#the mainstream press is failing america

[contemplatingoutlander]

Given what recently happened with the billionaire owners of The Washington Post and the Los Angeles Times preventing their editorial boards from endorsing Harris for president, it seems this excellent column by The Guardian's Rebecca Solnit is quite appropriate. Here are some excerpts:

The first thing to say about the hate and scorn currently directed at the mainstream US media is that they worked hard to earn it. They’ve done so by failing, repeatedly, determinedly, spectacularly to do their job, which is to maintain their independence, inform the electorate, and speak truth to power. While the left has long had reasons to dismiss centrist media, and the right has loathed it most when it did do its job well, the moderates who are furious at it now seem to be something new – and a host of former editors, media experts and independent journalists have been going after them hard this summer. Longtime journalist James Fallows declares that three institutions – the Republican party, the supreme court, and the mainstream political press – “have catastrophically failed to ‘meet the moment’ under pressure of [the] Trump era”. Centrist political reformer and columnist Norm Ornstein states that these news institutions “have had no reflection, no willingness to think through how irresponsible and reckless so much of our mainstream press and so many of our journalists have been and continue to be”. Most voters, he says, “have no clue what a second Trump term would actually be like. Instead, we get the same insipid focus on the horse race and the polls, while normalizing abnormal behavior and treating this like a typical presidential election, not one that is an existential threat to democracy.” Lamenting the state of the media recently on X, Jeff Jarvis, another former editor and newspaper columnist, said: “What ‘press’? The broken and vindictive Times? The newly Murdochian Post? Hedge-fund newspaper husks? Rudderless CNN or NPR? Murdoch’s fascist media?”

[See more excerpts under the cut.]

[...] They pursue the appearance of fairness and balance by treating the true and the false, the normal and the outrageous, as equally valid and by normalizing Republicans, especially Donald Trump, whose gibberish gets translated into English and whose past crimes and present-day lies and threats get glossed over. They neglect, again and again, important stories with real consequences. This is not entirely new – in a scathing analysis of 2016 election coverage, the Columbia Journalism Review noted that “in just six days, The New York Times ran as many cover stories about Hillary Clinton’s emails as they did about all policy issues combined in the 69 days leading up to the election” – but it’s gotten worse, and a lot of insiders have gotten sick of it. In July, ordinary people on social media decided to share information about the rightwing Project 2025 and did a superb job of raising public awareness about it, while the press obsessed about Joe Biden’s age and health. NBC did report on this grassroots education effort, but did so using the “both sides are equally valid” framework often deployed by mainstream media, saying the agenda is “championed by some creators as a guide to less government oversight and slammed by others as a road map to an authoritarian takeover of America”. There is no valid case it brings less government oversight. [...] Last winter, the New York Times columnist Paul Krugman, who has a Nobel prize in economics, told Greg Sargent on the latter’s Daily Blast podcast that when he writes positive pieces about the Biden economy, his editor asks “don’t you want to qualify” it; “aren’t people upset by X, Y and Z and shouldn’t you be acknowledging that?” [...] It’s hard to gloat over the decline of these dinosaurs of American media, when a free press and a well-informed electorate are both crucial to democracy. The alternatives to the major news outlets simply don’t reach enough readers and listeners, though the non-profit investigative outfit ProPublica and progressive magazines such as the New Republic and Mother Jones, are doing a lot of the best reporting and commentary. [...] A host of brilliant journalists young and old, have started independent newsletters, covering tech, the state of the media, politics, climate, reproductive rights and virtually everything else, but their reach is too modest to make them a replacement for the big newspapers and networks. The great exception might be historian Heather Cox Richardson, whose newsletter and Facebook followers give her a readership not much smaller than that of the Washington Post. The tremendous success of her sober, historically grounded (and footnoted!) news summaries and reflections bespeaks a hunger for real news.

[mariacallous]

The first thing to say about the hate and scorn currently directed at the mainstream US media is that they worked hard to earn it. They’ve done so by failing, repeatedly, determinedly, spectacularly to do their job, which is to maintain their independence, inform the electorate, and speak truth to power. While the left has long had reasons to dismiss centrist media, and the right has loathed it most when it did do its job well, the moderates who are furious at it now seem to be something new – and a host of former editors, media experts and independent journalists have been going after them hard this summer.

Longtime journalist James Fallows declares that three institutions – the Republican party, the supreme court, and the mainstream political press – “have catastrophically failed to ‘meet the moment’ under pressure of [the] Trump era”. Centrist political reformer and columnist Norm Ornstein states that these news institutions “have had no reflection, no willingness to think through how irresponsible and reckless so much of our mainstream press and so many of our journalists have been and continue to be”.

Most voters, he says, “have no clue what a second Trump term would actually be like. Instead, we get the same insipid focus on the horse race and the polls, while normalizing abnormal behavior and treating this like a typical presidential election, not one that is an existential threat to democracy.”

Lamenting the state of the media recently on X, Jeff Jarvis, another former editor and newspaper columnist, said: “What ‘press’? The broken and vindictive Times? The newly Murdochian Post? Hedge-fund newspaper husks? Rudderless CNN or NPR? Murdoch’s fascist media?”

These critics are responding to how the behemoths of the industry seem intent on bending the facts to fit their frameworks and agendas. In pursuit of clickbait content centered on conflicts and personalities, they follow each other into informational stampedes and confirmation bubbles.

They pursue the appearance of fairness and balance by treating the true and the false, the normal and the outrageous, as equally valid and by normalizing Republicans, especially Donald Trump, whose gibberish gets translated into English and whose past crimes and present-day lies and threats get glossed over. They neglect, again and again, important stories with real consequences. This is not entirely new – in a scathing analysis of 2016 election coverage, the Columbia Journalism Review noted that “in just six days, The New York Times ran as many cover stories about Hillary Clinton’s emails as they did about all policy issues combined in the 69 days leading up to the election” – but it’s gotten worse, and a lot of insiders have gotten sick of it.

In July, ordinary people on social media decided to share information about the rightwing Project 2025 and did a superb job of raising public awareness about it, while the press obsessed about Joe Biden’s age and health. NBC did report on this grassroots education effort, but did so using the “both sides are equally valid” framework often deployed by mainstream media, saying the agenda is “championed by some creators as a guide to less government oversight and slammed by others as a road map to an authoritarian takeover of America”. There is no valid case it brings less government oversight.

In an even more outrageous case, the New York Times ran a story comparing the Democratic and Republican plans to increase the housing supply – which treated Trump’s plans for mass deportation of undocumented immigrants as just another housing-supply strategy that might work or might not. (That it would create massive human rights violations and likely lead to huge civil disturbances was one overlooked factor, though the fact that some of these immigrants are key to the building trades was mentioned.)

Other stories of pressing concern are either picked up and dropped or just neglected overall, as with Trump’s threats to dismantle a huge portion of the climate legislation that is both the Biden administration’s signal achievement and crucial for the fate of the planet. The Washington Post editorial board did offer this risibly feeble critique on 17 August: “It would no doubt be better for the climate if the US president acknowledged the reality of global warming – rather than calling it a scam, as Mr Trump has.”

While the press blamed Biden for failing to communicate his achievements, which is part of his job, it’s their whole job to do so. The Climate Jobs National Resource Center reports that the Inflation Reduction Act has created “a combined potential of over $2tn in investment, 1,091,966 megawatts of clean power, and approximately 3,947,670 jobs”, but few Americans have any sense of what the bill has achieved or even that the economy is by many measures strong.

Last winter, the New York Times columnist Paul Krugman, who has a Nobel prize in economics, told Greg Sargent on the latter’s Daily Blast podcast that when he writes positive pieces about the Biden economy, his editor asks “don’t you want to qualify” it; “aren’t people upset by X, Y and Z and shouldn’t you be acknowledging that?”

Meanwhile in an accusatory piece about Kamala Harris headlined When your opponent calls you ‘communist,’ maybe don’t propose price controls?, a Washington Post columnist declares in another case of bothsiderism: “Voters want to blame someone for high grocery bills, and the presidential candidates have apparently decided the choices are either the Biden administration or corporate greed. Harris has chosen the latter.” The evidence that corporations have jacked up prices and are reaping huge profits is easy to find, but facts don’t matter much in this kind of opining.

It’s hard to gloat over the decline of these dinosaurs of American media, when a free press and a well-informed electorate are both crucial to democracy. The alternatives to the major news outlets simply don’t reach enough readers and listeners, though the non-profit investigative outfit ProPublica and progressive magazines such as the New Republic and Mother Jones, are doing a lot of the best reporting and commentary.

Earlier this year, when Alabama senator Katie Britt gave her loopy rebuttal to Biden’s State of the Union address, it was an independent journalist, Jonathan Katz, who broke the story on TikTok that her claims about a victim of sex trafficking contained significant falsehoods. The big news outlets picked up the scoop from him, making me wonder what their staffs of hundreds were doing that night.

A host of brilliant journalists young and old, have started independent newsletters, covering tech, the state of the media, politics, climate, reproductive rights and virtually everything else, but their reach is too modest to make them a replacement for the big newspapers and networks. The great exception might be historian Heather Cox Richardson, whose newsletter and Facebook followers give her a readership not much smaller than that of the Washington Post. The tremendous success of her sober, historically grounded (and footnoted!) news summaries and reflections bespeaks a hunger for real news.

[dreaminginthedeepsouth]

The first thing to say about the hate and scorn currently directed at the mainstream US media is that they worked hard to earn it. They’ve done so by failing, repeatedly, determinedly, spectacularly to do their job, which is to maintain their independence, inform the electorate, and speak truth to power. While the left has long had reasons to dismiss centrist media, and the right has loathed it most when it did do its job well, the moderates who are furious at it now seem to be something new – and a host of former editors, media experts and independent journalists have been going after them hard this summer.

Longtime journalist James Fallows declares that three institutions – the Republican party, the supreme court, and the mainstream political press – “have catastrophically failed to ‘meet the moment’ under pressure of [the] Trump era”. Centrist political reformer and columnist Norm Ornstein states that these news institutions “have had no reflection, no willingness to think through how irresponsible and reckless so much of our mainstream press and so many of our journalists have been and continue to be”.

Most voters, he says, “have no clue what a second Trump term would actually be like. Instead, we get the same insipid focus on the horse race and the polls, while normalizing abnormal behavior and treating this like a typical presidential election, not one that is an existential threat to democracy.”

Lamenting the state of the media recently on X, Jeff Jarvis, another former editor and newspaper columnist, said: “What ‘press’? The broken and vindictive Times? The newly Murdochian Post? Hedge-fund newspaper husks? Rudderless CNN or NPR? Murdoch’s fascist media?”

These critics are responding to how the behemoths of the industry seem intent on bending the facts to fit their frameworks and agendas. In pursuit of clickbait content centered on conflicts and personalities, they follow each other into informational stampedes and confirmation bubbles.

They pursue the appearance of fairness and balance by treating the true and the false, the normal and the outrageous, as equally valid and by normalizing Republicans, especially Donald Trump, whose gibberish gets translated into English and whose past crimes and present-day lies and threats get glossed over. They neglect, again and again, important stories with real consequences. This is not entirely new – in a scathing analysis of 2016 election coverage, the Columbia Journalism Review noted that “in just six days, The New York Times ran as many cover stories about Hillary Clinton’s emails as they did about all policy issues combined in the 69 days leading up to the election” – but it’s gotten worse, and a lot of insiders have gotten sick of it.

In July, ordinary people on social media decided to share information about the rightwing Project 2025 and did a superb job of raising public awareness about it, while the press obsessed about Joe Biden’s age and health. NBC did report on this grassroots education effort, but did so using the “both sides are equally valid” framework often deployed by mainstream media, saying the agenda is “championed by some creators as a guide to less government oversight and slammed by others as a road map to an authoritarian takeover of America”. There is no valid case it brings less government oversight.

In an even more outrageous case, the New York Times ran a story comparing the Democratic and Republican plans to increase the housing supply – which treated Trump’s plans for mass deportation of undocumented immigrants as just another housing-supply strategy that might work or might not. (That it would create massive human rights violations and likely lead to huge civil disturbances was one overlooked factor, though the fact that some of these immigrants are key to the building trades was mentioned.)

Other stories of pressing concern are either picked up and dropped or just neglected overall, as with Trump’s threats to dismantle a huge portion of the climate legislation that is both the Biden administration’s signal achievement and crucial for the fate of the planet. The Washington Post editorial board did offer this risibly feeble critique on 17 August: “It would no doubt be better for the climate if the US president acknowledged the reality of global warming – rather than calling it a scam, as Mr Trump has.”

While the press blamed Biden for failing to communicate his achievements, which is part of his job, it’s their whole job to do so. The Climate Jobs National Resource Center reports that the Inflation Reduction Act has created “a combined potential of over $2tn in investment, 1,091,966 megawatts of clean power, and approximately 3,947,670 jobs”, but few Americans have any sense of what the bill has achieved or even that the economy is by many measures strong.

Last winter, the New York Times columnist Paul Krugman, who has a Nobel prize in economics, told Greg Sargent on the latter’s Daily Blast podcast that when he writes positive pieces about the Biden economy, his editor asks “don’t you want to qualify” it; “aren’t people upset by X, Y and Z and shouldn’t you be acknowledging that?”

Meanwhile in an accusatory piece about Kamala Harris headlined When your opponent calls you ‘communist,’ maybe don’t propose price controls?, a Washington Post columnist declares in another case of bothsiderism: “Voters want to blame someone for high grocery bills, and the presidential candidates have apparently decided the choices are either the Biden administration or corporate greed. Harris has chosen the latter.” The evidence that corporations have jacked up prices and are reaping huge profits is easy to find, but facts don’t matter much in this kind of opining.

It’s hard to gloat over the decline of these dinosaurs of American media, when a free press and a well-informed electorate are both crucial to democracy. The alternatives to the major news outlets simply don’t reach enough readers and listeners, though the non-profit investigative outfit ProPublica and progressive magazines such as the New Republic and Mother Jones, are doing a lot of the best reporting and commentary.

Earlier this year, when Alabama senator Katie Britt gave her loopy rebuttal to Biden’s State of the Union address, it was an independent journalist, Jonathan Katz, who broke the story on TikTok that her claims about a victim of sex trafficking contained significant falsehoods. The big news outlets picked up the scoop from him, making me wonder what their staffs of hundreds were doing that night.

A host of brilliant journalists young and old, have started independent newsletters, covering tech, the state of the media, politics, climate, reproductive rights and virtually everything else, but their reach is too modest to make them a replacement for the big newspapers and networks. The great exception might be historian Heather Cox Richardson, whose newsletter and Facebook followers give her a readership not much smaller than that of the Washington Post. The tremendous success of her sober, historically grounded (and footnoted!) news summaries and reflections bespeaks a hunger for real news.

Rebecca Solnit is a Guardian US columnist. She is the author of Orwell’s Roses and co-editor with Thelma Young Lutunatabua of the climate anthology Not Too Late: Changing the Climate Story from Despair to Possibility

[ngdrb]

The Growing Dangers of the MAGA Movement

The "Make America Great Again" (MAGA) movement, spearheaded by former President Donald Trump, has become a prominent political force in the United States. While its supporters claim it champions patriotism and traditional American values, the movement has increasingly been associated with extremist ideologies, posing significant threats to American democracy, social cohesion, and national stability.

Core Beliefs and Goals

At its core, the MAGA movement promotes a narrow, exclusionary vision of American identity rooted in nativism, white Christian nationalism, and anti-immigrant sentiment. It espouses a nostalgic longing for an idealized past when America was supposedly "great," often interpreted as a time of unchallenged white, Christian dominance. The movement's rhetoric frequently portrays immigrants, racial and religious minorities, and progressive values as existential threats to this perceived traditional American way of life.

One of the movement's central goals is to reshape the American political landscape by dismantling established norms, institutions, and checks and balances. This includes undermining the independence of the judiciary, weakening the separation of powers, and eroding the integrity of democratic processes, such as free and fair elections. The movement has consistently sought to consolidate power and marginalize dissenting voices, often through the perpetuation of conspiracy theories and the demonization of perceived enemies.

Ties to Extremist Ideologies

While the MAGA movement claims to reject extremism, its rhetoric and actions have increasingly aligned with far-right, white nationalist, and anti-democratic ideologies. The movement has provided a mainstream platform for individuals and groups that espouse hateful, discriminatory, and often violent beliefs.

The overlap between the MAGA movement and extremist groups has become increasingly apparent, with many prominent figures within the movement embracing or failing to condemn racist, xenophobic, and anti-Semitic ideologies. This normalization of extremist ideologies has contributed to the mainstreaming of hate speech, conspiracy theories, and the vilification of marginalized communities.

Moreover, the movement's unwavering support for former President Trump, even in the face of his attempts to overturn the 2020 presidential election results, has further solidified its ties to anti-democratic forces. The events of January 6th, 2021, when MAGA supporters violently stormed the US Capitol in an attempt to disrupt the peaceful transfer of power, highlighted the movement's potential for inciting violence and undermining the foundations of American democracy.

Impact on American Democracy

The MAGA movement's assault on democratic norms and institutions poses grave threats to the integrity of American democracy. Its efforts to undermine the credibility of elections, the independence of the judiciary, and the freedom of the press have eroded public trust in the very pillars that uphold the nation's democratic system.

The movement's embrace of conspiracy theories and disinformation has fueled a profound erosion of shared reality, making it increasingly difficult to engage in constructive political discourse and find common ground. This polarization has paralyzed meaningful policymaking and exacerbated societal divisions, hindering the nation's ability to address pressing challenges effectively.

Furthermore, the movement's rhetoric and actions have contributed to a toxic political climate, where dissent is often met with hostility, intimidation, and threats of violence. This chilling effect on free speech and open debate undermines the principles of a vibrant democracy and risks silencing legitimate voices and perspectives.

Threats to Social Cohesion and National Stability

The MAGA movement's divisive and exclusionary rhetoric has profound implications for social cohesion and national stability. Its vilification of marginalized communities and promotion of tribalism has fueled a resurgence of hate crimes, discrimination, and societal tensions, eroding the nation's diversity and unity.

The movement's embrace of conspiracy theories and disinformation has also contributed to the erosion of trust in public institutions, mainstream media, and established sources of information. This has created an environment where misinformation and disinformation can thrive, making it increasingly difficult to address complex societal challenges based on facts and evidence.

Moreover, the movement's glorification of violence and its resistance to peaceful transfers of power pose direct threats to national stability. The events of January 6th, 2021, demonstrated the potential for the MAGA movement's rhetoric and actions to incite civil unrest and undermine the foundations of the nation's democratic system.

Conclusion

The MAGA movement, while purporting to champion patriotism and traditional American values, has become increasingly associated with extremist ideologies, anti-democratic tendencies, and threats to social cohesion and national stability. Its narrow, exclusionary vision of American identity, promotion of conspiracy theories, and embrace of divisive rhetoric have eroded democratic norms, fueled societal tensions, and undermined the nation's ability to address pressing challenges effectively.

As the movement continues to gain momentum and influence, it is imperative for all Americans to recognize the grave dangers it poses and to actively defend the principles of democracy, pluralism, and the rule of law. Failure to address the underlying issues that have given rise to the MAGA movement's appeal, and to counter its extremist tendencies, risks further polarization, civil unrest, and the erosion of the democratic foundations that have sustained the United States for over two centuries.

[comeonamericawakeup]

Ever since Donald Trump took over the Republican Party, said Dahlia Lithwick, Democrats and never-Trump conservatives have been calling on the courts and the press to save America. But our "glacial" legal system has failed to stop Trump from running for a second term, despite four criminal indictments. The mainstream media has produced "devastating” reporting on Trump's tax and business fraud, grifting, and fondness for Vladimir Putin and other autocrats, but these disqualifying revelations have barely dented Trump's popularity. In an era in which Fox News, the internet, and Trump himself have redefined media and news, "the very idea of amassing evidence and putting on proof is now fully antiquated." Fact checking, "smoking guns," and the truth are obsolete. "Trump is an arcing, sparking, frothing, flaming black hole" of disinformation, and "millions of his followers believe him when he says that the press lies and the justice system is the deep state." We must face the reality that "journalism isn't coming to save us any more than the courts are coming to save us." With Trump on the verge of returning to power, "we need to recognize that the moment has come to save ourselves."

THE WEEK November 8, 2024

Not enough people got it and now we are all fucked.

[justinspoliticalcorner]

Right Wing Watch:

Kari Lake’s appearance at this year’s Conservative Political Action Conference is a concise case study in how thoroughly the MAGA movement depends on right-wing media to spread its lies, all while proclaiming a devotion to the truth.  Lake is an Arizona MAGA activist and failed candidate for governor and U.S. Senate. In December, President Donald Trump announced that he wants her to lead the Voice of America, a global news agency funded by the federal government. At CPAC on Friday, Lake praised “Elon and the boys” for the work being carried out by the so-called Department of Government Efficiency. Lake claimed that DOGE has exposed that the government has been paying “social security benefits to 150 year-olds…and apparently there’s millions of them.” That’s false. Lake was amplifying a bogus claim that Elon Musk made at his Oval Office press conference a week earlier. “While no evidence was produced to back up this claim, it was picked up by right-wing commentators online, primarily on Musk’s own X platform, as well as being reported credibly by pro-Trump media outlets,” noted WIRED magazine’s David Gilbert. [...] While promoting false claims about Social Security, Lake railed against the mainstream media. She complained about the Associated Press, which has been denied access to White House events for refusing to give in to Trump’s demands that they call the Gulf of Mexico the Gulf of America. “They’re criminal, they are,” said Lake, complaining about “fake journalists” who refused to recognize the “impossibility” of Biden’s 2020 popular vote total.  Lake gloated about the movement’s success at convincing MAGA supporters to rely on right-wing outlets for their news, saying “We rendered the fake news worthless and useless.” Lake may be hoping that her praise of DOGE will change Musk’s declaration that the VOA should be shut down. She said at CPAC she understands why some people might want to close down the VOA, but that it is “soft power” for the U.S. and “worth trying to save.” She promised, unconvincingly, that under her leadership VOA “won’t become Trump TV.” 

Speaking at CPAC Friday, two-time MAGA loser Kari Lake pumped out propaganda to the CPAC audience.

[mybeautifulchristianjourney]

The dimly lit auditorium pulses with emotional choruses from Bethel as individuals line up to receive a word from the Lord. A visiting speaker just poured out his heart, pleading with folks to “pursue God’s dream”. The church’s prophet lays his hands on them one at a time, declaring their unique destiny in vague but exciting terms…

“I feel the Lord saying, ‘Your season of waiting is over. Your breakthrough is right around the corner. Press into the dreams I have placed within your heart. The world needs what I have entrusted to you’.”

This scenario plays out frequently in many Charismatic churches across North America, Europe, and throughout large portions of Africa and South America. The “Dream Destiny” concept is not limited to Charismatics but is popular throughout so much of mainstream Evangelicalism.

The Dream Destiny idea goes something like this…

“Jesus died for you to have so much more than you’re currently experiencing. He wants you and even needs you to tap into your full potential, because when you do, you’ll be able to accomplish God’s epic plan for your life. There’s a dormant destiny within you that needs to be awakened. God is trying everything He can to release your inner champion. When you finally break out of your cocoon, you’ll do great exploits for Jesus and the world will never be the same.”

If you sat under Charismatic teachings for any length of time, you doubtless felt pressure to become a spiritual elite. If your experience was anything like mine, you were told to “press in” and strive for that “next level” experience. Just beyond your reach was a second tier of Christian living…You know, “Radical Christianity”?

According to the leaders and influencers, God wants you to spearhead a movement and inspire a generation. “Don’t settle for an ordinary life. Normal Christianity is radically supernatural.”

But you never pressed in hard enough. You never groaned deep enough. Your prayers just weren’t anointed enough. Every conference that promised to change your life failed to do so. No matter what, it was never enough.

Continue reading… (I know this is heavy but I promise it gets encouraging 😅)

Source: These Aren’t the Apostles You’re Looking For (Facebook)

Link: https://examiningnar.substack.com/p/never-enough?r=1m8bij&utm_medium=ios&utm_campaign=post&fbclid=IwAR3C_OPKojELYTZdzeDcoJPk_tM1-RkjvukZhT812LpAMDBTR9ZeAFg0aLc

[the-handsome-stranger]

The Wreckoning of the Deep State

February 10, 2025—History will remember this day. The moment when the American people finally saw the truth laid bare. The criminal conspiracy that protected Hillary Clinton, manipulated justice, and waged war against Donald Trump has now been fully exposed.

For years, patriots demanded answers. Why did the FBI refuse to prosecute Clinton for her blatant violations of 18 U.S. Code § 793? Why was justice obstructed at the highest levels? The answer has now been confirmed by none other than former CIA Director John Ratcliffe—Barack Obama himself ordered the FBI NOT to arrest Hillary Clinton for espionage.

THE ORDER CAME FROM OBAMA HIMSELF The conspiracy went straight to the top. Lisa Page, former FBI lawyer, admitted under oath that the Department of Justice explicitly instructed the FBI to stand down.

John Ratcliffe: “So, just to be clear, when you say you got instructions from the DOJ, they told you outright: ‘We are NOT prosecuting Hillary Clinton for gross negligence’?” Lisa Page: “That is correct.”

This was not an accident. This was a deliberate cover-up, orchestrated at the highest levels. Clinton was meant to secure the presidency in 2016, ensuring the Deep State’s grip on America remained unchallenged. But when Trump won, their house of cards collapsed—sending them into full panic mode.

THE CLASSIFIED EMAILS: OBAMA’S REAL MOTIVE Why did Obama go to such lengths to protect Clinton? Because her private email server contained secrets so explosive they could have destroyed the Deep State.

Emails confirming pay-for-play schemes with foreign governments. Direct collusion between the Obama administration and foreign intelligence agencies to manipulate U.S. politics. Evidence of classified leaks to foreign actors in exchange for political favors. Had Clinton been prosecuted, the case wouldn’t have stopped with her—it would have led straight to Obama himself.

THE FBI: OBAMA’S PERSONAL ENFORCERS The FBI, once a respected law enforcement agency, was weaponized under Obama to serve the Democratic Party. While Clinton was shielded from justice, the Bureau focused its efforts on manufacturing crimes against Trump.

They launched the Russia collusion hoax, fabricating evidence to cripple Trump’s presidency.

They illegally spied on his campaign using FISA warrants based on false information.

They persecuted Trump allies to silence dissent.

The same criminals who protected Clinton tried to destroy Trump, using the FBI as their personal attack dogs.

THE DEEP STATE’S FINAL GAMBIT: THE WAR AGAINST TRUMP Clinton’s exoneration was only the beginning. The moment Trump stepped onto the political stage, the Deep State launched a full-scale assault.

They engineered the 2020 election to ensure he was removed from office.

They used the intelligence agencies to spy on his campaign and presidency.

They filed multiple indictments in a desperate attempt to block his 2024 run.

Yet, they failed. Trump is back, and now, the truth is finally coming to light.

THE MEDIA’S COMPLICITY The mainstream media played its role perfectly. Instead of reporting the truth, they became the Deep State’s propaganda arm.

They dismissed Clinton’s email scandal as a “nothingburger.”

They refused to cover leaked documents proving Obama’s direct orders to protect her.

They pushed every fabricated charge against Trump while burying the real crimes of the Democratic elite.

These are not journalists. These are political operatives, masquerading as the press.

THE TIME FOR JUSTICE IS NOW The evidence is undeniable. The Obama administration, the DOJ, the FBI, and the media conspired to protect Hillary Clinton, silence Trump, and manipulate the justice system to serve their agenda. This cannot be allowed to stand.

Obama must be investigated for obstruction of justice.

Clinton must finally face prosecution for espionage.

The FBI must be purged of political corruption.

The DOJ must be rebuilt from the ground up.

The only question left: Will justice finally be served?

[mariacallous]

The basic geopolitical strategy puzzle faced by the United States today is how to manage the relative decline of U.S. economic and military power, while maintaining U.S. leadership and influence to protect the country’s security and prosperity. After a long era of unquestioned global primacy, the United States needs to figure out how to continue to lead with fewer of the tools of hegemony than it once had at its disposal.

All-powerful hegemons don’t need especially sophisticated strategies. But today’s not-quite-so-dominant United States needs to become smarter about how it maintains and deploys global influence. Part of being a more sophisticated strategic actor is developing new approaches to world politics—for example, cooperating in nimbler, more flexible ways with like-minded actors to tackle challenges that Washington can no longer take on alone. A more basic requirement is to conserve political capital and spend it wisely—above all, by avoiding unforced errors that diminish U.S. power with no benefit for Americans.

The escalating budget fight and looming shutdown in Washington is one such unforced error. It will produce no benefit for the country and diminish its power. For one, the budget fight—at this stage, a fight between the radical and mainstream wings of the Republican Party in Congress that House Speaker Kevin McCarthy has been helplessly unable to control—is a distraction that threatens to escalate in the weeks ahead. It is consuming the energies of Congress and the White House at a moment marked by a major European war, tensions with China, risks associated with dramatic breakthroughs in artificial intelligence, and ongoing efforts to contain global economic strains. When legislators play unnecessary political theater, they and the White House are distracted from pressing national and international issues that don’t wait for the show to be over.

McCarthy’s present woes are the latest chapter in a long-standing story of failure. The recurring inability of the U.S. Congress to reliably pass a federal budget is not only distracting, but also leads to inefficient spending: Instead of allocating spending strategically, stopgap measures merely extend existing misspending and fail to set urgent new budget priorities. For example, a properly negotiated budget might shift resources toward priorities such as helping U.S. communities build resilience to climate-related disasters, invest more in Central American economic development to reduce migration pressures, and sunset other spending that might no longer be warranted. When the United States had money and power to spare in executing its objectives in homeland security, defense, trade, and foreign affairs, fiscal waste and misaligned resources didn’t have as much of an impact, but as the country navigates a more competitive world, a hamstrung budget process is a strategic albatross.

Moreover, the budget hijinks look childish: Is this how the world’s most powerful nation conducts itself? News media around the world are reporting on the fact that the entire U.S. government might be shut down because its leaders can’t handle a basic legislative process. In a time of global struggle between democracy and autocracy, when the United States needs to harvest the power of its example, the annual budget shenanigans degrade that power and set a truly bad example for advanced democracy. If the Chinese Communist Party is convinced that the United States has entered an era of inexorable decadence and decline, the budget circus is evidence that corroborates its hypothesis.

In this circus, there are several rings. One is the broken campaign finance system, where money so determines political outcomes that politicians must prioritize fundraising if they want to have any chance to be elected or reelected. Campaign donors—whether solitary billionaires or armies of small contributors—have outsized influence, and they punish the kind of compromise that democracy needs to function.

In 2016, I had a conversation with a Republican U.S. senator, who recalled that in a call with a major donor to the party, the donor had asked the senator, “Are you prepared to hold up [Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton’s] judges?” and the senator replied, “Well, what do you mean—for how long?” to which the donor replied, “Four years.” The quid pro quo between financial support and unqualified obstruction was clear.

Some contend that small grassroots donors offer a democracy-friendly antidote to the political influence of millionaires and billionaires. The internet has certainly made it possible for small donors collectively to compete with economic elites; former U.S. President Donald Trump made history in 2020 when he became the first presidential candidate in modern U.S. politics for whom small donations of less than $200 made up the majority of his fundraising. But the democratization of political fundraising by small donors does not necessarily lead to fewer demands for politicians to avert compromise and accelerate dysfunction.

That’s because the most effective small-donor fundraising campaigns use fear, anger, and outrage to get people to open their wallets. Donors mobilized by such messages punish compromise just as effectively as any billionaire—just ask McCarthy. When there’s a nationwide group of fringe donors who will reward political theater with money, legislators don’t have to pay much attention to their constituents or party leadership.

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky’s visit to Washington last week was in part necessitated by the fact that support for Ukraine’s resistance to Russia’s brutal, unprovoked invasion has become increasingly entangled in the budget fight. McCarthy refused Zelensky’s request to address Congress and, before his own meeting with him, raised questions about supporting Ukraine going forward. It seems likely that McCarthy was performatively catering to skeptics in his party who have folded support for Ukraine into the broader budget fight. It is a sad example of a small group of legislators holding hostage an urgent foreign-policy priority with broad bipartisan support in order to prosecute an agenda that wavers between fiscal conservatism and anti-establishment nihilism.

In an unusual show of unity, Chuck Schumer and Mitch McConnell, majority and minority leaders in the U.S. Senate, respectively, hosted Zelensky with the entire Senate. McConnell emphasized in a statement: “American support for Ukraine is not charity. It’s an investment in our own direct interests—not least because degrading Russia’s military power helps to deter our primary strategic adversary, China.” But McConnell’s mainstream position is increasingly at odds with legislators in the Republican right wing, who increasingly take an isolationist or Russia-friendly line. In this they are supported by an army of small-dollar donors, who appreciate their provocative anti-establishment views—or who have simply decided that because U.S. President Joe Biden supports Ukraine, they do not.

We generally think of campaign finance and budget standoffs as domestic issues. But the perverse incentives and behaviors in U.S. politics do not just corrode democratic legitimacy, they impair government functioning in ways that weaken the United States’ global standing and influence. As the United States seeks to navigate a more complicated, dangerous world, where authoritarian powers present a clear and present danger to the long-term security and prosperity of Americans, it is more important than ever that the United States functions as a shared enterprise.

Whether it’s adapting the U.S. defense budget to new geopolitical realities and technologies, responding to climate change, or securing the supply chains that American workers depend on, Washington needs a coherent, focused approach that isn’t perverted by either special interests or what are essentially small-donor performance artists in the U.S. Congress. The United States remains the most powerful country on earth, but that reality precipitates strategic blindness if its leaders don’t recognize that in a world that remains threatening and complex, their country is a smaller world power than it once was. Unforced errors make it smaller still.

[dreaminginthedeepsouth]

Billboard project

* * * *

Trump lashes out at women accusing him of sexual assault

In a second bizarre appearance this week, Trump spent 45 minutes in a grievance-filled “press conference” overflowing with defamatory attacks on women who have accused him of sexual assault. The one thing the “press conference” did not include was questions from the press.

Trump's 45-minute rant reminded voters of the multiple accusations of sexual assault against him. And in a breath-taking admission, he said he did assault one of his accusers because, “[S]he would not have been the chosen one.” That defense repeats his claim that he did not sexually assault E. Jean Carrol because “She’s not my type.”

It is Kafkaesque that one of the major party nominees has so many credible claims of sexual assault lodged against him that he can spend 45 minutes denying them. In any other era in American history, such allegations would be instantly disqualifying. But the major media focuses on horse-race polling to the exclusion of character and demonstrated unfitness for office.

Even as Maggie Haberman of the Times provided an accurate recitation of Trump's rambling discourse, she acknowledged, “As a one-off event, Mr. Trump’s diatribe was already receding from view in headlines by late afternoon.”

Of course, as long as the Times continues to lose interest in Trump's meltdowns in four hours, it is no wonder that Trump's depravity is overlooked by the public.

There is a growing consensus that the press is failing to hold Trump accountable for his criminality and corruption. Rebecca Solnit of The Guardian addresses the failure of the press in her op-ed, The mainstream press is failing America – and people are understandably upset.

I recommend Solnit’s essay to your weekend reading, but to whet your appetite, I excerpt the following:

The first thing to say about the hate and scorn currently directed at the mainstream US media is that they worked hard to earn it. They’ve done so by failing, repeatedly, determinedly, spectacularly to do their job, which is to maintain their independence, inform the electorate, and speak truth to power. They pursue the appearance of fairness and balance by treating the true and the false, the normal and the outrageous, as equally valid and by normalizing Republicans, especially Donald Trump, whose gibberish gets translated into English and whose past crimes and present-day lies and threats get glossed over. They neglect, again and again, important stories with real consequences.

Solnit’s criticism that the press “translates Trump's gibberish into English” was also discussed by Isabel Fattal in The Atlantic | Daily, A new level of incoherence from Trump. Fattal writes,

But the biggest problem, the problem that all journalistic analysis of Trump's response ought to lead with, is that his answer makes absolutely no sense. Earlier this summer, The Atlantic’s editor in chief, Jeffrey Goldberg, warned about “one of the most pernicious biases in journalism, the bias toward coherence.” Journalists “feel, understandably, that it is our job to make things make sense,” he wrote. “But what if the actual story is that politics today makes no sense?”

When Joe Biden stumbled in attempts to express himself—a lifelong characteristic driven in part by his stutter—the Times wrote dozens of stories suggesting that Biden was unfit to be president (despite his spectacularly successful current presidency). But when Trump speaks gibberish, the Times strains to glean meaning and coherence where none is to be found.

The question is, “Why?” Why does the media believe it is their role to filter and correct Trump's incoherence? The answer to that question will vex historians for decades and centuries to come.

In the absence of a satisfying or clear answer to that question, my default assumption is that the major media sees Trump as good for business, even if he is bad for democracy. Profit über alles. Shame on them.

Trump is a uniquely unfit candidate for the presidency The presidential oath of office requires the president to swear to protect and defend the Constitution—which Trump has already attempted to overthrow on one occasion and has promised to do so again.

Before Joe Biden withdrew from the race, there was a general sense that “the need to defend democracy” was not an argument that resonated with voters. It should be. Perhaps it is time for Kamala Harris to revisit and reframe the argument, especially given the renewed activity around Trump's legal and criminal jeopardy. It sure would be nice if the major media viewed Trump's threat to democracy as newsworthy.

[Robert B. Hubbell Newsletter]

[onenettvchannel]

#OneNETnewsEXCLUSIVE: Former Yes! FM Dumaguete DJ, Digital Veteran Multimedia Journalist and SCMP Editor 'Raffy Cabristante' meets American rock band 'Lifehouse' at the Playback Music Festival in QC

(Written by Rhayniel Saldasal Calimpong / Freelanced News Writer, Online Media Reporter and News Presenter of OneNETnews)

QUEZON, MANILA -- The iconic American alternative rock band 'Lifehouse' made an acoustic surprise appearance during 'Playback Music Festival' in Quezon City, Metro Manila at the New Frontier Theater. The band, known for their chart-topping hits and soulful sound, took time to meet fans backstage, including local media personalities outside Dumaguete City, Negros Oriental; and the entire National Capital Region (NCR).

Former 'Yes! FM: Dumaguete' Radio DJ & Negros Oriental correspondent of ABS-CBN News, Digital Multimedia Journalist and current Production Editor of South China Morning Post named Raffy Iphraim T. Cabristante, was among the lucky few who got up close and personal with the band.

Mr. Cabristante shared his excitement right at the spot on social media, posting a selfie photo with lead vocalist 'Mr. Jason Michael Wade' and the rest of the band. He was lauding their classic music and grateful for the up-close concert experience back in the days from his former high school in Dumaguete City into a reality of acoustic concert. Not only as that, he creates music in the new local musician production for the Negrosanon people. This needs no introduction, before the technologic era of internet here in this said province of Negros Oriental and around the Philippine archipelago.

Founded in 1999 by singer-songwriter-guitarist 'Jason Michael Wade', Lifehouse hails from suburban Los Angeles, California, United States of America (U.S.A.). What started in the form of the band 'Blyss' was actually Mr. Wade using his songwriting as therapy to help him get through his parents' divorce. The year 2000, saw them adopting the name 'Lifehouse' and saw the release of their first major label album, which they titled 'No Name Face'. The album's breakout single "Hanging by a Moment", catapulted them to mainstream prominence. Although this single did not hit #1 spot on the Billboard Hot 100, it was still the best single of 2001; spent 4 and half months in the top 10.

The style of Lifehouse really defied definitions between alternative rock, post-grunge and pop rock. Their succeeding albums, which included 'Stanley Climbfall', 'Who We Are', and 'Smoke and Mirrors', never failed to become worldwide hits. Hits like "You and Me", "First Time" and "Whatever It Takes" sealed their adult contemporary genre style and basically made them one of the staples in family-oriented venues.

Playback Music Festival is the country's first throwback music festival, celebrating timeless hits that never go out of style. It features artists like David James Archuleta and Lifehouse, who perform live in an acoustic concert at the New Frontier Theater. The term "playback" in concerts refers to using pre-recorded audio tracks synchronized with the artist's onstage performance, adding vocals, instrumentals, backing vocals or entire song sections.

Reality came true as a former DJ name of 'Frankie Labot' becomes now, an annual tradition as a holy week radio announcer in Dumaguete City, following previously the local Siete Palabras simulcast at the Dumaguete Cathedral. As alt-rock fans eagerly await more from Lifehouse, their Manila concert remains a memorable chapter in their storied career.

The New Frontier Theater echoed with their soulful melodies, leaving an indelible mark on Filipino music enthusiasts, especially still from ka-Beshie into Yespren. Except if you're an Overseas Filipino Workers in China as a news reader in traditional press paper, read a newspaper at South China Morning Post, all are made and edited by 'Frankie Labot' himself.

PHOTO COURTESY: Raffy Cabristante via FB PHOTO BACKGROUND PROVIDED BY: Tegna

SOURCE: *https://www.facebook.com/100044331164675/posts/1002119234609106 [Referenced FB Captioned Post via PMF] *https://www.facebook.com/1037420454/posts/10227780319066921 [Referenced FB Captioned Post via Raffy Cabristante] *https://audiolover.com/events-info/playback/what-is-playback-in-concerts/ and *https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lifehouse_%28band%29

-- OneNETnews Online Publication Team

[admiralpaco]

I want to add on to this: We are at a point in history when the "mainstream media" is not on democracies side. Amongst the entities with the largest size or reach (New York Times, Washington Post, LA Times, MSNBC, CNN), they have all capitulated in the last half-year, some even before election day, to Trump and his ilk. Because lets be real: all of these entities are first and foremost a business and run by businessmen (and occasionally women).

They don't want to potentially provoke a vindictive Trump Presidency. And by alienating their historical liberal base (thereby losing customers) where are they going to make money? By courting conservatives which both provides a new user base and keeps them out of Trump's crosshairs.

And this was one of the Democratic Parties worst mistakes in the 2024 election: they operated on the assumption that these juggernauts of the media would be at "on their side" against the potential tyranny of Trump. The Democratic Party failed to recognize these entities would kowtow to Trump before standing up to him, even during the campaign (some of the most notable examples being the LA Times and Washington Post failing to endorse a presidential candidate in the most-obvious-who-to-endorse presidential election in US history... if democracy and free press was your priority.)

But even before then: these media enterprises tore Biden apart for his clear mental lapses and age. While essentially never bringing up Trump's equally obvious mental lapses and age. They questioned the Democratic economic plans and political strategy while rarely mentioning Trumps. If anything, they hyped up Trump's messaging even if it was flatly wrong: a repeat of 2016.

For the Democratic Party, and we the people, moving forward: they and we have to approach the mainstream media with the mentality that these formerly news oriented institutions will do them and us no favors. The the mainstream media is now largely loyal to power. Not democracy. Not America. And certainly not truth.

*Of course lots of news out of these institutions will continue to be correct, however their overall slants are going to diverge away from telling the hard truths. In addition, there will be plenty of writers or reporters that continue to write and report liberal and left leaning coverage but they will be exceptions to the overall mainstream media direction. Kind of like how Chris Wallace was an overall pretty good reporter at Fox News despite the institution being a conservative propaganda machine.

New Frontiers of Darkness

The Washington Post has unveiled its new slogan to supplement (in practice, supplant) the old "Democracy Dies in Darkness": "Riveting Storytelling for All of America." I can't tell you how much I hate this. First of all, even out of context, it sounds both comically corporate and unbearably patronizing. "Riveting storytelling for all of America" sounds like how to market the Scholastic Book Fairs for emerging readers, not one of America's papers of record. But of course, we must take this slogan in context. And the context is the Post spending the last few months humiliating itself and dynamiting its journalistic credibility by repeated acts of groveling towards the MAGA movement. And I know I'm beating a dead horse here, but this slogan really encapsulates the media's self-delusion that it is part of the liberal family. Again, recall my thesis here: the media thinks its main audience is liberals, and so it sees its job as to challenge liberals with "alternative perspectives" or "competing views" (as opposed to just telling the truth and letting the chips fall where they may). One implication of this is that conservatives are a growth audience (because of course the Post in its prior manifestation couldn't be speaking to them) -- this is what "for all of America" means. We're no longer speaking just to the latte-sipping coastal elites, but to all of America. And lest you think I'm projecting, they're being quite explicit that this is what they mean: Mr. Bezos, the founder of Amazon, has made comments in line with the new mission statement in conversations with Post journalists in recent years, according to two people familiar with those discussions. Mr. Bezos has expressed hopes that The Post would be read by more blue-collar Americans who live outside coastal cities, mentioning people like firefighters in Cleveland. He has also said that he is interested in expanding The Post’s audience among conservatives, the people said. Now nominally, recognizing that conservatives are part of the audience could mean that the Post starts committing to telling them things they don't want to hear. For example, they could be informed, in no uncertain terms, how Trump's tariffs will crush working families with spiraling grocery bills. Or they could be told, in clear-eyed fashion, of how Trump's inner circle is proposing increasingly fascistic and lawless abuses of government power. Or they could be shown, without varnish or spin, how the Republican Party has begun to view sexual assault and rape as virtues in its political leaders -- not even a secret to be ashamed of, but as an affirmative basis for support and promotion. But of course, we all know that is not what Bezos and his cronies have in mind. "Riveting storytelling" suggests that what they want is sensation and soothing -- to reaffirm their (new) readers' priors, never to challenge them with something as dirty and discomforting as the truth. Conservatives can't tolerate hearing that Donald Trump was a grotesquely unsuitable choice for the presidency, and so the Post (even in its editorial endorsements) won't aggravate them. The Post knows that many if not most of Trump's cabinet picks fail the most basic (by the Post's own lights!) criteria of qualification for office in a democratic society -- respecting the outcomes of a democratic process -- and so the Post will just pretend it doesn't matter. The Scholastic Book Fair analogy is more than snark, for this is of a piece with the broader trend of infantilizing the American right. Conservatives, once again, are being treated as children, and spoiled children as that -- whatever junk keeps their attention, that's what will be provided.  A once great newspaper, reduced to an entertaining diversion for spoiled, coddled brats. Maybe the slogan isn't so bad after all. via The Debate Link https://ift.tt/lpZWSRu