#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.

[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

[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

[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]

[xtruss]

Racism Is Why Trump Is So Popular

Trump’s Popularity With His Base Isn’t The Result of Economic Anxiety, As Many Claimed In 2016. It’s About Race And Demographics.

— James Risen | August 10, 2024

Donald Trump arrives at his Mar-a Lago estate on Aug. 8, 2024, in Palm Beach, Fla. Photo: Joe Raedle/Getty Images

To Understand The Rise of Donald J. Trump, you don’t need to go to a diner in the Midwest or read “Hillbilly Elegy,” J.D. Vance’s memoir.

You just need to know these basic facts: In 1980, white people accounted for about 80 Percent of the U.S. Population. In 2024, white people account for about 58 Percent of the U.S. Population.

Trump appeals to white people gripped by demographic hysteria. Especially older white people who grew up when white people represented a much larger share of the population. They fear becoming a minority.

While the Census Bureau says there are still 195 million white people in America and that they are still the majority, the white population actually declined slightly in 2023, and experts believe that they will become a minority sometime between 2040 and 2050.

Every component of the Trump-Republican agenda flows from these demographic fears.

The Trump phenomenon and the surge of right-wing extremism in America was never about economic anxiety, as too many political reporters claimed during the 2016 presidential campaign.

It was, and still is, about race and racism.

The mainstream press has been afraid to say this directly and succinctly. Political pundits keep looking for other causes; after Trump’s upset win in 2016, they thought that “Hillbilly Elegy” was the answer. I read the book in its entirety — something I doubt most campaign reporters can claim — and it offers nothing about Trump or the economic anxieties in the American heartland that supposedly led to Trump’s election. It’s a personal memoir about his dysfunctional family, and the closest thing Vance gets to a political message comes when he writes that his relatives screwed up their lives on their own and have no one else to blame.

But the political press somehow concluded that the book’s narrative unlocked the key to understanding Trump voters, and the ambitious Vance, now Trump’s running mate, didn’t bother to correct them.

The press hasn’t done any better in the years since. It has now failed to adequately cover Trump for three straight presidential campaigns.

— It Is Trump’s Shamelessness About His Racism That Appeals To White People.

The simple truth is that Trump is a racist, and it is his shamelessness about his racism that appeals to white people. He says what they wish they could get away with saying. They forgive his criminal behavior, his lies, his egomaniacal behavior, and his other flaws because of his racism, not in spite of it. They don’t care that his economic policies will benefit billionaires and not them, just so long as he makes sure minorities have it worse than them. Vance followed up “Hillbilly Elegy,” his supposed paean to the working class, by becoming a puppet of right-wing billionaire Peter Thiel, who bankrolled his Senate campaign in Ohio. Trump no doubt chose Vance to be his running mate at least in part to get more money from billionaires for his campaign.

The Evidence of Trump’s Racism is so overwhelming that the press and many voters now seem to consider it old news, shrugging at his constant stream of bigoted comments. That is exactly what Trump is counting on; it’s difficult to remember that his racism was still considered shocking as recently as 2016 when he ran for president.

Trump has been a racist his whole life; the Justice Department sued him for racial discrimination in the 1970s. In the 1980s, he took out newspaper ads calling for the death penalty in the case of the Central Park Five — Black and Latino men falsely accused in a New York City rape case — and he has stubbornly refused to apologize to the exonerated men.

He first gained prominence as a political figure for being an obsessive “birther,” propagating false conspiracy claims that Barack Obama wasn’t born in the United States and thus couldn’t legally be president.

Trump remains obsessed with race and is constantly looking for ways to discredit and dehumanize any and all minorities: African Americans, Mexicans, Native Americans, Muslims, Asians. He’s claimed that Mexican immigrants are murderers and rapists, that Obama was the founder of ISIS, that Covid-19 was the “kung flu,” that migrants crossing the southern border have been released from mental institutions and are coming to take “Black jobs,” that Haitians probably have AIDS.

When Trump first emerged as a presidential contender, many Republican Party leaders claimed they were disgusted by his blatant racism.

Now they embrace it.

Dominated by Trump, the Republican Party adheres to policies designed both to maintain white political power and increase the white percentage of the nation’s population.

Once you understand that it is all about white power — especially white male power — the Trump-Republican agenda begins to make sense.

The right-wing obsession over racial demographics becomes obvious in the “pro-natalism” movement, which advocates for conservatives to have more children to take control of society. The mission of the movement is “to build an army of like-minded people, starting with their own children, who will reject a whole host of changes wrought by liberal democracy,” according to a fascinating recent story in Politico.

For the right wing, pro-natalism means looking for every possible means to increase the white percentage of the nation’s population. Through this lens, it’s not hard to see why Republicans remain virulently anti-immigration and strictly opposed to abortion.

Those two issues may appear unrelated, but in fact Republican positions on both stem at least in part from white demographic fears. Republicans want to halt the rise in the nonwhite population by curbing immigration. At the same time, they hope their abortion bans will boost domestic birth rates — staving off white demographic decline. They also want to ban contraceptives and no-fault divorce, forcing women to stay in marriages and have more children.

The Republican Party’s white nationalism is often justified in religious terms, since much of this agenda designed to enhance white power stems from the party’s Christian fundamentalist base. Along with Protestant evangelicals, the Republican religious base now includes fundamentalist Catholics, who stridently oppose abortion.

Fundamentalist Catholicism has started to attract young conservative activists, politicians, and influencers, who seem to searching for a faith steeped in tradition and hierarchy.

Converting to Catholicism has thus become a culture war flex for well-off American conservatives; it is not a coincidence that Vance converted in 2019, just as he was also in the process of converting from being anti-Trump into a Trump lackey. In April, right-wing influencer Candace Owens became one of the latest extremely online conservatives to convert. Leonard Leo, the co-chair of the Federalist Society and the man widely credited for turning the Supreme Court into a conservative bastion, is now focused on creating new right-wing Catholic organizations to deepen right-wing power in the American Catholic Church while expanding his culture war reach.

Protestant evangelicals and fundamentalist Catholics share a common right-wing political agenda, and both groups have aided the rise of Christian nationalism, a movement driven by opposition to any separation of church and state. Christian nationalists call for a return to a Judeo-Christian America, code for a return to a nation in which Christian whites held all the power. The most prominent Christian Nationalist in politics today is Louisiana Rep. Mike Johnson, the Republican speaker of the House, who has said that the idea that the Constitution calls for a separation of church and state is a “misnomer.”

Christian nationalism and white power also help explain the confounding nature of current Republican foreign policy. Many Republicans today oppose U.S. military aid to Ukraine but strongly support military aid to Israel.

To understand that policy mashup requires an understanding of the beliefs of Christian nationalists. They consider Vladimir Putin to be a fundamentalist Christian, a guardian of traditional white values, largely because he has cracked down on LGBTQ+ rights in Russia. By contrast, they associate Ukraine with Western Europe, which they think is too woke. Andrew Torba, founder of the far-right site Gab who wrote a self-published book called “Christian Nationalism: A Biblical Guide for Taking Dominion and Disciplining Nations,” said after the Russia’s invasion that “Ukraine needs to be liberated and cleansed from the degeneracy of the secular western globalist empire.” Nick Fuentes, another online Christian nationalist, said on Telegram after the Russian invasion that “I wish Putin was president of America.”

Meanwhile, Christian nationalists believe the Bible demands that they embrace Israel. They see it as the fulfillment of a biblical prophecy that Israel must exist as a precondition to the second coming of Jesus. Such biblically-based support among Christian nationalists means that the Republican Party will support Israel no matter what actions it takes in Gaza.

Increasingly, the Trump–Republican Party has become explicit in its embrace of policies designed to expand white power and appease white nationalists. In fact, several of the right-wing authors of Project 2025, the Heritage Foundation’s plan for a second Trump term filled with extremist proposals, have white supremacist backgrounds and writings. Trump has tried to disown Project 2025, but its authors include former Trump administration officials. Whether Trump officially endorses Project 2025 or not, it remains a good barometer of the white nationalist hold on the Republican Party.

[dankusner]

POLITICS 

Cruz podcast ads fuel super PAC 

BP America backs out after hearing of contributions 

WASHINGTON — A super PAC focused on getting U.S. Sen. Ted Cruz reelected has received hundreds of thousands of dollars tied to advertising revenue from Cruz’s “Verdict” podcast, an unusual campaign finance arrangement that raises legal questions. 

Public scrutiny of the payments could prompt advertisers to follow BP America Inc.’s lead and redirect their business to avoid indirectly supporting the Texas Republican’s effort to win a third six-year term.

BP America, based in Cruz’s hometown of Houston, said it was unaware that ad revenue from the podcast was flowing to a pro-Cruz organization. 

“We purchase advertising on iHeart based on the potential audience and do not specify by podcasts,” BP America spokesperson Ross Parman said. “We were never informed that media spend was going directly to a super PAC and have instructed iHeart to remove our messages from any podcasts that direct advertising revenue to campaigns, PACs or political parties.” 

Since March 2023, the pro-Cruz Truth and Courage PAC has received a series of increasingly larger payments from iHeartMedia Management Services Inc. that total more than $630,000. 

Rachel Nelson, spokesperson for iHeart subsidiary Premiere Networks, said in a statement that Cruz volunteers his time to host the podcast and isn’t compensated for it. 

Nelson said Premiere sells advertising time for “Verdict,” as it does for other podcasts, and the money being directed to the Truth and Courage PAC is “associated with those advertising sales.” 

Truth and Courage 

Nelson referred additional questions to the PAC, which does not provide contact information on its website. 

A committee campaign finance filing includes an email address, but inquiries sent to it were not answered. 

The PAC has supported various Republican candidates in the past, including former Dallas Cowboys running back Herschel Walker in his failed 2022 bid for a U.S. Senate seat in Georgia.

Its website is now dominated by photos and press releases boosting Cruz and attacking his opponent in the November election, U.S. Rep. Colin Allred, D-Dallas. 

“Truth and Courage PAC’s focus is ensuring that Ted Cruz is re-elected to the United States Senate in 2024,” according to the site. 

In response to questions about the podcast and the financial arrangements surrounding it, the Cruz campaign provided a written statement characterizing all of the attention as “lazy attacks” by news outlets and Democrats in an election year. 

“Senator Cruz appears on Verdict three times a week for free. 

He does this to pull back the veil on the corrupt inner workings of Washington — none of which ever get fairly covered,” according to the statement. “How convenient that the mainstream media and the cogs in the machine of the Biden-Pelosi Democrat Party want this to stop.” 

The campaign did not say who decided podcast advertising revenue should be directed to the PAC. 

Growing the podcast 

The podcast started during former President Donald Trump’s first impeachment trial in early 2020, with Cruz offering his take on those proceedings and sharing behind-the-scenes observations. 

It was a hit and has continued to attract a significant audience for Cruz’s conservative perspective, sprinkled with occasional sports banter and pop culture references. 

The senator announced the move to iHeart in 2022, saying at the time that it was a ��big damn deal” to partner with the No. 1 syndicator of U.S. radio programming. 

He credited the network with helping make the career of conservative giant Rush Limbaugh. 

Recent “Verdict” episodes have included advertisements for large companies with well-known brands: BP, Safeway, Consumer Cellular, Carvana, Lexus and UberEats among them. 

One recent advertisement on the podcast was paid for by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. 

The ad urges people to check if they are eligible for income-based subsidies for Medicare prescription drug coverage after that program was expanded as part of the Inflation Reduction Act.

Cruz opposed that legislation and has strongly criticized it on his podcast. 

His “Verdict” co-host Ben Ferguson typically reads promotional material during the podcast touting companies such as Patriot Mobile and Blackout Coffee. 

Blackout Coffee promotes itself as an “anti-woke” coffee brand, while Grapevine-based Patriot Mobile says it is “America’s only Christian conservative wireless provider.” 

Patriot Mobile has worked through a political action committee to promote conservative causes and support like-minded candidates in Tarrant County suburban school board races. 

“Verdict” episodes have been posted with accompanying video at times on YouTube, although the most recent episode on the channel this week was a couple of months old. 

In addition to the money from iHeart, campaign finance reports for Truth and Courage also show digital revenue payments — albeit in the relatively small amount of about $4,000 total — from Google, which owns YouTube.

Cruz has a ubiquitous media presence.

In addition to the podcast, he appears often on cable news and posts frequently on social media. 

He has written several books, which he promotes across his platforms. 

His most recent financial disclosure statement includes a 2022 agreement with Regnery Publishing for a two-book deal with a $1.1 million advance, payable in four installments. 

Legal questions When Cruz announced iHeart’s involvement with the podcast, it quickly attracted criticism and raised questions about whether such a partnership was allowed. 

The Campaign Legal Center wrote to the Senate Ethics Committee in late 2022 urging an investigation into the arrangement. 

The group noted the millions iHeart spends on lobbying, including on issues that fall within the jurisdiction of the Senate Commerce Committee, where Cruz is the top Republican. 

The CLC said iHeart agreeing to bankroll the podcast appeared to violate the letter and the spirit of laws that restrict lobbyist gifts to senators. 

The Ethics Committee disagreed, saying by letter that it had reviewed the matter and determined Cruz “did not violate federal law, Senate rules or standards of conduct.” 

The stream of payments from iHeart to the super PAC raises fresh questions and could prompt a look by the Federal Election Commission. 

Independent super PACs are barred from coordinating with candidates and campaigns they support. 

Candidates are limited in how much money they can solicit for super PACs and are prohibited from soliciting corporate donations to them, said campaign finance lawyer Brett Kappel. 

It’s “pretty odd” to have advertising revenue from a politician’s podcast going to a super PAC, Kappel said. 

Cruz has said he’s an uncompensated volunteer, but that does not explain why iHeart would direct advertising money to a super PAC that supports his reelection, Kappel said. “It kind of strains credulity that this is an arm’s length agreement in which Sen. Cruz has no personal involvement,” Kappel said.

ELECTIONS ’24 U.S. SENATE

Podcast money flows into Cruz PAC

Political committee discloses $156,000 in ‘digital revenue’ after ethics complaints filed

WASHINGTON — A political committee devoted to reelecting U.S. Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, last month received another $156,186 in “digital revenue” from the company that distributes Cruz’s podcast, according to its monthly campaign finance report filed Thursday.

It was the first such payment disclosed since two advocacy groups, in an April complaint to the Federal Election Commission, suggested campaign finance laws prohibit Cruz from directing podcast ad revenue to the super PAC supporting him.

The report for May also showed Truth and Courage PAC received $1 million from Miriam Adelson, who recently acquired a controlling interest in the Dallas Mavericks.

The Tel Aviv-born physician is the widow of casino magnate Sheldon Adelson.

She has called for U.S. support of Israel, including during a December appearance in Austin where she said Texas leaders must work together with Israel to combat Hamas.

Cruz has been an outspoken defender of Israel and its handling of the war against Hamas.

He faces U.S. Rep. Colin Allred, D-Dallas, in November in what is expected to be among the most expensive Senate races.

Truth and Courage PAC previously received five payments totaling more than $630,000 from a subsidiary of iHeartMedia, which backs the Verdict With Ted Cruz podcast.

As an independent super PAC, the organization is barred from directly coordinating with Cruz.

Cruz has said he is not compensated for hosting the podcast.

He says the podcast is a way to share behind-the-scenes Washington stories and circumvent the mainstream media’s liberal bias.

During this week’s podcasts, Cruz touted his legislation cracking down on nonconsensual deepfake porn, highlighted polls showing Biden losing support among African-American voters and criticized Biden’s energy policies.

Senators have a yearly mid-May deadline to file personal financial disclosure statements.

Cruz requested and received a deadline extension to Aug. 13.

He has received similar extensions in most years since joining the Senate in 2013.

Advertisers featured on the podcast include politically motivated organizations and right-leaning companies such as Patriot Mobile, which says it is “America’s only Christian conservative wireless provider.”

Advertisers also have included major companies.

After learning about the involvement of the super PAC, Houston-based BP America instructed iHeart to remove its ads from any podcasts that direct ad dollars to campaigns, PACs or political parties.

Rachel Nelson, spokesperson for another iHeart subsidiary, Premier Networks, has said payments to the political committee are associated with Verdict ad revenue.

Truth and Courage spokesman Jarrod Griffin said in a statement the PAC owns the podcast and pays taxes on all revenue it receives from iHeart Media.

None of those involved have provided details of the arrangement.

Advocacy groups focused on campaign finance rules have suggested the payments violate laws prohibiting candidates from soliciting “soft money” donations, including from corporations.

The Campaign Legal Center and End Citizens United filed a complaint with the Federal Election Commission. CLC also filed a complaint with the Senate Ethics Committee. Neither the committee or the FEC has acted publicly on those complaints.

The Senate Ethics Committee previously reviewed a 2022 complaint about the iHeart podcast deal and determined Cruz did not “violate federal law, Senate rules or standards of conduct.” Payments to the Super PAC did not start until March 2023, according to campaign finance reports.

The Cruz campaign has characterized attention to the podcast’s financial arrangements as “lazy attacks” by news outlets and Democrats trying to shut down the podcast in an election year.

[cyarskj52]

📌LISTEN TO ME, MAINSTREAM MEDIA, AND LISTEN GOOD:

-You are to STOP embarrassing yourselves, and all of us who worked in the press IMMEDIATELY.

-You are to START covering Donald Trump the way he should be covered IMMEDIATELY.

-You are to frame what is at stake in this election IMMEDIATELY.

-You are to point out in EVERY STORY YOU REPORT WHO TRUMP IS AND WHAT HE HAS DONE IMMEDIATELY.

📌This is the BARE MINIMUM your newsroom managers should be asking of you before you file any story about him and this election. The context is EVERYTHING.

📌The man means America harm.

📌You are to say in EVERY STORY, that despite losing the 2020 election to Joe Biden by more than seven million votes, Trump lies about the results every chance he gets. This lie and his refusal to concede the election have ripped America apart, and resulted in the worst attack on our Capitol since 1812. Federal and state charges are pending in the attack that resulted in the deaths and beatings of law enforcement officers, and sent lawmakers running for their lives.

📌Listen to me, dammit: You CANNOT write a story about a man who is running for president, without mentioning he is openly hostile to America and her Democracy, and sympathetic to dictators.

📌This would be like writing a story about a person who is buying a bank, but failing to tell your readers/viewers that the person is a known bank robber.

📌You are failing in your jobs so completely right now, I wish I could fire all of you. I would clean out your pathetic newsrooms, fumigate them, and the first thing I would do when I opened them back up would be to fill them with REAL journalists, and assemble Democracy Desks, that did nothing but report the threats to America if God forbid this unhinged, racist maniac was elected.

📌If you think I went too far with that description, I can back it up as absolutely verifiably true.

📌These stories would be ongoing and get top-line play.

📌I went through the lead stories on both The Washington Post and The New York Times about the South Carolina primary this morning and NONE of the above was mentioned. NOT ONE WORD.

📌Knock it off NOW. We are NOT putting up with this anymore.

📌YOU ARE FAILING THIS COUNTRY.

[scottguy]

It's going to spiral downward fast when the corporate media love affair with Trump *finally* ends, and that will drive Trump even deeper into insanity and they start honestly reporting his behavior Instead of conveniently ignoring his totalitarian goals as well as his dementia, senility, and constant lies. Most mainstream media STILL show up like puppy dogs and give Trump a platform to spread lies and hatred when Trump calls for a "press conference."

Reprinting lies is not journalism, it's gossip.

Eventually, long after it's obvious to everyone else, corporate media will finally stop pretending Trump was a normal Republican compared to historical Republicans.

Mainstream media will be, "Oh, we *knew* he was bad all along, but we... didn't want to seem biased."

Since when does reporting the truth make you biased? Not reporting truth is FAR MORE biased and far more dangerous.

I will never forgive corporate media for allowing America to get this close to the brink of fascism.

Corporate media failed American citizens these past eight years. They still haven't learned from their mistakes and that's an outrage.