This post was originally published on American Jewish World Service – AJWS.
-
“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 …
-
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.
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.
- The federal ministries most frequently targeted by lobbyists were Natural Resources Canada (NRCan), Environment and Climate Change Canada (ECCC), and Finance Canada (FIN).
-
New 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.
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.
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.
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:
- The oily content from the ponds weighs the birds down, preventing them from flying away and causing them to drown.
- Oil makes birds’ feathers less insulating, leading them to lose body heat and die from hypothermia.
- 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.
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.
-
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?
- Get out on river with our summer guide
- Tell your friends and family
- 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 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.
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.
-
Matt and Sam interview Daniel Schlozman and Sam Rosenfeld about their new book, The Hollow Parties: The Many Pasts and Disordered Present of American Party Politics.
This post was originally published on Dissent MagazineDissent Magazine.
-
Recent student-led campus encampments in solidarity with Palestine prompted considerable media conversation. But, according to a new FAIR study examining TV and newspaper discussions in the period from April 21 to May 12, those conversations rarely included students themselves—and even fewer included student protesters.
FAIR examined how often key corporate media discussion forums contain student and activist voices. The Sunday morning shows (ABC’s This Week, CBS’s Face the Nation, NBC’s Meet the Press, CNN’s State of the Union and Fox News Sunday) brought on no students or activists, opting instead to speak primarily with government officials.
The daily news shows we surveyed—CNN’s Lead With Jake Tapper, MSNBC’s ReidOut, Fox News‘ Hannity and PBS’s NewsHour—were slightly better, with six students out of 79 guests, but only two of them were pro-Palestine protesters.
The op-ed pages of the New York Times, Washington Post, USA Today and Wall Street Journal featured two students out of 52 writers, only one of whom was a protester.
Sunday Shows: Student-Free Zone
The agenda-setting Sunday morning shows, which historically skew towards government officials (FAIR.org, 8/12/20, 10/21/23), showed no interest in giving airtime to student or activist voices. For the first weeks following the first encampment set up at Columbia University, when the student protests began to command national media attention, FAIR analyzed every episode of ABC’s This Week, CBS’s Face the Nation, NBC’s Meet the Press, CNN’s State of the Union and Fox News Sunday.
Out of 36 one-on-one and roundtable guests across all networks, 29 (81%) were current or former government officials or politicians, and five (14%) were journalists. One academic and one think tank representative were also featured. Of the 29 government sources, only six spoke about having personal experience with the protests, or about universities in states they represent.
No students or activists, and only one academic, were invited to speak on any of the Sunday shows. The one academic, Robert Pape of the University of Chicago, didn’t speak about his own experience with the encampments, but about his research on student safety.
Some guests utilized inflammatory language when discussing the protesters, who were never afforded the opportunity to defend themselves. On This Week, Republican Sen. Tom Cotton (ABC, 5/5/24), referred to the encampments as “Little Gazas,” and said the students “deserved our contempt” and “mockery.” “I mean, they’re out there in their N95 masks in the open air, with their gluten allergies, demanding that Uber Eats get delivered to them,” he said. Later on, Cotton referred to a keffiyeh—a symbol of Palestinian identity and solidarity—that protesters had put on a statue of George Washington as a “terrorist headdress.”
Jeffrey Miller lies on the pavement, one of four students killed when the National Guard was sent in to suppress protests at Kent State on May 4, 1970.
Three guests were asked about the idea of bringing in the National Guard to quell protests, only one declared it to be a bad idea. The other two gave similarly equivocal answers: Sen. J.D. Vance (Fox News Sunday, 4/28/24) said, “I don’t know if you need to call in the National Guard,” while Republican congressional candidate Tiffany Smiley (Fox News Sunday, 4/28/24) responded, “I don’t know if the National Guard is necessary.” But both agreed that some kind of police response was needed to these student protests.
In most other instances, the host would ask a politician for their thoughts on the encampments, to which the guest would respond with platitudes about nonviolence. For instance, CNN‘s Jake Tapper (5/5/24) asked Biden adviser Mitch Landrieu whether groups like Jewish Voice for Peace are “causing unrest for the American people.” Landrieu responded, “Everybody has a right to protest, but they have to protest peacefully.”
Framing the questions
Throughout the Sunday show discussions, there was a heavy focus on whether the protests were violent and antisemitic, and next to no explanation of the demands of the protesters. Even though violence by—as opposed to against—campus protesters was very uncommon, politicians continually framed the protests as a threat to safety. White House national security communications advisor John Kirby (This Week, 4/28/24) decried “the antisemitism language that we’ve heard of late, and…all the hate speech and the threats of violence out there.”
Of all 64 questions asked to guests, only one—CNN’s interview with LA Mayor Karen Bass (4/28/24)—mentioned divestment, the withdrawal of colleges’ investments from companies linked to the Gaza military campaign and/or Israel, which was the central demand of most of the encampments. Moreover, this was the only instance in which divestment was discussed by any host or guest on the Sunday shows. On the other hand, 20 of the 36 conversations named antisemitism as an issue.
There were two questions asked about the safety of Jewish students (CNN, 4/28/24, 5/5/24)—by which CNN meant pro-Israel Jewish students, as many Jewish students took part in the encampments. (Forty-two percent of young Jewish Americans say Israel’s response to October 7 is “unacceptable,” according to Pew Research Center polling.) Only one question was asked about the safety of Muslim students (CNN, 5/5/24), even though both groups reported feeling almost equally unsafe.
All questions on violence related to the protesters, and not to counter-protesters or law enforcement. The interview with Bass (CNN, 4/28/24) made no mention of the violent counter-protests at UCLA that sent 25 protesters to the emergency room, but instead focused on hypothetical dangers to pro-Israel students.
Weekday News Shows: Rare Sightings of Protesters
In the same period as the study on Sunday shows, FAIR analyzed every episode of CNN’s Lead With Jake Tapper, MSNBC’s ReidOut, Fox News’ Hannity and PBS’s NewsHour. These daily programs were chosen as representative, highly rated daily news shows that have a focus on political discussion. Although the evening shows, unlike the Sunday shows, included occasional student voices, they were far outnumbered by government officials, journalists and educators—and only two student guests were protesters.
Of the 79 guests who appeared on these shows, 23 (29%) were current or former government officials and politicians, 19 (24%) were university-level educators and administrators, 18 (23%) were journalists, six (8%) were students and 13 (16%) had other jobs.
These shows showed more variation across the networks than the Sunday shows. Sixty-five percent of PBS NewsHour‘s guests were university-affiliated, for instance, and none were government officials, while almost two-thirds of Hannity‘s guests on Fox News (64%) were government officials and politicians, with no educators or students appearing.
The three student journalists found on daily news shows all appeared together on one episode of the PBS NewsHour (4/30/24).
There were a total of six students invited among the 79 guests, accounting for fewer than 8% of all interviewees. Two of these were pro-Palestine protesters, both appearing on MSNBC‘s ReidOut (4/22/24, 4/30/34). Three were nonaligned student journalists, all appearing together on PBS (4/30/24), and one, a student government leader at Columbia, was an Israeli who supported her government (CNN, 4/30/24).
One of the students on ReidOut (4/30/24), identified only by his first name, Andrew, described the police brutality at Washington University in St. Louis: “I was held in custody for six hours. I wasn’t provided food or water, and I have since been suspended and banned from my campus.”
Andrew was one of just two guests who mentioned police brutality. The other student protester, Marium Alwan, told host Joy Reid (4/22/24) that the Columbia encampment, and all encampments, “stand for liberation and human rights and equality for Jewish people, Palestinians.” When asked about antisemitism, she said they “stand against hateful rhetoric.”
Maya Platek, the only student featured on CNN‘s Lead (4/30/24), was president elect of the Columbia School of General Studies (and former head content writer for the IDF Spokesperson’s Unit). She said that at Columbia, she “would not say that I have been feeling the most comfortable.” She called the idea of divesting from Israel, and suspending Columbia’s dual-degree program with Tel Aviv University, “completely atrocious.”
Completely shutting out student voices, Fox News prioritized right-wing politicians like former President Donald Trump, Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis and former presidential candidate Vivek Ramaswamy to speak on the protests. Texas Sen. Ted Cruz (Hannity, 4/30/24) compared the encampments to “Poland pre–World War II” and “Kristallnacht.”
New England Patriots owner Robert Kraft (CNN, 4/22/24) was brought on to talk about student protests more often than all student protesters put together.
CNN‘s Lead, the show with the second-highest number of government official guests (35%), featured more centrists than did Hannity. Florida Rep. Jared Moskowitz (5/1/24) said that while “it’s their First Amendment right” to protest, for students to say such as “go back to Poland or bomb Tel Aviv or kill all the Zionists” was not acceptable, a message similar to those frequently heard on the Sunday shows.
Robert Kraft, owner of the New England Patriots and a major donor to Columbia University, was invited to speak about encampments three times (Fox, 4/22/24, 5/1/24; CNN, 4/22/24)—more times than student protesters spoke across all four shows.
Although a slight improvement over the Sunday shows’ complete shut-out of student voices, these daily news shows still had relatively few references to divestment, which came up in 16 interviews (20%), or police violence, mentioned in seven interviews. This compares to 33 interviews (42%) that discussed antisemitism.
Newspaper Op-Eds: Views From a Staffer’s Desk
Free-speech celebrant John McWhorter wrote a column for the New York Times (4/23/24) that wondered why students were allowed to protest against Israel.
The opinion columns of corporate newspapers did no better at including student protesters’ voices than the TV shows. FAIR analyzed every op-ed primarily about the campus encampments in the same time span (April 21–May 12), from the New York Times, USA Today, Wall Street Journal and Washington Post.
In the observed period, the Times published 11 op-eds about the campus encampments, all written by Times columnists. The paper failed to include any students or activists in its opinion section.
Out of nine different Times columnists, only one mentioned visiting an encampment: John McWhorter (4/23/24), a Columbia professor who writes regularly for the paper, was critical of the protests happening at his university. The self-styled free-speech advocate demanded to know, “Why do so many people think that weekslong campus protests against not just the war in Gaza but Israel’s very existence are nevertheless permissible?”
During the same period, the Washington Post also ran 11 encampment-related op-eds. Ten were written by regular columnists, and two mentioned having visited an encampment. Those two—Karen Attiah (5/2/24) and Eugene Robinson (4/29/24)—wrote positively of the protests. Attiah wrote of her visit:
Around me, students were reading, studying and chatting. Some were making art and painting. I saw an environment rich with learning, but I did not see disruption.
The paper’s only guest column on the encampments was penned by Paul Berman (4/26/24), a Columbia graduate and writer for the center-right Jewish magazine Tablet, who opined that the student protesters had “gone out of their minds,” and that professors were to blame for “intellectual degeneration.” Like the Times, the Post failed to include any students or activists in their opinion section.
‘We bruise, we feel’
In the only op-ed the study found written by a student protester (USA Today, 5/8/24), Columbia’s Allie Wong was able to succinctly state the objective of the encampments: “We are calling to end the violence and genocide against our Palestinian brothers and sisters.”
USA Today published fewer encampment-related opinion pieces, but invited more outside perspectives. Of its seven columns during the study period, four were written by regular columnists, one by Columbia student protester Allie Wong (5/8/24), one by pro-Israel advocate Nathan J. Diament (4/22/24) and one by the son of Holocaust survivor Eli Wiesel (5/2/24).
In her op-ed, Wong described the police brutality exhibited during her and other protesters’ arrests:
We clung tighter to one another as they approached us, and seized us like rag dolls and slammed us into the hallowed ground of brick and concrete. But unlike rag dolls, we bleed, we crack, we bruise, we feel.
Wong’s piece was also the only one in USA Today to mention divestment, and one of only three pieces to mention divestment among all op-eds in the study. (The other two, from the Wall Street Journal, called the divestment demands “useless”—4/30/24—and “a breach of fiduciary obligation”—5/5/24.)
‘Fraternities a cure’
The Wall Street Journal (5/9/24) ran an editorial calling fraternities the antidote to encampments, written by someone who sells insurance to fraternities.
The Wall Street Journal had the most op-eds of the four papers. Its 22 pieces on the encampments included four by educators and one by a student. Unlike most other student and educator voices across our study, however, the student and educator guests on the Journal were highly critical of the protests.
Dawn Watkins Wiese (5/9/24) wrote a column titled “Fraternities Are a Cure for What Ails Higher Education,” asserting that the counter-protesters instigating violence at UNC “acted bravely.” Wiese is the chief operating officer of FRMT Ltd., an insurer of fraternities.
Ben Sasse (5/3/24), president of the University of Florida (and a former Republican senator), charged that the students were uneducated: “‘From the river to the sea.’ Which river? Which sea?” he wrote, suggesting that students didn’t know what they were protesting about.
The one student on the Journal‘s op-ed pages, Yale’s Gabriel Diamond (4/21/24), called for the expulsion of his protesting classmates for being “violent.” According to Yale Daily News president Anika Seth (4/30/24), no violence had been documented at the school’s encampment.
Takeaways: Avoid Demands
Across corporate media, the lack of student and protester voices in discussions of student protests is striking. Virtually every university has student journalists, yet only four of them were found in the study, compared to the more than 50 non-student journalists and columnists, the vast majority of whom gave no sign of ever having been to an encampment.
Despite polling that found Jewish and Muslim students feeling almost equally unsafe, antisemitism was mentioned in 88 different interviews and editorials, while Islamophobia was mentioned in only six interviews and one op-ed (Washington Post, 5/2/24). Divestment was only mentioned 26 times, despite it being the principal goal of the encampments.
The Palestine campus protests were not the first time corporate media avoided the demands of protesters. A 2020 FAIR study (8/12/20) of coverage of Black Lives Matter protests showed a “heavy focus on whether the protests were violent or nonviolent, rather than on the demands of the protesters,” a description that applies equally well to the coverage and commentary examined in this study.
Research assistance: Owen Schacht
This post was originally published on FAIR.
-
As the Democrats headed toward their convention with momentum for the Kamala Harris and Tim Walz ticket, newspapers have collectively found an August scandal. Major press outlets are amplifying Republican claims that Walz, as governor of Minnesota, let the Twin Cities burn during the 2020 George Floyd uprising. By spotlighting these charges, corporate media are assisting GOP attempts to portray themselves as the party of law and order against a tide of anarchic anti-police chaos.
To recap, Walz, who had spent a quarter century in the National Guard, was governor of the state in the summer of 2020, when white Minneapolis police officer Derek Chauvin was caught on camera murdering George Floyd, a Black man, suffocating him to death. Protests in the city erupted and turned violent, and protests popped off around the country.
When the head of the Minnesota National Guard was told by Gov. Tim Walz that the entire force would be mobilized, Maj. Gen. Jon Jensen said his first reaction was, “Whoa, wait a second here, sir” (MPR, 7/10/24).
Walz, originally hesitant to call in military assistance to restore order, eventually called in the National Guard, which Minnesota Public Radio (7/10/24) praised for having “mobilized quickly” and “adjusted on [the] fly for Floyd unrest.” MPR added that it had been the state guard’s “largest deployment since World War II, and it occurred with remarkable speed.”
The “law and order” aspect of this election is muddy. Donald Trump, who makes “tough on crime” conservatism a part of persona in his attempt to return to the White House, is the only presidential candidate in history to be convicted of a felony. Meanwhile, Harris made her career in California as the San Francisco district attorney, and then the state’s attorney general. Despite Walz’s career in the National Guard, the Republicans are drumming up the 2020 George Floyd drama to try to win back the title of the party of order.
Too much of the corporate media are helping the Republicans make this flimsy case—and allowing the debate to revolve around the question of whether Walz was quick enough to use force against Black Lives Matter protests.
‘I fully agree with the way he handled it’
Four years ago, Trump praised Tim Walz’s response to the protests after George Floyd’s murder, calling the governor “an excellent guy” (CNN, 8/8/24).
For starters, then-President Trump had actually praised Walz’s handling of the crisis in 2020 (CNN, 8/8/24). “I fully agree with the way he handled it the last couple of days,” Trump said of Walz in a conference call with governors:
Tim Walz. Again, I was very happy with the last couple of days. Tim, you called up big numbers and the big numbers knocked them out so fast it was like bowling pins.
Surely this is relevant context for any story about the Trump campaign now attacking Walz’s response to the Floyd protests. (A transcript of the call has been available online at CNN.com since June 1, 2020.)
And it should be hard for journalists to recall the police response as being any kind of hands-off approach. At FAIR (9/3/21), I covered the case of Linda Tirado, an independent journalist who lost vision in one eye after being shot by a Minneapolis cop while covering the protests; she was one of dozens of journalists that summer who sustained eye injuries because of the overzealous police response.
Two years ago, AP (11/30/22) reported, Minneapolis “reached a $600,000 settlement with 12 protesters who were injured during demonstrations after the May 2020 police killing of George Floyd.” The ACLU, AP said,
alleged that police used tear gas as well as foam and rubber bullets to intimidate them and quash the demonstrations, and also that officers often fired without warning or giving orders to leave.
The Minneapolis Star Tribune (4/4/24) noted:
At least a dozen Minneapolis police officers were sanctioned for misconduct related to the department’s riot response in the wake of George Floyd’s murder and subsequent crowd control efforts in 2020.
‘Draws fresh scrutiny’
But three major newspapers are repeating the partisan attacks on Walz’s response—that he was basically more or less acting in concert with the protesters and not interested in maintaining order.
The Washington Post (8/13/24) carried the headline “Walz’s Handling of George Floyd Protests Draws Fresh Scrutiny,” with the subhead, “Republicans say Tim Walz was slow to act as violence raged in Minneapolis. Activists say he showed restraint and compassion.” It summarized that former Trump “and his allies are seizing on criticism from other Democrats that Walz was too slow to act to portray him as weak,” making him out to be “another lenient liberal politician, in their telling, who gave a pass to protesters and allowed destruction in their cities.”
The Boston Globe (8/13/24) re-ran the Post piece.
The point of this New York Times article (8/14/24) is that after Walz was asked in a nighttime call to send in the National Guard, he slept on it and decided to do so in the morning.
A day later, a New York Times story (8/14/24) ran with the headline “Walz Faces New Scrutiny Over 2020 Riots: Was He Too Slow to Send Troops?” Its subhead: “Gov. Tim Walz’s response to the unrest has attracted new scrutiny, and diverging opinions, since he joined Kamala Harris’s ticket.”
The piece starts out summarizing the case that Walz was slow to respond. In the ninth paragraph, the Times offered a baby-splitting verdict on Walz’s response:
But a reconstruction of the days after Mr. Floyd’s murder reveals that Mr. Walz did not immediately anticipate how widespread and violent the riots would become and did not mobilize the Guard when first asked to do so. Interviews, documents and public statements also show that, as the violence increased, Mr. Walz moved to take command of the response, flooding Minneapolis with state personnel who helped restore order.
This wasn’t the first such story in the Times. Earlier in August, the New York Times (8/6/24) ran the headline “Walz Has Faced Criticism for His Response to George Floyd Protests,” with the subhead “Some believe that Gov. Tim Walz should have deployed the Minnesota National Guard sooner when riots broke out following the police murder of George Floyd.” The third paragraph said:
Looting, arson and violence followed, quickly overwhelming the local authorities, and some faulted Mr. Walz for not doing more and not moving faster to bring the situation under control with Minnesota National Guard troops and other state officials.
‘Make America burn again’
The real problem Heather Mac Donald (Wall Street Journal, 8/13/24) has with Walz is that he believes there’s such a thing as “systemic racism.”
On the same day the Post story ran, the Wall Street Journal (8/13/24) ran an op-ed by pro-police pundit Heather Mac Donald, who said it wasn’t just Walz’s allegedly slow response that was bad for Minnesota, but his entire worldview that sympathized with Black victims of police violence:
In 2022, Mr. Walz declared May 25 “George Floyd Remembrance Day” and has done so each year since. The 2022 and 2023 proclamations invoked “systemic racism” or its equivalent five times. They urged the public to “honor” Floyd “and every person whose life has been cut short due to systems of racism,” and to “deconstruct and undo generations of systemic racism.”
She continued, “Mr. Walz’s belief in ‘systemic racism’ dovetails with Kamala Harris’s worldview. Both portray the police as the major threat to Black Americans.”
Elsewhere in the Murdoch press, Fox News (8/14/24), citing a “former federal prosecutor in Minneapolis who prosecuted George Floyd rioters,” said “Walz’s record as governor on that issue, and several others, including fraud, makes him ‘unfit’ for a promotion to vice president of the United States.” The man quoted here is Joe Teirab, who also just won a GOP House of Representatives primary with Trump’s backing (WCCO, 8/14/24).
A CBS piece (8/13/24) straightforwardly related that “Sen. JD Vance, Donald Trump’s running mate, claims Walz ‘actively encouraged’ rioters” in the lead of its story. Fox News (8/7/24), as a sort of GOP public relations arm, was more forceful when it ran the headline “Vance Praised for ‘Absolute FIRE’ Takedown of Harris/Walz ‘Tag Team’ Riot Enablers: ‘Make America Burn Again’” Fox‘s subhead:
“Tim Waltz allowed rioters to burn down Minneapolis in the summer of 2020. And then, the few who got caught, Kamala Harris helped them out of jail,” JD Vance said.
‘Record is mixed’
Criminologist David Squier Jones pointed out to MPR (8/13/24) that “Americans tend to have an inflated sense of crime occurring in their communities that don’t gel with crime statistics.”
Given that Trump himself had praised Walz’s leadership during the protests, and that the law enforcement response to the protests cannot be framed as too lax, one would think newspaper coverage would apply more skepticism to the Republican claims. Newspaper coverage of these Republican attacks has followed the “Republicans allege this, while Democrats deny it” model, simply rehashing partisan talking points without illuminating the issue.
David Squier Jones, a criminologist at the Center for Homicide Research, offered a much more measured version of the events of 2020 and their aftermath to MPR (8/13/24). While Walz sympathized with the anger toward the police murder of Floyd, he said, contrary to Vance, “I did not see anything, read anything, or hear anything that he encouraged active rioting.”
Jones also noted that Walz’s “record is mixed in terms of encouraging police reforms.” “He has also supported police in terms of increasing funding for police departments throughout the state,” he said. “He’s looking for better policing, not defunding policing, not removing policing, and he is certainly not anti-police.”
Such analysis doesn’t make for great attack-ad copy, but it will probably do more to help citizens cast an informed vote in November than parroting GOP press releases.
This post was originally published on FAIR.
-
This is a guest blog by Susan Watson, a Guelph activist and founding member of “Get Involved Guelph.”
Public outrage against the Greenbelt carve outs stopped those plans in their tracks last year and sparked investigations by the Integrity Commissioner, the Auditor General of Ontario and a criminal investigation by the RCMP.
You might think the Ontario government would have heard the message loud and clear: Ontarians will not tolerate protected lands being offered up to Ford’s developer friends. But, recent activity says they haven’t.Premier Doug Ford has forced Ontario’s 36 Conservation Areas to set the table for a province-wide land buffet for developers. By December 31, 2024, Conservation Areas must create an inventory of “land which is suitable for the purposes of housing and housing infrastructure” for disposal as surplus lands.
The Gutting of Conservation
In the fall of 2022, the provincial government passed the More Homes Built Faster Act. Embedded in this legislation were sweeping changes which gutted the role of Ontario’s Conservation Authorities, hobbled them financially and mandated that they identify “surplus land” for housing.
Conservation Ontario, the umbrella organization for Ontario’s Conservation Areas was quick to respond, making the following statement in their press release:
“Conservation authority lands are often located in floodplains and help to protect against flooding and erosion. They offer trails and other outdoor amenities that contribute to public well-being and they protect important sources of drinking water and biodiversity. They also contribute to climate change adaptation measures by capturing emissions, cooling temperatures, and protecting water quality.”
Grand River Conservation Area Angela Coleman, General Manager of Conservation Ontario further added, “Regardless of the source of funding for the lands, clear policies are needed to protect these locally significant conservation lands and land use should only be considered for housing in exceptional circumstances.”
Unfortunately, the Premier Ford’s government is employing the same false premise used to justify the Greenbelt carve outs – that the root of the housing crisis is a shortage of land. The reality is that municipalities already have more than enough land zoned and serviced for housing – it just needs to be used efficiently. What we don’t have is enough greenspace for the people and animals that call Ontario home.
Kortright Waterfowl Park
One of the first Conservation Areas out of the gate to play handmaiden to the province is the Grand River Conservation Area (GRCA). The GRCA is moving quickly to dispose of 20 acres of land in Guelph which was part of the former Kortright Waterfowl Park.
The real estate values are mind-boggling.
Grand River Conservation Area Land that was acquired from the Kortright Waterfowl Park for conservation and recreation at a cost of $2,750 per acre in 1977 is now worth more than 350 times that amount – around $1 million per acre, or a total of $20 million for that one parcel. The GRCA has identified 8 more parcels for disposition within the Grand River watershed.
Misinformation about the acquisition history of the Kortright Waterfowl Park lands put forward by the GRCA and a lack of detailed groundwater and species information is profoundly disturbing. The fact is that 30 per cent of this land purchase was paid for by Guelph citizens, 60 per cent by the Ministry of Natural Resources and only 10 per cent by the GRCA. The vision of that purchase, as documented in an archival Guelph Mercury news clipping, was to “provide parkland and open space for future residents.”
Who will be the beneficiaries of this disposal of public land? Will it actually provide the rent-geared-to-income social housing desperately needed in Guelph, or will it just go to the highest bidder and pad developer profits?
The original acquisition of some 147,000 hectares of conservation lands throughout Ontario over several decades was visionary. We owe it to future generations to preserve the legacy gifted to us, both in Guelph, and across the province. In a time of climate change, biodiversity loss and population growth pressures, there is no such thing as “surplus” conservation land. Local politicians who sit on the boards of Conservation Authorities need to hear from the citizens who elected them.
The time to speak out is now.
The post Premier Ford’s Greenspace Carve Outs: Coming soon to a Conservation Area near you appeared first on Environmental Defence.
This post was originally published on Environmental Defence.
-
Following the general election in July the Media Reform Coalition has produced a new briefing document, which highlights our analysis of important media policy issues that are likely to be debated during the new parliament.
The briefing is intended to inform MPs, peers, campaigners, researchers and anyone interested in debates about the UK media, and covers:
- The BBC Royal Charter review
- The Media Act 2024
- Ofcom’s regulation of broadcasting
- Media ownership, plurality and diversity
- Press self-regulation and Leveson ‘Part Two’
- The decline of the UK’s local media sector
- Proposals for regulating Big Tech in the public interest
This analysis follows on from the recommendations in our Media Manifesto 2024, as well as our submissions to recent consultations and engagement with decision-makers.
We hope this document will encourage open debate and political action to fix the structural failings in our media, and support policymakers and activists to build a more democratic, independent and accountable media system.
The post Media policy briefing for the new parliament appeared first on Media Reform Coalition.
This post was originally published on Media Reform Coalition.
-
Matt and Sam revisit J.D. Vance’s 2016 memoir Hillbilly Elegy to try to understand the Republican vice-presidential nominee.
This post was originally published on Dissent MagazineDissent Magazine.
-
Haven’t you heard? Democratic presumptive presidential nominee Kamala Harris’s decision to pick Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz as her running mate was based in antisemitism. At least, that’s what the New York Times wants us to believe.
While Democrats of many stripes seemed thrilled with Walz, a Midwestern progressive with military service and a down-home attitude, the Times has kept up the fiction that Pennsylvania Gov. Josh Shapiro, who made the short list of vice presidential hopefuls, didn’t get the nod because of left-wing antisemitism. The claim is a thinly veiled insinuation that Democrats who oppose the ongoing ethnic cleansing in Gaza—and Shapiro’s aggressive backing of Israel—are motivated by bigotry against Jews.
‘Veered past anti-Israel fervor’
By failing to choose Pennsylvania Gov. Josh Shapiro as her running mate, the New York Times‘ Jonathan Weisman (8/6/24) wrote, she passed up a chance to “mollify many Jewish voters and other centrists over a subject that has bedeviled the Biden-Harris administration for nearly a year, Israel’s war in Gaza.”
Jonathan Weisman came out in force in a piece (New York Times, 8/6/24) with the headline “Walz Instead of Shapiro Excites Left, but May Alienate Jewish Voters,” and the subhead, “Many Jewish organizations backed Harris’s pick for running mate, but beneath that public sentiment is unease over antisemitism on both the left and the right.”
Weisman wrote:
Was her decision to sidestep Mr. Shapiro, some wonder, overly deferential to progressive activists who many Jews believe have veered past anti-Israel fervor into anti-Jewish bigotry?
The reporter acknowledged that there were “scores of reasons” why Harris might have chosen someone other than Shapiro “that had nothing to do with the campaign that the pro-Palestinian left had been waging against him.” But he added, without citing evidence, that “Jews face a surge of antisemitic sentiment on the left,” and see the Democrats as “harboring strongly anti-Israel sentiment on their left flank.”
After noting that the Republican Party under former President Donald Trump’s influence has been rife with antisemitism, Weisman quoted Rabbi Moshe Hauer, the executive vice president for the Orthodox Union, saying “our greater worry right now is that antisemitism on the left seems to be far more influential on a major party than the antisemitism on the right.”
For anyone who needs a reminder, Weisman was demoted at the Times (8/13/19) when he suggested (“C’mon”) that congressmembers Rashida Tlaib and Rep. Ilhan Omar are not really from the Midwest, despite representing Detroit and Minneapolis, respectively, any more than Atlanta’s Rep. John Lewis is from the Deep South, or Austin’s Rep. Lloyd Doggett is from Texas—Weisman’s apparent point being that being Muslim, Black or (in Doggett’s case) just liberal disqualifies you as being from such regions. It was just another example (FAIR.org, 8/14/19) of what the Atlantic (5/4/18) meant when it said of his book (((Semitism))), “His facts are wobbly and his prescriptions are thin.”
‘Plenty of upsides’
Before Harris made her choice, Weisman (New York Times (8/1/24) touted Shapiro as an “opportunity to stand up to her far-left flank in an appeal to the center of the party and to independents.”
This wasn’t Weisman’s only attempt to paint opposition to making Shapiro the Democratic running mate as a sign of Jew hatred. Before Harris’s choice was announced, Weisman wrote a piece (New York Times, 8/1/24) whose subhead said that Shapiro, “an observant Jew, is seen as bringing plenty of upsides to the Democratic ticket,” while “some worry about setting off opposition to the Democratic ticket from pro-Palestinian demonstrators.”
The false implication was that it was his religion that aroused concern from activists, rather than his record on Israel/Palestine. (The insinuation was even clearer in an online blurb the Times used to promote the piece: “Pro-Palestinian groups are seeking to block Gov. Josh Shapiro, an observant Jew, from becoming Kamala Harris’s running mate.”)
Shapiro has been strongly supportive of Israel throughout the Gaza crisis—“We’re praying for the Israelis and we stand firmly with them as they defend themselves as they have every right to do,” he announced early on (Harrisburg Patriot-News, 10/12/23), after Israeli Defense Minister Yoav Gallant had declared a “full siege” of Gaza, with “no electricity, no food, no fuel” (Washington Post, 10/9/23).
“We are fighting animals, and we will act accordingly,” Gallant declared. As Israel followed through on that promise, Shapiro was criticized for not speaking out against the soaring Palestinian death toll (New Lines, 8/3/24).
Shapiro assisted in the McCarthyite ousting of University of Pennsylvania president Liz Magill, calling her congressional testimony about student protests a “failure of leadership,” and urging Penn’s trustees to hold her accountable (Wall Street Journal, 12/6/23). The governor later issued an order barring state employees from engaging in “scandalous or disgraceful” behavior—vague terms that were seen as a threat to free speech (Spotlight PA, 5/14/24).
Shapiro distinguished himself in his vituperation of pro-Palestine activists by comparing them to “people dressed up in KKK outfits” (Jacobin, 8/5/24). “I don’t know anybody who used the Ku Klux Klan when they talked about protesters,” Code Pink co-founder Medea Benjamin told FAIR. “That’s going pretty far.”
When Shapiro was Pennsylvania’s attorney general, he “went after Ben and Jerry’s when the ice cream company decided to stop selling to Israeli settlements in the West Bank” (NBC, 7/31/24). He is a strong supporter of divestment, however—when it comes to Muslim countries. “We must use our economic power to isolate our enemies and strengthen our allies,” he said as he introduced a bill mandating that Pennsylvania state pension funds boycott companies that did business with Iran or Sudan (Pittsburgh Jewish Chronicle, 4/22/09).
Shapiro was also forced to “distance himself from a recently uncovered op-ed he wrote in college, in which he identified as a former volunteer in the IDF” (Times of Israel, 8/3/24). The op-ed argued that “peace between Arabs and Israelis is virtually impossible,” since “battle-minded” Palestinians “will not coexist peacefully” and “do not have the capabilities to establish their own homeland” (Philadelphia Inquirer, 8/2/24).
Another pre-VP announcement piece in the New York Times (8/2/24), by Jess Bidgood, acknowledged some of this background, but still put Shapiro’s religion before his policy, describing him as “an observant Jew who speaks of his faith often” before noting that
his outspoken support of Israel’s right to self-defense and his denunciation of college students’ protest of the war in Gaza have also drawn opposition from the left.
‘Not captive to the left’
Trump advisor Mark Penn (New York Times, 8/3/24) encouraged Harris to choose Shapiro not despite but because of the fact that he is “unpopular with many progressives over energy policy, school choice and other issues,” and therefore “would send a signal that Ms. Harris is not captive to the left and that she puts experience ahead of ideology.”
Weisman’s pre-announcement piece on Shapiro (8/1/24) contained this nugget:
The campaign to thwart his nomination is, by its own admission, not well organized. People working against Mr. Shapiro come from groups such as the Democratic Socialists of America; Uncommitted, which waged a campaign to convince Democratic primary voters to register protest votes against President Biden; the progressive Jewish group IfNotNow; and a group of anonymous pro-Palestinian aides on Capitol Hill known as Dear White Staffers. It does not include some of the largest Palestinian rights groups, nor have more prominent progressive groups joined, like Justice Democrats.
Which raises the question: If this coalition is so weak, why write about it? The Uncommitted campaign, which attracted nearly 1 million votes in the primaries, greatly worried Democrats who supported Biden (NBC, 3/6/24; Guardian, 7/3/24). Biden is now out of the race, and the influence of this coalition had enough impact to grab the concern of the Times.
In a New York Times op-ed (8/3/24) that pushed for Shapiro as the running mate, pollster Mark Penn—identified by his work with the Clintons from 1995 to 2008, not by his counseling Trump in 2019—said that Shapiro’s presence on the ticket
would also reassure Jewish voters—long a key part of winning Democratic voter coalitions—at a time when many of them see hostility and antisemitism coming from some in the far left of the party.
Penn’s op-ed made a flimsy case that concern for Palestinian life is “antisemitic.” But in hailing Shapiro as a moderate, Penn revealed it was his politics, not his identity, that gave the left pause. Shapiro is “unpopular with many progressives over energy policy, school choice and other issues,” Penn noted. This is a good thing, in Penn’s view; picking Shapiro as a running mate “would send a signal that Ms. Harris is not captive to the left and that she puts experience ahead of ideology.”
‘Won’t assuage concerns’
The New York Times Katie Glueck (8/6/24) depicted scrutiny of Shapiro’s Israel/Palestine positions as ” an ugly final phase of Ms. Harris’s search.”
Following Harris’s announcement of Walz as her running mate Times reporter Katie Glueck (8/6/24) wrote that
after the conclusion of a vice-presidential search process that prompted intense public scrutiny of his views on Israel, Mr. Shapiro’s familiar references to his religious background took on a raw new resonance.
“He seemed to sound a note of defiance” by saying “I am proud of my faith,” Glueck wrote.
Although his Mideast positions were “well within the Democratic mainstream, and were not markedly different from other vice-presidential candidates under consideration,” Glueck wrote, Shapiro “drew outsize attention on the subject, his supporters said, and some saw that focus as driven by antisemitism”—linking to Weisman’s piece about how the Walz choice might “alienate Jewish voters” as evidence.
In a particularly bewildering piece, Times chief political analyst Nate Cohn (8/6/24) chided that Walz “does relatively little to define or redefine Ms. Harris”: “He won’t assuage concerns that she’s too far to the left,” Cohn lamented; “his selection doesn’t signal that Ms. Harris intends to govern as a moderate”—which is, of course, the New York Times‘ constant concern about Democrats. No matter, wrote Cohn—”there will be many more opportunities” for Harris to move to the right, “like a policy platform rollout and the Democratic convention.”
‘Didn’t dare cross the left’
The Wall Street Journal (8/1/24) came out and said what New York Times writers mostly insinuated: Shapiro was “vilified and maligned because he is Jewish.”
The Murdoch press has painted Shapiro as a victim of antisemitism as well, although as outlets that practically equate the DNC with the USSR, it’s hard to see why they would care about the Harris campaign’s internal debates. “The attack on Mr. Shapiro is part of a far-left campaign to portray Jews as perpetrators or enablers of genocide,” Daniel Rosen, president of the American Jewish Congress, wrote in the Wall Street Journal (8/1/24). The New York Post editorial board (8/6/24) said that Shapiro was the “clear best choice” but Harris rejected him “plainly because she didn’t dare cross the left by tapping a Jew.”
At FAIR (6/6/18, 8/26/20, 12/12/23), we’ve grown used to establishment media like the New York Times conflating criticism of Israel with antisemitism as a way to keep the struggle for Palestinian rights on the political margins. But with the paper’s laments for the unchosen Shapiro—so parallel to the Murdoch media’s crocodile tears—the reach feels so extreme one wonders if even the authors themselves believe it.
The Democratic Party boasts many Jewish lawmakers in both houses, including Senate Majority Leader Charles Schumer, a sort of mascot of New York Jewishness rivaling Mel Brooks. Shapiro wouldn’t have even been the first Jew on a Democratic presidential ticket; the late Connecticut Sen. Joseph Lieberman, similarly observant but far to Shapiro’s political right, has that distinction. The suggestion that without Shapiro on the presidential ticket, the Democrats remain some kind of goyish social club is comical. (If we accept that spouses are unofficial parts of presidential tickets, Harris if elected will also give the White House its first Jewish resident.)
Clearly, the Times does not believe that voters must simply accept Jewish candidates without looking at their records. It did not suggest that the party’s rejection of Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders, a socialist, as a presidential candidate in 2016 and 2020 was rooted in disdain for his unabashed Brooklyn Jewishness. When New York City Comptroller Brad Lander challenges Mayor Eric Adams from the left in the 2025 city primaries, the paper is unlikely to suggest that voters who stick with the incumbent are Jew haters.
It’s becoming clear that for the corporate media, it is OK to not support Jewish candidates if they support lifting wages, fighting climate change or addressing racial injustice. But at a time when concern for Palestinian lives has become so mainstream that being too pro-Israel can become a political liability, the New York Times wants Jewish politicians’ support for Israel to be a taboo topic.
This post was originally published on FAIR.
-
Girls and young women across much of Latin America and the Caribbean face more challenges in everyday life than their male counterparts. Teenage pregnancy; sexual and gender-based violence; little choice in when, whether and whom to marry; lack of sex education; few options for good paying jobs; being forced to drop out of school and …
This post was originally published on American Jewish World Service – AJWS.
-
Following Israel’s assassinations of Hezbollah commander Fuad Shukr in Beirut—along with a woman and two children (Al Jazeera, 7/30/24)—and of Hamas leader Ismail Haniyeh in Tehran, corporate media pundits have called for the US and Israel to escalate the region-wide war.
According to the Wall Street Journal (7/28/24), the “way to make war less likely is to announce that American munitions transfers to Israel will be expedited immediately.”
A Wall Street Journal editorial (7/28/24), using galaxy-brain logic, said the
way to make war less likely is to announce that American munitions transfers to Israel will be expedited immediately, as they were earlier in the war and as Congress has approved, and that all oil sanctions on [Hezbollah ally] Iran will be enforced again.
US-supplied weapons have already been a major part of Israel’s post–October 7 attacks on Lebanon, inflicting a terrible cost. The Washington Post (12/13/23) reported that, in October, Israel fired US-made white phosphorus—incendiary material that can cause ghastly injuries and death—into the Lebanese village Dheira; the attack incinerated at least four homes, according to residents, and injured nine. In March, Israel used a US-provided weapon in an airstrike on the Lebanese town of al-Habariyeh, killing seven volunteer paramedics, aged 18–25, in violation of international law (Guardian, 5/6/24).
Prior to last week’s Israeli attack on Lebanon, Israel had killed at least 543 people in Lebanon since October 7 (Al Jazeera, 6/27/24), including roughly 100 civilians (BBC, 7/22/24); US fighter jets have played a key role in Israel’s Lebanon campaign (Deutsche Welle, 7/19/24). Far from “mak[ing] war less likely,” US armaments enable Israel to kill and maim Lebanese people. (According to Israeli officials, Hezbollah attacks have killed 33 Israelis, mostly soldiers, since October 7—BBC, 7/17/24.)
The editorial invoked a tissue-thin casus belli on Israel’s behalf, saying that Hezbollah carried out a “rocket attack on Saturday [that] killed 12 children and wounded more on a soccer field in Israel’s Golan Heights.” One problem: There is no such thing as “Israel’s Golan Heights”; there is only Syria’s Golan Heights, which Israel has illegally occupied, illegally annexed and illegally settled (Foreign Policy, 2/5/19). Casting the deaths in Majdal Shams, the predominately Druze village in the Golan where the killings occurred, as an attack on Israel makes it sound as if Israeli violence against Lebanon (such as its Beirut bombing) is what the editorial calls Israel “defend[ing] itself.”
‘Israel returns fire’
The Wall Street Journal (8/1/24) maintains that the assassination of a Hamas negotiator could help peace negotiations, as “Hamas politicians remaining in Qatar now know their lives are also on the line if they continue to resist Israel’s reasonable terms.”
A second Wall Street Journal editorial (8/1/24) pushed a similar line, deploying the headline, “Israel Returns Fire on Iran and Its Proxies.” Strangely, Iranian actions are not described as “return[ing] fire” for Israel’s years of attacks on Iranian territory, which have taken the form of sabotaging the Iranian electrical grid, cyberattacks (New York Times, 4/11/21) and murdering Iranian scientists (Politico, 3/5/18). Doubling down on its demands for belligerence, the editorial’s authors argued:
The US can help Israel prevent a larger war by putting pressure on Hezbollah and Iran. Expediting weapons to Israel, including deep-penetrating bombs that would put Iran’s nuclear facilities at risk, would send a message, as would enforcing oil sanctions again. Sending US warships to the eastern Mediterranean, as after October 7, would also make Iran think twice about Hezbollah’s next move.
The Journal seems to think that doing the same thing over and over again—namely, sending more weapons to Israel, choking Iranian civilians through sanctions (Canadian Dimension, 4/3/23) and upping the US military presence in the region—will produce different results. Maybe this time, the authors seem to suggest, Iran and Hezbollah will decide to just let the US and Israel dictate what happens across West Asia.
Nor does the editorial explore the possibility that Iran might be less inclined to strike Israel if Israel were to cease carrying out assassinations on Iranian soil, bombing its embassies (Reuters, 4/4/24) or carrying out genocide against Iran’s Palestinian allies.
‘Response to Hezbollah’
For the New York Times‘ Bret Stephens (7/30/24), Israel is at war not only with Hamas, Hezbollah and Iran, but with “Israel’s most strident critics” on campuses, with the “‘yes but’ thinking” that supports Israel while condemning civilian deaths, and with “Jews who provide moral cover and comfort to Israel’s enemies.”
In the New York Times, columnist Bret Stephens (7/30/24) put forth a similar view, writing that
the world will soon know the full shape and scale of Israel’s response to Hezbollah for [the] rocket attack on a Druze town in the Golan Heights, which killed 12 children.
Another problem with this line of argument is that there is some doubt as to whether it was a Hezbollah projectile that hit the Golan, and a great deal of doubt as to whether, if it was Hezbollah’s rocket, it was deliberately fired at Majdal Shams (LA Times, 7/30/24).
Despite Stephens’ suggestion that an Israeli assault on Lebanon would be a “response” to a Hezbollah “attack,” only 20% of Majdal Shams residents have accepted Israeli citizenship, while the bulk of the town’s inhabitants continue to be citizens of Syria (LA Times, 7/30/24).
Not content with last week’s attack on Beirut, Stephens wrote that
whatever Israel does next, it should be calculated to advance the national interests on all [fronts of its multifaceted wars]. If that means postponing a fuller response to explain its rationale, necessity and goal, so much the better.
The “fuller response” he has in mind seems to be more Israeli violence, since what it would be “fuller” than is the bombing of Beirut, and the premise of the article is that the Israeli government is fighting a five-fronted war. Worry not, Stephens assures his readers, any further Israeli bombings and assassinations will by definition be a “response,” and thus defensible.
‘Iranian imperialism’
Thomas Friedman (New York Times, 8/1/24) recasts the Gaza crisis as “part of a broader Iranian campaign to drive America out of the Middle East.”
Meanwhile, Stephens’ colleague Thomas Friedman (8/1/24) painted Iran as the primary aggressor in West Asia. He called Iran an “imperial power,” condemning “Iranian imperialism” and “Tehran’s regional imperialist adventure.” Iran’s goal, he asserted, is “to control the whole Arab world.”
Since Iran’s 1979 Islamic Revolution, the state has carried out zero full-scale invasions of Arab majority countries (and zero such attacks on non-Arab nations). In the same period, the US, which is evidently not imperialist, and not trying to “control the whole Arab world,” has carried out full-fledged invasions of Libya and (more than once) of Iraq. In addition to annexing and colonizing part of Syria, Israel has repeatedly invaded Lebanon. Colonizing, occupying and annexing Palestinian land, and now committing genocide against Palestinians, presumably also constitute the US and Israel seeking to “control” an important slice of the “Arab world.”
Yet in Friedman’s topsy-turvy universe, Iran is the main source of violence in the region. That misleading framing wrongly suggests that past and future acts of war against Iran are legitimate and necessary.
Nobody knows what the political and military outcome of a broader conflagration in the Middle East would be, but the human and environmental toll on the region would be colossal. High-profile pundits in America are doing their part to help such an outcome materialize.
This post was originally published on FAIR.
-
The mainstream media is reluctant to fully confront the nature of the far-right riots, and has a history of structural Islamophobia and racism, argues MRC co-founder Des Freedman.
“The media and political class is complicit in the far right, racist and Islamophobic violence we’re seeing across our country.”
That’s what the Coventry South MP Zarah Sultana tweeted after doing her best to get the presenters of ITV’s Good Morning Britain – including Ed Balls, husband of the Home Secretary – to acknowledge that the ongoing fascist-organised pogroms against Muslims in the UK should be described as Islamophobic.
The very idea that there should even be a debate about whether we’re seeing specifically anti-Muslim racism when mosques are being targeted and anti-Muslim slogans chanted is laughable. If synagogues were being firebombed and Jewish people physically assaulted on the streets, we can assume that there wouldn’t be a debate on whether this was an example of anti-Semitism.
Meanwhile, media reports of the riots all too often talk of ‘two sides’ facing up to each other – such as the BBC’s reporting of a far-right mobilisation in Plymouth which was opposed by anti-racist groups – trying to equate fascist violence with defence of communities under attack. At other times, we see journalists bending over backwards to ‘understand’ the motivations of people willing to attack mosques by describing them as simply ‘pro-British’. Some outlets are even prepared to quote known fascists without any hesitation, such as an article in the Southend Echo which actually concluded with a long quote from Britain First co-founder Paul Golding that was not rebutted.
Far from the media systematically calling the riots fascist and Islamophobic, there’s a real danger that the media are reluctant to alienate too many of their potential audience. This is because Islamophobia runs very deep in British society and has been fostered by politicians whether Labour, Tory or further to the right. For example, prime minister Keir Starmer, when condemning the ‘rioters’ at this week’s Cabinet, focused on “violent disorder” and “criminal activity” without actually mentioning Islamophobia, while it’s less than a year ago that then-Home Secretary Suella Braverman’s ‘dog whistle’ over pro-Palestine marches actually encouraged fascists onto the streets.
A legacy of media Islamophobia
But Islamophobia is amplified as well by a media that has long sought to portray Muslims as a ‘problem’ that needs tackling and, more broadly, immigration as a ‘boil’ that needs lancing. Sometimes this takes the most obvious and disgusting form – witness the endless headlines in tabloids like the Mail, Express and Sun lambasting immigrants (mostly when they’re not white) and the platforming across the media of anti-immigrant politicians claiming that “we want our country back”.
Anti-Muslim racism, however, is not confined just to the tabloids. The majority of the mainstream media jumped on the ‘Stop the Boats’ agenda thus further normalising the argument that ‘illegal migration’ is the main problem faced by a country whose assets have stripped by billionaires and corrupt politicians, not desperate refugees. Meanwhile Nigel Farage, whose general election campaign in Clacton was effectively focused on stopping immigration, accounted for 10% of all TV coverage of individuals during the election – significantly more than any other politician except for Starmer and Rishi Sunak.
As the Centre for Media Monitoring argued back in 2021, mainstream media coverage of Islam is overwhelmingly hostile and distorted. In a comprehensive study of mainstream media, nearly 60% of articles were found to associate Muslims with ‘negative aspects and behaviour’. The report concluded that ‘a large section of the media still favours voices that echo colonial-era tropes which see Muslims as dangerous fanatics, terrorists and misogynists whilst giving preference to voices which regurgitate these tropes.’
Nothing has changed. The Sun’s ‘topic’ page on Islam right now leads with the following categories: Terrorism, Hamas News, Israel Hamas War and Judaism. There is nothing that associates Muslims with any positive contribution to society.
Of course, the British media have, for many years, published sensationalist accounts of crimes and ‘negative behaviour’. When white people or Christians are convicted of crimes, their ethnicity or religion is not usually reported or seen as relevant. But when black or Asian people are associated with crime, the media all too often highlight their ethnicity or religion (or both) as causal – suggesting that their backgrounds made these crimes almost inevitable and making this the fault of whole communities.
This is not accidental but structural racism. So Zarah Sultana is absolutely right to highlight the media’s central role in paving the way for this wave of fascist violence and to describe the media as ‘complicit’. The media’s historic misrepresentation and marginalisation of Muslims and their defensive coverage of immigration has led to a poisonous situation. They can pretend to throw up their hands in horror but this is, at least in part, on them.
This article was originally published on Counterfire and is reproduced here with kind permission.
The post Mainstream media’s complicity in far-right riots isn’t accidental – it’s structural appeared first on Media Reform Coalition.
This post was originally published on Media Reform Coalition.
-
By Nabeel Khalid with input from Dr. Matthew Gillett The University of Essex’s Digital Verification Unit (DVU) has demonstrated its crucial role in documenting human rights violations and supporting accountability efforts worldwide. Our recent work focusing on Iran showcases the power of digital verification in shedding light on critical human rights issues and contributing to international justice […]
This post was originally published on Human Rights Centre Blog.
-
Though summer is well underway, if you’re an avid reader like me, it’s never too late to get a list of good summer reads. And perhaps like me, you also have a towering stack of titles on your nightstand (or a growing list on your Kindle). But who can resist a clever short story, a …
This post was originally published on American Jewish World Service – AJWS.
-
A year ago, we celebrated a milestone victory: the Government of Canada finally released new rules ending fossil fuel subsidies.
This victory was a long time in the making. The federal government first promised to end these subsidies back in 2009. And over the last decade, we’ve been pushing them – with the help of allies and our supporters – to make good on that commitment.
Though the rules aren’t perfect, they do make it hard for the government to justify new taxpayer handouts to oil and gas companies.
But the job isn’t done
The rules released last year only apply to tax measures or spending that comes directly from government departments, like Natural Resources Canada or Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada. The rules don’t apply to public financing provided by crown corporations like Export Development Canada.
That’s a problem: most of the support to the oil and gas industry is being provided through Export Development Canada. Take last year. In 2023, the Government of Canada provided at least $18.6 billion in financial support to fossil fuel and petrochemical companies. Over $15 billion of that came from Export Development Canada.
Ending all Financing to the Fossil Fuel Sector
The Prime Minister has promised to eliminate all public financing from crown corporations for fossil fuels this year.
While new rules are being developed, it’s still far from certain whether they’re strong enough to do the job.
That’s why Prime Minister Trudeau needs to hear from as many people as possible. Last year, we delivered over 138,000 letters from people across Canada demanding that no more taxpayer money be used to prop up the oil and gas industry. This year, we want people to contact the Prime Minister directly.
So please help us celebrate this anniversary with Prime Minister Trudeau by sending him a postcard and reminding her that the job isn’t done yet.
Fossil Fuel Subsidies are Hurting Us
There is no justification for ongoing support to the oil and gas industry.
People across Canada continue to face both climate disasters and an affordability crisis: both are the result of our dependence on fossil fuels.
Taxpayer dollars should not be fueling climate pollution.
Send a postcard to Prime Minister Trudeau now!
The post Tell PM Trudeau to Stop Funding Fossil Fuels and Keep His Promise! appeared first on Environmental Defence.
This post was originally published on Environmental Defence.
-
On the edge of a field of banana trees outside the village of Linares, deep in the jungles of El Salvador, over a dozen disabled war survivors are scribbling down a recipe for organic, homemade fertilizer. Wilfredo Pena, the agricultural coordinator of AJWS grantee Asociación de Lisiados de Guerra de El Salvador (ALGES), is walking …
This post was originally published on American Jewish World Service – AJWS.
-
With the presidential contest in full swing, the Sinclair Broadcast Group appears to be ramping up its right-wing propaganda again.
While millions of Americans are subjected to the TV network’s electioneering, few know it. That’s because, like a chameleon, Sinclair blends into the woodwork.
Turn on your local news and you may well be watching a Sinclair station, even though it appears on your screen under the imprimatur of a major network like CBS, NBC or Fox.
Here in the DC area, I occasionally tune into the local ABC affiliate, WJLA. Its newscasters are personable, and I like the weather forecasts. But then I remember that WJLA is owned by Sinclair.
I know this only because I’m a weirdo who follows Sinclair, not because there’s any obvious on-air sign the network owns WJLA—there isn’t. That’s why Sinclair’s propaganda is so hard to detect.
Hijacking trust
A video collage of dozens of Sinclair anchors reading a script warning that “some members of the media use their platforms to push their own personal bias and agenda.”
While trust in the media has cratered in recent years, there’s a notable exception. “Seventy-six percent of Americans say that they still trust their local news stations—more than the percentage professing to trust their family or friends,” the New Yorker (10/15/18) reported.
Smartly, Sinclair leaves its affiliates alone long enough for them to develop a rapport with their audience. “In a way, the fact that it looks normal most of the time is part of the problem,” said Margaret Sullivan (CJR, 4/11/18), former public editor of the New York Times. “What Sinclair is cynically doing is trading on the trust that develops among local news people and their local audience.”
By hijacking this trusting relationship, Sinclair is able to sneak its propaganda into millions of American homes, including in presidential swing states where Sinclair owns more stations than any other network.
Sinclair does this by requiring its affiliates to air the right-wing stories it sends them. Because these segments are introduced or delivered by trusted local hosts, they gain credibility.
Mostly Sinclair’s sleight of hand goes undetected. But in 2018, the network pushed its luck by requiring anchors at stations across the country to read from the same Trump-like anti-media script. A video compilation of dozens if not hundreds of Sinclair anchors voicing the same “Orwellian” commentary went viral.
Despite the occasional brush up, Sinclair carries on largely under-the-radar, quietly gobbling up stations, mainly in cheaper markets. “We’re forever expanding—like the universe,” said longtime leader David Smith, who’s turned Sinclair into the country’s second-largest TV network. (See FAIR.org, 5/13/24.)
An anchor jumps ship
Popular Information (7/23/24) reported that Sinclair anchor Eugene Ramirez quit in part over a requirement that he air at least three stories from the network’s “Rapid Response Team” nightly. “The RRT has produced 147 stories this year that portray Democrats in a negative light,” Popular Information found, “and just seven stories that portray Democrats positively.”
Of the 294 TV stations that Sinclair owns or operates, at least 70 of them air Sinclair’s in-house national evening news broadcast. For a year and a half, this broadcast was anchored by Eugene Ramirez, but he resigned in January, and it’s not hard to see why.
Each night Ramirez was given a list of four stories produced out of Sinclair’s Maryland’s headquarters. From these, Ramirez had to select at least three to air. Often these stories were little more than writeups of press releases from right-wing politicians and groups, as Judd Legum and Rebecca Crosby report at Popular Information (7/23/24). One recent headline read, “Trump PAC Launches New Ad Hitting Democrats on Border: ‘Joe Biden Does Nothing.’”
Sinclair frequently booked far-right guests to appear on Ramirez’s broadcast, and he was “instructed not to interrupt them,” according to Popular Information. “Many of Sinclair‘s affiliates were not in big cities,” Ramirez was told, “and the content of the broadcast had to reflect the sensitivities of those viewers.” Progressive guests rarely if ever appeared.
Legum and Crosby also found that Sinclair requires around 200 of its affiliates to air its “Question of the Day,” which has included gems like, “Do you think former House Speaker Pelosi deserves some of the blame for January 6 riot?” But other questions are less obviously biased.
It’s one thing when a blowhard on Fox News asks, “Are you concerned violent criminals are crossing the border?” But it’s quite another when the same question is asked by a familiar and trusted local anchor.
The power of Sinclair is that questions like these are being posed not just by one trusted anchor, but by a small army of them in communities across the country every day. Elections are won and lost on less.
This post was originally published on FAIR.
-
The Economist published a cover story on July 6 with the stark image of a walker, a mobility device typically used by disabled people, with the United States presidential seal on it. “No Way to Run a Country,” the headline stated. Disabled people responded angrily on social media at the implication that mobility aids are disqualifying for office, mentioning former President Franklin Roosevelt, Texas Gov. Greg Abbott and Sen. Tammy Duckworth, all wheelchair users.
Similar visual messages previously appeared on a New Yorker cover (10/2/23) and in a Roll Call magazine political cartoon (9/6/23), both from the fall of 2023. The New Yorker cover showed President Joe Biden, former President Donald Trump, Rep. Nancy Pelosi and Sen. Mitch McConnell using walkers while competing in an athletic race. The joke was that it would be absurd for such elderly people to compete in a race, but the implication was that anyone similarly disabled might not be fit to serve in political office. None of these leaders use walkers in real life.
Economist (7/6/24)
The Roll Call cartoon showed the US Capitol transformed into the “Senate Assisted Legislating Facility,” with a stairlift and elderly people with walkers. Disability advocates often write about how the media and others should avoid using disabilities and medical conditions as metaphors, as it’s usually done to negatively stigmatize them.
The Economist cover appeared during a period of intense media conversation over presidential fitness, which ramped up just after the last presidential debate on June 27, and continued until Biden withdrew from his campaign for re-election on July 21. With Biden and Trump both older than any other presidential candidates in history—and both showing many common signs of age—media have been discussing their capabilities for years.
Ability and age shouldn’t be off the table as media topics during elections, but there are ways to have these conversations without promoting harm. By not interrogating “fitness for office” as a concept, the media has contributed to a culture in which two elderly presidential candidates constantly bragged about their prowess, culminating in the surreal moment of their competitive discussion of golfing abilities during the debate.
Disability organizations have created style guides for non-ableist journalism in general. In terms of covering political campaigns, some common pitfalls to avoid include: stating or implying that all disabilities or conditions are inherent liabilities, even cognitive disabilities; diagnosing candidates without evidence; using illness or disability as a metaphor; conflating age with ability; conflating physical and cognitive health; using stigmatizing language to describe incapacities; and highlighting issues with ability or health without explaining why they are concerning.
‘Agony to watch’
New Yorker (10/2/23)
Biden’s struggles with articulating and completing his thoughts during the last debate prompted a flurry of news stories, including reporting on his tendency to forget people and events (e.g., Wall Street Journal, 6/4/24; New York Times, 7/2/24). Some of the same outlets that had previously defended him against claims of being cognitively impaired (New York, 7/31/23) were suddenly diagnosing him with possible medical conditions and doubting his ability to lead (New York, 7/7/24).
The Hill (7/20/24) called Biden’s verbal gaffes “embarrassing,” and casually quoted insiders referring to “brain farts” with scorn. “It was agony to watch a befuddled old man struggling to recall words and facts,” the Economist wrote in an editorial (7/4/24), which accompanied the cover image of the walker and called for Biden to drop out. The piece linked to another Economist piece (6/28/24) which argued that Biden had failed to prove he was “mentally fit,” and called on him to stand down and make room for a “younger standard-bearer.”
There are reasonable concerns about the age of candidates, including that our leadership doesn’t represent the majority of the country demographically and that elderly candidates may not live long. But the Economist made implicit assumptions about age and disability, including that a “younger standard-bearer” would likely be more “mentally fit.” According to scientists, slower communication and short-term memory loss are associated with aging, but some other cognitive abilities have been shown to strengthen.
What’s more, Biden’s gaffes might have been “embarrassing” to him, or “agony” for him to experience, but characterizing disability or struggle from the outside as embarrassing or unpleasant to observe is a common form of ableism. It’s reasonable to report on his mistakes without editorializing and stigmatizing language.
Neither Trump nor Biden have a record of supporting the needs of disabled people while in office, especially around the Covid-19 pandemic. Still, their disabilities or capacity issues do deserve sensitivity. By insulting memory lapses and mobility issues, even implicitly, the media insults everyone with those conditions.
It seems some part of the media’s panic around the abilities of presidential candidates has more to do with elections than with who is running the country. Biden’s re-election chances fell into jeopardy after the debate. The Washington Post (7/22/24) recently made this clear. “Trump’s age and health under renewed scrutiny after Biden’s exit,” it reported:
After weeks of intense focus on President Biden’s health and age that ended with his withdrawal from the campaign on Sunday, the script has flipped: Former president Donald Trump is now the oldest presidential nominee in history—and one who has been less transparent about his medical condition than his former opponent.
The Post makes it sound as if media are passively reporting on the next inevitable story, and not actively choosing to focus its disability-related concerns around its election concerns.
Best in show?
Roll Call (9/6/23)
The recent Washington Post article (7/22/24) on Trump’s abilities points out that he hasn’t released his medical records since he was president, when he had “had heart disease and was obese.” It also points out his “elevated genetic risk of dementia.”
With the intense focus on medical records and physical tests, the news media often writes about the bodies of presidential candidates as if they were competing for Best in Show, instead of for a job that primarily involves decision-making, leadership and communication—and for which disability might even be an asset in terms of compassion and understanding.
News outlets have reported with concern on how Biden and Trump walk, despite the fact that the majority of people in their 80s deal with mobility challenges. (Biden is 81; Trump is 78.) According to the Boston Globe (3/12/24), “Joe Biden needs to explain his slow and cautious walk.” The news article does offer his physician’s explanation of neuropathy but doesn’t seem to accept it.
The article argues that Biden’s silence about his gait was contributing to concerns that he might have an illness like dementia or Parkinson’s. The Globe seemed to take for granted that Parkinson’s would be a problem for voters and not, say, an asset. Many voters have similar conditions and might appreciate the representation. The article then mentions that Biden’s slower walking might be a sign of diminished “mental capacity,” conflating physical and cognitive issues.
In 2020, there were similar articles about Trump showing signs of unsteadiness while walking and drinking from a glass of water, with the implication that difficulties with both might undermine his fitness for office (New York Times, 6/14/20).
No privacy for presidents?
Bloomberg (7/3/24)
The Americans with Disabilities Act protects disabled people from having to disclose details about their conditions. This is because stigma and bigotry are so widespread that it’s understood such details might be handled with prejudice by employers. Media outlets undermine those principles in their lust for detailed information about the medical records of presidential candidates.
Just after the last presidential debate, Bloomberg (7/3/24) insisted in a headline that “Presidential Candidates Shouldn’t Have Health Secrets.” The article not only demanded clarity on what caused Biden’s “poor performance” in the debate, but also that candidates go through independent medical evaluations, with the full results being released to the public. Implicit in this demand is that pre-existing conditions would be liabilities. Otherwise, why would the public need to know?
“Americans are naturally curious about the health of their president, and any sign of illness or frailty gets subjected to intense public scrutiny,” a follow-up Bloomberg article (7/10/24) insisted. Are Americans curious, or are the media? The article pointed out that the US obsession with presidential health is unusual; in most countries, leaders don’t release their medical records. Still, the article went into intense detail about everything known and speculated about in terms of Biden and Trump’s health, body weight, medications and the like.
The media’s focus on the physical imperfections of presidential candidates is biased not only towards abled people, but towards white men. Women and people of color are more likely to have pre-existing medical conditions, and more likely to face stigma as a result of them. The Washington Post (7/22/24) already noted that Kamala Harris hasn’t released her medical records, or responded to questions about it.
During the 2016 campaign for presidency, Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton fainted. Her doctor said she had pneumonia and was overheated. Not surprisingly, right-wing media used it as a chance to portray her as weak and unfit, but even some liberal outlets (CNN, 9/12/16), decided this was a significant incident worthy of endless commentary, speculation and demands for investigations. Fainting is something many people, especially women, experience routinely, as part of illness, heat, exhaustion or just standing for too long. The media worked to denormalize it.
Obsession with candidate bodies
NBC (7/4/24)
Overall, media seem to have a unique preoccupation with the bodies of presidential candidates–more than, say, members of Congress, Supreme Court justices or governors. There is a mythology around presidents, which Trump himself played into by recently referring to himself as a “fine and brilliant young man,” along with celebrating his survival of a recent assassination attempt.
Biden, who has historically portrayed himself as strong, and even claimed to overcome his stutter, finally started to let go of this mythology just before he dropped out of the race. He acknowledged age, exhaustion and slower speech. He joked about being fine besides his “brain.” And he mentioned that he might need more sleep. He was exhibiting another kind of strength through honesty, though it might have been strategic. It turned out to not be the most politically effective approach: Some media outlets highlighted him needing more sleep as headline-worthy and a red flag (NBC, 7/4/24; New York Times, 7/4/24).
The challenges Biden and Trump face in walking and speaking are evident to the public. Questions about underlying health issues are fair, but the implication of all of this “Best in Show” coverage is that people with significant disabilities, or even just a need for regular sleep, might face a hostile, intrusive media if they ran for president. And this discourse trickles down to how people feel permitted to speak about ordinary disabled civilians.
The presidency isn’t a sporting event. If media outlets are going to express concern about a candidate’s physical abilities, they should clarify what assumptions are guiding their concerns. As it stands, most of these articles and images just seem concerned with any signs of disability, which they implicitly associate with not being fit to serve.
This post was originally published on FAIR.
-
If you’ve been following public transit news in Canada, you may have heard that there is a new federal funding program for public transit that doesn’t actually fund better service for public transit. So what does this program fund and how could it be improved to meet the needs of cities and public transit riders across Canada today?
In case you missed it:
On July 17th, 2024, the federal government announced the details of a public transit funding program called the Canada Public Transit Fund (also known as the Permanent Public Transit Fund). Environmental groups, public transit rider advocacy groups and transit riders across Canada have been disappointed. It was good to see elements we recommended and expected, like the inclusion of some transit funding for rural and indigenous communities and standards for building more housing near public transit. However, the program is missing a crucial type of funding that can be used to ensure that buses, subways, and streetcars come more often – and on time – and to reduce transit fares in cities, towns, and rural communities. What’s more, the announced funding program won’t allow any funds to be available until 2026. We need reliable, affordable public transit right now in order to get transit riders where we need to go, on time and help Canada reduce transportation emissions to meet our climate goals.
Operations – overlooked!
The announced Canada Public Transit Fund is focused on what’s called “capital funding” – the type of funding that can be used to purchase new public transit vehicles and to expand and build infrastructure. This might sound sufficient without additional context. However, the Canada Public Transit Fund does not include what’s called “operations funding” – the type of funding that can be used to improve transit service frequency, reliability and convenience for riders today. If operations funding was included, it could be used to hire the drivers, mechanics, and other workers who make sure our buses, trains, and streetcars arrive on time and get us where we need to go. Public transit systems across the country are facing significant deficits in operations funding which may lead to cuts to service. Yet right now, not a single cent of the Canada Public Transit Fund’s $30 billion dollars is allowed to go towards solving this problem. As quoted in this CBC article: it’s kind of like funding a health care system to build new hospitals without paying for doctors and nurses to staff them!
Operations funding for public transit is crucial for the environment because it helps more people choose public transit and keeps polluting cars off the road. Essentially, better public transit service is the most important factor for influencing ridership: when transit isn’t convenient and reliable, people drive instead. A recent report by Environmental Defence and Equiterre, found that boosting operations funding is crucial to doubling public transit ridership by 2035 and reducing carbon emissions by 65 million tonnes. Without it, it will be impossible for transit systems to grow service at the pace needed to meet climate goals. That’s why Environmental Defence is calling for the Canada Public Transit Fund to include permanent operations funding – and to make the funding available without delay.
Types of funding aside, isn’t $30 billion enough?
Let’s look at a breakdown: The announced Fund includes $30 billion over 10 years, averaging at $3 billion per year. But missing from the context is that this new program is mostly a renewal and reorganization of existing transit funding programs, which have already expired or are soon to expire, like the Investing in Canada Infrastructure Program, the Zero Emission Transit Fund, the Active Transportation Fund and the Rural Transit Solutions Program. This means that not much has changed in annual levels of funding with this announcement. It is a continuation of status quo funding levels being announced for future years – not an increase. Given that new subway projects cost $1 billion per kilometre these days, and the cost of a single city’s (Vancouver, for example) transit expansion plans over the next 10 years are $21 billion, the amount of funding is barely enough to cover infrastructure needs, let alone much-needed public transit operations.
All levels of Government must work together
Some people think that funding public transit isn’t a responsibility of the federal government. In fact, public transit funding in Canada happens through cost-sharing agreements with all levels of government. The federal government plays an important role in influencing what kinds of projects and services get funded by provinces, based on what kinds of things the federal government is willing to share the cost of. The problem is that the federal government only shares 40% of the cost of public transit capital (infrastructure) projects, and not operations (service and maintenance). We believe the federal government should also offer a 40% cost share to improve transit operations, just like they are doing for capital – because this is needed to encourage provinces to contribute more into operations and grow service levels at the pace needed to tackle climate change.
TAKE ACTION: Sign our letter to tell the federal government to fund public transit service and stay tuned for more upcoming actions from Environmental Defence’s Clean Transportation team!
If you want to learn more about advocating for public transit funding in your community, reach out to engagement@environmentaldefence.ca
The post What’s the deal with the Canada Public Transit Fund? appeared first on Environmental Defence.
This post was originally published on Environmental Defence.
-
With Joe Biden’s historic decision to step aside as Democratic nominee for president and endorse Vice President Kamala Harris as his successor, the 2024 presidential race has suddenly transformed from an uninspiring duel between two old white men to something altogether different. Powered by coconut memes and refreshing cognitive competence, Harris has surged in popularity. Young voters, in particular, have shown a burst of enthusiasm.
The Washington Post, however, is concerned. An energetic alliance between progressives and liberals behind a woman who ran to the left of Biden during the 2020 primary could signal a leftward shift of the Democratic Party, which has generally been dominated by centrists over the last several decades. That’s not something the Jeff Bezos–owned Post has much interest in.
Kamala Harris is gaining ground against Donald Trump with most sub-groups of voters (Financial Times, 7/26/24).
‘What Harris needs to do’
The Washington Post (7/22/24) urges Kamala Harris to ” resist activist demands that would push her to the left and ignore the social media micro-rebellion that will follow.”
So the editorial board decided it was time to weigh in. A day after Biden’s announcement that he was withdrawing, it published the editorial “What Harris Needs to Do, Now, to Win” (7/22/24).
In the piece, the board implores Harris to abandon progressive policy priorities such as “widespread student debt cancellation” and “nationwide rent stabilization” that Biden has backed during his term as president. Instead of promoting these policies, according to the board, Harris should mercilessly turn her back on the progressive wing of the party:
Ms. Harris should both resist activist demands that would push her to the left and ignore the social media micro-rebellion that will follow. Ms. Harris’s pick of running mate could be a revealing early indicator, too. Tapping a politician likely to appeal to the median voter would serve her—and the country—best.
This, we are to think, is not simply about the more conservative policy preferences of the members of the Post’s board. It is cold, calculated and smart electoral strategy. After all, everyone knows that America is a center-right country, and general election voters would never get behind a progressive platform. (Never mind that Biden adopted a slate of progressive policy positions in a desperate attempt to resuscitate his ailing campaign, precisely because these policies are so popular with the general electorate.)
Misty memories of 2020
Not only that, but remember what happened in 2020? In the Post’s telling, during that presidential primary, Harris
tried to play down her record as a tough-on-crime California prosecutor and embrace the progressive left of the Democratic Party, backing policies that lacked broad appeal, such as Medicare-for-all. She did not make it out of 2019 before folding her campaign.
The implication here seems to be that support for progressive policies hampered Harris’s campaign. A strange hypothesis, given that progressives such as Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren did exceptionally well in that primary, and only lost after moderates consolidated around Biden in a last-minute tactical alliance.
Medicare-for-all, meanwhile, posted majority support from the American public throughout the 2020 primary season, and had garnered majority support for years before that, according to the Kaiser Family Foundation. To be fair to the Post, the polling on this issue was incredibly sensitive to the framing of the question, so you could easily point to some poor results for the policy as well, often found in Fox’s (unsurprisingly biased) polling. But, unlike with many of the polls that returned unfavorable results, the wording used by Kaiser was eminently even-handed.
Polling by Kaiser (10/16/20) finds that Medicare for All has remained broadly popular for years.
In any case, what matters for the Post’s suggestion about Harris’s fate in the 2020 primary is not views among the general population, but views among Democrats. With that group, polls consistently found overwhelming support for Medicare-for-all. At best, then, we might call the Post’s claims here misleading, an attempt to pawn off opposition to a policy on the general public when, in fact, it’s really the paper that takes issue with it.
Ignoring full employment
Biden’s stimulus bill succeeded in keeping unemployment low for a span unprecedented in the past half century (Slate, 7/24/24)—but the Washington Post doesn’t want to talk about that.
The policies that the Post prefers Democrats to push are of a different sort, the Very Serious and bipartisan sort. Because only when Republicans also sign off on legislation is it any good. As the Post calls for a rightward turn from Harris, it celebrates the scarce moments of bipartisanship (sort of) over the last few years:
In the White House, Mr. Biden’s approach helped get substantial bipartisan bills over the finish line, investing in national infrastructure and critical semiconductor manufacturing. He also signed a bill that should have been bipartisan: the nation’s most ambitious climate change policy to date.
Conspicuously absent from the editorial is any mention of the American Rescue Plan, the stimulus bill passed in the spring of 2021 that spurred the most rapid and egalitarian economic recovery in recent American history. As the progressive journalist Zach Carter noted in a recent article titled “Full Employment Is Joe Biden’s True Legacy” (Slate, 7/24/24):
Across the 50 years preceding Biden’s tenure in office, the US economy enjoyed only 25 total months with an unemployment rate below 4%. Biden did it for 27 consecutive months—a streak broken only in May of this year, as an expanding labor force pushed the rate over 4% even as the economy actually added more jobs.
Given that the stimulus bill can claim much of the credit for this outcome, it stands as arguably the most significant legislative accomplishment of the Biden administration. For the Post, though, that’s apparently not worth highlighting.
Politically toxic
It’s “surprisingly doable” to cut the national debt, says the Washington Post (7/23/24)–especially if you don’t mind imposing cuts that are overwhelmingly unpopular.
Also conspicuously missing from the Post editorial is any discussion of the potential electoral damage that could result from continuing Biden’s support for the ongoing genocide in Gaza. In May of this year, the American Arab Institute estimated, based on their polling, that Biden could lose as many as 177,000 Arab American votes compared to his performance in 2020 across four swing states. It would be worth discussing this policy failure, and the ways in which Harris should break from Biden on Gaza, if the Post were really interested in helping Harris win. But that would distract the paper from advocating incredibly unpopular centrist policies.
Take its editorial (7/23/24) published a day after it admonished Harris for supporting Medicare-for-all, due to that policy’s supposed unpopularity. This piece finds the editorial board once again calling for cuts to Social Security, specifically through raising the retirement age. Benefit cuts are opposed by 79% of Americans, and raising the retirement age polls almost equally badly, with 78% of Americans opposing an increase in the retirement age from 67 to 70. Yet the Post evidently finds it critical to advocate this politically toxic policy just as Harris gets her campaign off the ground and starts shaping her platform.
As of now, it looks like Harris could break either way in the coming months. Her choice to tap Eric Holder, a corporate Democrat hailing from the Obama administration, to vet candidates for vice president, suggests a possible rightward shift. As do her team’s overtures to the crypto world. On the other hand, her relatively cold reception of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu during his recent visit could signal a leftward turn.
In short, Harris seems to remain persuadable on the direction of her campaign and the content of her platform. Unfortunately, while the Washington Post is doing its best to convince Harris to move right, there exists no comparable outlet representing the interests of the progressive wing of the party that can fight back.
ACTION ALERT: You can send a message to the Washington Post at letters@washpost.com.
Please remember that respectful communication is the most effective. Feel free to leave a copy of your message in the comments thread here.
This post was originally published on FAIR.
-
Summertime for many people represents a time of relaxation and fun. Increasingly it’s becoming synonymous with heatwaves and extreme weather events caused by climate change.
As the climate continues to change and average global temperatures rise, heat domes, heat waves, and extreme temperatures days will become more frequent. For example, research by climate scientists working with the Canadian government show that the recent June heatwave in Ontario, Quebec and several Atlantic regions was two to 10 times more likely because of climate change.
Despite studying climate change and my familiarity with impacts like drought and extreme heat, I had never heard of the term ‘heat dome’ before 2021. It describes an extreme heat weather phenomenon where hot air gets pushed down and trapped under a high-pressure system – keeping temperatures soaring for days without relief.
During the 2021 heat dome in BC, temperatures were up to 20 degrees celsius above normal. 619 people in communities around the province died directly from the heat. The health of many others was negatively impacted, and as emergency services were overwhelmed in the Lower Mainland many additional people died of other preventable causes.
That summer I was living in Vancouver. Our rental unit was on the top floor of a two-story building, which was probably finished in the 1970s. The building wasn’t well insulated and the narrow floor plan notably didn’t allow for a cross breeze. But I loved the brightness of the living room’s large west-facing windows. However, during the heat dome a relentless sun beat down on the windows. Despite our efforts to cover them, the temperature inside ranged between 35 to 40 degrees for days.
My home office in Vancouver where I lived during the 2021 heat dome Like many buildings in Vancouver, and rental buildings in particular, our apartment didn’t have air conditioning. Air conditioners in the Lower Mainland sold out in the hot days of early June, with supply chains strained by the pandemic. We bought fans. We tried all the tricks: cover the windows and block out the sun during the day, and at night push the warm inside air out through one open window with a fan blowing outside and pull the cooler air in with a second fan directed into the apartment from another window.
But the thing about a heat dome is that the air barely cools off in the evening. The nighttime temperature of our apartment remained at 30 degrees. Because of the pandemic, we didn’t have options for other places to go.
Even after years of working on climate change and warning about its impacts, the first time you or a loved one is directly touched by a climate change induced extreme weather is shaking. My heart goes out to all those who lost loved ones during those days.
Extreme heat is a serious threat. 2023 was the hottest year yet on record, and we can expect temperatures to trend upward at least until we stop emitting greenhouse gas pollution. It’s worthwhile to familiarize yourself with the signs, symptoms, and first aid for dealing with heat stress related illnesses. Fatalities from heat are difficult to track, but studies estimate that there are roughly five million deaths per year around the world associated with extreme temperatures.
It’s important to remember that while heat related illness can affect anyone, those most at risk during heat waves are societies’ most vulnerable: elderly people, children, pregnant people, people with disabilities or pre-existing health conditions, people experiencing homelessness without cool places to shelter, and low-income people and renters without access to air conditioning or the ability to secure it. What’s true for heat impacts is true of climate change broadly speaking as well; people who are vulnerable or have been marginalized bear a disproportionate burden from the climate crisis.
So how do we bring down the heat? Well, for one, we stop fueling the fire. We need to phase out the fossil fuels causing climate change: coal, oil, and gas.
TAKE ACTION: STOP BIG OIL FROM POLLUTING OUR CLIMATE
We need to prepare for more frequent extreme temperature days, heatwaves, and heat domes. That means learning how to stay safe in the heat, checking in on friends and neighbours to make sure everyone is okay during heatwaves. It means better worker protections for people who work outside or in spaces that can’t manage to keep things adequately cool. It means opening up more public cooling spaces more often, and making sure that our homes and buildings can stay at safe temperatures.
That’s why electric heat pumps are an integral climate solution. They help us adapt to climate change by cooling in the summer, heating in the winter, and using electricity instead of gas or heating oil so we can stop using fossil fuels in buildings.
Electric heat pumps provide heat when it’s cold outside and air conditioning when it’s hot outside We must transition away from fossil fuels, the main source of climate change causing emissions, or global warming will keep getting worse. Until then, stay cool, stay safe, and join us in taking action.
The post Too Hot to Handle: My First Experience with Extreme Heat appeared first on Environmental Defence.
This post was originally published on Environmental Defence.
-
As the Democratic Party began to coalesce behind Kamala Harris, the New York Times‘ popular Morning newsletter (7/23/24) quickly put forward the knee-jerk corporate media prescription for Democratic candidates: urging Harris to the right.
Under the subhead, “Why moderation works,” David Leonhardt explained that “the average American considers the Democratic Party to be further from the political mainstream than the Republican Party.”
As evidence, he pointed to two polls. The first was a recent Gallup poll that found Trump leading Biden on the question of who voters agreed with more “on the issues that matter most to you.” The second was a 2021 Winston poll asking people to rate themselves on an ideological scale in comparison to Democratic and Republican politicians; people on average placed themselves closer to Republicans than to Democrats.
Of course, these polls, which ask only about labels and perceptions, tell you much more about the fuzziness—perhaps even meaninglessness—of those labels than about how well either party’s policy positions align with voters’ interests, and what positions candidates ought to take in order to best represent those voters’ interests. Responsible pollsters would ask about actual, concrete policies in the context of information about their impact; otherwise, as former Gallup editor David Moore has pointed out (FAIR.org, 2/11/22), they merely offer the illusion of public opinion.
‘Radical’ Democrats
For the New York Times‘ David Leonhardt (7/23/24), the first question about Kamala Harris is “whether she will signal that she’s more mainstream than other Democrats.”
And where do people get the idea that the Democratic Party is, as Leonhardt says, “radical,” and misaligned with them on important issues?
Of course, the right-wing media and right-wing politicians offer a steady drumbeat of such criticism, painting even die-hard centrists like Joe Biden as radical leftists. But centrist media play a starring role here, too, having long portrayed progressive Democratic candidates and officials as extreme and out of step with voters.
For instance, the Times joined the drumbeat of centrist media attacks on Sen. Bernie Sanders for supposedly being too far out of the mainstream to be a serious 2016 presidential candidate (FAIR.org, 1/30/20). Forecasting the 2016 Democratic primary race, the Times’ Trip Gabriel and Patrick Healy (5/31/15) predicted that
some of Mr. Sanders’ policy prescriptions—including far higher taxes on the wealthy and deep military spending cuts—may eventually persuade Democrats that he is unelectable in a general election.
As FAIR (6/2/15) noted at the time, most of Sanders’ key progressive positions—including raising taxes on the wealthy—were actually quite popular with voters. Cutting military spending is not quite as popular as taxing the rich, but it often outpolls giving more money to the Pentagon—a political position that the Times would never claim made a candidate “unelectable.”
Voters’ leading concern this election year (as in many election years) is the economy, and in particular, inflation and jobs. As most corporate media outlets have reported recently (e.g., Vox, 4/24/24; CNN, 6/26/24), economists are warning that Trump’s proposed policies—massive tax cuts for the wealthy and corporations, as well as increased tariffs—will increase inflation. So, too, would deporting tens of millions of immigrants, as Trump claims he will do, as this would cause a major labor shortage in an already tight job market.
(It’s also worth noting here that, even without being given more context, a majority of respondents oppose Trump’s deportation plan—Gallup, 7/12/24.)
Representative democracy needs informed citizens who understand how well candidates will reflect their interests. Reporting like Leonhardt’s, using context-free polling and blithely ignoring the disconnect between what people concretely want and what candidates’ policies will do, only strengthens that disconnect and undermines democracy further.
‘Promising to crack down’
As the New York Times (7/24/24) has elsewhere noted, crime rates are currently lower than they have been in more than a generation.
Believing he has established that Democrats in general are “radical” (or else believing it’s more his job to pretend they are than to dispel the notion), Leonhardt in the next section asks, how can Harris “signal that she’s more mainstream than other Democrats”?
He offers “five Democratic vulnerabilities,” the first of which he says is crime—”the most natural way for Harris to show moderation,” since she is “a former prosecutor who won elections partly by promising to crack down on crime. Today, many Americans are worried about crime.”
Again, Leonhardt takes a misperception among voters—that crime rates are elevated—and rather than attempting to debunk it based on data, which show that violent and property crime rates are lower than they’ve been in more than a generation (FAIR.org, 7/25/24), he allows the unchallenged misperception to buttress his move-to-the-center strategy recommendation.
Next is immigration, where Leonhardt wrote that, since
most Americans are deeply dissatisfied that Biden initially loosened immigration rules…I’ll be fascinated to see whether Harris—Biden’s point person on immigration—tries to persuade voters that she’ll be tougher than he was.
The truth is, it’s hard to get much tougher on immigration than Biden without going the route of mass deportation and caging children, as he kept in place many of Trump’s harsh refugee policies, much to the dismay of immigrant rights advocates. But few in the public recognize that, given media coverage that dehumanizes immigrants and fearmongers about the border (FAIR.org, 6/2/23, 8/31/23).
‘Outside the mainstream’
In the face of racist and misogynist attacks on Kamala Harris from the Republican Party (Atlantic, 7/25/24), Leonhardt demanded that Harris prove she’s not “quick to judge people with opposing ideas as ignorant or hateful.”
Leonhardt called inflation another “problem for Harris,” again, without pointing out the reality that a Trump presidency would almost certainly be worse for inflation. And he closed with the problems of “gender issues” and “free speech,” which both fall under the “woke” umbrella that the Times frequently wields as a weapon against the left (FAIR.org, 3/25/22, 12/16/22).
He argues that liberals are “outside the mainstream” in supporting “gender transition hormone treatment for many children,” which he claims “doctors in Europe…believe the scientific evidence doesn’t support.” Leonhardt is cherry-picking here: While some doctors in some European countries believe that—most notably doctors in Britain who are not experts in transgender healthcare—it’s not the consensus view among medical experts in either Europe or the United States (FAIR.org, 6/22/23, 7/19/24).
“If Harris took a moderate position, she could undermine Republican claims that she is an elite cultural liberal,” Leonhardt wrote. By a “moderate position,” Leonhardt seems to mean banning access to hormone therapy for trans youth—a decidedly right-wing political position that, through misinformed and misleading media coverage, particularly from the New York Times (FAIR.org, 5/11/23), has become more politically acceptable.
Finally, on “free speech,” Leonhardt wrote that “many Americans view liberals as intolerant,” noting that “Obama combated this problem by talking about his respect for conservative ideas, while Biden described Republicans as his friends.”
It’s a topsy-turvy world in which the Black female candidate, who has received so many racist and sexist attacks in the past week that even Republican Party leaders have asked fellow members to tone it down (Atlantic, 7/25/24), is the one being admonished to be tolerant and respectful.
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.