Category: Blog

  •  

    Election Focus 2024The questions ABC News‘ moderators asked in the September 10 presidential debate they hosted between Vice President Kamala Harris and former President Donald Trump could be faulted for not doing much to illuminate many of the issues important to voters. They did, however, ask some surprisingly pointed questions about perhaps the most important issue in this election—the preservation of democratic elections themselves.

    And in sharp contrast to CNN, which hosted the debate between Trump and President Joe Biden in June, ABC‘s David Muir and Linsey Davis made at least some effort to offer real-time factchecking during the debate.

    Economy & healthcare

    Linsey Davis and Donald Trump

    Asked by ABC’s Linsey Davis if he had a healthcare plan, Donald Trump replied, “I have concepts of a plan. I’m not president right now.”

    On the economy—which was identified, along with “the cost of living in this country,” as “the issue voters repeatedly say is their number one issue”—ABC‘s Muir asked only a handful of specific questions. He started out by asking Harris a question that he said Trump often asks his supporters, and which was famously asked by Ronald Reagan during a 1980 presidential debate: “When it comes to the economy, do you believe Americans are better off than they were four years ago?”

    Aside from that rather open-ended query, the only specific questions ABC asked about the economy concerned tariffs, a favorite topic of Trump’s. Muir asked the former president whether “Americans can afford higher prices because of tariffs,” while he asked Harris to explain why “the Biden administration did keep a number of the Trump tariffs in place.” (The skepticism of both questions reflected corporate media’s traditional commitment to the ideology of “free trade.”)

    The healthcare questions both candidates got from Davis were superficially similar—”Do you have a plan and can you tell us what it is?” to Trump, and “What is your plan today?” for Harris. But Trump’s question was set up by noting that “this is now your third time running for president,” and that last month, when asked if he now had a plan, he said, “We’re working on it.”

    Davis prefaced her query to Harris by noting that “in 2017, you supported Bernie Sanders’ proposal to do away with private insurance and create a government-run healthcare system”—following the insurance industry-promoted terminology of “government-run” vs. “private,” rather than “public” vs. “corporate” (FAIR.org, 7/1/19).

    Another question had the same theme of citing earlier, more progressive positions Harris had taken when running for president in 2019—on fracking, guns and immigration—and seemingly asking for reassurance that she had indeed changed her mind on these issues: “I know you say that your values have not changed. So then why have so many of your policy positions changed?” The line of question reflects corporate media’s preoccupation with making sure that Democrats in general and Harris in particular move to the right (FAIR.org, 7/26/24).

    Abortion

    Donald Trump and Kamala Harris debate

    Trump tells Kamala Harris that her running mate, Gov. Tim Walz, supports “execution after birth.”

    Addressing abortion, a motivating issue for many voters, Davis laid out Trump’s changing positions on abortion rights and an abortion ban, then posed the question:

    Vice President Harris says that women shouldn’t trust you on the issue of abortion because you’ve changed your position so many times. Therefore, why should they trust you?

    While both candidates frequently avoided giving concrete answers, Davis pressed Trump on his position, asking whether he would “veto a national abortion ban,” and again asking, “But if I could just get a yes or no”—helping to make his refusal to answer clear to viewers.

    Perhaps in response to Trump’s claim that Harris’s running mate, Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz, supports “execution after birth,” Davis then asked Harris if she would “support any restrictions on a woman’s right to an abortion.” It’s a bit of a trick question without context, though. Many people say they oppose abortions later in pregnancy; media have long bought into the right-wing notion that “late-term” abortions are beyond the pale (Extra!, 7–8/07). But in practice, abortions later than 15 weeks are exceedingly rare and largely occur because of medical necessity or barriers to care (KFF, 2/21/24)—a nuanced reality that Davis’s question left little space for.

    Immigration & race

    Donald Trump and Kamala Harris debate

    Harris looks on as Trump claims, “In Springfield, they’re eating the dogs. The people that came in. They’re eating the cats…. They’re eating the pets of the people that live there.”

    Despite Trump’s repeated invocation of a border crisis and vilification of immigrants, ABC only asked him two immigration questions. One asked how he would achieve his plan to “deport 11 million undocumented immigrants”; the other followed up on Harris’s charge that Trump killed a border bill that, as Muir stated, “would have put thousands of additional agents and officers on the border.” Neither of the questions challenged Trump’s narrative of the “crisis” or the idea that further militarizing the border is necessary. (See FAIR.org, 6/2/23.) (ABC did counter Trump’s outrageous claim that immigrants were eating people’s pets.)

    In his sole immigration question to Harris, Muir offered a right-wing framing:

    We know that illegal border crossings reached a record high in the Biden administration. This past June, President Biden imposed tough new asylum restrictions. We know the numbers since then have dropped significantly. But my question to you tonight is why did the administration wait until six months before the election to act and would you have done anything differently from President Biden on this?

    The media, like Trump, regularly neglect to put immigration numbers in context. Border crossings have increased markedly under Biden, but so have deportations and expulsions, as Biden kept in place most of Trump’s draconian border policies (FAIR.org, 3/29/24).

    And the suggestion that Biden “waited…to act” further paints a false picture of the Biden administration as not having “tough restrictions”—immigrant rights advocates called them “inhumane”—prior to 2024.

    The one question introduced as being about “race and politics” addressed Trump’s race-baiting of Harris: “Why do you believe it’s appropriate to weigh in on the racial identity of your opponent?”

    Democracy

    David Muir questions Donald Trump

    Recalling the January 6, 2021, Capitol Hill insurrection, ABC‘s David Muir asks Donald Trump, “Is there anything you regret about what you did on that day?”

    On the crucial issue of democratic rule, ABC did not pull many punches. To introduce his first question on the theme, Muir addressed Trump:

    For three-and-a-half years after you lost the 2020 election, you repeatedly falsely claimed that you won, many times saying you won in a landslide. In the past couple of weeks, leading up to this debate, you have said, quote, you lost by a whisker, that you, quote, didn’t quite make it, that you came up a little bit short. Are you now acknowledging that you lost in 2020?

    When Trump claimed he said those things sarcastically, and argued that there was “so much proof” that he had actually won in 2020, Muir challenged his claims directly, first noting, “I didn’t detect the sarcasm,” then continuing:

    We should just point out as clarification, and you know this, you and your allies, 60 cases, in front of many judges….and [they] said there was no widespread fraud.

    (Trump interrupted this factcheck with another lie, falsely declaring that “no judge looked at it.”)

    Muir continued his pushback against Trump in his subsequent question to Harris:

    You heard the president there tonight. He said he didn’t say that he lost by a whisker. So he still believes he did not lose the election that was won by President Biden and yourself.

    Muir’s question to Harris highlighted Trump’s recent social media post declaring that those who allegedly “cheated” him out of victory would be “prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law, which will include long-term prison sentences.”

    Harris was also asked to respond to Trump’s charge that his numerous prosecutions reflect a “weaponization of the Justice Department.”

    International policy

    Donald Trump debates Kamala Harris

    Harris tells Trump that “the American people have a right to rely on a president who understands the significance of America’s role.”

    ABC devoted the widest variety of specific questions to the topic of international policy—often with the implicitly hawkish perspective debate moderators tend to take (FAIR.org, 12/14/15, 2/11/20, 12/26/23). Muir set up his questions on Ukraine with a prelude that left little doubt what the right answers would be:

    It has been the position of the Biden administration that we must defend Ukraine from Russia, from Vladimir Putin, to defend their sovereignty, their democracy, that it’s in America’s best interest to do so, arguing that if Putin wins he may be emboldened to move even further into other countries.

    Muir then asked Trump, “Do you want Ukraine to win this war?”—evoking an aspiration for a military victory in the conflict that has seemed improbable at least since the failure of Kiev’s counteroffensive in the spring of 2023 (FAIR.org, 9/15/23). Failing to get the response he wanted, Muir reframed the issue as a matter of making America great: “Do you believe it’s in the US best interests for Ukraine to win this war? Yes or no?”

    For her part, Harris was asked, “As commander in chief, if elected, how would you deal with Vladimir Putin, and would it be any different from what we’re seeing from President Biden?”—and also, in response to a false Trump claim, “Have you ever met Vladimir Putin?”

    Muir asked about the end of the US’s 19-year occupation of Afghanistan—presented as a shameful moment, as he invoked “the soldiers who died in the chaotic withdrawal.” His questions to both Harris and Trump implicitly criticized their connection to the war’s end: “Do you believe you bear any responsibility in the way that withdrawal played out?,” Harris was asked, while Trump was asked to respond to Harris’s accusation that “you began the negotiations with the Taliban.”

    ABC‘s moderators asked three questions about the Gaza crisis, which was framed as “the Israel/Hamas war and the hostages who are still being held, Americans among them,” though Muir went on to note that “an estimated 40,000 Palestinians are dead.”

    Harris was asked how she would “break through the stalemate”—and also to respond to Trump’s charge that “you hate Israel.” Muir asked Trump how he would “negotiate with Netanyahu and also Hamas in order to get the hostages out and prevent the killing of more innocent civilians in Gaza.”

    ABC asked one climate crisis question, addressed to both candidates. It took climate change as a fact and asked what the candidates would do to “fight” it. While not a particularly probing question—and disconnected from the debate’s discussions of fracking—it’s a slight improvement over previous presidential debates that have ignored the vital topic altogether (FAIR.org, 10/19/16, 9/22/20).

    Factchecking

    David Muir corrects Donald Trump

    Muir points out to Trump that “the FBI says overall violent crime is coming down in this country.”

    The presidential debate between Trump and then-candidate Biden was hosted in June by CNN, which made the remarkable decision to not attempt any factchecking during the live event (FAIR.org, 6/26/24). Post-debate factchecks turned up countless fabrications by Trump (and several by Biden), but that was entirely overwhelmed in the news coverage by pundits’ focus on Biden’s obvious stumbles.

    ABC took a different tack, choosing to counter a few of Trump’s more noteworthy lies. Post-debate analysis counted at least 30 falsehoods from Trump and only a few from Harris; Muir and Davis called out Trump four times and Harris none.

    Muir and Davis intervened on some of Trump’s most outlandish fictions. For instance, when Trump claimed that immigrants were “eating the pets of the people that live” in the communities they moved to, Muir noted that “there have been no credible reports of specific claims of pets being harmed, injured or abused by individuals within the immigrant community.”

    In addition to Muir’s pushback against Trump’s election fraud lies, Davis countered Trump’s insistence that Democrats support “executing” babies, drily noting that “there is no state in this country where it is legal to kill a baby after it’s born.”

    ABC also challenged a Trump falsehood that many prominent media outlets continued to propagate long after it was no longer even remotely true (FAIR.org, 11/10/22, 7/25/24): that violent crime is “through the roof.” (As Muir pointed out, “The FBI says overall violent crime is coming down in this country.”)

    Of course, the vast majority of Trump’s lies went unchecked, demonstrating the inherent failure of the debate format when one participant exhibits a flagrant disregard for honesty (FAIR.org, 10/9/20).

    ABC did not explicitly correct any of Harris’s claims, in part because there was less misinformation in her rhetoric. Some of Harris’s more dubious statements were of the sort that are often found  in corporate media, such as her allusion to the claim that Covid originated from a Chinese lab, when she blamed President Xi Jinping for “not giving us transparency about the origins of Covid.” There is no more evidence for this than there is for immigrants eating pets in Ohio—but as it’s a media-approved conspiracy theory (FAIR.org, 10/6/20, 6/28/21, 7/3/24), one would not expect debate moderators to call her out on it.


    Research assistance: Elsie Carson-Holt

    This post was originally published on FAIR.

  • In 2018, Nicaragua’s citizens rose up against the repressive, authoritarian government of President Daniel Ortega, who has been in power since 2007. The largely student-led demonstrations were met with heavy force from the police and paramilitary groups, leaving hundreds dead and imprisoned, and thousands wounded. In the thick of this violence and mayhem was Gabriela …

    Source

    This post was originally published on American Jewish World Service – AJWS.

  • The much-publicised Asserson Report, which claims the BBC is “heavily biased against Israel”, flies in the face of other specialist and academic studies, writes MRC co-founder Des Freedman. This article was originally published by Byline Times and is republished here with kind permission.

    Last week’s Sunday Telegraph was dominated by a headline that the ‘BBC “has breached rules 1,500 times” over the Gaza war’. This referred to a new Report by the Israeli-based lawyer Trevor Asserson which alleged multiple breaches of the BBC’s impartiality regulations and and claimed that the BBC ‘was heavily biased against Israel’.

    The story was extensively covered in right-wing news outlets including the ExpressMailSunJewish Chronicle and Spiked as well as on GB News and Talk TV. It played out internationally with coverage in the Jerusalem PostNew York Post and Variety.

    Yet a comprehensive analysis of UK news reporting of Gaza published by the Centre for Media Monitoring in March 2024 that came to quite different conclusions – that there have been repeated misrepresentation of Palestinian perspectives – received no attention at all in mainstream media at the time. 

    This is the balance of power when it comes to UK media coverage of Gaza.

    Artificial Intelligence

    The Asserson Report is no lightweight document. It runs to 199 pages with a separate 188-page supporting document and claims to have used both human and artificial intelligence to assess some nine million words of BBC output from 7 October 2023 to 7 February 2024.

    But there is little intelligence in the analysis itself and instead pages and pages of charts that attempt to prove just how badly the BBC has treated Israel and its supporters.

    This is partly a result of a flawed methodology which relies on a very naïve conception of AI,  not least its claim that ChatGPT is ‘not subject to inherent human subjective judgement’ (p. 23) and is instead an ‘unbiased proxy for the “casual everyday audience for news” that does not have an opinion on the conflict’ (p. 123). AI may not have an opinion on the conflict but those asking the questions do and, in any case, its language models are only as good as the content they depend on, a significant proportion of which is generated by major news organisations such as the New York Times who certainly do have skin in the game.

    The Report’s reliance on ‘human sympathy analysis’ (carried out here by both humans and AI) is also flawed. Of course there was likely to be significant amounts of sympathy towards Palestinians at a time, after 7 October, when it was they who were being bombed, starved and forcibly required to leave their homes. Not even the mainstream media could fail to notice this. The Report’s finding that the ‘sympathy analysis showed a very marked pro-Palestinian/anti-Israeli imbalance across all principal television news programmes’ (p. 41) is therefore hardly surprising and reveals the frustration of pro-Israeli voices that anyone should be sympathetic to the plight of Palestinians under siege rather than a breach of impartiality across four months of coverage.

    The background of the Report’s authors is revealing. Asserson himself is a long-time critic of the BBC’s coverage of Israel and has partnered with a series of Israeli lawyers and data scientists organised via a group called Research for Impartial Media (RIMe). There is no information about this group other than that its convenor, Dr Haran Shari-Narkiss is a neuroscientist whose most recent paper is on the ‘Stability and Flexibility of Odor Representations in the Mouse Olfactory Bulb’.

    Crucially, it appears that no media researchers or indeed journalists were part of the research team and there is no reference at all in the nearly 400 pages of documents to studies, such as the CMM one, that have found systematic bias against Palestinians in mainstream media coverage of Israel and Palestine.

    Asymetry

    The Report is based around allegations that the BBC’s coverage has been marked by absences, inaccuracies and linguistic failures all of which amount to a serious breach by the Corporation of its commitment to impartiality.

    Asserson’s crucial argument is that BBC coverage of Gaza is marked by multiple omissions. This includes the BBC’s failure systematically to refer to Hamas as a ‘terrorist organisation’ (p. 82). Yet not only is there no international journalistic consensus on whether to label Hamas using this term but presumably Asserson would not wish every mention of the state of Israel to be preceded by a reference to ‘plausibly genocidal’ as per the International Court of Justice (ICJ) Ruling. The Report even includes a chart showing that the BBC is more likely to describe the West Bank as ‘occupied’ than to equate Hamas with terror (p. 84) which is, once again, odd given that there is an international consensus that the West Bank is indeed occupied.

    A further omission according to the Report is that the BBC does not sufficiently acknowledge what it claims as the Hamas-induced lack of journalistic freedom inside Gaza (p. 78). Perhaps the more obvious omission is that the Report totally fails to mention the forced exclusion by Israel of all foreign journalists from Gaza. While the Report claims that Freedom House has praised Israel’s press freedom (p. 81), it neglects to mention that Reporters Without Borders, for example, placed Israel 101st out of 180 states in its press freedom ranking, noting that ‘more than 100 journalists were killed in six months in Gaza by the Israeli Defence Forces…Disinformation campaigns and repressive laws have multiplied in Israel.’ This is not mentioned in the Report.

    The Report then condemns the BBC for not giving equal treatment to ‘war crimes’ perpetrated by both Israel and Hamas (p. 87). This shows not just its pro-Israel sympathy – for example the Report acknowledges ‘that there are more Palestinian deaths than Israeli deaths, but those deaths are not obviously evidence of War Crimes’. Really? It also reveals an extraordinary lack of understanding of journalism given that the ongoing (though of course not the only) story for effectively 123 of the 124 days of the sample was about Israeli attacks on Gaza as opposed to Hamas’ attack on Israel on 7 October. Not surprisingly, there were more stories linking Israel to war crimes, genocide and breaches of international law because this what was taking place each day after 7 October.

    Indeed, news organisations like the BBC have been extremely reluctant to describe Israel’s assault as a ‘genocide’ (unlike their willingness to do so in relation to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine). The situation changed only when the South African government brought evidence to the ICJ in January 2024 which then found that there was a ‘plausible’ case that genocide was taking place. However, that was a brief interlude after which BBC stories about a genocide taking place in Gaza were few and far between.

    The Report also states that the BBC’s reporting neglects to acknowledge the ‘existential   threat to Israel’ and fails ‘to explain the military threats to Israel’ (p. 91). This is a pretty extraordinary claim given the amount of airtime provided to IDF spokespeople and government ministers (a fact acknowledged in the Report) and the reluctance of the BBC and other news organisations consistently to recognise the context of occupation.

    This failing was clearly set out in the BBC’s own 2006 Thomas Report – ironically namechecked by Asserson (p. 192) in his own Report despite coming to very different conclusions – when it spoke of the ‘asymmetry’ between the situation faced by Israel and that of the Palestinians. Thomas noted the BBC’s

    Failure to convey adequately the disparity in the Israeli and Palestinian experience, reflecting the fact that one side is in control and the other lives under occupation. Although this asymmetry does not necessarily bear on the relative merits of the two sides, it is so marked and important that coverage should succeed in this if in nothing else.

    (Asserson Report, p. 31)

    Asserson then goes on criticise the BBC for relying on Hamas’ own figures for casualties and its failure to raise concerns about Hamas as a reliable source (p. 119). Given that the IDF refuses to give any indication of the deaths it has caused and that the Gaza Ministry of Health figures are widely accepted around the world (though not of course by Israel) as the best measure of casualties, this is an entirely disingenuous criticism.

    Ambiguity

    Finally – and perhaps most brazenly – the Report condemns the ‘obscure or ambiguous language’ (p. 127) used to report on Israeli as opposed to Palestinian casualties. This ignores the many studies that have been carried out, such as the one produced by the Centre for Media Monitoring, that concluded that Palestinian deaths were reported using ‘passive language which omits the perpetrator (Israel)’. The CMM Report found that more than 70% of the use of terms like ‘atrocities’, ‘slaughter’ and ‘massacre’ referred to Israeli victims while ‘emotive language’ was deployed when speaking about Israeli, rather than Palestinian, victims.

    Researchers from the Glasgow University Media Group analysed BBC reporting of Gaza from 7 October to 4 November 2023 and also found that

    ‘murder’, ‘murderous’, ‘mass murder’, ‘brutal murder’ and ‘merciless murder’ were used a total of 52 times by journalists to refer to Israelis’ deaths but never in relation to Palestinian deaths. The same pattern could be seen in relation to ‘massacre’, ‘brutal massacre’ and ‘horrific massacre’ (35 times for Israeli deaths, not once for Palestinians deaths).

    Far from finding that BBC reporting was more likely to legitimise Palestinian perspectives, the researchers concluded that ‘[f]or the BBC and other western media to simply repeat the propaganda of one side while denying legitimacy to the other will in the long run to nothing for the cause of peace’.

    These are just some of the disingenuous claims made throughout the Report though there are also some genuinely baffling findings.

    For example, the Report claims that Newsnight broadcast ‘no programmes positive to Israel during the Reporting Timeframe’ (p. 41). Even the briefest glance at Newsnight’s output would refute this. For example, it devoted a whole programme on the war on 13 October which featured a range of pro-Israel voices including Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, its Defence Minister, Yoav Gallant, US Defence Secretary Lloyd Austin, General Amir Avivi from the IDF and the British journalist Hadley Freeman talking about the anxious state of the Jewish population in London.

    What exactly would a programme ‘positive to Israel’ look like? Presumably, one without any Palestinian voices. Or perhaps the fact that the episode was titled ‘Desperation in Gaza’ was enough to show its pro-Palestine bias.

    The Report also condemns the BBC’s choice of interviewees. Its Executive Summary notes the ‘heavy bias in favour of interviewing civilians amongst Palestinians, with few government or army figures. Far more Israeli interviewees were government or army representatives’ (p. 7).

    Actually, conventional academic scholarship associates the use of accredited sources (such as government and army representatives) with authority and power. For Asserson, however, this is a problem because ‘official personnel’, ie the ones giving the orders to bomb Gaza, are likely to ‘evoke less sympathy’ than civilians who are ‘often viewed as innocent and vulnerable’ (p. 58).

    Yet ‘impartial’ reporting would not involve an equal distribution of ‘sympathy’ to both Israeli and Palestinian populations but would reflect the simple fact that, for the vast majority of the sampling period, it was Palestinian civilians who were being bombed and not Israelis.   

    Focusing on the ‘elite’ status of Israeli interviewees is also an absurd decision given that the Israeli state is much bigger and has a far more extensive PR operation than the virtually non-existent machinery of a non-existent Palestinian state.

    The Report’s conclusion that the BBC was overwhelmingly biased in its coverage of Gaza flies not only in the face of other specialist and academic reports and studies but reflects the authors’ frustration that there was ‘sympathy’ for a civilian population under attack. The authors appear to think that the BBC’s acknowledgement – however constrained and intermittent – that a deadly assault on Gaza was taking place was in itself a breach of impartiality regulations. In reality, and despite the Israeli government’s best effort to suppress this coverage by preventing foreign journalists from entering Gaza, the fact that these awful scenes have made their way into public consciousness, is actually thanks more to brave reporting from Palestinian journalists inside Gaza than it is to a BBC that is often reluctant to criticise Israel for its actions, let alone to describe them as genocidal.

    This piece originally published by Byline Times and republished here with kind permission.

    The post BBC, bias and Gaza: A partial study of impartiality appeared first on Media Reform Coalition.

    This post was originally published on Media Reform Coalition.

  • Sometimes you have to work hard to make the connection between events to tell a story, and sometimes the events just connect themselves. 

    The first story was trumpeted as great news! Alberta’s oil producers had outdone themselves and sucked four million barrels of oil a day out of the ground to set a new record for July. About 80 per cent of that output is from the tar sands bitumen, one of the most polluting forms of energy on earth. 

    All in all, this milestone is nothing to cheer about. 

    The second story was that July 2024 was the hottest month on record for both Edmonton and Calgary, with Edmonton recording 11 days above 30 degrees. The average is just two. 

    HeatwaveHotter temperatures, year over year, created the conditions for the Lesser Slave Lake, Fort MacMurry (the most costly natural disaster in Canadian history), and Jasper fires, along with multiple devastating hail storms, a four-year-and-counting drought, and the second most expensive natural disaster in Canadian history, the 2013 southern Alberta flood. 

    The final story is from the Narwhal, which revealed, through documents obtained through the province’s freedom of information process, that the Minister of Utilities, Jason Nuedorf’s, office was bullying senior bureaucrats in the province’s independent electricity regulator to lie to support the government of Alberta’s justification for a moratorium on renewable energy projects

    TAKE ACTION: Tell the Alberta government it’s time to turn the power back on for Alberta’s clean energy future! 

    Red button that says "take action"

    So, let’s take a crack at connecting these dots. 

    While the Town of Jasper was burning as a result of fires made more probable and intense as a result of a warming climate, Alberta was producing a record amount of carbon-intensive tar sands oil, and doing its best to quash any internal opposition to a politically motivated, anti-free enterprise moratorium on vitally important clean energy. 

    Sound about right? 

    Of course, these are just three examples that happened to cross my desk within an hour of each other. Unfortunately, there are more. Lots more. 

    The Alberta government is opposing any meaningful policy to reduce greenhouse gas emissions that the federal government is attempting to implement. Of the policies being proposed by the feds, it’s hard to pick the one that the province of Alberta hates the most, but the cap on oil & gas emissions would have to be in the top two, along with the clean energy regulations. 

    Meanwhile, oil and gas companies spend millions of dollars to convince Canadians they care about climate change while at the same time, they lobby governments to delay or stop actions that reduce their pollution. 

    We need to hold polluters accountable for driving climate change. 

    It’s time the government of Alberta oil and gas companies took responsibility to reduce pollution and prevent further weather disasters that impact millions and cost billions to clean up.

    We are seeing this happen across Canada but in Alberta, it has the added sting of irony that while we celebrate big polluters’ accomplishments and crush the aspirations of clean energy companies, we suffer the consequences of our actions with record-breaking heat, wildfires and incalculable tragedy again and again. 

    That’s not a coincidence, that’s just connecting the dots. 

    The post There are no coincidences in climate science appeared first on Environmental Defence.

    This post was originally published on Environmental Defence.

  • Since its founding in 2003, Woodhull Freedom Foundation has been an unwavering champion of free speech, recognizing it as the cornerstone of our fundamental human right to sexual freedom. As a human rights organization, we have consistently stood at the forefront of the battle against censorship, particularly in defense of sexual expression, which has […]

    The post NCAC 50th Anniversary: Standing Shoulder to Shoulder with Woodhull appeared first on National Coalition Against Censorship.

  • The impacts of climate change are downright frightening. But the villain behind one of Canada’s biggest tar sands companies can also cause a real jump-scare. Introducing Rich Kruger – the nightmare on Oil Street. 

    Rich Kruger is the CEO of Suncor, a company responsible for nearly 35 million metric tons of climate pollution annually – the equivalent of 8.3 million gas-powered cars driving for a year. He was called to testify at Parliament Hill twice in the last year and was grilled by members of parliament about the company’s emissions and failure to act responsibly on climate change. 

    Suncor is also a founding member of the Pathways Alliance, a fossil fuel industry association made up of six major tar sands producers and the newest major lobby group. This lobby group has been trying to re-brand tar sands companies as they are working on climate solutions. It spent millions of dollars on its rebranding ad campaign and is lobbying hard for false solutions like carbon capture so that the oil companies can continue justifying increased oil production. We’ve called out their misinformation, and they’re currently under investigation by the Competition Bureau. 

    That’s not all. After the government passed new rules to crack down on greenwashing, the Pathways Alliance scrubbed its website and social media of all of its climate and carbon capture content. It didn’t have the evidence needed to back up their claims. The Pathways Alliance and Suncor have both opposed these new greenwashing rules in online statements. 

    That’s why we need your help to make sure the greenwashing rules don’t get weakened. The Competition Bureau is conducting a public consultation right now in order to develop guidelines for how the rules will be enforced. Will you send a letter demanding fair and strong enforcement of anti-greenwashing rules?

     

    Red button that says "take action"

     

     

    • Suncor Energy Inc: 2023-Present
    • Imperial Oil Ltd: 2013–2019 
    • ExxonMobil Corp: 1981-2013

    Villain Career Profile

    Rich Kruger has a long and storied career in oil. In fact, he’s been developing oil for longer than the lives of millennials and Gen Zers, who will deal with the escalating consequences of the climate crisis fuelled by Kruger’s companies. He began working at Exxon in a technical role in 1981. He then rose through the ranks at Exxon during the time when the company was successfully suppressing and denying climate science and spending big on climate denial and political obstruction. He joined regional leadership in 1999, became executive VP Production in 2006, and President of Exxon Production and VP of Exxon Corp in 2008. During the 1990s, Exxon promoted disinformation about the certainty of climate science despite findings by Exxon and Imperial Oil (a subsidiary of Exxon) confirming climate science in the 1970s-1980s. It wasn’t until 2007 that Exxon publicly acknowledged that climate change was occurring and largely driven by the burning of fossil fuels. Despite this, throughout the 2000s and 2010s, it continued to publicly cast doubt about climate science, fund climate denial groups and think tanks and promote fossil fuel expansion and use.

    Rich Kruger then brought his world-class expertise in resource exploitation to the tar sands in Canada, becoming CEO at Imperial Oil in 2013. During his tenure as the head of Imperial, Kruger was critical of government environmental policy, such as the clean fuel standard, and he had little interest in branching out into renewable energy. When he advocated against the Alberta government’s climate action, he said it wasn’t about opposing then-premier Notley’s climate plan but rather his objection to putting any sort of production limit on the industry, a position he maintains to this day. 

    Kruger had retired from Imperial but couldn’t resist the call of money and that sweet, sweet crude. His dedication to producing climate pollution was so strong that he came out of retirement for the role of CEO at Suncor – and for $37.8 million in compensation in his first year. That same year, Suncor weakened its climate reporting by ending the inclusion of scope three greenhouse gas emissions (the emissions that come from burning the oil and gas that Suncor sells and profits off of). Their climate report does not include a 1.5-degree scenario, the threshold to which countries have agreed to limit global warming. This followed previous advocacy by the company that argued against rules that would force companies to share how climate change risks disrupting their business plans and finances. 

    Suncor is the oil company with the highest annual emissions in Canada. While Suncor has been a top polluter for many years, there was a time when the company was also involved in renewables. Suncor sold off its wind and solar assets in 2022, and now Kruger is taking up the mantle of resisting the energy transition. In one of his first meetings with shareholders, Kruger explicitly said Suncor had been too focused on the energy transition and, under his leadership, would prioritize short-term profits for shareholders through oil and gas

    Now that Rich Kruger is back in the game, he’s fighting for Suncor’s right to pollute the planet for profit. With his years of tireless service to fossil fuels, Kruger is proud to be one of the top Climate Villains in Canada. 

    TOP SKILLS

    CAREER HIGHLIGHTS

    Polluting like a Pro

    climate villains ribbonRebranding the Oil Lobby with Greenwashing 

     

    climate villains ribbonHelping the Rich get Richer

     

    • Kruger has made clear that Suncor’s interests are growing profit for their shareholders through doubling down on fossil fuel expansion. During one of the first shareholder meetings in his role as CEO he said “I very much believe in making money. We are in the business to make money and as much of it as possible, and everybody starting with me needs to see how they do that.”
    • A recent academic study demonstrated how ownership of Canada’s largest oil sands companies, including Suncor, is highly concentrated among just 14 prominent shareholders who collectively control significant share value. Over 70 per cent of these major shareholders are foreign entities. That means most of the financial value extracted from oil sands don’t stay in Canada, but flow through private investment firms to large shareholders elsewhere. 

    climate villains ribbonFailing Workers 

     

    The Climate Villains campaign highlights the leaders of the fossil fuel industry that play key roles in expanding and financing climate-wrecking fossil fuels, blocking climate action, and spreading disinformation. These villains are more concerned about their profits and wealth than the future of the planet, and that’s why we’re profiling the ‘resume’ of each climate villain. 

     

    The post Rich Kruger: The Nightmare on Oil Street appeared first on Environmental Defence.

    This post was originally published on Environmental Defence.

  •  

    Election Focus 2024New York Times publisher A.G. Sulzberger has issued a lengthy warning in the  Washington Post (9/5/24) on the dangers another Donald Trump presidency would pose to a “free and independent press.”

    Sulzberger details Trump’s many efforts to suppress and undermine critical media outlets during his previous presidential tenure, as well as the more recent open declarations by Trump and his allies of their plans to continue to “come after” the press, “whether it’s criminally or civilly.” He documents the ways independent media have been eroded in illiberal democracies around the world, and draws direct links to Trump’s playbook.

    You might expect this to be a prelude to an announcement that the New York Times would work tirelessly to defend democracy.  Instead, Sulzberger heartily defends his own miserably inadequate strategy of “neutrality”—which, in practice, is both-sidesing—making plain his greater concern for the survival of his own newspaper than the survival of US democracy.

    ‘Wading into politics’

    WaPo: How the quiet war against press freedom could come to America

    New York Times publisher A.G. Sulzberger (Washington Post, 9/5/24) says his paper is “taking active steps to prepare ourselves for a more difficult environment” regarding press freedom—but not, crucially, by reporting on Donald Trump as though he were a clear and present danger to democracy.

    “As someone who strongly believes in the foundational importance of journalistic independence,” Sulzberger writes, “I have no interest in wading into politics.”

    It’s a bizarre statement. Newspapers, including the Times, regularly endorse candidates. Presumably, then, he’s referring to the “news” side of the paper, rather than the opinion side.

    But, even so, you can’t report on politics without wading directly into them. Which political figures and issues do you cover, and how much? (See, for example: media’s outsize coverage of Trump since 2015; media’s heavy coverage of inflation but not wage growth.) Which popular political ideas do you take seriously, and which do you dismiss as marginal? (See, for example, the Timespersistent dismissal of Bernie Sanders’ highly popular critiques.) These decisions shape political possibilities and set political agendas, as much as the Times would like to pretend they don’t (FAIR.org, 5/15/24).

    Sulzberger goes on (emphasis added):

    I disagree with those who have suggested that the risk Trump poses to the free press is so high that news organizations such as mine should cast aside neutrality and directly oppose his reelection. 

    Sulzberger is always raging against critics who, he claims, want him to skew and censor his paper’s reporting (FAIR.org, 5/19/23). The Times must instead be steadfastly “neutral,” he claims. But those very political coverage decisions that media outlets make on a daily basis make it impossible for the outlets to be neutral in the way Sulzberger imagines.

    Neutrality could mean, as he suggests, independent or free from the influence of the powerful in our society. This is possible—if difficult—for media outlets to achieve. Yet the Times, like all corporate media, doesn’t even try to do this.

    Instead, the Times seems to take neutrality as not appearing to take sides, which in practice means finding similar faults among both parties, or not appearing overly critical of one party or the other (FAIR.org, 1/26/24). This strategy didn’t work particularly well when Republicans and Democrats played by the same set of rules, as both parties took the same anti-equality, pro-oligarchy positions on many issues.

    But it’s particularly ill-suited to the current moment, when Republicans have discarded any notion that facts, truth or democracy have any meaning. If one team ceases to play by any rules, should the ref continue to try to call roughly similar numbers of violations on each side in order to appear unbiased? It would obviously be absurd and unfair. But that’s Sulzberger’s notion of “neutrality.”

    It would be brave for a media outlet like the Times to take a stand and oppose Trump’s candidacy. But it would make a big difference if the paper would even do the bare minimum of calling fouls fairly rather than evenly.

    ‘A fair and accurate picture’

    Sampling of New York Times headlines about Biden's age

    Sampling of New York Times headlines raising doubts about President Joe Biden’s age (Campaign Trails, 9/5/24). The Times highlighted more than two dozen stories about President Joe Biden’s age in a single week (CSSLab, 3/24/24); since his withdrawal from the race, the paper has not spotlighted similar concerns about Donald Trump’s competence.

    “It is beyond shortsighted to give up journalistic independence out of fear that it might later be taken away,” Sulzberger continues. “At the Times, we are committed to following the facts and presenting a full, fair and accurate picture of November’s election and the candidates and issues shaping it.”

    A “full, fair and accurate picture” of the election and its stakes are exactly what the Times‘ critics are asking for. Instead, the Times offers a topsy-turvy world in which crime is still a top concern (it’s at its lowest level since the 1960s—FAIR.org, 7/25/24)); inflation has been brought down to near the Fed’s ideal rate of 2%, but it’s still “a problem for Harris” (7/23/24); the nation’s “commitment to the peaceful resolution of political difference” is primarily threatened by neither party in particular (FAIR.org, 7/16/24); and Biden’s age merits more headlines as a danger to the country than Trump’s increasing incoherence–or his refusal to commit to accepting the results of the election.

    It’s not “giving up independence” for a news outlet to try, through its reporting, to prevent a tyrant from taking over the country. There’s no reason the paper can’t put the threats posed by Trump on its front page every day while continuing to offer careful scrutiny of the Harris campaign. But it’s also worth asking: What good is a “free” press if it can’t protect democracy before it’s gone?

    ‘Balance’ at all costs

    Sulzberger concludes by explaining how he plans to confront the looming challenge Trump presents—by preparing for lawsuits and harassment and, most crucially, by not taking sides:

    through it all, treating the journalistic imperative to promote truth and understanding as a north star — while refusing to be baited into opposing or championing any particular side. “No matter how well-intentioned,” Joel Simon, the former head of the Committee to Protect Journalists, wrote last month on what he’s learned studying attacks on press freedom, “such undertakings can often help populist and authoritarian leaders rally their own supporters against ‘entrenched elites’ and justify a subsequent crackdown on the media.”

    Does Sulzberger actually think that by writing a several-thousand-word warning against Trump’s threat to press freedom, but simultaneously announcing that he will resolutely oppose “taking sides” in this election, he is somehow inoculating himself against right-wing populist hatred of the Times, and any future retribution from a Trump presidency?

    The far right has learned how to exploit this central weakness of corporate media, its adherence to “balance” at all costs. Sulzberger might think he’s working to fend off Trump’s attack on an independent press corps; in fact, he’s playing right into Trump’s hands, and working to speed along his own paper’s irrelevance.


    ACTION ALERT: You can send a message to the New York Times at letters@nytimes.com. Please remember that respectful communication is the most effective. Feel free to leave a copy of your communication in the comments thread.

    This post was originally published on FAIR.

  • A preview of our Fall 2024 issue.

    This post was originally published on Dissent MagazineDissent Magazine.

  • “We live in different African countries, but the challenges and the conditions of life are almost the same,” says Sylvain Saluseke, the operations team lead at Afrikki. Sylvain and fellow activists are using those shared experiences to build a future that’ll benefit them all, their communities and entire nations. In 2016, three African youth activist …

    Source

    This post was originally published on American Jewish World Service – AJWS.

  • As the second quarter of business reporting came to a close, the oil and gas industry posted another round of sky-high profits. But that’s not all they were up to in Q2.

    We track how frequently the fossil fuel industry lobbies the federal government, and we’re ready to share some Q2 updates as well. 

    The fossil fuel lobbyists had 289 meetings with the federal government between April and June. 

    That brings the total to 546 meetings so far in 2024.

    Top Fossil Fuel Industry Lobbyists (Q2: April – June)

    1. Enbridge had 41 meetings
    2. Pathways Alliance had 25 meetings
    3. CAPP and Imperial Oil tied, with 22 meetings each

    Ministers lobbied most (Q2: April – June)

    1. Minister of Finance Chrystia Freeland took 3 lobby meetings with the fossil fuel industry. She met with Pembina Pipeline Corporation, Cedar LNG, and BHP Inc. in April. 
    2. Minister of Innovation, Science & Economic Development Francoise Philippe Champagne took 3 lobby meetings in Q2. In April he met with Enbridge, and in June he met with Cedar LNG and Pembina Pipeline Corporation. 
    3. President of the Treasury Board Anita Anand took 2 meetings in May with Imperial Oil. Minister of Export Promotion, International Trade and Economic Development Mary Ng took 2 meetings with Enbridge, one in April and one in May. Minister of Labour and Seniors Seamus O’Regan took one meeting in April with Exxon and one meeting in June with CAPP.

    Ministries most lobbied (year to date) 

    1. Natural Resources Canada: 164 meetings
    2. Privy Council Office: 98 meetings
    3. Environment and Climate Change Canada: 90 meetings

    When we collect lobbying data, we also see which Members of Parliament are being lobbied the most. 

    MPs who took the most lobby meetings between April – June

    • Conservative MP Shannon Stubbs had 10 meetings
    • Conservative MP Andrew Scheer and Liberal MP George Chahal had 7 meetings each
    • Conservative MP Chris Warkentin had 6 meetings

    How does this compare to lobbying by the fossil fuel industry last year? I’m glad you asked! We’ve compiled all the insights about oil and gas lobbying in 2023 in a new report Big Oil’s Big Year: A Summary of Big Oil’s 2023 Federal Lobbying. Visit the webpage to learn more. 

    TAKE ACTION TO STOP BIG OIL FROM POLLUTING OUR CLIMATE

    Red button that says "take action"

    The post Spring 2024 Fossil Fuel Lobbying Surge: Enbridge’s Intense Efforts Lead the Pack appeared first on Environmental Defence.

    This post was originally published on Environmental Defence.

  • The Committee to Protect Journalists joined the 10 other members of Brazil’s Coalition in Defense of Journalism in condemning the August 12 sentencing of journalist Ricardo Antunes to seven years in prison for slander, libel, and defamation after he published five blog posts about a businessman.

    The posts dealt with an investigation into an alleged corruption scheme involving the businessman, a company, and Caruaru City Hall in the northeastern state of Pernambuco, in the organization of events.

    “Criminal justice is not the appropriate response to dealing with slander, defamation and libel. These should be addressed solely through civil lawsuits, to enable the balancing of rights and preserving freedom of expression and of the press,” the statement said.

    Read the full statement in English here.

    Read the full statement in Portuguese here.


    This content originally appeared on Committee to Protect Journalists and was authored by Committee to Protect Journalists.

    This post was originally published on Radio Free.

  •  

    NYT: A Bookshop Cancels an Event Over a Rabbi’s Zionism, Prompting Outrage

    The New York Times (8/21/24), knowing that “outrage” sells, saves for the last paragraph the information that a supposedly canceled author turned down an offer to reschedule his talk in the same bookstore.

    Author and journalist Joshua Leifer is the latest scribe to be—allegedly—canceled. A talk for his new book, Tablets Shattered: The End of an American Jewish Century and the Future of Jewish Life, at a Brooklyn bookstore was canceled when a member of the store’s staff objected to Leifer being joined by a liberal rabbi who was also a Zionist, although still critical of Israel’s right-wing government (New York Times, 8/21/24).

    Leifer’s book is doing well as a result of the saga (Forward, 8/27/24). Meanwhile, the bookstore worker wasn’t so lucky, when the venue’s owner said “he would try to reschedule the event” and said “that the employee” responsible for canceling the event “‘is going to be terminated today’” (New York Jewish Week, 8/21/24).

    It’s worth dissecting the affair and its impact to truly assess who can gain popular sympathy in the name of “free speech,” and who cannot, and how exactly Leifer has portrayed what happened.

    ‘One-state maximalism’

    Atlantic: My Demoralizing but Not Surprising Cancellation

    To Joshua Leifer (Atlantic, 8/27/24), opposition to platforming Zionists is “straightforwardly antisemitic.”

    Leifer is a journalist who has produced nuanced coverage of Israel and Jewish politics for Jewish Currents, the New York Review of Books and other outlets. Reflecting on the bookstore affair, Leifer said in the Atlantic (8/27/24) that Jewish writers like him are in a bind because of the intransigence of the left, saying “Jews who are committed to the flourishing of Jewish life in Israel and the Diaspora, and who are also outraged by Israel’s brutal war in Gaza, feel like we have little room to maneuver.”

    He added:

    My experience last week was so demoralizing in part because such episodes make moving the mainstream Jewish community much harder. Every time a left-wing activist insists that the only way to truly participate in the fight for peace and justice is to support the dissolution of Israel, it reinforces the zero-sum (and morally repulsive) idea that opposing the status quo requires Israel’s destruction. Rhetorical extremism and dogmatism make it easier for right-wing Israel supporters to dismiss what should be legitimate demands—for instance, conditions on US military aid—as beyond the pale.

    The new left-wing norm that insists on one-state maximalism is not only a moral mistake. It is also a strategic one. If there is one thing that the past year of cease-fire activism has illustrated, it is that changing US policy on Israel requires a broad coalition. That big tent must have room for those who believe in Jewish self-determination and are committed to Israel’s existence, even as they work to end its domination over Palestinians.

    No ‘destruction’ required

    For me, personally, canceling Leifer’s talk was a bad move. No one would have been forced to listen or attend, and if someone wanted to challenge the inclusion of a moderate Zionist at the event, they could have done so in the question and answer session. Speech should usually be met with more speech.

    But Leifer is somewhat disingenuous about a “zero-sum” game that forces people into the “morally repulsive” concept that “requires Israel’s destruction.” Many anti-Zionists and non-Zionists believe that the concept of one state, “from the river to the sea,” means a democratic state that treats all its people—Arab, Jew and otherwise—equally. Leifer’s counterposing being “committed to Israel’s existence” with “one-state maximalism” suggests that the Israel whose “existence” he is committed to is one in which one ethnic group is guaranteed supremacy over others. People who are committed to the preservation of Israel as an ethnostate are probably going to have a hard time being in a “big tent” with those who “work to end its domination over Palestinians.”

    It is understandable, given the context, that some people might object to a Zionist speaker on a panel while a genocide is being carried out in Zionism’s name. Would the Atlantic have reserved editorial space if an avowed Ba’athist was booted from a panel on Syria?

    And Leifer is hardly being censored, and he has much more than a “little room to maneuver.” He has access to a major publisher and the pages of notable periodicals, and is pursuing a PhD at Yale University. His book sales are doing fine, and the event’s cancellation has, if anything, helped his reputation. (It got him a commission at the Atlantic, after all.)

    Free speech protects everyone

    New Republic: The Willful Blindness of Reactionary Liberalism

    Osita Nwanevu (New Republic, 7/6/20) writes in defense of “freedom of association, the under-heralded right of individuals to unite for a common purpose or in alignment with a particular set of values.”

    Meanwhile, a bookstore worker who expressed a questionable opinion got fired. Free speech debates tend to value the importance and rights to a platform of the saintly media class—the working class, however, doesn’t get the same attention, despite the fact that “free speech” is meant to protect everyone, not just those who write and talk for a living.

    And expressing the opinion that a bookstore should not be promoting Zionism is just as much a matter of free speech as advocating Zionism itself. The First Amendment doesn’t stop publications, university lecture committees, cable television networks and, yes,  bookstores from curating the views and speech they want to platform. As FAIR has quoted Osita Nwanevu at the New Republic (7/6/20) before:

    Like free speech, freedom of association has been enshrined in liberal democratic jurisprudence here and across the world; liberal theorists from John Stuart Mill to John Rawls have declared it one of the essential human liberties. Yet associative freedom is often entirely absent from popular discourse about liberalism and our political debates, perhaps because liberals have come to take it entirely for granted.

    Whose speech is punished?

    Science: Prominent journal editor fired for endorsing satirical article about Israel-Hamas conflict

    eLife‘s Michael Eisen’s approval of an Onion headline (“Dying Gazans Criticized for Not Using Last Words to Condemn Hamas”) was deemed to be “detrimental to the cohesion of the community we are trying to build” (Science, 10/23/23).

    Worse is what Leifer leaves out. While his event should not have been canceled, he fails to put this in the context of many other writers who have suffered more egregious cancellation because they exercised free speech in defense of Palestinians. Those writers include Masha Gessen (FAIR.org, 12/15/23), Viet Thanh Nguyen (NPR, 10/24/23) and Jazmine Hughes (Vanity Fair, 11/15/23).

    New York University has “changed its guidelines around hate speech and harassment to include the criticism of Zionism as a discriminatory act” (Middle East Eye, 8/27/24). Artforum fired its top editor, David Velasco, for signing a letter in defense of Palestinian rights (New York Times, 10/26/23). Dozens of Google workers were “fired or placed on administrative leave…for protesting the company’s cloud-computing contract with Israel’s government” (CNN, 5/1/24). Michael Eisen lost his job as editor of the science journal eLife (Science, 10/23/23) because he praised an Onion article (10/13/23).

    Leifer’s Atlantic piece erroneously gives the impression that since the assault on Gaza began last October, it has been the pro-Palestinian left that has enforced speech norms. A question for such an acclaimed journalist is: Why would he omit such crucial context?

    ‘Litmus test’

    Atlantic: The Golden Age of American Jews Is Ending

    The lead example of “antisemitism on…the left” offered by the Atlantic (3/4/24) was a high school protest of the bombing of Gaza at which “from the river to the sea” was reportedly chanted.

    Leifer has allowed the Atlantic to spin the narrative that it is the left putting the squeeze on discourse, when around the country, at universities and major publications, it’s pro-Palestinian views that are being attacked by people in power. The magazine’s Michael Powell (4/22/24) referred to the fervor of anti-genocide activists as “oppressive.” Theo Baker, son of New York Times chief White House correspondent Peter Baker, claimed in the Atlantic (3/26/24) that his prestigious Stanford University was overrun with left-wing “unreason” when he came face to face with students who criticized Israel.

    Franklin Foer used the outlet (3/4/24) to assert that in the United States, both the left and right are squeezing Jews out of social life. Leifer is now the latest recruit in the Atlantic’s movement to frame all Jews as victims of the growing outcry against Israel’s genocide, even when that outcry includes a great many Jews.

    Leifer’s piece adds to the warped portrait painted by outlets like the New York Times, which published an  op-ed (5/27/24) by James Kirchick, of the conservative Jewish magazine Tablet, that asserted that “a litmus test has emerged across wide swaths of the literary world effectively excluding Jews from full participation unless they denounce Israel.” A great many canceled pro-Palestine voices would have something to add to that, but they know they can barely get a word in edgewise in most corporate media—unlike Kirchick, Foer or Leifer.

    Leifer’s event should not have been canceled, and I would have been annoyed if I were in his position, but he continues to have literary success and is smartly cashing in on his notoriety. He should not, however, have lent his voice to such a lopsided narrative about free speech.

    This post was originally published on FAIR.

  • carbon capture

    A new report released by Oil Change International reveals that governments worldwide have already wasted over $40 billion on carbon capture and hydrogen projects. Just five countries account for 95 per cent of those billions – and Canada is third on the list. 

    Around 45 per cent of the $40 billion was spent on projects that are not even operational today. That’s why we say the money was wasted. 

    Even worse, these governments are gearing up to waste billions more – over $300 billion more!

    That money could be put to much better use – like installing heat pumps in everyone’s homes to decrease energy bills. 

    Why is government spending on carbon capture & hydrogen a problem?

    The climate crisis impacts us all. The unnatural storms, fires, droughts and heatwaves across Canada this year will keep getting worse until we transition off of fossil fuels and the pollution they create.

    Fossil fuel companies are promoting hydrogen and carbon capture as dangerous distractions from real climate action. Take carbon capture. Did you know it has a 50-year track record of failure, and these projects are also dangerous for local communities? 

    Hydrogen also carries serious health and safety risks. Plus, due to the high costs of these ineffective technologies, they can increase consumer prices depending on where they’re implemented. That’s the last thing we need as people struggle with affordability. 

    These false solutions will not help in reducing pollution,  but they will enable oil and gas companies to continue pumping out polluting fossil fuels and earning massive profits. Watch the video below to learn more.

    So how much is Canada spending?

    The report tracks approximately $5 billion in spending to date. However, tallying the full amount distributed by federal and provincial governments is challenging – so this is very likely an underestimate.In fact, our research a few years ago found governments in Canada had spent $5.8 billion.

    The really concerning issue is the amount of money that governments in Canada have already committed to spending in the future. Since 2020, governments in Canada have announced new policies that could funnel over $55 billion into carbon capture and hydrogen – more than any other country except the United States. However, if you compare the amounts to the size of the economy, the handouts in Canada are proportionally much, much higher!carbon capture

    End all subsidies to fossil fuel companies now

    Oil and gas companies are pretending to care about the climate crisis and are pushing dangerous distractions, like carbon capture and hydrogen,  that they claim can help address greenhouse gas emissions – while allowing them to keep extracting and burning dirty fuels. But these are the same companies that for decades have lied about climate science and discredited climate solutions. Their real goal is to continue business as usual in order to make as much money as they can, while they pollute the planet.

    We need to turn off the taps to the most polluting industry in Canada.

    Take Action: Stop Big Oil from Polluting our Climate!  Red button that says "take action"

     

    The post Canada keeps handing public money to Big Oil’s favourite greenwashing schemes appeared first on Environmental Defence.

    This post was originally published on Environmental Defence.

  • Image via greenandgrowing.org By Sungeun Choi, Keira J Jones & , Itzia Miravete Veraza  Rethinking Reparation and Restoration for Indigenous Communities and the Environment The Colombian armed conflict’s devastating impact extended far beyond human casualties, reaching into the heart of nature itself and disrupting ancient relationships between indigenous communities and their environment. For over 50 years, the […]

    This post was originally published on Human Rights Centre Blog.

  • Matt and Sam talk to Vinson Cunningham about his debut novel Great Expectations, political theater, and Barack Obama.

    This post was originally published on Dissent MagazineDissent Magazine.

  •  

    One of the US’s oldest and closest allies is currently undergoing a constitutional crisis. Its government is in disarray, led by a head of state whose party has been rejected by voters, and who refuses to allow parliament to function. Coups and crises of transition may pass by relatively unnoticed in the periphery, but France has gone nearly two months without a legitimate government, and US corporate media don’t seem to care to report on it.

    Despite corporate media’s supposed dedication to preserving Western democracy, the Washington Post and the New York Times have mostly stayed silent on French President Emmanuel Macron’s refusal to respect the winners of the recent election. Since the left coalition supplied its pick for prime minister on July 23, the Times has reported on the issue twice, once when Macron declared he wouldn’t name a prime minister until after the Olympics (7/23/24), and again nearly seven weeks after the July 7 election (8/23/24). Neither story appeared on the front page.

    NYT: French Far Right Wins Big in First Round of Voting

    When the far-right won the first round of French elections, that was front-page news in the New York Times (7/1/24). When the left won the second round, that was much less newsworthy to the Times.

    It’s not that the Times didn’t think the French elections were worth reporting on; the paper ran five news articles (6/30/24, 6/30/24, 7/1/24, 7/1/24, 7/7/24), including two on the front page of its print edition, from June 30–July 7 on “France’s high-stakes election” that “could put the country on a new course” (6/30/24). But as it became clear that Macron was not going to name a prime minister, transforming the snap election into a constitutional crisis, the US paper of record seemingly lost interest.

    Since July 23, the Post has published two news items from the AP (8/23/24, 8/27/24), plus an opinion piece by European affairs columnist Lee Hockstader (7/24/24), who suggested that France’s best path forward is “a broad alliance of the center”—conveniently omitting that the leftist coalition in fact beat Macron’s centrists in the July 7 election. In what little reporting there is, journalists have been satisfied to stick to Macron’s framing of “stability,” omitting any critique of an executive exploiting holes in the French constitution.

    France is in an unprecedented political situation, in which there is no clear governing coalition in the National Assembly. After the snap elections concluded on July 7, the left coalition New Popular Front (NFP) won a plurality of seats in the National Assembly, beating out both Macron’s centrist Ensemble and the far-right National Rally (RN). (While the sitting president’s coalition won the second-most seats, it actually got fewer votes than either the left coalition or the far right.)

    These circumstances expose a blind spot in the French constitution, where the president has sole responsibility to name a prime minister, but is not constitutionally obligated to choose someone from the coalition with the most backing. Indeed, there is no deadline for him to choose anyone. In the absence of a new government, Gabriel Attal of Macron’s Renaissance party continues to be prime minister of a caretaker government, despite the voters’ clear rejection of the party.

    Despite Macron’s failure to allow the French government to function, US reporting on the subject has remained subdued. Headlines note less the historic impasse in the National Assembly, and Macron’s failure to respect the outcome of the legislative election, and more the confusing or curious nature of the situation.

    ‘Institutional stability’

    WaPo: France's leftist coalition fumes over Macron's rejection of its candidate to become prime minister

    When someone in a headline “fumes” (Washington Post, 7/27/24), that’s a signal that you’re not supposed to sympathize with them.

    Where US corporate media do comment on Macron’s denial of the election, their framing is neutral or even defensive of the president’s equivocations. Critiques are couched as attacks from the left; one AP piece published in the Washington Post (8/27/24) reports not that Macron is denying an election, but simply that France’s left is fuming:

    France’s main left-wing coalition on Tuesday accused President Emmanuel Macron of denying democracy…. Leftist leaders lashed out at Macron, accusing him of endangering French democracy and denying the election results.

    Left unchallenged are Macron’s claims that he is simply trying his best to preserve stability, election results be damned:

    On Monday, Macron rejected their nominee for prime minister—little-known civil servant Lucie Castets—saying that his decision to refuse a government led by the New Popular Front is aimed at ensuring “institutional stability.”

    AP left out of its story the fact that Jean-Luc Mélenchon, the leader of France Unbowed (LFI), the supposedly most objectionable member of the NFP coalition, even offered to accept an NFP government led by Castets, with no LFI members in ministerial roles, to assuage the fears of centrists. This olive branch did not impress AP, which instead relayed Macron’s call for “left-wing leaders to seek cooperation with parties outside their coalition.”

    Despite noting that “the left-wing coalition…has insisted that the new prime minister should be from their ranks because it’s the largest group,” the AP piece concluded that “Macron appears more eager to seek a coalition that could include politicians from the center-left to the traditional right,” with no commentary on the right of the electorate to have their voices heard.

    ‘Scorched-earth politics’

    NYT: France’s Political Truce for the Olympics Is Over. Now What?

    To the New York Times (8/23/24), the idea that a left coalition would try to implement the platform it successfully ran on is a “hard-core stance.”

    The New York Times’ reporting (8/23/24) had a similar tone, focusing on the “kafkaesque” situation in which the French government is “intractably stuck.”  Times correspondent Catherine Porter chided the NFP, the coalition with the most seats, for its supposed unwillingness to compromise—noting pointedly that “many of the actions the coalition has vowed to champion run counter to Mr. Macron’s philosophy of making France more business-friendly.”

    She went on to admit, however, that Castets, the NFP’s choice for prime minister, “has softened her position from its original hard-core stance”—that is, that the coalition would implement the program it ran on—and that “she says she would pursue something more reflective of minority government position.”

    However, the Times continued, “the biggest party in her coalition, France Unbowed, has a history of scorched-earth politics that makes the pledge for conciliation feel thin.” In other words, even when the left is willing to make compromises, it is still to blame if such offers aren’t accepted, due to its history of acting in a principled fashion.

    The Times seemed to accept an equation between LFI and the RN, which was founded (as the National Front) as an explicitly neo-fascist movement. The paper reported that it was not only a departing minister from Macron’s party, but “many others,” who

    consider France Unbowed and its combative leader Jean-Luc Mélenchon, a former Trotskyist, to be as dangerous to France’s democracy as the extreme right.

    The anti-immigrant agenda of France’s extreme right, as represented by the RN, includes repealing birthright citizenship in favor of requiring a French parent and implementing strict tests of cultural and lingual assimilation. Mélenchon’s LFI, in contrast, favors medical aid for undocumented migrants and social support for asylum seekers.

    Despite the Times’ previous reporting (7/9/24) that LFI is a “hostile-to-capitalism” party, the party’s platform only calls for more state intervention in the market economy, with a critique that is more anti–free market dogma than anti-capitalist, per political scientist Rémi Lefebvre.

    Whether supporting intervention in the market is as extreme as supporting ethnic determination of “Frenchness” is left as an exercise for the reader. But according to the French government’s official categorization (Le Parisien, 3/11/24), LFI is categorized simply as “left,” while the RN is indeed categorized as “extreme right.”

    Despite the sparse and incomplete coverage by the New York Times and the Washington Post, they must be given credit for covering the story at all. A Nexis review of Fox News, MSNBC, CNN, ABC, CBS and PBS NewsHour reveals next to no reporting on Macron’s refusal to name a prime minister, with no critical reporting whatsoever.

    Since July 23, when Castets emerged as the left’s choice, there have been two brief mentions of Macron’s lack of a decision, on CNN Newsroom (7/24/24) and Fox Special Report (8/23/24). Neither program mentioned Castets, much less the exceptional circumstances faced by the French electorate.

     

    This post was originally published on FAIR.

  • Labor Day was the first national holiday that a social movement both created and persuaded the state and businesses to honor.

    This post was originally published on Dissent MagazineDissent Magazine.

  •  

    Much like the front page, breaking-news newsletters demonstrate which stories news outlets think deserve the most attention. It’s important real estate: By pushing these stories to readers, they influence the way we think about the world, even what in the world we should be thinking about. Even if readers don’t click through, just seeing the headlines can shape our perceptions. And, as a new FAIR study has found, those headlines often feed into predictable patterns that parrot official narratives, and prioritize clicks over well-informed citizens.

    Breaking News: Get informed as important news breaks around the world.

    Outlets like the New York Times promise to send readers alerts about “important news.”

    Most major outlets produce a variety of email newsletters for readers, which have increasingly broad reach. Subscription numbers are generally not made public, but the New York Times‘ top newsletter, the Morning, reportedly has over 5 million readers daily, and CNN advertises over 1 million total newsletter subscribers.

    To see what kinds of stories outlets present to readers as urgently important, FAIR studied four national outlets that offer unpaywalled breaking news email alerts over the course of two months. We subscribed to alerts from the New York Times, USA TodayCNN and Fox News from April 1 to May 31, 2024, and recorded each alert sent. These outlets advertised that subscribers would receive “24/7 alerts” as the “biggest” and most “important” stories to “stay on top of the news.”

    We excluded the occasional roundups of top stories, as these were outside the “breaking news” format. The Times and USA Today periodically offered op-eds as breaking news alerts, and we did include these. FAIR recorded 630 alerts during the study period.

    We coded each alert by topic (National Politics, International Politics, Business/Economy, Crime, Entertainment, Sports, Health, Science, Disaster, Personal Advice, Miscellaneous) and subtopic (e.g., Gaza Protests, Abortion Rights, Foreign Aid Bill). Seventy-five alerts were assigned to more than one topic; for instance, a story about the trial of a celebrity might be coded as both Crime and Entertainment.

    National politics dominates

    NYT: Stormy Daniels Describes Sexual Encounter With Trump and Is Grilled by His Lawyer

    Trump’s hush money trial, with its titillating details, was the subject of numerous breaking news alerts (New York Times, 5/7/24).

    The outlets put out alerts with varying frequency—USA Today put out the most (224, or almost four per day) and CNN the fewest (83)—but National Politics stories dominated across all outlets, making up 274 (43%) of 630 total alerts. Within these stories, Donald Trump figured prominently, referenced in 121 alerts (44% of all National Politics stories). Eighty-eight of these, or 73% of the total stories about Trump, were about his trials—predominately his criminal trial in Manhattan, which ran through all but the first two weeks of the study period.

    The Times, with 207 alerts sent out overall, devoted the highest percentage of its National Politics alerts (79) to Trump’s legal woes (39%), while Fox, with 116 alerts sent out, afforded them 17 articles of 63 National Politics stories—the smallest percentage of the four outlets (27%). Twice—the day Stormy Daniels testified (5/7/24) and the day the jury announced its guilty verdict (5/30/24)—the Times sent three trial-related alerts to its subscribers over the course of the day.

    President Joe Biden received far less attention in National Politics stories; he was referenced in 35, or 13% of them. Fifteen of these stories were about the election, of which only two (USA Today, 5/28/24; Fox News, 5/1/24) did not also mention Trump.

    Gaza, at home and abroad

    After the Trump trials, the top National Politics topics included the university campus protests for Gaza (41), abortion rights (16) and the foreign aid bill (6). (We coded stories about abortion into the Health category as well.)

    Twenty-six (61%) of the 41 alerts about campus Gaza protests came from Fox News, accounting for 22% of all Fox alerts across categories, making it the outlet’s single most frequent alert topic. On seven days between April 17 and May 3, Fox sent multiple alerts about the protests; its fixation peaked on April 30, when the network sent five such alerts in a single day.

    Fox’s encampment alert subject lines consistently referred to protesters as “agitators,” calling them “anti-Israel” and even “antisemitic” (4/30/24). (The New York Times called them “pro-Palestinian protests,” and USA Today simply referred to them as “protests.”) “Columbia University, Anti-Israel Agitators Fail to Reach Agreement as Unrest Continues” read a typical Fox subject line (4/29/24). “Facilities Worker Says Anti-Israel Columbia University Agitators ‘Held Me Hostage’” read another the next day (4/30/24).

    Fox: King Charles returning to royal duties following cancer diagnosis

    The only Fox News alert (4/26/24) for an international issue other than Gaza was about King Charles’ health.

    There were many other Gaza protests occurring around the country during the study period (Democracy Now!, 4/18/24, 4/24/24, 5/22/24, 5/30/24, 5/31/24), yet only one alert (Fox News, 4/9/24) mentioned any besides those on college campuses.

    The second-most prevalent news category was International Politics, which had 97 alerts (15% of all). Sixty-three of these (65%) pertained to the ongoing Gaza crisis (not including the campus Gaza protests, which were coded as National Politics). Iran was sometimes mentioned in Gaza-related alerts, but it was also featured in eight unrelated alerts (8%) concerning the helicopter crash that killed Iranian President Ebrahim Raisi. Other recurring topics included Ukraine and the Ukraine War (6%), the shooting of the Slovakian president (5%), British elections (3%), China (3%) and Julian Assange (2%).

    Curiously, while Fox advertises its breaking news alerts as keeping subscribers “in the know on the most important moments around the world,” it only produced seven alerts on international issues—six of them on the Gaza crisis. (The other article discussed King Charles’ return to royal duties after his cancer diagnosis.) That’s just one more alert on Gaza during the entire study period than Fox put out on its peak day of breaking news coverage of the encampments. At the other three outlets, International Politics stories were the second most frequent alerts.

    Climate crisis not breaking news

    CNN: Planet endures record-hot April, as scientists warn 2024 could beat heat records for second year in a row

    This CNN story (5/7/24) about climate change breaking heat records was not deemed urgent enough to qualify as breaking news.

    It’s impossible to argue that the climate crisis isn’t an ongoing urgent news story. Yet the Science/Environment category had the fewest number of alerts, at 24, making up just 4% of alerts tracked. And only seven (1%) of the subject lines that appeared in our inbox referred or even alluded to climate-related topics.

    During the study period, there were multiple major climate crisis stories that CNN, USA Today and the Times (but not Fox) reporters covered—but, for the most part, the outlets chose not to include these stories in their breaking news alerts.

    It’s perhaps unsurprising that a right-wing outlet like Fox put out no alerts about climate change; its lone science story (4/8/24) was about the April solar eclipse. But CNN and the New York Times did only marginally better. CNN sent alerts for two Science stories, only one of which (4/15/24) was about the climate crisis: “Ocean Heat Is Driving a Global Coral Bleaching Event, and It Could Be the Worst on Record.”

    At the same time, CNN‘s website reported on extreme ocean temperatures causing mass marine mortalities (CNN, 4/21/24), extreme heat causing health emergencies (CNN, 4/18/24) and April’s record-breaking heat (CNN, 5/7/24), among other climate change–related topics. On the days that these stories were published, however, CNN only sent out National Politics alerts, or simply no alerts at all.

    One of the eight Science stories that the Times pushed was directly about the climate crisis, a story (5/13/24) about federal regulations impacting renewable energy (which we also coded as National Politics). Another Science article (7/3/24) that was not primarily about the climate crisis did mention its role in increasing turbulence experienced on airplane flights.

    The Times does offer a paywalled newsletter for stories about climate, called Climate Forward. But they also have a free newsletter called On Politics, offering election-related news alerts—and that didn’t stop them from promoting eight articles directly related to the 2024 presidential election as breaking news.

    In its online and print editions, the Times reported plenty of stories related to the climate crisis—but, as at CNN, they simply didn’t deem them important enough to send as breaking news alerts. On April 10, the Times published a story about ocean heat shattering records, and on April 15 it covered the coral bleaching event. Neither were sent as alerts.

    NYT: The Best Mattresses for 2024

    The New York Times found mattress reviews more urgent than climate change.

    On May 28, the Times published a piece headlined “Climate Change Added a Month’s Worth of Extra-Hot Days in Past Year”; that story wasn’t deemed “important news” that day by the Times’ breaking news alert team, but the “Best Mattresses of 2024” was.

    All the outlets studied also failed to send out stories about major flooding disasters in Brazil, Afghanistan and Indonesia (Democracy Now!, 5/13/24, 5/14/24), or about the major heat waves in South Asia that killed hundreds of people (Democracy Now!, 5/28/24; CBS News, 5/15/24). All of these crises are major examples of how climate change is affecting people around the world in drastic ways.

    USA Today did best on climate, sending out 13 alerts under the Science/Environment category; four of them discussed climate change, including topics such as carbon emissions and pollution. That’s still less than 2% of the paper’s alerts during the two-month period.

    Corporate outlets have long been more than willing to leave climate change out of their stories about weather phenomenons and natural disasters around the world (FAIR.org, 9/20/18, 7/18/23, 6/28/24).

    According to data published by the Pew Research Center in August 2023, 54% of Americans view climate change as a major threat. According to data collected by the Yale Program on Climate Change Communication up until the fall of 2023, 64% of the nation is worried about global warming, 58% believe global warming is already harming people in the US, and 70% think that global warming will harm future generations.

    If more than half of the public views global warming and climate change as an urgent issue, why do these major publications not treat it as one?

    Crime, entertainment over economy

    Fox: Alec Baldwin's 'Rust' armorer sentenced to maximum time in fatal on-set shooting

    Many Crime alerts involved celebrities, like one for this Fox News story (4/15/24) about Alec Baldwin.

    Although news media frequently report that the economy is “voters’ top concern,” leading into the 2024 election FAIR identified only 40 news alerts as belonging to the Business/Economy beat—6% of all.

    Fox and CNN suggested to alert subscribers that Crime stories were more than twice as important, making up 21% of Fox‘s alerts and 19% of CNN‘s. (USA Today and the Times only devoted 7% and 4% of their alerts to crime, respectively.) The violent crime rate has actually gone down 26% (and the property crime rate 19%) since President Biden’s inauguration in January 2021, according to the New York Times (7/24/24), but media (including the Times) still focus heavily on the topic (FAIR.org, 7/25/24).

    Mass shootings made up 21% of Crime alerts (13) across all outlets, which is not surprising, considering there have already been 348 mass shootings in 2024.

    Celebrity crimes made up a large portion of Crime alerts across all outlets, at 25 (40%) out of 62. Many of these stories were about Alec Baldwin (5), OJ Simpson (5) and Scottie Scheffler (5).

    Fox’s Crime alerts featured headlines meant to catch a reader’s attention—but not provide a lot of information. Take the May 17 news alert from Fox, “Pelosi Hammer Attacker Learns Fate During Sentencing,” for example. Why not include what the sentence was—30 years in prison—in the alert itself?

    On April 15, when three out of four alerts sent out by Fox were about Crime (the fourth was a story about Trump’s hush money trial, coded as National Politics), one was headlined “Search for Kansas Women Takes a Turn as Spokeswoman for Investigators Gives Update.” The “turn” was an announcement that officials had given up hope of finding the missing women alive.

    For its part, the New York Times gave its readers more Entertainment alerts (18) than Economy alerts (14), pushing out 46% of all Entertainment stories tracked in the study. The paper also put out the highest number of Personal Advice (81% of all) and Miscellaneous stories (72%). The Times and USA Today were the only outlets to send out Personal Advice stories as breaking news alerts, such as “The Six Best White Sneakers” (New York Times, 5/15/24) and “Being a Bridesmaid Can Be Expensive. Should You Say Yes or No?” (USA Today, 5/5/24).

    A few New York Times Personal Advice stories (5/15/24, 5/28/24, 5/30/24) were from Wirecutter, the product-review website the Times bought in 2016. The website states at the top of each article that “when you buy through our links, we may earn a commission.” (This process is explained in a bit more depth here.) In the Times’ annual report, revenue made from Wirecutter commissions is listed as part of “Other Businesses,” a category that made the Times $265 million in 2023. These Wirecutter stories are not urgent news stories—but they do help the Times make a profit off its readers (FAIR.org, 6/17/21).

    Questionable urgency

    NYT: Taylor Swift Has Given Fans a Lot. Is It Finally Too Much?

    Stop the presses! The New York Times (4/22/24) reports that some songs on Taylor Swift’s latest album “sounded a whole lot like others she has already put out.”

    The New York Times and USA Today sometimes considered op-eds newsy enough to dedicate an entire alert to, in addition to their regular “breaking news.” An op-ed about Gmail’s 20th anniversary warranted an alert, just like the impeachment trial of Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas did. An op-ed on the dangers of sexual choking got the same weight as the news of the ICC preparing arrest warrants for Israeli and Hamas leaders. And in both instances, alerts were pushed on the same day within hours of each other.

    The Times also published the most Health stories (21) about seemingly random (rather than breaking news) topics, such as whether oats and apple cider vinegar can really help you lose weight, why we age and tips for a better sex life. (Many of these Health stories were dually coded into Personal Advice.) These types of stories may have surprised readers who subscribed in order to, as the Times advertises, “get informed as important news breaks around the world.”

    Times alerts of questionable urgency were often sent out with no apparent rhyme or reason, in the midst of other, more obviously newsworthy alerts. For example, on April 24, the Times sent out alerts about abortion laws in Arizona and Idaho, and the US secretly sending long-range missiles to Ukraine—along with a story headlined “Has Taylor Swift Fatigue Finally Set In?”

    The next day, April 25, the Times pushed a story called “‘Eldest Daughter Syndrome’ and the Science of Birth Order” at 8:37 am, and then another email listed as “The U.S. economy grew at a 1.6 percent annual rate in the first quarter, a sharply slower pace than late last year.” just six minutes later. The article about “eldest daughter syndrome” was actually published by the Times ten days earlier, making it clear that it wasn’t exactly “breaking” news.

    Many of the Times’ stories we coded as “Miscellaneous” had obvious clickbait headlines, like “A Hiker Was Lost in the Woods. Snow Was Falling. Time Was Running Out” (4/30/24) and “These Couples Survived a Lot. Then Came Retirement” (5/8/24). The latter was linked to the New York Times Magazine, the Times‘ weekly Sunday magazine that highlights interviews, commentaries, features and longer-length articles—again, not urgent news.

    On May 27, when over 2,000 people died in Papua New Guinea, and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu commented on the tent massacre in Rafah, the Times thought it reasonable to also send alerts about Manhattanhenge, nude modeling and a celebrity obituary that linked to its recently-acquired sports news site, the Athletic. As we’ve seen before (FAIR.org, 6/7/24), the Times enjoys focusing on trending and glamorous topics.

    These media outlets offer newsletters that promise comprehensive news alerts about important breaking stories occurring everywhere. After tallying the topics covered, we can confidently state that that’s not what subscribers are getting.

    This post was originally published on FAIR.

  • As the US-backed genocide in Gaza continues, US media assist in Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s plan to widen the war, parroting the words of the aggressor. A consequential example of US press support for escalation was Western media’s coverage of the July 27 strike that killed 12 Druze children on a soccer field near the town of Majdal Shams in the Israeli-occupied Syrian Golan Heights.

    Israel and the US immediately blamed the Iran-backed Lebanese organization Hezbollah for the strike—citing Israeli intelligence reports of an Iranian Falaq-1 missile being found at the soccer field (BBC, 7/28/24).

    But, in a move that Hezbollah expert Amal Saad called “uncharacteristic” (Drop Site, 7/30/24), the group adamantly denied responsibility for the attack. Saad, a lecturer in politics at Cardiff University, noted that targeting the Syrian Golan Heights—where many inhabitants are hostile towards Israel—would be “illogical” and “provocative” for Hezbollah. Further, if the organization had accidentally committed an attack, Saad pointed to a precedent of the group issuing a public apology in a case of misfire, with the organization’s leader, Hassan Nasrullah, visiting families of victims.

    NYT: Fears of Escalation After Rocket From Lebanon Hits Soccer Field

    The New York Times (7/28/24) matter-of-factly described an explosion of disputed origin as a “rocket from Lebanon.”

    Despite multiple eyewitnesses describing an Israeli Iron Dome interceptor missile falling on the field during the time of the Majdal Shams strike (Cradle, 7/28/24), the New York Times insisted on spotlighting Israeli and US claims in its headlines, rather than genuinely assessing the facts on the ground.

    On July 28, the Times published “Fears of Escalation After Rocket From Lebanon Hits Soccer Field,” pinning the blame squarely on Lebanon’s Hezbollah. The next day, reporting on the potential escalations, the Times headline (7/29/24) described the strike as a “Deadly Rocket Attack Tied to Hezbollah.”

    While the July 29 subhead acknowledged that Hezbollah denied responsibility, the assertion in the headline undermined any reference to alternative explanations. Attribution to Hezbollah was then repeated without qualification in the first paragraph of the story.

    Rebroadcasting government talking points not only does a disservice to newsreaders as Israel has a long history of misleading the public, but it also serves Netanyahu’s goals of justifying an escalation against Hezbollah. Predictably, the New York Times did not contextualize accusations of Hezbollah responsibility with information about Israel’s current objectives for wider war. This continues a long trend of US media outlets obscuring and distorting reality in order to downplay Israel’s aggressive regional ambitions (FAIR.org, 8/22/23).

    Israel an unreliable source

    Al Jazeera: Shireen Abu Akleh’s killing: Lies, investigations and videotape

    Even lying about the murder of a journalist doesn’t make Western journalists skeptical of official Israeli claims (Al Jazeera, 5/22/22).

    The first problem is that the New York Times accepts narratives from Israeli military and government officials at face value. From peddling evidence-free claims about Palestinian use of human shields during Operation Cast Lead in 2009 (Amnesty International, 2009; Human Rights Watch, 8/13/09), to dodging responsibility for its assassination of Palestinian journalist Shireen Abu Akleh in 2022 (Al Jazeera, 5/22/22), to consistently attempting to conceal its use of illegal white phosphorus munitions across the Middle East (Haaretz, 10/22/06; Human Rights Watch, 3/25/09; Guardian, 10/13/23), the Israeli military has been known to circulate disinformation to the international public for decades. Neither in headlines nor in the text of its pieces does the Times acknowledge this well-established history.

    The current assault on Gaza has made the central role of lies in Israel’s public relations arsenal clearer than ever. As early as October 17, there was controversy over the origin of a rocket strike on the Al-Ahli Arab hospital that killed hundreds of Palestinians (FAIR.org, 11/3/23). In the media confusion, Israel released audio it said captured two Hamas militants discussing Palestinian Islamic Jihad responsibility for the strike. However, an analysis by Britain’s Channel 4 news (10/19/23) found that the audio was the result of two separate channels being edited together. In other words, Israel engineered a phony audio clip to substantiate the notion that it had not committed a war crime.

    In November, Israel laid siege to Al Shifa, Gaza’s largest hospital facility, leaving behind mass graves. In another dubious public relations campaign, Israel justified its assault on Al Shifa hospital by alleging that there was a Hamas command center underneath the facility, and that no civilians were killed in the operation (FAIR.org, 12/3/23).

    NBC: Information missteps have led to questions about Israel’s credibility

    What might be labeled “disinformation” when it comes from an official enemy is called “information missteps” from Israel (NBC, 11/18/23).

    During and after the assault, Israel pumped out high volumes of low-effort lies (NBC, 11/18/23; New Arab, 11/14/23) to convince the public that there had indeed been a Hamas operations base in the basement, going so far as planting weapons in hospital rooms to insinuate Hamas activity in the area (CNN, 11/19/23). In the face of mounting public ridicule, Israel’s official Arabic Twitter account was compelled to delete a staged video of an Israeli actress boosting the Hamas-hospital-occupation theory while pretending to be a Palestinian Al Shifa nurse (France 24, 11/15/23).

    However, after the mainstream outlets expressed skepticism at the claims and acknowledged that Israel had not provided sufficient evidence to back them up (New York Times, 11/17/23; Guardian, 11/17/23), Israel announced that the supposed Hamas base was actually in southern Gaza.

    At the same time as the Al Shifa raid, Israel stormed Rantisi Children’s Hospital, and engaged in similarly preposterous propaganda efforts to justify its attack. Noting the presence of hospital gowns, baby bottles and toilets in the children’s hospital, Israeli spokesperson Daniel Hagari declared that this was proof of hostages in the facility (Jerusalem Post, 11/13/23). Hagari (Al Jazeera, 11/17/23) later pointed to what he said was a handwritten list of Hamas fighters hanging from one of the hospital’s walls, holding that “every terrorist writes his name and every terrorist has his own shift, guarding the people that were here.”

    But, this was not, in fact, a damning roll call of Hamas fighters, but instead an Arabic calendar. All that appeared on the calendar were the days of the week, though this was unknown to most of Hagari’s largely non-Arabic-speaking audience (Electronic Intifada, 11/14/23).

    Even recently, when Netanyahu visited Washington, DC, the Israeli prime minister gave a speech to lawmakers that was filled with obvious lies, including the contention that during attacks on Rafah, no civilians were killed, save for the two dozen who were murdered in a Hamas weapons depot explosion (New Arab, 7/25/24). This flies in the face of numerous reports detailing fatal bombings and rocket attacks in Gaza’s southernmost city, including a single Israeli missile that killed at least 45 people (Al Jazeera, 5/27/24).

    It is not possible that the writers and the editors at the Times—the supposed newspaper of record—are ignorant of this seemingly unending series of deceptions. The decision to uncritically accept the word of the IDF regarding the Golan Heights strike demonstrates a deliberate editorial decision to knowingly advance the deceitful public relations goals of a genocidal state.

    Justifying a wider war

    Cradle: Washington gives Netanyahu ‘full backing’ to expand war on Lebanon: Report

    Two days before the Majdal Sham massacre, Israel was reportedly told that “now is the right time” to escalate its war against Lebanon (Cradle, 7/25/24).

    In light of Israel’s past lies, serious journalism ought to refrain from regurgitating Israeli claims without significant context or qualification. This is especially true when doing so would advance goals as disastrous as Netanyahu’s current aims. In the case of the Majdal Shams strike, media proliferation of Israeli propaganda manufactures consent for escalating the war on the northern border—something Israel has long stated as its goal, and something American officials have long been concerned about.

    Multiple generals have bragged about Israel’s combat readiness in the north. In February, Israeli Defense Minister Yoav Gallant stated that if a ceasefire was reached in Gaza, Israel would increase its fire against Hezbollah, and later said his government is preparing to send Lebanon into the “stone age.”

    Although some in the Israeli press believe that Israel is incapable of handling a front against both Hamas and Hezbollah (Cradle, 6/28/24), statements of readiness have intensified in summer months. The IDF announced on June 18 that it had approved operational plans for a war in Lebanon. Later, Axios (6/24/24) reported that the US envoy to Lebanon warned Hezbollah, “The US won’t be able to hold Israel back if the situation on the border continues to escalate.” Just two days before the Majdal Shams strike, Israeli media reported that Washington had given “full legitimacy” to an IDF campaign in Lebanon (Cradle, 7/25/24), contrary to apparent earlier efforts to avert a wider war in the Middle East.

    On top of neglecting to acknowledge Israel’s flimsy credibility in their Majdal Shams analysis, Times reporters failed to address this readily available information about Israeli military objectives. By ignoring Israel’s strategic aims, they are ensuring the reader doesn’t encounter further reasons to question Israel’s account about the strike.

    Who fired the rocket? 

    NYT: Israel Says It Killed Hezbollah Commander in Airstrike Near Beirut

    Though it included a pro forma denial from Hezbollah, the New York Times (7/30/24) referred throughout this article to a “rocket attack” rather than an air-defense misfire.

    When reporting on Israel’s “reprisal” assaults on Lebanon following the strike on the soccer field, the New York Times (7/28/24) again asserted Israeli claims as fact, saying in the first paragraph that “a rocket from Lebanon on Saturday killed at least 12 children and teenagers in an Israeli-controlled town,” which “prompted Israel to retaliate early Sunday with strikes across Lebanon.”

    Was Lebanon—and implicitly Hezbollah—the source of the explosion that killed the 12 children? The Times does not care to examine this question, which warrants exploration. Israel’s military chief of staff declared that the damage was done with an Iranian-made Falaq-1 rocket fired by Hezbollah, a claim that was uncritically repeated as fact by the New York Times (7/30/24), despite the lack of independent corroboration. While there has been fighting in the area, and Hezbollah acknowledged that they fired Falaq-1 rockets at the nearby IDF barracks, there is significant reason to doubt that one of these rockets struck the soccer field.

    The Falaq-1 was described by Haaretz (7/28/24) as a munition that targets bunkers. But, images from the aftermath of the attack show that the damage to physical structures was far from bunker-busting. In an interview with Jeremy Scahill (Drop Site, 7/30/24), the Hezbollah expert Saad cited military specialists who told her that “if [Hezbollah] had used the Falaq-1, we would have seen a much larger crater…. It would be much, much bigger and there would be much more destruction.”

    As discussed above, Israel, well-known for planting or fabricating evidence for propagandistic ends, released images of rocket fragments that it alleged were found at the impact site, though the Associated Press (7/30/24) was unable to verify their authenticity.

    A substantial case can be made that the projectile came from the IDF. In the immediate aftermath of the attacks, multiple eyewitnesses told Arab news outlets the projectile was a misfired Iron Dome missile (Cradle, 7/28/24; Drop Site, 7/30/24). The New York Times omitted this from its coverage of this event

    Contrary to the mythos behind the high-tech defense system, there have already been several cases of Iron Dome missiles falling on populated areas within Israel since October 7 (Al Jazeera, 6/11/23; Jerusalem Post, 12/2/23, 7/25/24; Times of Israel, 5/4/23, 8/9/24) with many such instances resulting in civilian injuries and deaths. There was even a report of an Iron Dome malfunction near Majdal Shams, months before the recent July strike.

    Bolstering the case for an Iron Dome malfunction, OSINT researcher Michale Kobs noted that the sound profile of the projectile suggested that its speed was constant until it hit the ground. Hezbollah’s projectiles constantly accelerate as they fall on their targets, since they are driven by gravity, whereas Iron Dome missiles are propelled throughout their entire flight.

    For their part, the Druze people in the Golan Heights—an Arabic-speaking religious community which has largely declined offers of Israeli citizenship—repudiated Israel’s displays of sympathy for their slain children, rejecting the use of their suffering to advance Israel’s plans for a broader war (Democracy Now!, 7/30/24). Locals even protested a visit from Netanyahu, chanting “Killer! Killer!” and demanding he leave the area (New Arab, 7/29/24).

    In the Times reporting on the strike, Lebanese and Syrian denials of Hezbollah’s responsibility for the strikes were acknowledged and reported, but portrayed as predictable denials that did nothing to alter the narrative. By omitting the evidence pointing to Israeli responsibility for the strikes, the New York Times assists Israel in yet another propaganda campaign to mislead the public in order to justify further regional strife and bloodshed.


    Featured image: Screenshot from a New York Times video (7/28/24) that claimed to know that the explosion in the Golan Heights was caused by a “rocket from Lebanon.”


    ACTION ALERT: You can send a message to the New York Times at letters@nytimes.com. Please remember that respectful communication is the most effective. Feel free to leave a copy of your communication in the comments thread.

     

    This post was originally published on FAIR.

  •   “We always start with a question — that’s where everything begins,” says Himalini Varma, the director of AJWS grantee Thoughtshop Foundation. Her organization, co-led with her partner Santayan Sangupta in 1993, has transformed the lives of thousands of young women across West Bengal, India, by approaching change through this lens: opening up space to …

    Source

    This post was originally published on American Jewish World Service – AJWS.

  •  

    NYT: Phil Donahue, Talk Host Who Made Audiences Part of the Show, Dies at 88

    The New York Times (8/19/24) insinuated that Phil Donahue attributed to politics a cancellation that was really caused by low ratings.

    If I were teaching a class called “How to Slime People in a Subtle, Scuzzy Way in the New York Times,” this paragraph from the Times‘ obituary (8/19/24) of Phil Donahue—written by Clyde Haberman, Maggie’s father—would be part of the curriculum:

    In 2002, Mr. Donahue tried a comeback with a nightly talk show on MSNBC. Barely six months in, the program was canceled. He said later that network executives were unhappy with his fervent liberalism and his opposition to the looming war in Iraq. (In 2007, he co-produced and co-directed an antiwar documentary, Body of War.) It hardly helped that his ratings lagged far behind those of competitors on Fox News and CNN.

    Even now—more than 20 years after the New York Times was catastrophically wrong on the Iraq War—the paper cannot forgive anyone who was right.

    1. Yes, Donahue “said later that network executives were unhappy with his fervent liberalism and his opposition to the looming war in Iraq.” Do you know who else said this? MSNBC‘s network executives, in a leaked memo. Get the fuck out of here with the “he said” bullshit.

    MSNBC executives said, in a leaked memo, that Donahue was “a difficult public face for NBC at a time of war… because of guests who are anti-war, anti-Bush.” This was reported by CNN (3/5/03), among other outlets, at the time. Unfortunately, these outlets are so obscure that the Times cannot access them.

    2. Yes, Donahue’s “ratings lagged far behind those of competitors on Fox News and CNN.” It was also the top-rated show on MSNBC. Sadly, the Times does not know this, because the only place it was reported at the time was in such little-known publications as the New York Times (2/26/03).

    This post was originally published on FAIR.

  • Have you ever wondered why progress on climate change is so slow despite widespread public support for climate action? How often does the fossil fuel industry try to influence the government’s climate policy decisions? Maybe you’ve even been curious about if Big Oil has lobbied the Member of Parliament representing your community. 

    If any of these questions have ever crossed your mind, then I have great news for you! 

    Figure 1 Top Ten Oil and Gas Company Lobbyists

    Environmental Defence Canada has just released a new report called Big Oil’s Big Year: A Summary of Big Oil’s 2023 Federal Lobbying that digs into it all. The report finds that oil and gas companies and industry associations try to influence the government through persistent lobbying. In 2023, they had at least 1,255 lobby meetings with the federal government, which is the equivalent of meeting nearly five times per workday. Big Oil primarily targets the ministers and ministries responsible for climate policy.

    The report compiles data from the Federal Registry of Lobbyists. It highlights the most active fossil fuel companies and industry associations, as well as the ministries and ministers most targeted for lobbying. Additional findings include these key takeaways:

    • The federal ministries most frequently targeted by lobbyists were Natural Resources Canada (NRCan), Environment and Climate Change Canada (ECCC), and Finance Canada (FIN).
      • NRCan staff participated in at least 313 meetings with oil and gas lobbyists, including 34 with Minister of Energy and Natural Resources Jonathan Wilkinson present. 
      • ECCC staff participated in 253 meetings, including 12 with Environment and Climate Change Minister Steven Guiltbeault present. 
      • Finance Canada staff participated in 118 meetings. 
    • Oil and gas companies and industry associations lobbied various Members of Parliament 410 times.
    • Industry associations were two of the top three most active fossil fuel lobbyists in 2023, with the Pathways Alliance registering 104 meetings and the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers registering 91.

      Figure 2: Top five Industry Associations lobbyist

    While the relentless nature of the fossil fuel industry’s lobbying is astounding, we know this is just the tip of the iceberg. These figures do not capture the entire extent of the industry’s access, given that the data only includes meetings initiated by the companies that meet the requirements for lobby reporting and not meetings set up by the government. 

    More scandalous still, new investigative research revealed the lengths these corporate lobbyists are willing to go to try and push the government into line with fossil fuel interests. The Narwhal recently exposed a leaked recording of a lobbyist working for TC Energy, the company responsible for projects such as the Coastal GasLink Pipeline and Keystone XL pipeline. The lobbyist, who has now resigned, was giving a presentation instructing a group on how to sway the government. He described having people bump into politicians outside of work to blend the personal and professional, drafting proposed policies that they give to “underpaid and overworked” government staffers to submit as briefing notes on government letterhead, and even working to influence Canadian ambassadors abroad to deliver pro-fossil fuel industry messages to politicians. This is just one story in the fossil fuel industry’s decades-long effort to ensure they have the ear of politicians from all parties and at all levels of government across the country. 

    Whether it’s delaying climate policy, carving out loopholes in regulations, or asking for government handouts, Big Oil lobbying is obstructing climate action. Their emissions are polluting our planet, and their corporate influence is polluting politics. 

    If you agree that it’s time to remove Big Oil from government decision-making rooms, join us in taking action. 

    Red button that says "take action"

     

     

    The post Oil and Influence: Analyzing the Fossil Fuel Industry’s 2023 Lobbying appeared first on Environmental Defence.

    This post was originally published on Environmental Defence.

  •  

    Election Focus 2024New York Times deputy opinion editor Patrick Healy (8/20/24) described Sen. Bernie Sanders’ speech to the Democratic National Convention as an attempt to “make policy proposals that put [Kamala] Harris in a big-government vise, binding (or pushing) her in a direction that a lot of moderates do not want to go.”

    Healy depicted Sanders as

    grasp[ing] the lectern with both hands as he unfurled one massive government program idea after another in a progressive policy reverie that must have been music to the ears of every democratic socialist at the United Center.

    NYT: Bernie Throws a Curve Ball at Kamala

    New York Times deputy opinion editor Patrick Healey (8/20/24): “On Tuesday night, Sanders put Harris on the hot seat.”

    Healey followed the standard New York Times line (FAIR.org, 7/26/24) that progressive candidates need to move to the right to win—and scorned Sanders for ignoring that advice: “Harris needs some of those swing-state moderates if she’s going to win the presidency, but the electoral math didn’t seem to be on Sanders’s mind.”

    Strangely, though, the specific policies that Healey mentioned Sanders as promoting don’t seem to be particularly unpopular, with moderates or anyone else. Rather, opinion polls find them to be supported by broad majorities:

    • “Overturning Citizens United: Three-fourths of survey respondents (Center for Public Integrity, 5/10/18) say that they support a constitutional amendment t0 overturn the 2010 Supreme Court decision that allows the wealthy to spend unlimited amounts of money on elections. In the same survey, 60% said reducing the influence of big campaign donors is “very important.” According to the Pew Research Center (5/8/18), 77% of the public says “there should be limits on the amount of money individuals and organizations” can spend on political campaigns.
    • “Making healthcare ‘a human right’ for all Americans”: A 2020 Pew Research Center poll (9/29/20) found that “63% of US adults say the government has the responsibility to provide healthcare coverage for all.” Another Pew poll (1/23/23) reported 57% agreeing that it’s “the responsibility of the federal government to make sure all Americans have healthcare coverage.”
    • “Raising the minimum wage to a ‘living wage’”: According to the Pew Research Center (4/22/21), 62% of Americans want the federal minimum wage raised to $15 an hour. (Most of the remainder wanted the minimum wage increased by a lesser amount.) According to the think tank Data for Progress (4/26/24), 86% of likely voters do not think the current federal minimum wage is enough for a decent quality of life.
    • “Raising teachers’ salaries”: The 2023 PDK poll found that 67% of respondents support increasing local teacher salaries by raising property taxes. The AP/NORC poll (4/18) reported that “78% of Americans say teachers in this country are underpaid.”
    • “Cutting prescription drug costs in half”: A poll from 2023 by Data for Progress found that 73% of all likely voters supported Biden administration initiatives allowing Medicare to negotiate lower prescription drug costs. Health policy organization KFF (8/21/23) reported that 88% of adults support “limiting how much drug companies can increase the price for prescription drugs each year to no more than the rate of inflation.”

    Back in 2015, when Sanders was running for president, Healy co-wrote an article for the Times (5/31/15; Extra!, 7–8/15) that declared him “unelectable,” in part because he supported “far higher taxes on the wealthy.” But raising taxes on the rich turns out to be consistently popular in opinion polls (FAIR.org, 4/20/15).

    What we’re learning is that progressive policy proposals are deeply unpopular—with the New York Times‘ deputy opinion editor.


    ACTION ALERT: You can send a message to the New York Times at letters@nytimes.com. Please remember that respectful communication is the most effective. Feel free to leave a copy of your communication in the comments thread.

    This post was originally published on FAIR.

  • Lake Erie is a national treasure here in Canada. It is famously known to be the shallowest and warmest of the Great Lakes, making it perfect for swimming, kayaking, water sports, and fishing. On August 27th, 2024 we will be celebrating “We Are Lake Erie” Day: a day to appreciate Lake Erie and also raise awareness on the threats the lake faces today. Here’s a round-up of five unique national and provincial parks along the shores of Lake Erie that you can visit: 

    Long Point Provincial Park

    Established in 1921, Long Point is one of Canada’s oldest Provincial Parks. It is the place to be in the summer, with over 1.5km of picturesque, sandy beaches along the warm waters of Lake Erie. Long Point is also a fantastic place to birdwatch: hundreds of birders “flock” to the park every year to photograph and marvel at the migrating birds and waterfowl that pass through.

    Point Pelee National Park

    Point Pelee is the only National Park along Lake Erie and it is one of Canada’s most unique protected areas. This national park is at the very southernmost tip of mainland Canada, jutting into Lake Erie with an otherworldly-looking two-sided beach (Yes – that’s a beach with waves on both sides!). Point Pelee is also known for its famous wetland marsh boardwalk and its annual monarch butterfly migration: a stunning natural phenomenon where thousands of monarch butterflies take a rest stop at Point Pelee before migrating over Lake Erie on their way to Mexico.

    Rondeau Provincial Park

    Rondeau Provincial Park is a beautiful place to experience the enchanting, old-growth Carolinian forest ecosystem. The Canadian Carolinian forests are exceptionally biodiverse, housing thousands of species, over 500 of which are considered rare. Whimsical, Carolinian trees can be found in Rondeau Provincial Park, such as the pawpaw tree and the tall, fairytale-like tulip tree. Rondeau Provincial Park also offers biking and rollerblading trails for those who enjoy zipping along the Lake Erie coast.

    Turkey Point Provincial Park

    Turkey Point Provincial Park has something for everyone. With three hiking trails, a shallow beach ideal for children, and plenty of shaded campsites, Turkey Point is a great place for family fun. There’s even a fish hatchery within the park for those curious about government programs to stock Atlantic and Chinook salmon in the Great Lakes. Adjacent to the park, the village of Turkey Point has a bustling Lake Erie marina, shops, restaurants and even a winery.

    Rock Point Provincial Park

    Rock Point is a special place for history, ecology and geology enthusiasts. The beaches are framed by giant, limestone shelves featuring fossils of ocean animals from 350 million years ago. The park features forests, wetlands, and even sand dunes along the shores of Lake Erie.

    How can we protect Lake Erie?

    Lake Erie is the crown jewel of these beautiful national and provincial parks. Protecting the lake is a service to these precious places that we enjoy. However, every summer, Lake Erie suffers from HABs – harmful algal blooms – that release toxins, create ecological “dead zones”, and threaten drinking water. With action from the government, we can create regulations that mitigate the dangerous effects of HABs and preserve a healthy Lake Erie for generations to come.

    Take action now!

     

    The post Five Stunning National and Provincial Parks Along Lake Erie appeared first on Environmental Defence.

    This post was originally published on Environmental Defence.

  • This is a Guest Blog Post by Andrew Jennings

    Every year, up to 170 million birds migrate or breed in Alberta’s Peace-Athabasca Delta region, home to the infamous tar sands and their tailings ponds – huge lakes of toxic waste produced by the oil extraction process. 

    Approximately 200,000 birds from 130 protected species from around the world land in tar sands tailings ponds every year, exposing them to life-threatening health risks. Migratory birds from all corners of North America are facing an unprecedented crisis in Alberta’s Peace-Athabasca Delta. Canada must act now to protect the biodiversity that is vital to our national environmental health and heritage. 

    Scarecrow behind a fence at a toxic tailing pond
    A scarecrow at a toxic tailings pond in the Alberta tar sands. Photo by Markus Mauthe, Greenpeace

    Toxic Tailings Ponds are Responsible for Thousands of Bird Deaths

    After weeks of flying thousands of kilometers across North America, exhausted birds often mistake these industry-made ponds for natural lakes and land on them to rest and refuel. Once they land, they become coated in the thick, oily substances contained in the toxic tailings. This can be lethal. A well-publicized example of this recurring tragedy occurred in 2008, when 1,600 ducks perished after mistaking a Syncrude tailings pond for a safe resting spot. There are several reasons why these tailings are deadly to birds:

    1. The oily content from the ponds weighs the birds down, preventing them from flying away and causing them to drown.
    2. Oil makes birds’ feathers less insulating, leading them to lose body heat and die from hypothermia. 
    3. When birds attempt to clean the oil off their feathers by grooming themselves with their beaks (a process called preening), they ingest deadly toxins.

    Coming into contact with the oily waste in tar sands tailing ponds can also lead to long-term health problems. These problems include mothers laying fewer eggs, abnormalities in embryos, slower growth in young birds, and higher than normal death rates. So far, this exposure has caused deaths in 43 different species of protected migratory birds. 

    This map showing the migration flyways for waterfowl is from the North Dakota Game and Fish Department
    The grey circle is the location of the Alberta tar sands

    The Oil Industry Isn’t Doing What is Needed to Prevent Bird Deaths 

    Even though the tar sands industry uses bird deterrent systems like noise cannons to keep birds away, these systems are not very effective. Many birds continue to land in ponds that have these systems in place.

    The Alberta Energy Regulator, the government agency in charge of managing the development of energy resources, ordered a study to check the effectiveness of bird deterrent systems. Colleen Cassady St. Clair, the professor who led the study, found that these systems “[maximize] the appearance of bird protection while appearing to impede actual bird protection.” However, this information was not made public until journalists got hold of the study through a freedom of information request and reported on it.

    Oil production is destroying North America’s most important nesting ground for birds

    Birds landing in tailings isn’t the only way oil production in the tar sands harms birds. Tailings ponds take up so much space – over 300 sq-km in 2023 – that they’ve destroyed critical habitats for migratory birds. For instance, every 2.5 sq-km of boreal forest can support up to 500 breeding pairs of migratory birds. Therefore, these industrial developments are displacing tens of thousands of birds. This is particularly concerning given the ecological significance of the region: the Peace-Athabasca Delta is a globally recognized wetland, and the adjacent Wood Buffalo National Park is a UNESCO World Heritage site celebrated for its rich biodiversity.

    The region is North America’s most important nesting and staging ground for birds. All four of North America’s migratory flyways converge on the Peace-Athabasca Delta, which is the world’s largest inland delta. The delta supports almost half a million birds during spring migration and over one million in the fall, including the critically endangered Whooping Crane and the nationally vulnerable Tundra Peregrine Falcon. 

    Deforestation and industrial development break up the natural areas birds need for migration, making their journeys more challenging. This forces birds to fly longer routes around damaged and inhospitable environments, using up more energy. In addition, the large amount of water used by tar sands operations lowers local water levels, harming the wetlands and marshes that migratory birds rely on. 

    Since oil production in the tar sands started on a large scale, at least nine protected bird species in the tar sands have experienced a population decline of over fifty per cent! The Lesser Scaup, one of the biggest victims of tailing ponds, has had its population plummet by up to seventy per cent over the last thirty years. Some species, like the elegant Whooping Crane, are even more vulnerable. With a global population of only about five hundred, these cranes migrate through the region twice a year. A decline similar to that of the Lesser Scaup could be catastrophic for the iconic species.

    Species like the Whooping Crane and the Tundra Peregrine Falcon are in a race against the clock; the tar sands and their tailings ponds grow larger every day, pushing them closer to extinction. 

    At the COP15 summit in Montreal, Canada made large commitments to biodiversity conservation, presenting itself as a global leader in the cause. However, actions in Alberta tell a different story. The Federal Government must act immediately to safeguard bird habitats and put an end to the toxic takeover in the tar sands. This will ensure that these species, and all others protected under the Migratory Birds Convention Act and Species at Risk Act, have a long future in Canada. 

    We cannot ignore the tarry threat these precious species face – take action now.

    Red button that says "take action"

     

    Andrew Jennings is a fourth-year history student at the University of Toronto, studying history with a focus in law and the history of science. A lifelong birder, he aims to apply his love for the outdoors in a career in environmental law.

    The post The Tar Sands are Turning North America’s Most Important Migratory Bird Habitat into a Graveyard appeared first on Environmental Defence.

    This post was originally published on Environmental Defence.

  • Drone image of the humber river with the city of Toronto on the horizon.

    The Greater Toronto Area is hot and noisy and busy in the summer, but people in Vaughan and the west-end of Toronto can retreat to the forested banks of the Humber River for peace and quiet. In such a densely populated area, the Humber is an unlikely ribbon of natural beauty.

    And, against all odds, salmon still travel up the Humber each fall to spawn.

    A healthy watershed is vital

    Having a watershed, alive with hundreds of different types of plants and animals, right inside the city is an extraordinary resource and it is worth protecting.

    A watershed cross-section shows the many streams and waterways that make up the headwaters of a river. Image courtesy of Bucks County Conservation District.

    The headwaters of the Humber River stretch up into Brampton, Caledon and Richmond Hill. A river is fed by its headwaters, which is made up of streams and waterways that branch out from the main trunk of the river the more upstream it goes. You can think of the headwaters of a river like the roots of a tree – and damaging them will make it difficult for the river to stay healthy. 

    Highway 413 will pave right through these sensitive headwaters

    When I began looking into the impacts the proposed Highway 413 could have on local watersheds, I made some devastating discoveries. As an urban river surrounded by development, the Humber is already burdened with excessive salt and run-off from paved areas. Fortunately, the water from the river’s headwaters, where land is less developed, helps to keep it healthy. But, if Highway 413 is built, it puts those cool, clean headwaters at risk of contamination. Preserving that land is essential for the health of the Humber River.

    That’s why we launched our Hands off the Humber campaign as a way of fighting back. It’s a local movement to enjoy and protect the Humber River and the wildlife that depends on the river.  

    How can you get involved?

    1. Get out on river with our summer guide
    2. Tell your friends and family
    3. Send a letter to your local MP

    Let’s protect the Humber!

    The post Hands off the Humber River! appeared first on Environmental Defence.

    This post was originally published on Environmental Defence.

  • A couple of years ago, I was thinking about what I could do to lower the amount of carbon pollution I create in my day-to-day life. In Canada, for most of us, our biggest contributions to carbon pollution are through how we get around and how we heat our home.

    I thought about either taking the leap to buy an electric vehicle or getting rid of the gas furnace in my house. Both would be expensive purchases, and I could not afford to do both.

    Luckily, by looking online, I found websites that told me the annual carbon emissions from my car based on the model and the number of kilometers we drive. I was able to compare this with the emissions created by the natural gas furnace in our very old (115 year-old to be exact) house to discover that the furnace was creating about 70% more annual emissions than our car that runs on gas.

    So, I decided to replace our furnace with a Cold Climate Air Source Heat pump that I had read about to heat my home in the winter. It would run on electricity alone, with no gas backup, and would also have the added benefit of air conditioning in the summer (something that I did not currently have).

    Here are the steps on how I installed my heat pump:

    Step #1 Research

    I did some research about what financial support programs were available and discovered that the Canada Greener Homes Grant program and the City of Toronto were both offering rebates and loans to support my planned change. Unfortunately, the Greener Homes Grant Program was canceled in 2024, but during its run, more than 500,000 homeowners signed up to take advantage of $5,000 grants used for the purchase and installation of heat pumps as well as a $600 grant for home energy audits. 

    There is still an option to apply for the Greener Homes Initiative with various affordability programs and loans available for Canadians today. 

    The first step required in my process was that I start with a Home Energy Audit to evaluate our home’s energy use and make recommendations for improvements that would be eligible for the rebate and loan programs.

    I found a service provider to undertake this work and the audit confirmed my eligibility for installing a heat pump (among other changes and improvements).

    Then, I looked for a home heating service provider who had experience installing heat pumps and carried the model I had determined would likely work best for our house. After talking to a couple, I selected the company that seemed to be both knowledgeable and responsive. I had found the prices quoted were similar.

    Step #2 Installation

    The wiring in our old house was only rated for 100 amps. Making room for the new heat pump required the installation of a new 200 amp service, a new electrical panel beside the existing one and sub panel installed near where the heat pump air handler unit was to be installed in our basement.

    The process of removing the old gas furnace and installing the new air handler unit where it had been located, as well as hooking up the lines and installing the compressor located outside, took only one work day. It was up and running and heating the house by 5 pm.

    Step #3 Applying and Receiving Rebates and Loans

    Once all the installations were completed, I filled out the forms and submitted them to the City of Toronto and the federal Greener Homes Grant Program. The City responded very quickly with its rebates and loan program approval, while the federal government program took almost six months to complete and send along the rebates.

    I will now start to pay off the City of Toronto loan over the coming years and have the option of transferring it to new owners if I ever decide to sell our house.

    Step #4 Enjoying the experience

    We have now had the heat pump in place for two winters and one entire summer. It was properly sized and provides all the heat for our house and keeps us comfortable. We have also noted that the heat is more even than when we were using the gas furnace due to the fact that the heat supplied by the heat pump is produced at a lower temperature, but flows almost continuously. This contrasts with the “on/off” cycling of the old furnace. We also have access to whole-home air conditioning which we used a few days last summer when the temperatures outside went over 30°C. That was a nice bonus of making the switch. 

    The best part is the cost savings. We shaved off about 30% off our annual heating bill. An exact calculation is hard to make because we also decided to install a solar photovoltaic (PV) system at the same time as the heat pump which allows us to produce a lot of the electricity that we consume.

    Electric heat pumps provide heat when it’s cold outside and air conditioning when it’s hot outside

     

    The post “But I thought heat pumps didn’t work in Canada?”: I decided to find out for myself appeared first on Environmental Defence.

    This post was originally published on Environmental Defence.

  • A couple of years ago, I was thinking about what I could do to lower the amount of carbon pollution I create in my day-to-day life. In Canada, for most of us, our biggest contributions to carbon pollution are through how we get around and how we heat our home.

    I thought about either taking the leap to buy an electric vehicle or getting rid of the gas furnace in my house. Both would be expensive purchases, and I could not afford to do both.

    Luckily, by looking online, I found websites that told me the annual carbon emissions from my car based on the model and the number of kilometers we drive. I was able to compare this with the emissions created by the natural gas furnace in our very old (115 year-old to be exact) house to discover that the furnace was creating about 70% more annual emissions than our car that runs on gas.

    So, I decided to replace our furnace with a Cold Climate Air Source Heat pump that I had read about to heat my home in the winter. It would run on electricity alone, with no gas backup, and would also have the added benefit of air conditioning in the summer (something that I did not currently have).

    Here are the steps on how I installed my heat pump:

    Step #1 Research

    I did some research about what financial support programs were available and discovered that the Canada Greener Homes Grant program and the City of Toronto were both offering rebates and loans to support my planned change. Unfortunately, the Greener Homes Grant Program was canceled in 2024, but during its run, more than 500,000 homeowners signed up to take advantage of $5,000 grants used for the purchase and installation of heat pumps as well as a $600 grant for home energy audits. 

    There is still an option to apply for the Greener Homes Initiative with various affordability programs and loans available for Canadians today. 

    The first step required in my process was that I start with a Home Energy Audit to evaluate our home’s energy use and make recommendations for improvements that would be eligible for the rebate and loan programs.

    I found a service provider to undertake this work and the audit confirmed my eligibility for installing a heat pump (among other changes and improvements).

    Then, I looked for a home heating service provider who had experience installing heat pumps and carried the model I had determined would likely work best for our house. After talking to a couple, I selected the company that seemed to be both knowledgeable and responsive. I had found the prices quoted were similar.

    Step #2 Installation

    The wiring in our old house was only rated for 100 amps. Making room for the new heat pump required the installation of a new 200 amp service, a new electrical panel beside the existing one and sub panel installed near where the heat pump air handler unit was to be installed in our basement.

    The process of removing the old gas furnace and installing the new air handler unit where it had been located, as well as hooking up the lines and installing the compressor located outside, took only one work day. It was up and running and heating the house by 5 pm.

    Step #3 Applying and Receiving Rebates and Loans

    Once all the installations were completed, I filled out the forms and submitted them to the City of Toronto and the federal Greener Homes Grant Program. The City responded very quickly with its rebates and loan program approval, while the federal government program took almost six months to complete and send along the rebates.

    I will now start to pay off the City of Toronto loan over the coming years and have the option of transferring it to new owners if I ever decide to sell our house.

    Step #4 Enjoying the experience

    We have now had the heat pump in place for two winters and one entire summer. It was properly sized and provides all the heat for our house and keeps us comfortable. We have also noted that the heat is more even than when we were using the gas furnace due to the fact that the heat supplied by the heat pump is produced at a lower temperature, but flows almost continuously. This contrasts with the “on/off” cycling of the old furnace. We also have access to whole-home air conditioning which we used a few days last summer when the temperatures outside went over 30°C. That was a nice bonus of making the switch. 

    The best part is the cost savings. We shaved off about 30% off our annual heating bill. An exact calculation is hard to make because we also decided to install a solar photovoltaic (PV) system at the same time as the heat pump which allows us to produce a lot of the electricity that we consume.

    Electric heat pumps provide heat when it’s cold outside and air conditioning when it’s hot outside

     

    The post “But I thought heat pumps didn’t work in Canada?”: I decided to find out for myself appeared first on Environmental Defence.

    This post was originally published on Environmental Defence.

  •  

    Phil Donahue passed away Sunday night, after a long illness. He was beloved by those who knew him and by many who didn’t.

    He started as a local reporter in Ohio, was a trailblazer in bringing social issues to a national audience as a daytime broadcast TV host, and then he was pretty much banished from TV by MSNBC because he—accurately, correctly and morally—questioned the horrific US invasion of Iraq.

    Phil Donahue

    Phil Donahue in 1977.

    Beginning in the 1970s, Phil took progressive issues and mainstreamed them to millions through his syndicated daytime show. He was a pioneer in syndication. He also pioneered on the issues; his most frequent guests on his daytime show were Ralph Nader, Gloria Steinem and Rev. Jesse Jackson. They appeared dozens of times as Phil boosted civil rights, women’s rights, consumer rights, gay rights. He regularly hosted Dr. Sidney Wolfe, warning of the greedy pharmaceutical industry and unsafe drugs. Raised a Catholic, he also featured advocates for atheism.

    Mainstream media obits have predictably had a focus on his daytime TV episodes that included male strippers or other titillation, but Phil was serious about the issues—and did far more than most mainstream TV journalists to address the biggest issues.

    I was a senior producer on Phil’s short-lived MSNBC primetime show in 2002 and 2003. It was frustrating for us to have to deal with the men Phil called “the suits”—NBC and MSNBC executives who were intimidated by the Bush administration, and resisted any efforts by NBC/MSNBC to practice journalism and ask tough questions of Washington before our young people were sent to Iraq to kill or be killed. Ultimately, Phil was fired because—as the leaked internal memo said—Donahue represented “a difficult public face for NBC at a time of war.”

    But before we were terminated, we put guests on the screen who were not commonly on mainstream TV. We offered a full hour with Barbara Ehrenreich on Labor Day 2002, a full hour with Studs Terkel, congressmembers Bernie Sanders and Dennis Kucinich, columnist Molly Ivins, experts like Phyllis Bennis and Laura Flanders, Palestinian advocates including Hanan Ashrawi.

    No one on US TV cross-examined Israeli leaders like Phil did when he interviewed then-Israeli Foreign Minister Shimon Peres, and later, former Prime Minister Ehud Barak. They seemed stunned—never having faced such questioning from a US journalist.

    Michael Moore and Phil Donahue

    Phil Donahue (right) with Michael Moore—three right-wingers for balance not pictured.

    But “the suits” ruined our show when they took control and actually mandated a quota system favoring the right wing: If we had booked one guest who was antiwar, we needed to book two that were pro-war. If we had two guests on the left, we needed three on the right. When a producer suggested booking Michael Moore—known to oppose the pending Iraq War—she was told she’d need to book three right-wingers for political balance.

    Three weeks before the Iraq war started, and after some of the biggest antiwar mobilizations the world had ever seen (which were barely covered on mainstream TV), the suits at NBC/MSNBC terminated our show.

    Phil was a giant. A huge celebrity who supported uncelebrated indie media outlets. He loved and supported the progressive media watch group FAIR (which I founded in the mid-1980s).

    Phil put Noam Chomsky on mainstream TV. He fought for Ralph Nader to be included in the 2000 presidential debates. He went on any TV show right after 9/11 that would have him, to urge caution and to resist the calls for vengeful, endless warfare that would pointlessly kill large numbers of civilians in other countries. He opposed active wars and the Cold War with the Soviet Union. He supported war veterans and produced an important documentary on the topic: Body of War.

    Phil Donahue made his mark on our society. He fought for the underdog. He did it with style and grace and a wonderful sense of humor. He changed my life. And others’ lives.

    He was inspired by the consciousness-raising groups he saw in the feminist movement, and he sought to do consciousness-raising on a mass scale . . . using mainstream corporate TV. He did an amazing job of it.


    A version of this post appeared on Common Dreams (8/19/24) and other outlets.

     

     

    This post was originally published on FAIR.