breitbart 3 bak

CURRENTrenamed BB3 12 23

breitbart21019

no merri

see crm bs

6/16

see main and bannon

see misinfo

tag brbrt

andrew bak 619

see EV BS issue 2024 spread on facebook

this bal 1019

txt capt 11 21

---

Blue State Blues: IRS Enforcement Against Left-Wing Groups Is Long Overdue

Gary Shapley (Stephanie Scarbrough / Associated Press)

Joel B. Pollak17 Oct 2025

breitbart

The Trump administration is reportedly conducting an overhaul of the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) to pursue left-wing groups, ostensibly for violating their tax-exempt status.

If true, this is not a partisan effort, or a form of retribution for the IRS’s targeting of conservative groups, but rather a long-overdue attempt to stop Democrats from abusing tax-exempt status to fund groups whose purpose is not charitable but political.

The Wall Street Journal first reported the overhaul this week, noting that it is to be led by Gary Shapley, who is described as “an adviser to Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent.” The Journal buried the crucial information that Shapley is not just an “adviser,” but also a key whistleblower who exposed the IRS’s attempt to shield Hunter Biden from scrutiny. He had no partisan affiliations when he bucked IRS leadership at the time.

That leadership had long tolerated, or even encouraged, inappropriate investigations of conservative groups. In 2013, it emerged that Lois Lerner and other IRS officials had targeted conservative non-profit groups, who had done nothing wrong, for inappropriate scrutiny. That effort discouraged newly-active Tea Party organizations for applying for non-profit status, and may have affected the outcome of the 2012 election.

In contrast, the IRS continued to ignore apparent violations by groups like the George Soros-funded Media Matters, incorporated as a 510(c)3 “charity” under the tax code even though its sole purpose is to help the Democratic Party. While conservative groups feared prosecution merely for using words like “Patriot” in their titles, left-wing groups were free to fundraise and spend with total impunity on completely partisan causes.

That is why, in my 2024 book The Agenda: What Trump Should Do in His First 100 Days, I specifically recommended that the president order the kind of investigation that Shapley will apparently be undertaking:

7. Launch IRS investigations of left-wing non-profits that abuse their status for political purposes. Group like Media Matters, which do little except suppress critics of the Democratic Party, are formally recognized as charities under Section 501(c)3 of the tax code. Yet they are abusing that tax-exempt status to raise money for what are essentially political purposes. The IRS must be directed to probe the activities of these groups and punish them, if necessary.

That recommendation is listed in the book’s first chapter, on restoring the rule of law — the top priority after years of “lawfare” and partisan investigations by Democrats and their supporters in the federal civil service.

The idea of IRS investigations of left-wing groups, like the idea of investigating and prosecuting the officials and prosecutors who targeted President Donald Trump and his supporters, is being described by critics as partisan payback. That might be accurate if the president were acting against a broad range of Democratic groups and individuals. Instead, he is narrowly targeting those who abused their power and authority.

That is not partisanship; that is justice. And it will hopefully serve as a deterrent to Democrats who assumed that their tactics would never be examined or punished — so long as they were successful in keeping Trump and other conservatives out of office. Recall how then-Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) defended his lies about Mitt Romney’s supposed failure to pay taxes to the IRS: it was justified because Romney lost.

Lerner and IRS officials who abused their power to help Democrats win escaped prosecution by the Obama Department of Justice. Likewise with the Biden administration’s protection of the likes of former FBI director James Comey, or former National Security Adviser John Bolton. There has to be public accountability, at the IRS and elsewhere, if American are once again to believe that our society is governed by the rule of law.

{Joel B. Pollak is Senior Editor-at-Large at Breitbart News and the host ofBreitbart News Sundayon Sirius XM Patriot on Sunday evenings from 7 p.m. to 10 p.m. ET (4 p.m. to 7 p.m. PT). He is the author ofThe Zionist Conspiracy Wants You,now available on Amazon. He is a winner of the 2018 Robert Novak Journalism Alumni Fellowship. Follow him on Twitter at @joelpollak.*}:

bk blurb

Review

“The Agenda sets out over 200 executive orders, actions, and policies for a Trump administration to take as soon as the former president returns to the White House. Despite the Left's lawfare and ‘resistance’ agenda, Joel Pollak's plan will turn the tables on the Democrats, overwhelm them, and help save America."—MARK LEVIN, New York Times bestselling author of The Democrat Party Hates America

“Joel Pollak is one of the most talented writers or editors I have ever met. . . . This book is an instant American classic.”—STEPHEN K. BANNON

"Joel Pollak provides a detailed blueprint for how a second Trump administration will be the antidote to so much of the chaos we have witnessed over the past years. . . . This book ought to be used as Bible in the next presidential term, and any given chapter can be implemented on day one. . . . If this book becomes policy, it will not only make Trump among the most effective and consequential presidents in US history but will restore desperately needed order and optimism in a nation on the brink."—EMMA-JO MORRIS, Breitbart News

"Joel Pollak's latest book is the antidote for the frustration many Americans are feeling as they watch their country being undermined by weak leaders and radical activists. The Agenda provides a positive and constructive plan for a new Trump administration—one that should be followed up by legislative action in Congress. It is the perfect read for this campaign—the most important of our lifetime." —REP. CLAUDIA TENNEY (R-NY)

“As the author of a bestseller about Donald Trump’s many first-term accomplishments, I believe my colleague Joel Pollak has achieved in The Agenda what is needed so urgently now: namely, a carefully crafted policy roadmap that, if secured, could save America and cement Trump as one of its greatest presidents.”—JEROME HUDSON, Breitbart News

About the Author

Joel B. Pollak is Senior Editor-at-Large and In-House Counsel at Breitbart News in Los Angeles, California, and also Editor of Breitbart California. Prior to working alongside conservative media pioneer Andrew Breitbart, he was a Tea Party-backed Republican candidate for Congress in his home state of Illinois, and a Research Fellow at the Hudson Institute, focusing on human rights and international law. He also worked in South Africa as speechwriter for Leader of the Opposition Tony Leon, and as a freelance journalist for a variety of local and international publications. He holds law and bachelor's degrees from Harvard University, and a masters degree from the University of Cape Town. He has published several books, and is a winner of the 2018 Robert Novak Journalism Alumni Fellowship. He hosts Breitbart News Sunday on Sirius XM Patriot 125. He lives with his wife Julia, daughter Maya, son Alexander, and daughter Amira in Pacific Palisades, California.

[

Top](https://www.amazon.com/Agenda-What-Trump-Should-First/dp/164821116X/tag=breitbart035-20#)About this item Similar From the Brand From the Author Questions Reviews The Agenda: What Trump Should Do in His First 100 Days

Product details

Publisher ‏ : ‎ War Room Books
Publication date ‏ : ‎ August 20, 2024

---

GAI’s Seamus Bruner Reveals Left-Wing Funders Such as Roy Singham Behind Antifa Riots

PIX PEACE SIGN Elizabeth Weibel9 Oct 2025

Seamus Bruner, the Director of Research at the Government Accountability Institute (GAI) revealed that left-wing funders such as billionaire Neville Roy Singham were behind left-wing Antifa riots and protests.

During a roundtable event on Antifa with President Donald Trump, Bruner explained that he, GAI President Peter Schweizer, and their team “followed” a trail of money and “followed it to the top of what” they called the Protest Industrial Complex, or Riot Inc. Bruner explained that the so-called “Riot Inc.” was made up of many different divisions, and that “dozens of radical organizations” have received millions of dollars from Riot Inc.

“We found a network of NGOs, it’s not just the Soros network, the Open Society Network. It’s other funding networks, the Arabella Funding Network, the Tides Funding Network, Neville Roy Singham and his network, foreign cash,” Bruner explained. “And, it’s also big left-wing funders — some of them are not citizens of this country.”

Bruner continued to note that these left-wing funders were “pouring money into this entire ecosystem.”

Bruner continued to share “three money facts” about Riot Inc., explaining that there were “many divisions” such as “PR divisions, marketing divisions” and even a “well-funded legal division.”

“Number two, we have identified dozens of radical organizations, not just the decentralized Antifa organizations, but dozens of radical organizations that have received more than one hundred million dollars from the Riot Inc. investors,” Bruner added. “These would be the lawyer groups, these would be the groups that advocate for calling good, honest Americans fascists.”

To View Social MediaAccept Cookies

View on twitter.com

“And then, three, I think the most shocking thing is that we have found that more than one hundred million dollars in U.S. taxpayer funding has flowed into these funding networks, including at least four million dollars to these very groups themselves,” Bruner added.

Bruner’s mention of Singham comes after an investigation by the Breitbart News Foundation reported that while “records from the United Kingdom confirm” that Singham resigned from Thoughtworks, Inc., which he founded in 1993, “Chinese government records suggest otherwise.”

After founding Thoughtworks, Inc. in 1993 and building the company into a software consulting powerhouse, Singham helped orchestrate its sale in October 2017, for approximately $785 million to a group of funds managed by London-based private equity firm Apax Partners. Corporate records from the United Kingdom confirm Singham’s resignation from Thoughtworks the same month, and his own LinkedIn profile says he has been retired since 2017. Thoughtworks’ English-language website relegates him to its “alumni” section, reinforcing the image of a clean break.

But Chinese government records suggest otherwise. These records list Singham as a corporate officer of Thoughtworks’ Chinese subsidiary, Thoughtworks Beijing, as recently as June 17, 2025, and for at least as far back as 2022. These records are from the National Enterprise Credit Reporting System (NECIPS), China’s corporate registry. Other documents, including trade show profile and “help-wanted” ads, listed Singham as Thoughtworks Beijing’s official contact in 2021.

The New York Post reported in June that Singham was set to be called to testify before a congressional committee regarding him funding “radical anti-Israel and Marxist groups” behind the Los Angeles riots.

In an article written by Bruner in June, Bruner detailed how the GAI had uncovered how the “official partners” behind the “No Kings” protests “bagged $114.8 million since 2019 from the Arabella Avisors dark money network an how professional protest organizations use tax dollars as a force multiplier.”

Bruner reported:

The expected worldwide mobilization of protests against President Donald Trump this weekend will hardly be a spontaneous eruption. On the contrary, the tumult is a carefully plotted production organized by The Indivisible Project and financed by the progress dark money network managed/advised by Arabella Advisors, which has perfected the mounting of made-to-order protests. Since 2019, the Arabella network has dumped more than $100 million into the coffers of the official “No Kings” protest partners—including the creator of the official protest song book.

This “grassroots” “nationwide days of defiance” targets Trump and his “billionaire allies,” according to organizers. The Arabella network’s biggest benefactors are the left’s own billionaire heroes, including George Soros, Bill Gates, Hansjorg Wyss, Mark Zuckerberg, and Reid Hoffman.

During the roundtable event, Bruner vowed to “keep following the money,” and expressed that he appreciated “everything” Trump was doing.

---

ggl 8 25

ntbcw old white dude

Media | Mysite

Frances Martel is an author and editor specializing in international current events. She is Breitbart News's National Security editor and a frequent guest on the news organization's SiriusXM programs Breitbart News Daily and Breitbart News Tonight. Her work has been cited across the American political spectrum – from Rush Limbaugh to Lawrence O'Donnell – and she herself has been appearing on radio programs regularly since the age of 18. She has appeared on Ringtalk Radio, The Wayne Allyn Root Show, The Hard Question with Blanquita Cullum, The Wilkow Majority, among others, and on television at Newsmax TV and One America News Network (OANN).

Martel has specialized in analysis detailing the impact of Marxist regimes on their countries, from China to Zimbabwe to her parents' native Cuba. She has also written extensively on religious persecution and human rights abuses in Turkey; the cultural challenges of the 2014 West African Ebola outbreak; and the Venezuelan migrant crisis.

Martel lives in her hometown of Union City, New Jersey with her husband, daughter, and two cats.

Frances Martel, Author at Breitbart

Breitbart

https://www.breitbart.com › author › frances-martel

Breitbart News, Frances Martel, from www.breitbart.com

Articles by Frances Martel · U.N. · Brazil's Lula da Silva Backs Panama Canal Neutrality After Talks with Xi Jinping · South Korean Police Probe 'Gangnam Style' ...

Frances Martel

francesmartel.com

https://www.francesmartel.com

Frances Martel is an author and editor specializing in international current events. She is Breitbart News's National Security editor.

Breitbart International Editor Frances Martel: U.S. Must 'See ...

YouTube · The Adrienne Ross Show

180+ views · 1 year ago

Breitbart News International editor Frances Martel says that the U.S. must "study other countries" for a good reason: "So we can see the ...

Targeting Medical Journals

On Apr. 14, Martin sent a list of questions to the editor of Chest magazine, a medical journal published by the American College of Chest Physicians. The letter accused the journal and others like it of “being partisans in various scientific debates” and asked a series of contentious questions, such as “How do you clearly articulate when you have certain viewpoints that are influenced by your ongoing relations with supporters, funders, advertisers, and others?” and “How do you handle allegations that authors of works in your journals may have misled readers?”

Two other medical journal publishers received similar letters, The New York Times reported. The letters have raised grave concerns about curbing free speech and government intimidation of scientific publications.

ref1

no lnx nyt

Edward Martin wears a gray suit and blue tie as he speaks at a desk with a microphone at the Capitol.

Edward Martin Jr., a Republican activist serving as interim U.S. attorney in Washington, D.C., sent letters to science and medical journals, accusing them of bias.Credit...Amanda Andrade-Rhoades/Associated Press

Teddy RosenbluthRebecca Robbins

By Teddy Rosenbluth and Rebecca Robbins

April 18, 2025

A federal prosecutor has sent letters to at least three medical journals accusing them of political bias and asking a series of probing questions suggesting that the journals mislead readers, suppress opposing viewpoints and are inappropriately swayed by their funders.

The letters were signed by Edward Martin Jr., a Republican activist serving as interim U.S. attorney in Washington, D.C. He has been criticized for using his office to target opponents of President Trump.

Some scientists and doctors said they viewed the letters as a threat from the Trump administration that could have a chilling effect on what journals publish. The health secretary, Robert F. Kennedy Jr., has said he wants to prosecute medical journals, accusing them of lying to the public and colluding with pharmaceutical companies.

One of the letters was sent to the journal Chest, published by the American College of Chest Physicians. The New York Times obtained a copy of the letter.

The Times confirmed that at least two other publishers had received nearly identically worded letters, but those publishers would not speak publicly because they feared retribution from the Trump administration.

In the letter to Chest, dated Monday, Mr. Martin wrote, “It has been brought to my attention that more and more journals and publications like CHEST Journal are conceding that they are partisans in various scientific debates.”

He demanded that the journal’s publishers answer a series of questions by May 2. Do they accept submissions from “competing viewpoints?” What do they do if the authors they published “may have misled their readers?” Are they transparent about influence from “supporters, funders, advertisers and others?”

And he specifically singled out the National Institutes of Health, which funds some of the research the journals publish, asking about the agency’s role “in the development of submitted articles.”

The prosecutor’s inquiry amounts to “blatant political intimidation of our medical journals,” Dr. Adam Gaffney, a pulmonologist and researcher in Massachusetts whose articles have been published in Chest, wrote on X.

It was not clear how many journals had been targeted. Several prominent medical and science publishers said they had not received letters. Others declined requests for comment. News of the letters was earlier reported by MedPage Today, a medical news website.

The U.S. attorney’s office in Washington also declined to comment. Andrew Nixon, a spokesman for the Health and Human Services Department, declined to comment on whether Mr. Kennedy had any involvement.

Laura DiMasi, a spokeswoman for the American College of Chest Physicians, confirmed that the organization had received the letter but declined an interview request.

Most of what medical journals publish is highly technical, aimed at an audience of specialists. But they and the organizations that publish them have increasingly come under attack. Right-leaning sites like Breitbart have derided them as “woke medical journals.”

The Alliance Defending Freedom, a conservative Christian legal group, has been attacking the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, which publishes a journal and runs a variety of reproductive health programs. It has received federal funding for an effort to promote maternal health. The alliance recently urged the Trump administration to cut funding and investigate the group, saying it was pushing liberal ideas about diversity and gender.

Several journals or their publishers have publicly opposed Mr. Trump.

In January, the American Public Health Association, which publishes a journal, was among several groups that sued the Trump administration over a memo freezing federal funding. That policy that has now been rescinded, though the administration has since halted other funds.

In March, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists called mass layoffs at H.H.S. an “attack on public health.”

In 2020, The New England Journal of Medicine published an editorial condemning Mr. Trump’s response to the pandemic — the first time the journal had taken a position in an election in its 208-year history. The journal Nature endorsed Joseph R. Biden Jr. for president in the 2020 election and spoke out against a second Trump term during the 2024 election.

Medical journals are afforded the same First Amendment protections as any other news media outlet.

Kent Anderson, a consultant for scientific publishers who has written about conservative attacks on medical journals, said that Mr. Martin’s inquiry could have a chilling effect among publishers.

“This is a fishing expedition from a U.S. attorney, and that makes people nervous,” Mr. Anderson said. “It may make them think twice about an editorial about treating women who have a spontaneous abortion or about transgender teens dealing with a health issue, because it may make them think that somebody is going to knock on the door.”

Mr. Kennedy had been nursing grievances about scientific journals for years. Medical and science publishers have long rejected article submissions that purport to show a link between vaccines and autism. (Dozens of studies have failed to establish such a link.)

He said in a podcast interview last year that he would seek to prosecute medical journals under the federal anti-corruption statute.

“I’m going to litigate against you under the racketeering laws, under the general tort laws,” he said. “I’m going to find a way to sue you unless you come up with a plan right now to show how you’re going to start publishing real science and stop retracting the real science and publishing the fake pharmaceutical science by these phony industry mercenaries.”

As examples, he pointed to two prominent journals, The New England Journal of Medicine and The Lancet, and the scientific publishing giant, Elsevier.

Other top health officials in the Trump administration have also criticized the big scientific publishers. In a book published last year, Dr. Martin A. Makary, the new commissioner of the Food and Drug Administration, accused journal editorial boards of “gate-keeping” and publishing only information that supports a “groupthink narrative.”

Before becoming director of the N.I.H., Dr. Jay Bhattacharya publicly chastised the editor in chief of a prominent journal, Science, claiming he had “publicly denigrated scientists” who opposed Covid-era lockdowns. Dr. Bhattacharya was widely denounced by mainstream scientists during the pandemic for proposing that the virus should allowed to spread naturally through the population.

Dr. Bhattacharya also co-founded a new journal pitched as an alternative to traditional scientific publishing. It has published contrarian views on Covid.

Christina Jewett contributed reporting.

Teddy Rosenbluth is a health reporter and a member of the 2024-25 Times Fellowship class, a program for journalists early in their careers.

Rebecca Robbins is a reporter covering the pharmaceutical industry. She has been reporting on health and medicine since 2015.

See more on: U.S. Politics, 2024 Elections: News, Polls and Analysis, American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, National Institutes of Health, Health and Human Services Department, Donald Trump

---

an 4 25

Kristina Wong, a correspondent for the far-right Breitbart News who has publicly glorified the January 6, 2021 insurrection, was appointed chief spokesperson for the Department of the Navy, where she will also serve as Director of Communications for Secretary of the Navy John C. Phelan.

In a post on the social platform X on Tuesday, Phelan announced her appointment.

Social media users including journalists and commentators raised concerns over Wong's old Jan. 6 posts from the Capitol where she appeared to cheer on the rioters who stormed the state building.

ALSO READ:Jan. 6 defendant caught with child porn argues Trump’s pardon should include that too

Defense One reporter Meghann Myers wrote, "It should be noted that it’s pretty unusual for a service secretary to have a civilian PAO. They are usually O-6s."

IFrame Content

Content creator Peston Steward shareda screenshot of Wong mocking him with an insulting image and wrote, "Would not have guessed a few months ago that this person was about to become the official Navy spokesperson."

Capitol Hunters, an account dedicated to sharing information about Jan 6. insurrectionists, posted a thread with screenshots of Wong's old X posts in which she appeared to celebrate the Capitol attack while covering it for her news outlet.

"Her worst post might be this one: she flippantly captioned a video of people attacking the North Doors: 'Things got a lil sporty here'. To her it was a joke," the account said.

ALSO READ: 'Desperate': Ex-White House staffer rips Miller for saying J6ers were denied 'due process'

Earlier this month, CBS reported that Wong is under consideration to become the chief spokesperson for Phelan.

The CBS report pointed out that Wong filed a story for Breitbart on April 15 on the removal of Dan Caldwell, a top adviser to Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth. But Wong's article failed to mention that she was under consideration for a role at the Pentagon while serving as a Pentagon correspondent for Breitbart, violating standard ethical practices in journalism.

Jim LaPorta, the CBS reporter who wrote the story, also took to X and said, "The Navy Secretary just confirmed my @CBSNews scoop from last week which means while actively covering the Pentagon as a reporter for a news outlet, Wong was interviewing for a role at the Pentagon which was not disclosed to readers of her publication."

ALSO READ:'Get your weapon!' Violent MAGA man launches run for Congress

---

MMA

MAGA media’s rising influence with the Trump administration

Written by Gideon Taaffe & Jack Winstanley

Research contributions from Kayla Gogarty & Jack Wheatley

:{Published 02/26/25

President Donald Trump has been openly courting MAGA media figures — giving them significant access to his new administration and even appointing former Fox News hosts to prominent positions in the government.

The Trump administration has simultaneously welcomed MAGA influencers into the White House, Cabinet departments, and other federal agencies while restricting access of mainstream media that have long covered those institutions. Many of these right-wing media figures have previously spread outright misinformation and hateful conspiracy theories — and now some of them appear to be giving policy cues to the new administration.

The Trump White House has become increasingly hostile to mainstream media as it favors right-wing influencers}:

- Trump terminated The Associated Press’ access “in the Oval Office, on Air Force One and at other White House events” because the outlet refused to update its style guidelines after he changed the name of the Gulf of Mexico to the “Gulf of America.” Politico reported, “President Donald Trump personally decided to bar The Associated Press from some White House events and spaces, the White House said in court documents Monday.” Press secretary Karoline Leavitt announced on February 25 that the White House will now directly control which outlets are in the press pool, a task historically managed by the White House Correspondents’ Association. Politico, [2/24/25; The Hill, 2/25/25]

- The Pentagon announced that NBC, The New York Times, NPR, and Politico will “rotate out of the building” to make space for the New York Post, One America News Network, Breitbart, and others. The switch is the first iteration of the Pentagon’s new “Annual Media Rotation Program,” which The Washington Post reports “will swap news outlets from print, TV, radio and online news for other organizations that have not had the opportunity to report from the office space, according to the memo.” The Washington Post, [2/1/25; The Daily Beast, 1/31/25]

- The White House began using the “new media” seat at the White House press briefings to let in far right-wing voices. The “new media” seat was established to “welcome independent journalists, podcasters, social media influencers, and content creators” to the White House. White House, [1/29/25; Columbia Journalism Review, 2/19/25]

- Trump’s first administration fostered a feedback loop between the White House and Fox News. The first Trump administration regularly relied on Fox News talking points and hired at least 20 former Fox employees. This feedback loop seems primed to continue in his second term, with Fox News recently hiring the president’s daughter-in-law, Lara Trump, to host a weekly show. Media Matters, [11/19/24; MSNBC, 2/6/25]

- Trump has already appointed many members of right-wing media to high-level positions in his second administration. These appointments include former Fox News personalities Pete Hegseth, Sean Duffy, and Tulsi Gabbard as Cabinet secretaries. Other Fox News personalities like Leo Terrell and Dan Bongino have similarly been appointed to high-level positions. Trump has also included more fringe members of right-wing media like Darren Beattie and Kash Patel. Media Matters, [11/14/24, 1/17/25, 2/24/25, 1/28/25; CNN, 2/12/25; CBS News, 1/28/25; Reuters, 2/4/25]

## MAGA media figures have been given extensive access to the administration

- Real America’s Voice correspondent Ben Bergquam, Fox News’ Bill Melugin, and conservative personality Dr. Phil (real name Phil McGraw) have all participated in ride-alongs for ICE raids or Border Patrol activities. In one video posted by Dr. Phil, he can be seen standing alongside Trump “border czar” Tom Homan and questioning a detained individual about his background and immigration status. YouTube,[; Fox News, 1/23/25; People magazine, 1/31/25]

- White House press briefings have welcomed various MAGA media figures and influencers — some of whom have occupied the “new media” seat. According to Media Matters’ internal data, Rumble CEO Chris Pavlovski, Breitbart’s Matthew Boyle, Real America's Voice’s Brian Glenn, The Gateway Pundit’s Jordan Conradson, and conservative podcasters Sage Steele and the hosts of the Ruthless Podcast have all appeared at the White House briefings. Other attendees have included OAN’s Daniel Baldwin, Newsmax’s James Rosen, Turning Point USA’s Monica Paige Luisi, and The Daily Caller’s Reagan Reese. Instagram, [2/12/25; WhiteHouse.gov, 1/29/25]

- Pavlovski also visited the Federal Communications Commission and met with Chairman Brendan Carr, who said, “His commitment to free speech and diversity of viewpoints serves as a terrific model for all business.” Twitter/X, [2/12/25]

- Conservative radio hosts Clay Travis and Buck Sexton were invited to broadcast their show from the Pentagon. Pentagon spokesperson Sean Parnell had previously been interviewed on Travis and Sexton’s show and stated: “You all are welcome anytime in the Pentagon press room, or if you want to broadcast from the Pentagon, we will figure out a way to make that [happen].” Axios, [2/18/25]

- Conservative streamer Benny Johnson posted an image with Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Lee Zeldin, promising that “video soon will blow your mind” and proclaiming his visit was a “Front Seat to the Golden Era.” Johnson additionally stated that Zeldin “has got some amazing things going on at The EPA. Can’t believe how much I enjoyed my time in the building today.” Twitter/X, [2/19/25]

- Former Fox Nation host Lara Logan, who has a history of pushing conspiracy theories, reportedly joined a formal State Department listening session about international aid. NPR reported: “She spoke for about five minutes — longer than other participants, according to five people who attended the event. … They say Logan charged that foreign aid programs were rife with corruption and demanded accountability. According to three attendees, Logan repeatedly invoked the idea that crimes had been committed and called for imprisonment of those involved. Logan said in Texas, where she lives, the middle class had been hollowed out, and money used for foreign aid instead should go to support those families.” NPR, [2/20/25; Media Matters, 3/18/22]

- On January 28, Turning Point USA’s Charlie Kirk posted an image of himself sitting alongside Vice President JD Vance on a plane, writing, “Thanks for the ride Mr. Vice President!”Kirk also joined Donald Trump Jr. on his trip to Greenland ahead of his father’s inauguration, posting a picture of himself alongside the president’s son on January 7. Twitter/X, [1/28/25; The Independent, 1/7/25]

- Right-wing pundit Jack Posobiec, who previously promoted the Pizzagate conspiracy theory, was invited to participate in Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth’s first official trip to Europe. Posobiec has also shared a video of Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent in Ukraine, posted an image of himself in a conference room in front of U.S. and Ukrainian flags, and claimed to be present for a meeting with President Volodymyr Zelensky. The Washington Post, [2/13/25; NPR, 2/21/25; Instagram, 2/13/25; Media Matters, 11/14/18]

- The Trump administration invited Dom Lucre, who has pushed conspiracy theories and misinformation, to attend a February 20 White House reception in honor of Black History Month. Lucre posted a video from the event with the caption: “President Trump has hundreds of Black conservatives at the White House to celebrate Black History month. The White House is currently filled with laughter, hope, and happiness.” Lucre previously made headlines when his X account was banned and then unbanned after posting imagery depicting child sexual abuse. Twitter/X, [2/15/25, 2/20/25; Forbes, 7/7/23]

- Former ESPN reporter Sage Steele, who now has a right-leaning podcast, was also invited to the White House for the Black History Month reception. Steele was pulled “off the air at ESPN after she called vaccine mandates ‘sick’ and ‘scary’ and questioned why former President Barack Obama identifies as Black even though he was raised by his white mother.” Failed Republican Senate candidate Herschel Walker also reportedly attended the February 20 White House event. The Associated Press, [2/21/25; NPR, 10/6/21]

## MAGA voices — including some who have spread extreme conspiracy theories — are seemingly influencing the administration’s policies

- Far-right activist and self-proclaimed “proud Islamophobe” Laura Loomer claimed Trump “took her advice” before calling for the United States to “take back” the Panama Canal. On February 7, Loomer claimed that Trump “actually called me one day, during the last election season, and was asking me about the Darién Gap, and he was asking me about my videos and my trip to Panama.” She noted that she urged Trump to “make it a policy position to take back the Panama Canal.” Media Matters, [2/11/25]

- The official U.S. Army account on X shared a post from far-right account “Libs of TikTok” and replied: “This is an old memo. DEI is dead at #USArmy.” In another post, Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth replied directly to Libs of TikTok to say he was addressing the account’s concerns that an Air Force medical form “is asking for s*xual orientation, gender identity, and pronouns.” Libs of TikTok has repeatedly spread anti-LGBTQ hate and has supported the white nationalist “great replacement” conspiracy theory. Twitter/X, [2/14/25, 2/24/25; Media Matters, 3/15/24]

- Constitutional Sheriffs and Peace Officers Association founder Richard Mack and online influencer Ann Vandersteel, who have both peddled conspiracy theories, claimed to have had direct communications with Trump “border czar” Tom Homan about mass deportations following the 2024 election.Vandersteel said she's had “private conversations” with Homan and Mack said he's “had several conversations” with Homan about mass deportations. Media Matters, [12/4/24, 12/10/24]

- Health misinformer Christiane Northrup said she was “working with people who are working in” the Department of Health and Human Services with Robert F. Kennedy Jr.Northup has claimed COVID-19 “was part of a plot involving Deep State brainwashing and treacherous depopulation schemes,” “called the Centers for Disease Control a ‘covid death cult,’ and described the [COVID-19] vaccines as crimes against humanity.” Other anti-vaccine figures have also claimed to be “working with,” consulting, or sending recommendations about public health policy to Trump’s advisers. Media Matters, [2/4/25]

- In July 2023, MAGA podcaster Dan Bongino said, “I'm going to ask President Trump personally to be the FBI director to fire all of you,” claiming the bureau had worked to cover up alleged crimes by the Biden family; Trump has now appointed him to be the deputy FBI director. Accusing the bureau of being “totally, completely corrupt,” Bongino added, “I'm going to say can I be the FBI director just to fire everyone who knew about this, everyone, and didn't have the balls to say something?” Rumble, *The Dan Bongino Show*, [7/21/23; Politico, 2/23/25]

---

===

mma 9 24

MAGA media are attacking ProPublica’s comprehensive account of the role Georgia’s six-week abortion ban played in a woman's death

Special ProgramsAbortion Rights & Reproductive Health

Written by Chloe Simon

Published 09/19/24

Right-wing media are attacking a ProPublica piece scrutinizing the death of Amber Nicole Thurman, who died after she could not get an abortion in her state and then got delayed abortion care in a local hospital.

The piece elaborates on Thurman’s “preventable” death and Georgia’s strict abortion ban and vague language on “life of the mother” exceptions. Thurman had to travel to North Carolina for a dilation and curettage because she was past the six-week limit in Georgia, but traffic made her miss her appointment, so she received medication abortion instead. She suffered a rare complication, and doctors at a Georgia hospital failed to perform the needed D&C until it was too late.

Right-wing and anti-abortion media have denounced ProPublica’s report as “lies” and claimed that Georgia’s abortion law is not the reason for Thurman’s death.

## ProPublica’s report on Thurman’s death shows how Georgia’s abortion ban puts patients and doctors in harm’s way

- On September 16, ProPublica published an investigative report detailing the death of Amber Nicole Thurman, who suffered rare complications after receiving abortion medication and then waited 20 hours to get a needed D&C.Thurman had scheduled a dilation and curettage in North Carolina because she was nine weeks pregnant and her home state of Georgia bans abortions after six weeks, but she missed her appointment due to heavy traffic. The clinic, which was four hours away from Thurman’s home, gave her a “two-pill abortion regimen” for her pregnancy, which was “well within the standard of care for that treatment.” After suffering complications from the medication, which are exceedingly rare, Thurman went to a Georgia hospital, where doctors waited 20 hours to perform a D&C. Thurman, who ProPublica described as being “otherwise healthy,” died at 28 years old. ProPublica, [9/16/24]

- Abortion pills mifepristone and misoprostol are incredibly safe and effective forms of medication. A CNN data analysis showed that abortion medication is “safer than penicillin and Viagra,” as both medications have higher death rates than mifepristone and misoprostol. Salon also noted that medication abortion “has a mortality rate of .0003%, which is 1 in every 377,000 cases. (Out of 377,000 women who give birth, in contrast, 83 will die.)” CNN, [6/13/24; Salon, 9/19/24]

- In 2019, Georgia passed the LIFE Act, which bans abortion after six weeks and forced Thurman to travel to North Carolina for abortion care. Thurman was forced to make the long trip to North Carolina to obtain the D&C because Georgia had banned the procedure with “few exceptions.” ProPublica explained that Georgia law specifically “prohibits doctors from using any instrument ‘with the purpose of terminating a pregnancy.’” Thurman also did not meet the requirements for Georgia’s “lifesaving exceptions” for an abortion. ProPublica noted that “while removing fetal tissue is not terminating a pregnancy, medically speaking, the law only specifies it’s not considered an abortion to remove ‘a dead unborn child’ that resulted from a ‘spontaneous abortion’ defined as ‘naturally occurring’ from a miscarriage or a stillbirth.” Thurman had told her doctors that she was not experiencing a spontaneous abortion, as she had already taken abortion medication to end a pregnancy. Reuters, [10/25/23; ProPublica, 9/16/24]

- The Guttmacher Institute has described bills like Georgia’s LIFE Act as “designed to be unworkable, containing vague and contradictory language and imposing cumbersome requirements.”In 2019, abortion activists had warned that the bill’s language was vague and could lead to harsh legal penalties for those who obtain abortions and those who perform them. Krystal Redman, the executive director of Spark Reproductive Justice Now, said that “eliminating a health care option” would be a “disservice” as Georgians are already “dying because of the maternal health here in Georgia.” In Thurman’s case, Salon also argued that “doctors still had every reason to be afraid” to perform a D&C because if “Thurman had received timely medical care and survived, a right-wing prosecutor could argue she wasn't that sick to begin with.” Guttmacher, [7/29/24; Vox, 6/28/19; Salon, 9/19/24]

## Right-wing and anti-abortion media are accusing ProPublica of “telling lies” and of incorrectly blaming Georgia’s abortion law for Thurman’s death

- Anti-abortion activist Lila Rose attacked the piece, claiming that it’s “a complete lie.”She accused ProPublica of using “tragic medical malpractice cases that have nothing to do with making abortion illegal to justify legalizing the killing of babies on demand.” Twitter/X, [9/17/24]

- Right-wing social media personality Amuse suggested that the ProPublica piece was “misinformation” and that the Georgia abortion law “was NOT a factor in the death of Amber Thurman.”The post also stated, “Mrs. Thurman sought and received a medication abortion and tragically died from an infection caused by the abortion. Doctors were unable to save her by the time she made it to the ER and was diagnosed.” Twitter/X, [9/17/24]

- Anti-abortion group Live Action claimed that Thurman’s death was “preventable” and that “abortion and medical neglect killed her.”The group further claimed that “if abortion pills were illegal, Amber Thurman would be alive today. Her twins would be alive today.” Twitter/X, [9/18/24, 9/18/24]

- Grabien founder Tom Elliott wrote, “The pro-abortion crowd would have you believe that Amber Thurman would still be alive were abortion readily available in Georgia. But that’s not what the details reveal.”He continued, “ProPublica cited no evidence that the delayed procedure related to Georgia’s abortion ban and not the kind of routine delays so often plaguing understaffed hospitals.” Twitter/X, [9/17/24]

Breitbart published a piece titled “Left-Wing ProPublica Ties Georgia Abortion Law to Woman’s Death Without Clear Evidence.”T}:he article goes on to claim that “Thurman’s story, in addition to other tragic stories, is already being used by Democrats to promote their agenda of undoing all abortion restrictions by passing a federal law that allows abortion-on-demand.” Breitbart, [9/18/24]|

- Anti-abortion group SBA Pro-Life claimed, “Georgia’s pro-life law is not the reason for her death. Dangerous abortion drugs, and fearmongering about pro-life laws, are.”The group added, “shame on @ProPublica for their distortions.” Twitter/X, [9/17/24]

* Washington Examiner’s David Harsanyi wrote that the “ProPublica piece on Amber Thurman's death is a masterclass in hackery and conjecture.” He went on to say that there’s “literally nothing in the piece backing the claim that Thurman died because of GA's abortion law.” Twitter/X, [9/17/24]

- The Federalist wrote, “Media, Democrats Blame Pro-Lifers After The Abortion Pill They Promote Killed A Woman And Her Babies.”The piece claimed that “all evidence suggests Thurman’s death was due to medical negligence egged on by leftist fearmongering about lifesaving laws that provably protect women and babies from harm.” The Federalist, [9/18/24]

- Anti-abortion organization Secular Pro-Life claimed that “Amber Nicole Thurman died after legally obtaining abortion pills in North Carolina. Pro-abortion activists are falsely blaming Georgia law for her death.”Twitter/X, [9/17/24]

- Right-wing social media figures Keith and Kevin Hodge called ProPublica’s headline a “total lie,” saying that “she didn’t die because she couldn’t get an abortion. She took the abortion pills but the hospital waited too long to do surgery.” They also added that “the hospital is at fault.” Twitter/X, [9/16/24]

- The Family Research Council praised the work of Susan B. Anthony Pro Life and Live Action for “separating fact from fiction in the ProPublica story.”Twitter/X, [9/17/24]

### Broadcast news, Fox News failed to cover deaths stemming from Georgia's six-week abortion ban

09/19/24

### Project 2025 partner president makes misleading claims about IVF and hospital treatment of women dealing with miscarriages

09/13/24

### Anti-abortion groups have launched aggressive lobbying campaigns against ballot abortion access amendments across the country

09/05/24

---

mma 7 24

in a new analysis of electric vehicle-related content on Facebook, Media Matters found that negative stories made up the vast majority of content, particularly on right-leaning and politically nonaligned U.S. news and political pages, a trend which does not align with the optimistic outlook of EV adoption and technological advancements.

Since 2021, the Biden administration has allocated billions of dollars toward meeting the ambitious goal of making half of all new cars sold electric or hybrid over the next few years. Provisions in the Inflation Reduction Act, the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act and the CHIPS Act have provided tax credits and other incentives to jump start electric vehicle sales and infrastructure such as charging stations, domestic battery manufacturing, critical mineral acquisition, in addition to preparing the automotive industry workforce for the transition.

In March, an Environmental Protection Agency rule setting strict limits on pollution from new gas-powered cars primed automakers for success in meeting these goals.

Biden’s EV push will continue to play an important role in the upcoming presidential election. Former president and current GOP candidate Donald Trump has insisted that Biden’s policies benefit China, which makes up the largest share of the global EV market. In March, while talking about the current state of the auto industry, Trump declared, “If I don’t get elected, it’s going to be a bloodbath for the whole — that’s going to be the least of it. It’s going to be a bloodbath for the country.” Economists disagree.

The comment tracks with years of outrage and opposition from Republican politicians, right-wing media, and fossil fuel industry surrogates, who have often disparaged the new technology and related policy and misleadingly framed the EV push as a threat to American jobs and national security.

Constant attacks on EVs from the right have helped fuel a politically divided market, where people who identify as Democrats are now much more likely to buy them or consider buying them, while nearly 70% of Republican respondents to a recent poll said they “would not buy” an EV. So far in 2024, headline after headline announced EV sales slumps and proclaimed that “EV euphoria is dead,'' despite reports of “robust” growth. In February, CNN changed a headline about EV sales on its website from a success story to a failure. Despite the positive long term outlook for EVs based on indicators like sales and government investments, the discourse around electric vehicles is often pessimistic.

Nowhere is this phenomenon more visible than on social media.

Media Matters compiled and analyzed Facebook posts related to EVs from U.S. news and political pages between January 1 and June 1 of this year and found that the majority of posts framed EVs in a negative light. The analysis also found that negative posts earned more than triple the interactions that content with a positive or neutral framing earned.

Media Matters also isolated Facebook posts from right-leaning U.S. news and political pages. In both this data set and the data set that included pages of all political leanings, the subject we saw the most was automakers or car rental companies rolling back their commitments to selling EVs.

## Key findings
- Between January 1 and June 1, 81% of the posts analyzed were related to sales setbacks, performance or charging issues, or other negative press. These posts had over 1.3 million interactions, accounting for 79% of total interactions related to EVs.

- Posts related to automakers or car rental companies rolling back their commitments to selling EVs made up over a third of this content. Another popular topic focused on performance issues sometimes exacerbated by cold weather, which made up 20% of posts related to EVs.

- Nearly three quarters (74%) of EV-related posts on nonaligned pages (neither left-leaning or right-leaning) had a negative framing. These posts generated 83% of all interactions on EV-related posts from nonaligned pages.

- Out of the top 100 posts related to EVs on right-leaning pages, 95% were negative. Of the negative posts, 43% were related to automakers or car rental companies rolling back their commitments to selling EVs -- these posts earned over 477,000 interactions.

## Posts that were negative about EVs — covering sales setbacks, performance issues, charging issues, and other negative press — earned 79% of total interactions, or 3 times more than content that had a positive or neutral framing combined

While EVs are experiencing some growing pains, particularly in the U.S., BloombergNEF recently found that “EV adoption is still growing, despite the mixed near-term outlook.” Despite what Canary media calls “day-to-day messiness of the transitioning auto industry” the reality is that “more than one-fifth of the vehicles sold worldwide will be an EV or a PHEV this year. In 2018, just about 2 percent of cars sold fit into this category.” If EVs in the U.S. follow an S-curve trajectory, which has been established by EV markets in China and Europe, rapid growth is likely in the coming years.

However, on Facebook Media Matters found that this “day-to-day messiness” appears to be getting much more attention than the big picture. Negative stories related to EVs represented 81 out of 100 posts and generated 1.3 million interactions. That’s far more than more positive stories (15% of interactions) or neutral stories which presented both pros and cons (7%).

Even though EV owners are largely satisfied with their purchases overall, the emerging industry is still responding to challenges. These issues, particularly frustration with charging networks, which increase concerns about driving range, are a speed bump on the road to electrifying transportation.

Facebook users were drawn to news stories about Teslas breaking down in the cold, or people waiting in lines for hours to charge their EVs.

Some of the positive stories, which were apparently largely overlooked, included news of expanding charging networks in states like Florida, Michigan, and California. In another post, President Joe Biden declared that “the future of electric vehicles will be made in America by union workers.”

## Posts about automakers or car rental companies rolling back their commitments to EVs drove engagement
In 2024, auto giants like Ford and General Motors, which are at the forefront of the transition to EVs in the U.S., announced they would be delaying the rollout of new electric models or cutting back on production commitments because of lower than anticipated demand.

The top post on right-leaning pages during the study period, which was posted by Breitbart and earned 58,283 interactions, highlighted that Ford lost $1.3 billion on EVs in the first quarter of 2024. Anothertop post, from a local Fox affiliate in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, featured a story with the headline “Hertz selling 20,000 EVs from rental fleet; will invest in gas-powered vehicles.” This post earned 76,224 interactions.

The rental car company later announced it would be selling more EVs after it made a deal with Tesla to offer the cars to renters and the value of the cars went down. On top of that, Tesla has had its own challenges. In April, the company reported that its first-quarter earnings plunged by 48%.

Stories about automakers and EV sales garnered 675,188 interactions (38%) compared to content about charging infrastructure (164,150 interactions, or 9%) or even EV trouble in cold weather (295,794 interactions, or 17%).

When looking at the top 100 posts from right-leaning political pages only, Media Matters found a similar pattern. Posts related to automakers or EV sales garnered 477,233 interactions (45%). Posts about charging infrastructure earned just 7% and posts about performance issues, particularly in cold weather, earned 10% of interactions. The remaining posts covered an even wider range of different topics.

Importantly, EV sales are still growing, despite setbacks. In May, Ford reported a 65% increase in hybrid and EV sales. Also in May, Bloomberg reported that “EV sales are still booming for most automakers — even if Tesla is in a nut.” The article pointed out that, “Six of the 10 biggest EV makers in the US saw sales grow at a scorching pace compared to a year ago.”

On the predicament at Hertz, CNN reportedthat the problem,“wasn’t necessarily that the cars were electric, and customers simply do not want to drive electric cars. The problem was how Hertz handled the fleet in general.” For example, Hertz did not have charging stations at its rental locations, and the company has been mired by other issues as well. This important context was largely omitted from the post text, headlines, or first paragraphs of the top posts Media Matters analyzed. On Facebook, the optimistic long-term outlook on EV growth was largely ignored.

## Politically nonaligned pages — not just right-leaning ones — helped drive engagement around negative stories

* Right-wing media have been driving anti-EV sentiment (with help from fossil fuel industry allies) since the start of Biden’s term. This trend was clearly reflected in Media Matters’ analysis. Out of the top 100 posts related to EVs on right-leaning pages, 95% were negative, earning over a million interactions in 2024 so far.

But on Facebook, politically nonaligned pages fed into this trend as well. Nearly three quarters (74%) of EV related top posts on nonaligned pages had a negative framing. These posts generated 83% of all interactions on EV-related top posts from nonaligned pages.

Some of the same headlines that received attention on right-leaning pages also got attention on nonaligned pages. Several local news outlets highlighted Ford and Hertz’s losses, along with other problems related to EVs struggling to charge in cold weather.

Our analysis indicates that media on Facebook are not contextualizing conversations about the so-called EV sales slump, and other problems that most nascent technologies inevitably face. The nation is undertaking a massive and necessary transition to electrify the transportation sector, reduce car dependency, and expand access to public transit. Transforming the transportation sector in this way will not only cut planet-warming carbon pollution, but will also improve health outcomes for many Americans.

## Methodology
Using CrowdTangle, Media Matters compiled a list of 1,773 Facebook pages that frequently posted about U.S. politics. For an explanation of how we compiled pages and identified them as right-leaning, left-leaning, or ideologically nonaligned, see the methodology here. The resulting list consisted of 771 right-leaning pages, 497 ideologically nonaligned pages, and 505 left-leaning pages.

===

JUDD HEATED ETC SaiD TARGET BY FB? SAME DEAL?

AN 6 24

The biggest conservative news outlets are seeing a precipitous decline in traffic to their websites, and it's showing no sign of abating despite 2024 being a high-profile election season.

On Wednesday, Daily Beast media reporter Justin Baragona tweeted traffic data compiled by media analyst Howard Polskin's website TheRighting.com, which specializes in tracking conservative media. Polskin assembled a table showing the number of unique visitors (individual internet users who visit a website) a site received in May of 2020 compared to May of 2024, along with a percentage difference in the subsequent column.

Polskin found that high-profile far-right websites like Breitbart, Daily Wire, The Blaze, National Review, Daily Caller and the Federalist all saw sharp drops in unique visitors between the 2020 election cycle and the 2024 cycle. Breitbart — which was led by Steve Bannon before he joined former President Donald Trump's campaign and administration — saw its unique visitors drop from more than five million in 2020 to just over 500,000 last month – a 90% drop. The Federalist, which was co-founded by Meghan McCain's husband, Ben Domenech, saw its unique user count plummet from 3.3 million to 166,000, which is a 95% decline.

While traffic to other, larger mainstream outlets is also down, the rapid cratering of unique user numbers is mostly concentrated among right-wing media.

Baragona pointing out that

"Even compared to last year, most of the top right-wing media outlets have seen a traffic tailspin. Year over year, the Washington Examiner is down 72%, Outkick has dropped 46% and The Federalist has lost 79% of its audience," Baragona tweeted. "Meanwhile, compared to May 2023, the NYT is up 10%."

One culprit of this traffic decline could be due to Facebook adjusting its algorithm – which is the code that dictates what users see in their respective news feeds — in recent years. In April, Polskin noted that traffic for pro-Trump sites was down by roughly 40% over the past four years, which lines up with Facebook co-founder and CEO Mark Zuckerberg's announcement of changes to the algorithm. In 2018, Zuckerberg announced the feed would begin prioritizing content from users' friends and family over more overtly political content from pages.

Following the changes to the Facebook algorithm, publishers like Dan Bongino, Franklin Graham and Daily Wire, which used to frequently top the social media platform's engagement lists, saw significant drops in likes, comments and shares on their content.

"The flow of traffic to Donald Trump’s most loyal digital-media boosters isn’t just slowing, as in the rest of the industry; it’s utterly collapsing," Atlantic contributor Paul Farhi wrote at the time.

However, this problem may not be confined to news outlets. Baragona observed that Trump's Truth Social platform also saw a significant decline in unique users. In May of 2024, Truth Social had just 2.7 million unique users, which is a 14% drop compared to May of 2023. This marked the platform's second-worst performing month since its launch.

Click here to read Baragona's thread on X (formerly Twitter).

wannabe trolls?

an 12 23

Since the Colorado Supreme Court ruled last week that Donald Trump is ineligible to appear on the 2024 Republican primary ballot under Section 3 of the 14th Amendment — which says an "officer" cannot participate in an insurrection — three GOP lawmakers have worked to keep President Joe Biden off the 2024 ballot as well, Truthout reports.

Per the report, "In a statement to the far right website:(style="background-color:#e0e000ff"):}: **:{Breitbart, Rep. Aaron Bernstine (R-Pennsylvania), Rep. Charlice Byrd (R-Georgia) and Rep. Cory McGarr (R-Arizona) explicitly cited the court ruling from last week as their motivation. The GOP representatives described the court's decision as 'lawfare,' despite strong evidence demonstrating Trump did indeed engage in insurrectionist behavior."

Furthermore, the news outlet reports the Republican lawmakers' rationale "has nothing to do with insurrection," but with "disagreements over policies on immigration and border security, as well as" Biden's "'alleged corrupt family business dealings with China,' which Republicans have yet to actually demonstrate beyond innuendo and unsubstantiated assertions.'"

The lawmakers wrote, "The absurdity of radical Democrat judges removing Donald Trump from the ballot in Colorado will be a stain on the American political system for decades. By their very own interpretation of the law, Joe Biden is 100% not eligible to run for political office."

The news outlet reports, "This effort to disqualify Biden from being able to run isn't the only action being taken by Republicans in the wake of the Colorado ruling — Texas Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick (R), for instance, has similarly said he may try to block Biden from his state’s ballot, citing the same dubious claim that Biden’s border policies make him an insurrectionist."

Truthout also notes, "A snap poll from YouGov the day after the Colorado Supreme Court ruling found that 54 percent of Americans approved of the court's action, with only 35 percent opposed to it. Although quick turnaround polls such as this one aren't the most scientifically accurate, the poll suggests that a significant portion of the U.S. electorate likely approves of pursuing this option in other states to block Trump from being president again."

---

mma 3 23

the right-wing media echo chamber pushed a completely fictional talking point that Silicon Valley Bank had supposedly donated $73 million to Black Lives Matter, based on distortions from a far-right think tank. And in Fox News’ rush to amplify the falsehoods, which fit the network’s preposterous political narrative that SVB was a “woke bank,” purported “news” personnel behaved no differently from the network’s opinion hosts.

As a prime example of Fox’s “news” personalities pushing blatantly partisan falsehoods, on the morning of March 15, Fox News White House correspondent Peter Doocy claimed: “Roughly $73 million went to Black Lives Matter-related causes” from the bank. [vid]

and later that night, Fox host Sean Hannity said that Silicon Valley Bank “diverted a massive amount of money to left-wing causes. Now, get this, this is what we have discovered, that includes a whopping $73 million to BLM-related groups."[vid]

this is the same network that, as recently unearthed text messages and emails have shown, will actively reprimand and penalize its alleged “straight news” reporters for debunking misinformation pushed by its opinion hosts and their guests. As such, nobody in the network would have any incentive to even try to unearth the facts, because Fox News is not in any sense a real news organization.

Actual SVB donations to Black Lives Matter: $0.00

The charge itself that SVB contributed over $70 million to Black Lives Matter or closely aligned organizations is based on a supposed “BLM-funding database” maintained by the Claremont Institute, a right-wing and openly anti-democracy organization that is also closely tied to disgraced former law professor John Eastman, who was closely involved in former President Donald Trump’s efforts to overturn the 2020 election results.

The Associated Press confirmed that the database does not show any spending to Black Lives Matter, and obtained a comment in which Claremont explained it was including “reparative initiatives,” which it called “race-based, discriminatory hiring programs; race-based, sub-prime lending; partisan voter initiatives; and DEI efforts.” The AP also obtained a comment from the Black Lives Matter Global Network Foundation, which confirmed it did not receive $70 million from the bank, and added: “Even if we did, the idea that this type of contribution would be controversial is rooted in a pathology that Black organizations don’t deserve to be funded.”

In addition, professor Rodney Ramcharan at the University of Southern California’s Marshall School of Business explained to the AP what actual evidence of bank failure due to “woke” business practices might look like, if such a thing existed. “The bank would have suffered loan losses—writing down bad loans made to ‘woke’ firms,” he explained. “So this is not a matter of opinion, but actual data. Instead, there are no unusual loan losses or loan loss provisioning.” (Claremont had cited “sub-prime lending” as a component of such alleged “woke” practices.)

The database labels any donations that support Black people as “BLM”

Writing for the newsletter Popular Information, Judd Legum, Rebecca Crosby, and Tesnim Zekeria reported that the Claremont Institute’s own database shows a total of $0 in donations to any officially branded Black Lives Matter organization. Instead, the organization’s database also includes spending that it describes as being for “organizations and initiatives that advance one or more aspects of BLM’s agenda.”

Under this amorphous criteria, Popular Information found that Claremont had included a pledge that SVB made in 2021 to spend $50 million over the course of five years for the company’s internal initiative to connect women, Black people and Latinos with startup funding and leadership connections in venture capital. Nearly all the rest came from a $20 million pledge to “support additional COVID-19 relief” and establish a “full-ride, needs-based University Scholarship program to students at Arizona State University, Florida A&M University, Tulane University, and Xavier University.” Both Florida A&M and Xavier University of Louisiana are prominent historically black colleges and universities. (It’s unclear why Claremont lumped in funding for Arizona State and Tulane.)

Talking Points Memo editor-in-chief Josh Marshall also examined the rest of the database on supposed BLM-related corporate spending, and found that Claremont’s appraisal of corporate spending throughout the business world essentially boiled down to “it seems adjacent to Black people, so that’s ‘BLM.’” These included any corporate donations to such longstanding organizations as the United Negro College Fund and the NAACP, or minority-focused business groups such as the Executive Leadership Council or the Forum to Advance Minorities in Engineering, the latter of which was founded in 1976 by DuPont. (Also tagged as “BLM” spending in the Claremont’s database were corporate grants to the American Heart Association and U.S. Vaccine Adoption Grants.)

Keep in mind, Popular Information had also pointed out that the database defines the BLM agenda as allegedly being to “undermine capitalism, the nation state, and Western civilization.” By extension, Claremont is essentially accusing any corporate spending on Black education, health outcomes, or business development to be part of a plot to destroy Western civilization. This is the fabulist message that Fox’s reporters and the rest of the right-wing media ecosystem were so eager to spread.

Fox News drove the right-wing echo chamber’s amplification of false SVB claims

Fox’s alarmist coverage of the supposed link between SVB’s corporate giving and the BLM movement clearly spanned both its purported “straight news” side and opinion hosts, with the two camps voicing the exact same line over and over on Fox News, Fox Business, and the network’s digital properties.

Fox host Jesse Watters asserted that Silicon Valley Bank (SVB) “donated $74 million to Black Lives Matter." Fox News, :{Jesse Watters Primetime:(style="box-sizing:border-box"):}:, [3/14/23]
Fox host Tucker Carlson: “Silicon Valley Bank, brace yourself, spent more than $73 million on donations to BLM and related organizations.” Fox News, :{Tucker Carlson Tonight:(style="box-sizing:border-box"):}:, [3/14/23]
Fox & Friends co-host Ainsley Earhardt: SVB donated “more than $73 million to Black Lives Matter.” Fox News, :{Fox & Friends:(style="box-sizing:border-box"):}:, [3/15/23]
Fox Business: “Silicon Valley Bank donated millions to Black Lives Matter-related groups, social justice causes, records show.” FoxBusiness.com, [3/14/23]
Fox White House correspondent Peter Doocy also pushed this, which Fox anchor Dana Perino failed to contradict. Fox News, :{America’s Newsroom:(style="box-sizing:border-box"):}:, [3/15/23]
Fox host Sean Hannity: “Now, SVB was California's woke trendy bank. So, naturally, instead of safeguarding every penny deposited, SVB diverted a massive amount of money to left-wing causes. Now, get this, this is what we have discovered: That includes a whopping $73 million to BLM-related groups, five billion dollars in commitments to climate change.” Fox News, :{Hannity:(style="box-sizing:border-box"):}:, [3/15/23]
Fox Business host Maria Bartiromo: “Silicon Valley Bank donated more than $73 million to groups tied to Black Lives Matter.” Fox Business, :{Mornings with Maria Bartiromo:(style="box-sizing:border-box"):}:, [3/15/23]
Fox Business host Larry Kudlow: “Apparently some more bad, there is such a slew of crazy left-wing stuff surrounding this Silicon Valley Bank. I mean this is some weird bank. First of all, they gave $73 million to the Marxist BLM, Black Lives Matter movement at the height of COVID and the race riots in 2020.” Fox Business, :{Kudlow:(style="box-sizing:border-box"):}:, [3/15/23]
Fox Business guest Vivek Ramaswamy: “We’re now seeing reports about the amount of money they committed to BLM and related movements.” Fox Business, :{The Bottom Line:(style="box-sizing:border-box"):}:, [3/14/23]
Fox Business guest Stephen L. Miller: “We had to bail this bank out. They’ve given millions of dollars in BLM initiatives and DEI initiatives.” Fox Business, :{Kennedy:(style="box-sizing:border-box"):}:, [3/15/23]
Fox Business guest Mark Tepper: SVB “had pledged $74 million to left-leaning organizations and charities, including BLM.” Fox Business, :{Mornings with Maria Bartiromo:(style="box-sizing:border-box"):}:, [3/16/23]
Fox Business host Stuart Varney expressed shock at the number, while correspondent Lauren Simonetti said “the question is were they distracted. Were executives too concerned about diversity, gender, climate that they missed the financial problem.” Fox Business, :{Varney & Co.:(style="box-sizing:border-box"):}:, [3/16/23]
Fox Business host Larry Kudlow: “This bank in Silicon Valley was a rogue bank. They did insane things. The board was full of Hillary Clinton donors, they had one person there with banking experience, they gave $75 million to Black Lives Matter two years ago, $5 billion apparently to climate causes and diversity causes, that’s just nonsense. … This is a rogue bank.” Fox News, :{America Reports:(style="box-sizing:border-box"):}:, [3/16/23]
Fox Business host Larry Kudlow: “It’s a rogue bank, there is no question about that. The mistakes they made were fundamental mistakes also, you know. The duration was wrong. The asset-liability matchbook was all wrong. But you don't give $75 million to Black Lives Matter at the height of racial tensions in the middle of the pandemic. You don't commit $5 billion to all kinds of climate change, diversity, equity, and things of that sort, you don't do that.” Fox Business, :{The Bottom Line:(style="box-sizing:border-box"):}:, [3/16/23]

Fox was not alone in spreading this falsehood; many right-wing media outlets pushed the same lies. A New York Post headline read: “SVB donated $73M to Black Lives Matter movement, social justice causes.” An article from The Federalist was headlined: “Silicon Valley Bank Pledged Nearly $74 Million To Black Lives Matter Causes.” The Washington Times, citing The Federalist, wrote: “SVB donated more than $73 million to the Black Lives Matter movement and other social justice causes.” A Washington Examiner headline read: “SVB collapse: Bank donated over $70 million to Black Lives Matter groups before closure.” Gateway Pundit declared in its headline: “Woke Silicon Valley Bank Gave Over $73 Million to Black Lives Matter Movement.” A Daily Caller headline stated: “Silicon Valley Bank Committed Over $73 Million To BLM And Social Justice Causes Before It Collapsed.” And it went on and on and on.

In an amazing turn of events,Breitbart actuallyissued a correction, noting that “the Claremont Institute’s definition of ‘Black Lives Matter’ included a far wider range of organizations,” and giving credit that “left-wing writer Judd Legum appropriately flagged these issues.”

So as of now, Breitbart has exhibited more journalistic responsibility than the entire roster of Fox News, including one of the network’s White House correspondents.

2 23 random next segment jesse kelly

https://www.thefirsttv.com/watch/debunking-the-lefts-gun-myths/

gee i got a bunch of guns but dunno which wd be an assault weapon [pix a wall of them presumably in a store, none for hunting

good ol boy assault weapon a made up word by dems in 90's

WR Hawkins is the gun expert for Breitbart News whose here to shatter all the bogus claims the Left loves to make about guns and the 2nd amendment. Did you know it was the Clinton administration that came up with the ‘assault weapon’ term? Did you know that California, a state with gun control laws since the early 90s has one of the highest mass shooting rates? Hawkins reveals all in this informative less on the 2nd amendment.

an 3/16/ 22

no lnx

Far-right MAGA Republicans admire Vladimir Putin’s propaganda machine — and try to emulate it: report

Alex Henderson March 16, 2022

The list of far-right MAGA Republicans who have vigorously defended and even praised Russian President Vladimir Putin is a long one, ranging from former President Donald Trump to “War Room” host Steve Bannon, Fox News’ Tucker Carlson and QAnon supporter Lauren Witzke (the Delaware Republican who ran against Sen. Chris Coons in 2020). Bannon has praised Putin for not being “woke,” and Witzke recently said, “I identify more with Putin's Christian values than I do with Joe Biden.”

To Kevin Baron, executive editor of Defense One, all of the Putin worship coming from MAGA Republicans speaks volumes about their view of the world. In an article published by Defense One on March 11, Baron warns that the way Putin runs Russia is the way the far right would like to run the United States — and he stresses that MAGA media functions a lot like government-operated pro-Putin media in Russia.

“It’s hard to watch Russia's version of journalism and not think of the American far-right’s version of it,” Baron argues. “Indeed, the connections are both direct and philosophical — and of import to national security leaders. But there’s a deeper connection as well. America’s right-wing partisans wish they had what Putin has: control of the information and messages that flow to the body politic. That’s not an accusation; it is their goal.”

[twt?]

According to Baron, it's no coincidence that Carlson in the U.S. and government-operated media in Russia use the same talking points when discussing Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.

“In the past few months,” Baron explains, “we’ve seen just how closely related the two are: Putin’s propaganda and our own. Before Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine, America’s far-right denied the looming threat as a wag-the-dog conspiracy concocted by deep-state Democrats and centrist Republicans, or tried to blame President Joe Biden. Russian propaganda outlets gleefully put those clips into heavy rotation. Two weeks into the invasion, far-right leaders continue to sow doubt on war reporting, claiming or implying there is an elite conspiracy to keep Americans uninformed, and often parroting Russian propagandists’ distortions and lies.”

Baron cites specific examples of far-right media outlets that conduct themselves like state-owned Russian media.

“While politicians come and go, the lasting damage is in the lingering popularity of Soviet-style agitprop propaganda from loyalist far-right media operations deliberately masquerading as journalism,” Baron observes. “These outlets —designed to look, sound, and feel like journalism — are de facto paid actors, directors, and scriptwriters of a carefully crafted fiction that would make the Kremlin proud. They call themselves reporters and operate inpretend newsrooms like Steve Bannon’s Breitbart, Carlson’s Daily Caller, Heritage Foundation’s Daily Signal, and upstarts like One America News Network and Newsmax. They are different from older conservative magazines like the National Review and Weekly Standard, whose writers did not try to impersonate straight newsrooms — and, indeed, intermittently opposed Trump’s 2016 election.”

1 22 an

[media crit]

Donald Trump went into the 2020 election with some of the worst approval ratings on record for a sitting president. He made virtually no effort to appeal to those who didn’t vote for him. How was he able to remain standing, and how did he even potentially have a chance at a second term even if he lost the popular vote? One big reason is that he and his acolytes had convinced their base that the media can’t be trusted.

As we know by now, whenever the media aired even mildly critical coverage of Trump or those who were supposedly helping him make America great again, the response on the right was some variation of “(noun) (verb) fake news!” Indeed, it’s almost an article of faith among the Republican base that the media can’t be trusted.

If your news diet consists of the likes of Fox News, Newsmax, right-wing social media, and Christian conservative outlets, you probably think that when the mainstream media isn’t making things up, it’s crossing lines that should never be crossed in order. But there’s one problem—with few exceptions, it’s right-wing media that engages in that very behavior. And while some of those elements are finally answering for the worst of their sins, others are long overdue for a dose of accountability.

Contrary to what Trump and his diehards would have us think, whenever mainstream media outlets make a mistake, those mistakes are usually corrected fairly quickly once caught.A case in point was a 2017 editorial in *The New York Times* that held 2008 Republican vice presidential nominee and former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin partly responsible for a grisly 2011 mass shooting in Tucson, Arizona. The Old Grey Lady’s editorial board claimed that just days before the shooting, Palin’s political action committee circulated a map that placed stylized crosshairs on the districts of 19 Democratic House members. The implication was clear—that map was a big reason why one of those lawmakers, then-Rep. Gabby Giffords of Arizona, nearly died that day.

That claim was slammed on all sides of the aisle, prompting the Times to partly retract the editorial within five hours of it going online. All of the inaccurate information was retracted within two days.Despite this, Palin sued the Times for defamation. As near as can be determined, Palin is suing because she didn’t just want the Times to retract, but to grovel. The suit was due to go to trial in late January, but was pushed back to early February after the rabidly anti-vaccine Palin caught COVID-19.

Palin faces tough sledding under current precedent for libel and defamation suits. As a public figure, she would have to prove that when the editorial board greenlighted the initial version of the editorial, it did so acting with actual malice. That is, Palin would have to convince a jury that the editorial board either knew the story was false or published it with reckless disregard for whether it was true or false. Remember, the statements at issue were retracted in almost no time at all in modern media terms. Her onlychance of winning is to take this case all the way to the Supreme Court in hopes of making it easier for public figures to win libel suits.

As it currently stands, Palin’s suit betrays a fundamental misunderstanding of how media outlets with actual standards work. Indeed, the Times’ quick retraction stands in marked contrast to the behavior of celebrity gossip blog Gawker. In March 2016, Gawker was effectively forced out of business when it was ordered tocough up $140 million in damages to pro wrestler Hulk Hogan for posting a clip of a sex tape of Hogan. While its sister sites (such as sports culture blog Deadspin, tech blog Gizmodo, and feminist blog Jezebel) were sold to Univision at a bankruptcy auction, Gawker itself wasshut down that August. Ultimately, Gawker settled with Hogan for $31 million that November.

A number of observers slammed the verdict for itspotential chilling effect on freedom of the press, especially after billionaire venture capitalist Peter Thielrevealed that he had bankrolled the suit. Thiel openly admitted that he wanted to punish Gawker after its now-defunct tech gossip sister, Valleywag, outed him as gay in 2007. Indeed, in a post-mortem about Gawker on its last day of business, NPR media reporter David Folkenflikobserved that Thiel’s involvement in Hogan’s suit against Gawker portended “ugly implications for press freedom in light of adversaries with nearly infinite resources.”

At its peak in 2015, Gawker hadover 23 million visits per month, making it one of the most visited sites in the world. With that level of popularity, it’s only fair to wonder—why was no one willing to ride to Gawker’s rescue? Granted, potential buyers might have beenskittish about having to deal with the massive legal headache of a lawsuit bankrolled by a billionaire. But surely someone with the wherewithal to withstand Thiel’s resources would have rescued Gawker solely on the principle of defending freedom of the press, right?

By then, however, Gawker had lost a lot of goodwill as a result of two instances where its disregard for standards dating back to the days of typewriters and leaflets was exposed for all to see. In 2015, Gawker ran an article that claimed Conde Nast Chief Financial Officer David Geithner, the brother of President Obama’s Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner, was being extorted by a gay porn star and male escort. As the story goes, when Geithner reneged on a deal to meet up with the porn star on a trip to Chicago, the escort went to Gawker and offered to tell all. He supplied copies of text exchanges between himself and Geithner and a selfie that Geithner supposedly sent him.

When the story went live, the criticism came inhard,fast, and fromall directions.Most of the detractors argued that it served no public interest to even imply that Geithner was gay. For example, the University of Minnesota’s Jane Kirtley, a media law expert, told The Daily Beast that absent evidence that Geithner gave “preferential treatment to people in the hiring process” or was guilty of sexual harassment, she was “really hard-pressed” to see a legitimate reason for running the story.

But this story had a more fundamental problem than lack of public interest. It was sourced almost entirely from a guy who was extorting Geithner. Specifically, the bulk of the story came from texts provided to Gawker staff writer Jordan Sargent. Despite this, according to Mother Jones, Gawker took onlyone working day to research, vet, and fact-check the story before it went live.

A number of media experts found the rapid turnaround time for this story extremely problematic. Ken Paulson, former editor-in-chief of USA Today and current president of the First Amendment Center, told Mother Jones that stories that could even potentially wreck someone’s reputation “are typically vetted over a longer period.” Over that time, Paulson added, details could come up that “could give you pause about publishing.” First Amendment lawyer Floyd Abrams was interviewed in the same article, saying that when there is evidence of blackmail or extortion, it ought to be “a blinking yellow light, or even a blinking red light” to thoroughly vet it before you even consider publishing it.

Gawker’s defense, at the time, seemed to be that the story was true and nothing else mattered. In response to withering criticism—including from Gawker’s own readers—Natasha Vargas-Cooper of Jezebel harrumphed in a since-deleted tweet that in her mind, “if it’s true, you publish.”

The fact that Gawker seemed to justify this story simply because it was true appeared especially tone-deaf a mere four years after the News of the World wasforced out of existence due to rampant phone-hacking. Indeed, Gawker’s ethos appeared little different from that of WikiLeaks. By then, we’d known since at least 2010 that Julian Assange’s idea of transparency includedreleasing unredacted Social Security numbers—and dismissing any potential harm as “collateral damage.”

A mere 18 hours after the story went live, Gawker Media’s six-member managing partnershipvoted to remove it over thefurious objections of Gawker’s editorial staff. But when Gawker founder and CEO Nick Denton deliveredthe official explanation for removing the post, he proved that he still didn’t get it.

Denton said that the story about Geithner was “true and well reported,” which would have been enough to justify running it “in the early days of the Internet.” However, he said, “Gawker is no longer the insolent blog that began in 2003,” and this meant that potential stories “have to be true and interesting” in order to pass editorial muster. Denton went further in a memo to Gawker’s editorial team, saying that he was “ashamed” to have his name attached to the story, even if “we were within our legal right to publish.”

There are times when what was considered good reporting years ago is patently unacceptable now. For instance, the relentless coverage of Britney Spears in the early 2000swould never be tolerated today given greater awareness about mental health and sexism. But this didn’t even come close to being one of those times. By suggesting that an article that essentially amounted to aiding and abetting extortion would be even remotely acceptable in 2003, Denton made his statement announcing the article’s deletion amount to a non-apology apology. It also casts a pall on the good that Gawker actually did—like turning the hot lights on Toronto Mayor Rob Ford’s substance abuse, or revealing that Bill O’Reilly used his influence to start an investigation of his ex-wife’s boyfriend.

Soon after the furor over the Geithner article died down, it became even clearer just how serious Gawker’s cultural problem was. In July 2015, Vanity Fair writer Richard Lawsontweeted a mea culpa about his days at Gawker. He admitted that he’d written, on orders from his boss, “baseless posts accusing an actor of raping an ex-boyfriend.” That actor wasJames Franco.

From 2008 to around 2014, Gawker churned out a series of articles that attempted to out Franco. The first of these articles, penned by Lawson, was a follow-up to ablind item in the New York Postin which an unidentified actor reportedly broke into his former boyfriend’s apartment and violently raped him. Inhis article, Lawson mused that the three likely suspects were Will Smith, Christian Bale—and Franco.

Soon afterward, Lawsonwrote another article suggesting that based on Gawker commenters’ sentiment, “the people” felt Franco was a gay rapist. He then followed that up witha third article suggesting that the “gay rapist” Franco had actually been mentioned by the person who tipped off the Post about the supposed violent attack. If there is any difference between that article and Trump’s penchant for spewing baseless garbage that’s supposedly based on what “many people are saying,” I don’t see it.

Later, other Gawker writerspenned articles suggesting that Franco was gay, based on the thinnest reeds of evidence. According to The Daily Beast, this was part of Gawker’s “creepy obsession with outing closeted men.” Granted, Franco is no angel. In 2021, he not only settled a lawsuit alleging that he harassed several students at the acting school he ran from 2014 to 2017, but admitted sleeping with some of his students.

Seen in this light, it’s no wonder that it took more than six years and at least one false start for Gawker to be revived. It returned in the summer of 2021 as a sister publication to women’s magazine Bustle, who bought Gawker’s remains in 2019. One would have thought that given Gawker’s popularity, it would have been revived sooner. However, NPR’s Folkenflik noted that when Univision bought Gawker’s sister sites, it concluded that Gawker itself was “too toxic to touch.”

Given how long it took for Gawker to be revived, any potential white knights must have reached the same conclusion. Who would want to take on an organization that not only believed there was a time where extortion was at all acceptable, but had no qualms about running libel?

Indeed, even as I write this, the articles libeling Franco are still available on Gawker’s website. That contrasts sharply with how the Times handled the initial version of its editorial attack on Palin. Contrary to what she and her fellow deplorables would have us believe, mainstream media outlets have standards—and those that lack standards get culled.

The same, however, can’t be said for some mainstays of right-wing media. For instance, when former Alabama chief justice Roy Moore made a bid for the U.S. Senateseat that came open when Jeff Sessions was tapped as Trump’s attorney general, Breitbart led a relentless smear campaign against the women who claimed Moore sexually assaulted them or pursued improper relationships with them. And it did so even though its editor-in-chief, Alex Marlow,believed at least one of the accusers was credible.

Marlow made this shocking assertion in an interview with CNN’s Oliver Darcy in December 2017, a month after Moore’s narrow loss to Democrat Doug Jones. He revealed that he believed that Moore’s initial accuser, Leigh Corfman, had “a lot of credibility.” Corfman, you may recall, claimed Moore sexually assaulted her when she was 14.

By admitting that he believed Moore’s accusers were credible even as Breitbart was smearing them, Marlow effectively put big, fat asterisks by every story Breitbart ran about the election. Victim shaming is bad enough, but doing so when you have reason to believe a victim is telling the truth is absolutely heinous. It’s even more so considering that Marlow admitted Breitbart went all-in for Moore to protect Trump.

Project Veritas also joined in on this disgraceful campaign. Its ringleader, James O’Keefe, even went as far as having one of his minions, Jaime Phillips, try to plant a bogus story in The Washington Postclaiming that Moore had impregnated her.But that story came apart when the Post did some actual journalism and discovered Phillips’ story had more red flags than a lifetime of Alabama football games. Most damningly, Phillips had created a GoFundMe page boasting about her goal to join “the conservative media movement” in exposing “the liberal MSM.”

To pile obscenity on top of insult, O’Keefe revealed in December 2017 that he believed Moore’s accusers were credible. And yet, he felt compelled to smear them because—wait for it—he felt their credibility was “not my subject matter,” and his real goal was exposing “bias in the media.” So the man whose stock in trade is targeting journalists for supposed bias admitted that doing so was so important that he felt compelled to shame victims that he believed were credible. Let that sink in.

To give you an idea how outrageous Breitbart and Project Veritas’ behavior was here, imagine if every news outlet that passed on the prospect of exposing Harvey Weinstein’s depravities had reason to believe Weinstein’s accusers were credible—and yet ran stories effectively calling them liars. It makes Palin’s squawking about theTimes’ failure to basically grovel before her look hypocritical as all hell.

Fortunately, at least two other members of the deplorable fever swamp are facing long-overdue accountability. Take InfoWars, for instance. Even after Alex Jones was kicked off mainstream social media and blackballed from smartphone app stores, it looked like he was going to continue his years-long promotion of conspiracy theories and hate speech—albeit with a much reduced audience.

But what may have been the beginning of the end for Jones came in 2018, not long after Facebook and YouTube gave him the boot. Several families of Sandy Hook victims, along with an FBI agent who responded to the shooting, sued Jones for defamation. Specifically, they wanted Jones held to account for his numerous claims that the Sandy Hook victims and survivors were “crisis actors.” These claims have resulted in the survivors being relentlessly harassed and trolled. The family of Noah Pozner, for instance, has had to move numerous times due to the harassment, and now live under high security in an undisclosed location. They have never been able to visit their son’s grave.

A series of legal reversals for Jones and InfoWars culminated in the fall of 2021. That September, a Texas judge issued three default judgments against Jones and InfoWars in two defamation suits filed by Sandy Hook families. The judge had lost patience with Jones’ refusal to turn over documents, and found it egregious enough to conclude that Jones had already lost. In November, a Connecticut judge issued a default judgment in a suit filed against Jones in another lawsuit. While damages will be determined at trial later this year, they are likely to add up to hundreds of millions of dollars—in all likelihood, enough to put InfoWars out of business.

Another fixture of the deplorable fever swamp, Gateway Pundit, may also face extinction after beingsued for orchestrating a vicious trolling campaign that falsely accused Georgia election workers of stealing their state for Joe Biden. The two workers, Ruby Freeman and Shaye Moss, claim that Gateway Pundit started a flood of disinformation that reached all the way to Trump, who attacked Freeman by name in his now-infamous attempt to shake down Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger.

Dozens of bogus stories about Freeman and Moss resulted in death threats, doxing, and kidnapping attempts, among other things. Rather than apologize, Gateway Pundit actually tried to raise money off the lawsuit, netting over $81,000.If there is any justice, though, that fundraising effort will be a futile exercise. Gateway Pundit and its impresarios, the Hoft brothers, ought to get a very hard lesson on why private citizens only need to prove negligence in order to win libel suits.

The Times moves in almost no time at all by current media standards to retract claims about Palin—and yet, Breitbart, Project Veritas, and Gateway Pundit refuse to even attempt to apologize for far worse. What’s wrong with this picture?

The answer to that question is simpler than you may think. For all the caterwauling we hear from the right about the media not having any standards, we have seen instance after instance where the media has shown it actually does. Moreover, whenever elements of the mainstream press show they don’t have standards, they are weeded out. The demise of Gawker is a stark example of what happens when you catapult your way into the mainstream, only to show you have little regard for basic standards of decency.

If we are to remove the tinder from our politics, we must subject the media to the same level of accountability that Gawker faced, and what InfoWars is more than likely to face. As Gawker learned in 2016, that standard ought to apply regardless of political shade. But if Palin and other right-wingers are willing to take off their blinders, they would see that their own side of the media divide is long overdue for a cleaning.

Poll 426 votes Show Results

breitbart2bak1121

11/21 hard to save, req field missing

ccdh tox 10 #1

Followers 8,606,181 Annual Revenue $3.69 million13

Facebook 5,267,281 Monthly Visits 49.9 million

Instagram 1,479,900 Google Ads Yes

Twitter 1,510,000 Others ads RevContent

YouTube 349,000 Facebook Ads No14

Breitbart News was once described as a “platform for the alt-right” by its former chairman, the ex-Trump adviser

Steve Bannon.”15

Launched in 2007, the site has long published false and misleading claims about women and minority groups as

well as conspiracy theories about Barack Obama’s status as a US citizen. Breitbart’s writers are, according to NBC:

“nationalistic, often linking immigrants and refugees with violence and the degradation of Western values.”16

The site regularly publishes climate change denial, with US contributor John Nolte and Breitbart London’s executive

editor James Delingpole both having repeatedly referred to climate change as a “hoax” pushed by so-called “climate

alarmists”.17

In 2011, the family of hedge fund billionaire and Republican donor Robert Mercer purchased nearly half of Breitbart

for $10 million.18 Mercer has a record of funding groups that challenge the scientific consensus on climate change,

such as the Heartland Institute, the Heritage Foundation and the Media Research Center, a member of the Toxic Ten.

In 2016 alone, Mercer is reported to have given nearly $4 million to such groups.19 He also co-founded and invested

in Cambridge Analytica, which came under fire for collecting the data of up to 87 million Facebook users.20

This Breitbart article in our sample stokes fears of pro-climate policies.

It promotes a conspiracy theory about “the leftist connections between

ostensibly public-health-related lockdown decrees, the Great Reset,

and ‘climate change’ advocacy”.21 Google ads for a conference on

“environmental, social and governance (ESG)” issues for energy

companies were being promoted next to the article.22

an ah 921

Veteran shock jock Howard Stern, now 67, has grown increasingly fed up with far-right anti-vaxxers, noting all the MAGA radio hosts who railed against COVID-19 vaccines before dying from COVID-19. And Breitbart News' John Nolte has come up with a very imaginative conspiracy theory, claiming that Stern — along with Dr. Anthony Fauci, President Joe Biden and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi — is using "reverse psychology" in the hope of keeping "Trump supporters" unvaccinated.

This conspiracy theory, reporter Matt Gertz stresses in Media Matters, shows the ridiculous and "toxic" lengths Nolte will go to in order to vilify political opponents.

Nolte believes that Stern and others are railing against unvaccinated supporters of former President Donald Trump because they hope that they will be offended, express their displeasure by remaining unvaccinated, get sick with COVID-19 and die from it. Even by Breitbart standards, that conspiracy theory is, Gertz writes, "far-fetched."

In an article published by Breitbart on September 10, Nolte wrote, "Do you want to know why I think Howard Stern is going full-monster with his mockery of three fellow human beings who died of the coronavirus? Because leftists like Stern and CNNLOL and Joe Biden and Nancy Pelosi and Anthony Fauci are deliberately looking to manipulate Trump supporters into not getting vaccinated."

Nolte went on to say, "If I wanted to use reverse psychology to convince people not to get a life-saving vaccination, I would do exactly what Stern and the left are doing…. I would bully and taunt and mock and ridicule you for not getting vaccinated, knowing the human response would be: Hey, fuck you, I'm never getting vaccinated! And why is that a perfectly human response? Because no one ever wants to feel like they are being bullied or ridiculed or mocked or pushed into doing anything."

In essence, he's blaming Democrats and advocates for the vaccine for conservatives' refusal to get the shot that could save their lives. It paints Trump supporters as victims with little agency of their own.

Gertz, in Media Matters, slams Nolte's conspiracy theory as not only ludicrous, but outright hateful.

"Nolte is saying that his readers have been deceived into thinking that they can own the libs by refusing the vaccine, when they can really own the libs by taking it," Gertz explains. "It's incredibly toxic for Nolte to posit, without anything resembling evidence, that the president is literally trying to kill a vast swath of Americans for political gain — asking Breitbart readers, 'In a country where elections are decided on razor-thin margins, does it not benefit one side if their opponents simply drop dead?'"

Nolte, according to Gertz, is so twisted in his thinking that it doesn't occur to him that Biden and Fauci are urging Americans to get vaccinated because they are trying to save lives.

"It is much more logical to interpret Biden and others taking steps to encourage higher vaccination rates as the result of them wanting more Americans to live," Gertz writes. "It makes more sense to view the 'bullying' Nolte perceives as coming from celebrities and others as genuine frustration at the anti-vax right endangering themselves and others. He is also curiously uninterested in the right-wing commentariat's role in discouraging vaccinations and undermining the vaccination campaign, making it unclear whether they are foolish dupes for falling for the 'reverse psychology' gambit or willing partners in the effort to kill their audience members."

https://www.alternet.org/2021/01/brietbart-trump/

no lnx

Trump's final days in office have been filled with isolation, criticism, and backlash. Staffers at the conservative news outlet Breitbart have even reached their breaking point with the disgraced president.

According to internal messages obtained by The Daily Beast, editors and staff news reports at the outlet have clashed on whether or not Trump bears any responsibility for the Capitol riots. The site's international news editor Frances Martel offered his take on the ordeal in a morning message shared on Slack.

"I am just not feeling charitable AT ALL," international news editor Frances Martel posted to Slack the morning after the rioting that left five people dead, including a police officer. "Destroy Trump."

Martel went on to describe the damage Trump had done to the Republican Party by supporting the "Make America Great Again" (MAGA) mob that stormed the U.S. Capitol.

"He set us back like 10 years," Martel wrote. "We have worked so hard to promote our values, values that made him president when he hawked them, and now he does this, leaving everything in shambles? Nah, destroy him. Let it be a lesson to every other 'populist.'"

Senior editor-at-large Rebecca Mansour also chimed in with her perspective on the death of rioter and QAnon supporter, Ashli Babbitt. Although Babbitt was fatally shot while attempting to break into the Speaker's Lobby, Mansour argues that Trump is bears some responsibility for her death. "I do blame Trump for all of this," Mansour said, adding, "Her death is on him as far I'm concerned."

Breitbart reporter Chris Tomlinson noted Trump and his campaign's influence on the rise of conspiracy theorists like attorney Lin Wood. His affiliation with Trump and the campaign offered him a level of credibility that led to the circulation of dangerous falsehoods and conspiracy claims.

"[Trump] and the campaign also gave legitimacy to Lin Wood and others who were far more explicit in riling people up," Tomlinson said.

However, there were some staffers who attempted to defend the president. Although he did encourage his supporters to descend on the U.S. Capitol, some saw the president's speech calling for calm as a form of redemption.

"Trump explicitly asked people to be peaceful and respectful yesterday, and then almost immediately called for the violence to stop," Breitbart columnist John Nolte argued.

Other reporters chimed in saying, "I mean, violence is bad but this was nothing compared to Antifa rioting over the summer," Pentagon reporter Kristina Wong argued. "Not even close," Breitbart reporter John Binder said in agreement, adding, "They burned entire cities to the ground. At most, these people broke windows."

However, Martel did not back down. "Dude told rioters 'We love you, you're special,'" Martel said of Trump's post-riot speech, adding, "Done with this guy, get him outta there with the stage cane."

Despite Breitbart staffers' clash, Democrats had no problem agreeing to Trump being impeached. On Thursday, Jan. 14, Trump was impeached for the second time for incitement of an insurrection.

FROM YOUR SITE ARTICLES

In Not Opposing the TPP, Democratic Platform Committee Gives ... ›

Are the rules of polite society being rewritten? Questions of civility in ... ›

'Don't mansplain to me': Former prosecutor destroys Brietbart ... ›

Inside the Capitol riot: What more than 500 Parler videos reveal - Alternet.org ›

RELATED ARTICLES AROUND THE WEB

Bannon steps down from Breitbart News after drawing fire from Trump ›

Reporter Michelle Fields And Editor Resign From Breitbart Site Over ... ›

How Breitbart became Donald Trump's favourite news site - BBC News ›

ref

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/08/25/us/politics/trump-allies-news-media.html

no lnx

Trump Allies Target Journalists Over Coverage Deemed Hostile to White House

The operation has compiled dossiers of potentially embarrassing social media posts and other public statements by hundreds of people who work at prominent news organizations.

By Kenneth P. Vogel and Jeremy W. Peters

Published Aug. 25, 2019

Updated Aug. 26, 2019

WASHINGTON — A loose network of conservative operatives allied with the White House is pursuing what they say will be an aggressive operation to discredit news organizations deemed hostile to President Trump by publicizing damaging information about journalists.

It is the latest step in a long-running effort by Mr. Trump and his allies to undercut the influence of legitimate news reporting. Four people familiar with the operation described how it works, asserting that it has compiled dossiers of potentially embarrassing social media posts and other public statements by hundreds of people who work at some of the country’s most prominent news organizations.

The group has already released information about journalists at CNN, The Washington Post and The New York Times — three outlets that have aggressively investigated Mr. Trump — in response to reporting or commentary that the White House’s allies consider unfair to Mr. Trump and his team or harmful to his re-election prospects.

Operatives have closely examined more than a decade’s worth of public posts and statements by journalists, the people familiar with the operation said. Only a fraction of what the network claims to have uncovered has been made public, the people said, with more to be disclosed as the 2020 election heats up. The research is said to extend to members of journalists’ families who are active in politics, as well as liberal activists and other political opponents of the president.

It is not possible to independently assess the claims about the quantity or potential significance of the material the pro-Trump network has assembled. Some involved in the operation have histories of bluster and exaggeration. And those willing to describe its techniques and goals may be trying to intimidate journalists or their employers.

But the material publicized so far, while in some cases stripped of context or presented in misleading ways, has proved authentic, and much of it has been professionally harmful to its targets.

It is clear from the cases to date that among the central players in the operation is Arthur Schwartz, a combative 47-year-old conservative consultant who is a friend and informal adviser to Donald Trump Jr., the president’s eldest son. Mr. Schwartz has worked with some of the right’s most aggressive operatives, including the former Trump adviser Stephen K. Bannon.

“If the @nytimes thinks this settles the matter we can expose a few of their other bigots,” Mr. Schwartz tweeted on Thursday in response to an apologetic tweet from a Times journalist whose anti-Semitic social media posts had just been revealed by the operation. “Lots more where this came from.”

The operation is the latest step in a long-running effort by President Trump and his allies to undercut the influence of legitimate news reporting.

The information unearthed by the operation has been commented on and spread by officials inside the Trump administration and re-election campaign, as well as conservative activists and right-wing news outlets such as Breitbart News. In the case of the Times editor, the news was first published by Breitbart, immediately amplified on Twitter by Donald Trump Jr. and, among others, Katrina Pierson, a senior adviser to the Trump campaign, and quickly became the subject of a Breitbart interview with Stephanie Grisham, the White House press secretary and communications director.

The White House press office said that neither the president nor anyone in the White House was involved in or aware of the operation, and that neither the White House nor the Republican National Committee was involved in funding it.

The Trump campaign said it was unaware of, and not involved in, the effort, but suggested that it served a worthy purpose. “We know nothing about this, but it’s clear that the media has a lot of work to do to clean up its own house,” said Tim Murtaugh, the campaign’s communications director.

The campaign is consistent with Mr. Trump’s long-running effort to delegitimize critical reporting and brand the news media as an “enemy of the people.” The president has relentlessly sought to diminish the credibility of news organizations and cast them as politically motivated opponents.

[Latest Updates: 2020 Election

Asked about Russian bounties, Trump says his phone call with Putin focused on ‘other things.’

A new poll shows Biden tied with Trump in Georgia.

The president floats the idea of giving his renomination speech in Washington, a likely Hatch Act violation.

See more updates]

Journalism, he said in a tweet last week, is “nothing more than an evil propaganda machine for the Democrat Party.”

The operation has compiled social media posts from Twitter, Facebook and Instagram, and stored images of the posts that can be publicized even if the user deletes them, said the people familiar with the effort. One claimed that the operation had unearthed potentially “fireable” information on “several hundred” people.

“I am sure there will be more scalps,” said Sam Nunberg, a former aide to Mr. Trump who is a friend of Mr. Schwartz.

Mr. Nunberg and others who are familiar with the campaign described it as meant to expose what they see as the hypocrisy of mainstream news outlets that have reported on the president’s inflammatory language regarding race.

Image

Arthur Schwartz, a conservative consultant who is a friend and informal adviser to the president’s eldest son.]

“Two can play at this game,” he said. “The media has long targeted Republicans with deep dives into their social media, looking to caricature all conservatives and Trump voters as racists.”

But using journalistic techniques to target journalists and news organizations as retribution for — or as a warning not to pursue — coverage critical of the president is fundamentally different from the well-established role of the news media in scrutinizing people in positions of power.

“If it’s clearly retaliatory, it’s clearly an attack, it’s clearly not journalism,” said Leonard Downie Jr., who was the executive editor of The Post from 1991 to 2008. Tension between a president and the news media that covers him is nothing new, Mr. Downie added. But an organized, wide-scale political effort to intentionally humiliate journalists and others who work for media outlets is.

“It’s one thing for Spiro Agnew to call everyone in the press ‘nattering nabobs of negativism,’” he said, referring to the former vice president’s famous critique of how journalists covered President Richard M. Nixon. “And another thing to investigate individuals in order to embarrass them publicly and jeopardize their employment.”

A. G. Sulzberger, the publisher of The Times, said in a statement that such tactics were taking the president’s campaign against a free press to a new level.

“They are seeking to harass and embarrass anyone affiliated with the leading news organizations that are asking tough questions and bringing uncomfortable truths to light,” Mr. Sulzberger said. “The goal of this campaign is clearly to intimidate journalists from doing their job, which includes serving as a check on power and exposing wrongdoing when it occurs. The Times will not be intimidated or silenced.”

In a statement, a CNN spokesman said that when government officials, “and those working on their behalf, threaten and retaliate against reporters as a means of suppression, it’s a clear abandonment of democracy for something very dangerous.”

The operation is targeting the news media by using one of the most effective weapons of political combat — deep and laborious research into the public records of opponents to find contradictions, controversial opinions or toxic affiliations. The liberal group Media Matters for America helped pioneer close scrutiny of public statements by conservative media personalities.

Those familiar with the campaign described it as meant to expose what they see as the hypocrisy of mainstream news outlets that have covered the president’s inflammatory language regarding race.Credit...George Etheredge/The New York Times]

The conservative operative James O’Keefe has twisted that concept in ways inconsistent with traditional journalistic ethics, using false identities, elaborate cover stories and undercover videos to entrap journalists and publicize embarrassing statements, often in misleading ways, to undercut the credibility of what he considers news media biased in favor of liberals.

In the case of the pro-Trump network, research into journalists is being deployed for the political benefit of the White House. It is targeting not only high-profile journalists who challenge the administration, but also anyone who works for any news organization that members of the network see as hostile to Mr. Trump, no matter how tangential that job may be to the coverage of his presidency. And it is being used explicitly as retribution for coverage.

Some reporters have been warned that they or their news organizations could be targets, creating the impression that the campaign is intended in part to deter them from aggressive coverage as well as to inflict punishment after an article has been published.

Trained as a lawyer, Mr. Schwartz has endeared himself to members of the president’s family by becoming one of their most aggressive defenders, known for badgering and threatening reporters and others he believes have wronged the Trumps.

He has publicly gone after Republicans he views as disloyal, including the former White House chief of staff Reince Priebus, about whom he admitted spreading an unsubstantiated rumor.He has called himself a “troll on Twitter,” which is where he has boasted of being aware of, or having access to, damaging information on dozens of journalists at CNN and The Times that could be deployed if those outlets ran afoul of Mr. Trump or his allies.

The operation’s tactics were on display last week, seemingly in response to two pieces in The Times that angered Mr. Trump’s allies. The paper’s editorial board published an editorial on Wednesday accusing Mr. Trump of fomenting anti-Semitism, and the newsroom published a profile on Thursday morning of Ms. Grisham, the new White House press secretary, which included unflattering details about her employment history.

One person involved in the effort said the pro-Trump forces, aware ahead of time about the coverage of Ms. Grisham, were prepared to respond. Early Thursday morning, soon after the profile appeared online,Breitbart News published an article that documented anti-Semitic andracist tweets written a decade ago by Tom Wright-Piersanti, who was in college at the time and has since become an editor on the Times’ politics desk. The Times said it was reviewing the matter and considered the posts “a clear violation of our standards.”

Mr. Schwartz tweeted a link to the Breitbart piece before 7 a.m., which Donald Trump Jr. retweeted to his 3.8 million followers— the first of about two dozen times that the president’s son shared the article or its contents.Other prominent Republicans, including Senator Ted Cruz of Texas, joined in highlighting the report.

Image

Mr. Schwartz is a friend and informal adviser to Donald Trump Jr., the president’s eldest son.Credit...Erin Schaff/The New York Times]

Breitbart’s article quoted several people or groups with close ties to Mr. Schwartz, including Richard Grenell, Mr. Trump’s ambassador to Germany, and the Zionist Organization of America. It was written by the site’s Washington political editor, Matthew Boyle, whose relationship with Mr. Schwartz started when Mr. Bannon ran the website.

Mr. Boyle’s article included a reference to the Times profile of Ms. Grisham, which it characterized as “attacking White House Press Secretary Stephanie Grisham.” Mr. Wright-Piersanti was uninvolved in the editing of the article about Ms. Grisham.

The tweets revealed in the Breitbart article quickly spread to other conservative outlets favored by the president and his allies, including the radio shows of Rush Limbaugh and Mark Levin.

Mr. Wright-Piersanti apologized on Twitter on Thursday morning and deleted offensive tweets. Mr. Schwartz then issued his warning that he had further damaging information about Times employees.

Mr. Wright-Piersanti, 32, said the tweets, posted when he was a college student with a Twitter following consisting mostly of personal acquaintances, were “my lame attempts at edgy humor to try to get a rise out of my friends.”

But he said “they’re not funny, they’re clearly offensive,” adding, “I feel deep shame for them, and I am truly, honestly sorry that I wrote these.”

He said he had forgotten about the tweets as he started a career in journalism.

“For my generation, the generation that came of age in the internet, all the youthful mistakes that you made get preserved in digital amber, and no matter how much you change and mature and grow up, it’s always out there, waiting to be discovered,” Mr. Wright-Piersanti said.

Like Mr. Wright-Piersanti, other targets of the pro-Trump network have been young people who grew up with social media and wrote the posts in question when they were in their teens or early 20s, in most cases before they became professional journalists.

Image

The photojournalist Mohammed Elshamy in 2014 in South Sudan. Tweets he wrote in his teens became the basis for articles in conservative news outlets.Credit...Andrei Pungovschi]

A week after a White House reporter for CNN sparred with Mr. Trump during a news conference, Mr. Schwartz highlighted a tweet by the reporter from 2011, when the reporter was in college, that used an anti-gay slur. Other similar tweets quickly surfaced, and the reporter apologized, though Mr. Schwartz has continued to antagonize the reporter on Twitter.

In recent months, Mr. Schwartz highlighted a nearly decade-old tweet in which a reporter for The Post had repeated in an ambiguous manner a slur used by a politician.

In March, Mr. Schwartz tweeted a link to an article from Breitbart, written by Mr. Boyle, about a reporter from Business Insider whose Instagram account included anti-Trump references and a photograph of the reporter demonstrating against the president.

In July, around the time CNN published an article exposing old posts by a Trump appointee spreading suggestions that Barack Obama was a Muslim whose loyalty to the United States was in question, Mr. Schwartz resurfaced anti-Semitic tweets from 2011 by a CNN photo editor. Mr. Schwartz suggested that a CNN reporter who specializes in unearthing problematic archival content should “look into the social media activities of your employees.”

The tweets became the basis for several articles in conservative news outlets and hundreds of tweets from conservatives targeting the photo editor, Mohammed Elshamy, which did not stop even after he resigned under pressure from CNN and apologized.

“It felt like a coordinated attack,” said Mr. Elshamy, who said he had received death threats. “It was overwhelming.”

Mr. Elshamy, who is now 25, said he posted the tweets when he was 15 and 16 years old, growing up in Egypt, when he was still learning English and did not fully grasp the meaning of the words.

“I was repeating slogans heard on the streets during a highly emotional time in my nation’s history,” he said. “I believe that my subsequent work and views over the years redeems for the mistakes I made as a kid.”

While he said he understands “the severity and harm of my comments,” he questioned the motivation of the campaign that cost him his job. “It is a very dirty tactic that they are using to cause as much harm as they can to anyone who is affiliated with these media outlets,” he said. “It actually feels like a competition and every termination or vilification is a point for them.”

Mr. Bannon, at the time the head of Breitbart, oversaw the site’s efforts in 2015 to attack Megyn Kelly, then of Fox News, after she called out Mr. Trump for tweets disparaging women as “fat pigs,” “dogs” and “slobs.” In an interview, he said the work that Mr. Schwartz was undertaking should be seen as a sign that Mr. Trump’s supporters were committed to executing a frontal assault on news media they considered adversarial.

“A culture war is a war,” he said. “There are casualties in war. And that’s what you’re seeing.”

			trump finally shows signs of shame as he flees a press briefing without answering questions after disinfectant fiasco												Breitbart News issues humiliating correction on a bogus ‘fact-check’ that denied Trump proposed injecting disinfectants

new booktv

:{Washington Journal:(style="margin:0px;padding:0px;border:0px;font-variant:inherit;font-weight:inherit;font-stretch:inherit;vertical-align:baseline"):}: :{Jerome Hudson, "50 Things They Don't Want You to Know":(style="font-style:inherit"):}:Jerome Hudson talked about his book, "50 Things They Don't Want You to…

new 1119 impeach

...Wrong. This is not evidence of anything at all,” Pollak claimed. “Even assuming — for argument’s sake — that the President only released aid because he heard of the whistleblower’s complaint, federal rules of evidence bar ‘subsequent remedial measures’ from being used to prove ‘culpable conduct.’”

Rocah destroyed Pollak’s argument.

“Trying to tell a former prosecutor she’s wrong about [criminal] law isn’t a good idea so please don’t mansplain to me,” Rocah counseled.

“Putting aside that the [Federal Rules of Evidence] don’t apply here, what you’re talking about applies in a civil context when companies install safety equipment you can’t use that to argue they should be liable for accidents that occurred prior (so as not to discourage them from making safety improvements),” she explained....

180 on va gov after loss bgr

has neg trump stories but always labelled by dem thus not to be belieived/ to make ppl mad?

manafort ukraine hit on Julia PM

https://yyy.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/apr/05/ex-trump-aide-paul-manafort-approved-black-ops-to-help-ukraine-president

no lnx docs

The Guardian -

Former Trump aide approved 'black ops' to help Ukraine president

Exclusive: Paul Manafort authorised secret media operation that sought to discredit key opponent of then Ukrainian president

by Luke Harding

Thu 5 Apr 2018 11.00 EDTLast modified on Thu 5 Apr 2018 20.00 EDT

Donald Trump’s former campaign manager Paul Manafort authorised a secret media operation on behalf of Ukraine’s former president featuring “black ops”, “placed” articles in the Wall Street Journal and US websites and anonymous briefings against Hillary Clinton.

The project was designed to boost the reputation of Ukraine’s then leader, Viktor Yanukovych. It was part of a multimillion-dollar lobbying effort carried out by Manafort on behalf of Yanukovych’s embattled government, emails and documents reveal.

The strategies included:

• Proposing to rewrite Wikipedia entries to smear a key opponent of the then Ukrainian president.

• Setting up a fake thinktank in Vienna to disseminate viewpoints supporting Yanukovych.

• A social media blitz “aimed at targeted audiences in Europe and the US”.

• Briefing journalists from the rightwing website Breitbart to attack Clinton when she was US secretary of state.

Manafort’s Ukraine strategy anticipated later efforts by the Kremlin and its troll factory to use Twitter and Facebook to discredit Clinton and to help Trump win the 2016 US election. The material seen by the Guardian dates from 2011 to 2013.

Robert Mueller, the special counsel investigating claims of collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia, has indicted Manafort on multiple counts. Manafort is accused of “laundering profits” from his lobbying work in Ukraine, carried out over a period of a decade for Yanukovych and his political party.

Mueller also accuses Manafort of hiring retired European politicians to lobby on behalf of Yanukovych, and paying them more than €2m (£1.74m, $2.45m) via offshore accounts.

The documents reveal another surreptitious operation to influence international opinion. In 2010 Yanukovych defeated his rival Yulia Tymoshenko in presidential elections. The following summer Ukrainian prosecutors arrested Tymoshenko and put her on trial. This provoked severe criticism from the Obama administration and the EU, which accused Yanukovych of locking up Tymoshenko for political reasons.

In 2011 Manafort approved a clandestine strategy to discredit Tymoshenko abroad. Alan Friedman, a former Wall Street Journal and Financial Times reporter, based in Italy, masterminded this project. Friedman has previously been accused of concealing his work as a paid lobbyist.

Also involved were Rick Gates, Manafort’s then deputy, and Konstantin Kilimnik, another senior Manafort associate who the FBI believes has links to Russian military intelligence.

In July 2011 Friedman sent Manafort a confidential six-page document titled Ukraine - A Digital Roadmap. It laid out a plan to “deconstruct” Tymoshenko via videos, articles and social media. Yanukovych deferred to Manafort, who gave the project the go-ahead, sources in Ukraine’s former government say.

Friedman’s proposed operation was ambitious. It included producing anonymous videos attacking Tymoshenko and comparing the opposition leader to a drunk Boris Yeltsin. “The social media space offers great opportunities for guilt by association,” Friedman wrote in the document.

He continued: “We know that video exists of Tymoshenko uttering some of her outrageous claims in court … The video can be floated into the social space to reinforce the impression that she is at best reckless and unstatesmanlike and at worst malicious, defamatory and antisemitic.”

[An anonymous video attacking Yulia Tymoshenko.

Twitters users, including “those ‘known’ to us”, could retweet hostile content. The “roadmap” included a website, blogposts and “blast emails”, sent out to a “targeted audience in Europe and the US”. One section was called “Black Ops”. It said: “This could include Wikipedia page modification to highlight [Tymoshenko] corruption and trial and modify the tone of the language being used.”

Friedman worked with Eckart Sager, a one-time CNN producer. Emails show they liaised closely with “Paul”, who in turn briefed Yanukovych’s chief of staff, Serhiy Lyovochkin. Lyovochkin declined to comment. He appears in correspondence as “SL”.

“He was under the radar,” one source said of Friedman. “Alan kept a low profile. Without Paul’s authorisation Alan would never have got a contract with the [Yanukovych] government.”

Friedman’s company FBC Media was retained on a “rolling contract”. It was paid around €150,000 every three months, sources in Kiev suggest. The money was deposited in an offshore account in Seychelles, they allege. Often the payments were late, prompting Friedman to complain, they add.

Quick guide

Paul Manafort Ukraine connections: who's who?

Show

Contacted by the Guardian, Friedman said these earnings were “declared”. He confirmed his company worked for Ukraine from late summer 2011 on what he called “a public relations and country profiling project”. He said: “It was not a secret or covert plan. We had PR people proposing interviews and features to newspapers very openly.”

He said its goal was to promote the Ukraine government’s then policy of moving closer to a partnership agreement with the EU. “Our aim was to keep a steady communication going in favour of dialogue between Brussels and Kiev. That was our message.

“We never supported a pro-Moscow stance and had already ended our relationship when the Ukrainian president abandoned closer ties with Europe.”

Asked whether he had registered with the US Department of Justice, Friedman said he had never worked as a lobbyist for Ukraine. He added: “I never registered as a foreign agent because I never was one.

“I was a communications guy, doing PR media strategy work in Europe for a client, like dozens of London PR companies that work for a variety of governments.”

The documents show Friedman reported directly to Kiev. In spring 2012 he told the foreign minister, Kostyantyn Gryshchenko, he had “generated dozens of positive op-eds/interviews/articles for print and TV” and “disseminated positive news stories” to nearly 2,000 publications.

Key to this strategy was a fake thinktank, the Center for the Study of Former Soviet Socialist Republics (CXSSR), set up with Manafort’s backing. Friedman used it to publish dozens of positive stories about Yanukovych, many of them authored by a “Matthew Lina”.

Lina’s comment pieces criticising Tymoshenko and Obama’s state department ran on the conservative US website RedState. Friedman told Manafort his editorial team ghostwrote an article by Yanukovych published by the Wall Street Journal.

He claimed credit for a Tymoshenko profile written by the Journal’s Matthew Kaminski. Kaminski said Friedman was never a source, “or even someone that as far as I can remember I had any contact whatsoever with”.

In April 2012 Friedman sent another “highly confidential” two-page document to Manafort. It set out plans to launch a “special website” entitled The Tymoshenko Files. The site would purport to belong to Inna Bohoslovska, a Ukrainian deputy and Tymoshenko critic.

In fact, Friedman would “discreetly prepare, implement and maintain” the site, the document said. It would include “ghost-penned” blogs and “a quasi-novella serialisation”. Asked about the website, Friedman said he had never written “any content”.

Emails seen by the Guardian show a regular pattern of interaction between Manafort, Friedman, Gates, Kilimnik and Ukrainian officials. Gates, who went on to work with Manafort on the 2016 Trump campaign, wrote several messages. In February Gates , and agreed to cooperate with Mueller.

At the time Kilimnik was the Russian manager of Manafort’s Kiev office. Kilminik is understood to be “Person A” in Mueller’s latest indictment, filed last week. It says the FBI believes Kilimnik has ties to Moscow’s GRU spy agency, and adds that Gates was aware of this. Kilimnik denies a connection. Friedman confirmed he had met Manafort and Gates but said he had done so “because the client asked me to”.

Manafort’s media operation included attacks on Clinton. In October 2012 Gates emailed Manafort and Friedman, flagging a piece written by the journalist Ben Shapiro. The Breitbart article criticised Clinton for her public support of Tymoshenko, who had recently made an electoral pact with the far-right Svoboda party.

The article cited a Jewish “leader” who accused Clinton anonymously of creating a “neo-Nazi Frankenstein”. Gates wrote: “Gentlemen – Here is the first part of a series of articles that will be coming as we continue to build this effort. Alan, you get full credit for the Frankenstein comment.”

The alleged use of offshore accounts is likely to interest the FBI. Manafort is accused of concealing more than $75m earned from his work in Ukraine.

Yanukovych’s attempts to woo western leaders ended in October 2013 when he accepted a bailout from Moscow. He fled to Russia after anti-government protests. In 2015 Friedman wrote an authorised biography of Silvio Berlusconi. Manafort continued to work for Yanukovych’s party up until he joined Trump’s campaign. Manafort denies wrongdoing and has said he will fight Mueller’s charges.

https://www.rightwingwatch.org/post/ben-shapiro-trump-used-irregular-channels-because-he-was-rightfully-paranoid/

ben Shapiro, a right-wing political commentator and the editor-in-chief of The Daily Wire, attempted to defend President Donald Trump in light of testimony from Bill Taylor, the United States’ top diplomat in Ukraine. Taylor testified that the Trump administration had circumvented normal diplomatic channels and that Trump ordered that foreign aid to the country be dependent on Ukraine’s president launching an investigation into one of Trump’s political enemies.

During Wednesday’s episode of his podcast, Shapiro defended Trump’s behavior surrounding Ukraine. In part of that defense, Shapiro argued that government is a “self-fulfilling prophecy” in which leaders rule according to their perception of what the government is like. Because Trump had good reason to believe the government was corrupt since he was being targeted by Democrats, Shapiro argued, he chose to use “improper channels” to do his political bidding.

“He also feels as if he has been targeted, and correctly so. He feels that he is being targeted by people inside his own administration, to the cheers of the media. And that’s true, he is being targeted by people in his own administration to the cheers of the media,” Shapiro said.

To back up his claims that Trump was right to feel targeted, Shapiro cited recent news reports that the author of an anonymous New York Times op-ed last year, identified only as a senior official in the Trump administration, will be publishing a book called “A Warning.” He argued that the book was the type of thing that would rightly motivate Trump to set up improper communications channels.

“That’s not good for the presidency. It’s not good for the country. And of course, it’s going to underscore how suspicious Trump is of people inside his administration, and it’s going to encourage Trump to set up exactly the sort of irregular channels that Bill Taylor was talking about,” Shapiro said. “Why would you set up an irregular channel? The only reason to set up an irregular channel is because you don’t trust the regular channel. One of the reasons you might not trust the regular channel is it feels like the regular channel is being used as a method of hurting you.”

Shapiro added, “It’s hard to argue with Trump about why Trump should feel differently.”

The anonymously authored book set to come out later this year is, according to Shapiro, “underscoring the president’s distrust in government, which leads him to set up irregular channels, which leads them to make mistakes, which leads him into traps, which leads the Democrats to seem to believe that they have material to impeach.”

Later in the same episode of his podcast, Shapiro argued that Trump’s comparison of the impeachment process to “lynching” was not actually problematic.

i have not been able to figure her TG out; many ads on AN

no lnx

Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton suggested that she thinks Rep. Tulsi Gabbard, D-Hawaii, is being “groomed” by Russia to run as a third-party candidate in 2020.

Clinton made the allegations during an interview with David Plouffe, Barack Obama’s former campaign manager. During the interview, Clinton alleged that Russia used 2016 Green Party nominee Jill Stein as an “asset” and suggested that Gabbard would play a similar role in the upcoming election without mentioning her name.

“They’re also going to do third-party again,” Clinton said. “I’m not making any predictions, but I think they’ve got their eye on someone who’s currently in the Democratic primary and are grooming her to be the third-party candidate. She’s the favorite of the Russians. They have a bunch of sites and bots and other ways of supporting her so far.”

Clinton went on to label Stein a “Russian asset.”

“And that’s assuming Jill Stein will give it up, which she might not because she’s also a Russian asset,” Clinton said. “Yeah, she’s a Russian asset — I mean, totally. They know they can’t win without a third-party candidate. So I don’t know who it’s going to be, but I will guarantee you they will have a vigorous third-party challenge in the key states that they most needed.”...

https://www.alternet.org/2019/08/how-duplicitous-trolls-are-using-tulsi-gabbards-candidacy-to-foment-disruption-and-chaos/

nolnx

ous trolls are using Tulsi Gabbard’s candidacy to foment disruption and chaos

Written by Nancy LeTourneau / Washington Monthly August 23, 2019

Tulsi Gabbard is not going to be the Democratic nominee for president in 2020. At this point, her polling average at Real Clear Politics is 1.4%. Nevertheless, conservative media celebrated the fact that Gabbard won the online poll sponsored by Drudge Report after the first round of debates. Similarly, Gabbard won polls from both Breitbart and Drudge after her performance in the second debate. Those results were not replicated by any reputable polling firm.

Not long after the first debate, we learned what had prompted Gabbard’s success in those online polls.

Users from pro-Trump communities on 4chan and Reddit implored fellow members to vote for lower-polling candidates in online polls, specifically Tulsi Gabbard and Bill de Blasio, in the hours after Wednesday’s Democratic debate — a sign that digital manipulation efforts related to U.S. politics and elections remain very much alive....

raw story

ref 4 digby

https://www.rawstory.com/2019/09/new-york-times-battered-on-msnbc-for-pushing-smear-of-hunter-biden-in-order-to-maintain-access-to-trump/

An “AM Joy” panel jumped all over the New York Times for pushing a widely debunked smear of Hunter Biden promoted by Donald Trump, saying the newspaper is more interested in maintaining their access to the Oval Office than debunking the lie.

Speaking with host Joy Reid — who noted that her producers asked for comment from the Times but were rebuffed — MSNBC regular Maria Teresa Kumar scorched the Times, as well as reporter Ken Vogel, for the uncritical parroting of the president’s smear.

Pointing to Vogel’s story and noting his source was a Breitbart writer, Kumar explained, “The biggest challenge, Ken Vogel does not declare the source , that Peter Schweizer, is underwritten by the Mercer family — the Mercer family is a neo-facist family that underwrites Steve Bannon and the Breitbart Report so it is not credible.”

“What they had done so stealthily, so well, is that they know that if they can have any type of story in an established newspaper, as is the New York Times, that it any breeds a sense of legitimacy,” she continued. “Fox News takes it and Breitbart takes it, all the ultra-rightwings take it and say, ‘Look, the New York Times is saying it, so it must be true.’ That’s a lack of due diligence.”

“It’s disappointing in the New York Times, quite frankly,” she further explained. “When they try to equate something with Biden and Trump, they’re trying to make sure they continue having access to the president and that’s not the way to do it.”

With host Reid noting Vogel’s desire to not appear on her show, AM Joy regular Eric Boehlert called the Times reporting, including previous stories about Democrats and Hillary Clinton, “Timidity access journalism.”

Watch

anti-vaxxers sorta, but no mention of recent outbreak in US NW, amazing pro UN, dump on france; yemen mentioned but not 1 mil cholera

https://www.breitbart.com/news/un-warns-of-complacency-as-measles-cases-soar-worldwide-2/

story supports lauren so ref intercepts

ref mma

A professor who was caught agreeing to hide the oil funding behind a climate denial research paper named Breitbart News as a media outlet that could "likely help" publicize the research, according to emails unearthed as part of an undercover investigation by Greenpeace. Indeed, Breitbart News has frequently cited Princeton Emeritus Professor William Happer to promote the supposed "benefits" of climate-warming carbon pollution and argue against a "war on CO2" -- including just days before the Greenpeace investigation was released. And now that Greenpeace has exposed Happer's ethically dubious actions, Breitbart News is defending Happer's behavior as "morally and scientifically unimpeachable."

On December 8, Greenpeace released the results of its investigation, in which Greenpeace UK reporters claiming to represent oil and coal companies asked two university professors to write industry-friendly research papers, and the professors agreed to do so without disclosing the fossil fuel funding behind them. According to Greenpeace, the investigation details "how fossil fuel companies can secretly pay academics at leading American universities to write research that sows doubt about climate science and promotes the companies' commercial interests."

As part of its report about the investigation, titled "Exposed: Academics-for-hire agree not to disclose fossil fuel funding," Greenpeace released a series of emails between its undercover staffers and the two academics, William Happer and Penn State Emeritus Professor Frank Clemente. In an email exchange in early November, a Greenpeace employee who was posing as an oil company consultant based in Beirut asked Happer if he could write a briefing paper "examin[ing] the benefits of fossil fuels to developing economies," and if there were any "US outlets or contacts you may have" that could help "get this research out far and wide." The Greenpeace employee also mentioned a London Times column praising carbon emissions by Matt Ridley, who Happer said was in "close touch" with a pro-carbon group called the CO2 Coalition that Happer helped organize. The Greenpeace employee then asked Happer if Ridley -- a Times columnist who also frequently writes op-eds published by The Wall Street Journal -- "would help to disseminate our research." Happer replied: "I am sure Matt Ridley will be interested in whatever you produce. The Breitbart news organization would also likely help, as would various blogs, syndicated columnists, etc."

Given Breitbart News' past coverage of Happer, it should come as no surprise that he mentioned Breitbart when asked to name media outlets that would promote his industry-funded, climate-denying research. For instance:

A June 3, 2015 Breitbart article touted a letter from Happer and two other physicists attacking the American Physical Society (APS) for a statement recognizing the reality of man-made climate change.

A January 22, 2015 Breitbart article purporting to list off "Ten reasons why the war on CO2 has done far more harm than good" approvingly quoted Happer referring to "the jihad against atmospheric carbon dioxide."

An October 24, 2014 Breitbart article quoted "climate expert" Happer as saying: "No chemical compound in the atmosphere has a worse reputation than CO2, thanks to the single-minded demonisation of this natural and essential atmospheric gas by advocates of government control and energy production. The incredible list of supposed horrors that increasing carbon dioxide will bring the world is pure belief disguised as science."

A September 2, 2011 Breitbart article quoted Happer as follows: "Disagreeing with [the United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change] is like going to Saudi Arabia and criticizing Muhammad."

On December 4, several weeks after Happer mentioned Breitbart News in his email to Greenpeace (and just days before Greenpeace released the results of its investigation), Breitbart News published yet another article touting Happer, this one titled "Carbon Dioxide Is Not Our Enemy." In it, Breitbart's John Hayward wrote a highly sympathetic profile of Happer's climate science denial, asserting that a white paper Happer co-authored was "meant to be a conversation-starter" and took "a non-confrontational approach with copious footnotes and supporting sources, inviting readers to perform their own research and gain a fuller understanding of CO2 and its benefits." Hayward also stated that Happer "lamented the vicious treatment given to scientists who showed even modest skepticism toward the link between CO2 and climate change."

After Greenpeace released its investigation, Breitbart News' James Delingpole rushed to Happer's defense with a December 8 article, in which he wrote: "What's clear is that [at] every stage Happer's behaviour was morally and scientifically unimpeachable." Delingpole alleged that Happer was not at fault because he made clear he "would only say in his paper what he believed anyway" and indicated that he did not "wish to benefit personally from the fee, but preferred that the money should go to a tax-exempt educational charity, which pays only his travel expenses."

It's true that Happer has a long track record of advocating for the purported "benefits" of carbon pollution, and it's also true that he requested in his emails to the undercover Greenpeace employee that "whatever fee would have come to me would go directly to the CO2 Coalition" -- the group Happer helped organized earlier this year. But Delingpole tellingly did not provide Happer's answer to two other questions Delingpole noted that Greenpeace had raised: "Would the CO2 Coalition be happy to take a direct donation on condition the donor remained anonymous?" and "Might Happer be able to get his paper peer-reviewed by sympathetic authors?"

This is where Happer's conduct is far from "unimpeachable," as Breitbart News claimed.

The Greenpeace staffer posing as a representative of the Middle Eastern oil company told Happer over email that "we are happy to make a direct donation to the CO2 Coalition, providing it is anonymous," and asked Happer whether "the CO2 Coalition voluntarily discloses its funders." Happer replied that he believed the CO2 Coalition isn't "required to make public any donors, although it is required to disclose them to the Internal Revenue Service." He also forwarded the question to William O'Keefe, another member of the Board of Directors of the CO2 Coalition and former Executive Vice President and Chief Operating Officer of the American Petroleum Institute. O'Keefe replied by suggesting that the oil company funnel the funds through the Donors Trust, which has been dubbed the "dark-money ATM" of the conservative movement:

We are under no obligation to identify donors, except to the IRS but I think that is just organizations. When people ask the IRS or a firms 990 [sic], the donor list is redacted. If the person participates in the Donors Trust, he/she can make the donation through that and have complete confidentiality.

Happer then forwarded O'Keefe's response to the undercover Greenpeace employee. As Greenpeace noted, in his emails "Happer also disclosed that [coal giant] Peabody Energy paid $8,000 in return for his testimony in a crucial Minnesota state hearing on the impacts of carbon dioxide. This fee was also paid to the CO2 Coalition."

The exchange between Happer and the undercover Greenpeace staffer exemplifies how the fossil fuel industry's funding of shoddy science can be hidden from public view, and how this strategy can apply not just to the research papers themselves but also to op-eds and other media coverage about them. Indeed, the other university professor that Greenpeace approached, Penn State's Frank Clemente, listed over email a series of op-eds he had written that had been published in newspapers across the United States, and then observed: "Note that in none of these cases is the sponsor identified. All my work is published as an independent scholar."

The other serious issue raised in Happer's emails relates to peer review, the process by which scholarly work is checked by a group of experts in the same field prior to publication. As Greenpeace documented, in his emails Happer "laid out details of an unofficial peer review process run by the Global Warming Policy Foundation, a UK climate sceptic think tank, and said he could ask to put an oil-funded report through a similar review process, after admitting that it would struggle to be published in an academic journal." Specifically, Happer wrote that if he submitted the research paper to a peer-reviewed journal, it might "no longer make the case that CO2 is a benefit, not a pollutant, as strongly as I would like, and presumably as strongly your client would also like." Instead, Happer proposed a review process that would not be anonymous and would be conducted by the climate-denying Global Warming Policy Foundation, writing that although "purists might object that the process did not qualify as a peer review ... I think it would be fine to call it a peer review."

The Global Warming Policy Foundation recently conducted a similar review of another pro-carbon pollution paper, with Ridley -- who used to be a regular columnist for The Wall Street Journal -- deceptively alleging in the London Times that the paper had been "thoroughly peer reviewed."

NB progress means armed teachers

BB bs

report on the the February 14, 2018, Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School shooting shows no progress in implementing safety measures since the April 20, 1999, Columbine attack.

The Sun-Sentinel published their own report, which examines the use of unarmed security monitors. In lieu of guns, the security personnel had radios, yet two monitors spotted and recognized the gunman before shots were fired yet failed to call a Code Red to lock down campus.

The school had an armed resource officer on campus–Broward Deputy Scot Peterson–but he “remained sheltered [outside the school building] for nearly 48 minutes, watching as other officers enter the building.”

On March 15, 2018, Breitbart News published surveillance video allegedly showing Peterson outside Build 12 while the shooting was carried out inside. Broward Sheriff Scott Israel indicated that Peterson arrived at Building 12 roughly 90 seconds after the attack began.

He remained outside as the gunman went on a floor by floor shooting spree, that included stopping to reload five times.

Roughly six minutes after the attack was over, Peterson was still huddled up, sheltering in place outside. He told approaching Coral Springs officers that the gunman was on the second or third floor when, in fact, the gunman had already fled the building. Surveillance video shows the gunman–now unarmed–running across campus and going to Walmart, where he “ordered a drink at Subway.”

He left Walmart and went to McDonald’s, where he remained but a short time.

The commission instigating the Parkland shooting report noted the absence of safety as well, and voted 13-1 to recommend arming teachers at the school. Armed teachers are in the classrooms to defend themselves and their students whether the school’s resource officer enters the building or not.

On December 19, 2018, Breitbart News reported President Trump’s determination to include armed teachers in his school safety push. Trump made the point that it is “critical to have armed personnel available at a moment’s notice,” and he noted that teachers can be part such personnel.

Armed teachers are in classrooms to defend themselves and their students whether the security monitors call a Code Red or not.

AWR Hawkins is an award-winning Second Amendment columnist for Breitbart News, the host of the Breitbart podcast Bullets with AWR Hawkins, and the writer/curator of Down Range with AWR Hawkins, a weekly newsletter focused on all things Second Amendment, also for Breitbart News. He is the political analyst for Armed American Radio. Follow him on Twitter: @AWRHawkins. Reach him directly at awrhawkins@breitbart.com. Sign up to get Down Range at breitbart.com/downrange.

2nd AmendmentPoliticsColumbineMarjory Stoneman Douglas High Schoolschool safetyschool shooting

LI scrape

Emmit Causey

Ryan Koch

Student at Norwich University

Ezra Dulis

Deputy Managing Editor at Breitbart.com

Jack Linehan

Graduate Student at Norwich University

Becky Koop

Writer - Educator - Creativity Enthusiast

Matthew Boyle

Washington Political Editor at Breitbart News Network

Jeff Poor

Editor at Breitbart.tv, columnist for Lagniappe in Mobile, AL and contributor for Alabama-based Yellowhammer News

Mike Flynn

Political Editor at Breitbart.com

Jennifer Jacques

Concealed Carry Advocate, Second Amendment Defender

Heather Hunter

Executive Producer, WMAL Radio

~ susan rice

http://www.breitbart.com/author/charlie-spiering/

https://www.linkedin.com/in/charlie-spiering-399953a

Reporter

Breitbart News

April 2014 – Present (4 years 2 months)Washington D.C. Metro Area

See experience details

Commentary Staff Writer

Washington Examiner

January 2009 – April 2014 (5 years 4 months)

See experience details

US editor

PoliticsHome.com

September 2008 – December 2008 (4 months)

See experience details

Political Reporter

Robert D. Novak

August 2007 – September 2008 (1 year 2 months)

See experience details

Staff Reporter

Rappahannock News

August 2006 – August 2007 (1 year 1 month)

See experience details

Education

Christendom College

History

2001 – 2005

scrape

Merrill Hope

Breitbart News

Alex Marlow

Editor-in-Chief at Breitbart News Network

Jillian Mele

News Anchor at Fox News

Marie Mazzanti-Proctor

Former Editor at Breitbart News Network

Kristin Tate

Ben Shapiro

Founder & CEO, PIVOT Marketing Agency

Neil Munro

Editor and reporter at Breitbart News

Sebastian Gorka Ph.D.

National Security Strategist at Fox News

Alex Jones

Nationally Syndicated Radio Talkshow Host of The Alex Jones Show.

https://www.desmogblog.com/2018/01/04/exclusive-global-sea-level-data-agency-hits-back-after-attacks-breitbart-and-climate-science-deniers

A British government-backed research project that coordinates data from tide gauges around the world has hit back at climate science deniers who wrongly accused their scientists of faking findings.

The Permanent Service for Mean Sea Level, based in Liverpool, UK, at the National Oceanography Center, dismissed the claims made by two Australia-based scientists who both reject the well-established links between greenhouse gas emissions from human activity and global warming.

The claims gained wider attention after Breitbart’s James Delingpole, a climate science denier, screamed it was certain evidence PSMSL had been “caught red-handed tampering with raw data in order to exaggerate sea level rise.”

PSMSL said despite the claims, tide gauges and satellites showed that sea levels around the globe were rising and the rate of rise had increased in recent decades. Recent adjustments to the tide gauge data under scrutiny, in Yemen, had actually resulted in a decrease in the rate of sea level change, a spokesperson said.

The paper by Albert Parker and Cliff Ollier appeared in the new “open access” journal Earth Systems and Environment and claimed that data from a tide gauge in Aden, Yemen, did not show that sea levels there had risen.

As well as gaining attention from far right outlet Breitbart, the “research” was also covered uncritically by the UK’s MailOnline, which repeated the claim that PSMSL had made “arbitrary” adjustments to their data.

But senior scientists who are experts in sea level, and who spoke to Snopes and DeSmog, rubbished the claims, saying the study was flawed because the conclusions were unsupported by any methodology.

Unintelligible Research

Leading sea level scientist Dr. John Hunter told DeSmog the research was “close to being unintelligible.”

A spokersperson for PSMSL, at the National Oceanography Center, told DeSmog that MailOnline had approached them for comment, but published the story before scientists had a chance to respond. No other outlets contacted them to check.

The spokesperson wrote: “Any adjustment applied is never ‘arbitrary’ but is based on documentation of benchmark heights held by the PSMSL stretching back many years. An ongoing job of the PSMSL is to determine whether the adjustments made are correct, especially when new documentation becomes available or if there is a reanalysis of the existing documentation.”

PSMSL said the Aden, Yemen, gauge was assessed in 2008 and again in 2013 and this information was published on the PSMSL website.

“The 2013 reassessment resulted in a decrease (and not an increase) in the estimated 19th-20th century rate of sea level change at Aden,” the spokesperson wrote, adding that PSMSL was submitting a response to the journal.

“Global sea level is both rising and accelerating, and the data set compiled by PSMSL provides important input to this. This is detailed in the IPCC AR5 report chapters 3 and 13 … Specifically, PSMSL data inform us that sea level has risen by about 1-2 mm/year during the 20th century, and together with data from satellites, the rate over the last couple of decades has been over 3 mm/yr.”

Dr. John Hunter, a renowned expert on global sea level rise from the University of Tasmania, has analysed the Parker paper. He told DeSmog it was “hard to be sure what [Parker] has done” with the data because the paper, like others by the same author, were “close to being unintelligible.”

But he said the PSMSL broadly made two kinds of adjustments to data, which were “not arbitrary” but necessary.

One type of adjustment was to take the raw data and convert this to an average sea level height over a particular time period. A second was essentially a calibration exercise that matched the height of the zero mark on the tide gauge to a fixed point on the land.

Hunter said: “Broadly, PSMSL base the adjustments on whatever trustworthy information they have — if they don't have satisfactory information, then they don't convert that section of record from Metric to [Revised Local Reference data*]. They document what they do and why they do it.

“On the other hand, Parker's papers are often close to being unintelligible, so it is hard to be sure what he has done.

“Parker and Ollier (2017) appear to completely ignore the background information and instead fiddle around with the sea-level records only, matching break-points as best they can, using techniques which tend to yield adjusted records with virtually no trend.”

Hunter added that tide gauges and satellites all showed that sea levels were rising, and there was good understanding that this was being caused by thermal expansion of the oceans and the melting of glaciers and ice sheets.

Who is Albert Parker?

Dr. Albert Parker is a mechanical engineer and former Fiat motor company researcher who, as reported by DeSmog, has also published papers under the name Alberto Boretti. He appears to have begun using the name Parker in about 2013 — around the time he took a role at RMIT University, which he has since left.

Boretti has refused to say why he uses two different names. Boretti and his sometime research partner Cliff Ollier, of University of Western Australia, are both listed as members of Principia Scientific International.

PSI is a fringe climate science denial group that publishes materials that deny that carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas.

Parker is prolific with his research and tends to target little-known and poorly regarded journals.

In early 2017, Parker and Ollier claimed that Australia had not warmed since the end of the 1800s, even though all temperature data shows a clear warming. The pair again argued that data, this time temperature readings, was being nefariously altered.

Journals Under Investigation

Parker and Ollier have co-authored several papers in a separate journal, Environmental Science: An Indian Journal, where the pair have also argued against human-caused climate change.

The publication Environmental Science: An Indian Journal is run by an organization called Trade Science Inc, which is owned by Indian “open access” publisher, OMICS.

OMICS is currently under investigation by the U.S. Federal Trade Commission for alleged deceptive practices. The FTC is questioning OMICS claims that its journals are properly peer-reviewed, and the agency alleges deceptive marketing practices. OMICS denies the allegations.

A brochure advertising the network of OMICS trading names includes Trade Science Inc, and a contact address for Trade Science Inc is the same as OMICS International’s headquarters in Hyderabad.

Parker has had several university affiliations in recent years, including RMIT, the now defunct University of Ballarat, and James Cook University. In his latest research he listed no academic affiliation.

In 2013, Parker wrote a paper with a fellow Australian, Thomas Watson, again arguing that sea levels were not rising.

Watson also thinks global warming is not caused by rising greenhouse gas emissions, but instead says the Earth’s climate is controlled by “magnetism.”

https://www.desmogblog.com/2018/02/06/climate-science-deniers-new-york-american-museum-natural-history-rebekah-mercer

With friends like climate science deniers and alt-right megaphones like Breitbart, you have to wonder whether New York’s iconic American Museum of Natural History (AMNH) needs any enemies right now.

As the New York Times and others are reporting, the museum is facing calls from hundreds of scientists, its own curators, campaigners, and the public to drop rich benefactor and major Trump funder and ally Rebekah Mercer from its board of trustees.

As DeSmog reported in 2017, the foundation of the billionaire Mercer family has given millions to the museum, with latest figures putting their generosity at $3.8 million since 2013.

Rebekah Mercer, the daughter of hedge fund billionaire Robert Mercer, heads the Mercer Family Foundation that has also been giving millions to climate science denial groups, including the notorious Heartland Institute.

But now the museum finds itself in the unenviable position of being defended, perhaps not surprisingly, by the Mercer-funded hyper-partisan outlet Breitbart and climate science denial characters from other Mercer-funded groups.

Deniers on the Defense

In a typically verbose screed on Breitbart, climate science denier James Delingpole called the scientists who had signed a letter protesting Mercer’s presence “basically frauds” and “imbeciles.”

Now climate science deniers have begun to circulate their own “open letter” calling for the AMNH to keep Mercer on the board and “not to cave in to this pressure.”

The letter reads: “The Earth has supported abundant life many times in the geological past when there were much higher levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. It is quite likely that future generations will benefit from the enrichment of Earth’s atmosphere with more carbon dioxide.

“Make no mistake, the agitators are not defending science from quackery — quite the contrary!”

That statement itself is contradicted by every major scientific institution in the world and thousands of scientific studies over many decades.

Many of that letter’s signers are affiliated with groups funded by Mercer’s family foundation in recent years. There’s retired Professor Will Happer of the CO2 Coalition; Richard Lindzen, a fellow at the Cato Institute; and Craig Idso, the chairman of the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change.

In a footnote, the letter states: “The views represented in this letter are those of the individual signatories and not the institutions they are affiliated with. Institutions are listed simply for identification purposes.”

The first signatory is Professor J. Scott Armstrong of the University of Pennsylvania.

Marketing professor Armstrong has spoken at several Heartland Institute conferences and was handed a “lifetime achievement” award at the institute’s March 2017 conference in Washington D.C.

The Mercer’s family foundation, which Rebekah leads, has given some $5.78 million to Heartland since 2008. Both Rebekah and father Robert attended Heartland’s D.C conference and have recently extended their funding to other anti-science groups.

As DeSmog reported, at the D.C conference Armstrong compared the apparently heroic work of climate science deniers to New York’s brave 9/11 firefighters.

Many of the names on the pro-Mercer petition have also signed numerous other letters denying the risks of human-caused climate change.

Pro-Science Petition Spammed

What’s more, it appears that some have targeted the pro-science public petition calling for Mercer's removal — which is separate from the open letter signed by scientists — by adding fake names.

In a statement, Beka Economopoulos of the Natural History Museum, a mobile science museum which is helping co-ordinate the letters, and petitions, said:

“There have been about a dozen fake names added to the public sign-on list, ranging from the inventor of the steam engine James Watt, to Nazi propagandist Joseph Goebbels.

“It’s not clear if the names were added as a simple prank or in a deliberate attempt to damage our credibility, but either way we quickly removed them and are keeping a close eye to ensure only legitimate names are added. It’s sad that people will go so far to protect Rebekah Mercer as to invoke the Nazi Minister of Propaganda, but here we are.”

The museum’s famous astrophysicist Neil deGrasse Tyson is known for his impassioned attacks on climate science deniers.

In 2017 when DeSmog asked Tyson about the Mercers' financial support, he stressed how his position showed the independence of science from funding, but added: “All knowledge has value, especially knowledge of how people distort knowledge.”

In response to questions about the current protests, Tyson told DeSmog: “I have nothing to add or subtract from my previous correspondence with you on this matter.”

https://www.alternet.org/election-03918/trumps-vote-suppression-team-doing-gops-dirty-work

Anyone who favors expanding voting rights should be relieved by Wednesday’s demise of President Trump’s so-called Election Integrity Commission. But the panel’s right-wing agenda to rig the voting process to benefit the GOP will continue.

There’s plenty to cheer about when white nationalists like Kansas Secretary of State Kris Kobach, the vice-chair, and voter suppressors like the Heritage Foundation’s Hans von Spakovsky were discredited by a panel run in a secretive, conspiratorial and clownish manner. But these Republicans are not giving up on their plan to create new barriers to eligible voters.

“Amid many challenges for the institutions of American democracy, this was a rousing win,” said Michael Waldman, president of the Brennan Center for Justice. “No doubt, there is fallout to come… The commission has vanished, but its pernicious objectives persist. The White House has asked the Department of Homeland Security to take up the commission’s work—a dangerous and appalling idea. Earlier this morning, the president took to Twitter to renew calls for voting restrictions.”

Indeed, Kobach signaled his next move to Politico, which noted, “The Kansas official said he expects officials from Immigration and Customs Enforcement and political appointees overseeing that agency to take over the commission’s work and begin efforts to match state voter rolls to federal databases of noncitizens. He insisted he was not disappointed with the president’s decision.”

“It’s the right move,” Kobach said. “It’s a shifting in tactics from having the investigation be done by a federal commission to having it be done by a federal agency. The agency has a greater ability to move quickly to get the investigation done.”

The GOP Strategy Unmasked

Kobach’s is referring to a strategy employed by the most fervent partisan Republicans to position red-run states to keep new registrants from voting and do mass purges of infrequent but otherwise legal voters from their rolls. In short, it draws on intentionally sloppy data-mining to creates thousands of false positives that are then used to stymie voters. That porous data has been used in recent cycles in Georgia to delay approving new registrations and to accelerate mass purges of voter rolls. But it's not just Georgia.

In 2014, Florida’s top election official proposed using DHS’s problematic citizenship data to purge voter rolls. In response, county election supervisors rebelled and blocked it—because they still felt the sting of the 2000 election, when Secretary of State Katherine Harris used sloppy data-mining (seeking former felons who could not vote under that state's laws) to purge tens of thousands of eligible voters before that year's presidential election.

If Kobach has his way, the contours of that sordid history will repeat itself, including using a DHS database that was never designed to be an authoritative list of every U.S. citizen. But in the years since Harris’ Florida purge, the right-wing strategy has become clear.

Republicans like Kobach strategically target weak points in the voting process. They pinpoint areas in the process that are ambiguous, or where there’s no authoritative national data to counter their claims of purported illegal activity.

For example, there is no federal agency that tracks so-called voter fraud, which these right-wingers define as someone impersonating someone else at the polls to vote more than once, and has become the go-to justificatiom for red-run states to erect new barriers to voting century. Since there’s no single federal agency that tracks so-called voter fraud, it becomes a useful propaganda tool for Republicans because it's left to acacdemics and the media to debunk it, which these partisans routinely ignore.

The latest high-profile example of this narrative is Trump's thoroughly debunked claim that millions of Democrats illegally voted more than once to deprive him of 2016’s popular vote majority. But that lie, recited again by Trump’s press office when announcing the commission’s demise, resonates among supporters who want to believe all Democrats are crooks despite vast documentation by academics and the press that voter fraud barely exists. In the absence of an authoritative federal accounting, it becomes an easy pretext for red states to pass laws to, as they purport, police the process’ integrity. In reality, they thwart Democratic voters....

kobaCh announced this on Bb

Breitbart radio is a cesspool

Celebrities like Seth Rogen are boycotting SiriusXM because it broadcasts Steve Bannon's radio program. And while Bannon says there is nothing untoward about his show, the fact is that Breitbart radio is a bigoted and misogynistic dumpster fire.

Must read: Nina Mast showed how Breitbart promoted a defamatory and xenophobic Swedish website that harassed journalists and had ties to neo-Nazis.

https://www.alternet.org/environment/how-right-wing-media-totally-distorted-positive-news-climate-change

denier

https://www.alternet.org/news-amp-politics/guess-who-breitbart-and-sarah-palin-are-blaming-california-wildfires

collection of right-wing websites teamed up with half-term nitwit Sarah Palin to spread a fake news story that appeared to pin the Northern California wildfires that have tragically killed at least 40 people onto an immigrant man who was arrested at a park in Sonoma, California. Jesus Fabian Gonzales—who “often sleeps in the park and is well-known to law enforcement”—was arrested Sunday after starting a small fire that he says he lit to stay warm, and one that “was so small a responding sheriff’s deputy was able to mostly put it out before firefighters arrived.” Gonzales was taken into custody without incident for one count of arson, but by Tuesday, Breitbart, InfoWars, and other sites were blaring sensationalist headlines, including one that stated that the “homeless arsonist behind Calif. wildfire that killed 40 people is an illegal alien”:

Breitbart News and InfoWars offered no evidence to link the man’s arrest to the fires and their accounts of the man’s arrest were disputed the same day by Sonoma County Sheriff Rob Giordano.

“There’s a story out there he’s the arsonist for these fires. That is not the case. There is no indication he is related to these fires at all,” Giordano said in a news conference also broadcast on the department’s Facebook page and area TV stations. “I just did want to kill that speculation right now so we didn’t have things running too far out of control.”

Speculation from, say, Palin, who tweeted that “bet you not a single mainstream news organization is going to cover this story. Not PC or something.” No, it’s just fake, dumbass. In fact, USA Today notes that Sonoma County Sheriff’s Sgt. Spencer Crum said that “the only questions Breitbart News and InfoWars asked were about Gonzales's ethnicity and whether Immigration and Customs Enforcement had placed a detainer on him, which would hold him for an additional 48 hours at the jail.” It’s almost like they have an agenda here!

And one of the fake news websites that ran with the story also appeared to think California was being hit by one giant fire, rather than the at least one dozen major fires that firefighters are courageously battling, and some hours away from where Gonzales was arrested. But when your goal is to blame immigrants for just about anything, who cares about the facts?

Major story about ties between Mercers, Breitbart, and neo-Nazis

Some of this was evident already, it's true. But the confirmation and salacious details are absolutely wild. BuzzFeed's Joe Bernstein broke a major story this week about how Breitbart under Steve Bannon used Milo Yiannopoulos to give editorial control to white nationalists and neo-Nazis. The lengthy story is definitely worth reading in full. We pulled out a few things worth noting, including how the entire affair is orchestrated by the GOP donors Robert and Rebekah Mercer. In retrospect, 60 Minutes' failure to confrontSteve Bannon about Yiannopoulos or the Mercers is even more of a failure than it was at the time.

https://www.ecowatch.com/climate-study-deniers-2489397710.html

no link

Climate Deniers Twist Study in Attempt to Question Science

A study released last week suggesting that the world may have more time to keep warming under 1.5 degrees C than previously thought is being twisted by deniers to question scientific proceedings and accuracy.

Politico reported Monday morning that powerful deniers are focusing on misinterpretations of the study to support efforts to roll back climate policy and question climate science at large (as our own Denier Roundup predicted last week).

The study represents "exactly the type of debate discussion scientists need to be having," Heartland Institute President Tim Huelskamp told Politico. "This article proved that there can be a lot of debate about the fundamental issues."

The study's authors pushed back against denier misuse of their findings. In an op-ed in the Guardian last week, they wrote that "after reasonably accurate initial reporting, suddenly our paper was about a downgrading of the threat of climate change, when it was actually nothing of the kind.

"Debating the current level of human-induced warming and how it relates to the 1.5° C goal feels a bit like discussing how best to steer a spacecraft into orbit around Saturn while Delingpole [James, Breitbart] and Stringer [Graham, a Labour MP] are urging their readers to question whether the Earth goes round the Sun," they added.

For a deeper dive:

Politico, Ars Technica. Commentary: The Guardian, Myles Allen and Richard Millar op-ed

Breitbart and Fox News serve up talking points for Jeff Sessions' DACA-rescinding press conference.

If one needs more evidence the Trump administration takes its tone and language directly from Fox News and Breitbart, look no further than Jeff Sessions' press conference this week. As liberal watchdog Media Matters notes, Sessions' primary talking points were ripped off directly from the two outlets. Breitbart/Fox and Sessions both claimed DACA was “amnesty” (it’s not), that the “child migrant surge” was due to DACA (it’s not), that DACA recipients take American jobs (they don’t), and that DACA was “unconstitutional” (it isn’t).

Steve Bannon may have exited the White House, but his propaganda reach hasn’t. Recently, there have been reports Trump’s new Chief of Staff John Kelly was trying to wean Trump off InfoWars, but it’s doubtful the two pillars of Breitbart and Fox News will go anywhere anytime soon. After all, where else would they trial balloon their talking points?

error no BB?

http://www.alternet.org/news-amp-politics/donald-trump-fake-news-government

Pruitt appears to be the most Trump-like member of Donald Trump’s cabinet, and now the federal agency he is tasked with leading, the Environmental Protection Agency, has officially adopted the president’s most pernicious habit.

When Trump recently visited hurricane-ravaged Houston he praised the Coast Guard while knocking the journalists tasked with covering the aftermath of Hurricane Harvey.

“Think of it, almost 11,000 people by going into winds that the media would not go into . . . unless it’s a really good story,” Trump said, before gesturing toward the media.

That same day, the Associated Press published a story about the flooding of toxic waste sites in Houston, noting that Scott Pruitt’s EPA was still not on the ground. The agency responded in Trump-like fashion, attacking the press to distract from legitimate questions.

Echoing Trump’s longstanding habit of singling out specific reporters for attacks, the EPA called out one reporter on the story by name in a news release titled “EPA Response to the AP’s Misleading Story.” Remarkably, the statement starts with a personal attack on Washington-based AP reporter Michael Biesecker:

Despite reporting from the comfort of Washington, Biesecker had the audacity to imply that agencies aren’t being responsive to the devastating effects of Hurricane Harvey. Not only is this inaccurate, but it creates panic and politicizes the hard work of first responders who are actually in the affected area.

Biesecker’s AP colleague Jason Dearen, however, visited seven toxic sites known as “Superfund sites,” the most contaminated toxic waste sites in the country, in and around Houston — by boat, vehicle and on foot.

After the waters receded in the town of Crosby, Texas, situated between two Superfund sites, “a sinkhole the size of a swimming pool had opened up and swallowed two cars,” Biesecker wrote. “The acrid smell of creosote filled the air.” The Saturday report also noted that the “EPA had not yet been able to physically visit the Houston-area sites.”

In its unprecedented attack, the EPA accused the AP of leaving out information about the EPA’s other efforts to monitor the toxic land sites.

“Once again, in an attempt to mislead Americans, the Associated Press is cherry-picking facts, as EPA is monitoring Superfund sites around Houston and we have a team of experts on the ground working with our state and local counterparts responding to Hurricane Harvey,” EPA associate administrator Liz Bowman wrote in a statement. “Anything to the contrary is yellow journalism.”

The release went on to criticize past reporting by Biesecker, arguing that he has a “history of not letting the facts get in the way of his story.” To illustrate this, the EPA linked to a sensational Breitbart story that claimed the AP faced a “CNN-like scandal” after a July story Biesecker wrote inaccurately characterized an interaction between Pruitt and Dow Chemical CEO Andrew Liveris. Biesecker’s story, based on EPA schedules, initially said the two met for half an hour at a Houston hotel. The AP’sstory turned out to be wrong because they were reporting on inaccurate meeting schedules provided by the EPA. The AP corrected its story when the formal meeting was canceled.

Besides the personal criticisms it leveled against the report’s author, the EPA’s statement did not point to any specific factual inaccuracies in the AP’s story. The report’s co-author, who reported from on the ground in Texas, was not singled out by the EPA statement. In fact, the EPA appeared to confirm the AP’s report overall, noting that more than a dozen sites have been flooded and that EPA has not investigated them in person — only monitoring the waste sites by plane until the floodwaters receded.

When pressed by reporters about the aggressive statement, agency officials continued their attack on the media.t

“We understand you are very focused on our press release; we hope you will apply the same focus to the facts, which include that a national reporter from a wire service publishing [sic] inaccurate and misleading stories about the agency and it’s [sic] staff on the ground,” Bowman wrote in an email to Politico over the weekend. “We think that is more important than who drafted a press release.”

Earlier this year Trump called the press the “enemy of the American people.” Beyond the damage of his rhetoric, however, Trump’s war on so-called fake news through the official channels of the federal government can only have a chilling effect.

For its part, the AP standing by its story and its reporters.

“AP’s exclusive story was the result of on the ground reporting at Superfund sites in and around Houston, as well as AP’s strong knowledge of these sites and EPA practices,” AP’s executive editor Sally Buzbee said in a statement. “We object to the EPA’s attempts to discredit that reporting by suggesting it was completed solely from ‘the comforts of Washington’ and stand by the work of both journalists who jointly reported and wrote the story.”

Sophia Tesfaye is Salon's deputy politics editor

Rightwing news site Breitbart has a new business plan. The self-described home of the “alt-right” started selling fidget spinners this week. The spinners’ centers are decorated with the florid face of its newly returned leader, former White House chief strategist Steve Bannon, above the hashtag #WAR.

But the media company is going to have to sell a lot of the $7.95 spinners if it wants to make up for the campaign that is destroying its advertising base.

Donald Trump and Bannon parted ways shortly after the white nationalist rally in Charlottesville, Virginia, and Trump’s refusal to lay the blame for the violence at the feet of white supremacists and neo-Nazis. The evening of his departure, Bannon appeared at the offices of Breitbart News and led an editorial meeting, returning directly to the role he had given up to advise Trump and pledging to take down his enemies inside the White House and in the wider Republican party.

While Bannon helped Trump use the power of the internet to fire up his base, those tools have now been turned against him. His return, and the alt-right’s involvement in Charlottesville, have ignited an online campaign to force companies to pull their ads from Breitbart. It seems to be working.

Mark Irvine, senior data scientist at search marketing company WordStream, calculates that Breitbart’s ad revenue has declined by 51% since November as advertisers have fled.

View image on Twitter

Cry more. http://trib.al/xBDahxE

7:02 PM - 11 Jun 2017

Photo published for Luis Gutierrez Whines: Breitbart News Coverage of Illegal Immigrants, Muslim Refugees Too Harsh -...

Luis Gutierrez Whines: Breitbart News Coverage of Illegal Immigrants, Muslim Refugees Too Harsh -...

Luis Gutierrez Whines: Breitbart News Coverage of Illegal Immigrants, Muslim Refugees Too Harsh

breitbart.com

Ramadan 2017 has claimed 1,000 lives that we know of. Our tally of attacks so far: http://trib.al/QdHZZbs

2:21 PM - 10 Jun 2017

Photo published for Ramadan Rage 2017: The Complete List of Jihadist Attacks Around the World - Breitbart

Ramadan Rage 2017: The Complete List of Jihadist Attacks Around the World - Breitbart

Ramadan Rage 2017: The Complete List of Jihadist Attacks Around the World

breitbart.com

379379 likes

Twitter Ads info and privacy

Mike Cernovich ?@Cernovich

Breitbart fired a journalist to appease fake news media. Here's how to respond! https://www.wesearchr.com/bounties/support-katie-mchugh-fired-from-breitbart-for-telling-the-tr …

10:21 AM - 5 Jun 2017

Photo published for Support Katie McHugh: Fired From Breitbart For Telling The Truth

Support Katie McHugh: Fired From Breitbart For Telling The Truth

Katie needs your help, America.

wesearchr.com

2,0202,020 likes

Twitter Ads info and privacy