Category: zSlider

  •  

    NYT: Biden and Lula Swap Insurrection Stories and Vow to Guard Democracy

    In the early days of Lula’s presidency, the New York Times (2/10/23) stressed what he had in common with Joe Biden (attempts to overthrow their governments) over what divided them (the Ukraine War).

    A front-page article (4/30/23) in the Sunday, April 30, edition of the New York Times served as a hit job against Brazil’s Landless Workers Movement (Movimento dos Trabalhadores Rurais Sem Terra, or MST), one of the most important historic allies of President Lula da Silva’s Brazilian Workers Party. Two days later, the Times ran an op-ed piece (5/2/23) framed to damage Lula’s reputation. Together, these pieces represent a troubling narrative shift in the newspaper of record’s Brazil coverage.

    The Times published years of yellow journalism against Lula and the Workers Party, including 37 one-sided articles promoting the deceptions of the now-disgraced, US DoJ–backed Car Wash prosecutorial witch hunt. With the 2018 election of neofascist President Jair Bolsonaro, and his close relationships with Donald Trump and Steve Bannon’s far-right international network, the Times began to temper its approach.

    When Lula returned to office at the beginning of 2023, he got a honeymoon period in the paper, in which its coverage remained relatively neutral (e.g., 2/10/23, 4/14/23). Even after Lula’s April 2023 visit to China, the Times (4/20/23) published a more or less straightforward article, despite the Brazilian president pledging to stop using the dollar in trade between the two nations, and suggesting that the US and NATO were exacerbating the war in Ukraine. The Times remained neutral as Western news agencies Reuters and AP delivered a White House warning to the Lula administration (FAIR.org, 4/21/23).

    ‘Marxists May Take It’

    NYT: If You Don’t Use Your Land, These Marxists May Take It

    The New York Times (4/30/23) waits 18 paragraphs before hinting that the reason “Marxists” may take unused land is that doing so is completely legal under the Brazilian constitution.

    This changed on April 30 with an article that appeared online under the Red Scare headline “If You Don’t Use Your Land, These Marxists May Take It.” (The print version, also April 30, had a more neutral headline, “Brazilian Group Occupies Land Unused by Rich.”) Superimposed over a photo of a poor village next to a tilled field, the subhead reads: “The Landless Workers Movement organizes Brazil’s poor to take land from the rich. It is perhaps the largest—and most polarizing—social movement in Latin America.”

    To a casual news reader, the article—by Times Brazil correspondent Jack Nicas—probably looks balanced. It features quotes from residents of a recent MST settlement as well as someone misleadingly introduced as a farmers’ “union” leader, a member of a new armed movement to keep people off unproductive land. It even correctly describes the MST as one of Latin American’s largest producers of organic food.

    It’s the facts that are left out of the article that expose it as the hit job that it is. The omissions could easily be interpreted by Brazil’s oligarchical rural elites as a green light to commit more violence against the nation’s peasant class—on the rise since Bolsonaro and his allies began encouraging it in 2019.

    ‘Communist and criminal’

    Brazilian cattle rancher Everaldo Santos Melo, depicted in the New York Times

    “You defend what’s yours,” the New York Times (4/30/23) quotes a Brazilian cattle rancher—ignoring the fact that under Brazilian law, it’s those who fail to use their land, and not the beneficiaries of land reform, who are illegally squatting.

    The first thing missing from the piece is a proper explanation of the difference in land rights between Brazil and the US. It takes 18 paragraphs—ten paragraphs after telling readers that “many Brazilians view it as communist and criminal”—before it offers an incomplete admission that the MST works within the framework of Brazilian law:

    Despite the landless movement’s aggressive tactics, the Brazilian courts and government have recognized thousands of settlements as legal under laws that say farmland must be productive.

    Article V, section XXIII of Brazil’s 1988 Constitution stipulates that all property must serve a social function, which renders commonly practiced US real estate speculation tactics, such as land-banking, illegal in Brazil. As laid out in a series of laws based on this passage, any non-land owner has the right to occupy unproductive farmland and farm a modest plot—normally ranging between 10 and 40 hectares, depending on the biome.

    Furthermore, there is an entire government agrarian reform agency, INCRA, that is responsible for appropriating this land from its original owner at market rate, minus all back taxes owed plus interest, and providing a deed to the new owner. In many occupations coordinated by the MST, the ostensible owners of the unused land owe millions in taxes.

    Land-grabbing tradition

    A large percentage of them are unable to prove that they own the land at all, due to the common practice of land-grabbing, known as grilagem, which has been going on since the 19th century in Brazil. (The word is derived from grilo, or “cricket,” a reference to the trick of putting a bogus land deed in a box full of crickets to make it look authentically old.)

    Ricardo Salles poster: Vote .30-06

    Brazilian politician Ricardo Salles’ campaign ads encouraged the use of .30-06 ammunition “against the left and the MST.” He later became Bolsonaro’s environmental minister.

    One common tactic used by traditional rural elites, most of whom are descendants from slave plantation owners, is to buy the deed to a small amount of land, say 10 hectares, then build a fence around 10,000 hectares, and kick all of the peasant farmers out with armed gunmen. This violent process is one of the main factors that resulted in cities like São Paulo growing by five times or more between 1950 and 2000, as tens of millions of Northeastern peasants were forced off their land and migrated to the big cities of the southeast.

    Another common practice is to fence off huge tracts of Amazon rainforest, burn it down, then sell the land for soy farms or cattle ranching. These practices were not just tolerated by the Bolsonaro administration, but encouraged.

    During his first year in office, Bolsonaro issued an executive order forgiving grilagem  of Amazonian public lands that had taken place before December 2018, and expediting land deeds to the big ranchers and farmers who supported his presidential campaign. Furthermore, he liberalized gun laws and encouraged big farmers to stock up on weapons to “defend their land” (Bloomberg, 5/11/22). Consequently, murders of rural peasant leaders increased dramatically, by 75% in 2021, according to the Brazilian Catholic Church, which has been working closely with the MST since it was founded in 1984.

    This MST, which works within the law in partnership with INCRA, and is supported by the Catholic Church and its charities like Caritas, and has made a significant dent in poverty in Brazil, is the one widely seen as “communist and criminal,” according to the Times. It’s true that that is a narrative that has been actively spread by elite rural landowners and the Brazilian far right for decades, increasingly so during the Bolsonaro years. It’s no secret that the January 8 coup attempt against Lula was financed by big rural landowners. In its article, the New York Times treats the narrative as a rational concern raised by the “polarizing MST.”

    With dozens of peasant leaders assassinated every year by rural land barons and their hired gunmen, legitimizing this false narrative, as the Times does, encourages more violence against the rural poor. (The Times is widely read by Brazilian elites, who tend to view it as the world’s most important newspaper.)

    ‘Is Brazil Anti-American?’

    NYT: Is Brazil 'Anti-American' Now?

    The New York Times (5/2/23) later changed the headline to “My Country Is Reaching Out to People the West Can’t Stand.”

    The day after April 30 article on the MST, the New York Times (5/2/23) ran an op-ed piece by Vanessa Barbara, a Brazilian columnist for the right-wing Estado de São Paulo newspaper. Her paper is a historic supporter of the Brazilian military dictatorship (1964–85) and cheerleader for Operation Car Wash, the kangaroo court that resulted in Lula’s arbitrary election-season arrest and cleared the way for Bolsonaro’s election.

    Barbara’s op-ed provides a reasonably good explanation of the logic behind Lula’s foreign policy objectives, at least within the Overton window allowed in the Times’ op-ed section. (She does hold Brazil to a double standard by criticizing Lula for not recognizing Taiwan as an independent state, when the United States also doesn’t recognize the breakaway island’s independence.)

    The main issue with the piece is the headlines that editors put on it. The piece was launched online with the headline, “Is Brazil Anti-American Now?”—an odd choice, since the thrust of the piece was that Lula’s foreign policy should not be seen as anti-American. Since more people always see a headline than read the associated article, this headline seems likely to spread the idea that Lula might be anti-American among US readers and the Brazilian elites who follow the Times.

    The headline on the electronic version was later changed to “My Country Is Reaching Out to People the West Can’t Stand”—less aggressive but still negative.

    The print edition headline, on the May 3 op-ed page, had the headline: “Lula Isn’t Trying to Make Brazil a Pariah. He’s Just Being Pragmatic.” Like the MST story’s print headline, this more accurately reflected the content of the article—and perhaps reflected the paper’s more liberal readership in the New York City area.

    ‘Grand Visions Fizzle’

    NYT: Grand Visions Fizzle in Brazil

    The New York Times (4/12/14) playing its traditional role of insisting that attempts at radical change are doomed to failure.

    During Lula’s first two terms in office, the New York Times was forced to back down in embarrassment after its Brazil correspondent, Larry Rohter, used gossip from a political enemy to accuse Lula of being incapacitated from alcoholism in “Brazilian Leader’s Tippling Becomes National Concern” (5/9/04). For years afterwards, New York Times coverage of Brazil was more objective than most big US media groups.

    Then the 2014 election pitted Brazil’s first female president, Dilma Rousseff of the Workers Party, against US DNC favorite Aecio Neves, who hired David Axelrod’s former PR firm to run his social media campaign. The Times (4/12/14) ran a long hit piece by correspondent Simon Romero on the cover of its Americas section, full of depressing-looking black-and-white photographs, called “Grand Visions Fizzle in Brazil.”

    This ushered in a new era of negative reporting, full of false innuendo about Rousseff’s involvement in corruption schemes. The smear campaign served to normalize her technically illegal impeachment in 2016. The subsequent privatizations and neoliberal structural adjustment plunged tens of millions of people below the poverty line, and saw Brazil return to the UN’s World Hunger Map.

    I fear that, like Romero’s 2014 article, these two New York Times pieces are signaling a new era of biased reporting on Brazil. The fact that the editors twice changed the title of the op-ed piece suggests that they are still working out the details.


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

    The post NYT Signals Lula’s Post-Bolsonaro Honeymoon Is Over appeared first on FAIR.

    This post was originally published on CounterSpin.

  •  

     

    USA Today: Do past Supreme Court cases offer clues about how the justices view ethics, transparency?

    USA Today (5/6/23)

    This week on CounterSpin: USA Today reported that, “as it heads into the final stretch of its current term, the Supreme Court is on defense following a series of revelations about gifts, property sales and disclosure.” That, you might say, is putting it mildly. The recent revelations are not about trinkets, but millions of dollars’ worth of benefits, vacations, jobs—and not from nowhere in particular, but from powerful parties with express interest in shaping the Court’s decision-making. “Disclosure,” in this instance, is another word for democracy—people’s right to know (and act upon the knowledge of) what, besides their votes, is influencing the laws that shape their lives.

    As details of Clarence Thomas’ secret-but-not-so-secret relationship with Republican billionaire Harlan Crow—and also with Federalist Society head Leonard Leo—roll out, the John Roberts–led Supreme Court has told congressional leaders they don’t believe any ethics rules really apply to them, and that’s not a problem. Whether that cravenly elitist, anti-democratic notion gets to carry the day will depend on many things, one of them being journalists’ willingness to stick with the stories, explore their structural and historical roots, demand transparency, and keep reporting faithfully to the public about what is learned and what is not—and why not. Even or especially if the Court is “on defense.”

    Because the information out of the Supreme Court has, as Slate‘s Dahlia Lithwick has said, gone beyond an “ethics problem” to a “five-alarm fire” democracy-reform problem. And news media will be central to the response.

    We talk this week about the Supreme Court, where it’s going and where’s it taking all of us, with Ian Millhiser, who covers the Court for Vox, and is author of, most recently, The Agenda: How a Republican Supreme Court Is Reshaping America.

          CounterSpin230512Millhiser.mp3

     

    The post Ian Millhiser on Supreme Court Corruption appeared first on FAIR.

    This post was originally published on CounterSpin.

  •  

    CT Mirror: Lamont unveils plan to cancel billions in CT medical debt

    CT Mirror (2/2/23)

    Connecticut Gov. Ned Lamont proposed on February 2 to purchase and forgive roughly $2 billion in medical debt owed by state residents. Along with similar proposals in other jurisdictions, the plan offers desperately needed relief from stress and fear to thousands of people who are struggling to pay their current outstanding medical bills. Unfortunately, these programs will do nothing to prevent millions more Americans from falling into the country’s healthcare financial meat grinder.

    Meanwhile, three major credit reporting agencies have decided to expunge paid-off medical debts and outstanding debt less than $500 from credit reports, and provide people a year’s grace period before adding new medical debt to credit reports.

    Like the debt forgiveness proposals, these credit decisions follow a wave of national publicity about the horrors of healthcare debt. In recent years, major news outlets, including the New York Times (e.g., 11/8/19, 9/24/22), Guardian (6/27/19), ProPublica (e.g., 6/14/21), National Public Radio (13/21/22), Kaiser Health News (9/10/19, 12/21/22) and CBS (4/28/21) have dug into the nightmares faced by tens of millions of Americans—both uninsured and with insurance—as they try to pay for the treatments and medicines they need to lead healthy lives.

    Compelling and consistent

    NYT: With Medical Bills Skyrocketing, More Hospitals Are Suing for Payment

    This New York Times headline (11/8/19) could have just as easily run in 2003 as in 2019.

    The stories are heartrending. Families’ lives wrecked financially by bill collectors and lawyers. Sick and injured patients’ health deteriorating due to mountains of debt and stress, with some providers even refusing follow up care until bills are paid. They highlight a set of corporate billing and collections policies and practices that turn a visit to a doctor or hospital into a years-long hell.

    Such investigations touch on common themes, including hospitals suing patients en masse:

    • “Ballad, which operates the only hospital in Wise County and 20 others in Virginia and Tennessee, filed more than 6,700 medical debt lawsuits against patients last year.” (New York Times, 11/8/19)
    • “The hospital that pursued Mr. Bushman, a 295-bed not-for-profit facility called Carle Foundation Hospital, is one of several that has at times employed debt collection tactics that are shunned by many other creditors. It has filed hundreds of lawsuits.” (Wall Street Journal, 10/30/03)

    Hospitals layering large interest payments on top of already crushing debt, and collecting through tactics like garnishing wages and seizing bank accounts:

    • “Barrett, who has never made more than $12 an hour, doesn’t remember getting any notices to pay from the hospital. But…Methodist Le Bonheur Healthcare sued her for the unpaid medical bills, plus attorney’s fees and court costs.
      “Since then, the nonprofit hospital system affiliated with the United Methodist Church has doggedly pursued her, adding interest to the debt seven times and garnishing money from her paycheck on 15 occasions.”Barrett, 63, now owes about $33,000, more than twice what she earned last year.” (Guardian, 6/27/19)
    • “Tolson said she went to Yale-New Haven…to be treated for a staph infection. She had to stay at the hospital for eight days and got a bill for $9,000. She told the hospital she didn’t have a job or insurance and was told to seek welfare assistance. Because her husband had a small income, she didn’t qualify for state or federal assistance, she said.”She tried on several occasions to set up payment plans, but even with a job she wasn’t able to meet the payment schedule, she said. Her bank account was frozen, and when she called to discuss the problem the hospital’s agents were unwilling to budge on the issue, she claims.”‘I told them “I’m not working,” and they said “you should have thought about that then,”’ Tolson said. “Her bill is now $14,000.” (Connecticut Post, 12/17/03)

    Hospitals threatening and taking patients’ homes through liens and foreclosures:

    • “Heather Waldron and John Hawley are losing their four-bedroom house in the hills above Blacksburg, Va. A teenage daughter, one of their five children, sold her clothes for spending money. They worried about paying the electric bill. Financial disaster, they say, contributed to their divorce, finalized in April.”Their money problems began when the University of Virginia Health System pursued the couple with a lawsuit and a lien on their home to recoup $164,000 in charges for Waldron’s emergency surgery.” (KHN, 9/10/19)
    • “Still, the hospital administers strong legal medicine for cases of minor financial wounds. It presses for foreclosure for debts a fraction of a house’s worth. It pursued a $2,889.12 debt against a couple in Westville all the way to foreclosure, by which time fees and interest pushed the debt to $6,517.64.” (New Haven Advocate, 4/17/03).

    Nonprofit hospitals failing to offer patients charity care, sometimes in violation of state law or the hospital’s own internal charity care policies:

    • “Harriet Haffner-Ratliffe, 20, gave birth to twins at a Providence hospital in Olympia, Wash…. She was eligible under state law for charity care.”Providence did not inform her. Instead it billed her almost $2,300. The hospital put her on a roughly $100-a-month payment plan.” (New York Times, 9/24/22)
    • “The lawsuit also accused the hospital of failing to inform needy patients that the financial assistance was available and hiring aggressive collection agencies to go after patients who had not paid their bills.” (New Haven Register, 2/19/03)

    Patients skipping care or having providers refuse care due to debt:

    • “After a year of chemo and radiation…Penelope Wingard finally heard the news she’d been praying for: Her breast cancer was in remission. But with relief immediately came worry about her finances.”Wingard had received Medicaid coverage through a temporary program for breast cancer patients. When her treatment ended, she became uninsured.”Bills for follow-up appointments, blood tests and scans quickly piled up. Soon, her oncologist said he wouldn’t see her until she paid down the debt.” (KHN, 12/21/22)
    • “During Michael’s past admissions to the hospital, Margaret says, she asked staff members if there was some way to discount or waive the charges—figuring that Christ Medical, a nonprofit institution sponsored by religious organizations, might be inclined to help. But the answer, she says, was always no. So, as the hospital bills piled up on the dining table, Margaret lay awake at night, wondering how the family would crawl out from under the debt. On that April morning, as Michael kept insisting that it was ‘just the flu,’ she suspected that it was something more serious. But Michael wouldn’t let her take him to the ER, and eventually Margaret headed to work. When she returned that night, she found him on the floor, dead.” (New York Times, 12/19/04)

    The stories are compelling, consistent and comprehensive, exposing in detail the devastating consequences of a healthcare system that forces patients—some uninsured, others with inadequate health insurance—to assume unmanageable financial burdens for needed medical treatment. Based on analysis of large volumes of public records and interviews with dozens of victims, they include follow-up reporting on actions taken by hospitals in response to publicity, and legislative and legal actions in support of debtors. In short, everything good investigative journalism should be.

    Except for one problem: The second example in each pair above is 20 years old.

    An evergreen problem

    The first examples are drawn from work by the New York Times, Guardian and Kaiser Health News (KHN, recently rebranded as KFF Health News), which recently teamed up with National Public Radio for a series called “Diagnosis: Debt.” Along with the 2019–20 “Profiting from the Poor” investigative series published jointly by ProPublica and MLK50: Justice Through Journalism, these stories are part of a wave of recent medical debt coverage.

    WSJ: Jeanette White Is Long Dead But Her Hospital Bill Lives On

    Wall Street Journal (3/13/03)

    The second quotes, indistinguishable in the suffering of the profiled patients and the issues addressed, are from 2003–04, including a Wall Street Journal series by reporter Lucette Lagnado (3/13/03, 3/17/03, 4/1/03, 6/10/03). Lagnado’s work began in Connecticut, where Paul Bass, editor of the weekly New Haven Advocate, had dug into court records to reveal aggressive legal practices by Yale-New Haven Hospital in 2001. Lagnado spent months tracking down debtors and examining the same public records that form the basis for the latter-day stories.

    Then as now, follow-up stories show embarrassed individual hospital systems forgiving the debts of people named in the stories and many other current debtors, then usually promising to reduce the ferocity of their collection tactics (Wall Street Journal, 4/1/03; New Haven Register, 3/19/04; ProPublica, 7/30/19; KHN, 9/10/19; ProPublica, 9/24/19).

    MLK50: Profiting From the Poor

    MLK50 (4/28/20)

    Lagnado’s work in 2003 was recognized at the time by the Annenberg School of Journalism at USC as one of three finalists for the 2004 Selden Ring Award for Investigative Reporting.

    Sixteen years later, MLK50 founding editor Wendi C. Thomas won the Selden Ring Prize for her series jointly published with ProPublica. The two organizations shared a 2020 Loeb award for local reporting and a bronze medal from the Barlett & Steele Awards for Investigative Journalism, given by the Walter Cronkite School at Arizona State University. The same year, Kaiser Health News Jay Hancock and Elizabeth Lucas were Pulitzer Prize finalists for investigative reporting for their healthcare debt work.

    Medical debt, it turns out, is an evergreen problem, a perpetual source of torment for patients, prizes for reporters, and controversy over incremental, poll-tested policy changes that for two decades have failed to stem the flood tide of medical debt that is drowning millions of people. These gradualist approaches have, however, succeeded in deflecting attention from the only real solution to the problem—a national health insurance system like Medicare for All that would cover everyone, all the time, without holes in coverage that lead to catastrophic personal debt.

    Community outrage

    Quinton White

    Quinton White (Wall Street Journal, 4/1/03)

    Lagnado’s 2003 series appeared during campaigns against abusive medical debt collection in several states, including Illinois, California, Washington and Connecticut, where Lagnado’s initial iconic profile of Quinton White (Wall Street Journal, 3/13/03) chronicled his 20-year struggle with debt from his wife’s treatment at Bridgeport Hospital.

    White suffered nearly all the indignities hospitals impose on indebted patients. By the time Lagnado found him, White had seen the hospital attach a lien to his house and drain most of his bank account. Interest ballooned the debt; White had paid $16,000 of the original $18,740 over the years, but the Yale New Haven Health System, which had acquired Bridgeport Hospital in 1996, was pursuing him for an additional $39,000 in remaining principal, interest and fees.

    Prompted by community outrage at the tactics described by Lagnado, and in a series of reports from the nonprofit Connecticut Center for a New Economy (CCNE), local labor unions, a church-based grassroots movement, Yale University public interest lawyers and hospital patients built a campaign to take on Yale-New Haven and the statewide hospital industry.*

    Four lawsuits, a series of demonstrations with hundreds of people, a grassroots lobbying campaign and ongoing media coverage yielded progress. The Connecticut General Assembly passed a law cutting interest on medical debt to 5% and requiring hospitals to inform patients of available financial assistance and to stop collections against eligible patients. The law limited billing of uninsured patients to the actual cost of their care, and required hospitals to report on their collection activity. Under intense local pressure, Yale-New Haven Health went further than the new state law, settling lawsuits by removing thousands of property liens and forgiving more than 20,000 accounts worth millions of dollars in outstanding debt.

    The final lawsuit against Yale-New Haven was a class action focused on the practice of billing uninsured patients at wildly inflated “sticker prices”. Filed a year and a half after Lagnado’s first article, it was one of dozens brought against nonprofit hospital systems nationwide in 2004 by members of the Not-for-Profit Litigation Group, led by trial lawyer Richard “Dickie” Scruggs, one of the lead attorneys in the 1990s tobacco litigation. From the middle of 2004 through 2005, Scruggs’ firm drew blanket coverage across the US, with more than 200 local stories in more than 30 states, according to a search of the Nexis database.

    Historical amnesia

    NYT: Higher Bills Are Leading Americans to Delay Medical Care

    New York Times (2/16/23): Medical debt “began emerging as a much more striking issue last year.”

    However, by the spring of 2006, Scruggs’ suits had largely failed, and he would soon find himself in prison for bribing a judge in an unrelated case. With local hospitals agreeing to policy changes in Illinois and Connecticut, medical debt coverage shrank.

    The issue didn’t go away, of course; it simply attracted less media attention. However, according to veteran New York Times healthcare reporter Reed Abelson (2/16/23), concern about medical debt appeared mysteriously in 2022: “The inability to afford medical tests and treatment, a perennial concern in the United States, began emerging as a much more striking issue last year.” Perhaps Abelson, who has covered healthcare since 2002, forgot Jonathan Cohn’s 5,000-word New York Times Magazine essay (12/19/04) from 2004, prompted in part by the Scruggs class action cases.

    Telling the stories of millions of Americans whose lives have been ruined and even shortened by medical debt is an honorable exercise, and the spate of recent reporting does include a few new details. In particular, MLK50’s Wendi Thomas (6/27/19) interviewed judges who decide debt cases, giving readers a new level of detailed, often chilling insight into the attitudes of people who sometimes casually help attorneys for hospitals and collection agencies destroy patients’ families.

    Judge Betty Thomas Moore ordered a woman whose 11-year-old nonverbal autistic son wears diapers and eats only pureed foods to pay $130 a month instead of $30. The judge reasoned that her son and his two older brothers “could sacrifice so that their mother could pay more.”

    History of failure

    Beyond painful details and inspiring victories, most articles that offer a broader frame for the issue are plagued by bad habits common to corporate journalism: historical amnesia, a bias for treating individuals as “consumers” with primary responsibility for their own problems, and ideological blinders.

    NPR: What the White House's actions on medical debt could mean for consumers

    NPR (4/14/22): “There’s still the issue of consumers being able to afford to pay for healthcare. “

    As they have for 20 years, most policy-focused stories about medical debt lean heavily toward regulatory initiatives or legislative actions to take the sharp edges off of debt collection, or offer advice on how to avoid or manage medical debt (NPR, 4/14/22; KHN, 10/17/19; KRWG, 4/6/21). To the extent that wrap-up stories acknowledge the need for Americans to be covered by health insurance, reporters assume the only way forward is to build on the supposed successes of the Affordable Care Act through tiny increments of change. They treat Medicare for All, or any other credible scheme to cover all Americans with comprehensive health insurance, as an impossibility for the foreseeable future.

    Unfortunately, regulating medical debt collection tactics has an easily documented history of failure as healthcare policy. The 2003 Connecticut law, described by Lagnado (6/10/03) as “a breakthrough patient-protection bill,” addressed several of the key issues highlighted in reporting on healthcare debt. Yet the federal Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) reported that as of December 2020, 10% of Connecticut adults whose accounts the agency tracks had medical debt on their credit reports, with an average balance of $1,407 and a median of $508.

    The CFPB acknowledges that its data significantly understates the scale of the issue, because a lot of medical debt either never appears on credit reports, or is reported as general credit card debt. An analysis of the CFPB data shows that an average of 14% of American credit reports have medical debt on them. The Kaiser Health News/NPR collaboration kicked off with the publication of a Kaiser Family Foundation poll showing that 41% of adults in the US, or 100 million Americans, have medical debt.

    Burdened despite ‘breakthrough’

    So despite “breakthrough” legislation and additional internal policy changes at the state’s largest health system, people in Connecticut remain so burdened with medical debt two decades after a “breakthrough” that public officials feel the need to publicize the problem and take action.

    Record Journal: Sen. Murphy hosts listening session on medical debt in Meriden

    Meriden, Conn., Record Journal (12/10/22)

    In December 2022, US Sen. Chris Murphy (D.-Conn.), who was the Senate co-chair of the state’s Public Health Committee when the 2003 law passed, held a listening session on medical debt to allow people to air their suffering. Two months later, Connecticut’s governor promised to spend public money to retire as much as $2 billion in residents’ debts.

    Murphy and his Senate colleague Chris Van Hollen (D.–Md.) have introduced the Strengthening Consumer Protections and Medical Debt Transparency Act, to “protect consumers from medical debt.” Most of the proposal is lifted from 20-year-old laws in Connecticut and other states: capping interest at 5%, reporting on collection activity, determining the patient’s insurance status before collecting, requiring itemized bills. The bill would also give patients an additional six months after providers have determined their insurance and charity care eligibility before facing aggressive collections tactics.

    Similar laws in other states simply have not stopped medical debt from gnawing at the economic security and health of millions of families. In the CFPB analysis, Connecticut has only the 16th lowest percentage of credit reports with medical debt. The report includes a table of states that have policies to require hospital charity care or restrain aggressive collection tactics. Some of those states are among those with the lowest percentage of indebted patients; others, like New Jersey, Illinois, Maine and New Mexico, are not. Of course, what does line up with low levels of medical debt is health insurance. The CFPB study (3/1/22) notes that “medical debt is also more common in the Southeastern and Southwestern US, in part because states in those regions did not expand Medicaid coverage.” Indeed, 29 of the 30 states with the lowest percentage of credit reports with medical debt have adopted some form of Medicaid expansion.

    These laws do ease some existing patients’ terror and stress, by banning or reducing the use of horrifying tactics like wage garnishment, bank executions, foreclosure and even actual arrests for missing court dates. In the end, they don’t eliminate that stress, and won’t address the core failure of the US healthcare system to cover everyone with guaranteed health insurance.

    Post-ACA Progress Toward Universal Coverage

    Here’s a simple sentence you’ll rarely read in corporate media: The Affordable Care Act has failed. Its only measurable effect has been to shift a small percentage of the population from being uninsured to the ranks of the underinsured.

    According to the Commonwealth Fund, when the ACA passed in 2010, 56% of American adults age 19–64 were covered for the entire year with insurance good enough not to consider them underinsured. In 2022, 57% of Americans were similarly covered. After 12 years, millions of column inches and endless television news hours, there is little discernible difference in the core protections available to Americans against illness, injury, early death and, yes, medical debt.

    The Commonwealth Fund underestimates the scale of underinsurance: 32% of adults who were “insured all year, not underinsured” in 2022 reported problems getting access to healthcare because of cost. However, taking Commonwealth’s definitions at face value, at the current rate of progress, every single American adult can expect to be “insured all year, not underinsured” in about 515 years.

    How to cope with the Kafkaesque

    Fox Business: How to get rid of medical debt without damaging your credit

    Fox Business (3/3/21) notes that its advice to medical debtors is “sponsored by Credible—which is majority owned by our parent, Fox Corporation.” Credible is a “leading consumer finance marketplace” that “delivers a differentiated and personalized experience that enables consumers to compare instant, accurate pre-qualified rates from multiple financial institutions.”

    Not to worry. Major media outlets have us covered for the next five-plus centuries. Most US news sources, medical self-help websites, and even credit-reporting agencies Experian and Equifax have an article or two filled with advice for patients on fighting back against medical debt.

    If medical debt has crimped your reading budget, look for former ProPublica reporter Marshall Allen’s Never Pay the First Bill: And Other Ways to Fight the Healthcare System and Win in your local public library. Or you can head over to his Allen Health Academy website, featuring a self-help curriculum called “The Never Pay Pathway.” For $3 a month, you get 16 videos on-demand, a certificate of completion and monthly newsletter. Coming soon, for $5 a month, you can get an app and a checklist for tracking your progress negotiating with your creditors, and for $7, companies get access to an employer-support forum, and workers who have debt (presumably because of the company’s lousy health insurance) can join a Facebook support group.

    The guidance has changed little in two decades: Study your insurance plan if you have one, to understand your deductibles and copays. Review your bills for inaccuracies. If you’re uninsured, apply for Medicaid or other public insurance programs, and ask your hospital for financial help. Fight your insurer if they don’t pay what they’re supposed to. Negotiate your total hospital debt down, bargain a lower interest rate, and set up a payment plan that you can afford. If you get sued, show up in court, prepared with a proposed payment plan. And so on.

    If it works, this is good advice. Most hospitals still bill uninsured patients at inflated prices. The vast majority of medical bills do contain errors. Patients frequently can negotiate to lower their total debt and interest rates dramatically and get on a payment plan. Hospitals do have charity care policies, however stingy or generous.

    The limits of consumer empowerment

    But consumer empowerment only goes so far. A study by Stanford Graduate School of Business professor Jeffrey Pfeffer found that US adult workers already spend more than 13.7 million hours a week on the phone with their health insurance administrators. Some of that time is spent dealing with health insurance problems involving medical debt. However, most medical debt empowerment articles urge patients to research, review and negotiate discounted debt with hospitals, doctors and other providers.

    NPR: How to Get Rid of Medical Debt — Or Avoid It in the First Place

    KFF Health News (7/1/22): ” Do not expect this to be an easy process.”

    So, to “get rid of medical debt—or avoid it in the first place,” according to the headline on a widely circulated story by NPR reporter Yuki Noguchi (KHN, 7/1/22), patients must expect to spend even more time on the phone, studying bills, reading laws, regulations and policies, writing letters and going to court. In a nation where people have to work two or three jobs to make ends meet, it’s not clear when they are supposed to find the time to read (assuming they’re fluent in English), make phone calls, gather their personal information and trudge off to the hospital to prove they’re worthily poor enough not to deserve torture.

    For the story, KHN and NPR “spoke with patients, consumer advocates, and researchers to glean their hard-won insights on how to avoid or manage medical debt.” Noguchi walked patients through the US healthcare nightmare step by step, from subscribing to an insurance plan through fending off collections lawyers, with empowering advice for each step.

    In real life, patients often can’t shop for hospitals like groceries or a new appliance. Patients go where their doctors have admitting privileges, get treated in facilities that are in their insurance network, or wind up in whichever emergency room an ambulance takes them to. If, after shopping, their discounted bills still far exceed their ability to pay, then what? Without real wealth or a high income, uninsured and underinsured people have relatively few choices that actually protect them from healthcare debt.

    Neither NPR nor any other outlet offers data on the efficacy of consumer empowerment as policy. If every single “consumer” dutifully followed every bit of advice, would the number of debtors shrink from 100 million to 10 million? 50 million? 95 million?

    And when these tactics do “work,” it’s not clear how much help they provide. KFF’s own survey (6/16/22) found that half of American adults couldn’t pay a $500 medical expense right away, and 19% would never be able to pay it off. In the end, if you can’t afford $500, how valuable is bargaining a $30,000 debt down to $10,000?

    Without comprehensive health insurance coverage, patients will wind up back in debt, or sicker and in more pain because they avoid care. MLK50’s Thomas (ProPublica, 6/27/19) framed her interviews with Memphis judges in part through the story of Raquel Nelson, who received treatment from the United Methodist Church-affiliated Methodist Le Bonheur Healthcare system. Methodist’s lawsuit was Nelson’s third time as a medical debt defendant.

    Limiting future torture

    NYT: Medical Debt Is Being Erased in Ohio and Illinois. Is Your Town Next?

    “Is Your Town Next?” the New York Times headline (12/29/22) gushes. But the subhead acknowledges it’s just “a short-term solution.”

    This issue haunts reporting on what the New York Times (12/29/22) calls “a new strategy to address the high cost of healthcare.” RIP Medical Debt, a nonprofit organization founded by former debt collections executives, is working with public and private institutions like churches, state and local governments, and even a local ABC affiliate, using their own money to purchase outstanding debt and retire it.

    Most of this debt has already been written off as uncollectible by providers and sold to third party collectors, allowing RIP to buy it at a few cents on the dollar. In Connecticut, Governor Lamont proposes to give RIP Medical Debt $20 million in federal American Rescue Plan funds to retire up to $2 billion in debt.

    Ohio State Rep. Michele Grim, quoted in the Times story as a Toledo city councilor who helped organize a partnership between the city and RIP Medical Debt to cancel medical debts, told FAIR in a Zoom interview:

    This is the only country in the world that lets its citizens go bankrupt because of medical debt. States and locals see this as the simplest thing we can do, because we can’t fix our broken healthcare system.

    Toledo internist John Ross, a Franklin County Board of Health commissioner and past president of Physicians for a National Health Program, strongly supports the Ohio initiative, but also noted that ARP funding is a one-off. Without continued sources of financing, many of the current debtors whose debt will be forgiven, and thousands of others who lack adequate health insurance, will soon be burdened again by debt: “The next wave of debt is building as we speak.”

    RIP Medical Debt typically doesn’t buy debt until patients, providers and insurers have had a chance to pursue other sources of payment. That process usually takes about 18 months, according to RIP Medical Debt CEO Allison Sesso. Thus, at its very best, the Times “strategy to address high healthcare costs” boils down to this: If a local government scrapes together some money, and if your local hospital is willing to work with RIP medical debt, indebted patients may only need to spend 18 months struggling with medical bills—although once their current debts are paid, the next time they get sick, the cycle starts over. When the bar is low enough, even an unfunded possibility of limiting future torture to a year and a half looks like a victory.

    RIP Medical Debt leaders understand the limitations of their model. In an email exchange with FAIR, CEO Allison Sesso wrote:

    We know that RIP Medical Debt is not a holistic solution, but a stopgap that nonetheless provides a financial and emotional respite to our constituents. We understand both that debt relief matters to the individuals we help and that what we are doing is not fundamentally solving the problem.

    Distorted landscape

    NYT: Why Are Nonprofit Hospitals So Highly Profitable?

    New York Times (2/20/20): “It actually isn’t much of a surprise that nonprofit hospitals are often more profitable than for-profit hospitals.”

    In reality, local residents have already paid these debts many times over. Nearly 60% of acute care hospitals in the US are private tax exempt “charitable” organizations, whose mission statements typically include a commitment to caring for the poor, sick and injured. The “mission” entitles them not to pay federal, state and local property, income or sales taxes.

    In 2006, the Cook County assessor estimated that nonprofit hospitals owned between $4.3 and $4.5 billion worth of exempt commercial real estate in the county, representing up to $241 million in local property tax revenues, likely much higher today. Yet cash-strapped city governments are now spending public money to pay for debts incurred in these already heavily subsidized hospitals.

    Speaking from personal experience, it’s hard to imagine a more gratifying reporting outcome than seeing a powerful hospital corporation forgive suffering patients’ debts, or announce changes in policies toward all patients who can’t afford care. In 2019, Virginia Gov. Ralph Northam and the president of the University of Virginia publicly committed to changing UVA Health’s policies, the day after KHN’s expose (9/10/19) on the hospital system’s lawsuits and collections tactics.

    However, by ignoring the history of failed, narrowly targeted reforms; covering gimmicky strategies and pouring effort into the kind of consumer self-help that NGOs have been publishing how-to guides about for decades (e.g., Hospital Debt Justice Project, 2003); and indulging in ritual defenses of the Affordable Care Act, news organizations leave their audiences with distorted impressions of the policy landscape, undermining the power of their own high-impact reporting.

    Giving politicians cover

    Jennifer Bosco, staff attorney at the National Consumer Law Center, told NPR (4/14/22):

    Ultimately, I think the problem of medical debt isn’t going to go away unless at some point in our country’s future, we adopt some sort of single payer or Medicare-for-All system. But I think that’s very much a blue-sky idea at this point.

    Apparently it’s a popular blue sky idea. In its story on RIP Medical Debt, the Times (12/29/22) noted that polling by Tulchin Research, the American Association of Political Consultants’ 2022 Democratic Pollster of the Year, found that “65% supported ‘Medicare for all’ and 68% supported expanding Medicaid.”

    It will remain a blue-sky idea as long as media keep giving politicians cover with the idea that urgently addressing the incremental Next Bad Thing will make a difference. Three years ago, the bad thing du jour was “surprise billing.” Surprise bills happen when an empowered consumer carefully studies the rules of their health plan and goes to a hospital in their insurance network, but unknowingly gets treated by a doctor that isn’t in their network, then gets socked with a huge bill that their insurer doesn’t want to pay.

    Consumer Reports: 5 Ways You Might Still Get a Surprise Medical Bill

    Consumer Reports (2/10/22)

    KFF polled the issue and found that 65% of people were concerned about surprise bills. Surprise bills affect insurers as much as individuals, so Congress passed the No Surprises Act, spawning a round of updates to consumer empowerment websites, and warnings about how the Act didn’t quite get rid of all surprise bills.

    People don’t get surprise medical bills because doctors are greedy, or because private equity firms bought some emergency physician practices, or because empowered consumers didn’t check their network carefully enough. Americans get surprise bills because they have insurance networks. They have to go to “in-network” providers because, unlike other wealthy nations, Americans don’t have a right to healthcare, providers don’t have an obligation to treat people who need it except in emergencies, and US healthcare prices are set in secret negotiations between powerful private actors.

    Insurers, doctors and hospitals wield network membership and rates as weapons in a high-stakes battle over market power. For empowered consumers covered through their jobs, this means that every year during open enrollment—assuming their health plan is even still offered by their boss—they get to “choose” whether to keep it, by poring over long lists of doctors and hospitals to see if they can still avoid bankruptcy while visiting the people who have healed and comforted them for years.

    They often can’t. In 2017, Morning Consult found that 15% of Americans had a doctor leave their network in just the previous 12 months, meaning they’d have to pay more—often much more—to continue their care with that doctor (Fierce Healthcare, 3/17/17).

    The new Next Bad Thing

    KFF: Five Quick Takeaways From a Yearlong Investigation of Medical Debt in America

    None of KHN/NPR ‘s takeaways (6/16/22) are new, or required a year to unearth.

    Medical debt coverage now frames deductibles as the Next Bad Thing. NPR and KHN (6/16/22) gave readers of their Diagnosis Debt series “Five Quick Takeaways from a Yearlong Investigation of Medical Debt in America.” There really are only four takeaways, as the first two basically say it’s a big problem. Two others are that medical debt is hard to pay off, and that “debt and illness are linked.” The final takeaway glances off the core issue:

    The KHN/NPR investigation finds that despite more people having health insurance—as a result of the Affordable Care Act—medical debt is pervasive. There is a reason: Over the past two decades, health insurers have shifted costs onto patients through higher deductibles, at the same time that the medical industry has steadily raised the prices of drugs, procedures and treatments. The 2010 healthcare law didn’t curb that.

    Nothing in the five takeaways is new, or required a year to unearth. Deductibles have grown much faster than inflation over the past two decades, which KHN’s reporters presumably know, since the primary source for the information is KHN’s own parent organization, the annual employer surveys done by the Kaiser Family Foundation—as FAIR (9/8/17) reported six years ago . More than a third of American adults have been telling the Commonwealth Fund (2003–18, 2020, 2022) that they skipped or delayed needed medical care in the past year due to costs since Lucette Lagnado first knocked on Quenton White’s door in 2003.

    By itself, limiting or eliminating deductibles is meaningless unless all of the tools for patient abuse are taken out of the industry’s hands. If deductibles are limited or disappear, patients can expect higher premiums, higher copays and heavier coinsurance. They will likely face even more intense shifts in their lists of “in-network” providers, as insurers try to wring profits from the market to make up for any minor losses.

    Timid sources, compromised coverage

    KFF Health News: ‘We Ain’t Gonna Get It’: Why Bernie Sanders Says His ‘Medicare for All’ Dream Must Wait

    Bernie Sanders (KFF Health News, 2/8/23): “What I ultimately would like to accomplish is not going to happen right now.”

    To some extent, corporate media debt reporting is constrained by its chosen sources. Democratic politicians don’t want to talk about universal coverage schemes; even Sen. Bernie Sanders says “we ain’t gonna get” Medicare for All (KHN, 2/8/23). NGOs like the National Consumer Law Center accept and repeat the “blue sky” expectation, even though Medicare for All and Medicaid expansion poll as well as limiting surprise bills, and very close to debt relief (KFF, 2/28/20; New York Times, 12/29/22).

    The NGOs that track medical debt and related trends reflect the conventional wisdom of what is politically possible. The Kaiser Family Foundation is a respected agenda-setting organization. When the authors of KFF’s Issue Brief (11/3/22) headlined “Hospital Charity Care: How It Works and Why It Matters” get to “Looking Ahead” at policy options, they offer a parody of Washington policy wonkery, with ideas appearing passively out of the ether:

    In the context of ongoing concerns about the affordability of hospital care and the growing burden of medical debt, several policy ideas have been floated at the federal and state level to strengthen hospital charity care programs.

    Evidently whoever “floats” ideas in Washington—apparently not KFF—is under the impression that universal, comprehensive health insurance doesn’t apply as a solution to medical debt.

    However, there are plenty of suggestions for encouraging or even requiring more hospital “charity.” The link-heavy two paragraphs include all the usual ideas, like reporting requirements and higher poverty thresholds for mandated charity care. There’s even a clever “floor and trade” suggestion, “where hospitals would be required to either provide a minimum amount of charity care or subsidize other hospitals that do so.”

    The closest thing to actual solutions are vague hints:

    State and federal policymakers have also considered several other options to reduce medical debt or increase affordability more generally, such as by expanding Medicaid in states that have not already done so, reducing healthcare prices through direct regulation or other means, and increasing consumer protections against medical debt.

    Direct price regulation, a standard feature of national healthcare systems around the world, triggers furious industry opposition. If KFF can find such a politically controversial idea “floating” somewhere, why can’t an idea with 65% polling support, and 120 voting cosponsors in the US House of Representatives at the time the piece was written (H.R. 1976), float past the authors? Like so many other sources, KFF seems firmly committed to achieving universal coverage—sometime in the next five centuries.

    Assumed political impotence

    ProPublica: Stop Suing Patients, Advocates Advise Memphis Nonprofit Hospital System

    What if in addition to not suing their patients for debts, as ProPublica (6/30/19) suggests, nonprofit hospitals directed their efforts toward creating a healthcare system that covers everybody?

    The most extraordinary aspects of the current wave of medical debt coverage are the assumed political impotence of the public, and the low expectations of reporters and NGO sources. Hospitals spend massive amounts of money lobbying against their own patients’ interests. When a major investigation is published, nonprofit systems are vulnerable, and NGOs and local community leaders can often shape the terms of the response.

    An embarrassed Methodist Le Bonheur system in Memphis announced a 30-day review of its charity care policies, prompting a ProPublica/MLK50 article (6/30/19) headlined “Stop Suing Patients, Advocates Advise Memphis Nonprofit Hospital System”:

    During the past month, MLK50 consulted with consumer advocates and legal experts around the country about how Methodist could reform its policies. For many, the top priority was to stop the lawsuits. Close behind, they said, was for the hospital to expand its financial assistance policy to include poor people who have health insurance but can’t afford their deductibles or co-pays.

    Not a single quoted expert said anything like:

    Of course they should stop suing people. But the very best thing Methodist Le Bonheur could do for its patients is withdraw from the American Hospital Association and spend what they were paying in dues to lobby for Medicare for All, or some other form of genuine national health insurance. Not only is it disgraceful that a supposed charitable hospital is suing patients and garnishing their wages, but they’re using money brutally extracted from impoverished patients to stop the government from guaranteeing those patients actual health insurance that would keep them out of debt forever.

    Similarly, if just a small percentage of the 100 million Americans with medical debt emailed their most recent collections letter to their senators and representatives once a month, with the simple message “National health insurance now,” that’s millions of messages. It takes less time than suing your hospital, and would certainly get congressional attention—it might even crash congressional servers. Five minutes. Once a month. Yet the only advice given to readers is “empowerment” to negotiate on their own with a multi-billion dollar corporation.

    A simple story

    Life Expectancy vs. Healthcare Spending, 1970-2015

    Americans pay much more for healthcare and yet die much sooner than citizens of other wealthy countries (Wikimedia Commons, 3/11/22).

    One of the few reporters who took the time to look at the history of medical debt in the US is KHN’s Dan Weissmann, who runs the Arm and a Leg podcast. Weissmann did a multipart series on the history of medical debt, pegged to an interview with former attorney Dickie Scruggs. The series offers a good look at the history of medical debt campaigns, but again the framing is absurdly narrow. Weissmann introduces Scruggs as the lawyer “Who Helped Start the Fight for Charity Care,” as if hospital charity is a goal that listeners should be satisfied with.

    In 2005, after local patients filed lawsuits against hospitals, the Bergen (New Jersey) Record editorial board (6/13/05) described the actual “fight”:

    America’s healthcare system is broken. The only way to completely fix it is a single-payer system, one that would end the inequities that cause people like Mr. Osso to be charged three and four times the rates that insurance companies or Medicare and Medicaid are charged.

    Two decades of failed reforms later, the idea of actually covering everyone in the US stimulates talk of a policy Long March in elite media. RIP Medical Debt CEO Allison Sesso told FAIR “that no one entity can change such a complex and opaque system as US healthcare…. RIP’s help is immediate—this matters because policy and systems change can take years.”

    US health care may be nightmarishly complex for patients and the people who heal and comfort them, but US healthcare policy is quite simple. There are two “entities,” comprising exactly 536 people, who could eliminate current and future medical debt tomorrow. Functioning models all over the world cover the conditions described in the stories above without turning patients into debt peons, at a fraction of what is spent in the US. The people with the power to do it just refuse to. End of story.


    *Disclosure: I was a source for reporting on debt in Connecticut. At the time, I was a researcher for the hospitality workers’ union now known as UNITE HERE, collaborating with staff of the Service Employees International Union (SEIU). As noted in many stories, a member of our team, SEIU researcher Grace Rollins, researched and wrote the CCNE reports, and shared our materials with Lagnado and other reporters. I participated in planning for the rallies, and assisted with lobbying for the legislation that passed in 2003.

     

    The post The Healthcare Long March: Why Exposing Evils of Medical Debt Doesn’t Fix the Problem appeared first on FAIR.

    This post was originally published on CounterSpin.

  •  

     

    Nation: Kevin McCarthy Doubles Down on the Debt Ceiling

    (The Nation, 4/28/23)

    This week on CounterSpin: Economist James Galbraith wrote a few months ago: “It is in the nature of articles about the debt ceiling that no matter how often one tries to set the record straight, nothing ever gets through.” Elite media’s fundamental misrepresentation of the debt ceiling would be troubling enough if it were just a bad history lesson. But current Republican brinkmanship could have devastating impacts for millions of people—along with the harm to public understanding of what’s actually going on. We hear concerns about the process and the coverage from Chris Lehmann, DC bureau chief at The Nation, and contributing editor at the Baffler and the New Republic.

          CounterSpin230505Lehmann.mp3

     

    Also on the show: The right to fix the things you buy is the sort of thing you wouldn’t think would be controversial here in “the land of the free.”  Corporations’ attempts to prevent people from fixing their cellphone or tractor or wheelchair ought to be seen as the overreach it is. But for years, news media have presented the right to repair as a voice in the wilderness, up against benevolent companies’ efforts to do best by us all. That’s changing, with legislative moves around the country. Right to repair is having a “watershed moment,” one advocate says, adding that there are still “a lot of opportunities for mischief.” We get an update from Kyle Wiens, co-founder and CEO of the online repair community iFixit.

          CounterSpin230505Wiens.mp3

    Plus Janine Jackson takes a quick look at the New York TimesIran error.

    The post Chris Lehmann on Debt Ceiling Myths, Kyle Wiens on Right to Repair’s Moment appeared first on FAIR.

    This post was originally published on CounterSpin.

  •  

    Kansas City Star: ‘Fear and paranoia.’ Grandson says Andrew Lester bought into conspiracies, disinformation

    Kansas City Star (4/20/23)

    This week on CounterSpin: The grandson of the elderly white man who shot a Black teenager in the head for ringing his doorbell told the Kansas City Star that their relationship had unraveled as his grandfather began watching “Fox News all day, every day,” and sank into a “24-hour news cycle of fear, of paranoia.” Those words had a poignant resonance for many people who feel they’ve lost family members and friends to a kind of cult, that’s not secret, but pumped into the airwaves every day. Hate-fueled and hate-fueling media have political and historical impacts—and interpersonal, familial ones as well.

    The Brainwashing of My Dad—the 2016 film and the book based on it—reflect filmmaker, activist and author Jen Senko’s effort to engage the  multi-level effects of that yelling, punching down, reactionary media, as well as how we can respond. We hear from Jen Senko this week on CounterSpin.

          CounterSpin230428Senko.mp3

     

    Plus Janine Jackson takes a quick look at recent press coverage of a potential UPS strike.

          CounterSpin230428Banter.mp3

     

    The post Jen Senko on the Cost of Hate Talk appeared first on FAIR.

    This post was originally published on CounterSpin.

  •  

     

    WaPo: Supreme Court extends nationwide abortion pill access through Friday

    Washington Post (4/19/23)

    This week on CounterSpin: The Supreme Court has briefly punted their decision on restricting access to medication abortion drug mifepristone. The American Medical Association said that the recent ruling by a Texas federal judge revoking the FDA’s approval of mifepristone, which has been in widespread use for more than two decades, “flies in the face of science and evidence and threatens to upend access to a safe and effective drug.” For the Washington Post, that’s part of a “confusing legal battle“—but for the majority of people, including doctors, it’s not confusing, just frightening. We’ll hear from Rachel K. Jones, research scientist at Guttmacher Institute.

          CounterSpin230421Jones.mp3

     

    NYT: Rutgers University Faculty Members Strike, Halting Classes and Research

    New York Times (4/10/23)

    Also on the show: “Rutgers University Faculty Members Strike, Halting Classes and Research.” That April 10 New York Times headline reflects standard operating procedure for corporate media: reporting labor actions in terms of their ostensible harms, rather than the harms that led to them. The strike by a range of differently situated Rutgers faculty, the Times said, “will affect roughly 67,000 students across the state”—presumably the same students affected by teachers, researchers and counselors working in circumstances so precarious and untenable they took the difficult, potentially life-altering step of withholding their labor. That go-to elite media frame—”those pesky workers, what are they up to this time?”—is just one more element making efforts to increase workers’ power in the workplace that much harder. Thing is: It doesn’t always work—lots of people see through and around it! The gains made by Rutgers faculty, and the example they set, are evidence. We’ll get an update from Donna Murch, associate professor of history at Rutgers, and New Brunswick chapter president of Rutgers AAUP-AFT.

          CounterSpin230421Murch.mp3

     

    The post Rachel K. Jones on Mifepristone, Donna Murch on Rutgers Labor Action appeared first on FAIR.

    This post was originally published on CounterSpin.

  • Fat cat pays pittance to Uncle Sam.

    Fat cat pays a pittance in taxes to Uncle Sam in vintage cartoon.

    This week on CounterSpin: It is tax season in the US,  when some of us wonder why the government, which knows how much we earn, requires us to guess, with the threat of prison if we guess wrong. And leads some of us to ponder what we get in return for our resources—streets and stop signs, to be sure, but also wars and wheelbarrows of money doled out those who already have plenty.

    We’ve talked about taxes and tax policy a lot on CounterSpin, enough to put together a walk-through of some of the issues, and the way news media explain them. You’ll hear from Steve Wamhoff, Dean Baker, Jeremie Greer and Michael Mechanic.

    Taxes, and how they’re not just an April 15 thing, this week on CounterSpin!

    The post Taxes: Who Pays and What For? appeared first on FAIR.

    This post was originally published on CounterSpin.

  •  

    Apricitas Economics: A Historic Labor Market Recovery

    Thanks in large part to pandemic social spending, employment recovered from the 2020 recession in record time (Chart: Apricitas Economics, 4/8/23).

    A ban on evictions. Required paid leave. Continuous Medicaid coverage. Free school meals. Emergency SNAP allotments. An extra $600 a week in unemployment benefits. Child tax credit expansion. Thousands in stimulus checks.

    These measures were part of a suite of policies the US government passed in response to the Covid-19 pandemic and the economic fallout it precipitated. They were meant to blunt the damage, to protect the population from a much darker alternative.

    And they were remarkably successful. The government boosted incomes of the worst-off in a way that would have appeared totally alien in 2001 or 2008. And the speed at which employment rebounded put other recent recoveries to shame.

    Median real earnings relative to pre-recession year, by income quintile: Bottom quintile

    Change in median real earnings for the poorest 20% during recent recessions. In the Covid pandemic, unlike in 2001 and 2008, government relief more than made up for loss of income by poor workers. (Chart: Social Science Research Network, 12/5/22.)

     

    Yet the pandemic era social safety net is now in the midst of a long death gasp. After pulling a much more robust welfare state out of a hat, the government appears determined to slowly suffocate it. Meanwhile, the public is treated to muffled yelps.

    The national news media seem relatively uninterested in informing the population of the demise of Covid-related safety net provisions. In 2021, Sunday shows were silent about the expiration of the eviction ban and increased unemployment benefits. In the lead-up to the expiration of continuous Medicaid coverage on March 31 of this year, major cable news outlets were once again largely mute about the development. As Bryce Greene summarized for FAIR (4/7/23), “Trump’s Idling Plane Got More TV Coverage Than Biden Cutting Healthcare for 15 Million.”

    A mix of reality and fantasy

    New York Times: Most Safety Net Programs Started During the Pandemic Have Ended

    The New York Times article (4/6/23) had a helpful chart that showed when pandemic era programs started and ended.

    So it was great to see an article dedicated to the issue show up in the New York Times (4/6/23). The piece, headlined “The US Built a European-Style Welfare State. It’s Largely Over,” included a detailed breakdown of various additions to the US welfare state—a much-demonized term for what amounts to a host of government programs that look out for the well-being of the population, particularly the worst-off—over the course of the pandemic.

    Reporters Claire Cain Miller and Alicia Parlapiano touted the child tax credit’s success in cutting child poverty by a third. They pointed to the success of pandemic-era policies in reducing the percentage of Americans lacking health insurance to a historic low of 8%. And they hailed the breadth of coverage achieved by expanded unemployment insurance.

    And yet, in classic Times fashion, the piece supplemented this serious, data-driven analysis with stunningly lazy and dishonest mischaracterizations of the US political system, ones that get repeated enough to sound reasonable, but only because most reporters seem to lack the energy or interest to actually consult reality.

    Blaming the victim

    Overall, the public is dissatisfied with the way the government is spending in key public policy areas.

    Polling (AP/NORC, 3/29/23) suggests that large majorities of the US public would like to see more spending on education, healthcare, Social Security, infrastructure, assistance to the poor and Medicare.

    To start, after laying out the trajectory of the pandemic welfare state, the Times offered a theory for its demise–lack of support among the US public:

    There has been little political will to make policies permanent because they did not emerge from a deeper shift in how Americans view the role of government or the rights of citizens, said Sheri Berman, a political science professor at Barnard College who has studied social democracies….

    “People did not have an ideological conversion, a new view of what American citizenship could be,” she said. Rather, it was a recognition that during the crisis, “without these things, the entire system could go under.”

    This theory is cited uncritically, leaving the reader with the impression that there must be something to this professor’s sweeping statements about US values. But her generalizations more closely resemble the pontifications of a cocktail party guest on the Upper West Side than the studied remarks of a scholar.

    Polling provides little support for the idea that Americans oppose a stronger social safety net, and only consented to one during the pandemic out of necessity.

    An AP/NORC poll from March, for instance, found a majority of the public in favor of increasing government spending in key areas, including education (65%), healthcare (63%), Social Security (62%), assistance to the poor (59%), Medicare (58%) and assistance for childcare (53%).

    In the particular case of the expanded child tax credit, which the Biden administration instituted in 2021, survey data from Data for Progress demonstrated consistent support for permanent expansion during its time in effect.

    And this eagerness to strengthen the welfare state is not just a recent phenomenon; it stretches back decades. Data from the General Social Survey reaching to the 1970s shows high, often overwhelming, support for greater social spending. Even in the case of the lowest support level shown on this graph—Social Security in 1993—support for increasing spending is tied with support for keeping spending the same. Support for cutting spending clocks in at 7%.

    Support for Increased Spending on National Prioirities

    Going back to the 1970s, polling has shown solid support for increased social spending. (Source: General Social Survey)

    Pew polling likewise reveals long-standing support for other aspects of a robust safety net. In particular, the idea that the government should “guarantee food and shelter to all” polled at 62% during the Reagan years, and 69% twenty years later.

    To look at all this data and conclude that the real reason the pandemic era safety net has receded is US public opinion is ludicrous. The professor has things exactly backwards. It’s true that there has not been some sudden shift in favor of strengthening the welfare state. But that’s because the public has wanted to scale it up for decades.

    Manufacturing opposition

    YouGuv: Most Americans say Social Security should be given more funding

    Saying that the “United States has historically been opposed to…large government programs” is a sleight-of-hand that ignores the fact that US citizens have been strongly supportive of large government programs like Social Security (YouGovAmerica, 2/8/23).

    The Times nevertheless continued along this path:

    The United States has historically been opposed to the large government programs and high tax rates seen in much of Europe. As a result, it is unusual among its peers in not providing universal healthcare, entitlements for children and generous cash assistance to the poor, said Robert A. Moffitt, an economics professor at Johns Hopkins.

    Has the US public historically opposed large government programs and high tax rates? Not in the case of Social Security. Public opinion polling has shown consistent popular support for the program—and for expanding it—throughout its history. A 2022 poll put support for increasing Social Security benefits for all at 77%. And polling has for years shown much more support for raising taxes than cutting benefits—the same 2022 poll found 76% support for financing an increase in benefits by imposing payroll taxes on high-income Americans.

    And Social Security is not an anomaly. As the GSS data cited above demonstrates, it is just one example of the American fervor for increased social spending.

    Recent polling, moreover, shows extraordinarily favorable views towards existing social programs across the board.

    It’s not that no polling exists suggesting skepticism of large government programs. But the unqualified claim of ingrained popular opposition to these programs simply doesn’t fit with the evidence.

    An absurd theory of politics

    Pew: Americans Frustrations With the Federal Tax System

    The US public’s major frustrations with the federal tax system are that some corporations and wealthy people don’t pay their fair share (Pew, 4/7/23).

    And the same is true when it comes to support for higher taxes. Gallup surveys have repeatedly returned solid majority support for raising taxes on corporations and high earners for years. According to recent polling, most Americans say it bothers them “a lot” that corporations and wealthy people don’t pay their fair share in taxes. Sixty-one percent support raising taxes on households pulling in over $400,000 a year, and 65% support hiking rates on corporations.

    It would be one thing if the Times went through this or other polling data and provided evidence backing up its claims. But it doesn’t reference a single poll throughout the piece. It just outsources the thinking to professors, whose credentials mean they must know what they’re talking about. This is lazy reporting. And it leaves the readership with a completely absurd understanding of how politics works, with readers apparently meant to believe in a political process like this:

    The general public doesn’t support programs → Government gets rid of programs → Public is fine with that

    The reality, on the other hand, is more like:

    The general public supports programs → Wealthy people and corporations finance political campaigns and lobbying efforts → Politicians do the bidding of their backers → People lose Medicaid coverage or have their SNAP benefits cut → The public reads that they didn’t really support the programs and that’s why the programs were ended → The public still supports the programs but is now very confused about what is going on

    The polarization bogeyman

    The Times didn’t stop after this string of lazy and misleading theorizing. Instead, it opted to tack on a couple additional pet theories for the slow death of the pandemic welfare state. First, the paper turned to a classic duo—polarization and gridlock: “Political polarization and congressional gridlock have made a permanent expansion of social benefits more difficult.” Because when Republicans and moderate Democrats both oppose increased social spending, the problem is that the parties don’t agree on enough…. Wait.

    Jacobin: The Reconciliation Bill’s Gutting Is What Happens When Your Party Is Addicted to Corporate Money

    To get a serious discussion about why popular social programs weren’t maintained, you had to leave the New York Times and turn to left publications like Jacobin (10/29/21).

    In a superficial sense, of course, the idea that gridlock has played a role in preventing a permanent expansion of the safety net is obviously correct. But blaming gridlock is functionally equivalent to saying, The government couldn’t get things done because the parties couldn’t work together to pass things. That’s true, but it doesn’t tell us anything of value.

    Polarization, on the other hand, is an utterly uncompelling explanation for the demise of the pandemic welfare state. It’s true that Republicans are fundamentally committed to opposing increased social spending, but Democrats had control of the House, Senate and White House for the first two years of Biden’s presidency. That’s why the American Rescue Plan was able to pass in early 2021, even though no Republican voted for it.

    The rest of the Build Back Better agenda, which would have represented a serious expansion of the social safety net, stalled and withered because of opposition within the Democratic party, specifically from conservative Democrats like Joe Manchin and Kyrsten Sinema (Jacobin, 10/29/21, 6/7/22, 8/3/22), not because of polarization.

    After moderates joined together to substantially weaken additional Build Back Better legislation over months of negotiations, Manchin basically single-handedly tanked the Build Back Better Act in late 2021, as the New York Times recognized at the time (Daily, 12/21/21). He then tanked it again in the summer of 2022, only to revive it shortly thereafter in a severely eroded form, culminating in the passage of the renamed Inflation Reduction Act.

    Over the whole period, the aspirations of the Build Back Better plan sharply receded—$3.5 trillion in proposed spending fell to $500 billion; expansions to the safety net were largely stripped (Jacobin, 8/2/22).

    To consolidate the expiration of the pandemic welfare state, congressional Democrats at the end of last year passed an omnibus spending bill that included provisions ending continuous coverage for Medicaid recipients and prematurely terminating enhanced SNAP benefits. The bill received bipartisan support in the Senate, passing with 68 votes. It passed more along party lines in the House, with only nine Republican votes. Is this what polarization looks like?

    None of this history shows up in the Times piece. The closest the article comes to mentioning the role played by conservative Democrats in the murder of the pandemic welfare state is the following sentence: “Efforts to extend certain programs—or to formally create a more generous safety net, as President Biden laid out in his large social spending bill—have failed.” Notice the passive voice.

    Long live incrementalism

    Samuel Hammond

    Economist Samuel Hammond, who works for the Koch-funded Lincoln Network, thinks social spending was doomed by the “macro environment.” What do economists who aren’t funded by the Koch brothers think? The New York Times doesn’t say.

    But don’t worry, immediately after blaming polarization and gridlock, the Times generously offered a third theory for the pandemic welfare state’s death: “the current economic climate, with high inflation and interest rates.” It then presented the thoughts of a conservative economist:

    The politics of trying to make these programs permanent just isn’t there today, not to mention budget constraints. The macro environment has turned in a way that has sort of reaffirmed the fiscal conservatives.

    Missing is similar space for the commentary of a progressive economist, who might argue that an environment of economic insecurity makes safety net programs more necessary, not less. To avoid stoking inflation, these programs could be offset by, for instance, reversing the Trump tax cuts, which conservative Democrats have prevented the Biden administration from doing. For the Times, this perspective merits no hearing.

    To sum up, then, the Times offers a total of three explanations for the death of the pandemic welfare state: 1) The US public doesn’t support an expanded welfare state; 2) polarization and gridlock have made it difficult to do anything; 3) ongoing economic issues tie Congress’s hands. These explanations are variously shallow, unhelpful or flat-out wrong. They are the definition of lazy journalism, but they serve a useful ideological purpose: distract from what’s actually going on, blame the people, and exonerate the Democratic establishment.

    The whole point of the Times piece is not to criticize increased social spending. In fact, the authors seem fond of some aspects of the pandemic expansions:

    Smaller programs—like food assistance and the child tax credit expansion—patched long-existing holes in the safety net. Now that the patches are being removed, the problems are more apparent.

    The point, rather, is to discourage people from thinking about a serious transformation of the safety net, and to gesture towards dull and overly complicated incremental reforms as the only possible option. It’s to instill complacency as a default orientation towards welfare state expansion, something that appeals to a high-earning elite, many of whom consume the Times with self-serving credulity.

    The article ends by highlighting areas where unspecified experts “would like to see changes become permanent,” including unemployment insurance, support for families with young children, and health insurance access.

    What, though, would the American people like to see? Higher taxes on the rich and corporations. Much more spending on the welfare state. Medicare for All. A Green New Deal. And so on and so on. But don’t expect to read much about that in the New York Times.


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

    The post NYT Blames US Public for Collapse of Pandemic Safety Net appeared first on FAIR.

    This post was originally published on FAIR.

  •  

    WaPo: Twitter slaps NPR with a dubious new tag: ‘State-affiliated media’

    The Washington Post (4/5/23) questioned “the unsavory suggestion that [NPR‘s] reporting is tainted.”

    As part of an ongoing, impulsive and reactionary vendetta against legacy news outlets, Elon Musk’s Twitter added National Public Radio to its list of “state-affiliated media”—a label from which all US media had, until recently, been exempt (FAIR.org, 1/6/23).

    NPR (4/5/23) rebuked the label, and major media rushed to the public broadcaster’s defense. “Twitter Slaps NPR With a Dubious New Tag: ‘State-Affiliated Media,’” read a Washington Post headline (4/5/23). Vanity Fair (4/5/23) lambasted the “false equivalence between NPR and state propaganda agencies.” CBS News (4/5/23), AP (4/5/23) and CNN (4/5/23) emphatically quoted NPR’s self-description as a purveyor of “independent, fact-based journalism.” The New York Times (4/5/23) offered an oblique criticism of Twitter’s labeling schemes under Musk as “unevenly enforced.”

    The issue soon reached the White House. Press Secretary Karine Jean-Pierre avowed in a briefing (Forbes, 4/5/23) that “there’s no doubt of the independence of NPR’s journalists.” Reading from a script, Jean-Pierre continued: “NPR journalists work diligently to hold public officials accountable and inform the American people.”

    All are right to impugn the whims of Musk, who, to all appearances, harbors a personal animus against NPR. Still, the outrage against Twitter’s policy is highly selective.

    Double standards

    Twitter introduced the “state-affiliated media” tag in August 2020, defining “state-affiliated media” as

    outlets where the state exercises control over editorial content through financial resources, direct or indirect political pressures, and/or control over production and distribution.

    CNN: Twitter to label government and state media officials

    Without being directly controlled by the state, CNN (8/6/20) knew not to quote the reaction of official enemies who were marginalized by Twitter.

    The label disproportionately impacted countries the US deems adversarial, as numerous critics have observed, including Bryce Greene for FAIR (1/6/23). Upon implementing its labeling policy, Twitter identified platforms like Iran’s PressTV; Russia’s RT and Sputnik News; and China’s China Daily, Global Times, CGTN and China Xinhua News as “state-affiliated.” Meanwhile, legions of US and British media networks that met Twitter’s definition—among them the BBC, PBS, Voice of America and, of course, NPR—were spared the label on grounds of “editorial independence.”

    This would have measurable effects on tagged media. As Twitter explained in August 2020:

    We will also no longer amplify state-affiliated media accounts or their Tweets through our recommendation systems, including on the home timeline, notifications and search.

    Subsequently, Chinese accounts with the “state-affiliated media” label “saw drops of over 20% per tweet” (Hong Kong Free Press, 1/21/21), while Twitter boasted that marked Russian accounts lost up to 30% of their circulation.

    This was hardly unforeseeable. Yet leading US and UK media, far from their reproachful stances of recent days, offered little to no objection to Twitter’s initial labeling rubric. While Reuters (8/6/20) quoted one Russian official’s critique, CNN (8/6/20), Axios (8/6/20) and others saw no need to include the perspectives of impacted outlets and countries in their reporting, nor to underscore the blatant double standard. And, rather than condemn the policies as “unevenly enforced,” the New York Times didn’t publish the news at all. After all, Twitter’s algorithm was now further skewed in these outlets’ favor.

    Thin defenses 

    NPR: Twitter labels NPR's account as 'state-affiliated media,' which is untrue

    NPR (4/5/23) objected to being lumped in with “official state mouthpieces and propaganda outlets in countries such as Russia and China.”

    In its response to Twitter, NPR (4/5/23) vehemently disagreed with the decision, arguing that the label would liken the organization to “official state mouthpieces and propaganda outlets in countries such as Russia and China.” The broadcaster insisted that it “gets less than 1% of its annual budget, on average, from federal sources.”

    The 1% figure reverberated throughout major media outlets, and prominent US journalists took to Twitter to cite the number as evidence that NPR was not “state-affiliated.” (Technically, the statistic is accurate, though a bit cherry-picked; on its website, NPR confirms the 1% figure, but states that its member stations, which contribute heavily to NPR’s operating budget, received a total of 13% of funding from federal, state and local governments in fiscal year 2020.)

    One might wonder, though, how an organization can receive federal funding, even if a comparatively modest amount, and not be “state-affiliated.” One might also wonder whether these journalists would apply the same logic to an Iranian, Chinese or Russian outlet receiving the same portion of federal funding as NPR.

    Moreover, contrary to NPR’s argument, a low federal funding total hardly proves “editorial independence.” Regardless of its financial breakdown, NPR’s body of reporting shows that the broadcaster is exactly the “mouthpiece” and “propaganda outlet” it so indignantly claims not to be.

    State (and corporate) affiliations

    Over the years, FAIR and other media critics have catalogued dozens of instances of NPR’s advancement of official state narratives.

    In the early 1980s, under pressure from the Reagan administration, NPR gave a jingoistic slant to its coverage of the US’s war against Nicaragua, reassigning reporters who were “too easy on the Sandinistas,” and hiring a right-wing pundit, as Greg Grandin wrote in his 2007 book Empire’s Workshop.

    But the broadcaster needed “no state coercion to toe Washington’s regime change line on Venezuela” (FAIR.org, 8/5/19) when it omitted mentions of devastating US sanctions in order to blame the country’s economic woes on “authoritarian President Nicolás Maduro,” and exalt US puppet and former self-declared president of Venezuela Juan Guaidó (NPR, 5/30/19). (Never mind that Maduro was democratically elected.)

    NPR: Harsh Interrogation Techniques or Torture?

    NPR public editor Alicia Shepard (6/21/09) defended the use of euphemisms to describe torture committed by the US government, in part because “both presidents Bush and Obama have insisted that the United States does not use torture.”

    NPR similarly echoed Washington when it ignored Seymour Hersh’s report that the US destroyed the Nord Stream pipeline, promoted baseless “Chinese spy balloon” conspiracy theories, minimized the US starvation of Afghan people after the US military’s withdrawal, obscured Israel’s ongoing violence against Palestinian people after journalist Shireen Abu Akleh’s murder, and euphemized US-committed torture post-9/11. (This summary is far from exhaustive; four of these examples are from just the last ten months.)

    And NPR has no problem explicitly endorsing the US’s economic system. Ira Glass, host of NPR program This American Life, declared in 2015: “I think we’re ready for capitalism, which made this country so great. Public radio is ready for capitalism.”

    If, say, a Cuban radio-show host beamed that “socialism” made Cuba “so great,” it would be hard to imagine the New York Times and company publishing fervent defenses of the associated broadcaster’s editorial independence.

    Additionally, even when it’s not advancing official US narratives directly, NPR should raise eyebrows for its reliance on another, much greater, source of funding: corporations.

    In 2022, NPR projected corporate sponsorship to be its largest source of revenue, providing nearly 42% of its income (Current, 11/30/22). And NPR’s corporate funders as of 2021 include a number of entities that often work in tandem with US intelligence agencies: Amazon, Facebook and Google, to name a very small fraction. To suggest that the broadcaster could be “editorially independent” simply because of minimal public funding—with no accounting for corporate influence—is misleading at best.

    Right move, wrong reasons

    NPR: Government-Funded Media

    Tweets from NPR now bear the designation “government-funded media.”

    Following media’s outcry, Twitter edited NPR’s label from “state-affiliated media” to “government funded,” then “government funded media,” and affixed these labels (in the same sequence) to other qualifying Western outlets, including the BBC, PBS and Voice of America. But this softer descriptor is still selectively applied: Outlets in Iran, China, Russia, Cuba and other official enemies didn’t receive this update.

    Were Twitter genuinely interested in educating the public about the influence of power on media, it might not award government-funded US and US-friendly publications their own label, separate from that attached to Official Enemies.

    And it might account for the fact that the Washington Post’s and New York Times’ records of parroting US officials (Extra!, 3/14; FAIR.org, 5/24/19) should qualify those newspapers, too, as “state-affiliated media.”

    It very likely won’t. Twitter’s decision to call attention to Western government–funded outlets is valid. But it’s also nothing more than a product of arbitrary, petty far-right grievance politics, curtailed only by the self-serving demands of corporate news outlets—the last thing that a true reckoning with the ideology of major US media needs.

     

    The post US Media Denounce Twitter’s ‘State Media’ Label—When It Affects NPR appeared first on FAIR.

    This post was originally published on FAIR.

  •  

    Janine Jackson interviewed Detention Watch Network’s Silky Shah about the fire at the Ciudad Juárez detention center for the March 31, 2023, episode of CounterSpin. This is a lightly edited transcript.

          CounterSpin230331Shah.mp3

     

    Janine Jackson: While it was a nightmare, the March 27 fire at a migrant detention center in Ciudad Juárez, that killed at least 40 people and injured dozens more, is inappropriately labeled an “accident”—not when it’s more an illustration of systemic harms that reflect inhumane policy.

    Silky Shah is executive director at Detention Watch project. She joins us now by phone from Washington state. Welcome to CounterSpin, Silky Shah.

    Silky Shah: Thanks so much for having me on.

    JJ: The hundreds of people protesting and, frankly, grieving outside of the Ciudad Juárez Detention Center on Tuesday night, the 28th, they weren’t calling for better fire protections or less overcrowding. The chant that the group took up was “Justicia.”

    It isn’t that they aren’t connected, but these are fundamentally different conversations to have, right, about justice or about better conditions?

    SS: Yeah, one of the things, when you’re watching the video of the fire taking place, and the guards leaving as men are locked up in the cells at the migrant detention center in Juárez, a lot of it reminded me a lot of what happened during Hurricane Katrina in New Orleans so many years ago, when actually guards just left people locked up in cells as water rose.

    And this is what we know about the prison system in the US, the jail system in the US, and a lot of what the US is doing, which is outsourcing immigrant detention to Mexico, and this has been especially since the Trump administration; the number of people locked up in migrant detention centers, which they call immigration stations, in Mexico has risen dramatically.

    NBC: Advocates decry inhumane conditions of Mexico's migrant detention centers after deadly fire

    NBC News (3/28/23)

    JJ: I saw the NBCNews.com headline, “Advocates Decry Inhumane Conditions of Mexico’s Migrant Detention Centers After Deadly Fire.”

    That was the headline. And I might sound pedantic, but words mean things. And so this headline tells me that “conditions” are the problem, right, that it’s a Mexican problem, and that it’s only “advocates,” whoever they are, that are mad. And maybe they weren’t even mad until the fire, you know.

    So there’s a lot of storytelling happening here. And I just wonder what you make of the way media talk about the fire, and the way that that fits into this bigger narrative.

    SS: One of the things about the way immigrant detention is covered, both in the US and now more so in Mexico as the numbers have risen, is an assumption that detention should exist, that people should be detained just because they are on the move. Men who are in these prisons and migrant detention centers in Mexico, they are seeking safety. They are fleeing situations. Most of them are Guatemalan, and they were trying to get into the US.

    And so what’s happening in that headline is this story that, well, the people who are migrating need to be detained, an assumption already being made about that. The problem is the conditions and not actually anything else, which is: not offering legal pathways, creating more militarization at the border, pushing for deterrence—everything that the US government has been doing for many, many years, and became even that much more heightened since 9/11, and also under the Trump administration.

    But the truth is, the Biden administration has continued Trump era policies that have only exacerbated these conditions. So more people are stuck in these towns at the border. And the shelters don’t have availability, people are on the streets, and then they’re pushing to put them in these “migration stations.” And these are the conditions that end up taking place.

    And, again, people don’t want to be deported, and they protest inside these situations while people are incarcerated; it’s quite typical.

    And what happened here now is that the Mexican government is putting blame on the guards, which should get blamed, but also: what are the conditions that were created where you now have men stuck in these facilities when the fire is happening, and people passing the buck in terms of who’s responsible?

    JJ: Yeah, I think that the conversation needs a paradigm shift. Narrative is so important, storytelling is so important, in the way that US media present immigration.

    And you’ve written about this and spoken about this, about the idea of there’s good immigrants, and there’s bad immigrants, and narrative plays such an important role. But one of the important things that it does is to say some people, just by virtue of trying to move from one country to another, are criminals, and should be treated as criminals. And that framing really instructs news media in terms of how they tell folks about what’s happening.

    SS: Absolutely. You know, the US, the “nation of immigrants,” but the US incarcerates more immigrants than anywhere else in the world. And you can’t deny that relationship to mass incarceration in the US, because, again, the US is one of the leading incarceraters in the world, and we have a massive prison and jail system.

    And the narrative around it, even now in the backlash to the uprisings in 2020, and “tough on crime” narratives, so much of that is placed on immigrants. Now immigrants are “committing a crime.” And the act of being in the US without documentation isn’t technically a crime, but crossing the border is; if you get caught, are now prosecuted, you are convicted of a crime, and could spend anywhere from 30 days, six months to two years in prison for that.

    And so a lot of it is the narrative, and it’s also ignorance about the political economy that’s created around these systems as well. And we see that at the border as well in terms of militarization: Who are the contractors, who are the people who are making money off of more border militarization, off of more prisons being at the border?

    And the US—really, again, the Biden administration has completely followed Trump’s path in creating these conditions, pushing more militarization, pushing for these policies that make the conditions on the Mexican side of the border that much worse.

    JJ: I want to actually pull this to a different point, because I feel like media segregate a lot of issues, and border issues are one thing, but then there’s a whole separate section of the paper that talks about the global economy, right? And that’s a whole other thing.

    So corporate media will report every day, with a straight face, how Walmart or whatever, oh, just naturally they’re getting their labor in Bangladesh, and just naturally they’re stashing their profits offshore, you know, to skip out on US taxes, because transnational corporations do what they got to do.

    And the idea that capital need observe no borders, but humans, or, you know, labor, should actually die trying to cross them—I mean, that’s a square peg in a round hole, even at the level of so-called economic theory. But this discordant, lopsided vision holds sway in news media as if it were economic dogma.

    Silky Shah

    Silky Shah: “Immigration, in the minds of the US media, is a question of crime and safety, when, in fact, it’s really a question of labor, migration and family relationships.”

    SS: Absolutely. And NAFTA is the perfect example of what you’re talking about, where, now, borders were open for capital, borders were open for companies, borders were open for trade. But that was also the moment that the Clinton administration put in a “prevention through deterrence” approach to the border, which made it that much more difficult for people to come.

    And one of the things that happened is immigration, in the minds of the US media, is a question of crime and safety, when, in fact, it’s really a question of labor, migration and family relationships.

    And so instead, all of these “tough on crime,” “war on drugs”—of course, now the border is the site of the fentanyl crisis, when, in fact, the opioid crisis is really a public health question….

    And so these are the kinds of narratives that are put forth, the idea that capitalism is fine. But the conditions that the US has created, because of US-backed wars in other parts of the world, US empire, and also globalization, are not things we’re supposed to actually consider—and climate catastrophe, for that matter—are not things we’re supposed to consider when they’re putting in these policies at the border.

    JJ: And, you know, we’ll take this up in the future, but I do want to tell folks that activists and advocates and workers are already doing international work, or are already doing cross border work.

    We recognize that workers are workers wherever they are, people are people wherever they are. It’s just that that transnational work is not necessarily acknowledged by news media, and so people might not be aware that it’s happening, but it’s happening.

    SS: Absolutely. And especially at the border, this is where it’s happening, and I think many communities are in conversation with each other, trying to figure out how to support migrants really struggling.

    It’s a really challenging situation. And there is a lot of opportunity to figure this out. And, again, as the Mexican government has grown its detention system, there’s also the International Detention Coalition that has offices in Mexico City, and has also been working on this, and we’ve been in communication with them.

    And in so many ways, our ability to address these issues, it can’t just be this insular US focus. It really needs to be a global conversation to prevent future deaths.

    JJ: We’ve been speaking with Silky Shah, executive director at Detention Watch Network. They’re online right where you’d look, at DetentionWatchNetwork.org. Silky Shah, thank you so much for joining us this week on CounterSpin.

     

    SS: Thanks so much for having me.

     

     

     

    The post ‘The US Incarcerates More Immigrants Than Anywhere Else in the World’ appeared first on FAIR.

    This post was originally published on FAIR.

  •  

    Column: CNN, Sunday Morning Shows Completely Ignore Up To 15 Million Americans Being Thrown Off Medicaid

    The Column (4/3/23): “Because the gutting of pandemic-era welfare programs is bipartisan in nature—and President Biden is making no case to protect them—the topic is thus not a partisan conflict.”

    Last spring, the Biden administration and a Democratic House approved a policy that would kick 15 million people off of Medicaid. States are now set to begin dropping people from the rolls, reversing the record-low uninsured rate reached early last year. But if you were watching TV news, you might have missed it.

    Adam Johnson, a former FAIR contributor and co-host of the media criticism podcast Citations Needed, analyzed the coverage in an article for his Substack (The Column, 4/3/23). As Johnson notes:

    None of the agenda-setting Sunday morning shows—NBC’s Meet the Press, CBS’s Face the Nation and ABC’s This Week—mentioned the expiration of Medicaid coverage for the poorest, most vulnerable Americans in recent weeks.

    He did find scattered mentions on TV news: MSNBC ran a two-minute segment that mentioned it, ABC News aired a minute-and-a-half segment, and CBS Evening News spent all of 19 seconds on it. But reporting on the Medicaid cuts was almost nonexistent compared to the mountains of coverage given to Trump’s indictment and arraignment–the top media story of the week.

    One analysis from Media Matters (4/3/23) found that over an hour-and-a-half period before Trump’s arraignment, CNN aired 48 minutes of B-roll of the idling Trump plane and motorcade, along with shots of Trump Tower and Mar-a-Lago. MSNBC aired 66 minutes of similar footage. As Media Matters noted, this kind of coverage is similar to when networks regularly aired footage of Trump’s empty podiums (FAIR.org, 3/16/16).

    The reader can decide what’s more important: A Democratic administration taking healthcare from 15 million, or a con-man war criminal being indicted for some of the least important of his crimes.

    Writing in Current Affairs (3/30/23), Rhode Island state Sen. Sam Bell pointed the finger at progressives who didn’t even try to make this a central issue:

    A few brave policy experts did speak up, but there was no real, organized campaign. Progressive lawmakers didn’t send out a flood of tweets, speeches and op-eds. They didn’t even threaten to vote no and then cave. They made no noise. The big progressive advocacy groups didn’t run campaigns. Even Representative Ocasio-Cortez, the only Democrat to vote no, didn’t discuss the Medicaid and SNAP cuts at all in her statement on her no vote.

    While Trump’s arraignment is historic news, it has almost no effect on the lives of ordinary Americans. Stories that affect millions of lives deserve far more than a few collective minutes of coverage. Media have long privileged sensational news over important policy shifts, leaving audiences in the dark about the forces that shape their lives. This, like many other instances, demonstrates the importance of alternative and adversarial media organizations and outlets.


    Featured image: CNN (4/4/23) via Media Matters.

    The post Trump’s Idling Plane Got More TV Coverage Than Biden Cutting Healthcare for 15 Million appeared first on FAIR.

  •  

    WSJ: Lab Leak Most Likely Origin of Covid-19 Pandemic, Energy Department Now Says

    Readers should have very low confidence in the Wall Street Journal‘s assumption (2/26/23) that classified intelligence reports are helpful gauges of scientific questions.

    The Wall Street Journal (2/26/23) broke the news that classified documents show the US Energy Department believes Covid emerged from a lab leak in China, which sent shockwaves through the rest of the media. Such a statement by the Energy Department  “would be significant despite the fact that, as the report said, the agency made its updated judgment with ‘low confidence,’” according to the Guardian (2/26/23).

    “Low confidence” is a term intelligence agencies use to signify that “information’s credibility and/or plausibility is questionable, or that the information is too fragmented or poorly corroborated to make solid analytic inferences, or that we have significant concerns or problems with the sources.”

    Speaking of low confidence, Michael Gordon, one of the Journal reporters on the byline, used to write for the New York Times. There he co-authored spurious articles with the infamous Judith Miller about imaginary Iraqi weapons of mass destruction that were used to justify the US invasion of Iraq (New York Times, 9/8/02, 9/13/02; New York Review of Books, 2/26/04; Guardian, 5/27/04FAIR.org, 3/20/13).*

    Nevertheless, this one article from a sketchy reporter, relaying a single government agency’s speculations that were self-labeled as dubious, managed to reignite the lab leak controversy, with virtually every major US news outlet returning to the story.

    Readers should be asking why so many in media find government talking points on a scientific question so newsworthy. There is a vast amount of scientific research that points to Covid spreading to humans from other animal hosts—“zoonotic jump” is the technical term—and pours serious cold water on the lab leak hypothesis, as well as some of the political actors who promote it.

    ‘Public-health groupthink’

    NYT: Lab Leak Most Likely Caused Pandemic, Energy Dept. Says

    “Officials would not disclose what the intelligence was”—but that’s good enough for the front page of the New York Times (2/26/23).

    After the Journal story broke, the New York Times (2/26/23) noted that the FBI “has also concluded, with moderate confidence, that the virus first emerged accidentally from the Wuhan Institute of Virology, a Chinese lab that worked on coronaviruses.” Meanwhile, “four other intelligence agencies and the National Intelligence Council have concluded, with low confidence, that the virus most likely emerged through natural transmission.” Other outlets trumpeted the Journal’s report, giving the impression that new evidence about the pandemic’s origins had come to light (CNN, 2/27/23; NPR, 2/27/23; CBS, 2/28/23).

    While this reporting indicates that there is little consensus among government agencies about the virus’ origins, those who want to believe in the lab leak myth—like Rupert Murdoch’s media empire, to which the Journal belongs—used the report as definitive proof of Chinese carelessness, or even treachery.

    The Wall Street Journal editorial board (2/26/23) said the Energy Department declaration “doesn’t mean the case is definitive,” but that it adds “more evidence that the media and public-health groupthink about Covid was mistaken and destructive.” The Journal stressed that the “salient detail is that DoE’s judgment is based on ‘new’ but still secret intelligence”—which is known as the “trust us” school of journalism.

    In another Journal op-ed (3/6/23), Tim Trevan, a founder of CHROME Biosafety and Biosecurity Consulting, attempted to say that money, political liberalism, careerism and social pressure clouded the scientific community’s ability to accept the lab leak hypothesis. “I am not suggesting that scientists consciously decided to thwart the truth,” he said:

    You don’t have to posit conspiracy theories to explain the rush by the science establishment to exclude a lab-leak explanation to Covid. You merely have to admit that scientists are human.

    Trevan offers no evidence that a lab leak caused the pandemic, to back up his insistence that scientists have been blind to the truth. He does, however, indulge in low-brow anti-Communism and orientalism, saying the “transparency” necessary for adequate laboratory safety “runs against the grain of both Communism and China’s hierarchical traditional culture.” Which is it: Is China too egalitarian in its Maoist ways, or too stuck in its backward, pre-revolutionary past?

    Jonathan Turley opined at the New York Post (2/26/23) that the Journal’s scoop vindicated lab leak theorists who had been branded as racists or conspiracy nuts. Fox News (2/27/23) echoed Turley, and it gloated (2/27/23) that “reporters, pundits and media outlets” who had doubted the lab leak theory “were scolded and lampooned” as a result of the Journal report.

    ‘Intentionally manufactured’

    Fox: CCP government 'intentionally released' COVID-19 'all over the world,' Chinese virologist says

    You really can say anything on Fox News (2/28/23) as long as it makes the right people look bad.

    Fox News host Tucker Carlson, who has promoted the racist “great replacement” myth on his show (FAIR.org, 10/20/21; NPR, 5/12/22), took the lab leak speculation and ran with it. He showcased Chinese virologist Li-Meng Yan (2/28/23), who said that “the Chinese government intentionally manufactured and released” the coronavirus behind the pandemic, while Carlson suggested “the Chinese government unleashed Covid to destroy Western economies and elevate their own position globally.”

    Yan’s research, while backed by MAGA ideologist Steve Bannon (Vox, 9/18/20), has been questioned by National Geographic (9/18/20) and her own Hong Kong University (7/11/20).

    Her narrative nevertheless fits into the anti-China hysteria of Fox News, and has been an important player for the right’s media war since the pandemic began. As the New York Times (11/20/20) put it:

    For the diaspora, Dr. Yan and her unfounded claims provided a cudgel for those intent on bringing down China’s government. For American conservatives, they played to rising anti-Chinese sentiment and distracted from the Trump administration’s bungled handling of the outbreak.

    Carlson, of course, is not bothered by the reality that the pandemic negatively impacted the Chinese economy (Wall Street Journal, 1/17/23) and led to internal political unrest (Al Jazeera, 12/22/22).

    NY Post: The lab-leak theory is now almost certainly proved and other commentary

    Anything you can point to is “proof” when you are not trying to examine reality but instead have a story you want to tell (New York Post, 10/10/21).

    Rebroadcasting reports of official government assertions aligns nicely with the Republican agenda. The Hill (2/26/23) reported that the “lack of confidence or details on the assessment didn’t stop Republicans from claiming validation and calling for urgent action against China.” And Sen. Roger Marshall (R.–Kansas) told the Washington Post (2/28/23) that the report “gives us momentum to expose the true origins of Covid.” He added, with Michael Crichton–like flair: “I think that there’s just no way this virus could have come from nature. It’s just too perfect.”

    The lab leak claim has been a major feature in Republican circles, the conservative media and anti-Beijing political tendencies for years now. The New York Post editorial board (10/10/21) claimed that the alleged lab leak, and the Chinese government’s supposed attempts to cover it up, were all but proven in the fall of 2021.

    Sen. Tom Cotton (R.–Arkansas), who has insisted that China must be punished for the Covid pandemic (Fox News, 4/10/20), “said part of the widespread media dismissal of the coronavirus lab-leak theory last year stemmed from liberal networks’ financial connections to the Chinese government” (Fox News, 6/7/21).

    The Journal report has raised tensions. US ambassador to China Nicholas Burns (BBC, 2/28/23) said China must “be more honest about what happened three years ago in Wuhan with the origin of the Covid-19 crisis.” It should come as no surprise that reactionary corporate shock jocks like Joe Rogan, the all-star of pandemic disinformation pundits (Washington Post, 2/2/22), are fans of the theory (Fox News, 4/12/22).

    Appeals to hunches

    Des Moines Register: Think horses, not zebras; COVID-19 lab leak origin makes more and more sense

    The “zebra” in this case is the lab leak theory—rather than zoonotic transfer, which is the normal way new diseases are introduced to the human population (Des Moines Register, 2/19/23).

    If the absence of anything new in the Energy Department statement didn’t seem to give reporters and editors pause, that’s because in a lot of media, the lab leak hypothesis is advanced not so much based on evidence—because as far as tracing the virus back to the lab, there is none—but on an appeal to the hunches, and prejudices, of readers.

    For example, an opinion piece in the Des Moines Register (2/19/23) offered a list of events that are supposed to lead one to the idea that it could be true: The “Wuhan lab was working on bat coronaviruses, that gain-of-function work was being done there, [and] that there were concerns about the lab’s safety practices.” The Register op-ed, by former Republican congressmember and retired surgeon Dr. Greg Ganske, mused “that the pandemic started in the city where the lab is located, and that there has been no natural occurrence explanation of the virus.” The takeaway: “Which theory is most likely?”

    This answer posed as a question is presented as though no one has ever considered it, yet a brief look at the scientific record confirms that the scientific community has looked into it.

    First, it’s not proven that gain-of-function (GoF) research was, in fact, being conducted  in subpar safety conditions at the Wuhan Institute of Virology (WIV). Basic research being conducted there has been misrepresented as deliberately trying to make viruses more dangerous to humans, along with other widespread falsehoods spread by disgraced science writer Nicholas Wade. Sen. Rand Paul accused Dr. Anthony Fauci, without evidence, of “lying” to Congress about the NIH not funding GoF research at the WIV (MintPress News, 9/29/21; Newsweek, 7/22/21).

    However, even if it were proven the WIV was doing GoF research on the SARS-CoV-1-like coronaviruses known to be present there, like RaTG13 (which shares 96% genetic similarity with the genome of SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes Covid-19),  that would still not bolster the lab leak theory. For GoF experiments to create SARS-CoV-2, one would need to start with a virus with at least 99% genetic similarity, and there is no evidence the Wuhan lab had anything like this (Health Feedback, 3/19/21; Cell, 9/16/21).

    Cutting through the noise

    NPR: What does the science say about the origin of the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic?

    NPR (2/28/23) asked the right question.

    One mainstream media report in the aftermath of the Journal “exclusive” cut through the noise, noting that while US government agencies bicker about which low-confidence report is correct, the scientific community is not particularly divided. “Virologists who study pandemic origins are much less divided than the US intelligence community,” NPR (2/28/23) reported, adding that “they say there is ‘very convincing’ data and ‘overwhelming evidence’ pointing to an animal origin.”

    The Energy Department disclosure comes one year after two peer-reviewed studies concluded that wildlife susceptible to SARS-CoV-2 present at the Huanan Seafood Market in Wuhan was the most likely origin of the pandemic (Science, 7/26/22, 7/26/22), and that there were likely two, not one, animal spillovers at the market, since a preponderance of the earliest known Covid-19 cases have a direct or indirect link there, instead of to the WIV, which is nearly 10 miles away.

    In the earliest days of the pandemic, two distinct genetic variants of SARS-CoV-2 (known as lineages A and B) were circulating in Wuhan’s population. If the pandemic truly originated at the WIV, as many lab origin proponents suspect, one would have to posit convoluted scenarios, like one person from the WIV being infected with lineage B and immediately going to Huanan Market, not infecting anyone on the way; and another person at WIV being independently infected with lineage A, also immediately going to the market a week later. Both hypothetical spreaders would each have to leave no trace at the lab or any other location in Wuhan, to explain why the preponderance of the earliest known Covid-19 cases are clustered near the market instead of near the WIV.

    This is why scientists like Angela Rasmussen and Michael Worobey (Globe and Mail, 7/28/22), for example, have concluded that “the evidence base for the origin of SARS-CoV-2 is more robust and conclusive than nearly any other emergent virus in the past century.” They noted that “we have access to the home locations of the earliest known 174 COVID-19 cases in the world.” The authors noted that scientists have “never had a spatial record like this, of the ignition of any other pandemic, in human history”:

    Using the data available and the scientific method in which we have been trained, we have shown that the likelihood of SARS-CoV-2 originating anywhere other than the Huanan market is vanishingly slim.

    The “much simpler explanation” of SARS-CoV-2 being introduced to the human population by “two separate zoonotic transmission events at the market,” the authors conclude, is much more likely in comparison.

    Evidence of animal origins

    Atlantic: The Strongest Evidence Yet That an Animal Started the Pandemic

    Scientists offering new evidence about the origin of Covid-19 was a much less compelling story than spies offering new speculation (Atlantic, 3/16/23).

    More recent evidence from scientists researching previously unavailable genetic material collected by Chinese investigators from swabs at the Huanan Seafood Wholesale Market in January 2020—shortly after Chinese authorities shut that market down on suspicions it was linked to the virus’s outbreak—definitively shows that multiple animal species known to be susceptible to SARS-CoV-2 (most notably raccoon dogs) were present at the market, since animal DNA there was found to be commingled with SARS-CoV-2 (Atlantic, 3/16/23; Zenodo, 3/20/23). This corroborates photographic and business records of illegal live animal sales being conducted there right before the pandemic’s outbreak, despite the Chinese government’s lies and stonewalling regarding the wildlife trade (Nature, 6/7/21; Science, 8/18/22).

    While these findings aren’t smoking-gun evidence of an animal origin, because the data doesn’t distinguish whether the virus collected in the wildlife stall there was brought there by wildlife or by already-infected humans, they are still significant. The area in the market where most of the SARS-CoV-2 positive samples clustered was also where most of the samples containing wild animal DNA were found, whereas human genetic material was most abundant in other parts of the market (indicating the pandemic likely spread from animals to humans, rather than the other way around). This is entirely consistent with a market origin, and exactly what one would expect to find if the Huanan Market was indeed the origin of the pandemic (Nature, 3/21/23; Science, 3/21/23).

    But despite the positive evidence in favor of a zoonotic origin, in comparison to no evidence whatsoever for a lab origin, the Journal ran with the Energy Department statement as though it were a scientific revelation, and the rest of the media went along for the ride. It’s easy to chalk that up as mere journalistic laziness, but one has to wonder if there is something more sinister afoot, given US corporate media’s enthusiastic participation in the US governments’ propaganda campaign to pump up China as an adversary (FAIR.org, 3/16/23).

    In a media environment raising tensions over a Chinese balloon (FAIR.org, 2/10/23), and an Air Force memo about possible war with China (CounterPunch, 2/7/23), along with the Biden administration’s decision to send up to 200 more troops to Taiwan (Wall Street Journal, 2/23/23), reports on a government disclosure about a potential lab leak with no real new information create more friction between the two military giants, and bring us no closer to understanding the pandemic’s origins or how to prepare for the next viral catastrophe.


    * To be fair, the other co-author, Warren Strobel, was one of the very few in corporate media to report skeptically on WMD claims, along with his partner at Knight Ridder, Jerry Landay (Extra!, 3–4/06). In recent years, however, Strobel has produced far more credulous work, including a piece whitewashing the torture record of CIA director Gina Haspel (Wall Street Journal, 5/25/19; see FAIR.org, 6/6/19).

    The post Media’s Lab Leak Theorists See Spies, Not Scientists, as Arbiters of Science appeared first on FAIR.

  •       CounterSpin230407.mp3

     

    Starbucks labor rally, April 2022

    (CC photo: Elliot Stoller)

    This week on CounterSpin: Former President Donald Trump was arrested this week, but we’re going to talk about another kind of crime: the slow, steady drip drip of crime that doesn’t leap out to reporters—the day-to-day crushing of workers’ attempts to organize themselves to have a voice in the workplace, not just about their pay, but their well-being and their dignity. Crushing those attempts to work together is against the law—but it’s not the sort of crime that elite media seem able to identify. And it’s much harder to fight  when the law-breaking megacorporation is as media-savvy and faux progressive as Starbucks.

    Saurav Sarkar has been reporting Starbucks workers’ efforts—not to quit their workplaces, but to transform them into places where they can make a living and have some say in their lives, while, yes, also giving you your cappuccino.

    Sarkar writes for Labor Notes, Jacobin and FAIR.org, among other outlets. We hear from them this week on CounterSpin.

          CounterSpin230407Sarkar.mp3

     

    Plus Janine Jackson takes a quick look at recent media coverage of the Chicago mayoral election and the projected Antarctic current collapse.

          CounterSpin230407Banter.mp3

     

    The post Saurav Sarkar on Starbucks Organizing appeared first on FAIR.

    This post was originally published on FAIR.

  •  

    WSJ: The Party Is Ending for French Retirees

    The Wall Street Journal (3/14/23) reports with evident alarm that “France has one of the lowest rates of retirees at risk of poverty in Europe.”

    “The Party Is Ending for French Retirees.” That’s the headline the Wall Street Journal (3/14/23) went with just days before French President Emmanuel Macron invoked a special article of the constitution to bypass the National Assembly and enshrine an increase in the retirement age in national law. The Journal proclaimed:

    The golden age of French pensions is coming to an end, one way or another, in an extreme example of the demographic stress afflicting the retirement systems of advanced economies throughout the world.

    The possibility that this “golden age” could be extended is not even entertained. Due to previous “reforms” (CounterSpin, 9/17/10), the pension of the average French person is already facing cuts over the coming decades. So preserving the current level of benefits would require strengthening the system. For the Journal, this is out of the question. Stingier pensions, on the other hand, are portrayed as the inevitable result of “demographic stress,” not policy choices.

    The French people, by contrast, recognize that a less generous pension system is far from an inevitability. Protesters quickly took to the streets this January after the government unveiled plans to raise the retirement age from 62 to 64; one poll from that month found 80% of the country opposed to such a change. And as the government pushed the reform through in March, protests grew especially rowdy, with monuments of refuse lining the city’s streets and fires illuminating the Parisian landscape.

    But that’s just how the French are, you know? They’re a peculiar people, much different from us Americans.

    The French are built different

    NYT: The French Like Protesting, but This Frenchman May Like It the Most

    A New York Times profile (2/24/23) depicted Jean-Baptiste Reddé as “a kind of ‘Where’s Waldo?’ who invariably appears alongside unionists blowing foghorns and battalions of armor-clad riot police.”

    As the New York Times’ Paris bureau chief Roger Cohen put it in a recent episode of the Daily (3/16/23), protesters have been “talking about how life begins when work ends, which is a deeply held French conviction, very different from the American view that life is enriched and enhanced by work.”

    Left unmentioned is the fact that, for decades, Americans have consistently opposed increases to the Social Security retirement age, usually by a large margin (CounterSpin, 10/26/18). Moreover, two-thirds of the American public support a four-day workweek, and half say Americans work too much. How French of them.

    US media (Extra!, 3–4/96) have taken to covering the uprising against pension “reform” in the same way the narrator of a nature documentary might describe the wilderness:

    Now, we come to a Frenchman in his natural habitat. His behavior may give the impression of idleness, but don’t let that fool you. If prodded enough with the prospect of labor, he will not hesitate before lighting the local pastry shop ablaze.

    The New York Times (2/24/23), for instance, ran an article in the midst of the protests headlined “The French Like Protesting, but This Frenchman May Like It the Most,” about a man who has “become a personal embodiment of France’s enduring passion for demonstration.” It followed that up with a piece (3/7/23) presenting French opposition to an increase in the retirement age as some exotic reflection of the French’s French-ness. A source attested to the country’s uniqueness: “In France, we believe that there is a time for work and then a time for personal development.”

    Meanwhile, while the Washington Post has mostly been content to outsource coverage of the protests to Associated Press wires, it did run a piece (3/15/23) by one of its own reporters titled: “City of … Garbage? Paris, Amid Strikes, Is Drowning in Trash.”

    The burden of old people

    WaPo: Despite protests, Macron-style reforms are needed — and not only in France

    The Washington Post (3/17/23) urged the United States to join France in “forcing needed reforms to old-age benefit programs.”

    This fairly unserious reporting on the protests contrasts sharply with the grave rhetoric deployed by the editorial boards of major newspapers in opposing the protesters’ demands. The Wall Street Journal (3/16/23), which has implored the French to face “the cold reality” of spending cuts, is not alone in its crusade against French workers. The boards of the Washington Post, Bloomberg and the Financial Times have all run similarly dour editorials promoting pension reform over the past few months.

    Among these, only the Financial Times (3/19/23) opposed the French government’s remarkably anti-democratic decision to raise the retirement age without a vote in the National Assembly, opining that Macron’s tactics have both “weakened” him and left “France with a democratic deficit.”

    The Washington Post (3/17/23), by contrast, suggested democratic means would have been preferable, but gave no indication of opposition to Macron’s move. (As FAIR has pointed out—3/9/23—the Post’s supposed concern for democracy doesn’t extend far beyond its slogan.) And the Wall Street Journal (3/16/23) actually saluted the move, remarking, “Give Mr. Macron credit for persistence—and political brass.”

    The editorial boards’ case for pension reform is based on a simple conviction—French pensions are unsustainable—for which there are three main pieces of evidence.

    First, the ratio of workers to retirees. The Wall Street Journal (3/14/23) included a graphic projecting the worker-to-retiree ratio through 2070:

     

    Wall Street Journal: Ration of Workers to Retirees

    The Wall Street Journal graphic (3/14/23) does not note that over this same time period, from 2019 to 2070, the percentage of French GDP spent on pensions is projected to decline from 14.8% to 12.6%.

     

    As the graphic shows, this ratio has declined substantially since 2002, and is set to decline even more over the next several decades. This trend is referenced more or less directly in editorials by the Journal (3/16/23, 1/31/23, 1/13/23), the Washington Post (3/17/23) and the Financial Times (3/19/23).

    The declining worker-to-retiree ratio is meant to inspire fear, but in and of itself, it’s not necessarily a problem. After all, the increased costs associated with a rising number of retirees could very well be offset by other factors. It is therefore much more useful to look directly at how much of a nation’s wealth is used to support retirees.

    Which brings us to the second commonly cited piece of evidence: pensions as a percentage of GDP. This is mentioned in editorials by the Journal (3/16/23, 1/31/23, 1/13/23), Post (3/17/23) and Bloomberg (1/16/23).

    As it turns out, there’s no problem to be found here. In its 2021 Aging Report, the European Commission estimates that, even without a rise in the minimum retirement age to 64, public pension spending in France would actually decline over the next several decades, dropping to 12.6% of GDP in 2070, down from 14.8% in 2019. Cost-saving factors, primarily the deterioration in benefit levels, would more than cancel out the increase in the number of retirees. In other words, there is no affordability crisis. It doesn’t exist.

    Which side are you on?

    FT: Emmanuel Macron’s indispensable pensions overhaul

    For the Financial Times (1/10/23), cutting pensions is “indispensable” because “plugging a hole in the pension system is a gauge of credibility for Brussels and for financial markets which are again penalizing ill-discipline.”

    The only actual evidence for the unsustainability of France’s pension system is the system’s deficit, which is projected to reach around €14 billion by 2030. This piece of evidence is cited in editorials by the Journal (1/31/23, 1/13/23) and the Financial Times (3/19/23, 1/10/23).

    One solution to the deficit is raising the retirement age. Another is raising taxes. Oddly enough, the editorials cited above almost universally fail to mention the second option.

    The only editorial board to bring up the possibility of raising taxes is the Financial Times’ (1/10/23), which comments, “Macron has rightly ruled out raising taxes or rescinding tax breaks since France’s tax share of GDP is already 45%, the second-highest in the OECD after Denmark.”

    This statement says much more about the Times than it does about the reasonableness of raising taxes. Oxfam France (1/18/23) has estimated that a mere 2% tax on the wealth of French billionaires could eliminate the projected pension deficit. Rescinding three tax cuts that Macron’s government passed and that largely benefit the wealthy could free up €16 billion each year. That would plug the pension system’s projected deficit with money left over.

    Which option you pick—increasing taxes on the wealthy or raising the retirement age—depends entirely on who you want to bear the costs of shoring up the pension system. Do you want the wealthy to sacrifice a little? Or do you want to ratchet up the suffering of lower-income folks a bit? Are you on the side of the rich, or the poor and working class? The editorial boards of these major newspapers have made their allegiance clear.

    The post US Media Cheer as France Forces Old People to Work appeared first on FAIR.

    This post was originally published on FAIR.

  •  

    Janine Jackson interviewed Public Citizen’s Eagan Kemp about Medicare Advantage for the March 31, 2023, episode of CounterSpin. This is a lightly edited transcript.

          CounterSpin230331Kemp.mp3

     

    Janine Jackson: You may have seen television ads warning ominously of “DC liberals” breaking promises to seniors with proposed cuts to Medicare Advantage, and calling on local legislators to fight back.

    Ad: Biden Wants to Cut Medicare Advantage

    American Action Network (3/3/23)

    You might wonder why a multimillion-dollar scare campaign would be the first recourse of a deep-pocketed industry that was genuinely concerned with senior citizens’ healthcare and well-being. But the health insurance system in the United States is nothing if not confusing.

    And as with any situation created and sustained by human actions, you’re right to wonder: Is this the best we can do? How can we do better? Or, more pointedly, why can’t we do better, when we know we have a population that needs healthcare, and a country that can afford it?

    News media could play an informing and an explaining role here, but that’s not what seems to happen.

    Eagan Kemp is healthcare policy advocate at Public Citizen, and he joins us now by phone from Salt Lake City. Welcome to CounterSpin, Eagan Kemp.

    Eagan Kemp: Thanks so much for having me.

    JJ: I’m going to ask you multiple things, and we can’t do justice in the time we have. But I do want to ask you just to orient us a bit, because, right now, we’re kind of in the midst of competing claims.

    The proposed changes to Medicare Advantage are either going to take needed medicine away from seniors, or they’re about combating fraud and overbilling.

    Understanding that we’re not talking about a perfect response to a perfectly defined problem, what are we kind of looking at right now with Medicare Advantage and the Biden proposals on changes? What’s a useful way to understand that?

    Public Citizen's Eagan Kemp

    Eagan Kemp: “Traditional Medicare has always cost less. It’s always served seniors more consistently. But it doesn’t place ads.”

    EK: Yeah, it’s really a crucial time for Medicare Advantage and for the Medicare program more generally. I think the reason that you’re seeing these ads trying to scare people into getting their legislator to protect Medicare Advantage is that a lot of Medicare Advantage insurers have been caught with their hand in the cookie jar.

    Just to step back briefly, traditional Medicare has been around for a long time, and has served hundreds of millions of Americans.

    But the Medicare Advantage plan is more recent; it’s just around in the past couple of decades, but it’s been growing quickly. And the Medicare Advantage plan, the big difference there is they’re able to profit off of the healthcare for seniors, whereas traditional Medicare is nonprofit. It serves seniors where they are in terms of what they need.

    And as Medicare Advantage has grown, it’s become more profitable, and these companies have gotten better at taking advantage of seniors, and now they’ve been caught. And so there’s been more research highlighting areas where seniors have struggled to get the care they need, how much extra it costs the US in terms of, if you just covered those seniors through traditional Medicare.

    So they really are trying to defend their profits at a time when they can see the Biden administration and Congress really put them in the crosshairs, and begin to make steps to hold them more accountable for their actions.

    JJ: So who’s behind this current information campaign, and what are their goals here?

    EK: Yeah, it’s a great question. And the biggest player is what we refer to as AHIP, or America’s Health Insurance Plans, which really is sort of a cabal of all the biggest insurers that put money in, and then use AHIP as cover for lobbying and direct political influence, glad-handing with politicians and, to the extent possible, with the White House.

    And so they are always going to work on behalf of insurers’ ability to profit, regardless of what that means for seniors. They’re seeing the losses that pharma has had recently when it comes to things like insulin, when it comes to things like negotiating the cost of some drugs with Medicare.

    And insurers are scared too. They see that they’re next on the chopping block, because they’ve had it so good for so long, and Medicare Advantage has never delivered on the promise of actually lowering the cost of care, or improving the quality of care.

    WaPo: A fiscally responsible government cannot keep its hands off Medicare

    Washington Post (3/23/23)

    JJ: Let me ask you how that fits with the Washington Post editorial I saw, I guess, a couple of weeks ago, “A Fiscally Responsible Government Cannot Keep Its Hands Off Medicare.”

    I was trying to sort of mentally separate Medicare and Medicare Advantage. I see you connecting them. And I see now the Washington Post saying, we just got to get into those funds. Like, what’s the connection there?

    EK: Yeah, it’s a really important connection. And I think it’s one of the more challenging ones, because I think one of the things that the Medicare Advantage plans and the private insurers that profit off this do well is conflating the two, conflating Medicare Advantage and traditional Medicare.

    And the real issue is that traditional Medicare has always cost less. It’s always served seniors more consistently. But it doesn’t place ads, it doesn’t fill the airwaves the way that Medicare Advantage plans do when someone’s turning 65.

    These Medicare Advantage plans do a lot of often misleading advertising, so that they can do what we refer to as cherrypick the healthiest seniors, and then “lemon drop” sicker seniors, and make sure that they stay in traditional Medicare.

    And it’s something that Medicare Advantage plans have gotten better at. And the more people that are in Medicare Advantage, the more it’s a threat to the long-term health of the entire Medicare program.

    Right now we’re close to 50% of seniors on Medicare Advantage. And we know that it would cost a lot less to cover those seniors in traditional Medicare. And so it is existential for the Medicare program.

    And it’s something that in the short term, the Biden administration and Congress really need to crack down on bad actors in Medicare Advantage, but in the long term, moving towards a system that both improves and expands traditional Medicare, while at least putting Medicare Advantage on a level playing field. But in the long term, it’s just unclear that there’s any positive role for Medicare Advantage.

    Public Citizen: `PRIVATE EQUITY’S PATH OF DESTRUCTION IN
HEALTH CARE CONTINUES TO SPREAD

    Public Citizen (3/21/23)

    JJ: Let me ask you, because I wanted to give you an opportunity to connect this, and to talk about a new report that Public Citizen has done, but I know listeners will understand, who are regular media consumers: For elite media, if anything is a public/private partnership, well, then that is the holy grail. That is exactly what we want. Because heaven forbid anything be wholly public, or publicly supported.

    And so public/private is the exemplar, just narratively, is my feeling from elite media.

    And I know that you’ve just released a new report on the role of private equity in healthcare. The “role” maybe is too gentle of a phrase. The report is called “Private Equity’s Path of Destruction in Healthcare Continues to Spread.” So let me just ask you to break down a little bit for listeners: What is the problem that you’re mapping here? And how does it connect with these broader healthcare issues?

    EK: Yeah, I think it really connects at the nexus of profit. So private equity companies are generally large, privately held, they don’t have a lot of accountability or transparency.

    Many of them, even if you knew their name, and then you tried to search them on Google or somewhere else, you would not be able to find an ounce of information. They’re very secretive. They hold their secrets and investments close. Some of the bigger ones, you might be able to find a bit about. But they are shady actors, and their primary drive is profit above all else.

    And in healthcare, that’s particularly scary, because they also move much more quickly than even traditional healthcare actors. To me, they’re even scarier in terms of their actions than traditional insurers, that are also focused on profit, but do have a longer timeline that they plan to have in the industry.

    If you’re a private equity company, you want to buy in and you want to get out within three to five years, and you want to pull as much as you can in terms of profit out. So it means really taking underhanded tactics, like selling a hospital out from under the hospital administration.

    So you might buy this entire healthcare system, you sell that hospital immediately, cash that check, and now you’re charging that hospital that you just bought a very expensive lease. If this is not a high-margin hospital, or if it’s in a rural area or an urban area, it may have a really difficult time staying in business.

    But as a private equity company, you don’t care, because you’re about to sell that, or you’re about to flip it to somebody else, and you’re going to move on, and that’s a real dedication to profit across the healthcare industry. And that’s really what we go into the report, over nearly 15 different areas where private equity has engaged recently in the healthcare system, and scary places where they’re going next, such as hospice or end-of-life care.

    JJ: I’m just going to ask you, finally and briefly, and we’ll clearly talk much more in the future, but we know that policy is shaped by people’s understanding of what is possible. And we know that news media shape that understanding.

    So for me, corporate news media are chockablock with what they would call “news you can use,” like: Can I apply for disability while on Medicaid? Does it make sense to divorce my spouse so that we could see if maybe I could get my meds covered?

    It’s reporting that assumes that you’re over a barrel, and that masses of us are over a barrel, but is somehow too timid to say, this is crazy and cruel and unnecessary, and to talk about systemic change. And if anybody does, well then they’re a freak, and they’re actually a problem that needs to be contained.

    And so knowing that you can’t say all you’d want to say, what are your thoughts about media coverage of this issue?

    EK: Yeah, it is a challenging area. I think that some of the real bad actors in both private equity and in Big Pharma, and Medicare Advantage and other insurers, I think there is starting to be a bit of a different tone.

    I think Americans are having enough pain points, and talking about them or coming together to push for things like Medicare for All. I think that’s why, during the 2016, the 2020 presidential debates, there was just so much angst and frustration around the healthcare system, and real support for things like Medicare for All.

    And the corporate media are certainly not there yet. But I think enough stuff is starting to break through that they can’t just ignore it. And so you are starting to see even the New York Times or the Washington Post really cover in more detail some of the fears around prescription drugs, or around Medicare Advantage, or some of the abuses that we’re seeing, even during Covid-19, by insurers and others.

    And it’s an important time for folks to tell their stories and to also get engaged, because the industries want us to stay demoralized and separated. But it’s when we come together that we can really push for the change that we need.

    JJ: I’m going to end on that note. We’ve been speaking with Eagan Kemp. He’s health policy advocate at Public Citizen. You can find their work, including this new report on private equity and healthcare, online at Citizen.org Thank you so much, Eagan Kemp, for joining us this week on CounterSpin.

    EK: Thank you, appreciate it.

    The post ‘Medicare Advantage Has Never Delivered on the Promise’ appeared first on FAIR.

    This post was originally published on FAIR.

  •  

    On the heels of the latest Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report (3/20/23), which featured scientists running out of ways to emphasize how urgently deep cuts in fossil fuel use are needed, a troubling new climate study has emerged. Published in the prominent peer-reviewed science journal Nature (3/29/23), the study found that a little-studied deep ocean circulation system is slowing dramatically, and could collapse this century. One IPCC author not involved in the study declared it “headline news.” Unfortunately, science doesn’t guide US corporate media, which were virtually silent on the landmark study.

    The authors modeled the effects of Antarctic meltwater on deep ocean currents crucial to marine ecosystems. Similar to the more well-studied Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation (AMOC) that the Gulf Stream is a part of, and which is also known to be dangerously weakening, the Antarctic overturning circulation has major planetary impacts. It pushes nutrient-dense water from the ocean floor up toward the surface, where those nutrients support marine life. The Nature study, which also refers to the current as the Antarctic Bottom Water, found that this circulation system is projected to slow down 42% by 2050, with a total collapse “this century,” according to study co-author Matthew England (CNN.com, 3/29/23).

    CNN: Crucial Antarctic ocean circulation heading for collapse if planet-warming pollution remains high, scientists warn

    CNN (3/29/23) was the only major US media outlet we could find covering the news that a crucial Antarctic ocean current could collapse in this century.

    This is indeed “headline news,” with major impacts on the sustainability of marine ecosystems and the ocean’s capacity to absorb carbon dioxide, accelerating climate change. And this deep warming could cause further ice melt, which isn’t incorporated into the study’s models—meaning this could all happen even faster than their model predicts.

    Yet FAIR could find no record of any US newspaper even mentioning the Nature study in the week since it came out—let alone giving it the front-page coverage it inarguably deserves. Nor did we find mentions on national TV news programs, aside from CNN anchor Michael Holmes interviewing England for the network’s 3 a.m. airing of CNN Newsroom (4/1/23). Aside from science- and environment-focused news outlets (Conversation, 3/29/23; Grist, 4/3/23, picked up by Salon, 4/3/23), almost no major US-based web outlets offered reports either, with the exception, again, of CNN.com (3/29/23), which ran a creditable article by Australian-based journalist Hilary Whiteman.

    Toronto-based wire service Reuters (3/29/23), the London Guardian (3/29/23) and BBC (3/30/23) also published articles.

    Climate activist Bill McKibben (Crucial Years, 4/2/23) argued that Donald Trump’s arrest, which dominated headlines the day the Nature study came out, was far less remarkable as news goes. “Him ending up in trouble for tax evasion to cover up an affair with a porn star seems unlikely only in its details,” McKibben wrote, while the Antarctic story was “one of the most important installments in the most important saga of our time, the rapid decline of the planet’s physical health.”

    Last year, FAIR (4/21/22) found that after paying brief lip service to that year’s IPCC report, TV news networks virtually ignored the climate crisis for the next six weeks—when they had a chance to pay lip service to the crisis again on Earth Day. Perhaps the Nature study came too soon after the IPCC report, and corporate media had had their fill of news requiring viewers to question the grip the fossil fuel industry—a major news advertiser—has on politics. In any case, the shocking lack of coverage of Nature‘s devastating study demonstrates, once again, that corporate media’s commitment to a livable planet comes nowhere close to matching the urgency of the situation.

    The post Projected Collapse of Crucial Antarctic Current Met With Media Silence appeared first on FAIR.

    This post was originally published on FAIR.

  •       CounterSpin230331.mp3

     

    Internal footage, Ciudad Juárez detention center fire

    Ciudad Juárez detention center fire

    This week on CounterSpin: There are a number of issues or realities where good-hearted people are overwhelmed and frankly misled about how isolated they are in their view, and what levers of power they may have to pull on. We can live in a better world! And we should interrogate those who say, “Oh no, you don’t get it; we’re smarter and we say you just can’t.”

    One such story is migration, or immigration—or, to be real, do Black and brown people have a right to move freely in the world? If not, why not? We’ll get some ideas of where to start this week with Silky Shah, executive director at Detention Watch Network, about the Ciudad Juárez fire and what it tells us about immigration policy.

          CounterSpin230331Shah.mp3

     

    From "Understanding Medicare Advantage Plans"

    Image: Health & Human Services

    And on healthcare: Do we really need to be making choices between seniors getting needed healthcare and other folks getting needed healthcare? Do we have to run our healthcare system on for-profit incentivizing? Is there truly no other way? We talk with Eagan Kemp, healthcare policy advocate at Public Citizen, about the fight around Medicare and Medicare Advantage, and what it says about concerns about seniors and about health, in the US.

          CounterSpin230331Kemp.mp3

     

    The post Silky Shah on Detention Center Fire, Eagan Kemp on Medicare Advantage appeared first on FAIR.

    This post was originally published on CounterSpin.

  •  

    In the early morning of March 20, 2003, US Navy bombers on aircraft carriers and Tomahawk missile-launching vessels in the Persian Gulf and the Mediterranean, along with Air Force B-52s in Britain and B-2s in Diego Garcia, struck Baghdad and other parts of Iraq in a “Shock and Awe” blitzkrieg to oust Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein and occupy that oil-rich country.

    Liberation: Thousands march in Washington, D.C., to launch new movement against U.S. empire

    Liberation (3/20/23), the newspaper of the Party for Socialism and Liberation, was one of the few outlets to cover the March 18 peace march in Washington, DC.

    Twenty years on, the US news media, as is their habit with America’s wars, published stories looking back at that war and its history (FAIR.org, 3/22/23), most of them treading lightly around the rank illegality of the US attack, a war crime that was not approved by the UN Security Council, and was not a response to any imminent Iraqi threat to the US, as required by the UN Charter.

    Oddly, none of those national media organizations’ editors saw as relevant or remotely newsworthy a groundbreaking protest rally and march outside the White House of at least 2,500–3,000 people on Saturday, March 18, 2023, called by a coalition of over 200 peace and anti-militarism organizations to commemorate the 20th anniversary of the Iraq invasion.

    The Washington Post, like the rest of the national news media, failed to mention or even run a photo of the rally in Lafayette Park. It didn’t even cover the peaceful and spirited march from the front of the White House along Pennsylvania and New York avenues to the K Street Washington Post building to deliver several black coffins as a local story—despite the paper’s having a reporter whose beat is actually described by Post as being to “to cover protests and general assignments for the metro desk.” An email request to this reporter, Ellie Silverman, asking why this local protest in DC went unreported did not get a response.

    National press a no-show

    Code Pink at March 18 peace march

    Code Pink was among the organizers of the DC march.

    The rally, organized by the ANSWER Coalition and sponsors such as Code Pink, Veterans for Peace, Black Alliance for Peace and Radical Elders, drew “several thousand” antiwar, anti-military protesters, according to ANSWER Coalition national director Brian Becker. He said the demonstration’s endorsers were calling for peace negotiations and an end to US arms for Ukraine, major cuts in the US military budget, an end to the US policy of endless wars, and freedom for Julian Assange and Indigenous prisoner Leonard Peltier.

    Becker said that the coalition had a media team that spent two weeks on phones and computers, reaching out to national and local media organizations, including in the seven or eight other cities, including Los Angeles, Chicago and San Francisco, that held rallies on the same day. “Not a single member of the national press even showed up,” he said.

    Two local Washington TV stations (CBS and ABC affiliates) did do brief stories on the rally and march, but Google and Nexis searches turned up not a single major mainstream national news report on the event, though it was the second, and significantly larger, antiwar demonstration in Washington in just four weeks, and the first by specifically left-wing peace and antiwar organizations. (The first rally, on February 19, called “Rage Against the War Machine,” organized primarily by libertarians and some left-wing opponents of the US proxy war with Russia, did get a mention in the conservative Washington Times (2/19/23) and promotion a day before the event by right-wing Fox News host Tucker Carlson (2/17/22).

    “We talked to reporters and gave them details about our planning events during the two weeks before the march—the kinds of things that journalists years back used to like to attend to hear what the activists were saying and thinking, but nobody showed up from the media at those sessions,” says Becker. “I guess those who make the decisions about assignments and coverage didn’t want this event covered.”

    Shift from the ’60s

    Vietnam War peace march

    Vietnam veterans in Washington, DC, march against the war, April 24, 1971 (CC photo: Leena A. Krohn).

    FAIR founder Jeff Cohen noted a shift from the way peace demonstrations were covered in the 1960s. “Even a few hundred antiwar protesters at a local anti-Vietnam War march would get local news coverage,” he recalled:

    We weren’t ignored, but every participant complained about the quality of the coverage that so often focused on the length of men’s hair, length of women’s skirts, usage of four-letter words, etc. and not substantive critique of war or US foreign policy. National protests in DC got significant national coverage, but not friendly coverage.

    Cohen contrasted this with antiwar protests in recent decades, which have frequently been snubbed by media. “I think the ignoring of local and even national antiwar marches kicked in during the mid- and late 1980s around movements opposing US intervention in Central America,” he said.

    Noam Chomsky (who knows from personal experience the sensation of being virtually blacklisted by corporate media) was a speaker at the March 18 event. Asked to explain this latest blackout of antiwar sentiment and opposition to military aid to Ukraine, he responded, “Par for the course.” He added, “Media rarely stray far from the basic framework imposed by systems of power, as FAIR has been effectively documenting for many years.”

    Filling the hole

    WSWS: The March 18 anti-war rally and the dead end of “pressuring” the Democratic Party

    WSWS (3/21/23) was critical of the DC march for trying to change Democratic Party policy.

    Fortunately, alternative media, which have proliferated online, are filling in the hole in protest coverage, though of course readers and viewers have to seek out those sources of information. There was a news report on the march in Fightback News (3/23/23), for example, and commentary on the World Socialist Web Site (3/21/23) and Black Agenda Report (2/22/23).

    Foreign coverage of the March 18 antiwar event in the US was substantial, which should embarrass editors at US news organizations. Some foreign coverage, considering that it appeared in state-owned or partially state-owned media, were surprisingly professional. Read, for example, the report by Xinhua (3/19/23), China’s government-owned news service, or one in Al Myadeen (3/18/23), the Lebanese satellite news service, which reportedly favors Syria and Hezbollah.

    It’s rather disturbing to find such foreign news outfits, not just covering news that is being hidden from Americans by their own vaunted and supposedly “free” press, but doing it more straightforwardly than US corporate media often do when they actually report on protests against US government policy.

    Efforts to get either the Washington Post or New York Times to explain their airbrushing out the March 18 antiwar protest in Washington were unsuccessful. (Both publications have eliminated their news ombud offices, citing “budget issues.”)

    Fortunately Patrick Pexton, the last ombud at the Washington Post, who now teaches journalism at Johns Hopkins University, and writes on media, foreign and defense policy, and politics and society, offered this emailed observation about the March 18 demonstration blackout:

    I confess that I am surprised no major national news organization covered it. I know that some people look down their noses at Code Pink and ANSWER Coalition, and journalists generally are supportive of the Ukraine War, but the demonstrators have a legitimate point of view, and my general personal rule is that anytime you get 1,000 people to turn out to protest something, you should at the very least do a local story about it. I don’t know what the Post rules are today.

     

     

     

     

     

    The post Covering (Up) Antiwar Protest in US Media appeared first on FAIR.

  • Aiden Hale used three of the seven guns he bought in an assault on a Christian school in Nashville, killing six people, including three children. Hale, a former student at the school, was killed by police (NPR, 3/28/23).

    The tragedy is numbingly added to an endless list of school shootings like Stoneman Douglas, Uvalde, Columbine and Sandy Hook. Every time one of these heartbreaking incidents hits the news, some of us have a small hope that this might make America realize that it needs to love its children more than it loves its guns.

    But we are living in an age where Republicans have swapped the American flag for an AR-15 as the ultimate nationalistic symbol (Time, 2/7/23). A dream of a disarmed America seems out of reach. The Onion has reused its infamous “‘No Way to Prevent This,’ Says Only Nation Where This Regularly Happens,” 31 times since 2014 (most recently 3/27/23).

    And this time around, Rupert Murdoch’s media empire is using Hale’s transgender identity to ratchet up its campaign against transgender people.

    Cashing in on bias

    NY Post: Transgender Killer Targets Christian School

    The New York Post (3/28/23) does not seem to have ever used the phrase “cisgender killer.”

    The cover of the New York Post (3/28/23) couldn’t have been clearer. It featured a photograph of the Nashville killer juxtaposed against the image of a terrified child in a school bus, with the blaring headline “Transgender Killer Targets Christian School.” The Post (3/27/23) reported some speculation that Hale “may have been driven to kill by ‘resentment’” for having to attend a Christian school. While reporting in a separate story on Hale’s access to guns—which, in the case of any mass shooting, should be a primary focus of news coverage—the Post (3/28/23) again reminded readers that the shooter was trans in the headline.

    Reducing a crime suspect to their gender identity in a headline is irresponsible journalism—just as identifying a suspect by their race, religion or sexual orientation, which is why you don’t see headlines talking about an “Asian killer,” a “Mormon killer” or a “bisexual killer.” Such shorthand inevitably holds an entire group responsible for the action of an individual, and, in the case of a group that faces widespread prejudice, puts many people in danger.

    Given that nearly all school shooters are cisgender, there is simply no rational reason for the Post to highlight the shooter’s gender identity other than to cash in on readers’ biases.

    Hale did, in fact, belong to a demographic group that is responsible for a wildly disproportionate number of mass shootings: He was male. As FAIR’s Julie Hollar and Olivia Riggio (6/30/22) have noted, media outlets often fail to report on how misogyny and masculinity play a role in many mass shootings.

    Hallucinating a ‘pattern’

    Fox: A Trans Killer

    Laura Ingraham (Fox, 3/28/23) claimed that Hale’s identity “didn’t quite match the preferred criteria of the media.”

    Murdoch’s Fox News (3/28/23) reported that “a radical transgender group said the transgender Nashville shooter felt ‘no other effective way to be seen’” adding that “the Trans Resistance Network (TRN), a far-left transgender ‘collective,’ released an inflammatory statement” that Hale resorted to violence because Hale had “no other effective way to be seen,” while still saying the action was tragic. (The obscure group appears to have gotten no media coverage at all prior to March 27, according to a search of the Nexis database.)

    Republican Missouri Sen. Josh Hawley told the network (3/29/23) that the incident should be investigated as an anti-Christian hate crime. “We’ve seen a lot of language directed at the Christian community with regard to particularly trans issues, calling them hateful,” the senator said. “That kind of rhetoric is dangerous, and we’re seeing its effects right now.”

    (That hateful speech can have consequences seems like a new position for the senator, who responded to Attorney General Merrick Garland warning about “a disturbing spike in harassment, intimidation and threats of violence” against educators from people people opposed to masks and Critical Race Theory, Hawley charged that this was “a deliberate attempt to chill parents” who wanted to “express concerns”—American Independent, 10/5/21.)

    Fox (3/28/23) also said the incident “is part of a pattern of mass shooters having ‘sexual identity dysfunctions’ and psychological confusion that must be addressed,” according to Jonathan Gilliam, a former Navy SEAL and FBI special agent. Gilliam said that “the majority of school shooters and mass shooters that we’ve had in the recent history of this nation are all people who have sexual identity dysfunctions.” (Mother Jones‘ Abby Vesoulis—3/29/23—based on the magazine’s long-running database mass shooters, assesses that three out of 141 mass shooters over the last four decades may have been trans or nonbinary, what Fox means when say “dysfunctions.”)

    Fox host Laura Ingraham (3/28/23), with a frame of Hale in the background carrying the words “A TRANS KILLER,” said the “killer’s identity didn’t quite match the preferred criteria of the media, which is usually white male.” In fact, Hale was a white male—and Fox is part of “the media.” Ingraham noted that Hale “referred to herself [sic] as he/him and was reportedly in the midst of a so-called transition process,” going on to insinuate that Hale’s medical treatments may have been a factor in the shooting.

    Christianity’s ‘natural enemy’

    Fox: We Are Witnessing the Rise of Trans Violence

    Fox‘s Tucker Carlson (3/28/23): “We seem to be watching the rise of trans terrorism.”

    But Tucker Carlson (3/28/23), Fox News’ top-rated host, stole the show in a segment that warned about “the rise of trans terrorism.” First, he downplayed the general problems trans people face every day, saying that they have an easy time getting into Harvard. From there, Carlson launched into a declaration of war:

    The people in charge despise working-class whites, but they venerate the trans community. People are just responding to incentives. It’s rational in a way…. Why are some transpeople so angry, and why do they seem to be mad specifically at traditional Christians? We can’t think of any trans person who’s ever been murdered by a pastor. As far as we know, that has never happened. So, it’s not an actual threat of violence from Christians that’s inspiring some trans people to buy an AR-15. No, it’s got to be more fundamental than that, and it is. The trans movement is the mirror image of Christianity, and therefore its natural enemy…. Christianity and transgender orthodoxy are wholly incompatible theologies. They can never be reconciled.

    Carlson wasn’t done. The next day (3/29/23), he hosted Federalist CEO Sean Davis, who told (Federalist, 3/29/23) Carlson “this murder, this massacre of children was done by someone because of this evil transgender ideology.” Both Davis and Carlson agreed that the killer’s transgender identity, and the imagined idea that the government and media are a part of some kind of transgender agenda, represents a “spiritual war” against Christians.

    FAIR (1/6/23, 3/9/23) has shown repeatedly how conservative media, especially Murdoch’s media, have elevated incitement against transgender people, while Republicans push measures in several states to criminalize gender-affirming care. And of course the Murdoch framing here turns the so-called war involving trans people upside-down. While the religious right has escalated its attacks on the trans community (American Civil Liberties Union, 9/16/16; Southern Poverty Law Center, 10/23/17; Miami Herald, 6/9/21; MSNBC, 1/16/23), UCLA School of Law’s Williams Institute (3/23/21) found that “transgender people are over four times more likely than cisgender people to experience violent victimization, including rape, sexual assault, and aggravated or simple assault.”

    And a Human Rights Campaign statement (ABC, 3/28/23) issued after the incident noted, “Every study available shows that transgender and non-binary people are much more likely to be victims of violence, rather than the perpetrator of it.”

    Spreading transphobia

    NBC: Fear pervades Tennessee's trans community amid focus on Nashville shooter's gender identity

    Fox (3/29/23) went after NBC (3/28/23) for suggesting that trans people might be in danger in the wake of transphobic media coverage like that coming from Fox.

    But just as 9/11 was an opportunity to spread Islamophobia (FAIR.org, 3/1/11), Fox and the Post are exploiting this moment to raise the temperature against the trans community. According to the Murdoch press and some figures within the Republican Party, trans people are an active existential threat to God-fearing Americans. Indeed, NBC (3/28/23) reported:

    Within 10 minutes of police saying that the suspect was transgender, the hashtag #TransTerrorism trended on Twitter. Around the same time, Republican lawmakers — including Sen. JD Vance, R-Ohio, and conservative firebrand Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene, R-Ga.—insinuated in social media posts that the shooter’s gender identity played a role in the shooting. And by Tuesday morning, the cover of the Rupert Murdoch-owned New York Post read: “Transgender Killer Targets Christian School.”

    “We are terrified for the LGBTQ community here,” Kim Spoon, a trans activist based in Knoxville, Tennessee, said. “More blood’s going to be shed, and it’s not going to be shed in a school.”

    However, Fox (3/29/23) pounced on this report, saying “NBC News raised eyebrows on Tuesday for a report suggesting the Tennessee transgender community was under threat following the mass shooting.” Fox added that NBC “appeared to frame the perpetrator as among the victims.” NBC did not frame Hale as the victim, as Fox’s evidence for this was NBC’s “headline ‘Fear Pervades Tennessee’s Trans Community Amid Focus on Nashville Shooter’s Gender Identity.’”

    This response is sadly to be expected for media who have latched on to the anti-trans moral panic, as a way to both attract a right-wing audience and to bolster the cultural platform of the contemporary Republican Party. But just because it’s not surprising doesn’t make it any less dangerous.

    The post Murdoch Uses Nashville to Stoke Anti-Trans Hate appeared first on FAIR.

    This post was originally published on FAIR.

  •  

    Janine Jackson interviewed the Roots Action’s Norman Solomon about the 20th anniversary of the Iraq invasion for the March 24, 2023, episode of CounterSpin. This is a lightly edited transcript.

          CounterSpin230324Solomon.mp3

     

    Janine Jackson: So here we are, 20 years after the US war on Iraq, and, to speak broadly, the popular understanding is that Iraq wasn’t behind the September 11, 2001 attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, and that they didn’t have weapons of mass destruction aimed at the US, weapons whose immediate threat, yes, was the vehemently argued premise for a grave assault on a sovereign country.

    Atlantic: The Iraq War Reconsidered

    Atlantic (3/13/23)

    But somehow, in all of this talkity-talk, the idea of acknowledgement of wrong—forget compensation, forget apology—is nowhere in evidence.

    The story has been made over such that the Iraq invasion was wrong, but still OK. Iraqis were harmed, but still helped. And all the advisors and experts that got it very wrong are still, somehow, right.

    The 2003 war on Iraq is, most importantly, a story about imperialist violence. But it’s also about the web of lies and disinformation used to advance it, and the role that nominally independent journalists played—and play.

    Norman Solomon has been thinking and working on these issues for decades. He’s been part of FAIR since the start. He’s co-founder of RootsAction.org and executive director of the Institute for Public Accuracy. His most recent book is War Made Invisible: How America Hides the Human Toll of Its Military Machine, out soon from the New Press.

    He joins us now by phone from the Bay Area. Welcome back to CounterSpin, Norman Solomon.

    Norman Solomon: Thanks, Janine.

    JJ: There are so many places we could start. But I did want to stick a fork in one thing. Talking about media today, at the 20-year mark, the theme is missed signals, miscalculation, misunderstanding.

    It’s hard to talk about what happened, and media’s role, without recognizing that the George W. Bush administration and its advisors wanted and intended to invade Iraq before the September 11, 2001, attacks. But that’s not a contention. That’s just a thing we know, based on evidence, right?

    Guardian: Blogger bares Rumsfeld's post 9/11 orders

    Guardian (2/24/06)

    NS: Yes, Rumsfeld made a very clear statement in a memo, just in the immediate aftermath of 9/11, that they were going after Iraq. It was their “eyes on the prize,” in a grotesque sort of way.

    And when we look back 20 years, I think there’s a consistent thread that the media and the government excuses are basically intertwined. Which sort of makes sense, since the disinformation messaging after 9/11, before, during and after the invasion of Iraq—all that was also intertwined between government and mass media.

    And we think of and sometimes notice the revolving door of personnel, where someone is a press secretary for the president, then goes to a cable news network, or vice versa. George Stephanopoulos, and many others who followed him, just had this career path that was basically recycling between those in government who often deceive, and those in media who have a follow-up career. And they’re just in a different part of the deception chain, as it turns out.

    And so I think it’s fitting, unfortunately, that 20 years after so many of the government officials and media mavens and so-called journalists—quite often not deserving the name—that they were basically singing out of the same hymn book. And now they’re being exculpatory for each other and themselves at the 20th anniversary.

    One example that I think is just so profoundly grotesque is that in the months before the invasion of Iraq, you had people who were recycling falsehoods out of government sources, or government-designated, -anointed sources, into news media, like Judith Miller and Michael Gordon, onto the front pages of the New York Times.

    Then you would have Dick Cheney, for instance, who would go on the Sunday talkshows, knowing that his own office had funneled the disinformation into the New York Times, then he would say, “Well, don’t just believe us. This is being reported by the New York Times.”

    Intercept: The Architects of the Iraq War: Where Are They Now?

    Intercept (3/15/23)

    JJ: Right. And a number of folks have written recently—Jon Schwarz at the Intercept, Derek Seidman at Truthout, also Marjorie Cohn, Adam Johnson at Real News—about how these visible architects of the Iraq War, in government, but also in think tanks, and then also in media, they’ve all failed upward subsequently, haven’t they? Even knowing what we know, there’s been no comeuppance, no fallout, for those folks.

    NS: That is something I think we could call a repetition compulsion disorder that completely gets a reward system to back it up. Whereas those who step out of line, who don’t conflate being pro-war with being objective, they are not going to find upward mobility in media anywhere near so smooth. And often they just hit a brick wall, forget glass ceiling, they hit a brick wall above their heads.

    We have some examples that cry out for remembering and reminding people, that Phil Donahue, who had the temerity to actually have a variety of voices about the wisdom of invading Iraq in the months before in his primetime MSNBC program, we know because of a leaked memo that he was fired a few weeks before the invasion, precisely because people at the top of management—MSNBC, NBC News—they were worried that, as they put it in this, for a while, secret memo, that the flag-wavers at Fox and CNN would make MSNBC look bad because Donahue was allowing some anti-war voices onto the air.

    And I know from having been reporting and visiting Iraq before the invasion a few times, and writing about this at the time, including for FAIR, that there was a tremendous amount of pressure going on from news media, and to the extent there was an opening for debate, say in the summer and early fall of 2002, the aperture continued to narrow, and so the more that a consensus was being promoted and forced, you might say, that a war and invasion was necessary, the less space there was.

    Salon: The urbanity of evil: 20 years after the Iraq invasion, the lies continue

    Salon (3/19/23)

    I know personally, because I was able to go to Iraq with some delegations, a former senator and current member of Congress, and then with Sean Penn, and then with a UN official. I found in the late part of 2002 what was first a bit of an opening, where I would be invited on to CNN or MSNBC or even Fox. By the end of the autumn, that opening had pretty much closed, and certainly by the end of the year.

    And the explanation I was given was that in October of 2002, when the House and Senate voted that an invasion of Iraq would be authorized, that became official policy, and some of the bookers and so forth at the cable news networks would say, “Well, you know, now this is the US government stance that an invasion is in the cards; it’s officially authorized by the legislative branch. So there’s less controversy here.”

    JJ: And so now we need to close up any window of debate in the public conversation, because officials have decided what’s going to happen. And I don’t think that’s maybe everybody’s understanding of the way journalism works, or should work.

    NS: Yeah, it’s a sort of an ersatz, pseudo-journalism that sets the standard for professionalism. And we, I guess, ought to face it that when people move into the journalism profession, they’re out of college or whatever, what defines professional standards? It’s the ambience, the content, the style, the attitude that’s inherent in what people who have already made it in the profession are doing every day.

    Norman Solomon

    Norman Solomon: “High-quality media outlets in the United States of America basically served as conveyor belts for pro-war propaganda.”

    And so it’s an imitative quality that defines what journalism, or at least what passes for journalism, is. And part of that is not really apologizing, even later on. And I think this gets to what you were alluding to at the outset of our discussion, Janine, that when there’s an anniversary, or a look back, there’s really very little impetus for candor, least of all self-assessment or self-criticism, really, from these media institutions.

    And so even in some of the most conspicuous, egregious cases like the New York Times distortions and serving up just bogus stories, the Washington Post as well, when they did sort of mea culpas, many, many weeks later, they were sort of equivocal. And they avoided really shedding harsh light on how it could be that these two purportedly most important, high-quality media outlets in the United States of America basically served as conveyor belts for pro-war propaganda coming from the top of the US government.

    JJ: To me, the fact that when you look at the architects and the folks who are most prominent in mouthpiecing for this invasion, the fact that they are all still in high-paid and prominent positions, it underscores the fact that corporate media’s “debate,” it has a patina of rationality and of debate, but it’s really kind of just a club, right?

    There’s just certain folks that they listen to and whose ideas they promote. And it doesn’t matter if those folks are wrong or right, or if they’re reliable or not, or if they’re lying or ignorant, they’re just on the list. And then there are other people who are just not on the list, whether or not their predictions turn out to be right, or whether or not they’re reliable.

    And with Iraq, that was historians and regional specialists and human rights researchers. They’re just never going to be let into the conversation, no matter how correct they were.

    NS: There really are tacit media boundaries that I think are well-understood, however consciously or not, and when a misassessment was later shown to be egregiously wrong, with a war or peace at stake, there’s later on a sense of a clean slate, let’s wipe the record clean, because, eh, we all make mistakes, and so forth.

    And that goes to individuals and also to media organizations. And we might want to think the ones that are really top quality, they will cop to their mistakes, distortions, errors, even, or especially, when the errors were extremely important.

    And yet, that’s not the case. One example, which at least has to do with history—and we’re told that journalism is the first draft of history; OK, later on, there should be a better draft. Of course, one would hope that the first one was accurate, given that that is the most important, while these events are unfolding.

    So one example that comes to mind is the New York Times reported, early on in this whole 20-year span, that the invasion came after Saddam Hussein had kicked out UN weapons inspectors from the country in 1998. So this was the New York Times telling all of its readers that, hey, those UN weapons inspectors were pulled out of the country several years before the invasion, they were kicked out, Saddam Hussein did not allow them to inspect anymore.

    And FAIR, Fairness & Accuracy In Reporting, made the clear and accurate point, and mobilized some messaging to the New York Times, that that’s an interesting story which happens to be false, and that Saddam Hussein did not kick out the UN weapons inspectors in 1998.

    They were withdrawn by the United Nations because the government of, under that point, President Bill Clinton had made clear it was about to bomb Iraq in what became known as Operation Desert Fox.

    And so it was because the US government announced, essentially, it was about to bomb the country that the UN thought it was prudent to save the lives, perhaps, of the UN inspectors, to withdraw them.

    And so that was something that FAIR activists were able to get the New York Times to publish a subsequent correction.

    New York Times: 20 Years On, a Question Lingers About Iraq: Why Did the U.S. Invade?

    New York Times (3/18/23)

    Fast forward many years, to the time of the 20th anniversary that we’ve just gone through, and the New York Times again publishes the falsehood that Saddam Hussein kicked out the weapons inspectors from the country in 1998, which reminds me of something that George Orwell wrote in 1984: “Those who control the present control the past. Those who control the past control the future.” And I think that’s a good cautionary note to anybody who thinks, well, this is just history, why talk about it now?

    Because all of this is prefigurative; it is actually reinforcing mindsets. These distortions are messaging to people, subtly and not so subtly, that at the end of the day, I think as you put it at the beginning of our discussion, Janine: The US government can be wrong, but it’s still OK.

    We can go into war and, OK, we made mistakes, etc., etc., which is easy for us to say, while other people experience it with more suffering by far than those in the US. But still the pretense, subtly or not, is it’s OK, because we mean well.

    There was a short story written 100 years ago called “Editha,” and there’s a character in it, and this is in about 1905, when it’s published, which is in the aftermath, really, of the US slaughter of people in the Philippines. And there’s a character who says: what a wonderful thing it is to live in a country that might be wrong, but when it’s wrong, is right anyway.

    JJ: And that’s the water that elite news media carry, and to folks who could think smarter, to a population that could handle reality, and react accordingly.

    And I guess that’s what makes me so angry, is that people pick up the paper thinking that they’re being addressed as an intelligent person who’s trying to make decisions about what they support and what they don’t support. And it’s just not what they’re getting. It’s not what they’re getting.

    And there were a few things that stand out to me, Norman, because I know that some of CounterSpin listeners weren’t born in 2003. And so they’ve only heard the remix, as it were. But there are things that stand out for those of us who were there.

    And one of them is a massive demonstration in New York, with thousands of other people who were opposing an imminent invasion of Iraq, who were pulled out of their apartments, people who don’t usually go out in the street, who don’t usually demonstrate. But we were very aware that this was a war that was going to be called in our name, specifically, like, look at what happened to New York on September 11. And it was supposed to be in our name.

    NYT: Rally in Washington Is Said to Invigorate the Antiwar Movement

    New York Times (10/30/02)

    And as I’ve said many times before, the most prominent message here in New York City was “our grief is not a cry for war,” and the desire to not turn the horror and loss of September 11 into more horror and loss for other people.

    And what I remember was coming home from this massive demonstration, and reading the New York Times saying, well, not a lot of people showed up, it wasn’t as many people as organizers thought, and so wrong, so wrong, that the Times had to go back and re-report the story later.

    And so I guess what I’m trying to get at is that the erasing and the denigrating of anti-war voices was key in 2003, and it’s key in 2023.

    NS: Absolutely. It’s the erasure of those who are either suffering under the US bombs, erasure from media coverage of substance and let alone empathy, and also erasure, as you say, of anti-war voices in our own communities in the United States, and the tremendous quantity, really, and depth of anti-war feeling and understanding. It is infuriating. It should be infuriating.

    And often, when I read even the best, what we’re told are the best, mass media outlets in the United States, it seems that there’s an effort in effect to infantilize the readers, to almost like what was in school called the Weekly Reader, where things were really, if not dumbed-down, it’s just simplified, and the lens on the world, the window on the world, is so tinted red, white and blue. We’re being assumed to be either naive, gullible or simply blindly (what passes for) patriotic.

    And the staying power of people who are in the upper reaches of editorial decision-making is really quite stunning. It’s hard to think of anyone who was in a major position 20 years ago, propagating and fomenting and spreading the lies to grease the path, the skids, for the war on Iraq, it’s hard to think of many who suffered at all from their careers. They simply did fine, the ones who did all that, just went right along, often rising into the profession’s upper reaches.

    New Yorker: Making a Case

    New Yorker (1/26/03)

    I think, for instance, of David Remnick, who was already the editor of the New Yorker magazine during the lead-up to the invasion of Iraq in March of 2003, and he wrote a de facto editorial calling for the invasion of Iraq. It was quite vehement. And that was a couple of months before the invasion.

    But even worse, under his editorial leadership, David Remnick ran a magazine, the New Yorker, that published one article after another that was absolute distortion, claiming without any evidence—and it certainly turned out to be false—that Saddam Hussein and the Iraqi government had ties to Al Qaeda, had ties to what happened during 9/11. These were very powerful messages.

    And many people, naively, gullibly assumed, well, it’s in the New York Times, or it’s in the New Yorker, or it’s in the Washington Post, that these kinds of stories were true, or had credibility.

    In fact, they were disinformation of the most dangerous and ultimately destructive kind.

    JJ: And finally, and following from that, it’s work, isn’t it, to resist the confusion and the cognitive dissonance that elite media enforce, for a person who’s just trying to inform themselves about the world.

    The messages you get—sovereignty matters, except when we say it doesn’t. Invasion is horrific, except when we do it. Look how they oppress their own people; that’s reason enough to force regime change. Oh, but don’t talk about that in the US, you freaking commie.

    Forget your political stance—it just breaks your brain to try to pretend to follow elite media’s, what they call rationality. And I guess, above all, it makes you feel confused and alone.

    And what I want to ask you is, what do you see as the antidotes to that? Where do you see the place for folks to go who recognize how brain-breaking and how wrong this is?

    NS: As you say, the effort is so important, because if we’re simply passive and let it wash over us, that’s not going to work.

    I think recognizing that the essence of propaganda is repetition, and that if we are immersed in this constant waterfall, this flood of corporate-driven media coverage and what passes for analysis and so forth, that we’re in the deluge, and that we need to swim, so to speak, in a very different direction.

    And that includes, of course—I don’t mean this as a cliche—thinking for ourselves, and also availing ourselves and supporting media outlets that are very much willing to swim upstream to challenge the conventional media wisdom that is so driven by, among other things, the military industrial complex and corporate power.

    And so that should mean including supporting FAIR, subscribing to the newsletter Extra!, going to FAIR.org, supporting CounterSpin; going to outlets like Truthout and Common Dreams and the Intercept and elsewhere, Democracy Now!

    These are very important outlets, because if we don’t sustain them, we will simply be overwhelmed by the disinformation machine.

    JJ: We’ve been speaking with longtime FAIR associate Norman Solomon of RootsAction.org and the Institute for Public Accuracy. His latest book, War Made Invisible, will be out soon from the New Press. Thank you so much, Norman Solomon, for joining us this week on CounterSpin.

    NS: Thanks a lot, Janine.

     

    The post ‘Media and Government Excuses Are Basically Intertwined’ appeared first on FAIR.

  •  

    FAIR’s commentary by Conor Smyth (2/28/23) on former Washington Post editor Leonard Downie Jr.’s anti-objectivity manifesto (Washington Post, 1/30/23), and New York Times columnist Bret Stephens’ overwrought response to it (2/9/23), was right on point.

    WaPo: Newsrooms that move beyond ‘objectivity’ can build trust

    Leonard Downie Jr. (Washington Post, 1/30/23): The “objectivity” standard was “dictated over decades by male editors in predominantly white newsrooms and reinforced their own view of the world.”

    I wouldn’t exactly characterize Downie’s shot across the bow of the mantra of corporate media as a mea culpa, since he says he didn’t consider “objectivity” a standard for his newsroom when he was the Post’s managing editor under Ben Bradlee from 1984–1991, and executive editor from 1991–2008. But, since he also says he “stopped…making up my own mind about issues” when he served in those roles—something I consider impossible to do and silly to declare—it’s an open question as to whether the Post didn’t fall prey to some of the same assumptions made by those who embrace “objectivity.”

    As welcome as Downie’s indictment of “objectivity” is, it comes across as a little anticlimactic to me, even milquetoast, at least in his Post op-ed, though Smyth’s piece suggests that the full report Downie wrote with former CBS News president Andrew Heyward is stronger. To wit, the op-ed quotes high-up editors at establishment outlets, including the Post, New York Times, LA Times, San Francisco Chronicle, CBS, NBC and AP—whereas the report also quotes NYU journalism professor Jay Rosen. Ironically, by leaving Rosen and his critique of corporate media’s supposed lack of ideology out of the article, Downie reproduces the same narrow range of acceptable opinion “objectivity” has been bringing us all along; in other words, nobody too far to the left.

    Nevertheless, Downie calls out allegiance to “objectivity” as a threat to democracy, while Stephens warns that Downie’s audacity in questioning the old saw is what threatens our democratic institutions. Downie is right.

    Shoring up biases

    The real threat to democracy continues to be the fervor with which too many arbiters of what gets printed or broadcast cling to notions of “objectivity” that were never logical, achievable nor fair. Those notions have always served to both shore up the biases of the powerful at the expense of the vulnerable, and excuse unconscionable laziness on the part of reporters and editors who blithely continue to see themselves as smart and hard-working.

    “Objectivity,” as defined by many of the most powerful media properties in the US, is just idiotic, and always has been. “Using facts without distortion by personal beliefs, bias, feelings or prejudice,” the definition Downie offers, is not possible, and has led intelligent journalists to assert, obtusely, that they have no personal beliefs.

    Either you care both about Trump being sexual predator & Clinton emails, or u care about neither. But don't talk about one without the other— Matthew Dowd

    False equivalence: ABC‘s Matthew Dowd on Twitter (11/1/16)

    Many believe that of themselves, wholeheartedly. Under this pretense, this delusion, the unacknowledged biases that have held sway at newspapers and TV stations have been those of rich, straight, white men.

    The fear of being called biased has also led to “bothsideism,” the empty and intellectually dishonest practice of citing actors on either side of an issue without indicating whether one of them is lying, or giving equal time to stories that don’t warrant such treatment. (Think of the false equivalency of corporate media coverage of Charlottesville, which spent as much time denouncing anti-Nazis as Nazis—FAIR.org, 9/13/17.)

    Diversifying newsrooms, Downie maintains, are calling all that into question, and hurrah for that. Though my experience tells me that it’s going to be tough for many at the top of the food chain to unlearn habits of mind they don’t even see as habits, but rather as the definition of doing the job right. It’s just so unconscious. And self-censorship by young people—leaving stuff out that would make their editor look askance at them—is real.

    Jousting with ‘objectivity’

    When I was a journalist, I jousted with “objectivity,” not unlike Don Quixote with that windmill. I started out in the left press, working at Southern Exposure and The Nation. Deciding I wanted to be writing every day, I went to Columbia’s Graduate School of Journalism so I could scrub my resume, make sure I didn’t look like a communist, and get a job at daily paper. It worked! After graduation, off I went to a summer internship at the St. Petersburg Times and then a reporting job at the Louisville Courier-Journal.

    There I was, wanting to tell the truth, expose evil and bring a voice to the voiceless, surrounded by fellow reporters who were motivated by, well, I couldn’t actually tell. I didn’t know what the heck they were doing there, and couldn’t grasp why they even wanted to be journalists. For they insisted that they had no opinions about anything.

    But, as much as I was a fish out of water—in that I owned that I had deeply held beliefs, and was a product of my upbringing, with the inherent biases any and all upbringings bring—I understood what my job required. I knew that I had to keep my opinions out of the paper, and give equal space—which in those days literally meant the same amount of inches in the story—to both sides. Indeed, I argued (at home, to my partner, not in the newsroom) that the fact that I was aware of my own opinions made me better able to conform to daily journalism’s definition of “objectivity” than those who denied they had biases, and were therefore more likely to introduce said biases into their copy.

    In practice, I usually wrote stories that embodied “objectivity” standards, but sometimes, out of paranoia, bent over backwards so far I introduced bias contrary to my own opinions into the paper. Case in point: When a state court issued a ruling on abortion, I knew the reaction piece had to give equal time to the local pro-choice forces and Kentucky Right to Life. But the head of the latter’s state chapter told me she didn’t know what she thought, and she’d need to call the national office to find out (which I didn’t have time for her to do). Since I was familiar with that side’s beliefs and priorities, even though they weren’t my own, I asked her, “Don’t you think this?” and “Don’t you think that?” and turned my story in on time.

    Maybe I could have quoted her saying she didn’t know what she thought, and made her look like the ninny that she was, though that probably wouldn’t have made it into print. To be honest, sensitive to my editors’ suspicions about me, I probably gave her more inches than I gave NARAL and local abortion providers.

    Illegitimate experience

    But the experiences that indelibly burned into my mind the dangers of the assumptions that lay beneath the altar of “objectivity” came when I covered stories about working-class white people in Kentucky’s Appalachian mountains, and working-class Black people in Louisville’s West End.

    When I attempted to provide context about structural, multi-generational poverty and racism while covering the news of the day, my editors refused to let me quote the people directly affected by the problems. Their experiences, and the solutions they’d identified out of their lived experience and that of their communities, as well as their own indefatigable research, were flat-out considered illegitimate.

    After all, they were poor. They had accents. They didn’t have advanced degrees. They didn’t work for the government. They weren’t owners of coal mines or landfills. They didn’t control university boards. They certainly didn’t control local media.

    I came to realize that one of the least discussed but most insidious and anti-democratic threats posed by the media’s concept of “objectivity” was its ironclad refusal to give up its definition of what constitutes an “expert.” That bias extended not only to refusing to give those suffering under unjust policies the courtesy of weighing in substantively on developments that directly threatened them. It also maintained an inviolate firewall against allowing those outside the halls of power to define what was news in the first place.

    Maxine Crooks

    ABC‘s Maxine Crooks (Washington Post, 1/30/23): “We have to be able to use the voices of people whose neighborhoods we don’t normally go into and tell these stories from their vantage point.”

    To editors, “objectivity” could only be maintained by citing people who nearly always had higher education and were affiliated with establishment institutions: universities, government, hospitals, corporations, well-known nonprofits. That leaves out a lot of people! It also sidelines informal groups formed for collective action, like the community organization created by residents of a mobile home park in Appalachia whose water supply had been declared carcinogenic by the state, and whose bills from the public utility were so high they couldn’t pay them.

    Downie acknowledges this as one of the dangers of “objectivity,” and in the report advocates creating new beats and bringing back beats, such as labor, that have been mothballed. He quotes ABC’s Maxine Crooks saying her network’s stations are attempting to address the narrowcasting of “objectivity” by increasing coverage of real life, and have created “race and culture content” teams towards that end. “We have to be able to use the voices of people whose neighborhoods we don’t normally go into and tell these stories from their vantage point,” she says.

    Stephens also, sort of, but not really, argues for a wider definition of who counts as newsworthy, by throwing a pity party for gun owners and religious fundamentalists, people he insists get ignored because of the media’s liberal bias.

    Predictable and patronizing

    I think it’s extremely difficult for highly educated, powerful people to even consider that those whose life experiences differ so greatly from their own possess wisdom, and to quote them in ways that lend their insights credence and heft.

    Downie’s conceptual admonition about “objectivity” leaving out important voices, as welcome as it is, isn’t the only source of pressure on the legacy media to do a better job at quoting poor people and people of color and poor people of color. Other counties have been heard from.

    Michael Moore

    Michael Moore

    Trump’s 2016 victory shocked the talking heads, who really are coastal elites and really do live in bubbles, except for Michael Moore, who lives in Michigan and was one of few media figures to predict that election’s outcome. (I’m being facetious that he’s the only one, but you get the idea.) Much hand-wringing about journalists’ failure to report deeply from the heartland followed.

    And so we were treated to predictable, patronizing stories that purported to respect Trump voters, but not-so-sneakily made them look, at best, like ignorant dupes. “Objectivity” obliterates empathy, it seems, as well as curiosity. Despite media vows to no longer resort to flyovers, those stories just served to reiterate divisions, reducing our complex country of complicated people into one with simple-to-grasp but inaccurate categories, like the one that suggests all working-class people are white, and the one that holds all working-class white people vote Republican. And don’t get me started on J.D. Vance. (See sidebar.)

    Black Lives Matter protests following George Floyd’s May 2020 murder put pressure on newsrooms to address their failures on covering racism. Regional media outlets are similarly put under the microscope each time another police killing occurs in a different city or state. Notwithstanding the Times’ 1619 Project, which got underway in 2019, it remains to be seen whether, in the corporate media as a whole, especially in outlets less illustrious than the Times, promises to do better on race are going to pan out.

    And even though states passing or aiming to pass Don’t Say Gay and anti–Critical Race Theory laws are focused on schools, universities and libraries, it’s not off the wall to worry that such laws will have a chilling effect on non-national media outlets that had maybe begun inching towards implementation of claims to hire more Black and brown journalists and give them the power to direct coverage.

    Writing off red states

    If, say, you live in a big city in the Northeast, media coverage would have you think that there are zero folks who vote blue in the red states, who share progressive values and are fighting the good fight, and that’s patently untrue. You would think there’s nobody Black in Appalachia, and that’s not true, either.

    My neighbors in Brooklyn sure believe such things. During Trump, several suggested we should just write off the South, because everyone there is a racist and it’s pointless to try to change their minds.

    Patty Wallace Ruth Colvin

    Patty Wallace and Ruth Colvin (Kentuckians for the Commonwealth, 11/24/16)

    Folks in Eastern Kentucky were and are accustomed to outsiders thinking they can’t be trusted to know what’s best for themselves. They’ve been dealing with that for generations. It wasn’t surprising to Patty Wallace and Ruth Colvin, two gray-haired women who’d crept through the woods to take photos of workers standing in clouds of toxic asbestos dust employed by people thought by many, including prosecutors in New York, to have organized crime connections to illegally dump hazardous waste in a landfill meant for household garbage, that my editors wouldn’t let me report on their derring-do in the public’s interest. They knew they were not seen as the type of people who have their own agency and can solve problems.

    Not long ago, Joan Robinett, a powerhouse activist from Harlan County, told me there wasn’t a single family her son, Dan, had grown up with who hadn’t been affected by Oxycontin. Yet despite the misery sweeping her rural community and so many others like it, for too long media coverage of the opioid epidemic didn’t reach the critical mass necessary to achieve two important goals: make those losing family members to painkillers feel seen, and force policy makers to substantively address the nightmare. And that’s in part because the people dying were people the media didn’t see, people who didn’t have so-called “experts” speaking up for them.

    The opioid crisis, of course, is just one of many issues in rural America that are ignored or undercovered by the media. I don’t think it’s an exaggeration to say that “objectivity,” and its bias against anyone who isn’t considered an “expert” by the status quo, helped lead to Trump’s election, as he preyed on the legitimate sense prevalent in many communities that their suffering didn’t matter.

    I think this is something many well-meaning urban sophisticates fail to grasp. They shrug their shoulders and ask, “Why do they keep voting against their own interests?” as if that’s a rhetorical question, rather than a question that could be answered if they bothered to take a walk in the shoes of those they disdain. If they considered how they would feel—and vote—if they had had their lands and labor exploited and their intelligence insulted for generations by the country’s rich and powerful, with media offering nothing but justification for those behaviors and attitudes.

    Breaking unspoken rules

    Back at the C-J, I persisted. I wrote stories nobody else at the paper thought were stories, like the one about the Asian grocery that carried ingredients requested by immigrants from across the world that they couldn’t buy anywhere else in town, and the one about a Muslim feminist professor’s class on The Satanic Verses after the fatwa was issued against Salman Rushdie.

    Rev. Louis Coleman

    Rev. Louis Coleman (image: WHAS11, 2/25/21)

    Soon after I became the higher education reporter, the state government—without bothering to give advance notice to Woodford Porter, the West End funeral parlor scion who was the University of Louisville’s one Black board member—altered U of L’s admissions policies in such a way that fewer Black students would be admitted, thereby threatening the “urban mission” of its state charter. I covered the protest at U of L’s board meeting. It was organized by the Rev. Louis Coleman, Louisville’s most prominent Black activist, and Anne Braden, a white woman who’d dedicated her life to anti-racist work after her husband was accused of sedition and jailed for selling a house in a white neighborhood to a Black family.

    Then, when a mid-level functionary in the federal Department of Education said that U of L couldn’t spend money earned at Arizona’s Fiesta Bowl on minority scholarships (U of L’s football team was only invited because other schools were boycotting Arizona for refusing to honor the MLK holiday), I broke what became a national story, picked up by the New York Times, etc., about the threat this ruling posed to affirmative action in general. It wasn’t long before George H.W. Bush’s administration put the kibosh on that initiative.

    Soon after I’d written those stories, according to a Black state representative who spoke with me off the record, U of L’s president called the Courier-Journal’s publisher and told him to get Robin Epstein off his back. So much for the supposed separation between journalism’s church and state, the publishing side and the editorial side of the newspaper. I’d broken the unspoken rule that the paper didn’t probe Louisville’s racial inequities, because doing so might lead to unrest. The city’s fathers didn’t want a reprise of the busing riots of 1975.

    Did the paper celebrate that I’d recognized that a local story raised questions that pertained far beyond U of L, and done enough digging to place it in a larger context? Were the editors proud that one of their reporters had perhaps helped save the college education of untold numbers of minority students across the country? No.

    ‘Don’t ask for too much’

    Emily (left) and Eleanor Bingham

    Emily Bingham (left) and Eleanor Bingham Miller (Courier-Journal, 6/1/21): “The shortcomings of the companies our family own are real—and many.”

    I’d arrived at the C-J in 1988, two years after Gannett bought the paper, and rocking the boat was certainly not encouraged. My fellow reporters often lamented that it wasn’t the way it used to be. Indeed, historically, under the Bingham family, which owned the paper from 1918 to 1986, the C-J had had enterprising moments for a publication of its size. Though it’s hard to imagine, given the current sorry state of daily newspapers thanks to media consolidation and contraction, the C-J at one time had its own foreign correspondents! (Joel Brinkley won the paper a Pulitzer in 1980 for a series from Cambodia.)

    But even in its heyday, which began well before school desegregation and lasted a decade after it, when budgets were flush as compared to under Gannett, the paper didn’t dig deep on the lack of racial justice in its own backyard.

    In the summer of 2021, a year and a few months after Breonna Taylor was murdered, historian Emily Bingham and her aunt, Eleanor Bingham Miller, put out a statement apologizing for the lack of forthright coverage of racism when their family owned the C-J:

    We have no doubt the shortcomings of the companies our family owned are real—and many. These failings of the “‘public trust” harmed Black lives and extended white supremacy in our community. The Courier Journal advocated progress for Black people but only at the pace its owners and editors considered manageable and appropriate. Our constant refrain was “go slow,” “don’t ask for too much at once,” “don’t you see we’re trying to help you?” and more of the like.

    Scuttlebutt I’ve read posted on Facebook by friends in Louisville, including some former C-J reporters, indicates that the paper nowadays is thinner than ever, though I have seen a few good pieces it’s published since Taylor was killed.

    However, back in the early ’90s, my punishment for breaking that unspoken rule, for covering (not creating) news about institutional racism, and for following the implications of that news to its logical conclusion? I was yanked off the higher ed beat and banished to the Southern Indiana bureau. When I quit a few months later, the editor who had hired me had the condescending gall to tell me in my exit interview that I would now be able to “think globally and act locally.” That was his way of saying I’d never belonged in a newsroom in the first place, because I had opinions and couldn’t be “objective.” As if he could.

    A need for humility

    To me, perhaps the most depressing thing about the way adherents to the “objectivity” principle go about their business is their utter lack of humility. They don’t know what they don’t know, and they don’t think about it. As long as they lazily give equal time to “both sides,” they think they’ve passed muster. As Downie says, that lets mainstream journalists off the hook from their responsibility to search hard for and report the truth to the best of their ability.

    But it also gives them permission to avoid questioning whether their own lives have in any way blinkered them to who is a legitimate source and to what is a legitimate story. So, they reflexively reproduce pieces that fit into preordained formats sanctioned by their bosses, who also operate under their own unexamined devotion to a narrow, class-bound, racist, sexist, homophobic and superficial conception of expertise.

    The discourse churned out by the legacy media, despite Downie’s hope that self-critique is underway and will result in meaningful change, still falls short of reflecting the reality of the lives lived by people who don’t run the nation’s newsrooms. And our democracy is so much poorer for it.

     

    Sidebar:

    It’s Structural, Not Pathological

    Here are some resources if you’re hungry for some Appalachian perspectives that provide an antidote to Sen. J.D. Vance’s corrosive, self-serving, victim-blaming bootstrap-ism.

    To Read:

    What You Are Getting Wrong About Appalachia

    (Belt Publishing, 2018)

    Appalachian Reckoning: A Region Responds to Hillbilly Elegy
    Anthony Harkins and Meredith McCarroll, editors

    What You Are Getting Wrong About Appalachia
    by Elizabeth Catte

    Flight Behavior

    By Barbara Kingsolver

    A Is for Affrilachia
    Children’s picture book by Frank X. Walker

    Facing South

    Bitter Southerner

     

    To Watch: 

    Stranger With a Camera

    Image from Stranger With a Camera

    Stranger With a Camera
    A documentary film directed by Elizabeth Barrett

    A Message From Tyler Childers
    About his song “Long Violent History”

    To Hear: 

    Trillbilly Workers Party Podcast

    To Check Out: 

    Appalshop

    Highlander Research and Education Center

     

    The post ‘Objectivity’ Obliterates Empathy and Curiosity appeared first on FAIR.

    This post was originally published on FAIR.

  • Protests against the construction of an 85-acre police training facility—dubbed “Cop City”—in a suburban Atlanta forest turned deadly when police shot and killed a demonstrator occupying the area. The police mobilization against the occupation involved the Atlanta Police, DeKalb County Police, Georgia State Patrol, the Georgia Bureau of Investigation (GBI) and the FBI (Guardian, 1/21/23). Manuel Esteban Paez Terán, a protester known by most as “Tortuguita,” was shot at least a dozen times.

    Guardian: ‘Assassinated in cold blood’: activist killed protesting Georgia’s ‘Cop City’

    After quoting the police justification for Tortuguita’s killing, the Guardian (1/21/23) added, “but they have produced no evidence for the claim”—an observation rarely made in US corporate media coverage of police violence.

    Officers claimed they shot Tortuguita (who used gender-neutral they/them pronouns) in response to the protester’s shooting and injuring a Georgia State Patrol officer. A GBI investigation is still underway, and it remains unclear what occurred in the moments leading up to the shooting. The Georgia State Troopers responsible for Tortuguita’s death did not have body cameras. The Atlanta Police in the woods at the time captured the sound of gunshots, and officers speculating the trooper was shot by friendly fire, but no visuals of the shooting.

    Tortuguita’s death was reported as the first police killing of an environmental protester in the country’s history. It propelled the “Stop Cop City” protests into broader national and corporate news coverage. Much of the reporting—especially by local and independent outlets—was commendable in its healthy skepticism of cops’ unsubstantiated claims. But other reporting on the shooting and subsequent protests was simply police-blotter regurgitation that took unproven police statements at face value, and demonized Tortuguita and others in the Stop Cop City movement.

    Bodycam questions

    NPR : Autopsy reveals anti-'Cop City' activist's hands were raised when shot and killed

    Almost two months after the police killing of Tortuguita, the Georgia Bureau of Investigation was warning against “inappropriate release of evidence” (NPR, 3/11/23).

    Anti–Cop City protests over the first weekend of March led to dozens of demonstrators being arrested and charged with domestic terrorism (Democracy Now!, 3/8/23). The following week, an independent autopsy revealed Tortuguita was likely seated in a cross-legged position with their hands raised when they were shot (NPR, 3/11/23; Democracy Now!, 3/14/23).

    The GBI said a gun Tortuguita legally purchased in 2020 was found at the scene, and matched the bullet found in the wound of the officer (Fox5, 1/20/23). But accounts from other protesters, statements from Tortuguita’s family and friends (AP, 2/6/23), and Atlanta Police bodycam footage have cast doubt on the cops’ claims that Tortuguita shot the officer (Democracy Now!, 2/9/23).

    ABC (2/9/23) described the video, which includes the voice of an officer seemingly responding to the shootout by saying, “You [expletive] your own officer up.” The Intercept (2/9/23) added that the same officer later walked up to others and asked, “They shoot their own man?”

    Both outlets do their due diligence in clarifying that the officer was speculating, and that the GBI’s investigation is still underway.

    Truthout (2/10/23) also included another quote from the bodycam footage in the moments after the shooting:

    In one video, after gunshots ring out through the forest, an officer can be heard saying, “That sounded like suppressed gunfire,” implying the initial shots were consistent with the use of a law enforcement weapon, not the Smith & Wesson M&P Shield 9 mm the GBI alleges Tortuguita purchased and fired upon the trooper with, which did not have a suppressor.

    The piece noted that the sound of a drone can be heard in the background, indicating there may be more footage of the incident that the GBI has not released. An article in the Georgia Voice (2/16/23) also mentions the suppressed gunshots referred to in the videos.

    Trailing behind Fox

    Blaze: 'This isn't protest. This is terrorism': Five Antifa extremists charged with domestic terrorism, pulled down from their treehouses

    The Blaze (12/16/22) shows how to present people sitting in trees as a clear and present danger.

    A Nexis search of  “Cop City” reveals that prior to Tortuguita’s killing, coverage of the protests, which have been going on since late 2021, had been relegated to mainly local outlets and newswire coverage. There were, however, a handful of notable exceptions, including the Daily Beast (8/26/21, 9/9/21, 12/14/22), Politico (10/28/21), Atlantic (5/26/22, 6/13/22), Guardian (6/16/22, 12/27/22), Rolling Stone (9/3/22) and Economist (9/27/22).

    Right-wing outlets like Fox News (5/18/22, 5/20/22, 7/1/22, 12/16/22, 12/29/22, 12/29/22), Daily Mail (5/18/22, 12/15/22, 12/16/22, 12/17/22, 12/19/22), Blaze (12/16/22) and Daily Caller (12/15/22) all demonized the protesters, often referring to them as “violent” and affiliated with “Antifa” (which, for the record, is not an organized group, but an anti-fascist ideology).

    In the first few days following Tortuguita’s January 18 shooting, coverage on major TV news channels and national papers was scant, with most centrist outlets trailing behind Fox in the volume of coverage. A Nexis search for the terms “Tortuguita,” “Terán” or “Cop City,” from the day of Tortuguita’s death (January 18) until the end of January, found that Fox covered the shooting and protest more than all the other national networks combined, dominating the conversation with a pro-cop spin. It raised the issue on eight shows, while CNN covered it four times, ABC and CBS once each, and NBC and MSNBC not at all. Meanwhile, USA Today offered no coverage and the New York Times ran two articles. A separate search of the Washington Post, which is not on Nexis, brings up three articles, one of which was an AP repost.

    Beyond the police version 

    Democracy Now!: Atlanta Police Kill Forest Defender at Protest Encampment Near Proposed “Cop City” Training Center

    Kamau Franklin (Democracy Now!, 1/20/23): “The only version of events that’s really been released to the public has been the police version.”

    Independent and local outlets generally led the way in reporting on Tortuguita’s killing. A couple days after the shooting, Democracy Now! (1/20/23) dedicated an entire segment to the murder and movement. Host Amy Goodman interviewed Atlanta organizer Kamau Franklin, who wrote an article headlined “MLK’s Vision Lives On in Atlanta’s Fight Against New Police Training Facility” (Truthout, 1/17/23) the day before Tortuguita was shot.

    On Democracy Now!, Franklin said:

    The only version of events that’s really been released to the public has been the police version, the police narrative, which we should say the corporate media has run away with. To our knowledge so far, we find it less than likely that the police version of events is what really happened…. As the little intel that we have, residents said that they heard a blast of gunshots all at once, and not one blast and then a return of fire. Also, there’s been no other information released. We don’t know how many times this young person was hit with bullets. We don’t know the areas in which this person was hit. We don’t know if this is potentially a friendly fire incident. All we know is what the version of the police have given.

    Many other local and independent outlets also reported on Tortuguita’s death with a healthy dose of skepticism of police claims. Shortly after the killing, the Bitter Southerner published a piece by journalist David Peisner (1/20/23), who had been covering the Stop Cop City protests (12/23/22) and had spent extensive time interviewing the activist. Peisner’s article is essentially a eulogy for Tortuguita, vouching for their character and quoting pacifistic statements they made in interviews. Peisner wrote:

    “The right kind of resistance is peaceful, because that’s where we win,” they told me. “We’re not going to beat [the police] at violence. They’re very, very good at violence. We’re not. We win through nonviolence. That’s really the only way we can win. We don’t want more people to die. We don’t want Atlanta to turn into a war zone.”

    Piesner acknowledged the possibility that Tortuguita may have been disingenuously advocating peaceful protest, but made clear he saw no evidence of that.

    A letter to the editor on Workers.org (2/8/23) pointed out how police’s unproven claims and charges of violence against Tortuguita served to dampen publicity and reduce sympathy for them. Julia Wright’s letter also called out the double standard in dozens of land defenders being charged with “terrorism,” unlike the Capitol insurrectionists, whose deadly riot sought to dismantle US democracy:

    The postmortem image of Tortuguita has been twisted and exploited to make them look like a “terrorist,” whereas none of those who invaded the Capitol were charged with or sentenced for terrorism.

    Local Atlanta news outlet 11Alive (2/6/23) reported that Tortuguita’s family was publicly questioning the police-driven narrative of their child’s death, and demanding more transparency from the Georgia Bureau of Investigation. While outlining the official narrative, the outlet also offered significant space to those contesting it.

    Claim becomes fact

    Fox News: Democrats largely silent on anti-police violence in Atlanta after night of chaos, smashed windows

    Fox News (1/22/23) condemned Democrats for not speaking out against broken windows in Atlanta.

    Other outlets, however, were far less skeptical of the unsubstantiated law enforcement claims, whether presenting claims as facts or simply not challenging those claims.

    In its report on the killing, Fox Special Report (1/20/23) played a soundbite from the GBI’s chief: “An individual, without warning, shot a Georgia state patrol trooper. Other law enforcement personnel returned fire in self-defense.” The segment went on to play a short soundbite of unidentified protesters urging people not to believe the police narrative, but correspondent Jonathan Serrie’s outro implied that he did believe it:

    Top Georgia officials, including the governor and director of the Georgia Bureau of Investigation, say they embrace the right to protest, but cannot stand by when protesters resort to violence and jeopardize innocent lives.

    Just a few hours later on Fox (1/20/23), police claims had become fact, with a brief update beginning, “In Georgia, a protester shot a state trooper without warning.” There was no mention of the incomplete investigation underway, nor the protesters’ accounts.

    After further protests, the Wall Street Journal editorial (3/7/23) accused the “left” of “justif[ying] a violent assault on a police-training site,” saying that “Cop City” was under siege from “Antifa radicals.”

    The Journal relied entirely on official accounts of the protests, reporting only the police’s account of events that day:

    Authorities say Terán refused to comply with officers’ commands and instead shot and injured a state patrol trooper. Officers returned fire, striking Terán, who died on the scene, according to the Georgia Bureau of Investigation. The investigation isn’t finished, but the bureau says the bullet “recovered from the trooper’s wound matches Terán’s handgun.”

    As of this writing, even with the most recent autopsy results suggesting Tortuguita’s cross-legged, hands-up position at the time of their death, neither the police’s nor the activists’ accounts have been proven. Still, the Wall Street Journal has already made clear which narrative it finds newsworthy.

    Vandalism as ‘violence’

    A lack of skepticism of official accounts was not limited to right-wing media. The New York Times (1/27/23), reporting on Georgia’s governor calling in the National Guard amid the protests, wrote, “The authorities claim that Terán fired a gun at a state trooper during a ‘clearing operation’ in the woods before being killed by the police.” No sources were quoted who questioned that claim.

    WaPo: Violent protests break out in Atlanta over fatal shooting of activist

    The Washington Post headline (1/21/23) implied that protesters were violent—though the only attacks on people described in the piece were police tackling demonstrators.

    Covering the protests after Tortuguita’s killing, the Washington Post (1/21/23) made the actions of protesters rather than police the issue, with the headline “Violent Protests Break Out in Atlanta Over Fatal Shooting of Activist.” While the headline implies that the protesters were violent, the only attacks on other humans described in the piece were police tackling protesters. The Post included no reports of protesters committing bodily harm, but parroted Atlanta’s mayor referring to property damage as “violence”—elevating vandalism over assaults on people. (FAIR—2/6/18—has documented that news media do not commonly refer to other, apolitical instances of property destruction—such as sports fans celebrating a win—as “violence.”)

    Only toward the end of the article, below a featured image of a car on fire and descriptions of smashed bank windows, did the Post add that the Atlanta police chief “emphasized that those who caused property damage were a small subset among other peaceful demonstrators.”

    The headline “In Atlanta, a Deadly Forest Protest Sparks Debate Over ‘Domestic Terrorism’” (Washington Post, 1/26/23) implies the protesters’ actions were deadly—but the only people who caused death were the police who shot Tortuguita.

    Another Post piece (3/6/23) offered history on the construction of Cop City and the movement against it under the headline “What Is Cop City? Why Are There Violent Protests in an Atlanta Forest?,” but prioritized depicting the demonstrations as “violent” over describing the shooting that led to the backlash in the first place, using the adjective three additional times in the piece.

    (It also referred to Tortuguita using he/him pronouns, though that has been corrected.)

    “State authorities claimed self-defense and said that Paez Terán purchased the gun that shot a Georgia State Patrol officer, but the shooting is under investigation,” the article said, without mentioning the protesters’ claims, or the bodycam footage.

    Holding back evidence

    NYT: A New Front Line in the Debate Over Policing: A Forest Near Atlanta

    A New York Times overview (3/4/23) gave a detailed account of how police say Tortuguita was killed—but not what protesters say happened.

    Some coverage that did mention the doubts of Tortuguita’s family and supporters failed to explain the evidence that could back their claims. In a New York Times report (3/4/23) that attempted to put the protests in context, the only person quoted supporting Tortuguita’s innocence was their mother. The piece quoted Belkis Terán describing her child as a “pacifist,” and mentioning the first independent autopsy revealed 13 gunshot wounds—but made no mention of the bodycam evidence that suggested the officer may have been shot by friendly fire.

    (The second autopsy’s results that indicated Tortuguita was likely sitting cross-legged with their hands up when they were shot were not available when this article was published. At the time of this article’s publication, the Times has not published any articles on the second autopsy’s results.)

    The mourning mother’s grief adds emotion to the story and briefly paints Tortuguita in a sympathetic light, but her claims are not granted the same amount of authority and credibility as the cops’ assertions, which are offered in detail:

    The Georgia Bureau of Investigation, which is looking into the shooting, has said that on January 18, as the police sought to clear the forest of protesters, Tortuguita fired first “without warning,” striking a trooper. Officers returned fire, according to the authorities.

    Despite the investigation being incomplete, the police narrative is still able to stand alone, without any mentions of opposing allegations and evidence.

    Ignoring recent history

    NBC: Environmental protests have a long history in the U.S. Police had never killed an activist — until now.

    To draw a sharp contrast between police treatment of  Cop City opponents and earlier environmental protests,  NBC (2/5/23) had to ignore precedents like police at Standing Rock sending two dozen Indigenous water defenders to the hospital in a single event (Guardian, 11/21/16).

    Even after the GBI’s report comes out, journalists should clearly present the evidence supporting protesters’ and police narratives, given police’s well-documented record of lying in reports, affidavits and even on the witness stand (New York Times, 3/18/18; CNN, 6/6/20; Slate, 8/4/20).

    In early February, NBC (2/5/23) reported that Tortuguita’s killing was the first of an environmental activist, but made this police killing seem like a fluke. “Police have often been important intermediaries in environmental protests,” the article’s subhead claimed. “In a forest outside Atlanta, they were opponents.”

    If you read the story, though, a source acknowledges that “there’s a long history of law enforcement confronting direct-action environmentalist activists and those confrontations turning hostile.” Going back to the 1980s, activists who engaged in civil disobedience “were sometimes dragged away and thrown in vans, sometimes pepper-sprayed.”

    To claim that the violence at Atlanta represents an “unprecedented” escalation, as the article argues, requires ignoring recent history like the suppression of the protests against the Dakota Access Pipeline at Standing Rock. There police used water cannons, pepper spray, tasers, sound weapons and more against peaceful—mostly Indigenous—protesters, in one incident injuring 300 and putting 26 in the hospital (Guardian, 11/21/16).

    Regardless of who shot the first bullet, the story of Tortuguita’s death is about protests against militarized policing being met with more militarized policing, which ultimately resulted in a fatal shooting. Unquestioningly spreading unproven police claims is not only irresponsible, it misses the story’s entire point.

    The post Cop City Coverage Fails to Question Narratives of Militarized Police appeared first on FAIR.

  •  

    The problems Fox News had on Election Night 2020 don’t bode well for the election of 2024.

    iMediaEthics: AP’s Post-Election Analysis Shows Its Early Call for Arizona on Election Night Was a Mistake

    iMediaEthics (5/19/21): In Arizona, “the actual results were much closer than what VoteCast predicted.”

    A little before midnight Eastern time on November 3, 2020, the Fox network, which was collaborating with the Associated Press on vote projections, predicted that Biden would win Arizona. The decision desk director at the time later acknowledged it seemed “premature.” Almost two years ago, on iMediaEthics (5/19/21), I outlined the reasons why the call should not have been made, based on Associated Press’s own post mortem assessment. More recently, Nate Cohn of the New York Times (3/13/23) made a similar argument.

    On Election Day 2020, Fox also predicted Democrats to win the House, with their majority expanding by “at least five seats.” That was incorrect, also noted in my article. While Democrats retained the majority, they actually lost 13 seats. Cohn does not mention this miscall.

    The predictions were based on a new system that Fox and AP had developed in conjunction with the National Opinion Research Center (NORC). Called  VoteCast by AP, and Fox News Voter Analysis by the network, it was born out of Fox’s frustration with the slow pace of predicting winners in 2016.

    At that time, the network was part of a consortium, the National Election Pool (NEP) run by Edison Research, which uses exit polls and related data to project election winners. With its new system, Fox would presumably be able to make quicker decisions.

    It did not go well.

    Neither quicker nor more accurate

    NYT: Inside the Panic at Fox News After the 2020 Election

    The New York Times‘ Peter Baker (3/4/23) suggests that Fox‘s problem was that its polling was too good.

    Yet, earlier this month, Peter Baker of the New York Times (3/4/23) seemed to embrace the notion that the Fox/AP/NORC system is superior to the NEP system used by the other networks.

    He alluded to a meeting of Fox executives after the 2020 election, when they were discussing how, in the future, they could avoid calling an election for a Democrat before the other networks. Information about the meeting came from evidence in Dominion Voting Systems’ $1.6 billion defamation lawsuit.

    Baker wrote:

    Maybe, the Fox executives mused, they should abandon the sophisticated new election-projecting system in which Fox had invested millions of dollars and revert to the slower, less accurate model.

    It seems unlikely the executives would have referred to the NEP as a “less accurate” model. Slower, perhaps; that was the catalyst for developing the new system. But accuracy was not an issue, at least as publicly stated. It seems more a projected characterization by Baker.

    In any case, Baker’s own words appeared to embrace VoteCast as a superior system:

    Fox reached its call earlier than other networks because of the cutting-edge system that it developed after the 2016 election, a system tested during the 2018 midterm elections with great success—Fox projected that Democrats would capture the House before its competitors.

    The only evidence Baker offered for VoteCast as a “cutting-edge” system is that Fox called the 2018 House contest “before its competitors.” In 2020, Fox also called the House contest before the other networks but, as already noted, that call was a rush to judgment that forced the network to eat crow more than a week later. Hardly cutting edge. NEP made no such error.

    Baker ignored altogether the lopsided competition between the two systems in the 2022 House elections. Data posted on the Edison website shows that NEP correctly called the winners before AP and VoteCast in 296 congressional districts, while AP beat NEP in just 73 districts.

    A dangerous competition

    Personally, I’ve long been skeptical about the competition among networks to be first in calling winners. The public has no immediate need to know who the winner will “likely” be. In most cases, a few more hours will see a completed ballot count and the actual winners announced. If the counting extends for several days, so be it.

    The real utility of the election night systems is the statistical information that is collected, which allows for a more in-depth understanding of the factors that motivated voters for one candidate or another. Projecting winners on Election Night is at best an added advantage, and at worst—when miscalls are made—a danger to democracy.

    Jeb Bush and John Ellis

    Then–Florida Gov. John Ellis “Jeb” Bush and his first cousin, Fox executive John Ellis, together made the decision that Fox would call Florida for their brother/cousin George W. Bush (image: Media Matters, 2/3/15).

    That was the case in the 2000 election, when—at 2:16 in the morning after Election Day—Fox was the first to project George W. Bush the winner in Florida. The head of the decision desk was John Ellis, Bush’s cousin. Bush’s brother Jeb, then governor of Florida, was on the phone with Ellis, and urged his cousin to make the call, though the data did not support it. This projection caused the other major networks to follow suit, only to rescind the call hours later. Chaos ensued.

    The miscall and resulting confusion caused Roger Ailes, chair and CEO of Fox News Network, later to admit, “In my heart, I do believe that democracy was harmed by my network and others on November 7, 2000.” (See my book How to Steal an Election: The Inside Story of How George Bush’s Brother and Fox Network Miscalled the 2000 Election and Changed the Course of History for further details.)

    That kind of chaos could have happened again in 2020. As Cohn argues about the early call:

    There’s not much reason to believe that there was a factual basis for a projection in Arizona. It came very close to being wrong. If it had been, it could have been disastrous.

    The public’s confidence in elections would have taken another big hit if Mr. Trump had ultimately taken the lead after a call in Mr. Biden’s favor. It would have fueled the Trump campaign’s argument that he could and would eventually overturn the overall result.

    Misleading distinctions

    AP VoteCast

    AP says of its VoteCast system, “We meet voters where they are”—meaning they don’t meet voters where they vote.

    The hype about the VoteCast system begins with the misleading descriptions found on each news media’s website. Each has a slightly different description of the wonders of their new system, but both emphasize the limits of exit polls as its genesis.

    AP: In the 2020 general election, less than a third of voters cast a ballot at a neighborhood polling place on Election Day. That’s why we meet voters where they are, surveying them via mail, phone and online to create a comprehensive data set that empowers accurate storytelling…. AP VoteCast is the product of more than a decade of research and years of experiments aimed at moving away from traditional, in-person exit polls to an approach to election research that reflects the modern approach to voting.

    Fox: With more voters than ever voting early or by mail, the new method overcomes the limitations of in-person exit polls and captures the views of all Americans.

    The descriptions imply the old, unnamed system, the one they used to belong to (NEP), relies solely on “in-person exit polls.” It does not. And the people at Fox and AP know that.

    NEP has been much more than an exit poll operation, ever since its incarnation in 2004. I was with the previous media consortium, called Voter News Service (VNS), on Election Nights 1996 and 2000, and even then, the consortium supplemented exit polls with pre-election polls to measure the preferences of early and by-mail voters.

    These days, NEP supplements Election Day exit polls with exit polls at early voting locations around the country, plus multi-mode pre-election polls of absentee voters, including interviews conducted by phone and web.

    You can see a comparison of the two methodologies as outlined by NEP and AP Votecast. The comparison reveals two major differences:

    1. The Fox/AP system relies solely on surveys of voters done before polls close, while NEP uses pre-election polls to measure preferences of absentee voters and exit polls to measure preferences of voters as they have just finished voting.
    2. All voter preferences gathered by NEP are based on probability samples, the “gold standard of survey research.” Less than a third of VoteCast respondents are selected using probability methods.

    To be fair, given the low response rates of phone surveys, or even of multi-mode surveys (those which include, as NEP does, phone and web), it’s not clear that probability samples continue to be superior to non-probability surveys (Pew, 5/2/16; 538, 8/11/14; 3Streams, 3/18/21).

    VoteCast or NEP?

    Journalists should welcome the addition of a statistically based Election Day coverage system like VoteCast to compete with NEP. Until 1990, the three major broadcast networks—ABC, CBS and NBC—each conducted their own exit poll operation, providing somewhat different takes on the electorate. But in 1990, because of prohibitive costs, they formed a consortium (and added CNN), originally called Voter Research and Surveys. The consortium expanded to include Fox and AP, but still there was only one take on the electorate.

    Just as it’s useful to have more than one poll on any given race, it’s useful to have more than one election night operation. But there’s nothing to substantiate the idea that this new operation is especially “cutting edge” or superior to the one that already existed.

    In fact, VoteCast is not so much cutting edge as duller edge. Its main advantage in avoiding any in-person exit polling and using mostly non-probability samples of voters is lower cost, rather than any increase in quality.

    VoteCast cuts costs dramatically by getting rid of the whole exit poll operation, both in early voting states, and especially on Election Day, which (for NEP) includes 734 exit poll stations across the country, along with recruiting and training interviewers and establishing a live call-in reporting process for the results.

    Fox and AP are not alone in trying to find cheaper methods of polling voters. There is an industry-wide effort to cut polling costs, because of abysmally low response rates. As Pew (5/2/16) noted several years ago:

    For decades the gold standard for public opinion surveys has been the probability poll, where a sample of randomly selected adults is polled and results are used to measure public opinion across an entire population. But the cost of these traditional polls is growing each year, leading many pollsters to turn to online nonprobability surveys, which do not rely on random sampling and instead recruit through ads, pop-up solicitations and other approaches.

    By 2020, most election polls had in fact turned to non-probability samples. As one article noted, from September 1 to November 1, 2020, only 23% of the reported election polls on 538 were based on strict probability samples. The rest were based either totally (61%) or partially (16%) on non-probability samples. Pew observed:

    The advantages of these online surveys are obvious—they are fast and relatively inexpensive, and the technology for them is pervasive. But are they accurate?

    That is the question that faces the industry overall. The advent of VoteCast, which mostly relies on non-probability samples, is yet another effort to develop more cost-effective ways of measuring public opinion. As such, it should provide useful information for other pollsters as the industry morphs away from the very expensive probability standard.

    But the key test should not be which system is quicker in projecting winners, though it is naïve to assume the networks won’t continue to compete in this area. Instead, an evaluation of the two systems should rely on how accurate and plausible are the data each system provides about the nature of the electorate, and the factors that influenced the election.

    What about Election Night?

    Fox News CEO Suzanne Scott

    Fox News CEO Suzanne Scott was worried about “the impact to the brand” of calling Arizona for Joe Biden (New York Times, 3/4/23).

    Among the media partners in each system, it appears that only one media organization can’t be trusted to make projections in a timely manner based on the statistical findings. Baker makes clear in his New York Times article (3/4/23) that following the 2020 election, Fox executives’ primary concern about the Arizona call was not that it was right, but that coming before any other network, it infuriated Trump and his aides, and angered their own viewers.

    Discussions followed, even by their two main news anchors, who, according to Baker,

    suggested it was not enough to call a state based on numerical calculations, the standard by which networks have made such determinations for generations, but that viewer reaction should be considered.

    As Baker points out, that had already happened. When its decision desk decided to call Nevada for Biden on Friday night, November 6, Fox president Jay Wallace refused to air it. By VoteCast’s models, Arizona would have given Biden the electoral votes he needed to be declared president. Wallace didn’t want his network to be the first. He waited until all the other networks had made the call the next day, and then allowed Fox to follow suit.

    Once a network has decided it’s more important to tell viewers what they want to hear, rather than what the data provide, it doesn’t matter how good the election night system might be. The calls can’t be trusted.

    The post What Fox’s Bad Calls on Election Night 2020 Say About 2024 appeared first on FAIR.

    This post was originally published on FAIR.

  •  

    Janine Jackson interviewed Community Movement Builders’ Kamau Franklin about the fight against Cop City for the March 17, 2023, episode of CounterSpin. This is a lightly edited transcript.

          CounterSpin230317Franklin.mp3

     

    Janine Jackson: The clearing of land, including forests, in South Atlanta, to build a gigantic police training complex brings together so many concerns, it’s hard to know where to begin.

    NPR : Autopsy reveals anti-'Cop City' activist's hands were raised when shot and killed

    NPR (3/11/23)

    The January police killing of a protester and environmental activist known as Tortuguita, whose autopsy suggests they were sitting down with their hands raised when cops shot them multiple times, is a flashpoint illuminating a constellation of harms proposed by what’s been dubbed “Cop City,” as well as resistance to them.

    Our guest is in the thick of it. Kamau Franklin is founder of the national grassroots organization Community Movement Builders, and co-host of the podcast Renegade Culture. He joins us now by phone from Atlanta; welcome to CounterSpin, Kamau Franklin.

    Kamau Franklin: Hey, thanks for having me. I really appreciate it.

    Cop City seems to bring together so much that is wrong and painful for Black and brown people. But we can actually start with the land itself. The place where this paramilitary police camp is planned has some meaningful history, doesn’t it?

    KF: Yeah, this land, which has been dubbed by us the Weelaunee forest, was originally the home of part of the Muscogee nation. The Muscogee nation was the native occupiers of that land, the original occupiers of that land, and they were removed in an ethnic cleansing war by the United States from that land and pushed off.

    And since that time period, the land has been used, initially, partly as a plantation, where enslaved Africans were brought to the land and made to work on that land. Later, the land was transferred into a prison farm, where working-class people and poor people and, again, particularly Black folks were put on the land to continue working for the state at, obviously, no wages, being punished and harassed and brutally treated.

    The land has also served as a youth imprisonment camp, and the police have done trainings on that land.

    So that land has been, over a time period, used for the brutal and harsh treatment of Black people in particular, but also of poor and working-class people.

    One quick thing I want to say, also, is that that land, in terms of it being a forest before the invention of Cop City, was promised to the adjacent community, which is 70% Black, as a recreational and park area, particularly as the land re-forested itself over time, park areas where there were supposed to be nature trails, hiking available, parks available, and when the idea of Cop City arose, from the Atlanta Police Department, the City of Atlanta and the Atlanta Police Foundation, all of those plans were scrapped immediately, without any input from that adjoining community, and instead they decided to move forward with this idea of Cop City.

    New Republic: Atlanta’s “Cop City” and the Vital Fight for Urban Forests

    New Republic (3/9/23)

    JJ: I think that’s why folks are talking about, I’ve heard a reference to “layers of violence” at work here. And I think that’s what they’re getting at is, there’s what this place would be for, its purpose, and then there’s also the process of how it is being pushed on people that didn’t want it. And then there’s also the physical, environmental impact of the construction. It’s a lot, and yet they’re all intertwined, these problems.

    KF: Yeah, this is a perfect illustration of how the state, vis-a-vis the city, the state government and even, in some ways, the federal government, operate in tandem, and a lot of times, most of the time, it doesn’t matter what party they are, but operate in tandem at the whim of capital and at the whim of a, relatively speaking, right-wing ideological outlook.

    And, again, it doesn’t matter which party it is we’re talking about. It doesn’t matter whether or not those folks are Black or white, but an ideological outlook that says overpolicing in Black and brown communities is the answer to every problem.

    And so here in particular, you talked about the process. This process of developing Cop City came after the 2020 uprisings against police violence, the 2020 uprisings that were national in scope, that started after Breonna Taylor, George Floyd and, here in Atlanta, Rayshard Brooks was killed by the police, and it caused a massive uprising and movement across the nation again.

    The response by the authorities here in Atlanta was to push through their plans on building Cop City, to double down on their efforts, again, to continue the overpolicing of Black communities, particularly here in Atlanta. Atlanta is a city that is gentrifying at an astronomical rate. It’s gone from a 60% Black city to one that’s less than 50% in only a matter of 20, 30 years, all of that under Black leadership.

    It’s a city that, in terms of those who are arrested, 90% of those who are arrested in Atlanta by the police are Black people; its jails are filled with Black people.

    And so this is a city that doubled down on police violence and police militarization after these uprisings.

    In addition, we feel like the part of Cop City, in terms of its militarization—over a dozen firing ranges, its mock cities to practice urban warfare, its military-grade structure that it’s bragging about—the fact that its past facility is called the Paramilitary Center, and this one is also going to be a paramilitary center.

    In its earliest iterations of what it was supposed to be, it included a landing pad for Black Hawk helicopters, something they’ve now said that they’ve taken out.

    This, for us, has been put forth to harass and stop future mobilizations and movements and uprisings against police brutality and misconduct.

    Guardian: ‘Cop City’ opposition spreads beyond Georgia forest defenders

    Guardian (2/9/23)

    It was pushed through the City Council. Seventy percent of the people who called in on the night of the vote voted against Cop City, but yet the City Council members decided to still enact this. And so this has been run over the heads of the community, without community input.

    And it is something that we think is dangerous for both the overpolicing, and, as you restated earlier, the environmental concerns of stripping away a forest of 100 acres immediately. This particular area is something that is given to having floods. Once they start stripping even more of the forested area away, there’s going to be even more and increased floods.

    The loudness of the shooting, the other things that’s going to be happening, this is going to be something that’s extremely detrimental to the environment, and the continued degradation of the climate, if it is allowed to take place and happen.

    JJ: I think folks listening would understand why there are multiple points of resistance, why there are a range of communities and folks who would be against this. Some listeners may not know, people have been protesting Cop City for years now.

    But now, Tortuguita’s killing amid ongoing protests has given an opening for corporate media to plug this into a narrative about “violent activists” and “clashes.” And this is par for the course for elite media, but, and I’m just picking up on what you’ve just said, it’s especially perverse here, because we’re seeing community resistance and rejection of hyper-policing presented as itself a reason for more of that hyper- and racist policing. It’s a knot. It’s a real complicated knot here.

    KF: No, you’re exactly right. And we should say, again, that people have been protesting against Cop City since we found out about it in 2021. And our protests have been, since its beginning, met with police violence.

    When we were protesting at City Hall, doing petition drives, town halls, contacting our legislators, when all that was happening and we were doing protests at City Hall and other places, the police would come and break up our protests.

    They conducted over 20 arrests during the early stages of our protest movement against Cop City. At that particular time, people were being arrested for charges of disorderly conduct, resisting arrest, obstruction of governmental administration.

    LAT: The latest epicenter for anti-police protests: ‘Cop City’ in Atlanta

    LA Times (3/15/23)

    After they passed the resolution to grant the lease to the Atlanta Police Foundation, and part of our tactics began to have—there were folks who moved to the actual forest and became forest defenders as an act of civil disobedience.

    Then the policing agency in Atlanta basically hooked up and created a task force. So the Atlanta Police Department, DeKalb County Police Department, Georgia Bureau of Investigation, the Federal Bureau of Investigation and Homeland Security actually formed a task force where they first began having discussions on bringing charges of state domestic terrorism.

    And so in December of last year, they conducted a raid in the forest and arrested approximately five or six people. And those were the first folks who were charged with domestic terrorism.

    On January 18, they did a second raid, and they charged another five or six folks with domestic terrorism, and that was the raid in which they killed Tortuguita, the forest defender, activist and organizer who, again, as you pointed out earlier, through a private autopsy done by the family, because the Georgia Bureau of Investigation refuses to release information on their supposed or alleged investigation into this matter, the private autopsy is the first indication we have that the police narrative on how they were killed was a complete lie.

    Tortuguita was sitting cross-legged and hands were up to protect their face from the firing directly into their body, they were hit approximately 13 times. And it may be more, but the second autopsy could not determine which were exit wounds and what were entry wounds.

    After the killing of Tortuguita, another six or seven protesters were arrested at a rally downtown. And then this past Sunday, during our week of action against Cop City, another 35 arrests took place; 23 of those people were charged with domestic terrorism.

    So we now have approximately 41 or 42 people who have been charged with domestic terrorism. And this is a scare tactic meant to demoralize the movement. And it’s also meant to criminalize the movement in the eyes of the larger public.

    And this is something that’s been a tactic and strategy of the state since day one. But with the help, as you said, of corporate media, they’re trying to get this narrative out there. And we’re left to fight back against this narrative, which is obviously untrue.

    JJ: And it’s been long in the works, and long on the wish list. I remember talking to Mara Verheyden-Hilliard about J20, about people who had been arrested protesting Trump’s inauguration, and the slippery tactics that, not just law enforcement, but also the courts were using to say, you were near a person or dressed similarly to a person who we believe committed a crime against property, and therefore you are swept up in this dragnet and charged with felonies, and with a lifetime in prison.

    And let’s underscore, it’s a scare tactic. It’s a way to keep people in their homes. It’s a way to keep people from coming out in the street to use their voice on issues they care about.

    Kamau Franklin

    Kamau Franklin: “These domestic terrorism charges are purposely meant to put fear in the heart of organizers and activists, not only on this issue, but in future issues.”

    KF: Yes, definitely. I think it’s important what you pointed out, I’m sure viewers may have seen pictures of property destruction.

    And, again, this movement is autonomous, and people are engaged in different actions. We don’t equate property destruction with the violence that the police have rained on Black and brown communities over centuries, to be clear; we don’t equate the idea of property destruction with the violent killings that led to the 2020 uprisings and the prior violent killings by the police of unarmed Black people over, again, decades.

    But what’s important to point out even in these arrests, is that the folks who have been arrested and charged with domestic terrorism, who are actually involved in acts of civil disobedience at best, the people in the forest who were arrested during the first two raids we spoke about, were people who were sitting in tree huts and sitting in camps under trees, that police had no evidence whatsoever to suggest that they had been involved, either at that time or prior, in any destruction of property.

    And even if they did have such evidence, then the correct legal charge would be vandalism or destruction of property. These domestic terrorism charges are purposely meant to put fear in the heart of organizers and activists, not only on this issue, but in future issues, when the state levels its power, it’s going to say that you tried to, and this is how broad the statute is, attempt to influence government policy by demonstrative means—so civil disobedience can be interpreted as domestic terrorism.

    And this is the first time in Georgia that the state statute has ever been used. And the first choice to use it on are organizers and activists who are fighting against police violence.

    JJ: And are we also going to see, I see Alec Karakatsanis pointing out that we’re also seeing this line about “outside agitators.” You know, everything old is new again. In other words, all these old tropes and tactics, it seems like they’re all coming to the fore here, and one of them is the idea that this isn’t really about the community. This is about people who are professional activists, professional troublemakers, and the phrase “outside agitators” is even bubbling up again. And that’s a particular kind of divide-and-conquer tactic.

    KF: Most definitely. We should be clear that the heart of the Stop Cop City movement has been organizers and activists and community members, voting rights advocates, civil rights advocates, who have either been born or who have lived in Atlanta for a number of years.

    But that movement has welcomed in people from all across the country to try to support in ending Cop City, whether or not that’s national support that people give from their homes, and/or whether or not that’s been support that people have traveled down to Atlanta to give support to either forest defenders or the larger movement to stop Cop City.

    We see the language of “outside agitators” as being, as you said, a trope that is born from the language of Southern segregationists, that were used against people like Dr. King, the civil rights movement, Freedom Riders.

    And so when we have Black elected officials parroting the language of Southern segregationists, it tells us how far we’ve come in terms of having representative politics, where basically you have Black faces representing capitalism, representing corporations, representing developers who have turned their back on the working-class and poor Black communities who they’ve helped pushed out of the city, in favor of these corporations, and in favor on strengthening a police apparatus that, again, is going to be used against every Black community that they claim to represent.

    JJ: Well, finally, one of the corporate investors in Cop City, along with Home Depot and Coca-Cola and Delta, is Cox Enterprises, which owns the Atlanta Journal-Constitution, which I understand is editorially supportive of Cop City.

    I wonder what you’re making of local media that may be in contrast to national media or international media. And then, as a media critic, it’s strange, but a lot of what I want to say is, don’t follow them, don’t look to media to tell you about what’s happening, about what’s possible, about who matters, because it’s a distortion.

    So I want you to talk a little about the resistance for folks, but also, maybe they’re not seeing that resistance in their news media, and there are reasons for that.

    KF: We have a couple of reporters, I’ve singled them out, who have attempted at least to give a fair hearing to the struggle around Cop City.

    However, the overwhelming local reporting has been in favor, and has led continually with the police narrative, with the city narrative, with the state narrative on this benign training center, as they present it, and these “outside agitators” we spoke of earlier, organizers who are coming in. That’s been the central narrative.

    So even when we talk about police violence, they never use the term “police violence.” They only use “violence” in conjunction with the organizers and activists, that’s whether or not a so-called peaceful protest has been taking place and the police arrest organizers. And that’s whether or not there’s this quiet civil disobedience by staying in the woods. Anytime organizers or activists are brought up, they don’t hesitate but to use the word “violence.”

    AJC: Crime wave should spur action on center

    Atlanta Journal-Constitution (8/21/21)

    And so we understand that not only the media that’s directly connected to Cox, which is a funder of the Atlanta Police Foundation and a funder of Cop City, and, as you stated, editorially, has put out four, five, six, editorials that have all been supportive of Cop City, and that have all tried to label organizers and activists as “violent.” But other corporate media, local corporate media, has been on that same bandwagon, except for a few notable exceptions.

    We’ve gotten much better press, much, much more favorable hearings, that at least tells our side, from national media, from outlets who have a perspective and understand what organizing and activism and capitalism is vis-a-vis the way the society works, and from international media.

    The things that have helped us get the word out to talk about the struggle has been media platforms like this, and others which have a perspective that understands the role of the United States, and the United States government entities and corporations, and how the world is run.

    Without that perspective, we would be completely at a loss to get the word out in any way that could be considered fair and/or accurate.

    Truthout: Atlanta Was a Constitution-Free Zone During “Stop Cop City” Week of Action

    Truthout (3/14/23)

    JJ: You want to shout out any reporters or outlets? I would say Candice Bernd at Truthout has been doing some deep and thoughtful things on it. And, internationally, I’ve seen a few things. But if there are reporters or outlets that you think deserve a shout out, by all means.

    KF: The Guardian has done a good job of representing organizer and activist concerns. As you said, Truthout. Millennials Are Killing Capitalism, as a podcast, has done a fantastic job. Cocktails and Capitalism has done a fantastic job. We’ve had some good reporting in Essence magazine, actually.

    And so there have been outlets that have given us, again, a fair hearing on our views on the history of policing, on understanding capitalist development and capital development and corporate development here, not only in Atlanta, but in other urban cities across the country.

    And so we thank those outlets for at least the opportunity to give voice as we fight back against a dominant corporate narrative that is all about supporting the police, supporting violent and militarized policing, and supporting the continued criminalization of movements that fight against it.

    JJ: We’ve been speaking with Kamau Franklin. He’s founder of the national grassroots organization Community Movement Builders. They’re online at CommunityMovementBuilders.org. He’s also co-host of the podcast Renegade Culture. Kamau Franklin, thank you so much for joining us this week on CounterSpin.

    KF: Thank you for having me. I appreciate it.

     

    The post ‘People Have Been Protesting Against Cop City Since We Found Out About It’ appeared first on FAIR.

    This post was originally published on FAIR.

  •  

    On the 20th anniversary of the US- and British-led invasion of Iraq, the New York Times continued to dedicate itself to a waffling narrative, one that writes out most of history and opts for a message of “it’s complicated” to discuss the disaster it can’t admit that it helped create.

    NYT: 20 Years After U.S. Invasion, Iraq Is a Freer Place, but Not a Hopeful One

    The New York Times (3/18/23) looks back on the Iraq invasion: “For many Iraqis, it is hard to appreciate the positive developments.”

    On Saturday, the Times (3/18/23) published an article on its website headlined, “20 Years After US Invasion, Iraq Is a Freer Place, but Not a Hopeful One.” The next morning, the article (under the headline “Lost Hopes Haunt Iraqis, Two Decades After Invasion”) was featured at the top-right corner of its front page—making it one of the most prominent articles in the English-speaking world that day.

    The article, by Baghdad bureau chief Alissa Rubin, began and ended in a Fallujah cemetery, and it certainly painted a gloomy picture of both present-day Iraq and the ravages of war. Yet the Times couldn’t help but balance the gloom with positive notes. Rubin quoted former Iraqi President Barham Salih explaining that there have been “a lot of positive developments” in Iraq. For instance: “Once [Saddam] was gone, suddenly we had elections. We had an open polity, a multitude of press.” Another of those positive developments, Rubin wrote, was “a better relationship with the US military.”

    And yet, Rubin went on, “For many Iraqis, it is hard to appreciate the positive developments when unemployment is rampant.” She also pointed to the fact that “about a quarter of Iraqis live at or below the poverty line” and, above all, to “the increasingly entrenched government corruption.” (Today, Iraq shares the rank of 157 out of 180 countries on the Transparency International corruption index with Myanmar and Azerbaijan, as the Times noted.)

    Rubin offered only glimpses of responsibility. Of the George W. Bush administration’s claims of weapons of mass destruction, she simply wrote, “no evidence to back up those accusations was ever found.” Of the power vacuum that Iran stepped into, Rubin wrote, “Abetting and expanding Iran’s influence in Iraq was hardly the intention of American policymakers in 2003.” The power-sharing government system the US installed “is regarded by many as having undermined from the start any hope of good governance,” she explained. “But Mr. Crocker and others said that at the time it seemed the only way to ensure that all sects and ethnicities would have a role in governing.”

    Understating catastrophe

    NYT: From Iraq, Lessons for the Next War

    Looking back on six years covering Iraq, the New York Times‘ Alissa Rubin (11/1/09) acknowledged that “Americans, too, did their share of violence”—but she didn’t call it “horrific crimes” or “brutality.”

    It’s perhaps an unsurprising framing, coming from a journalist whose reflections on Iraq in 2009 (11/1/09; FAIR.org, 11/3/09) included the observation that while Sunnis and Shiites in Iraq committed “horrific crimes,” and Kurds displayed “brutality,” the “Americans, too, did their share of violence.” But maybe, she seemed to suggest, Americans didn’t commit enough violence?

    Among the worst they did was wishful thinking, the misreading of the winds and allowing what Yeats called “the blood-dimmed tide” to swell. Could they have stopped it? Probably not. Could it have been stemmed so that it did less damage, saved some of the fathers and brothers, mothers and sons? Yes, almost certainly, yes.

    Though her present-day article did emphasize the deaths and loss suffered by Iraqis, the numbers Rubin offered represented the floor, not the ceiling, of estimates. She wrote that “about 200,000 civilians died at the hands of American forces, Al Qaeda militants, Iraqi insurgents or the Islamic State terrorist group, according to Brown University’s Cost of War Project.”

    This only includes violent deaths, and only of civilians. A peer-reviewed study in 2013 estimated that more than 400,000 Iraqi deaths from March 1, 2003 through June 30, 2011 were directly attributable to the war, with more than 60% due to violence and the rest to other war-related causes.

    Meanwhile, Opinion Research Business (Reuters, 1/30/08) used polling methods to estimate that, only five years into the war, “more than 1 million Iraqis have died as a result of the conflict in their country since the US-led invasion in 2003.”

    And the New York Times didn’t mention another dark part of the Brown University study: The war helped create more than 9 million Iraqi refugees and internally displaced people. Also unreported at the Times: US war and sanctions left an estimated one in 10 Iraqis disabled (Reuters, 1/21/10). In other words, however bleak a picture it might have painted, Rubin’s piece understated the catastrophe.

    Selling the case for war

    NYT: U.S. SAYS HUSSEIN INTENSIFIES QUEST FOR A-BOMB PARTS

    New York Times (9/8/02): “The attempted purchases [of aluminum tubes] are not the only signs of a renewed Iraqi interest in acquiring nuclear arms.”

    Rubin also did not acknowledge that by the New York Times’ own admission (5/26/04), a year after the invasion, the paper had published numerous articles based on anonymous Iraqi informants that promoted false claims about Iraq’s pursuit of weapons of mass destruction.

    The magnitude of the Times’ role in selling the case for the Iraq War is staggering. A few of the dubious articles about Saddam’s weapons program involved the infamous reporter Judith Miller (9/8/02, 1/23/03, 4/21/03), who today works at the conservative Manhattan Institute, writing pieces for City Journal about the superiority of Red State policies (3/1/23) and condemning “cancel culture” (6/6/21).

    Many of Miller’s key pieces of disinformation were co-written with Michael Gordon, who remained a lead journalist for the Times for many years, continuing to relay the charges of anonymous US officials against official enemies (FAIR.org, 2/16/07; Extra!, 1/13). Now he’s doing much the same thing for the Wall Street Journal (FAIR.org, 6/28/21).

    After Gordon and Miller dutifully transcribed the fabricated case that Iraq was pursuing a nuclear bomb—a story generated by the office of Vice President Dick Cheney—Cheney was able to go on Meet the Press (NBC, 9/8/02) and issue dire warnings about a nuclear-armed Iraq, citing “a story in the New York Times this morning” (FAIR.org, 3/19/07).

    When UN weapons inspectors failed to find the nonexistent WMDs prior to the invasion, the Times (2/2/03) dismissed the lack of evidence; after all, “nobody seriously expected Mr. Hussein to lead inspectors to his stash of illegal poisons or rockets, or to let his scientists tell all,” correspondent Serge Schmemann reported.

    Times reporter Steven Weisman (2/6/03) praised Colin Powell’s deceptive UN presentation as an “encyclopedic catalog that reached further than many had expected.” A Times editorial (2/6/03) called it “the most powerful case to date that Saddam Hussein stands in defiance of Security Council resolutions and has no intention of revealing or surrendering whatever unconventional weapons he may have.”

    Explaining why journalists didn’t ask President George W. Bush critical questions about the evidence put forward as justification for war, Times reporter Elisabeth Bumiller (Baltimore Sun, 3/22/04) later explained, “No one wanted to get into an argument with the president at this very serious time.” (Bumiller is now the TimesWashington bureau chief.)

    Deriding the opposition

    NYT: Some of Intellectual Left's Longtime Doves Taking on Role of Hawks

    The New York Times  (3/14/03) rounded up a bunch of “reluctant hawks”—all of whom had been reluctantly hawkish on the Gulf War 13 years earlier.

    Other New York Times pieces derided the world’s opposition to war, with correspondent Elaine Sciolino (9/15/02) mocking “old French attitudes” like those of President Jacques Chirac, who “made it clear that he doesn’t think it is the business of the world’s powers to oust leaders simply because they are dictators who repress their people.”

    While doing its best to ignore massive protests against the war (FAIR.org, 9/30/02), the Times highlighted supposedly surprising supporters of invasion. Under the headline “Liberals for War: Some of Intellectual Left’s Longtime Doves Taking on Role of Hawks,” Kate Zernike (3/14/03) argued that “as the nation stands on the brink of war, reluctant hawks are declining to join their usual soulmates in marching against war.” It cited seven people by name as “somewhat hesitant backers of military might”—every one of whom is on the record as having supported the 1991 Gulf War.

    On the eve of war, Baghdad correspondent John Burns (3/19/03) declared, “The striking thing was that for many Iraqis, the first American strike could not come too soon.” Burns was the reporter who could glean the feelings of Iraqis about the invasion by viewing them on the street from his hotel room:

    From an 11th-floor balcony of the Palestine Hotel, it was not possible to hear what the driver of the red Mercedes said when he was pulled over halfway down the block, but his gestures conveyed the essence powerfully enough. “Get real,” the driver seemed to be saying. “Look at the sky. Look across the river. The old is giving way to the new.”

    Invasion advocacy

    New York Times cartoon of Saddam Hussein's hidden weapons

    This fantasy of Saddam Hussein’s hidden WMDs (New York Times, 12/28/01) accompanied Richard Perle’s post-9/11 call for an attack on Iraq.

    Things were no better in the opinion section. New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman (4/27/03) said after the invasion, invoking Saddam’s repression, “As far as I’m concerned, we do not need to find any weapons of mass destruction to justify this war,” and later (9/18/03) accused France of “becoming our enemy” for opposing the invasion.

    Ex-CIA analyst Kenneth Pollack (New York Times, 2/21/03), who serves at the conservative American Enterprise Institute and was praised by New Yorker editor David Remnick (1/26/03) as the most clear-thinking invasion advocate, wrote that because of Saddam’s “terrifying beliefs about the utility of nuclear weapons, it would be reckless for us to assume that he can be deterred.” While “we must weigh the costs of a war with Iraq today,” Pollack advised, “we must place the cost of a war with a nuclear-armed Iraq tomorrow.”

    Even as the nation was still in shock from the 9/11 attacks, Richard Perle (New York Times, 12/28/01), a prominent neoconservative and then chair of the White House’s Defense Policy Board, demanded action against Iraq, because Saddam maintained an “array of chemical and biological weapons” and was “willing to absorb the pain of a decade-long embargo rather than allow international inspectors to uncover the full magnitude of his program.”

    The Times even gave column space (1/23/03) to then–National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice to say “Iraq has a high-level political commitment to maintain and conceal its weapons.”

    It’s no wonder that the Times, despite its liberal reputation, is remembered in antiwar circles as a public relations arm of the Bush administration.

    ‘Bumbling into conflict’

    New York Times: 20 Years On, a Question Lingers About Iraq: Why Did the U.S. Invade?

    “The world may never get a definitive answer” as to why the US invaded Iraq—if it waits for the New York Times (3/18/23).

    Accompanying Rubin’s piece after the jump was an analysis by Max Fisher (3/18/23) and a spread of Iraq War photos (3/18/23). Fisher’s piece, headlined, “Two Decades Later, a Question Remains: Why Did the US Invade?” wondered:

    Was it really, as the George W. Bush administration claimed in the war’s run-up, to neutralize an active Iraqi arsenal of weapons of mass destruction that turned out to not exist?

    Was it over, as the administration heavily implied, suspicions that Saddam Hussein, Iraq’s leader, had been involved in the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, which also proved false?

    Was it to liberate Iraqis from Mr. Hussein’s rule and bring democracy to the Middle East, as the administration would later claim?

    Oil? Faulty intelligence? Geopolitical gain? Simple overconfidence? Popular desire for a war, any war, to reclaim national pride? Or, as in conflicts like World War I, mutual miscommunication that sent distrustful states bumbling into conflict?

    “I will go to my grave not knowing that. I can’t answer it,” Richard Haass, a senior State Department official at the time of the invasion, said in 2004 when asked why it had happened.

    Ultimately, Fisher wrote, “The world may never get a definitive answer.” After a lengthy examination of various officials’ and scholars’ thoughts about the question, Fisher concluded that it comes down to “a mix of ideological convictions, psychological biases, process breakdowns and misaligned diplomatic signals.”

    Designed to obfuscate

    George W. Bush with Vice President Dick Cheney and Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld

    George W. Bush’s Vice President Dick Cheney and Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld were among the PNAC signatories demanding regime change in Iraq—as were Assistant Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz, Under Secretary of State John Bolton, the National Security Council’s Elliott Abrams, Cheney chief of staff Scooter Libby and several other Bush administration officials.

    Like Rubin’s piece, Fisher’s piece seems designed to obfuscate any direct accountability for the devastation wrought by the war, leaning heavily on passive constructions and quotes, such as another from Haass: “A decision was not made. A decision happened, and you can’t say when or how.”

    When Fisher asks, “Did the administration sincerely believe its rationale for war, or engineer it as a pretense?,” his conclusion—even after pointing out that the official rationale changed from Saddam Hussein’s purported involvement in 9/11 to his purported secret stash of WMD (and, later, to US democracy promotion)—is that “the record suggests something more banal”: that various senior officials wanted Hussein out “for their own reasons, and then talked one another into believing the most readily available justification.” It’s hard to see how talking each other into false justifications for pre-established goals isn’t far closer to “engineer[ing] it as a pretense” than it is to “sincerely believ[ing] its rationale.”

    Later, Fisher writes, “Few scholars argue that Mr. Bush’s team came into office plotting to invade Iraq and then seized on September 11 as an excuse.” Again, this seems like splitting hairs at best. Fisher had just noted that neoconservatives represented by the Project for a New American Century (PNAC)—who later formed Bush’s inner circle—”now spoke for the Republican Party,” and that as far back as 1998, PNAC insisted that Hussein be removed from power. In a 2000 memo, PNAC suggested this might require “some catastrophic and catalyzing event, like a new Pearl Harbor.”

    Fisher’s piece reiterates some of the most prominent myths about the invasion rationale. He claims that during the Clinton administration, “Mr. Hussein had ejected international weapons inspectors”—an error that the New York Times has repeatedly had to correct (2/2/00, 9/17/02, 10/4/03, 10/8/03; FAIR.org, 10/7/03). As news outlets correctly reported at the time but later consistently misrepresented (Extra! Update, 10/02), the UN withdrew its inspectors from Iraq on December 16, 1998, because the United States was preparing to bomb the country.

    Fisher also gives credence to the claim that Saddam Hussein

    overstated his willingness to fight and concealed the paltry state of his weapons programs to appear strong at home and deter the Americans, who had attacked in 1998. But Washington believed him.

    This theory that the Iraq War was caused by Hussein’s “bluffs” is not based on evidence (Extra!, 1–2/04, 5–6/04, 3–4/08), but rather on a desire to blame Iraq for the United States’ refusal to accept its repeated and forceful denials that it had any secret banned weaponry.

    ‘Carried and amplified’

    Real News Network: US Media’s Iraq War Pushers 20 Years On: Where Are They Now? Rich and Influential.

    Adam Johnson (Real News Network, 3/17/23): “Not only have none of the hawks who promoted, cheerled or authorized the criminal invasion of Iraq ever been held accountable, they’ve since thrived: They’ve found success in the media, the speaking circuit, government jobs and cushy think tank gigs.”

    Meanwhile, the only mention in the entire article of corporate media’s role was to acknowledge that the administration’s WMD “claims were carried, and amplified, by America’s major media outlets.”

    Neither anniversary article brought up the burning question: If such a devastating war was based on such faulty information, shouldn’t there be some kind of accountability, not just inside the government but within the press, in order to ensure this never happens again?

    That’s important, because while the New York Post and Fox News, drunk on the post-9/11 sentiment of the time, were able to rally their conservative audience behind the Bush administration, the New York Times‘ fearmongering was key to selling the idea of war to Democrats and centrists from Central Park West to Sunset Boulevard.

    At the time of the invasion, despite the raging street protests, corporate media were unified in cheering for the president’s plan—FAIR found in the lead-up to the war that at four major television news networks, the number of pro-war guests on Iraq segments dwarfed skeptical voices (FAIR.org, 3/18/03). And much of the US public supported the war (Pew Research, 3/19/08). For a decent retrospective on the corporate press’ role in the lead-up to the war, one should glance at Al Jazeera’s Marc Lamont Hill (3/17/23) interviewing Katrina vanden Heuvel (publisher of The Nation), Norman Solomon (of the Institute for Public Accuracy) and former Telegraph commentator Peter Oborne.

    But like the Bush administration, the Times and the rest of the corporate journalists who sold the disastrous war have never faced accountability.


    Research assistance: Conor Smyth

    The post 20 Years Later, NYT Still Can’t Face Its Iraq War Shame appeared first on FAIR.

    This post was originally published on FAIR.

  •  

    Remember Ajit Pai, the former Verizon lawyer Trump put in charge of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC)? When he gutted net neutrality rules and kneecapped the agency’s ability to regulate telecom monopolies, voters from across the political spectrum were outraged. The internet erupted in protest.

    The Hill: 4 in 5 Americans say they support net neutrality: poll

    Democrats like Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi responded to popular opinion by promising to restore net neutrality rules (The Hill, 3/20/19).

    Millions of people from across the political spectrum called their elected officials and submitted comments to the FCC, and thousands took to the streets. It was a rare moment of genuinely popular public revolt that defied partisan DC logic. If there’s one thing everyone can agree on, it’s that we don’t want our cable or phone company screwing us over more than they already do, selling our browsing habits and real-time location to advertisers, or dictating what websites we can visit or which apps we use.

    Indeed, the FCC’s net neutrality rules—banning Internet Service Providers from blocking apps, throttling, discriminating or charging scammy fees—were overwhelmingly popular with the general public, regardless of political views.

    When Pai repealed those rules, Democrats capitalized on the moment, loudly proclaiming that they were the party that would stand up to Big Cable and their deep-pocketed lobbyists. In speeches and fundraising emails, they promised they would fix this mess if they regained the White House.

    Trump lost the election. But astonishingly, two years into the Biden administration, Trump still more or less runs the FCC. Pai is no longer employed at the agency, but his disastrous policies remain firmly in place. And unless we rekindle some of that collective outrage we felt when net neutrality was repealed, it’s looking increasingly likely that those Trump-era handouts to abusive telecom giants will continue for the foreseeable future.

    Dark money smears

    NBC: Smear campaign targets nominee who would be FCC’s first openly gay commissioner

    Right-wing media responded to Gigi Sohn’s nomination with a homophobic smear campaign (NBC, 2/3/23).

    Last week, Gigi Sohn, who had been Biden’s nominee to fill the FCC’s crucial fifth seat, withdrew her nomination. Sohn is an eminently qualified candidate and well-known public interest champion who has dedicated her career to closing the digital divide. She was also a historic pick: the first openly LGBTQ nominee to the position. With Democrats holding the Senate majority, she should have been swiftly confirmed.

    Instead, her nomination languished, as she faced a months-long, industry-funded smear campaign. Front groups for cable and phone companies flooded swing states with false and misleading ads. Pundits painted Sohn as “anti-police” because she had liked a few tweets in support of Black Lives Matter.

    The Fraternal Order of Police (FOP) piled on, painting Sohn as dangerous because she sits on the board of the highly respected Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), which rightly opposes government backdoors in encrypted messaging (an issue the FCC has zero jurisdiction over, by the way).

    The FOP has a longstanding reputation for “pay-to-play” lobbying. The group’s executive director, Jim Pasco, maintains a lucrative side business lobbying for corporations, which has sparked controversy when the FOP mysteriously adopts positions favorable to his outside clients. Pasco’s wife, Cybele Daley, was a registered lobbyist for AT&T as recently as 2009. She is currently the vice president of the Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA), copyright-maximalist lobbyists for Hollywood frequently criticized by Public Knowledge, the free expression nonprofit that Sohn co-founded.

    The FOP has never been known to take a position on FCC nominations in the past. Its arrival to the fight seems suspicious at best.

    Other groups opposing Sohn’s nomination are even more clearly paid shills for the telecom industry, like the Taxpayers Protection Alliance, which has been exposed in the past for “astroturfing” on behalf of telecom companies. Don’t forget these same companies were caught red-handed orchestrating a massive flood of fraudulent comments praising the net neutrality rules repeal that were submitted to the FCC in 2017, using real people’s stolen information.

    Emboldened by industry-funded smears and Republican talking points, the right-wing media machine started cranking out even more slime, culminating in blatantly homophobic, QAnon conspiracy–style attacks attempting to paint Sohn as some kind of sexual deviant or predator. A particularly nasty and dishonest article in the Daily Mail (1/26/23) included a photo of Sohn and her wife.

    Democrats could have stood up to these utterly disingenuous attacks. Party leaders could have forcefully condemned the smear campaign at any of the three Senate hearings that Sohn testified at, and made it clear that Senate Democrats wouldn’t allow homophobia and corruption to derail a qualified nominee’s confirmation process. Instead, they hung Sohn out to dry. Senate Democratic leadership, including Commerce Committee chair Maria Cantwell (D.–Wash.) and Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D.–N.Y.), were shamefully silent about the homophobia and lies hurled at their party’s nominee.

    The FOP’s leadership has a long history of racist and bigoted comments, and has routinely opposed police reforms. The organization endorsed Donald Trump for President. Twice. But in the end, a small handful of Senate Democrats chose to side with the FOP, Big Telecom and Fox News over labor unions, environmental groups, LGBTQ+ organizations, civil rights leaders, teachers, librarians, human rights advocates and small business associations—more than 400 in all—who supported Sohn’s confirmation.

    And in the process, they handed Republicans a blueprint for how to sink any future nominee they don’t like, especially if they happen to be gay. It’s not just shameful, it’s an embarrassing strategic failure.

    The battle for the net

    So what happens next? Biden will have to nominate someone else to fill the FCC’s fifth seat. We can be sure that lobbyists for the likes of Comcast, Verizon and AT&T are already circulating their lists of “approved” candidates. And, given everything that has happened, we have every reason to be worried that Biden could take one of those names.

    If the industry gets to install its preferred commissioner for the crucial fifth deciding vote, it will effectively own the agency that’s supposed to regulate it. Just like it did when Ajit Pai was in charge.

    Vice: Restore Net Neutrality, Or Facebook Will Dominate The Internet Forever

    The stakes are too high to let the FCC coast on under policies set by Donald Trump (Vice, 11/17/21).

    We can’t let that happen. The stakes are too high. The pandemic only exacerbated the digital divide, and ended any debate over whether access to affordable high-speed Internet is a “necessity” or not. Kids were sitting outside of Taco Bell using the wi-fi to go to school on Zoom. There is absolutely no reason we cannot ensure that every single child in this country has access to an internet connection they can use for school—except that for too long the agency tasked with protecting the public interest has been captured by the industry it’s supposed to oversee.

    As Big Tech has gotten bigger, net neutrality has only become more important. While attention in DC has shifted from Comcast and Verizon to Amazon and Instagram, the problems with monopoly power and surveillance capitalism are widespread. Unless net neutrality rules are revived, it’s only a matter of time before Big Tech giants start cutting deals with Big Telecom gatekeepers, crushing competition from smaller players and startups and solidifying their dominance.

    Beyond restoring Title II oversight and net neutrality protections, the FCC could use its rulemaking authority to crack down on cell phone carriers’ shady data collection practices. Stopping the collection and abuse of cell phone location data is one of the most concrete things the Federal government can do to protect the privacy and safety of people seeking, providing and facilitating abortions. One data broker was exposed selling the location data of people who had entered Planned Parenthood clinics. The FCC could also investigate and crack down on certain types of surveillance devices, like Amazon’s creepy flying Ring drones.

    But they can’t do any of that until the Senate confirms a fifth commissioner. And they won’t do any of that if that fifth commissioner is a sleeper agent for the telecom industry. So it’s time to get organized.

    This morning, more than 60 civil society organizations sent a letter to President Joe Biden, calling on him to “immediately put forth a new nominee” who:

    • “has a history of advocacy for the public interest;
    • “is free of industry conflicts of interest;
    • “demonstrates a clear commitment to championing the rights of low-income families and communities of color;
    • “and supports Title II oversight and laws that ensure the FCC the authority to prevent unjust discrimination and promote affordable access.”

    When Biden nominated Gigi Sohn, it seemed like an opportunity to finally slam shut the revolving door between the telecom industry and the FCC. The industry saw this as a threat to their status as unregulated monopolies, so they threw money bombs and leveraged their immense influence in DC to kill her nomination.

    Now all eyes are on Biden. Will he nominate another public interest champion who will implement his stated agenda at the FCC? Or will he start the revolving door spinning again? We’re about to find out.


    ACTION ALERT: If you want to make your voice heard, you can use BattleForTheNet.com to call on President Biden to nominate another public interest champion for the FCC.

    The post ACTION ALERT: Trump Rules Remain at FCC as Democrats Cave to Big Cable, Fox News appeared first on FAIR.

    This post was originally published on FAIR.

  •  

     

    Stop Cop City: March in solidarity with Atlanta protests, Minneapolis, 1/21/23

    (CC photo: Chad Davis)

    This week on CounterSpin: If there are ideas, tools or tactics that are part of both this country’s horror-filled past, and some people’s vision for its dystopic future, they are at work in Cop City. Over-policing, racist policing, paramilitarization, the usurping of public resources, environmental racism, community voicelessness, and efforts to criminalize protest (that’s some kinds of protest)—it’s all here. Add to that a corporate press corps that, for one thing, disaggregates issues that are intertwined—Black people, for instance, are impacted not only by police brutality, but also by the environment, breathing air and drinking water as they do—and seems intent on pressing a vital, important situation into old, tired and harmful frames.

    Kamau Franklin is founder of Community Movement Builders, the national grassroots organization, and co-host of the podcast Renegade Culture. We’ll hear from him about Cop City and the fight against it.

          CounterSpin230317Franklin.mp3

     

    Plus Janine Jackson takes a quick look at press coverage of DC’s crime bill.

          CounterSpin230317Banter.mp3

     

    The post Kamau Franklin on Cop City Protests appeared first on FAIR.

    This post was originally published on CounterSpin.

  •  

    Janine Jackson interviewed the Disability Economic Justice Collaborative’s Kim Knackstedt about disability policy for the March 10, 2023, episode of CounterSpin. This is a lightly edited transcript.

          CounterSpin230310Knackstedt.mp3

     

    Janine Jackson: Human rights advocates everywhere marked the death, March 5, of groundbreaking disability justice activist, spokesperson and policymaker Judy Heumann.

    Obituaries rightfully noted meaningful advances Heumann played a role in, like the Americans With Disabilities Act.

    WaPo: Judy Heumann, unyielding advocate for disability rights, dies at 75

    Washington Post (3/6/23)

    It rang a bit odd though to read in the Washington Post that Heumann, born in 1947, “came of age at a time when disabled people had restricted access to libraries, schools and public transportation, with limited opportunities for education or employment.”

    Perhaps the outpouring of attention for Heumann’s life and work could encourage journalists to explore present-day restrictions, limitations, crises, confronted by people with disabilities—one in four adults in the country—along with what responses, including policy responses, are called for.

    Kim Knackstedt is senior fellow at the Century Foundation and director of the Disability Economic Justice Collaborative. She joins us now by phone from Washington, DC. Welcome to CounterSpin, Kim Knackstedt.

    Kim Knackstedt: Hi. I’m glad to be with everyone today.

    JJ: Well, I’m not making fun of that piece. But I was just struck by that “cast your mind back, if you can, to a time when disabled people didn’t enjoy all the freedoms…”

    I guess my thought, just to start us off, is that. But also, Judy Heumann was emphatically not of the “wait patiently and progress will inevitably come” school of thinking, was she?

    KK: Oh, no, no, not at all. Judy was definitely one to fight for what she wanted, and she was fiery. One of the words she loved to use was “feisty.” And she really went after what she knew was wrong.

    And during her services yesterday—I was very lucky to attend and be in community with so many people from around the country, and by video, around the world—we got to hear so many stories about her, and every story had a note about her fighting for the rights of disabled people, and against the injustices that so many of us face.

    Time: Long COVID Experts and Advocates Say the Government Is Ignoring 'the Greatest Mass-Disabling Event in Human History'

    Time (9/19/22)

    JJ: And still face. And this is of course what I’m complaining about here, the treatment of disabled people as an afterthought in policy, in media, which I know is what you engage.

    And it’s weird, given not only that so many people in the country are living with disabilities of varying kinds, but also because it’s a community that anyone can join at any moment. And, indeed, I’ve heard Covid described as a “mass disabling event.”

    And I wanted to ask you, what is Covid showing us about policy responsiveness, about movement responsiveness? What are some of the impacts when the disabled community grows, as it were, suddenly in this way?

    KK: I appreciate you pointing out that anyone can become disabled at any time, because that is part of what I think the US economy is actually facing right now, with the growth of the disability community in a very abrupt way because of Covid.

    And we do have the largest influx of the community that we’ve seen in many, many years, and that has really caused the workforce to try to make an adjustment. And that adjustment’s been slow, it’s been difficult, because we have so many people that now cannot do the job that they used to do because of long Covid. And that is extremely difficult, not only for the entire, again, US economy, but for that person.

    We’ve had some great pieces, actually, through one of the projects at the Century Foundation, called the Voices of Disability Economic Justice project, with people talking about this, and what it means to become disabled because of long Covid, and not be able to do the things you used to be able to do so easily every day.

    Our policies have not changed fast enough to be able to support everyone. That includes our healthcare policies. That includes, now, our education policies. And it includes, again, those workforce policies and accommodations that people need.

    WaPo: How long covid could change the way we think about disability

    Washington Post (7/23/22)

    JJ: There was a thoughtful piece from last June in the Washington Post that talked about what supports and education veteran advocates can offer to “long haulers,” dealing with not just new problems, but with, as you’re saying, a new identity. And it also talked about tensions within the disability community, which as with many marginalized communities often finds itself struggling over limited resources. And now there are millions more people involved.

    And it’s an interesting situation. But I just wanted to lift up—there was one quote in this piece from a guy who says long Covid gives a chance to make some updates to health policy, in part because the condition is affecting, he said, “a different mix of people than what we’ve seen in the traditional disability population.”

    Now, I’m not trying to stir up trouble here, but it sounds a little like “we’re getting a better class of disabled now, not that ragtag group you’re used to,” and there’s an implication, in other words, that now maybe there will be the power to change things. And I guess that arouses mixed feelings in me, is what I want to say.

    KK: It does. And I think there’s a couple ways to unpack that. One, there’s a narrative out there that the disability community are kind of fakers and takers. That’s a narrative that we have to undo, because it’s an incorrect narrative, and it’s a narrative that really doesn’t actually help, it only harms the disability community, because, again, anyone can become disabled at any point in their life.

    That quote that you mentioned, it really ignores the fact that there’s a false narrative that’s already circulated about the disability community.

    But I think, on the other side, what the quote does acknowledge is that having a whole new influx of people to the community gives a renewed energy, and a renewed movement, to the policies that are needed.

    When all of the sudden you have a bunch of other people that have entered any community, any movement, there’s different energy behind it. You know, all of a sudden, we have senators saying, “I need this, I am part of this community. I guess now we need a bill on it.”

    That’s very different, and we don’t always see that. And so we do get some of that renewed energy, and that’s really important. But at the same time, we have to balance that with the fact that we have a false narrative that exists. And that just breeds into the stigma against disability that we really need to try to overcome.

    JJ: If the comment is partly acknowledging that some of the Covid long haulers have wealth, then one can, very sadly, ask, for how long?

    The nexus between disability and poverty is central, and of course that’s key to the Collaborative’s work. I’m not sure that it’s really understood how policy choices—not disability, but policy choices—put disabled people in struggle, and keep them there. Can you talk a little bit about that?

    Kim Knackstedt

    Kim Knackstedt: “Undoing that entangled web of policies that really focus on keeping people with disabilities in poverty is extraordinarily difficult.”

    KK: Yes, the problem is I could talk about that for hours! Disability and poverty are so connected, and some say the whole structure and the whole system is broken. Well, unfortunately, the whole system is actually working exactly how it was designed.

    It is keeping disabled people in poverty because that’s how the system was structured. And so it’s not that the system was broken. The system has to be completely corrected. And what I mean by that is that so many of our policies have been designed to keep disabled people out of work, to keep disabled people from actually building wealth, and to keep disabled people from even getting the care that they need to live independently.

    Some of our healthcare policies really actually preference institutional care, not living in a community.

    So undoing that entangled web of policies that really focus on keeping people with disabilities in poverty is extraordinarily difficult, and that’s something that we have to do. Even outside of wealth, I would say, social and political capital that people hold? Leveraging that as we start to make some work on all of this is going to be really important.

    JJ: CounterSpin listeners will have heard us referenced the “Medicaid divorce,” in which people have to get divorced in order to keep their health care because if they’re married, or they can’t get married, because together, they make too much money. It’s cruel, and it’s often hidden, I think, to other folks.

    KK: Yeah, absolutely. And there’s so many choices that I think so many people do have to make, and it’s just how you start to allocate funds to try to just live day to day.

    I mean, I acknowledge that I have privilege, because I work at a great place that has health insurance. But I also am a high health cost user; I have infusions that without insurance would be $30,000 a month. Thank goodness for insurance. I also have to spend a lot of money towards that, because I could never qualify for Medicaid to help pay for that.

    So you think about, even though I acknowledge the privilege that I have to be able to afford what I do, the whole system is stacked against you when you are a person with a disability and trying to get the care you need, from the cost of prescriptions, the cost of specialists, the cost of getting home, community-based living, the cost of a direct care worker, trying to access the workplace you need. And the list goes on.

    JJ: And the Disability Economic Justice Collaborative is saying there are things we can do, there are policy changes that we can make, that can, as you’re saying, not tweak and not fiddle with and “perfect” the system that we have, but really fundamentally overhaul it.

    Century Foundation: How to Embed a Disability Economic Justice Policy Framework in Domestic Policy Making

    Century Foundation (1/12/23)

    KK: Absolutely. So much of what we do does tinker on the edges, and we’re saying we need to stop just tinkering. And so much of disability policy is siloed, and again, we’ve been caught in this web that I mentioned before for so long.

    Instead, what we’re saying is, let’s bring a lens of disability to all economic policymaking: food security, transportation, housing.

    What we are trying to do at the Disability Economic Justice Collaborative is really bring a disability lens to all economic policymaking. And that’s really the goal, whether, again, you’re doing all of these different policies, it’s trying to embed disability into every single piece that you are working on.

    So we are saying, let’s center the values that disabled people need, and bring that into all of our domestic policy work.

    So I’m going to give an example. We believe every disabled person needs to have access to reliable, affordable and accessible transportation. That’s something that’s fundamental. And so we want to see that, no matter what the bill is, what the proposal is, what the law is, regulation—I could go on, right?—that’s the goal we want to see throughout. And the same thing for healthcare, access to healthcare they need, access to food.

    And so we’ve developed a framework, we call it the Disability Economic Justice Policy framework; we want to see that embedded into domestic policymaking to really move the needle on how we think about policymaking with a disability lens.

    JJ: Because every issue is a disability issue. And that goes for media as well as for policy. Every story that impacts disabled people should include awareness of the impact, is my feeling.

    It’s not bad to have occasional reports that focus solely on disability or the disabled community. But if you’re reporting rent hikes or food prices or criminal justice, well, disabled people are in that reality, so they should be in the story.

    Do you have any thoughts, finally, about media coverage?

    KK: Yeah, I think it is really important for media coverage to think more about disability. I think one of the things we see is—you’re exactly right, there will be a story about something related to disability and then you won’t see something else until it’s very disability-centric, and everything in between ignores that disability exists.

    And we know that that’s just not how disability is in our lives. Disability is part of the natural human experience.

    And so, very much so, I think disability just needs to be embedded more into the stories that we hear about, and part of the narrative throughout everyone’s life.

    I also would encourage, in the media, that it’s not about disability being an “inspiration.” I think that’s where the lean tends to go when there is a disability-centric story. And it’s just, disability is part of the life that we all live, and here’s the story that happens to be about a disabled person, or a narrative that we’re talking about.

    And so those are some of the pieces that I think would be great to think about more.

    JJ: We’ve been speaking with Kim Knackstedt of the Century Foundation and the Disability Economic Justice Collaborative. You can find their work online at TCF.org. Kim Knackstedt, thank you so much for joining us this week on CounterSpin.

    KK: Thanks for having me.

     

    The post ‘The Whole System Is Stacked Against a Person With a Disability’ appeared first on FAIR.

  •  

    Federal Trade Commission chair Lina Khan is bent on holding Twitter and its owner, Elon Musk, accountable—and the right-wing outrage machine isn’t having it.

    The FTC has been investigating Twitter’s security policies, the Washington Post (3/9/23) reported, “following an explosive whistleblower complaint accusing the company of violating a 2011 settlement that required it implement privacy safeguards.” The probe has expanded, the Post explained, since Musk’s takeover last year,

    as former employees warned that broad staff departures of key employees could leave the company unable to comply with the agreements it made with the FTC to protect data privacy.

    NY Post: The Biden FTC muscles Musk for revealing Twitter’s abuses

    The New York Post (3/8/23) charged that “Big Brother” was going after Elon Musk for “dar[ing to] expose the federal government’s lies on Covid and its collusion with tech giants on Russiagate and Hunter’s laptop.”

    The Wall Street Journal editorial board (3/8/23) called Khan “unrestrained.”

    The New York Post editorial board (3/8/23) invoked George Orwell as it explained that in addition to “digging into Twitter’s layoffs,” the FTC is “also demanding all internal communications by, from or about Musk.”

    Republicans see Khan’s probe as politically motivated against Musk, an outspoken right-wing partisan on issues like trans rights (Newsweek, 12/12/22) and labor unions (NPR, 3/3/22). Musk threw his support behind the Republicans in the most recent midterm elections (Politico, 11/7/22).

    Intensified obsession

    This marks an intensification of the right’s obsession with Khan. Robert Bork, Jr. (son of the Supreme Court nominee) called for Congress to investigate her (Wall Street Journal, 3/2/23). As Bloomberg (3/2/23) reported, the US Chamber of Commerce, tech companies and Koch-backed groups have attacked her antitrust campaigns. It said:

    Since 2021, Khan has been mentioned in 43 editorials, op-eds and letters to the editor in the Wall Street Journal. Jonathan Kanter, who heads the US Department of Justice’s antitrust efforts, appears in five. Khan’s critics have gotten personal at times, and some people say it’s impossible to ignore their sexist tone. “There is no doubt that Chair Khan is being subjected to what’s really a disproportionate level of critique that is not based in the substance. It’s really based in personal attacks on her gender, her race, age and then also the fact she is trying to use an agency’s authority to enforce the law, which has not been done for a generation,” says Morgan Harper, director of policy and advocacy at the American Economic Liberties Project, which supports strong antitrust action.

    WSJ: Why I’m Resigning as an FTC Commissioner

    Christine Wilson wrote a Wall Street Journal op-ed (2/14/23) saying she was resigning from as an FTC commissioner because Lina Khan hadn’t recused herself from a decision involving Meta after criticizing Meta’s acquisitions as a private citizen. But Wilson didn’t have any problem voting in favor of a Bristol-Myers Squibb acquisition after she worked on antitrust issues for the drug company as a private lawyer (Legal Dive, 2/15/23).

    In an op-ed at the Wall Street Journal (2/14/23) announcing her resignation, the FTC’s last Republican commissioner, Christine Wilson, painted Khan as a bull in a china shop, acting with “disregard for the rule of law and due process.” CNBC (2/14/23) reported:

    Khan’s approach has come with risk, as most recently evidenced by the FTC’s failure in court to block Meta’s proposed acquisition of VR fitness app developer Within Unlimited. But those who support Khan tend to argue that if regulators win all their cases, they’re likely not bringing enough of them.

    Wilson criticized the fact that Khan had not recused herself from an administrative proceeding on the Meta/Within deal based on her statements before joining the agency advocating for keeping the company from making future acquisitions. Wilson also admonished the two other commissioners, who supported her decision. The FTC ended up dropping the administrative proceeding anyway after failing to win a preliminary injunction in federal court.

    The Wall Street Journal editorial board (2/6/23) also ridiculed Khan for losing the case.

    Mark Zuckerberg, chair and co-founder of Meta (formerly Facebook), has been a Republican punching bag for some while (AP, 8/8/21; New York Post, 10/13/21; Independent, 8/26/22). But the right presented Khan’s legal action against his company’s growth as overreach. The conservative National Taxpayers Union (2/1/23) called the FTC’s loss in the Meta case “a victory for innovators and startups.”

    A mess to clean up

    Intercept: Elon Musk’s Growing Purge of His Twitter Critics — at the Behest of the Far Right

    The right enjoys using Elon Musk’s Twitter to censor its foes (Intercept, 12/16/22) the way it pretends the left was able to do under the old regime.

    Khan’s probe into Twitter has brought the vitriol to a new level, as the right paints Musk as their man on the inside of Big Tech, fighting perceived internet censorship of conservatives (Fox News, 12/19/22). As a result, while conservatives have railed against social media companies at election time, actual government action against Twitter is no longer welcome.

    Progressives like Democratic Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren (CNBC, 3/8/19) and independent Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders (Politico, 7/16/19) have long sought to break up Big Tech, so left and right agree, at least rhetorically, that Big Tech and social media companies have too much unchecked power. Khan, from her record, is acting on that sentiment.

    There’s good reason for a serious regulator to see Twitter as needing supervision to ensure customers’ rights are being respected, and that one of the world’s richest humans has not amassed too much power. Here is just a taste of the mess Musk has caused:

    • The departure of top security staff and roll outs of new policies under Musk has meant that Twitter is “exposing itself to a deluge of new security risks that could soon ramify into the public sphere, according to top cyber experts and those who’ve overseen cybersecurity at other companies” (Politico, 11/11/22).
    • “The European Union told Elon Musk to hire more human moderators and factcheckers to review posts on Twitter” (Reuters, 3/7/23).
    • Musk’s Twitter has censored journalists and left-wing activists (Intercept, 12/16/22; Independent, 1/29/23).
    • Twitter “complied with an Indian government request to delete all links to a BBC documentary critical of Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi, according to journalists and free speech advocates in the country” (Hollywood Reporter, 1/24/23).
    • Musk was forced to publicly apologize after he publicly mocked a disabled worker (AP, 3/7/23).
    • Rep. Jared Moskowitz (D-Florida) asked Musk “how he plans to combat the rise of antisemitism on the social media platform” after Moskowitz said his “Twitter account received ‘hundreds of hateful, divisive comments’ after he posted a video clip of himself pointing out the spread of antisemitism on the platform” (The Hill, 2/10/23).
    • Twitter has allegedly failed to make rent payments (Wall Street Journal, 1/23/23).
    • Janitors at the company headquarters went on strike because “Twitter reportedly failed to negotiate new contracts with Flagship, the company responsible for hiring the janitors” (Gizmodo, 12/6/22), which, in addition to being an anti-labor practice, has meant unsanitary conditions (New York Post, 12/30/22).

    Trying to ‘harass business’

    Fox: Biden is coming for your job

    The right pretends to be opposed to Big Tech—but leaps to the defense of Facebook and Google when anyone tries to regulate them (Fox News, 1/30/23).

    Republicans and the Rupert Murdoch empire want to portray themselves as defending Musk and Twitter against some kind of partisan inquisition, but the fact is that the right has always opposed Khan for her aggressiveness against corporate giants—whether Big Tech, anti–Big Tech or just big.

    For example, the Wall Street Journal editorial board (1/8/23) railed against her campaign to curb noncompete clauses, a position the paper saw as support for organized labor. The paper (7/5/21) also accused her of simply trying to “harass business.” Walmart, a notoriously anti-union company, accused Khan’s FTC of “agency overreach” (Fox News, 8/31/22).

    While Fox News (1/30/23) complained generally about the Biden administration’s overzealous antitrust action against Google and Meta, it took special aim at Khan, saying she wrote “a law school paper complaining about Amazon’s prices being too low.”

    What her Yale Law Journal article (1/17) actually said, according to the New York Times (9/7/18), was that Amazon “should not get a pass on anticompetitive behavior just because it makes customers happy.” And since “monopoly laws have been marginalized…Amazon is amassing structural power that lets it exert increasing control over many parts of the economy.”

    Fox also complained that Khan “lauded a far-left organization that…calls for universal basic income.” This policy actually exists in Republican-voting Alaska, and is discussed approvingly in the University of Pennsylvania business journal Knowledge at Wharton (5/10/18).

    Murdoch and GOP sympathy for Musk is about corporate ownership class solidarity against Khan, whose mission riles the One Percent. This only makes Khan’s work on Twitter and so many other corporate giants seem all the more necessary.

    The post Wrath at Khan: Right Sets Sights at FTC for Regulating Tech appeared first on FAIR.

  •  

    NYT: Intelligence Suggests Pro-Ukrainian Group Sabotaged Pipelines, U.S. Officials Say

    When the New York Times (3/7/23) makes a claim based on anonymous US officials, other media take note—because everyone knows anonymous US officials wouldn’t lie to the New York Times.

    The New York Times (3/7/23) on Tuesday ended its month-long boycott of veteran investigative reporter Seymour Hersh’s February 8 story claiming the US destroyed the Nord Stream gas pipeline.

    The Times didn’t challenge Hersh’s story. It barely mentioned it. Instead, the Times reported “new intelligence” that “suggests” a pro-Ukrainian group was responsible.

    No firm details are provided, simply speculation, and the only sources cited are anonymous US officials.

    Hersh’s source also is unnamed, but is described as having “direct knowledge of the operational planning” of the operation. In contrast to the Times story’s lack of specifics, Hersh’s 5,000-word narrative provides extensive details of how US officials—at the direction of President Joe Biden—planned and executed the operation, using US Navy divers who used the cover of a NATO naval exercise in June to plant explosives, which were remotely detonated September 26.

    Strikingly different treatment

    The response of the nation’s major news organizations to the two stories also couldn’t have been more different.

    While big news internationally, Hersh’s story was not reported by any of the major US corporate broadcast networks—NBC, ABC and CBS—or the public broadcasters, PBS and NPR. Nor did the nation’s major cable outlets, CNN, MSNBC and Fox News, cover the story (FAIR.org, 3/3/23).

    WaPo: Intelligence officials suspect Ukraine partisans behind Nord Stream bombings, rattling Kyiv’s allies

    The Washington Post (3/7/23) proves that it too is able to find government officials willing to promote the official line with no accountability.

    The Washington Post ignored Hersh’s story for two weeks, and then mentioned it (2/22/23) only after Russia cited Hersh’s story in calling for a UN investigation of the bombing. But the Post didn’t hesitate to follow the Times later Tuesday with its own story (3/7/23), headlined “Intelligence Officials Suspect Ukraine Partisans Behind Nord Stream Bombings, Rattling Kyiv’s Allies.” Like the Times, the Post relied solely on anonymous sources to attribute responsibility for the sabotage, who provided little in the way of details about how the bombing was accomplished.

    In a striking example of how differently the large corporate news outlets treat Hersh, the Post credited its rival newspaper for breaking the story, but did not mention Hersh at all.

    The Post story did add one significant development—that shortly after the Times story was published, German news media had reported that investigators in Europe “had identified a small team of saboteurs using a yacht rented from a company in Poland that was ‘apparently owned by two Ukrainians.’”

    ‘First significant lead’

    Fox News (3/7/23) also jumped on the Times story later Tuesday, but added nothing new. Hersh’s story was mentioned in two sentences at the end of the story and described as a “blog post” that “the White House last month dismissed….”

    CNN (3/8/23) also reported the Times story within 24 hours, but with a new element: “The German prosecutors’ office told CNN Wednesday they searched a boat in January that was suspected of carrying explosives.” The CNN story did not mention Hersh.

    MSNBC: Intelligence suggests pro-Ukrainian group sabotaged pipelines, US Officials Say

    If the New York Times says so, it’s news (MSNBC, 3/8/23).

    That same day, MSNBC ran a segment featuring NBC News reporter Molly Hunter (3/8/23), who repeated the Times’ claim that its story was “the first significant lead” in the investigation of the bombing. It also failed to mention Hersh.

    A statement from German officials confirming that investigators in January had searched a vessel suspected of carrying explosives used in the bombing was reported by NBC News (3/8/23) and the Associated Press. The AP dispatch was picked up by ABC News (3/8/23) and PBS (3/8/23). All credited the Times story; none mentioned Hersh.

    NPR did its own report Wednesday (3/8/23), which referenced a high Ukrainian government official “questioning recent reports that a pro-Ukraine group was behind the undersea bombings.” The official was quoted saying the reports by the Times and Germany’s Die Zeit newspaper (3/7/23), which first reported the suspected involvement of a yacht, “had ‘lots of assumptions and anonymous conjecture but not real facts.’”

    While giving voice to skepticism about the Times story, NPR did not discuss Hersh’s alternative take.

    Summarizing the scorecard, all three major cable news outlets—CNN, MSNBC and Fox News—publicized the Times story within a day of publication. Of the five major corporate and public broadcasters, NBC, ABC, PBS and NPR carried the story; only CBS remained silent.

    As for Hersh, the blackout remains, with the sole exception of the two sentences totaling 49 words shirt-tailed to the Fox News report.

    AP embarrasses itself

    AP: A global mystery: What’s known about Nord Stream explosions

    What’s not known about Nord Stream explosions (AP, 3/8/23): how to spell Seymour Hersch [sic].

    The Associated Press (3/8/23) finally mentioned Hersh’s reporting late Wednesday, in a round-up piece headlined “A Global Mystery: What’s Known About Nord Stream Explosions.” But the 176-year-old nonprofit cooperative news agency, which prides itself on unbiased reporting adhering to old-school journalistic standards of objectivity, managed to both disrespect Hersh, a Pulitzer Prize winner and one of the most famous investigative reporters in the nation, and embarrass itself by misspelling his name:

    After months of few developments in the probes, American investigative journalist Seymour Hersch, known for past exposes of US government malfeasance, self-published a lengthy report in February alleging that President Joe Biden had ordered the sabotage, which Hersch said was carried out by the CIA with Norwegian assistance.

    That report, based on a single, unidentified source, has been flatly denied by the White House, the CIA and the State Department, and no other news organization has been able to corroborate it. Russia, followed by China, however, leaped on Hersch’s reporting, saying it was grounds for a new and impartial investigation conducted by the United Nations.

    The misspelling was not corrected until the next day.

    Zero times any number is zero

    Snopes: Claim That US Blew up Nord Stream Pipelines Relies on Anonymous Source

    Snopes (2/10/23) has not yet run a piece criticizing the New York Times article (3/7/23) for relying on anonymous sourcing.

    AP wasn’t alone in casting doubt about Hersh’s story by stressing it is “based on a single, unidentified source,” while failing to note the Times piece also rested entirely on anonymous “US officials.”

    A Business Insider piece (2/9/23) published the day after Hersh posted his story, derided his account of the bombing as an “evidence-free theory,” noting his claims “appear to rely on a single unnamed source.”

    Republished by Yahoo! (2/9/23) and MSN (2/9/23), the Business Insider article was the primary source of an article by the factchecking site Snopes (2/10/23), with the headline “Claim That US Blew up Nord Stream Pipelines Relies on Anonymous Source.”

    It can be argued that the New York Times was exempted from such criticism because it didn’t rely on just one source; the plural “US officials” appears 16 times in the story.

    But if Hersh’s unnamed source has zero credibility, then so does each source included under the umbrella of “US officials” at the Times. The laws of mathematics should apply: Zero times any number is still zero.

     

    The post Anonymous Sources <i>Are</i> Newsworthy—When They Talk to NYT, Not Seymour Hersh appeared first on FAIR.

    This post was originally published on FAIR.