The dinner was back at its roots, honouring these incredible journalists and it was actually a lot of fun. I felt like I was at the journalists’ Academy Awards and it was really good.”Klobuchar added: “They hardly talked about Donald Trump. They just talked about their work and through Democratic and Republican presidents and why they do it.” More

    • 138 Shares189 Views

      in US Politics

      ‘Everyone’s scared’: little appetite for mirth before White House correspondents’ dinner

      by

      It is no laughing matter. The annual dinner for journalists who cover the White House is best known for American presidents trying to be funny and comedians trying to be political. But this year’s edition will feature neither.Instead the event in a downtown Washington hotel on Saturday night will, critics say, resemble something closer to a wake for legacy media still trying to find an effective response to Donald Trump’s divide-and-rule tactics and the rise of the Maga media ecosystem.Joe Biden’s effort to restore norms included the former president giving humorous speeches at the White House Correspondents’ Association (WHCA) annual dinner. But just as in his first term, Trump will not be joining the group he has long branded “the enemy of the people” and most of his staff are expected to boycott.News outlets, including the Guardian, will be present but there will also be another major gap this year. The WHCA had lined up the comedian and writer Amber Ruffin but last month withdrew her invitation. Eugene Daniels, president of the association, wrote in an email: “I want to ensure the focus is not on the politics of division but entirely on awarding our colleagues for their outstanding work and providing scholarship and mentorship to the next generation of journalists.”Ruffin had referred to the Trump administration as “kind of a bunch of murderers” on a podcast the previous week and asserted that “nobody wants” Trump to attend the dinner. The WHCA may have been seeking to avoid a repeat of the 2018 dinner in which the comedian Michelle Wolf savaged Trump administration officials sitting just feet away and was condemned by some for going too far.But critics described the decision to drop Ruffin as an exercise in capitulation and cowardice, a metaphor for the failure of the media to unite around a strategy to push back against Trump’s all-out assault. Since returning to office he has seized control of the pool of journalists that follows the president, barred the Associated Press news agency from the Oval Office and handed access and prominence to far-right influencers.Kurt Bardella, a political commentator, NewsNation contributor and former Breitbart News spokesperson, said: “I expect that for those who attend the dinner this year it’s going to just be a collective bitch fest of the Washington legacy media that has been completely neutered and embarrassed during this time of Trump.“The idea that there would be this gathering of self-proclaimed media elites who on their watch have been completely dismantled, whose parent companies have all kissed the ring at this point, it’s like, what are you celebrating, exactly? I’m not entirely sure.”The media were unified in fact-checking Trump during his first term, Bardella argued, whereas now the ecosystem is radically different, for example with the Trump ally Elon Musk in control of the X social media platform and the Washington Post owner, Jeff Bezos, ordering that the newspaper narrow the topics covered by its opinion section to personal liberties and the free market.Bardella added: “I would get it if it was the White House correspondents’ party thrown by Fox News or Steve Bannon and Tucker Carlson and Megyn Kelly and Charlie Kirk and Ben Shapiro and Joe Rogan were throwing a big party. But for the traditional legacy media to throw this parade of parties is almost embarrassing.”The first White House correspondents’ dinner was held in 1921. Three years later Calvin Coolidge became the first president to attend and all have since except Trump. In 2006 the comedian Stephen Colbert roasted George W Bush and the media over the lack of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. In 2011 Barack Obama mocked a stone-faced Trump and even displayed a pastiche of what the White House would look like if the reality TV star became president one day.The event also allows the WHCA to present reporting awards, raise money for scholarships and celebrate the constitutional first amendment that protects freedom of speech. During Trump’s first term the speakers included the Watergate journalists Carl Bernstein and Bob Woodward and the historian Ron Chernow, who warned: “When you chip away at the press, you chip away at our democracy.” Saturday’s version is again likely to take a sober tone for a sobering time.Steve Clemons, editor at large of the National Interest and a guest at numerous WHCA dinners, said: “It’s not going to be as much fun. We’re going to see a tribute to quality journalism and there’s always a place for that but there’s a toxicity out there that is hard to ignore at this moment. In a way we all need to take a break for a year and see if we can get to a better place next year.”Clemons supports the WHCA’s decision to revoke Ruffin’s invitation. “You can’t use the dinner as a reason to do battle with the president,” he said. “When you have a comedian that goes out and says nobody wanted the president there that’s a real problem. That’s a dismissive and disrespectful position that the White House Correspondents’ Association cannot take, no matter what its grievances or problems are in working out the terms of trade.“You can’t create something that is institutionally biased against the presidency. That’s not our job. It’s not journalism’s job. Journalism is to report on the White House and the president in a fair and objectively distant way what’s going on. That exercise of having that comedian, if we’d gone through it, was not anything connected to the qualities of fair and objective journalism and celebrating the first amendment.”The WHCA, which is not a formal trade union, has an unenviable task. Its members are diverse, spanning wire service and newspaper reporters, photographers and TV and radio journalists from the US and countries all over the world. They work for outlets of all political stripes and inevitably hold conflicting views on whether to aggressively tackle Trump head-on or lie low and hope to wait out the storm.The association’s annual dinner could be a moment to regroup, renew a shared sense of purpose and gain brief respite from the relentless grind of the Trump beat. But it might just as easily prove a gloomy affair, full of chatter about declining relevance and failing strategies for combating Trump’s war on truth. And whereas celebrities were clamouring for a seat during the Obama years, the dinner has arguably also lost some of its glamour.Sally Quinn, an author, journalist and socialite, said: “I will never, ever, ever go to the White House correspondents’ dinner again because it’s the worst event in Washington every year. First of all, there are too many people in the Hilton Hotel; there are like 3,000 people jammed in; it’s like being in the subway in Manhattan at rush hour with bad food and bad jokes.“You stand in line forever and ever to get your ticket. Last year I was in line with the British ambassador in the rain because the line went all the way outside and we stood there and stood there and stood there and it was a nightmare.”For Quinn, the widow of Ben Bradlee, former editor of the Washington Post, the lack of an entertainer at the dinner is no great loss because there is not much to laugh at in Washington right now.“Everyone’s scared,” she said. “You’re scared you’re going to get thrown in jail if you write something he doesn’t like and that’s going to happen very soon.“Then you have the owners of these news organisations who keep keeling over and bending the knee so you’ve got all these people in the media who are quitting in protest. It’s a horrible time to be covering Trump. If you’re a journalist and you want to be on the story, this is the story to cover, but people are not having fun covering it. It’s very intense and very upsetting.” More

    • 188 Shares139 Views

      in US Politics

      The AP’s win against Trump shows principles still have power in America | Margaret Sullivan

      by

      Given the constant flow of bad news – recession nearing, markets tanking, federal agencies run amok – a victory in court for a news wire service might seem trivial.But the Associated Press’s win against the Trump administration this week is meaningful for two reasons. It underscores the judiciary’s commitment to the first amendment, and it suggests that standing up for one’s principles may not be just a gesture made in vain.Here’s what the US district court judge Trevor McFadden – a Trump appointee – had to say about the AP’s being denied access to White House news events because of the organization’s editorial decision to continue using the term Gulf of Mexico instead of Gulf of America:“The Court simply holds that under the First Amendment, if the Government opens its doors to some journalists – be it to the Oval Office, the East Room, or elsewhere, it cannot then shut those doors to other journalists because of their viewpoints. The Constitution requires no less.”The Trump administration is appealing the ruling. It is not clear that a higher court will not overrule McFadden.But what is clear is that Julie Pace, the AP’s top editor, was right when she made the argument in a Wall Street Journal opinion piece that more was at stake here than the name of a body of water. “It’s really about whether the government can control what you say,” Pace wrote.This administration wants to do that – and it is willing to punish those who don’t fall in line.Yet, courageous voices are out there. And sometimes, they make a difference.When Jaime Cook, the school principal in Sackets Harbor, New York, put out a heartfelt public statement about three students and their mother being abruptly taken to a Texas detention facility by federal agents, her words required the same kind of guts.“Our 3 students who were taken away by ICE were doing everything right,” Cook wrote. “They had declared themselves to immigration judges, attended court on their assigned dates, and were following the legal process. They are not criminals.”Others found their voices, too. In this tiny town of fewer than 1,400 people – which happens to be a vacation residence of the US “border czar”, Tom Homan – nearly 1,000 people came out to protest last weekend. This week, the mother and three children were on their way back home.Courage mattered.skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotionConsider, too, the words of the Princeton University president, Christopher Eisgruber, in an NPR interview about how that university plans to navigate the suspension of federal funding: “We make our decisions at Princeton based on our values and our principles.” When asked by a reporter whether that meant no concessions, as other universities have made to the Trump administration, Eisgruber responded with strength.“We believe it’s important to defend academic freedom, and that’s not something that can be compromised,” he said.Tim Wu, a professor at Columbia University, which took a far different approach by capitulating to Trump administration demands, compared the universities to two law firms, one of which has capitulated to Donald Trump’s bullying while the other has refused to do so.“Princeton is making us [Columbia] look like Paul Weiss to their Wilmer Hale,” Wu wrote.These cases have something in common: a line in the sand and the courage to defend it.The same was true of the former Department of Justice prosecutor Ryan Crosswell, testifying before Congress, as he explained why he felt compelled to resign recently after federal corruption charges against the New York City mayor, Eric Adams, were abruptly dropped. Too many lines had been crossed, he said; he had no choice.“The day after I resigned,” Crosswell testified, “my sister had her first daughter and I want my niece to know the same democracy that I’ve known. That’s worth any cost.”None of this is easy. After all, Trump and those around him are famously vindictive. It’s not hard to understand why law firms, universities, school officials, news organizations and so many others have decided to avoid the fight and to rationalize the decision to give in or remain silent.But those mentioned here chose to act on principle. In so doing, they have the power to inspire the rest of us, which is likely to be important in the long run.Do brave words or principled resignations or expensive, possibly fruitless lawsuits really accomplish anything? Will they keep America’s teetering democracy from falling off a cliff?Maybe not. But everyone who cares about fairness, freedom and the rule of law ought to be grateful nonetheless for these demonstrations of integrity. Amid the darkness, they cast some faint light along our treacherous path.

      Margaret Sullivan is a Guardian US columnist More

    • 175 Shares159 Views

      in US Politics

      ‘Revenge is his number one motivation’: how Trump is waging war on the media

      by

      On Tuesday 4 March, Donald Trump stood in the House of Representatives to issue a speech to a joint session of Congress, the first of his second term.Near the beginning of what was to be a marathon address, the president declared: “I have stopped all government censorship and brought back free speech in America. It’s back.”What Trump did not mention was that less than three weeks earlier he had barred Associated Press journalists from the Oval Office, because the news agency refused to use his preferred nomenclature for the Gulf of Mexico. He did not mention that he was waging lawsuits against ABC and CBS, nor that the man he appointed chair of the Federal Communications Commission had ordered a flurry of investigations into NBC News, NPR and PBS.The president ignored entirely what has become an all out attack on the media and other institutions, something that media experts have described as a “broad, systematic assault” on free speech, a vendetta that threatens “the essential fundamental freedoms of a democracy”.Since that speech the situation has only got worse. The anti-media rhetoric has ramped up from Trump officials, Trump has suggested some media groups should be “illegal”, funding has been cut from organisations like Voice of America and last week the White House lambasted journalist Jeffrey Goldberg and the Atlantic magazine for breaking a scoop about national security lapses on a Signal messaging app.“Revenge is Trump’s number one motivation for anything in this second term of office, and he believes he has been treated unfairly by the media, and he is going to strike out against those in the media who he considers his enemies,” said Bill Press, a longtime liberal political commentator and host of The Bill Press Pod.“He’s going in the direction of really curtailing the freedom of the press, following the pattern of every autocrat ever on the planet: they need to shut down a free and independent press in order to get away with their unlimited use of power.”Trump was critical of the media in his first term. But as Press pointed out, that was more verbal attacks: the never-ending accusations of “fake news”, the encouragement of anti-CNN chants at rallies. Two months into Trump’s second term, he has already taken it further. Associated Press, one of the world’s premier news agencies which is relied upon by thousands of news outlets, remains banned from the Oval Office and Air Force one: the president angered by the agency’s refusal to use the term “Gulf of America” to refer to the Gulf of Mexico.Trump is suing the owner of CBS News for $10bn, alleging the channel selectively edited an interview with Kamala Harris, which the network denies, and the Des Moines Register newspaper, which he accuses of “election interference” over a poll from before the election that showed Kamala Harris leading Trump in Iowa.The FCC investigations, led by the hardline Trump appointee and Project 2025 author Brendan Carr, are ongoing, while in February Trump ejected a HuffPost reporter from the press pool – which refers to a rotating group of reporters allowed close access to the White House – and denied reporters from the news agency Reuters access to a cabinet meeting.View image in fullscreenAt various times Trump and rightwing groups have accused each of the outlets of bias or of presenting negative coverage of his presidency. By contrast, the White House has allowed rightwing news outlets, including Real America’s Voice and Blaze Media and Newsmax, to be included in the press pool.“It’s designed to shut down criticism, and I think that the danger of that is that there is this effort to make it look like everyone approves of the government and of the Trump administration,” said Katie Fallow, deputy litigation director at the Knight First Amendment Institute, a non-profit which seeks to preserve and advance first amendment freedom rights.“It’s a threat to the ability of the of the press to critically cover the president, but perhaps more importantly, the function of the press is to inform the public about the workings of government, and allow the public to decide whether or not it wants to vote for these people again, or whether it approves. And so it’s more than just its effect on the media, its effect on the general public.”In recent days the Trump administration’s attack-the-media playbook has been on show in the way senior officials have sought to discredit Goldberg, the editor in chief of the Atlantic who was invited into a secret Signal group where a coming US attack on Yemen’s Houthi militia was being discussed.The defense secretary, Pete Hegseth, the national security adviser, Mike Waltz, and Trump himself have criticized Goldberg: Waltz described him as “the bottom scum of journalists”, while Trump called the reporting “a witch-hunt” and described the Atlantic as a “failed magazine”.Trump has also appeared to flirt with using law enforcement to target the media, including a speech to federal law enforcement officials in March. “As the chief law enforcement officer in our country, I will insist upon and demand full and complete accountability for the wrongs and abuses that have occurred,” Trump said.skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotionHe disparaged certain lawyers and non-profits, before later adding: “The Washington Post, The Wall Street Journal and MSDNC, and the fake news, CNN and ABC, CBS and NBC, they’ll write whatever they say.”Trump continued: “It’s totally illegal what they do,” adding: “I just hope you can all watch for it, but it’s totally illegal.”The war on free speech has not just been limited to the media. Trump’s efforts have increasingly also focussed on areas including education, law and charitable organizations, as the government seeks to bring key aspects of society into line.“You have to look at this as part of a broad, systematic assault that the president and his administration have been waging since he returned to office on every other power center that impacts politics in any way,” said Matthew Gertz, a senior fellow at Media Matters, a watchdog group.“All the sort of liberal, civil society institutions: big law firms, universities, the government itself, the courts and the press have come under fire, and as part of that, we have this really unprecedented multifront attack on media institutions.”Trump has been aided in this endeavor by the owners of some media organizations. Jeff Bezos, the Amazon co-founder and owner of the Washington Post, pulled an editorial endorsing Kamala Harris during the campaign and recently overhauled the newspaper’s opinion pages.Amazon donated a million dollars to Trump’s inauguration, and Bezos’ space company Blue Origin competes for federal government contracts. Patrick Soon-Shiong, the billionaire owner of the Los Angeles Times, also blocked the newspaper from endorsing Harris, while Mark Zuckerberg dismantled Facebook’s factchecking network after Trump won the presidency. (Like Bezos, Zuckerberg donated to, and attended, Trump’s inauguration.)“What makes the situation so worrying is that for the last several years, Donald Trump himself and the leading lights of the rightwing media and political movement: from Tucker Carlson to Kevin Roberts at the Heritage Foundation, have cited as their exemplar Viktor Orbán of Hungary. That’s what they want to accomplish,” Gertz said.“And what Orbán did with the press was squeeze different media corporation owners until they agreed to either make their press more palatable to him, or sell their outlets to someone who would. I think that is basically, by their own admission, what the Trump administration is trying to bring about in this country.“I think the hope is that we have more guardrails than Hungary did to prevent that from happening. But it’s unnerving that the president of the United States is trying to follow in those footsteps.” More