webodec3ARCHIVEPreview
Open in TheBrain

ABC TV

--

primary 9 25 kirk shoot censor see sinclair fcc carr

note TARGET 2-4

SEE DISNEY MERGER STEPH RAPE 16 MILL 20 PSA? SUSAN WILES

see press suppression legal CORP BAD ACTOR TERRY MORAN

target aFTER trump debate fail minimal fact check

see jrnl fail false balance

so merri

see koppel singer gore

biased:

http://gelbspanfiles.com/?p=6997

===

-=-=

-=-=

ABC 9 26

'Looksmaxxing' influencer known as 'Clavicular' is charged with rape in Massachusetts

26 minutes agoThe social media influencer known online as "Clavicular" has been charged with raping a 17-year-old **girl** at his family's Cape Cod home

-=-=

MMA

ABC, CBS, and NBC aired nearly 200 segments about three U.S. heat events without mentioning climate change

08/06/26

CNN and MS NOW consistently connected prolonged power outage in Gary, Indiana, to race and poverty, while broadcast news rarely did, and Fox did not

08/28/26

---

MAddow running ads eg view on fcc comments? 6 26

6 26

Michael Luciano @ Mediaite: Trump Says He’s ‘Preparing Lawsuits Against ABC for False Reporting’

President Donald Trump said his administration is about to sue ABC over its reporting on the Lincoln Memorial Reflecting Pool.

RWW

---

---

4 26

Melania Trump demands ABC 'take a stand' against 'hateful' Jimmy Kimmel - Alternet.org

---

AN 4 26

In 2025, four major companies — Paramount, ABC, Meta (which includes Facebook, Instagram, WhatsApp, and Threads), and the Elon Musk-owned X, formerly Twitter — agreed to donate millions of dollars to fund Donald Trump's presidential library in Miami. Altogether, the donations totaled at least $63 million for the library, which according to President Trump, could double as a Trump-branded hotel.

Senate Democrats have been probing that $63 million, but according to The New Republic's Greg Sargent, a lot of questions remain unanswered.

"After the companies agreed to these shakedowns — sorry, settlements — the fund created to receive donations was dissolved last September," Sargent explains in an article published on April 20. "Since then, Senate Democrats have been asking: What happened to the money? Now, there's been an important new turn in this saga. The four companies have provided fresh information to Senate Democrats in written responses to their questions. For these Democrats, those responses — obtained by The New Republic — raise more questions than they answer."

Sargent, a former Washington Post columnist, adds, "In these formal replies, all four companies confirmed that they did pledge that money to Trump's library — itself a notable development. More importantly, however, the Democrats say the responses reveal that the money is still largely unaccounted for."

According to Sargent, Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Massachusetts) has "taken the lead in tracking this money."

"The companies all settled lawsuits with Trump after his 2024 victory — Paramount for $16 million over a claim of fraudulent editing by CBS; Meta for $25 million, and X for around $10 million over supposed censorship of Trump; and ABC for $15 million over alleged defamation," Sargent reports. "Experts criticized the lawsuits as weak and denounced the settlements as akin to extortion payments. Under those settlements, the companies donated virtually all that money to the library project, totaling at least $63 million. But then the fund where most of that money appeared to be directed — the Donald J. Trump Presidential Library Fund — was dissolved by Florida officials amid the failure to file a required annual report."

Warren is demanding answers about the $63 million.

The liberal senator told Sargent, "Not one of these companies can say with any clarity where their multi-million-dollar donations to Donald Trump's library slush fund are, or where they will go…. Tens of millions of dollars are unaccounted for, and the American people are left completely in the dark."

---

---

MMA

The year the media oligarchs bowed to Trump

Written by Matt Gertz

Published 12/03/25

We warned last year that Donald Trump’s second term as president would turbo-charge the political right’s burgeoning media-intimidation complex. Republican officials and right-wing billionaires were already trying to secure their political agenda by using their wealth, lawfare, and government power to silence journalists. And Trump, we wrote, using his authoritarian strategies, would force media moguls to choose between the journalistic integrity of the news outlets they oversee and their broader business interests, with the fate of the free press in the balance.

Twelve months later, it is clear that many of these corporate media owners have made their choice: They are damaging celebrated news outlets like CBS and The Washington Post out of some combination of personal preference and political expedience. While journalists at their outlets are still producing important stories that reveal the corruption and malfeasance of the Trump administration, it’s anyone’s guess how long they will be permitted to do so.

Trump has spent the last decade at war with the press. He has no regard for free speech, treats all dissent as inherently illegitimate, and uses every available tool to curtail critical journalism. The president’s years of anti-media diatribes have achieved their goal of destroying the credibility of potentially damaging reporting among his supporters, and in his second term, he has backed up those verbal attacks with a flurry of actions.

He and his administration have supplemented or even replaced members of the traditional press corps in favor of MAGA influencers and Trumpist outlets; defunded public media outlets in the U.S. and sought to dismantle them abroad; sued reporters and news outlets for publishing content he dislikes; and terminated rules protecting journalists from prosecutorial scrutiny, while targeting them with retaliatory immigration enforcement.

But Trump’s most unnerving assaults on the press involve his administration's use of state power as leverage against oligarchs who control broadcast and cable news operations and major newspapers. For billionaire owners or top executives at massive multimedia companies, news outlets typically represent a tiny fraction of their overall business interests. And those broader holdings create potential vulnerabilities — like regulatory scrutiny of mergers, federal contracting, and criminal investigations — that an authoritarian president can manipulate to encourage media moguls to cudgel their news outlets into line.

Trump’s strategies resemble those of Victor Orban, the Hungarian autocrat many on the American right take as a model, who has dismantled his country’s independent press and forced the sales of outlets to his allies. Trump's desired result is a cowed journalist corps that will produce Fox News-style propaganda venerating his successes and covering up his corruption and failures.

America’s media oligarchs often resisted Trump’s corrupt abuses of power in his first term, either enduring his attacks without constraining their news outlets or beating his administration in federal court. But in his second term, while some media organizations (including Media Matters) have fought to protect the First Amendment against Trump and his administration, certain wealthy magnates have chosen the path of cowardice, submission, and collaboration.

David and Larry Ellison

David Ellison is the son of Larry Ellison, the Oracle co-founder who is one of the richest men alive and a close friend and ally to Trump. The younger Ellison took control of CBS News in July after the Federal Communications Commission approved his Skydance Media’s purchase of CBS parent company Paramount. Trump-appointed FCC Chair Brendan Carr acted only after Paramount agreed to pay $16 million to settle an absurd lawsuit Trump filed over CBS News’ editing of an October interview with then-Democratic presidential nominee Kamala Harris — and after he secured pledges from Skydance to push the network’s coverage to the right.

Ellison followed through on his promise. The new ownership appointed “anti-woke” champion Bari Weiss as CBS News’ editor-in-chief and Kenneth Weinstein, a Trump-supporting right-wing think tanker, as its ombudsman. An October wave of layoffs hit nearly 100 CBS News employees, gutting the network’s teams focused on climate change and race and culture. Trump certainly seems happy with the changes — in a November 2 interview that marked his first appearance on the network since 2020, he praised Weiss as a “great new leader” and “great person” and described David Ellison’s takeover of CBS News as “the greatest thing that’s happened in a long time to a free and open and good press.”

With the CBS News takeover as proof of concept, Ellison and his father are each making moves to seize additional media outlets and move them in a Trumpy direction.

David Ellison is trying to buy Warner Bros. Discovery — and the administration is reportedly signaling that other bidders will face grueling oversight from federal regulators. “Trump wants WBD in the Ellisons’ hands, and insiders say it’s because he wants favorable coverage from its CNN news channel,” wrote the New York Post.

Larry Ellison has even reportedly “engaged in a dialogue” with the White House “about possibly axing some of the CNN hosts whom Donald Trump is said to loathe, including Erin Burnett and Brianna Keilar,” if the sale were to go through.

The Trump White House is also trying to broker a deal in which the social media giant TikTok, a news source for one-fifth of American adults and 43% of those under 30, would be sold to a coalition including companies controlled by Larry Ellison as well as fellow pro-Trump magnate Marc Andreessen.

Bezos owns The Washington Post, but his massive fortune comes from founding Amazon, the online retailing and web service giant, and he also owns the space technology company Blue Origin. During Trump’s first term, Bezos bore numerous potshots at what Trump termed the “Amazon Washington Post,” as well as his administration’s apparent retaliation against Amazon’s operations. But Bezos signaled that things would be different in a second term even before Trump’s election when he barred the Post’s editorial board from endorsing in the 2024 contest, blocking the publication of its piece supporting Harris.

The decision began a deterioration of Bezos’ relationship with the Post, accelerated further by his February demand that the paper’s Opinion section advocate without exception for “personal liberties and free markets.” Opinion editor David Shipley resigned rather than execute that pivot; his replacement, Adam O’Neal, an undistinguished reporter and editor previously at The Economist and The Wall Street Journal, has overseen buyouts and layoffs of the section’s veterans (my wife Alyssa Rosenberg, the section’s former letters and community editor, was among those who took the buyout) and hired several conservative writers, leading one of the paper’s right-wing columnists to boast, “We’re now a conservative opinion page.” The dramatic changes seem to have blown a hole in the Post’s subscriber numbers, with NPR’s David Folkenflik estimating “a net loss of a couple hundred thousand subscribers” at the end of February. With revenue plummeting thanks to Bezos’ decisions and the owner unwilling to eat the losses, more layoffs are reportedly on the way.

But defanging the Post — and finding a way to put money in the Trump family’s pockets — seems to be working out well for Bezos. His rewards include plum seats for Trump’s swearing-in, federal contracts for Blue Origin and Amazon Web Services, and the president publicly applauding him for “trying to do a real job with The Washington Post, and that wasn’t happening before.”

### Patrick Soon-Shiong

Like Bezos, Los Angeles Times owner Soon-Shiong has other business interests that left him vulnerable to Trump’s retaliation; he made his fortune in the biotech industry, and his medical patents and products are subject to federal oversight. Whether due to fear of retribution or a shift in his own political views, Soon-Shiong stepped up his oversight of the Times last year, beginning with the cancellation of a planned endorsement of Harris.

He subsequently shilled for Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s confirmation as secretary of health and human services; announced a remaking of the editorial board, beginning with the addition of pro-Trump CNN commentator Scott Jennings; killed an editorial that criticized Trump’s Cabinet picks; announced the addition of an AI-powered “bias meter” to the paper’s opinion pieces, which was pulled after it downplayed the Ku Klux Klan; floated a conservative version of The View featuring right-wing actor Rob Schneider; launched “LA Times Studios,” a multimedia studio featuring influencers reading AI-generated scripts; sat for interviews with right-wing commentators including Tucker Carlson and Megyn Kelly; and put forward an ill-starred initial public offering plan which led The Hollywood Reporter to ask, “Does Patrick Soon-Shiong Want to Turn the L.A. Times Into a MAHA Memestock?”

As with Bezos’ actions at the Post, Soon-Shiong’s changes to the Times have resulted in plummeting circulation, an exodus of talent, and the diminishment of the paper’s influence. But his medical patents are still getting approved by the federal government.

Iger, who as the CEO of Disney oversees its subsidiary ABC, was at the center of two of the most craven media moves since Trump’s reelection.

First, his December 2024 decision to sign off on a $15 million “blood sacrifice to Trump,” settling a defamation lawsuit that ABC News’ lawyers thought they would win, only looks worse over time. The capitulation made clear to ABC staff that Iger would not support them in a stand-off with the president and set a precedent that media companies and other major corporations would knuckle under to his demands.

Second, after Carr threatened Disney and ABC’s affiliates with FCC retribution if they failed to “take actions” against Jimmy Kimmel over one of his monologues in September, Iger folded by suspending Kimmel’s show within hours. Carr’s threats made a mockery of the First Amendment — but Iger wasn’t willing to fight to uphold those rights in court. Iger relented and returned Kimmel to the airwaves only after an outcry by Hollywood talent and a spike in Disney+ cancellations.

What did Iger’s cowardice bring ABC? When ABC News chief White House correspondent Mary Bruce dared to ask Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman a question about his role in the brutal murder of the U.S.-based dissident journalist Jamal Khashoggi during a joint Oval Office appearance with Trump, the president became enraged, lashing out at the journalist and calling her outlet “fake news” and “one of the worst in the business.”

“I think the license should be taken away from ABC because your news is so fake and it’s so wrong,” he later added, threatening to shut down a U.S. news outlet for producing reporting he doesn’t like in front of a foreign dictator who represses his own country’s media.

“And we have a great commissioner, a chairman, who should look at that," he added.

---

---

Baier, Bartiromo pass on MBS criticism, score seats to his gala

Written by Matt Gertz

Published 11/19/25 MMA

Fox News chief political anchor Bret Baier and Fox Business anchor Maria Bartiromo, who scored invitations for Tuesday night’s lavish White House banquet honoring Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman, both passed on criticizing President Donald Trump for his pathetic excuse-making about Crown Prince Mohammed ordering the brutal murder of the U.S.-based dissident journalist Jamal Khashoggi.

Khashoggi was an outspoken critic of the crown prince who wrote columns for The Washington Post criticizing his native Saudi Arabia’s repressive regime from his self-imposed exile in Virginia, London, and Istanbul. In October 2018, he was reportedly lured to the Saudi consulate in Istanbul, killed by Saudi operatives, and dismembered with a bone saw, generating an international scandal stoked further by the CIA’s subsequent determination that Crown Prince Mohammed ordered his assassination. Fox, meanwhile, spent the weeks after Khashoggi’s murder running cover for both Trump and Crown Prince Mohammed.

Trump, who has a fundamentally transactional view of U.S. foreign policy, an affinity for brutal dictators, and a tendency to dehumanize journalists, offered little interest in Khashoggi’s fate at the time. And he became enraged on Tuesday afternoon when ABC News chief White House correspondent Mary Bruce dared to ask the crown prince a question about Khashoggi’s murder during their joint Oval Office appearance.

The president interrupted Bruce, calling her outlet “fake news” and “one of the worst in the business.” He then said of Khashoggi: “You’re mentioning somebody that was extremely controversial — a lot of people didn't like that gentleman that you’re talking about. Whether you like him or didn't like him, things happen, but he [the crown prince] knew nothing about it. And we can leave it at that. You don't have to embarrass our guest by asking a question like that.” Crown Prince Mohammed, for his part, said Khashoggi’s murder was “a huge mistake and we're doing our best that this doesn't happen again.”

When Bruce asked Trump a question later in the press conference about the Jeffrey Epstein files, the president blew up again, criticizing her “attitude” and complaining that she had asked Crown Prince Mohammed, “a man who is highly respected,” “a horrible insubordinate and just a terrible question.” In a depressing commentary on the current state of U.S. press freedom, he then suggested that federal regulators should strip ABC’s broadcasting license “because your news is so fake and it's so wrong.”

Trump’s repeated defenses of a foreign tyrant’s murder of a U.S.-based journalist — and his suggestion from the White House that his administration should destroy an outlet for asking “insubordinate” questions about it — drew immediate attention from news outlets and harsh criticism from many journalists.

But Baier had nothing to say about it when he discussed the press conference with Fox anchor Martha MacCallum on The Story that afternoon. Instead, sounding like a Trump spokesperson, he touted the “massive” scale of impending “deals” between the U.S. and Saudi Arabia, and commented that Trump, “in his defense of all things MBS, realizes that that relationship is crucial to his thought about the way forward in the Middle East.” He added that Crown Prince Mohammed’s response on Khashoggi was the same as what Baier described as the “solid answer” the crown prince had given Baier in a previous interview.

Video

Citation

From the November 18, 2025, edition of Fox News' The Story

Baier did not directly address Trump’s outburst during Special Report that night, though correspondent David Spunt mentioned it during a packaged report, and John Roberts, who subbed in as anchor while Baier was in Washington, D.C., to attend the banquet, brought it up with the panel.

Bartiromo, for her part, did not mention the Khashoggi exchanges herself on her show Wednesday (a correspondent ran a brief headline read on it during the program, but Bartiromo did not comment on it). Instead, she touted Trump’s role in securing what she termed Crown Prince Mohammed’s “massive investment into America.”

Bartiromo is a total Trump shill, while Baier’s overhyped reputation serves to conceal his usefulness to the administration. But both have done enough for the president to garner what Trump suggested on Tuesday was a very exclusive seat at the gala honoring the crown prince.

“We could have sold the big ballroom out three times in honor of this gentleman,” Trump said at the end of their joint appearance. “So, I made a lot of enemies because I have a lot of people that are invited tonight or are unable to come because of the size constraint.”

“This would be a perfect night to have that ballroom open,” he added. “If we had that open, we'd have a lot of people very happy. Right now, we have a lot of unhappy people because they all want to be with us tonight to honor this great man.”

You don’t get a ticket to such an event by offering “insubordinate” comments about the “great man” who the U.S. intelligence community says set in motion the vicious murder of a critical journalist.

//

Jamal Khashoggi and the bloody bill for Trump's anti-press rhetoric

10/12/18 12:13 PM EDT

  1. ### Fox News downplays Khashoggi's murder: “Saudi Arabia is one of the safest places to be a journalist in the world”

10/20/18 2:20 PM EDT

  1. ### Bret Baier touts CBS News’ move toward “more balance” and “coverage that’s fair”

10/24/25

---

---

mma

Jimmy Kimmel and the MAGA strong-arming of American media

Written by Matt Gertz

:{Published09/18/25

As with so many of the Trump administration’s excesses, a simple recitation of the events leading to Jimmy Kimmel’s suspension sounds like something out of dystopian fiction. ABC’s Wednesday night announcement that it was putting Jimmy Kimmel Live! on indefinite hiatus in the face of White House threats is the latest sign that U.S. media are increasingly coming under the control of President Donald Trump and his MAGA movement.

Trump had been targeting Kimmel and ABC for months. In the wake of frequent administration critic Stephen Colbert’s July announcement that his late-night show was ending, the president gloated that Kimmel would be “NEXT to go.” Last month, Trump argued that the Federal Communications Commission should revoke the licenses of ABC stations because it broadcasts too many “BAD STORIES” about him and provides “unfair coverage of Republicans.” And on Monday morning, he threatened ABC News reporter Jonathan Karl, saying that Attorney General Pam Bondi might target him and his network for purportedly airing anti-Trump “hate speech.”

Kimmel inaccurately suggested during his Monday night monologue that the alleged killer of Turning Points USA founder Charlie Kirk was part of “the MAGA gang.” Under ordinary circumstances, such a statement could result in a correction and apology. But Kimmel’s remarks occurred in an environment in which Trump and his administration are eager to punish political speech they dislike.

Brendan Carr, the FCC’s Trumpy chair, wielded Kimmel’s monologue as a cudgel against his network during a Tuesday appearance on right-wing influencer Benny Johnson’s show. Carr accused Kimmel of “an intentional effort to mislead the American people” and threatened Disney and ABC’s affiliates with regulatory retribution in response, saying: “We can do this the easy way or the hard way. These companies can find ways to change conduct and take actions on Kimmel, or there's going to be additional work for the FCC ahead.”

He specifically suggested that affiliate networks should tell Disney that they would not run Kimmel’s show “until you straighten this out” and insinuated that they could face “license revocation from the FCC” if they did not.

Carr’s threats appear to be a clear violation of the First Amendment — but that matters only if Disney and the affiliate networks are willing to fight to uphold those rights in court.

Instead, Nexstar Media Group, which needs FCC approval for its proposed purchase of the stations owned by media company Tegna, said its affiliates would immediately preempt Jimmy Kimmel Live! Shortly after, Disney announced that it was putting the show on hiatus. And Sinclair Broadcasting Group, owned by the pro-Trump Smith family, said it would not return Kimmel’s show to its airwaves until ABC committed to “appropriate steps” and called for the late-night host to make a “meaningful personal donation” to Kirk's right-wing political group.

Carr subsequently joined Fox News’ Sean Hannity to take a curtain call and praise Nexstar and Sinclair for following his dictates.

It’s worth pointing out that neither Johnson nor Hannity could operate under Carr’s stated standard — but they had no objections to his statements because they understand that his actual goal is enforcing MAGA political correctness norms by which they already abide.

This capitulation is only the latest sign of increasing MAGA control over the free press

Trump has long benefited from a massive parallel right-wing ecosystem, from Fox News to talk radio to a host of MAGA streamers and influencers. But since Trump won election last fall, more and more of the corporate titans who control the U.S. media have come under his thumb.

When Trump attempted similar extortion tactics during his first term, the heads of media companies and owners of news outlets were willing to fight him in court. But since his election in November, executives at companies like Disney have proved far more willing to bend to his will.

Other news outlets either are owned by businessmen who have become more Trump-friendly (perhaps due to fears of retribution), like The Washington Post and Los Angeles Times, or have been taken over by businessmen with close ties to the president, like CBS News’ new Trump approved-owner David Ellison. More such consolidation is under way, with Ellison seeking to take over CNN and the Trump White House effectively nullifying the law as it tries to broker a deal in which TikTok would be sold to a coalition including companies controlled by his father, Larry Ellison, and fellow pro-Trump magnate Marc Andreessen.

Reporters at those outlets can and have continued to do vital reporting about the Trump administration under those circumstances. But they do so with knowledge that their ultimate bosses will not stand behind them in a pinch.

Other potential corporate targets like Comcast, which Trump has previously threatened over the coverage of NBC and MSNBC, have not yet faced the same level of retaliatory scrutiny. But their day will inevitably come, particularly after Trump and Carr saw how quickly Disney folded in the face of their Kimmel attack.

The New York Times is among the few major news outlets that has no choice but to stand up for its output and a free press because its ownership does not have other substantial business interests. But Trump is targeting them in a different way — this week, he launched a $15 billion defamation lawsuit over reporting that questioned his business acumen.

And in a sign that even regime-aligned owners will face punishment for critical reporting, Trump filed a lawsuit against The Wall Street Journal and its corporate parent’s chairman, Fox founder Rupert Murdoch, seeking $10 billion in damages over the paper’s coverage of his ties to disgraced financier and deceased sex offender Jeffrey Epstein.

Trump’s endgame is clear. He wants to ensure that media outlets don’t produce coverage that criticizes him or his administration, but instead convey an endless stream of propaganda about his accomplishments.

He wants every outlet to be Fox News. And at this rate, he may get it.

//

08/25/25 12:40 PM EDT

10/29/24 9:09 AM EDT

09/09/25

---

---

an 9 25

see hayes on ellison tiktok fcc etc brendan carr on benny j nextstar

Jimmy Kimmel drew the wrath of Federal Communications Commission (FCC) Brendan Carr in response to the late-night host's comments on the murder of MAGA activist and Turning Point USA founder Charlie Kirk and the suspect in his shooting: 22-year-old Utah resident Tyler Robinson.

Kimmel argued that the suspect was part of the MAGA movement, not a leftist as President Donald Trump, Vice President JD Vance and others on the far right are saying. The late-night host never condoned the killing in any way, but rather, argued that the suspect had a MAGA ideology rather than a leftist ideology.

Disney, in response, suspended Kimmel's show indefinitely.

Now, according to Daily Beast reporter Cameron James, "America's largest ABC affiliate group," Sinclair, is saying that Kimmel must make a "meaningful personal donation" to Kirk's family.

"Media giant Sinclair also wants the comedian to 'issue a direct apology' to Kirk's family, claiming his suspension is not enough," James reports in an article published on September 18. "Kimmel has been suspended in a wave of MAGA anger, disguised as grief and decency, over comments made by the TV star about the murdered right-wing activist. Sinclair also announced they will air a tribute to Kirk in Kimmel’s Friday-night timeslot this week, and are offering the special to all ABC affiliates to air over the weekend."

IFrame Content

IFrame Content

IFrame Content

IFrame Content

James adds, "Sinclair's Vice Chairman Jason Smith called Kimmel's comments on Kirk 'inappropriate and deeply insensitive at a critical moment for our country.'"

In an official statement released on September 17, Sinclair said it "will not lift the suspension of 'Jimmy Kimmel Live' on our stations until formal discussions are held with ABC regarding the network's commitment to professionalism and accountability."

*Read the full Daily Beast article at this link (subscription required).

---

---

bulwark tim; HHH dem, twt ~ open border

'As cowardly as it gets': ABC News blasted for firing reporter who criticized Trump - Alternet.org

terry moran abc fired for saying miller 3 hateful, driving LA ICE home depot raids

PRESS SUPPRESSION

same guy terry moran

'Just say yes': Trump begs reporter to accept that doctored photo is real - Alternet.org

AN 6 25

White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt is now being raked over the coals in response to her call for ABC to censor a journalist who criticized President Donald Trump and White House deputy chief of staff Stephen Miller.

In a Sunday tweet, Keavitt posted a screenshot of a now-deleted post by ABC News' Terry Moran — whointerviewed Trump earlier this year — and called on his employer to punish him over his "unhinged and unacceptable" critique of the administration. Moran opined in the post that Miller was not "the brains behind Trumpism" but a "world-class hater" whose "bile" is his "spiritual nourishment." He then said that Trump was also a "world-class hater" whose own "spiritual nourishment" was "his own glorification."

"We have reached out to @ABC to inquire about how they plan to hold Terry accountable," Leavitt tweeted, while mentioning the network's official handle on X.

READ MORE:'Destroyed their credibility': MAGA turns on Trump officials unable to prove conspiracies

Leavitt's tweet was quickly met with widespread condemnation, prompting Daily Beast columnist Julia Davis to ask: "What happened to the First Amendment?" Cybersecurity expert Robert Graham opined that Leavitt's call for ABC to "censor" Moran reflected that Trump's second term was "not the 'free speech presidency,' but quite the opposite." And Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE) First Amendment litigator J.T. Morris observed that criticizing people in power is "as American as apple pie – and vital for freedom."

IFrame Content

IFrame Content

IFrame Content

"That's why the First Amendment protects it from thin-skinned officials who would shut it down," he added. "Hopefully, ABC responds with 'get bent.'"

"[Moran] shouldn't have taken the post down," tweeted Never Trump conservative attorney George Conway. "He's a reporter. And he was reporting facts."

Former MSNBC host Keith Olbermann also weighed in, saying that Trump and Miller were "everything Moran described." Calling Leavitt "anti-democracy" and "anti-American," Olbermann added that Leavitt "needs to stick to her lane," which he characterized as "covering up the emergence of a dictatorship."

READ MORE:'Not going to buckle': Republican warns Senate he'll tank Trump's bill over this provision

---

---

mma

How corporate broadcast networks covered Earth Month in 2025

Special ProgramsClimate & Energy

Written by Evlondo Cooper

Published 05/07/25

Corporate broadcast networks devoted nearly 2.5 hours of airtime to Earth Day and Earth Month coverage in 2025 — though much of it failed to meet the moment. Overall, Earth Day coverage has declined over the past three years, reaching its peak in 2022. At a time when the Trump administration is waging a sustained assault on climate and environmental policy, the need to connect climate and environmental challenges to their political causes has never been more urgent.

Major networks largely overlooked how this assault by the administration is deepening the climate crisis and threatening public health. Key deregulatory actions by the administration went mostly unmentioned, even as they reshaped the environmental landscape in real time. Earth Month coverage must do more than raise awareness. It must hold power to account, and it must rapidly improve to meet that standard going forward.

During Earth Week (April 20–27), broadcast networks aired a combined 93 minutes of coverage across 23 segments.

On Earth Day itself (April 22), the networks aired 42 minutes across 11 segments.

Broadcast network coverage of Earth Day has steadily declined over the past four years, falling from 71 minutes across 20 segments in 2022 to 46 minutes in 2023 and 2024, and just over 42 minutes across 11 segments in 2025.

Despite a coordinated push by the Trump administration to dismantle environmental protections, corporate broadcast networks rarely connected those actions to the environmental and climate segments they aired during Earth Month. Of the 42 total segments aired by ABC, CBS, and NBC, only 5 directly referenced the administration’s climate or environmental policy agenda, and all of them aired on CBS.

Although CBS did more than its peers to hold the administration accountable, even its coverage faltered under pressure. One of the few times EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin appeared outside the Fox News ecosystem came during the April 20 episode of CBS’ Face the Nation, which presented a critical opportunity for a mainstream news network to confront Zeldin directly about his sweeping environmental rollbacks and contested attempt to claw back $20 billion in climate funding. While host Weijia Jiang opened with questions about the administration's deregulatory actions and funding freezes, Zeldin relied on vague economic justifications, procedural deflections, and claims already dismissed by a federal judge. Jiang did not challenge his misrepresentations or press him on climate and public health consequences of the EPA's actions, effectively allowing Zeldin to replicate his Fox playbook on a mainstream platform without meaningful accountability.

ABC and NBC did not air any Earth Month segments that explicitly named the Trump administration’s environmental actions, even though both networks produced segments with clear policy implications, including segments about pollution, extreme weather, and species loss. At a time when the Trump administration is actively dismantling environmental protections, this lack of attribution points to a deeper flaw in network climate coverage — a reluctance to link environmental outcomes to the decisions that drive them.

Consumption-focused content continued to dominate Earth Month coverage

Climate and environmental coverage during Earth Month continued to rely heavily on consumption-based framing. Segments promoting lifestyle changes, product swaps, and green shopping tips often displaced deeper analysis of structural drivers of climate change or systemic accountability.

ABC was the network that most consistently chose this approach, airing multiple segments that focused on eco-friendly deals and product promotions. Although these segments framed environmental awareness as a positive consumer choice, they did little to contextualize the limitations of individual action or connect the promotion of eco-friendly products to broader questions of corporate responsibility and accountability, missing an opportunity to present climate action as a collective project rooted in policy, infrastructure, and justice, not just personal lifestyle choices.

During the April 22 episode of ABC's Good Morning America, chief meteorologist Ginger Zee explored enhanced rock weathering as a climate solution, highlighting efforts to repurpose mine waste as finely ground rock dust that can both remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere and enrich farmland.

Citation

From the April 22, 2025, episode of ABC's Good Morning America

Video Player

Citation

From the April 22, 2025, episode of CBS Evening News

Video Player

Citation

From the April 25, 2025, episode of NBC's Today

During the April 21 episode of Good Morning America, Ginger Zee reported that emissions from buildings and construction now surpass those from transportation in order to highlight emerging low-carbon construction methods, including 3-D-printed homes and recycled-material bricks, as scalable solutions. The April 3 episode of NBC’s Today aired a substantive segment on the health risks of microplastic exposure, spotlighting new research that found plastic particles in human brains and arteries and linked them to higher rates of dementia, heart attack, and cancer.

Prioritize political accountability

Coverage should directly connect environmental harms to the policies and people responsible for them, especially the Trump administration’s ongoing deregulatory agenda. Viewers deserve clarity on how decisions in Washington shape climate outcomes, public health, and environmental injustice. Earth Month should not obscure those connections; it should confront them. Segments must name the consequences of rollbacks on air and water protections, forest management, and fossil fuel regulation, particularly as those impacts accumulate in frontline communities.

Replace consumer framing with structural analysis

Segments centered on personal product choices and “green” lifestyle tips should evolve toward reporting on systemic forces like fossil fuel subsidies, regulatory capture, and corporate greenwashing. Covering climate as a governance and accountability issue could help viewers understand the real levers of change.

Elevate underrepresented voices and environmental justice

Too often, Earth Month coverage privileges corporate perspectives or individual consumers over the communities most affected by environmental harms. That must change. Networks should include frontline activists, Indigenous leaders, and local organizers whose work directly addresses the consequences of environmental injustice. Earth Month coverage should reflect the lived reality of those most impacted, not just the aesthetics of sustainability.

---

---

mma daily bs

In response to interview where Trump suggests an allegedly photoshopped image was real, Fox's Greg Gutfeld lashes out at ABC News' Terry Moran

04/30/25

also stunned by ignorant decl of indep response

  1. ### Sean Hannity downplays the shrinking economy: “The GDP drop was actually supposed to be much worse”

04/30/25 5:18 PM EDT

  1. ### Far-right media figures are launching their own crypto coins

04/30/25 4:41 PM EDT

  1. ### Fox anchor pleads with Gov. Andy Beshear to give Trump “a grace period” as tariffs rock the economy

04/30/25 4:11 PM EDT

  1. ### JB Pritzker called for mass protests. Right-wing media falsely accused him of calling for violence.

04/30/25

  1. ### Fox News guest on allegedly photoshopped image that Trump suggested was real: “I obviously have not seen the original photo so I'm not in a position to make official statement”

---

---

an 3 25

The new book Murder the Truth: Fear, the First Amendment, and a Secret Campaign to Protect the Powerful by The New York Times business investigations editor David Enrich chronicles an ongoing campaign by the wealthy and powerful to overturn the landmark Supreme Court decision New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, which in 1964 established bedrock protections against spurious defamation and libel cases in the U.S. legal system. By “subject[ing] people to this torturous, long-running and extremely expensive legal process,” those who can afford to pay for expensive and threatening defamation lawsuits can silence any public criticism and suppress others’ rights to free speech, says Enrich. “It has huge implications for our democracy and the ability of everyone to speak their mind.”

IFrame Content

AMY GOODMAN: This is Democracy Now!, democracynow.org, The War and Peace Report. I’m Amy Goodman.

We turn now from attacks on the right to protest to attacks on press freedom. President Trump is escalating his criticism of the news media, claiming many outlets are engaged in illegal activity. This is part of what he said last week during a speech at the Great Hall of the Department of Justice.

PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP: I believe that CNN and MSDNC, who literally write 97.6% bad about me, are political arms of the Democrat Party. And in my opinion, they’re really corrupt, and they’re illegal. What they do is illegal. … These networks and these newspapers are really no different than a highly paid political operative. And it has to stop. It has to be illegal. It’s influencing judges, and it’s entered — it’s really changing law, and it just cannot be legal. I don’t believe it’s legal.

AMY GOODMAN: President Trump’s comments come amidst a right-wing push to overturn protections for the press to investigate public figures, a right guaranteed by the landmark 1964 Supreme Court decision New York Times v. Sullivan.

We’re joined now by David Enrich. He’s New York Times’ business investigations editor. His new book is titled Murder the Truth: Fear, the First Amendment, and a Secret Campaign to Protect the Powerful.

If you can start off — it’s great to have you with us, David — by talking about what this Supreme Court decision, this landmark decision in the 1960s, Sullivan, was all about?

DAVID ENRICH: Well, it was brought on behalf of supporters of Martin Luther King, and it basically detailed this litany of abuses by Southern officials. The gist of it was completely true: Southern officials were trying to preserve white supremacy. Some of the facts were either wrong or exaggerated, and a powerful Southern official named L.B. Sullivan, sued The New York Times and won at trial. And the goal, basically, of Sullivan and his pals was that by filing lawsuits that seized on tiny little inaccuracies, you could punish the media for covering the civil rights movement.

And so, this went up to the Supreme Court, and the Supreme Court ruled, in a unanimous decision in 1964, that in order to preserve free speech and allow people to write and criticize and investigate powerful people and institutions, the media and the public needed breathing room so that if they got a fact wrong by mistake or made an honest error, they would not be sued into oblivion. And so, that Supreme Court ruling has really set the stage for decades of investigative journalism and for normal people, non-journalists, as well, to speak up and kind of reveal abuses and criticize people who hold positions of power, both at the national level or at a community level, as well.

AMY GOODMAN: And what does this mean for the First Amendment?

DAVID ENRICH: And it means that the First Amendment gives everyone the right to speak and to interrogate powerful people, and you do not need to worry about — there should not be a legal cloud hanging over your head when you criticize or investigate someone powerful, and you do not need to worry that an innocent mistake is going to bankrupt you because of litigation.

AMY GOODMAN: So, let’s go back to 2016, Donald Trump vowing to make it easier to sue news organizations.

DONALD TRUMP: I’m going to open up our libel laws, so when they write purposely negative and horrible and false articles, we can sue them and win lots of money. We’re going to open up those libel laws, so that when The New York Times writes a hit piece, which is a total disgrace, or when The Washington Post, which is there for other reasons, writes a hit piece, we can sue them and win money.

AMY GOODMAN: So, that was before Donald Trump became president the first time around. Talk about the significance of what he’s saying and the overall campaign, as in your subtitle, the Secret Campaign to Protect the Powerful.

DAVID ENRICH: Well, when Donald Trump made those remarks in 2016, it kind of acted as the firing of a starter’s pistol in a race, and it sent a signal to the entire kind of conservative movement, and, in particular, the conservative legal movement, that a race was on to try to dismantle some of the long-standing First Amendment protections for the media and for others. And you can trace very directly back to that speech that he gave in Fort Worth, Texas, in February of 2016 the arrival on the scene of this kind of small cottage industry of high-priced lawyers whose entire practices were devoted to suing and threatening news outlets.

And the more successes they piled up, the more the strategy caught on, so that by the time — and within a couple of years, there was a real grassroots movement, funded and fueled by the likes of the Federalist Society, the Heritage Foundation, the Claremont Institute, to really weaponize defamation laws to make it much, much scarier, really, especially for small and independent news outlets and journalists, to write about powerful people — not just the president of the United States, but across — but in their local communities, a big company, maybe a powerful real estate developer, things like that. And this strategy has now worked its way all the way up to the Supreme Court, where there is increasing support for either doing away with New York Times v. Sullivan altogether, or at least chipping away at it around the edges.

AMY GOODMAN: So, you’re the business investigations editor at The New York Times. What led you to write this book?

DAVID ENRICH: Well, we were getting, and still do get, inundated with legal threats basically every time that we start writing about or investigating someone powerful. And it occurred to me — you know, The New York Times is in a pretty good position to handle that kind of threat, but it occurred to me a few years ago that, you know, the experience might be very different if you worked at a smaller outlet or if you were an independent journalist. And, you know, there are so many independent journalists right now, which I think is a really good thing for the media and a good thing for our democracy. But it’s people with a Substack newsletter or a blog or a podcast who are uniquely vulnerable to these types of threats and these types of litigation, because they are enormously expensive to defend against.

And they’re not always meant to — these challenges are not always meant to win in court. They’re often meant to just subject people to this torturous, long-running and extremely expensive legal process. And a lot of people make the economically rational decision, which is that in the face of those threats and in the face of that litigation, they’re going to back down rather than fight, which is exactly what the people making those threats want you to do.

AMY GOODMAN: So, talk about how Hulk Hogan or, as you point out, much more relevantly, Peter Thiel fit into this story.

DAVID ENRICH: Yeah, so, Peter Thiel had a long-running grudge against —

AMY GOODMAN: And explain who he is.

DAVID ENRICH: Yeah, Peter Thiel is one of the most powerful people in Silicon Valley. He was an early supporter of Donald Trump, and he’s very closely aligned with people like Elon Musk. And he —

AMY GOODMAN: Co-founder of PayPal.

DAVID ENRICH: Co-founder of PayPal, yes, and one of the owners of Palantir, as well. And he had a long-running grudge against the website Gawker, because Gawker was really pioneering a form of journalism that was very skeptical of Silicon Valley elites and was kind of puncturing some of the bubble surrounding them. And so he set out in the early 2010s to destroy Gawker. And he went searching. He hired a bunch of people. He put a bunch of money into this. And he eventually settled on a case involving Hulk Hogan. Gawker had published a snippet of a sex tape involving Hulk Hogan.

And so, Peter Thiel secretly financed and organized a multifaceted legal campaign using Hulk Hogan as a vehicle for retribution against Gawker. He won — Hulk Hogan won. Peter Thiel won. Gawker was destroyed. And this became a real blueprint for other billionaires and other powerful people to really attack the media. They saw that they — a well-funded, well-orchestrated, secret legal campaign — had the ability to absolutely destroy a well-established media outlet.

AMY GOODMAN: So, Gawker was destroyed. Now talk about some of the Supreme Court justices’ views. Particularly begin with Clarence Thomas.

DAVID ENRICH: Well, Clarence Thomas, during his confirmation hearings in 1991, expressed real support for New York Times v. Sullivan. He then went through a period where he got some very negative media coverage, and his views seemed to shift. And so, by 2019, Clarence Thomas became the first sitting Supreme Court justice to openly call for the overturning of New York Times v. Sullivan.

His argument originally was grounded in the 45 words of the First Amendment, which do not mention libel or defamation, and therefore should not — he argued that should not be protected under the First Amendment. Really, though, this was a part of a campaign by Thomas and his allies to really erode the powers of the media and the protections for the media and normal people to speak up when they saw abuses and to criticize people like him.

And so, he, now joined by Neil Gorsuch, as well, have really embraced this call and are trying to recruit other justices, I think, and are calling for other people to file lawsuits that might make their way up to the Supreme Court that will challenge these long-standing precedents that protect, again, not just press freedoms, but the right of a person in a community to circulate a petition, for example, or make a comment on Facebook about their mayor, things like that. So this is not just about protecting journalists. It’s really about protecting anyone who wants to stand up and have their voice heard on matters of public importance.

AMY GOODMAN: Where does Neil Gorsuch stand?

DAVID ENRICH: Gorsuch has joined Thomas in wanting to have this overturned. And his views really — and he views Sullivan as protecting all sorts of online defamatory speech. The arguments that he has made — I mean, one of the things I do in this book is really deconstruct those arguments. And it turns out, a lot of them are premised on not just kind of faulty logic, but inaccurate data that he cited, that he got from a law review article that was filled with a lot of false assumptions and kind of misinterpreted data. And so, he has actually had to correct his opinion calling for the overturning of New York Times v. Sullivan, but it is still being cited to this day by the conservative legal movement as one of the real kind of sources of information and authority that should be used to overturn it.

AMY GOODMAN: You begin your book, the prologue, “A Panicked Phone Call.” You tell the story of Guy Larson [sic]. Tell us who he — Guy Lawson — is.

DAVID ENRICH: So, Lawson is an American journalist and author who wrote a book that became the basis for the movie War Dogs, with — starring Jonah Hill. And the book basically tells the story of how these three stoners from Miami Beach become international arms traffickers. It’s kind of a rollicking, really fascinating tale. Some of the action is set in Albania. And there’s a bit part in the book played by the son of Albania’s former prime minister, who is kind of an autocratic strongman. And the details in the book, as far as I’ve been able to determine, were completely accurate. But for argument’s sake, the son of the strongman claims that he was kind of smeared in the book and that some of the facts were wrong, so he filed a lawsuit against Lawson in U.S. court, and it’s worked its way — it’s been kind of years winding its way through the legal process. It got dismissed by multiple courts. But years later, it worked its way up to the Supreme Court, and it became one of the latest vehicles to try and challenge Sullivan.

:{And it was seized on by people who had been inspired by Clarence Thomas, who had basically issued an open invitation to lawyers and, you know, prospective litigants, begging them to bring him a case that he could used to overturn Sullivan. It made its way up to the Supreme Court. They did not get enough votes to actually overturn Sullivan, or even hear the case, but it became another vehicle for Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch to really, you know, bring this issue much more to public light and to argue forcefully that Sullivan should be overturned.

And those calls, while unsuccessful — they did not get the Supreme Court to change the legal standard — they inspired hordes of lawyers, activists and other judges at lower levels across the country to really lean into this argument. And you can look at cases all over the country, and you can see that they are slowing down, they are taking longer, they’re not getting dismissed as quickly. And that creates all sorts of pain and difficulties for — especially for local and independent journalists, who now have much kind of higher odds of being dragged through expensive litigation.}:

AMY GOODMAN: So, you talk about — let’s look a some of the cases that President Trump is involved with right now. He sues ABC. He sues The Des Moines Register. He sues CBS. Is he trying to bring these cases to the Supreme Court? Now, of course, ABC, there was a settlement. Explain what these cases were about and what it means to settle.

DAVID ENRICH: Yeah, well, first of all, Trump is very much trying to get a case to the Supreme Court that will lead to the overturning of Sullivan. I don’t think any of those three cases you mentioned are the likely vehicles, but there are a bunch of others working their way through the federal appeals system that I think stand a much better chance.

These more recent lawsuits against ABC, CBS and The Des Moines Register are all pretty clearly efforts by Trump and his allies to weaponize the law to get — to kind of punish criticism and to deter others from speaking up and saying critical things. And they involve different legal theories. The ABC case was a straight-up defamation case. The Des Moines Register and the —

AMY GOODMAN: I mean, ABC case, where George Stephanopoulos had said President Trump —

DAVID ENRICH: Yeah.

AMY GOODMAN: — was found civilly liable for rape. Now, again —

DAVID ENRICH: Yeah.

AMY GOODMAN: — the judge in the case said, in common parlance, this case would be about rape.

DAVID ENRICH: Yeah, and even in the technical details, that he was actually found liable by the jury for sexual abuse, not rape. But so, even if you assume, for argument’s sake, that that’s an important difference and that Stephanopoulos got it wrong — and I think Stephanopoulos would say he didn’t get it wrong — but for argument’s sake, let’s say he did get it wrong. That is exactly the type of mistake that is supposed to be protected by New York Times v. Sullivan, because it is an honest, good-faith error, and you should not be held liable. ABC nonetheless decided that it was prudent to settle this case.

AMY GOODMAN: Or Disney did —

DAVID ENRICH: Well, right.

AMY GOODMAN: — which owns ABC.

DAVID ENRICH: Disney, as parent company, did. And, I mean, I think the rationale for that — and we’re seeing this play out in other settings, as well — is that these big multinational companies, that have varied interests, are trying to protect their corporate interests and do not feel like having outstanding litigation against the president of the United States is in their best interest, and so they are, pretty clearly, I think, taking the side of their profits in the long term over the First Amendment concerns that many of their journalists have. And you’re seeing a very similar dynamic playing out with CBS right now.

AMY GOODMAN: And CBS is the case of 60 Minutes.

DAVID ENRICH: Yeah.

AMY GOODMAN: And Trump is suing them for $20 billion, I think, at this point, for how they edited a Kamala Harris piece.

DAVID ENRICH: Yeah, and this is the very definition of what I think is a meritless lawsuit. And at the time the lawsuit was filed, there were some discrepancies in the way CBS kind of cut or aired parts of Kamala Harris’s interview with 60 Minutes. We now have the full, unedited transcript. We have the full, unedited recordings of those interviews. And it is plainly clear, objectively, that the interview, while edited, was not done so deceptively. There are not material differences between the different things that aired on different CBS shows. And so, the lawsuit, clearly, to me at least, and certainly all the legal observers I’ve spoken to, with the exception of people aligned with Trump, is not a strong legal argument. And yet, CBS’s parent company, which has a multibillion-dollar merger pending, that it needs —

AMY GOODMAN: Paramount.

DAVID ENRICH: Yeah — that it needs federal approval for, has started talking with the Trump side about possibly settling this. And the rationale, again, is quite clear: They are concerned, on the Paramount side, that if they do not settle this, that the Trump administration is going to essentially punish them by holding up this multibillion-dollar merger. And so, you have journalists and, I think, media executives at CBS who are apoplectic about the prospect of settling this, because, A, they are on very strong legal footing, and, B, it would set a terrible precedent that the companies are going to cave to this kind of legal extortion. But I think — we’ll see what happens.

AMY GOODMAN: How does protection of the press in the United States compare to other countries? And talk about libel tourism.

DAVID ENRICH: Yeah. So, the U.S. is — the First Amendment is a really special thing in the U.S. It’s one of the things that distinguishes America from many other democracies. So, if you look at countries like the U.K., for example, or Australia, which are, you know, very democratic — small-D democratic countries, it is much harder for journalists and others to write critical things or to investigate powerful people and institutions in those countries, because their libel laws make it much easier to sue, and that also allows you to much more easily and kind of potently threaten people.

And so, you have — in the U.K., for example, we’ve had this phenomenon, as you just said, called libel tourism, where people, rich people, like Russian oligarchs, and big companies file lawsuits against journalists from all over the world in the British court system. And that has created a real chilling effect even for American journalists, who sometimes find themselves getting sued in British courts just because you published something. It goes online. It’s accessible probably everywhere in the world. That can expose you to liability in the British court system.

Now, it’s getting a little bit harder to actually bring those suits right now, but, to me, it’s a really clear reminder of the importance of the protections we have in the U.S. It really does differentiate this country from many others. And it means we have a much more robust and aggressive media. And again, it also means that just normal people who want to circulate a petition online can do so without fear that if they get a fact wrong, they are not going to be bullied and intimidated and potentially sued because of just minor inaccuracies.

AMY GOODMAN: So, finally, after you wrote this book, Murder the Truth: Fear, the First Amendment, and a Secret Campaign to Protect the Powerful, were you more or less hopeful?

DAVID ENRICH: Oh my goodness, less hopeful. We have a real problem right now in this country. We have very strong legal protections, and yet people and companies and institutions are, on a daily basis, threatening journalists and threatening normal people, and they are getting their way a lot of the time, and that’s with our legal protections in place. And the assault on these protections is very much underway. It’s a very much alive threat, I think. And we’re seeing the White House engage in this almost on a daily basis, it seems. So I think the threat is growing, and it has huge implications for our democracy and the ability of everyone to speak their mind and criticize powerful people.

AMY GOODMAN: We’re going to talk about some of the particular cases you look at in the book after the show, and we’ll post it as a web exclusive at democracynow.org. David Enrich, New York Times business investigations editor. His new book, just out, Murder the Truth: Fear, the First Amendment, and a Secret Campaign to Protect the Powerful.

---

---

mma

How broadcast TV networks covered climate change in 2024

Special ProgramsClimate & Energy

Written by Evlondo Cooper

Published 03/06/25

2024 was another year of unprecedented or significant climate impacts, including 27 billion-dollar weather disasters, the second-highest number of billion-dollar weather disasters on record in the U.S. And the Inflation Reduction Act, which passed in 2022 and allocated a historic $369 billion in climate and energy provisions, continued to help transform the clean energy landscape.

Despite these sweeping investments and the growing urgency of the climate crisis, a Media Matters analysis found that corporate broadcast networks aired 12 hours and 51 minutes of climate coverage in 2024 — a 25% decline in volume of coverage from 2023.

This reduction in climate coverage from ABC, CBS, NBC, and Fox Broadcast Co. (for its Sunday morning political show only) occurred amid significant political events, economic shifts, and global conflicts, which may have diverted attention from climate issues, despite their escalating severity. But it’s still deeply concerning, especially coming just ahead of Donald Trump’s return to the presidency.

As the Trump administration rolls back climate initiatives and expands fossil fuel production, robust news coverage has become more critical than ever. Corporate TV networks must prioritize consistent, substantive climate journalism that amplifies diverse voices, highlights systemic inequities in climate impacts, demands accountability, and clearly communicates both the dangers of an escalating climate crisis and potential solutions.

Key findings

[long]

===

===

Misinformer of the Year: Anti-media intimidation

Written by Matt Gertz

Published 12/23/24 mma

The role of the free press, enshrined by the Constitution’s First Amendment, is an essential element of our democracy. The public cannot become informed about the problems facing our country and the efforts to improve or worsen them without robust protections for journalism.

But powerful people hate the light journalism shines on them and the dissent it can spur. A coalition of right-wing billionaires, Republican law enforcement officials, and an authoritarian once and future president are using wealth, lawfare, and government power to silence the press and carry out their political agenda unimpeded. And they are perilously close to succeeding.

Media Matters is naming anti-media intimidation the Misinformer of the Year for 2024 for its chilling effect on essential press freedoms.

ABC News’ agreement to settle Donald Trump’s defamation lawsuit is a foreboding sign of the current media climate and where it may be headed.

Legal experts and executives at ABC News parent company Disney reportedly thought that the outlet would eventually prevail. But its lawyers reportedly feared “litigating against a vindictive sitting president and risking harm to its brand.” They even worried that the suit could “become a vehicle for Mr. Trump and his allies to overturn the landmark First Amendment decision in New York Times v. Sullivan,” The New York Times reported.

If media lawyers are worried that a defamation lawsuit could ultimately demolish the bedrock legal precedent limiting such suits, then that protection functionally no longer applies.

The results of that shift could prove devastating to news outlets large and small and chill speech across the nation.

Trump’s lawyers have already filed a new lawsuit against Iowa pollster Ann Selzer, her polling firm, The Des Moines Register, and the Iowa paper’s parent company Gannett, accusing them of consumer fraud for publishing Selzer’s poll.

Other suits from anyone else who benefits from a cowed press will surely follow.

The purpose of these intimidation tactics — to which we had already been subjected — is to silence adversarial speech. If powerful individuals can force critics to pay a hefty price, they will be much more hesitant to take risks. And those without the financial resources for protracted legal fights will either back down or risk crippling costs. With journalists silenced, crucial stories will go unwritten — and the American public will lose out to right-wing power.

---

an 12 24

NOTE DID NOT RETRACT, SAID REGRET THE STATEMENT

ABC shouldn’t have agreed to settle the defamation case Trump brought against it — handing him $15 million for his presidential “library” (whatever monument that turns out to be) and another million for his legal fees, along with an apology.

It shouldn’t have, first, because the standard for defamation of a public figure requires that a plaintiff prove that the defendant acted with “actual malice” — that is, knew their statement was false or acted with reckless disregard for the truth.

But when on March 10, ABC News anchor George Stephanopoulos asserted that Trump had been found civilly liable for raping writer E. Jean Carroll, there’s zero evidence that Stephanopoulos knew it to be false or was acting with reckless disregard for the truth.

At Trump’s civil trial for defaming Carroll, she testified that he pushed her against a dressing room wall, forced his mouth onto hers, yanked down her tights, and shoved his hand and then his penis inside her while she struggled against him. She said she finally kneed him off her and fled.

In upholding the civil judgment for Carroll and against Trump, U.S. District Judge Lewis Kaplan wrote that the unanimous jury verdict was almost entirely in favor of Carroll, except that the jury concluded she had failed to prove that Trump raped her “within the narrow, technical meaning of a particular section of the New York Penal Law,” which requires vaginal penetration by a penis.

The judge said that jury verdict did notmean that Carroll “failed to prove that Mr. Trump ‘raped’ her as many people commonly understand the word ‘rape.’ Indeed ... the jury found that Mr. Trump in fact did exactly that.”

After a federal judge says that the jury under his purview found that Trump “exactly” raped her, as rape is commonly understood, isn’t it understandable that Stephanopoulos concluded that Trump had been found civilly liable for raping her?

By caving into Trump with this $15 million settlement, ABC didn’t just signal that Trump was correct and Stephanopoulos wrong about whether Trump had in fact raped Carroll.

ABC also signaled that Trump might be correct about a lot of other things he has accused ABC and the rest of the mainstream media of reporting falsely about him — that he lied when he said the 2020 election was stolen from him, for example, or that he lied when he claimed he did not provoke the rioters on January 6, 2021, or when he characterized it as a “peaceful” protest, or said President Biden was behind his prosecutions for trying to reverse the outcome of the 2020 election and making off with classified documents.

ABC’s cave to Trump has even larger implications.

Trump has already used legal threats to intimidate the media and anyone brazen enough to criticize or question him — saying he’ll prosecute journalists and their sources, eliminate funding for public radio and television, subpoena news organizations, revoke networks’ broadcast licenses, and use libel lawsuits.

In the wake of ABC’s surrender, Trump is alreadyexpandinghis threats of legal action against the news media, stating he wants to “straighten out the press.”

On Monday, Trump said that “today or tomorrow” he would sue the Des-Moines Registernewspaper over its final poll of Iowa voters that showed him losing the November election to Vice President Kamala Harris, because he believed the poll “was fraud and it was election interference.”

The Register’sfinal poll before Election Day, conducted by legendary pollster J. Ann Selzer, showed Harris leading Trump 47-44 percent among likely voters in the state. The poll was a bombshell that suggested Harris might pull an upset in a state Trump won in 2016 and 2020.

Trump went on to win the state by a 13-point margin.

“She’s a very good pollster,” Trump said of Selzer. “She knows what she was doing.”

Selzer said she was “mystified” by allegations she was politically motivated or had engaged in election interference. “To suggest without a single shred of evidence that I was in cahoots with somebody, that I was being paid by somebody, it’s hard to pay too much attention to it except that they are accusing me of a crime.”

Trump’s comments about the Registerwere in response to a reporter’s question about whether Trump planned to file more lawsuits following the settlement with ABC, including against social media influencers and other independent figures. Trump responded, “I think you have to do it because they’re very dishonest. We need a great media. We need a fair media.”

Some news organizations are already warning their reporters to prepare: Axios recently told its staff to expect an increased number of lawsuits from the Trump administration, Semafor reported.

At one point, Trump suggested that the U.S. government should be taking up these lawsuits against the news media. “I feel I have to do this. I shouldn’t really be the one to do it. It should have been the Justice Department or somebody else. But I have to do it. It costs a lot of money to do it, but we have to straighten out the press.”

So, why didn’t ABC stand by Stephanopoulos and stand up to Trump?

Media lawyers say it’s rare to see a settlement at this stage of a legal dispute.

After Trump filed the lawsuit accusing Stephanopoulos of “actual malice,” ABC filed a motion to dismiss the case, claiming Trump could not prove actual malice. In July, the judge assigned to the case rejected ABC’s motion and allowed the case to move forward. This subjected the network to the pretrial discovery process, meaning that Stephanopoulos would have his emails and other work materials scrutinized.

The curious thing here is that when media defendants are unsuccessful at the dismissal stage of a trial, they typically move on to preparing for summary judgment and challenge the legal sufficiency of a plaintiff’s claim. Four media lawyers I checked with told me they didn’t understand why ABC would settle before trying for summary judgment, especially when it had such a strong case.

Conservative radio host Erick Erickson, who used to practice law, says ABC and Stephanopoulos wanted to avoid discovery. The “$15 million settlement is not the cost of doing business. It is avoiding discovery.”

I don’t think it’s a cover-up. I know George Stephanopoulos well (we worked together in the Clinton administration), and I have utter confidence in his integrity.

But I don’t have nearly as much confidence in the Walt Disney Company — which, along with its ownership of ABC, owns the Disney Channel, ESPN Wide World of Sports, Freeform, FX, Hulu, Hotstar, and National Geographic. It also owns the properties Disneyland Resort, Walt Disney World Resort, and Disneyland Paris. It owns the studios Pixar Animation, Marvel Studios, Lucasfilm, and 20th Century Studios. It owns the brands Star Wars, The Muppets, Disney Princesses, Pirates of the Caribbean, and Winnie the Pooh. It owns a publishing company, a cruise line, a venture capital firm, and a host of international media networks.

In other words: A very big corporation with its hands in all sorts of places. A very big corporation that worries about all the ways the upcoming Trump administration might hurt its bottom line.

No large American corporation wants to be actively litigating against a sitting president, especially one as vindictive as Trump. A $15 million settlement is chickenfeed compared to the myriad ways Trump could penalize Disney, a $205.25 billion corporation.

We are beginning to see this all over the American political-economic system — giant corporations and hugely wealthy people going out of their way to appease King Trump even in advance of his coronation. They are paying him off to maintain or enlarge their profits.

Which is why Disney’s control over ABC — like Jeff Bezos’s control over The Washington Post, Elon Musk’s control over what we used to call Twitter, and Patrick Soon-Shiong’s control over the Los Angeles Times— and every other wealthy individual’s or big corporation’s control over the news we get, poses such a challenge to American democracy in the age of Trump.

---

---

an 12 24 yikes

On Saturday, December 14, CNN and other media outlets reported that ABC News had reached a settlement in President-elect Donald Trump's defamation lawsuit against the network and "This Week" host George Stephanopoulos. ABC News agreed to pay $15 million to a "presidential foundation and museum" and pay $1 million for Trump's attorney's fees.

This comes at a time when far-right conspiracy theorist Kash Patel, Trump's nominee for FBI director, is drawing a great deal of scrutiny for threatening legal action — either criminal or civil — against journalists.

Patel, during a 2023 appearance on Steve Bannon's "War Room" vodcast, threatened to "come after the people in the media who lied about American citizens, who helped Joe Biden rig presidential elections."

READ MORE: Memo to Rupert Murdoch: Now is the time to sell Fox News

Patel has also threatened anti-Trump Republican Olivia Troye, who served as a national security aide to former Vice President Mike Pence, with a defamation lawsuit.

The New York Times' David Enrich, in an article published on December 15, stresses that ABC News isn't the only media outlet that Trump and his allies have threatened with legal action.

"The legal threats have arrived in various forms," Enrich explains. "One aired on CNN. Another came over the phone. More arrived in letters or e-mails. All of them appeared aimed at intimidating news outlets and others who have criticized or questioned President-elect Donald J. Trump and his nominees to run the Pentagon and FBI. The small flurry of threatened defamation lawsuits is the latest sign that the incoming Trump Administration appears poised to do what it can to crack down on unfavorable media coverage."

Enrich adds, "Before and after the election, Mr. Trump and his allies have discussed subpoenaing news organizations, prosecuting journalists and their sources, revoking networks’ broadcast licenses and eliminating funding for public radio and television. Actual or threatened libel lawsuits are another weapon at their disposal — and they are being deployed even before Mr. Trump moves back into the White House."

READ MORE:Why Donald Trump's election could hasten the end of U.S. dollar dominance

Media attorney Elizabeth McNamara, who represented ABC News and Stephanopoulos in the defamation case, didn't discuss the specifics of that case with the Times but did make a general comment.

McNamara warned, "There's been a pattern and practice for the past couple of years of using defamation litigation as a tactic to harass or test the boundary of case law."

Meanwhile, Trump's incoming administration — according to the Washington Post reporters Isaac Arnsdorf and Jeff Stein — is expecting to be the target of lawsuits in 2025 in response to his executive orders.

"Officials in the incoming Trump Administration have an answer for anyone questioning the validity of several policies they plan to implement immediately and unilaterally: Go ahead and sue," Arnsdorf and Stein report in an article published on December 14. "President-elect Donald Trump has long promised to take executive action to withhold birthright citizenship from people born in the United States to parents who are undocumented immigrants, but his advisers now see a court fight as a goal of that effort, rather than an obstacle."

The journalists add, "Similarly, incoming budget officials have said they want to openly defy a 1974 law by refusing to spend money that Congress has authorized, forcing a lawsuit to test the Watergate-era statute's constitutionality. And aides involved in the transition said they'll plow ahead with reviving a policy from late in Trump's first term making it easier to fire tens of thousands of civil servants despite a Biden Administration policy meant to bolster their protections, leaving individual federal workers to fight their own appeals."

Trump's incoming administration, according to Arnsdorf and Stein, "is betting that Democratic lawyers, environmental groups and civil libertarians have less money and appetite for drawn-out court fights than during the earlier days of the anti-Trump 'resistance.'"

But Lee Gelernt, an immigration attorney for the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), expects the second Trump Administration to face more than few lawsuits.

Gelernt told the Post, "I suspect they understand they’re going to get sued for just about everything. There are going to be some initial quick fights, but it’s ultimately going to be a marathon."

READ MORE:'The next recession starts here': Trump team weighs abolishing bank regulators

*Read the New York Times' full article at this link (subscription required) and the Washington Post's full article here (subscription required).

===

===

an 10 24

Donald Trump's campaign team went on a behind-the-scenes meltdown mid-way through the former president’s debate with Vice President Kamala Harris, a new report revealed Monday.

As moderators fact-checked claims in realtime, his senior advisers began berating senior executives at the network, demanding the challenges stop.

Trump’s top aide, Suse Wiles, even made a call to ABC’s top president, the Washington Post reported.

“Trump’s advisers — including Chris LaCivita and Miller — erupted on ABC executives and journalists in the middle of the debate, according to the people familiar with the situation,” the Post reported.

“They implored the network to stop fact-checking for the rest of the event and said they had breached their promise, and a call was even lodged to the president of ABC News by Susie Wiles, the campaign’s top aide. At least one Trump adviser demanded to talk to the moderators during the debate.”

A contract signed by Trump’s team before the ABC debate and reviewed by the Post had no stipulation that he would not be fact-checked, according to the report.

But the team flipped as Trump received pushback over claims that Haitian immigrants were eating pets in Springfield, Ohio, with moderator David Muir interrupting to say the city manager “told us there have been no credible reports of specific claims of pets being harmed, injured or abused by individuals within the immigrant community.”

ABC News did not comment on the Post’s report.

“Everyone who watched the ABC debate agreed that it was a 3-on-1 fight with 2 moderators who wrongly ‘fact-checked’ President Trump multiple times, but did not fact check Kamala Harris ONCE, even though she spewed multiple lies on the debate stage,” Trump spokeswoman Karoline Leavitt said in a statement.

“The ABC debate was widely viewed as one of the worst moderated debates in history, yet President Trump still won.”

The outburst from Trump’s handlers was unsuccessful at stopping the challenges, but it represents a clear move to make it acceptable for him to utter claims without expectations of fact-checking, the Post reported.

Earlier this month, he pulled out of a sit-down with CBS’ “60 Minutes” because, the show's producers said, he objected to being fact-checked.

“Within the political establishment on the right, it is now considered quite legitimate — and quite legitimate to say publicly and openly — that you disapprove of fact-checking,” Lucas Graves, author of “Deciding What’s True: The Rise of Political Fact-Checking in American Journalism," told the Post.

“Precisely because of Trump’s unusual relationship with the truth — even for a politician — it’s hardly surprising that he would object to it so volubly and so forcefully.”

===

[### Springfield pet-eating hoax

Wikipedia

https://en.wikipedia.org › wiki › Springfield_pet-eating...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Springfield_pet-eating_hoax)

Starting in September 2024, false claims spread online saying Haitian immigrants were stealing and eating pets in Springfield, Ohio. The claims began with a ...

Origin and spread · ‎Other events · ‎Amplification by Republican... · ‎Continued spread

[### Key claims from the Trump-Harris debate fact-checked.

BBC

https://www.bbc.com › news › articles](https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cgjv3gdxv7go)

Sep 11, 2024 — The Republican and Democratic presidential candidates traded claims over key election issues including the economy, immigration and abortion.

[### ABC fact-checks Trump during debate over false claim ...

The Hill

https://thehill.com › homenews › media › 4873045-tru...](https://thehill.com/homenews/media/4873045-trump-accused-immigrants-eating-pets/)

Sep 10, 2024 — ABC News anchor David Muir offered a fact-check on former President Trump after he falsely claimed immigrants are eating pets in Ohio.

The good, the bad, and the ugly of Sunday morning political shows’ coverage of Hurricane Helene misinformation

Impacted states are pleading for bad actors to stop spreading deliberate misinformation

Special ProgramsClimate & Energy

Written by Allison Fisher

Published 10/07/24 mma

Misinformation related to the ongoing response to Hurricane Helene, which has created widespread devastation across six states and left at least 232 dead, is disrupting relief operations, and a number of local and state officials are calling on bad actors and the Trump campaign to stop spreading the lies.

The Sunday morning political shows attempted to address this hurricane misinformation with varying degrees of success. With the exception of Fox News Sunday, all the shows rightly pointed out the threat misinformation and unfounded conspiracy theories pose to the response efforts while flagging some of the most prevalent lies polluting these efforts.

The most prevalent misinformation has centered on the distribution of Federal Emergency Management Agency aid, specifically the false claims that federal assistance is limited to $750 per affected individual and that FEMA funds are lacking due to spending on immigrant assistance. Bad actors have also pushed an overarching falsehood that the response has been a failure.

Both ABC and CBS hosted good-faith actors who debunked the falsehoods while also confirming that the federal efforts have been strong. CNN and NBC hosted bad actors who refused to acknowledge the misinformation and continued to push the false claim that the federal efforts have been a failure even in the face of repeated fact checks by the anchors.

Even though the misinformation appears to be constructed to attack the response of the Biden-Harris administration, none of the networks provided the context that former president Trump has a track record of doing what he accused the federal government of, such as withholding hurricane disaster relief to North Carolina and Puerto Rico allegedly for political reasons or the recent revelations that Trump “refused to approve disaster aid for California after deadly wildfires in 2018 because of the state’s Democratic leanings.”

Material to misinformation around the adequacy of FEMA funds is the fact that Republicans, just days before Hurricane Helene made landfall, voted down additional FEMA funds requested by the White House, and House Speaker Mike Johnson has declined Biden’s request to convene Congress to consider a special relief package for impacted states. However, these facts were also absent from the coverage.

The good: ABC, CBS focused on misinformation and officials’ explanations that it can hamper recovery efforts

ABC’s *This Week* foregrounded an interview with FEMA Administrator Deanne Criswell by reporting that “in North Carolina, they are still working to survey the damage and to reach survivors as a wave of misinformation from the former president and his allies hampers the recovery effort.”

They added: … “In the wake of Trump's various claims, FEMA launching an anti-rumor tool this week to combat those messages, with local officials calling on people to ignore online falsehoods. … Law enforcement is monitoring threats towards public officials prompted by disinformation and conspiracy theories, including specific individuals linked to FEMA and other recovery agencies.”

Video

CitationFrom the October 6, 2024, edition of ABC's This Week

In the interview, ABC anchor George Stephanopoulos asked Criswell whether they had the resources they needed. She responded:

“Absolutely, George. We, again, we moved resources in before this storm happened. We embedded our staff in the state to work side by side so we could quickly employ those resources to where they were needed, and as we continue to see how long we're going to have to provide this level of sustained support, we will continue to do that.”

Criswell also lamented about the misinformation that “we're putting politics ahead of helping people,” while emphasizing the danger. “I need to make sure I can get the resources to where they’re needed, and when you have this dangerous rhetoric like you're hearing, it creates fear in our own employees,” she said.

On CBS’*Face the Nation*, moderator Margaret Brennan reported that a North Carolina state senator had been “posting on Facebook asking people to stop conspiracy theory junk” and asked Sen. Thom Tillis (R-NC), “Who or what is fueling that kind of misinformation and do you think it is harming recovery efforts?” He responded in part:

“Many of the observations are not even from people on the ground. I believe that we have to stay focused on rescue operations, recovery operations, clearing operations, and we don't need any of these distractions on the ground. It’s at the expense of the hard-working first responders and people that are just trying to recover their life.”

Brennan also questioned Tillis on the misinformation that Trump and others in right-wing media are spreading, such as falsely claiming that money intended for hurricane relief was being diverted to immigrants.

Tillis expressed disapproval of the administration’s border policy but capitulated that it was not impacting the hurricane response, saying: “We have the resources that we need. We're going to have to go back and pass more resources. We could have a discussion about the failure of this administration's border policies and the billions of dollars it’s costing. But right now, not yet is it affecting the flow of resources to Western North Carolina.”

“It has not been a factor, to be clear,” Brennan emphasized.

### The bad: CNN, NBC brought on Trump campaign spokesperson Lara Trump and Sen. Tom Cotton, and both spread misinformation

On CNN’s State of the Union, anchor Dana Bash tried to fact-check Trump’s misinformation in an interview with Lara Trump, but the Trump campaign spokesperson persisted in her false claims.

Bash brought up specific misinformation spread by the right-wing media and Trump, including that “FEMA is only offering $750 to Americans who have had their homes destroyed.”

“That's not true,” she clarified. “He's also echoing conspiracy theorists online who falsely claimed that the administration is redirecting disaster money for undocumented immigrants.”

In response, Trump doubled down on the false claims and repeatedly insisted that there is a relationship between the migrant crisis and the hurricane response, falsely claiming, “You have migrants being housed in luxury hotels in New York City. We have paid so much money from our tax dollars into the crisis that didn't need to happen. We could redirect money to help people immediately on the ground.”

Video

CitationFrom the October 6, 2024, edition of CNN's State of the Union

While Bash repeatedly fact-checked Trump’s response, she still provided a platform for the Trump campaign to push hurricane response lies and create the impression that the federal government’s relief efforts have been lacking.

Similarly, on NBC’s*Meet the Press* anchor Kristen Welker questioned Sen. Tom Cotton (R-AR) about hurricane misinformation, stating, “We know former President Trump has made, quite frankly, a series of baseless claims, including that the Biden administration is intentionally withholding aid from where Republicans live, also saying that FEMA funds are being redirected to migrants. Both those claims have been debunked. They’re false.”

Cotton twice claimed that Georgia Gov. Brian Kemp is calling the response “lackluster,” even after Welker corrected that Kemp “said we got what we needed.”

Cotton also falsely claimed that it took days to deploy helicopters and claimed that “there's not enough money left in the fund” while suggesting that the reason is because billions of dollars have been spent to put up migrants “in hotels and give them room service and maids.”

Welker fact-checked his response, saying, “Those funds are coming from a different federal fund, not from disaster relief, just to be clear. And what DHS Secretary Mayorkas said is that it has the money it needs for now, but not necessarily through the end of the year for future hurricanes.” But Cotton doubled down, saying:

“It is true that FEMA and the Department of Homeland Security have been spending billions of dollars on migrants. … I would note that this administration seems to have no problem finding money when they want to spend it on their priorities. When they need hundreds of billions to pay off student loans for graduate students in gender studies programs, they somehow find it. When it's trying to get helicopters to deliver food and water and cellular service and life-saving medicine into the mountain valleys, they somehow can't seem to find the money.”

Welker reiterated that the funds are different and that millions have already been distributed to those impacted.

In his newsletter, media critic Oliver Darcy asked about Cotton, “Why do news networks continue to invite the dishonest GOP senator on to abuse their platforms in the first place?”

Darcy was referring to Cotton continuing to lie about the 2020 election, but the point stands for his refusal to set the record straight on FEMA funding as well. Darcy went on to add:

As Jake Tapper — who also recently invited Cotton on his program — said years ago in the aftermath of the insurrection, “If you’re willing to lie about [the election], what else are you willing to lie about? And why should my viewers listen to you?”

### The ugly: Fox News Sunday glossed over misinformation and aired an inaccurate Trump statement without context

Fox News Sunday’scoverage of Hurricane Helene failed to cover the ongoing issue of misinformation altogether, instead focusing on the two presidential candidates’ recent comments on recovery efforts, reporting that Vice President Kamala Harris returned this week to North Carolina and “pledged ongoing federal support” and “former President Trump has said the current administration has done a lousy job.”

The show punctuated the statement with a clip of Trump saying: “They are doing the worst job on a hurricane than any administration has ever done.”

Video

CitationFrom the October 6, 2024, edition of Fox News Sunday

This is false: While the storm, made worse by climate change, is among the most deadly to hit the United States mainland, the response started even before the storm made landfall and is ongoing.

The Biden administration has approvedfederal assistance for multiple states, including Florida, North Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee, Alabama, Virginia, and Georgia. On September 29, the White House released an updated fact sheet detailing the administration's “continued response efforts to Hurricane Helene,” noting that tens of thousands of state and federal personnel are helping victims across several states. This includes 50,000 personnel helping to fix power outages, 3,300 personnel allocating federal resources and helping with search and rescue operations, and 200 medical responders providing health services.

On October 2, Biden approved deployment of up to 1,000 active-duty soldiers to support the delivery of food, water, and other critical commodities to impacted communities.

===

MAGA runs wild with random poster’s “ABC whistleblower” claims

How the right works to “create stories”

Written by Matt Gertz

Published 09/16/24 MMA

A wildly flimsy internet rumor launched by a random pro-Trump X poster about an “ABC whistleblower” who purportedly claims that the network rigged the September 10 presidential debate went viral in MAGA spaces over the last several days, with Donald Trump and his allies floating congressional investigations and potential regulatory retribution against ABC News in response.

The right-wing pundits and Republican politicians pushing the story don’t actually know who the “ABC whistleblower” is, if their claims are credible, or even if the person actually exists — but the purported document supposedly supports their preferred narrative that ABC News’ moderators were biased, so they’re running with it.

The saga, while laughable, shows the right's ongoing tendency to embrace and elevate anything that confirms their worldview. Sen. J.D. Vance (R-OH) laid out that strategy in a Sunday interview on CNN, admitting that he pushed a debunked, racist, and demagogic claim about Haitian immigrants eating pets because he wants to “create stories” that drive news coverage of immigration.

In the instance of the absurd “whistleblower” claim, Trump's allies trotted it out as they tried to cover for his flailing September 10 debate performance. Right-wing media figures lashed out at ABC News and its moderators David Muir and Linsey Davis with deranged invective and absurd conspiracy theories. And Trump himself said in an interview the following morning that “they ought to take away their license,” reiterating his support for government retribution against news outlets that displease him.

Then on September 12, a “verified” but obscure X poster with the handle “Black Insurrectionist--I FOLLOW BACK TRUE PATRIOTS” claimed they would release “an affidavit from an ABC whistleblower” by the end of the weekend. “The affidavit states how the Harris campaign was given sample question which were essentially the same questions that were given during the debate and separate assurances of fact checking Donald Trump and that she would NOT be fact checked,” the poster wrote.

Right-wing pundits had no reason to take claims from “Black Insurrectionist” at face value — other than the fact that the story confirmed their preexisting biases.

A casual review of recent activity from the “Black Insurrectionist” account — which has posted to X more than 32,700 times over the 10 months since its November 2023 launch — reveals a strong tendency for unhinged, conspiracy-minded, and violent pro-Trump rants.

One August post describes Vice President Kamala Harris and Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz as “disgusting creatures” and their supporters as “the delightful cesspool of humanity we are fighting here today” who may be “just plain flat out disgusting pedophiles.”

Other posts detail the need for “70 million people to do mass civil disobedience that will halt this country” to prevent Harris from winning, perhaps via a mass withdrawal of cash from banks aimed at damaging the economy unless “the government just does what we want.”

It beggars belief that this is the person a credible “whistleblower” would entrust with an exclusive story of this magnitude, rather than a mainstream news outlet that would verify it or even an established right-wing one willing to promote the claims without due diligence.

The previewed “whistleblower” claim nonetheless went viral in MAGA spaces — and got all the way to Trump himself in less than seven hours. The former president claimed on Truth Social that evening that “people are saying that Comrade Kamala Harris had the questions from Fake News ABC” and that “ABC’s license should be TERMINATED” if that is the case, before reposting an account claiming that an “ABC whistleblower allegedly will release an affidavit” showing that “the Harris campaign was given sample questions.”

ABC News denied the allegations, with a spokesperson telling The Daily Beast, “Absolutely not. Harris was not given any questions before the debate.”

On Sunday morning, hours before the affidavit was to be released, a new wrinkle emerged as MAGA figures began suggesting the “whistleblower” had (conveniently for ABC) died.

“The ABC whistleblower who claimed Kamala Harris was given debate questions ahead of the debate has died in a car crash according to news reports,” wrote Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-GA) on X, echoing random accounts.

Please note that this makes absolutely no sense: How could reports detail the death of a person who had never been identified?

NBC News’ Brandy Zadrozny ultimately tracked down the source of the story, an article headlined “ABC News Whistleblower in Kamala Harris Debate Question Scandal Dies in Maryland Crash” posted on a “junk AI-written website.” A few hours later, Greene acknowledged that “this story appears to be false and I’m glad to hear it” but added, “We need a serious investigation into the whistleblower’s report that Kamala Harris was given debate questions ahead of time from ABC!”

The totally implausible idea that news reports had revealed the mysterious death of a “whistleblower” who had never been publicly named served to drive more attention to the “affidavit,” as Greene demonstrated.

“Black Insurrectionist” then released what they claimed was the “affidavit” that afternoon. It appears to be a Microsoft Word document whose text features internal inconsistencies and grammatical errors. All identifying information about its author and any evidence it had been notarized or submitted to a court is redacted.

The purported affiant claims to have worked in “technical and administrative positions” but nonetheless offers detailed claims about communications between ABC News and the Harris campaign. And remember, the document was published by a random pseudonymous X poster with a history of unhinged statements.

“Black Insurrectionist” explained that the report could be trusted due to the poster’s record, which included apparently having prior knowledge of the July attempt on Trump’s life: “A couple days before Trump attempted assassination, I made a post (which I had never done before) was something big was about to go off.”

And indeed, that was enough for the likes of MAGA figures like Benny Johnson (2.7 million X followers) and Eric Trump (4.6 million) and Bill Ackman (1.4 million).

By Monday morning, Rep. Dan Meuser (R-PA) was telling Fox host Maria Bartiromo that Congress would investigate claims from the ABC “whistleblower.”

Video

CitationFrom the September 16, 2024, edition of Fox Business' Mornings with Maria

“Fortunately we now have a whistleblower, and I'm going to tell you something, Maria, we're going to do what we can to bring ABC in and have them answer some questions and as well as have this whistleblower and see what's going on as they're trying to tear down the First Amendment,” Meuser told Bartiromo on Fox Business’ Mornings with Maria.

“I'm glad you mentioned this because Fox News is reaching out to ABC for response to that affidavit,” she replied. “We've reached out to ABC to verify the affidavit and for a statement on these accusations, congressman, but this affidavit and this whistleblower story is gaining traction.”

“Yes, absolutely, and as it should,” Meuser replied. “We actually don't need a hearing to know what we saw. But we're going to look to do it so as we can provide some evidence as to how manipulative they are.”

In the past, Bartiromo’s willingness to run with extraordinary but evidence-free claims that happened to bolster her preexisting views helped secure a massive defamation settlement from her employer.

Apparently that wasn’t enough to change her approach. But her behavior, while deplorable, is not anomalous — this total rejection of evidentiary standards in order to “create stories” is a hallmark of the conspiratorial right, from lies about election fraud to Haitians eating pets.

===

Mirroring how ABC’s debate moderators treated climate change, cable news networks aired 31 hours of post-debate coverage without a single mention of climate

Special ProgramsClimate & Energy

Written by Evlondo Cooper

Published 09/16/24 mma

ABC News relegated climate change to a brief, last-minute question during the September 10 presidential debate — even as millions of Americans faced a stark backdrop of climate-driven disasters.

The consequences of this choice to downplay the climate crisis extended beyond the debate itself — major cable news networks completely ignored the issue in more than 31 hours of combined post-debate coverage.

This omission highlights a systemic issue in news media: The frequent deprioritization of climate change despite the urgent and pervasive harm global warming is causing to communities across the country. In fact, 99% of Americans experienced at least one alert for extreme heat, wildfires, storms, or flooding this summer.

As climate-related events continue to reshape America, this lack of substantive coverage from influential news sources raises significant concerns about public awareness of this critical issue in the context of the 2024 election.

Climate activist and founder and director of Fossil Free Media Jamie Henn captured the frustration of many observers in a post that encapsulated the moderators’ negligent climate coverage during the debate, adding that “it basically sums up the American mainstream media's approach [to] the issue”:

These observations highlight the disconnect between the urgency of the climate crisis and its treatment in presidential debates. This disconnect was further amplified during the extensive post-debate coverage, where climate change was conspicuously absent despite cable news networks dedicating significant airtime to analyzing the debate:

ABC's deprioritization of climate during the debate marked a step backwards from recent improvements. By relegating climate to a brief, last-minute question, the network’s moderators failed to build on the more substantive climate discussions in 2020, signaling to other news outlets that it was not a priority topic. This editorial decision had a ripple effect, influencing the focus of post-debate coverage across the major cable news channels.

Other issues raised during the debate, such as reproductive rights and immigration, received correspondingly in-depth coverage in post-debate discussions. In contrast, the brief treatment of climate change led to its complete omission from subsequent coverage. Networks instead filled this void with predictable partisan narratives, further sidelining this important topic.

This systemic neglect reflects and reinforces the marginalization of climate issues in political discourse. The cumulative effect is a missed opportunity to inform voters about a critical issue, contributing to the ongoing cycle of climate inaction in politics and media.

These events highlight the importance of moderators getting presidential candidates to discuss climate change. However, the responsibility extends beyond these high-profile debates. Throughout the election cycle, national TV news outlets must rise to the challenge of conveying the gravity of the climate crisis to the American public.

Climate change impacts the economy, national security, public health, and many other issues. News coverage should highlight these connections, showing how global warming is reshaping Americans’ lives and intersecting with key election issues.

National TV news networks must also provide voters with comprehensive information on candidates’ climate stances, pushing beyond sound bites to examine the details and effects of their proposals. Voters deserve to understand how potential leaders plan to address this existential threat with the urgency it deserves.

Finally, cable news outlets should treat climate change as a central, not peripheral, election issue, and emphasize its connections to other policy concerns. By integrating climate discussions into wider election coverage, news outlets can elevate this vital issue to the forefront of political discourse, providing voters with the comprehensive information they need to make informed decisions about our shared future.

===

===

trmp in own spin room after fail; next day said polls won 65-95%

The right’s post-debate assault on ABC is a preview of Trump’s authoritarian agenda

Written by Matt Gertz

Published 09/13/24 mma

Donald Trump’s flailing performance at Tuesday night’s debate triggered a multiday right-wing freakout at the ABC News moderators, punctuated by calls from the former president and his allies to target the network and its parent company with a regulatory crackdown, congressional investigation, and even prosecutions. It’s a dark preview of the authoritarian tactics they could use if Trump returns to the White House and carries out his stated desire to retaliate against news outlets whose coverage displeases him.

Trump used Tuesday’s opportunity to address a massive national audience at the debate to spew nonsense incomprehensible to people who aren’t familiar with the deep lore of the right-wing fever swamps and repeatedly take the bait offered by Vice President Kamala Harris. The result was such a disaster for Trump’s campaign that he quickly called off future debates.

Trump’s right-wing media allies reacted to his disastrous performance in real time by lashing out at ABC News moderators David Muir and Linsey Davis, who fact-checked the former president on a handful of occasions. While debate moderators typically come in for criticism from pundits who take issue with how they handled the high-profile job, it is difficult to blame Muir or Davis for a candidate picking up a racist and false fourthhand internet rumor about Haitian immigrants in Ohio anddeclaring, [vid]“They’re eating the dogs, the people that came in, they’re eating the cats, they’re eating the pets of the people that live there.”

Moreover, the right’s discussion quickly blew past mere critiques of ABC’s performance to far-reaching conspiracy theories about its purportedly corrupt behavior and calls for government retribution against the network.

“Remove ABC’s broadcast license and criminally charge the moderators and executives for campaign finance fraud,” Sean Davis, CEO of the right-wing digital outlet The Federalist, declared on X the night of the debate.

Trump himself began calling for the stripping of ABC’s broadcast license the following morning.

“ABC took a big hit last night,” he said in an interview on Fox News’ Fox & Friends. “I mean, to be honest, they're a news organization. They have to be licensed to do it. They ought to take away their license for the way they did that.”

Trump’s remarks drew cheers from MAGA figures like Laura Loomer, who posted that “ABC News deserves to be INVESTIGATED.”

Trump reiterated his demand for retaliation in a Thursday night Truth Social post, claiming that “people are saying that Comrade Kamala Harris had the questions from Fake News ABC” and that if “an investigation” determines that that is the case, “ABC’s license should be TERMINATED.”

The former president then reposted a claim that an “ABC whistleblower allegedly will release an affidavit” showing that “the Harris campaign was given sample questions.” That claim originates with a random X poster — whose profile states, “Black Insurrectionist--I FOLLOW BACK TRUE PATRIOTS” — who claimed earlier that day to have received the purported document, which he promised to release ”before the weekend is out.”

Trump’s call for retribution has support from some Republican legislators. Sen. Roger Marshall (R-KS) said he would demand from ABC News and the Harris campaign “all correspondence, records, and potential coordination between the two parties ahead of Tuesday’s presidential debate,” while Sen. Mike Lee (R-UT) is threatening to “re-examine the laws” he claims allow “the left’s near-complete domination of broadcast TV”

Meanwhile, Trumpists like Eric Metaxas and Hugh Hewitt are floating boycotts of ABC parent company Disney, and Mark Penn wants an independent review of ABC’s internal communications to assess whether the network was “rigging the outcome of this debate.”

The credibility of Trump’s call to strip ABC’s license is unclear. The Federal Communications Commission does not license broadcast networks — but it does license individual broadcast stations, including the eight owned and operated directly by ABC and the hundreds of additional affiliates. FCC Chairwoman Jessica Rosenworcel, a Biden appointee, responded to Trump’s call by suggesting it runs afoul of the First Amendment, and Ajit Pai, her Trump-appointed predecessor, offered a similar response when Trump called for retaliation against NBC as president. That said, one of the goals of the Heritage Foundation’s Project 2025 is to ensure future Trump appointees are willing to prioritize his personal whims.

Moreover, Trump’s eagerness to use such tactics to halt critical coverage — and the right’s support for them — is a dire sign for the future, even if the specific deployment of retaliatory FCC licensing decisions doesn’t work out.

The New Republic’s Greg Sargent has a cover story in its latest issue detailing the possibility that a second Trump administration could be characterized by “slow-burn authoritarianism,” which Sargent describes as “lower-profile” efforts to use state power to create hardships for Trump’s critics and benefits for his allies.

Trump’s attack on the media is likely to follow such a pattern if he returns to the White House, as I told Sargent on The Daily Blast podcast earlier this week. Rather than the high-profile action of stripping broadcast licenses, Trump’s allies could use the threat of adverse regulation or congressional investigations to more quietly encourage corporate owners to clamp down on critical coverage or sell their networks to someone who will.

Indeed, the Trump administration pursued that strategy, albeit largely unsuccessfully, during his presidency. Trump-controlled agencies issued unfavorable regulatory decisions to the corporate owners of disfavored outlets like CNN and The Washington Post, and favorable ones to the Trump-aligned owners of Fox News and Sinclair Broadcast Group.

The owners of CNN and The Washington Post held out against this pressure before but it’s unclear how they would respond to a second Trump term, particularly if the coercion becomes more intense. Nor is it clear what ABC’s Disney ownership — with sprawling business interests that produce numerous bureaucratic pressure points — would do if Trump moved it to the top of the target list.

07/11/24 mma

Only 4% of national TV news segments about Hurricane Beryl mentioned climate change

Special PROGRAMSCLIMATE & ENERGY

WRITTEN BY EVLONDO COOPER

PUBLISHED 07/11/24

Hurricane Beryl, the first hurricane of the 2024 Atlantic season, rapidly intensified to a Category 5 storm by July 2, becoming the earliest recorded Category 5 hurricane in an Atlantic hurricane season. Fueled by climate-warmed ocean waters, Beryl caused severe damage and death in the Caribbean before making landfall in Texas on July 8 and causing widespread flooding and power outages. While Beryl's exceptional development and destructive path received extensive media coverage, national TV news largely failed to connect the storm to climate change, missing another opportunity to inform the public about the links between global warming and extreme weather events.

As is typical for major weather events, national TV news provided robust coverage of Hurricane Beryl, reporting in detail about the storm's path, intensity, and immediate impacts. They consistently highlighted Beryl's record-breaking nature, noting its status as the earliest Category 5 hurricane in Atlantic history. Coverage included timely updates on evacuation orders, emergency responses, and the logistics of disaster management. Reporters and meteorologists emphasized the storm's unprecedented rapid intensification and its potential for catastrophic damage. This comprehensive coverage of the hurricane's progression, its record-setting characteristics, and its immediate effects served as a vital public service.

However, while the coverage excelled in reporting the “what” of Hurricane Beryl, it again largely missed the “why.”

The climate connection to Beryl's intensity is clear, though it remained largely absent from media coverage. A ClimaMeter analysis revealed how “events similar to the low pressure system leading to Hurricane Beryl” have changed compared to similar past events in the region: temperatures have risen by up to 1°C, precipitation has increased by as much as 30%, and wind speeds have intensified by as much as 10%. Crucially, the analysis noted that Beryl was “fueled by exceptionally warm ocean temperatures.” These record-breaking water temperatures are directly attributable to climate change, providing the energy for Beryl's rapid intensification. According to ClimaMeter:

On cable:

On the corporate broadcast networks:

The disconnect between Beryl's climate links and national TV news’ coverage of the storm is particularly concerning given the increasing intensity of extreme weather events, including hurricanes. By failing to consistently make these connections, national TV news outlets are leaving their audiences uninformed about the full scope of the climate crisis and its immediate impacts on their lives.

Despite the overall lack of climate coverage, there were a few standout segments that not only effectively connected Hurricane Beryl to climate change but also incorporated key elements necessary for comprehensive extreme weather coverage.

During the July 3 episode of CNN News Central, climate correspondent Bill Weir effectively connected Hurricane Beryl to other seemingly discrete extreme weather events, linking them all to climate change. He quantified atmospheric heat-trapping pollution, explained how it fuels various weather extremes, and emphasized their unprecedented nature. Weir also explicitly tied these climate-driven extreme weather events to greenhouse gas emissions from fossil fuels, illustrating the interconnectedness of global warming’s impacts and their root cause.

CitationFrom the July 3, 2024, episode of CNN News Central

Video

CitationFrom the July 6, 2024, episode of MSNBC's The Katie Phang Show

Even a concise statement, inspired by language suggested by Covering Climate Now, could offer broadcasters a quick and effective way to make the climate connection: “Human-caused climate change is intensifying hurricanes by warming ocean waters, increasing atmospheric moisture, and raising sea levels. These factors contribute to more rapid storm intensification, heavier rainfall, and more destructive storm surges.”

Organizations like Covering Climate Now are equipping journalists with tools to enhance their approach to disaster coverage. Their efforts aim to enable news outlets to consistently contextualize extreme weather events within the framework of climate change.

As we confront an increasingly unstable climate future, the role of informed, responsible journalism has never been more critical. It's time for our media coverage to match the urgency of the crisis at hand. Adopting clear, scientifically-grounded language to connect extreme weather to climate change is just the start. To truly improve coverage, national TV news shows must go further: they should provide broader context for these events, linking them to long-term climate trends; connect extreme weather to upcoming elections, highlighting the stakes of our political choices; discuss climate justice, acknowledging the unequal impacts on vulnerable communities; and demand accountability from the fossil fuel industry for its role in driving the climate crisis.

By embracing these practices, news outlets can offer their audiences a more comprehensive understanding of our rapidly changing world and the actions needed to stave off the worst consequences of climate change.

an 1 24

as the third anniversary of the deadly January 6 insurrection approaches this weekend, one columnist is calling on journalists and editors to stop treating the future of democracy like a standard partisan issue.

In her latest column for The Guardian, Margaret Sullivan expressed her frustration about the beltway media's tendency to find a both-sides angle when covering former President Donald Trump's repeated threats to democracy.

"In a constant show of performative neutrality, journalists tend to equalize the unequal, taking coverage down the middle even though that’s not where true fairness lies," Sullivan wrote, urging reporters to "get beyond delivery and appearances, to get beyond poll numbers and approval numbers – all the things that they are most comfortable with."

"The mainstream media is not nearly as comfortable with communicating the larger concepts, even when the stakes are this high," Sullivan continued. "Constantly under attack from the right, they fear looking like they are 'in the tank' for a particular candidate or party, so they fall back on those traditional building blocks of coverage – numbers, polls, approval ratings."

"That may have worked in the past, or at least been relatively unobjectionable," she added. "Not any more."

Sullivan cited several examples of false "both sides" narratives in prominent publications, including a New York Times article that she said was "typical of the mainstream media’s tone and focus." That article noted that President Joe Biden was giving a speech in Valley Forge, Pennsylvania on the anniversary of January 6 to remind Americans that his predecessor's lies about the 2020 election helped fuel an attack on the US Capitol, but framed it as "an effort to redirect attention from Mr. Biden’s low approval numbers." ABC News had a similar approach in a recent article with the headline "One attack, two interpretations: Biden and Trump both make the Jan. 6 riot a political rallying cry."

Vanity Fair special correspondent Molly Jong-Fast criticized that headline in a post to X (formerly Twitter).

READ MORE:Michigan elections chief: 'Direct line' between Trump's Detroit call and January 6 riot

"There aren’t two sides to a violent insurrection in the United States capitol," she tweeted.

In her column, Sullivan lauded former Washington Post executive editor Marty Baron's blunt evaluation of the threat to democracy Trump posed when he said the ex-president is "the only politician I’ve heard actually talk about suspending the constitution."

"He’s talked about using the military to suppress entirely legitimate protests using the Insurrection Act. He’s talked about bringing treason charges against the then-outgoing chairman of the joint chiefs of staff. He’s talked about bringing treason charges against Comcast, the owner of NBC and MSNBC. He’s talked explicitly about weaponizing the government against his political enemies," Baron said. "And, of course, he continues to talk about crushing an independent press... all of those [threats], by nature, by definition, are authoritarian."

Sullivan ended her column by asking journalists and editors to "remember that being in favor of democracy isn’t a journalistic crime. In fact, it’s a journalistic obligation."

READ MORE:'We're going to come after the people in the media': Trump ally calls for prosecuting journalists

Read Sullivan's full columnby clicking here.

---

also CBS?

7 23 no lnx an

US corporate media accused of 'normalizing the hate group' Moms for Liberty

Brett Wilkins and Common Dreams July 04, 2023

ABC News this week joined other U.S. corporate media outlets in being accused of "normalizing" Moms for Liberty after publishing what one critic called a "puff piece" on the right-wing group that's behind a wave of school book bans and is linked to the neofascist Proud Boys and the Qanon conspiracy theory.

On Saturday, ABC News published an article by Brittany Shepherd titled "Moms for Liberty Are Fired Up in Philadelphia" as the self-described "parental rights" organization held its annual conference in Pennsylvania's largest city, where crowds of protesters turned out to denounce the group's bigotry.

"They call themselves joyful warriors—but this group of conservative moms are mad," Shepherd wrote in her lede.

Author and Daily Beast columnist Wajahat Ali called the article "shameful."

"Moms for Liberty is linked with the Proud Boys, a chapter quotes Hitler, they are behind book bans, they are funded by right-wing groups and... ABC News calls them 'joyful warriors,'" Ali tweeted. "The whiteness of it all is exhausting."

Historian Kevin Kruse wondered, "Did ABC let Moms for Liberty write this puff piece themselves?"

Brandon Wolf, press secretary for the LGBTQ+ advocacy group Equality Florida, noted that a Moms for Liberty chapter in Indiana included a quote from Adolf Hitler in its inaugural newsletter. The chapter chairperson subsequently apologized.

Founded in Florida in 2021 to oppose Covid-19 lockdowns and mandates, Moms for Liberty quickly gained a reputation for its anti-LGBTQ views and its harassment of school officials in service of the organization's far-right agenda.

The group—which says it has more than 115,000 members in 245 chapters in 45 states—wants to erase mention of LGBTQ+ rights, systemic racism, diversity, and other "woke" topics from school curricula.

Moms for Liberty—many of whose chapters are linked to extremist groups like the Proud Boys and Three Percenters as well as the Qanon conspiracy theory—has spearheaded a successful movement to ban books, especially ones with LGBTQ+ and racial themes, from school libraries across the nation.

The American Library Association said earlier this year that it had recorded 1,269 demands to censor books from various groups and individuals in 2022, compared to 729 challenges counted in 2021.

In her article, Shepherd wrote how the Moms for Liberty conference "showcases how local issues like education can have tremendous, galvanizing national influence, as Gov. Ron DeSantis, former President Donald Trump, and former U.N. ambassador Nikki Haley tried to woo nearly 700 attendees."

The article continued:

Several key breakout sessions at the center of the group's mission, such as "Protecting Kids from Gender Ideology" and "Getting Flipped School Boards To Take Action" were kept behind closed doors, with media access barred. But still, the enthusiasm at open events was palpable, nearly bouncing off the ballroom walls.

The piece does note that Moms for Liberty is designated an extremist group by the Southern Poverty Law Center for spreading "hateful imagery and rhetoric against the LGBTQ community."

However, two paragraphs later Shepherd wrote that "Republicans will need this group to make up any lost ground" from last year's midterm elections.

In a Friday interview by MSNBC's Nicolle Wallace, extremism expert Kristofer Goldsmith urged viewers to spread the world about who Moms for Liberty are and what they stand for.

"We are talking book burning. We're talking about racism and we're talking about persecuting the LGBTQ community. These are the Proud Boys with a wig and lipstick," Goldsmith said. "That is all that they are. And because of the words 'Moms for Liberty,' not a lot of people are going to understand that."

"So folks watching this need to be evangelists, right?" he added. "You need to get out online and talk to your friends about what Moms for Liberty is, and help them understand that they are a pipeline into the most radical of extremism in this country."

FROM YOUR SITE ARTICLES

'Shocking': Scholars condemn Philadelphia Museum for hosting Moms for Liberty event ›

Top Democrats ignorant of 'extremist' Moms for Liberty despite warnings the group is dangerous ›

'Treacherous march of normalization': ABC News slammed for 'puff piece' on Moms for Liberty ›

RELATED ARTICLES AROUND THE WEB

Trump, DeSantis and more address Moms for Liberty conference ... ›

Moms for Liberty named 'extremist' by civil rights watchdog : NPR ›

Moms for Liberty rises as power player in GOP politics after attacking ... ›

an 2 23

ABC host George Stephanopoulos asked Republican House Oversight Chair James Comer (KY) if he would investigate Saudi funds provided to former President Donald Trump's son-in-law Jared Kushner.

The New York Times and The Washington Postreported that Kushner secured over $2 billion, mainly from Sauri Arabia, after Trump left office.

Stephanopoulos wondered if Comer would take time out of his investigation of President Joe Biden's son, Hunter Biden, to probe Kushner's foreign business dealings.

"It's clear that you're going to be looking at Hunter Biden," the host said. "I want to put up a front-page story from the Washington Post detailing Jared Kushner's ties to the Saudis."

"We know that former President Trump has also received funds related to the Saudis' golf tour," he added. "Will you be investigating that as well?"

"I think everything is on the table," Comer replied. "Look, we're investigating Joe Biden. We know that Joe Biden said during the presidential campaign that he had no knowledge of his son's business interests."

Comer argued that the Republican legislative solution would apply to the Trump family if they returned to the White House. He also suggested that Democrats had already investigated Kushner's business dealings as part of the Jan. 6 investigation.

"The difference between Jared Kushner and Hunter Biden is that Jared Kushner actually sat down and was interviewed," Comer said. "So, he's already been investigated."

"Hopefully, the Biden family will be as cooperative as Jared Kushner — with our investigation — as they were with the Jan. 6 investigation and all the other investigations of the Trump administration," he opined.

Stephanopoulos pointed out that Kushner's latest Saudi investments were reported in recent days and had not been investigated.

Watch the video below from ABC or at this link.

best but not great?

National TV networks mention climate change in 32% of segments on global extreme heat

07/19/22

Punishing extreme heat is affecting countries all across the globe this week. Extreme “red” heat warnings were issued in the United Kingdom for the first time, and Wales recorded its highest-ever temperature. At least 1,100 people have died in Spain and Portugal due to the extreme heat, which has fueled wildfires there and in parts of France. The Midwestern U.S. and Central Asia are suffering from extreme heat as well.

The European heat is truly exceptional, and its connections to the climate crisis are unquestionable. As climate reporter Andrew Freedman recently noted on Twitter, “the word ‘unprecedented’ is as overused as the phrase ‘the new normal,’ but the extreme heat event underway in Europe truly is historic. And it would not be as hot without human-caused global warming.”

Despite the clear links between climate change and extreme heat, corporate broadcast and cable TV news programs failed to consistently connect climate change to these global extreme heat events. Out of 62 combined segments and weather reports discussing the historic heat waves on ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, and MSNBC, from July 16-18, only 20 (32%) mentioned climate change. The vast majority of extreme heat segments mentioning climate (16) were related to the European heat wave.

News shows on ABC, CBS, and NBC ran a combined 27 global heat segments – 37% of them mentioned climate change

From July 16-18, corporate broadcast networks ABC, CBS, and NBC aired 10 mentions of climate change related to extreme heat, and 7 of those mentions were in the context of reporting on the European heat wave.

Climate change was mentioned in 5 of ABC’s 12 extreme heat segments (42%). Four of those segments were in the context of European heat, and 1 in the context of U.S. heat. The latter mention was by meteorologist Ginger Zee on the July 18 edition of World News Tonight and represented the only climate mention in a weather report on corporate broadcast news.

Meanwhile, NBC aired 9 segments covering the extreme heat, with 3 of them (33%) mentioning climate change – 2 in the context of U.S. heat, and 1 in the context of European heat. CBS aired 6 extreme heat segments, with 2 (33%) mentioning climate change – both came in the context of European heat.

The July 18 edition of CBS Mornings included a good example of how extreme weather coverage can benefit from interviews with experts in the field who can credibly communicate the science and urgency of action to viewers. CBS correspondent Roxana Saberi interviewed Kirsty McCabe of the U.K.’s Royal Meteorological Society, who stated that “climate change has everything to do with the extreme weather that we're seeing at the moment – and it's human-induced climate change, it’s not a natural variation.” She later stated that “if we don't do something now and take drastic action, we will continue to see these things happening.

[vid?  the July 18, 2022, edition of CBS Mornings

broken down by region, the corporate broadcast networks aired 11 news segments on the European heat, 10 segments on U.S. heat, and 6 that combined both European and U.S. heat.

In June, these same networks mentioned climate in just 9% of combined segments on various extreme weather events happening around the globe. Last week, they mentioned climate in a combined 38% of segments on the Washburn Fire, which threatened Yosemite National Park and its iconic sequoias.

Cable TV networks CNN and MSNBC ran a combined 31 segments on global extreme heat – 10 of them, or 32%, mentioned climate change

MSNBC aired 10 segments on extreme heat, and 7 of them (70%) mentioned climate change – making them the best-performing network reviewed in this time period. Four mentions came in segments about European heat, 2 on both European and U.S. heat, and 1 specific to extreme heat in Texas. MSNBC also featured the only mention by cable news of climate change in a weather report, which occurred while reporting on the European heat wave on the July 18 edition of Katy Tur Reports.

CNN ran 21 such segments, and only 3 (14%) mentioned climate change. All 3 came in the context of covering European heat. While lacking in climate mentions during its extreme heat coverage, the network featured one segment that did a particularly good job of putting these events within the context of the climate crisis and articulating the high stakes of climate inaction. During the 5 a.m. hour of the July 16 edition of CNN Newsroom, the reporter stated that “the extreme heat and drought fuelling what scientists say is a sign of the effects of climate change,” before going to climate scientist Michael Mann to explain further. Later in the segment, the reporter stated, “As the mercury climbs, scientists again warning [that] without addressing the climate crisis, weather events like this will grow more common and more extreme."

[vid]

broken down by region, these networks aired 19 segments on the European heat, 10 segments that combined both European and U.S. heat, 5 segments on U.S. heat (two of which were specific to Texas), and one segment on the heat wave currently affecting Asia.

In June, these networks mentioned climate in a combined 21% of segments on various extreme weather events. Last week, they mentioned climate in 37% of segments on the Washburn Fire.

Notably, Fox News ran 4 weather reports on extreme heat, and none of them mentioned climate change. Two were specific to U.S. heat, and 2 combined both U.S. and European heat. We did not include Fox’s numbers in the full dataset due to the network's long history of downplaying the severity of climate change.

The heat will only worsen this week (especially in parts of Europe), so these networks have an opportunity to better incorporate climate change in their reporting

Temperatures are expected to remain very high in the U.K. and France through July 19. Numerous record-high temperatures may be set in the Midwestern U.S. as well on this date, giving these networks an opportunity to accurately report on climate change in their extreme heat reporting throughout the rest of the week.

Methodology...

ej fail

https://www.mediamatters.org/broadcast-networks/how-broadcast-tv-news-covered-environmental-justice-2021

Key Findings

Broadcast morning and evening news shows on ABC, CBS, and NBC aired a combined 153 segments about environmental impacts, regulations, or health hazards in all of 2021, and just 19 of them (12%) included mention of a socially marginalized community.

CBS aired the most environmental justice segments (13), followed by NBC (4), and ABC (2).

While not included in the official results, PBS NewsHour aired 13 environmental justice segments.

The majority of environmental justice segments focused on government action (14) and the health impacts of pollution or chemical waste (9).

Topics such as industrial accidents (2) and disaster recovery (3) were rarely reported through an environmental justice lens.

National TV news shows missed key opportunities to apply an environmental justice lens to important national stories such as the 2021 Texas winter storm, a toxic wastewater leak in Florida, and the Colonial pipeline hack.

Even segments about obvious environmental justice stories, such as the lead water crisis in Benton Harbor, Michigan, were mostly shallow and lacked important context.

National TV news only aired 19 environmental justice segments in 2021, which was still an improvement from 2020

Corporate broadcast TV news networks aired 19 environmental justice segments in 2021. CBS, which clearly outpaced the other broadcast networks, aired the highest number of such segments (13), followed by NBC (4), and ABC (2).

9/20 town hall fail ~ ingraham "ambush"

brutal CNN fact-check offers rapid-fire breakdown ofTrump’s ‘fire hose of lying’ during ABC News townhall event

Alex Henderson  September 16, 2020

During an ABC News townhall event on Tuesday night, September 15, President Donald Trump answered questions from U.S.-based voters as well as from moderator George Stephanopoulos. Not surprisingly, much of…

were we not seeing progress?

only 4% of wildfire segments on ABC, CBS, and NBC mentioned climate change

August was a turbulent month for wildfire activity in the Western U.S. California alone suffered through two of its largest wildfires in recent history, and there are more than 80 other large, active fires burning in 15 states. Record-breaking temperatures and climate change are playing a role in the size and scale of the fires, and the coronavirus pandemic is complicating efforts to contain the blazes and safely evacuate those in their path.

Media Matters found that ABC, CBS, and NBC aired a combined 114 segments about wildfires on their morning and evening news shows from August 1 to August 31. Only five of the 114 wildfire segments -- just 4% of them -- mentioned climate change.

==

Twenty Years of Advocacy, Not Journalism, on Global Warming

The media has forged a consensus around climate change.

By Rich Noyes

April 23, 2010

wsj BS

From the Media Research Center

For more than two decades, the so-called mainstream media have preached the dangers of manmade global warming, insisting American businesses and consumers must make massive economic sacrifices to ward off a global climate catastrophe. Not even last November's exposure of e-mails from leading scientists on the alarmist sideof the debate — showing them conniving to fudge or suppress data, discredit critics and distort the peer review process — has caused journalists to finally take a skeptical approach to radical environmentalists' doomsaying.:{

:{:{}:

A new study from the MRC's Business & Media Institute documents how ABC, CBS and NBC have been just as strident in their advocacy in the months following "ClimateGate" as they were in the 20 years that preceded the scandal. At the same time, a review of the Media Research Center's archives going back to the late 1980s shows just how strongly reporters have pushed the liberal line on global warming. Here are just some of the many examples:

:{:{}:

• "Global warming could mean economic upheaval. It could bring suffering. It could bring starvation....The causes of global warming are no mystery. The biggest culprit is carbon dioxide, or CO2, a bi-product when man burns fossil fuels to run cars or generate electricity....If we fail to act, there may be hell to pay in a hotter world....Global warming is not a fact, just a widely-held theory. The problem is, if man waits for proof, it may be too late."

— Host Don Harrison narrating CNN's primetime Climate In Crisis special, August 1, 1989.

:{:{}:

•"}:As the science editor at Time, I would freely admit that on this issue we have crossed the boundary from news reporting to advocacy.":{:{}:

— Time's Charles Alexander at a September 16, 1989 global warming conference at the Smithsonian Institute, as quoted in the October 5 Wall Street Journal.

:{:{}:

}:• "If the world is to head off the risk of global warming, with its danger of massive crop failure, or rising sea levels, or spreading starvation in the poorest countries, then America — the largest producer of the gases that cause global warming — is in the spotlight.":{:{}:

— }:ABCreporter Ned Potter :{:{on World News Tonight, April 7, 1992.}:

:{:{}:

• "Environmentalists see catastrophes of biblical proportions, from droughts to melting ice caps that send sea levels rising."

— Correspondent Barry Petersen on the CBS Evening News, December 1, 1997.

:{:{}:

• Karen Kerrigan, Small Business Survival Committee: "To say that the science is conclusive...is actually bunk."

Host Ted Koppel: "I was just going to make the observation that there are still some people who believe in the Flat Earth Society, too, but that doesn't mean they're right."}:}:}:}:}:}:}:

— Exchange on the December 9, 1997 Nightline.

https://grist.org/climate/major-news-networks-devoted-less-than-four-hours-to-climate-change-in-2019-total/

2/20

When it comes to climate change, television news is covering little more than the tip of the iceberg.

That’s according to a just-released report from Media Matters for America, which found that global warming garnered a tiny sliver — well under 1 percent — of overall broadcast news coverage. The progressive research nonprofit also found that, while these news outlets did cover climate change more often in 2019 than in the year prior, the quality of coverage was “generally shallow.” And when it came to giving voice to those hit first and worst by extreme weather and other climate-related disasters, the networks fell short: People of color were “massively underrepresented” in coverage.

“In spite of the increase in coverage from 2018 to 2019, climate coverage as a whole still made up only 0.6% of overall corporate broadcast TV nightly news in 2019, showing that these programs’ climate coverage does not adequately reflect the urgency and severity of the climate crisis,” the report found.

a study analyzed four nightly news programs and four Sunday morning political shows, focusing both on segments devoted to climate change as well as substantial mentions of the topic in other segments. Yet even with significant year-to-year increases in coverage — for example, a 180 percent increase in climate coverage on nightly news in 2019 compared to 2018 — corporate broadcasters failed to substantially improve the overall quantity and quality of their climate coverage, according to Media Matters.

The analysis focused on four nightly news programs — ABC’s World News Tonight, CBS Evening News, NBC’s Nightly News, and public broadcaster PBS’s NewsHour — as well as four Sunday morning political shows: ABC’s This Week With George Stephanopoulos, CBS’s Face the Nation, NBC’s Meet the Press, and Fox Broadcasting Co.’s Fox News Sunday. Media Matters has produced variations of this analysis annually since at least 2012, including reports in 2018 and 2017.

Among the report’s key findings for 2019:

Media Matters is hardly alone in its withering analysis of major media coverage of climate change — and news outlets’ failure to link global warming to wildfires and other extreme weather events that are becoming the new normal.

Some of those critics are starting to offer solutions. At the University of California, Santa Barbara, Professor Leah C. Stokes and Ph.D. candidate Emily Williams have compiled a concise fact sheet intended to help journalists and citizens understand the scientific evidence linking climate change to wildfires. They are also working on a project with Climate Signals, a science information project from the nonprofit Climate Nexus, to help journalists more easily access academic journal articles on climate change, which are typically behind paywalls, according to a radio interview Stokes gave in September.

As Grist recently reported in a story about how local journalists are tackling climate coverage, a comprehensive approach to covering climate change should include going beyond analyzing the evidence supporting global warming. John Morales, a meteorologist at NBC6 in Miami, Florida, has been covering climate change for decades. He said that local news needs to cover “how fast things are changing, the links between the observed symptoms and causes of rising temperatures, and move on to ‘what do we do about this?’”

As Media Matters made clear on Wednesday, Morales is way ahead of television’s largest news providers.

not exactly punked?

https://www.mediamatters.org/abc/abc-takes-bait-and-suspends-veteran-correspondent-over-bad-faith-right-wing-hit-job

2/26/20

ABC News suspended veteran correspondent David Wright on February 25 after he gave reasonable criticism of the network while being secretly recorded in a video later released by Project Veritas. The organization has a well-known reputation for videotaping media figures and progressive activists and releasing bad-faith, edited videos to push a right-wing agenda.

The video, which Project Veritasreleased on February 26 after teasing it the night before, features Wright offering criticisms of ABC’s coverage of the Trump administration and other political issues. It has clearly been edited to portray Wright’s comments in a negative light.

In the heavily edited video, Wright was critical of the broadcast news business model and suggested that the network still hasn’t figured out how to properly cover Trump. He claimed that ABC fails to give Trump credit for things he does right while also failing to “hold him to account”; chooses more exciting, “TV-friendly” stories over practical issues that matter to voters; takes Trump’s coverage bait in a way that enables him; and overcompensates for the false accusation from groups like Project Veritas that mainstream media pull for the Democratic Party.

Wright also complained that drama surrounding Trump dominates the news cycle and the “voters are poorly informed.” He criticized ABC’s “self-promotional” relationship with Disney, saying that the network often blends news with commercial interests: “You can’t watch Good Morning Americawithout there being a Disney princess or a Marvel Avenger appearing.”

Many of these comments are consistent with criticisms other journalists have made of political media in the age of Trump, and thus there was swift condemnation of ABC for its decision to suspend Wright.

Others were furious that Wright was suspended after he expressed support for progressive policies and said he considers himself a socialist, calling his suspension “absolutely outrageous” given a lack of progressive voices in mainstream media.

Project Veritas, founded by James O’Keefe, has a long history of secretly recording videos and then deceptively editing and releasing them in order to paint its subjects as negatively as possible and catch them in a “gotcha” moment. Veritas targets organizations that it claims have a “liberal” association, and its operatives often approach targets using a false name to coax information from them through casual conversations.

O'Keefe's goal is typically to obtain footage that can be edited in a way that embarrasses or delegitimizes targeted organizations, often seeking to expose “liberal bias” in the media. Past targets have included NPR, The New York Times, and CNN, and as a result, many news organizations are aware of Project Veritas’ motives when these videos are released. 

Wright has been a journalist with ABC for nearly 20 years, covering the White House and reporting from the Middle East and Europe. His reporting has earned him an Emmy and a Peabody Awardfor work related to Iraq and the 9/11 terrorist attacks, respectively.

The reasonable nature of Wright’s criticisms of a business model that prioritizes generating ratings over informing viewers, combined with Project Veritas’ well-known reputation and bad-faith tactics, make ABC’s decision to suspend Wright and reassign him from political reporting to “avoid any possible appearance of bias” concerning.

Conservative media outlets like Fox News and The Federalist and figures such as Turning Point USA’s Benny Johnson have already pounced on the footage to advance the right-wing narrative that ABC is a biased source that does a poor job of informing viewers -- and by suspending Wright, the network has fallen for it too.

Update (5:45 p.m.):O'Keefe and Sean Hannity agreed that ABC News should not have suspended Wright[aUDIO]

 O'KEEFE: This guy Wright is just being honest. He's just talking about how ABC's pushing Disney products on Good Morning America. He called himself a socialist. He calls Trump a bad name, the d-word, in this tape. He also seems to say that they don't give Trump credit -- they don't give him enough credit. He actually says this about Trump, that they don't give him enough credit for the things that he does right. So he's simultaneously kind of trashing Trump, calling himself a socialist, but also saying Trump does some good things and we don't talk about it, we don't care about voters, we don't cross the Hudson River, this guy says, to look at what voters care about. So he's just being honest, he's been suspended for being honest, and for that I think it was wrong to suspend him. I think he was just telling the truth, Sean. 

SEAN HANNITY (HOST): Well, I think so too.

==

https://www.democracynow.org/2020/2/27/headlines/abc_suspends_david_wright_over_remarks_secretly_recorded_by_far_right_group

ABC Suspends David Wright over Remarks Secretly Recorded by Far-Right Group

in media news, ABC has suspended veteran correspondent David Wright, after a far-right activist published secretly recorded video in which Wright complains about President Trump and corporate control of the mass media. In the seven-minute, highly edited video posted online by the group Project Veritas, Wright is overheard calling himself a socialist who favors national health insurance, and stating there are too many billionaires and too big a wealth gap. Wright goes on to say the “commercial imperative is incompatible with news,” and blasts ABC’s parent company Disney for cross-promoting its entertainment brands on shows like “Good Morning America.”

Project Veritas is a right-wing group that often sets up sting operations targeting Planned Parenthood, journalists and activists by recording covert videos — and releasing deceptively edited footage. The group’s founder, James O’Keefe, was convicted on a misdemeanor charge after he attempted to wiretap the phones of then-U.S. Senator Mary Landrieu in 2010. In response to its latest sting operation, media critic Dan Froomkin called Project Veritas “loathsome” but said in this case the group had done the U.S. a favor. Froomkin wrote, “The group’s sneaky surveillance has uncovered someone speaking profound truths about how commercial pressures have skewed corporate media’s political-news values — not toward making things up, but toward turning it all into shallow, value-neutral entertainment.”

==

https://www.alternet.org/2020/02/abc-news-suspends-reporter-caught-in-right-wing-sting-operation-report/

no lnx

ABC News suspends reporter caught in right-wing sting operation: report

Written by Matthew Chapman / Raw Story February 26, 2020

On Wednesday, the Washington Post reported that ABC News correspondent David Wright has been suspended ahead of footage that will be released by the right-wing group Project Veritas.

“The network disciplined David Wright, who reports for ABC’s signature news programs, including ‘World News Tonight,’ ‘Good Morning America’ and ‘Nightline.’ Several people confirmed Wright’s suspension, but it wasn’t clear what specifically prompted ABC to take action against the reporter,” reported Paul Farhi. “Network officials reviewed the footage of Wright that Project Veritas recorded, according to people familiar with the episode. They spoke on the condition of anonymity because they weren’t authorized to discuss the issue.”

James O’Keefe, the head of Project Veritas, has teased the upcoming release of the footage using the hashtag #ExposeABC.

Project Veritas specializes in setting up sting operations against members of the media and Democratic campaign operatives, disguising their identity and striking up casual conversations while secretly recording them, then editing and splicing up the footage to make it look as though the targets are engaging in corruption or liberal bias.

Several of their stunts have backfired, including an incident where O’Keefe tried to seduce a CNN reporter on a boat filled with sex toys, and another in which a Project Veritas operative lied to the Washington Post that she had been raped by former Alabama Chief Justice and Senate candidate Roy Moore.He also once set up a shell corporation in Belize and funneled money through it to a pro-Hillary Clinton political group to try to prove they illegally accept foreign money, only to be thwarted because the transfer wasn’t illegal.

==

ok to take foreign oppo?

ABC confronts a furious Trump over false claims of ‘no obstruction’ as he says Constitution lets him ‘do whatever I want’

Elizabeth Preza

ABC’s Stephanopolous confronts a furious Trump over his false claims of ‘no obstruction’ as the president claims the Constitution lets him ‘do whatever I want’ In a combative interview with…

mma 619

We rarely see television news discuss the climate crisis at all, and when we do, it's often milquetoast both-sides type coverage that leaves the viewer poorly informed. But Rep. Steve Scalise (R-LA) was confronted with something very different on CBS This Morning while promoting his book.

Co-host Dokoupil refused to let Scalise get away with denying climate science, starting off with how much land Louisiana is losing to the sea now, and then grilling the congressman about his approach to the climate change and how it contradicts what scientists have said. Dokoupil even highlighted the absurdity that Scalise's plan to fight climate change is to drill more in the Gulf of Mexico.

We sometimes hear that it's hard to cover climate change. This interview proves otherwise.

==

==

https://www.democracynow.org/2017/9/12/a_storm_of_silence_study_finds

"A Storm of Silence." That’s the title of a new report by the watchdog group Public Citizen that looks at the media’s failure to discuss climate change in its wall-to-wall hurricane coverage. While all the television networks commented on the magnitude of Hurricane Harvey and "extreme weather," virtually none explained how warmer ocean temperatures lead to heavier winds, warmer air causes more precipitation, and higher sea levels exacerbate storm surges. The report examined 18 media sources’ coverage of Hurricane Harvey—looking at 10 major newspapers, three weekly news magazines and national programming from ABC, CBS, NBC, CNNand Fox News over the course of eight days’ worth of Hurricane Harvey coverage. The report concludes, "Many failed to discuss the issue [of climate change] much or failed to cover important aspects of it. ... Two of the three major broadcast networks, ABC and NBC, did not mention climate change at all in the context of Hurricane Harvey." We speak to David Arkush, managing director of Public Citizen’s Climate Program.

:{

}:

https://www.citizen.org/system/files/case_documents/public_citizen_storm_of_silence_harvey_climate_coverage_2.pdf

:{

}:

Only 43 percent of Americans report hearing about climate change in the media at least once a month.1 Only 19 percent report hearing people they know talk about global warming once a month or more,2 and 28 percent say they never hear people they know talk about it.3 In the words of Yale and George Mason University researchers, there is a “spiral of silence” on climate change in which “even people who care about the issue shy away from discussing it because they so infrequently hear other people talking about it — reinforcing the spiral.”4

....

This report examines media coverage of climate change in the context of a major event—Hurricane Harvey—starting on the day it first made landfall, Friday, August 25, 2017, and ending the following Friday, September 1, 2017. It considers eighteen sources: ten major newspapers, three weekly news magazines, and national programming from ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, and Fox News Network. The relevance of climate change to events like Hurricane Harvey is clear in multiple respects: (1) warmer ocean temperatures lead to stronger winds; (2) warmer air leads to more rain (and therefore flooding); and (3) higher sea levels worsen storm surges.7 This analysis first counts the number of articles that simply raise climate change in the context of Harvey. It then considers whether each piece generally accepts or denies the role climate change (or, if news reporting, gives a platform to deniers) and whether it covers any of seven aspects of the climate issue in the context of disasters like Harvey

...

A few conclusions stand out: 

ABC and NBC did not mention climate change in the context of Harvey at all.8 Only one other news source, The New York Post, failed to clear that minimal hurdle. Climate coverage was highly concentrated among a handful of outlets. The top four outlets by volume of pieces that mention climate (The Washington Post, CNN, The Houston Chronicle, and The New York Times) produced 72 percent of pieces that mention it (98 pieces). The remaining 28 percent of coverage, 38 pieces, was scattered across 10 sources. That figure includes three pieces that deny any connection between climate change and Harvey, as well as two more that give voice to deniers or skeptics. (Again, three sources failed to mention climate change at all.) 

Only five outlets covered all seven aspects of the climate issue that this analysis considered: CNN, The Houston Chronicle, The L.A. Times, The New York Times, and The Washington Post.

The Denver Post, Time, and USA Today covered seven of eight. The Chicago Tribune covered just two. Despite running five pieces that mentioned climate change, The Wall Street Journal covered only one aspect of the issue that this analysis considered....

==

https://www.rcfp.org/journals/news-media-and-law-spring-2012/landmark-food-lion-case/

reptrs comm for fdn of press

The landmark Food Lion case

Post categories

  1. NEWSGATHERING

Journalists who lie on employment applications to gain access to private facilities for newsgathering activities are not protected by…

Journalists who lie on employment applications to gain access to private facilities for newsgathering activities are not protected by the First Amendment and may be liable for trespass or other offenses, a federal appellate court ruled more than a dozen years ago in a ruling that remains the leading case on the issue.

In November 1992, two ABC News producers obtained jobs at Food Lion grocery stores in North and South Carolina by submitting applications with false references, misrepresenting their educational and employment experiences on their résumés and omitting their current employment with the network. ABC broadcasted a report on “PrimeTime Live” alleging that Food Lion’s meat department at those stores required employees to engage in unsafe, unhealthy or illegal practices, including selling old meat that was washed with bleach to kill odor, selling cheese that had been gnawed by rats and working off the time clock.

Each worked undercover only one or two weeks at the store, and while there used hidden cameras to secretly record grocery store employees treating, wrapping and labeling meat, cleaning machinery and discussing meat-department practices.

Food Lion sued ABC in July 1995 in federal court in Greensboro, N.C., alleging fraud, breach of the duty of loyalty, trespass and unfair trade practices under North Carolina law. The chain argued that ABC used illegal newsgathering methods to obtain the information for the report.

In December 1996, a jury found ABC liable for fraud, trespass and disloyalty. The next month, the same jury awarded Food Lion $1,400 in compensatory damages and $5.5 million in punitive damages for fraud, along with $2 in nominal damages for breach of loyalty and trespass. But the U.S. District Court found the punitive award excessive and reduced it to $315,000.

Both ABC and Food Lion appealed the judgment to the U.S. Court of Appeals in Richmond, Va. (4th Cir.), which rejected the fraud claim, and the nearly $317,000 in damages that accompanied it, but upheld the $2 award for breach of loyalty and trespass.

The Fourth Circuit in Food Lion, Inc. v. Capital Cities/ABC, Inc. rejected the fraud damages because it found that the grocery chain failed to prove it suffered any injury as a result of its reliance on the misrepresentations the producers made on their job applications.

Perhaps more significantly, though, the appeals court concluded that the ABC producers trespassed. The court explained that the journalists had permission to be in the stores where they worked because Food Lion had hired them, but they did not have permission to secretly videotape footage in non-public areas of the store for use on ABC because Food Lion had not consented to their presence for that purpose.

The court held that the lower court correctly declined to apply a First Amendment analysis to Food Lion’s breach of loyalty and trespass claims. The laws regarding employee loyalty and trespass were laws of general application, from which the press could not be exempt, and the application of those laws to the media would have merely “an ‘incidental effect’ on newsgathering,” the court found.

Conway’s New York law firm bio says he “has been a partner in the Litigation Department of Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen & Katz since January 1994. He joined the firm in September 1988.”

The law firm describes his litigation experience as including “a variety of high-profile matters spanning many areas of law in federal and state courts throughout the country. He has extensive experience in securities litigation, mergers and acquisitions litigation, contract litigation, antitrust litigation, and other litigation, both at the trial and appellate levels.”

One of those high-profile suits involved representing tobacco company Philip Morris. “Mr. Conway played a substantial role in prosecuting one of the most prominent defamation cases in recent memory (Philip Morris v. American Broadcasting Cos.),” said the law firm.

The New York Times said of that suit’s result, “In an extraordinary act of contrition, ABC News publicly apologized last night for asserting in a news program that two giant tobacco companies add extra nicotine to their cigarettes.” That apology was criticized by anti-smoking advocates, with The Times quoting one professor as saying, “Philip Morris has bullied a major television network into apologizing for what was essentially a true story.”

==

The Tyndall Report, a non-partisan media monitoring firm that has been tracking the nightly news broadcasts of ABC, CBS, and NBC, found that Trump is tromp, tromp, tromping over the airtime of everyone else.

From last January through November, these dominant flagship news shows devoted 234 minutes of prime-time coverage to the incessant chirping of the yellow-crested birdbrain, with no other contender getting even a fourth of that.

Take Bernie Sanders, who’s stunning the political establishment with a fiery populist campaign that’s drawing record crowds. Indeed, Sanders’ upstart campaign is commanding a comparable share of support within the Democratic Party’s voting base to what Trump is enjoying from the Republican electorate.

And — get this — polls also show Bernie trouncing The Donald if they face each other in November’s presidential showdown. So surely he’s getting a proportional level of media coverage by the networks on our public airwaves, right?

Ha, just kidding! The big networks’ devotion of 234 minutes to all-things-Trump was “balanced” by less than 10 minutes for Sanders. Most egregious was ABC, the Disney-owned network. ABC’s World News Tonight awarded 81 minutes of national showtime to Trump last year — and for Bernie: 20 seconds.

How self-serving of the media moguls. The one candidate who is effectively rallying large numbers of voters to oppose the rise of corporate oligarchy — including in the media — has the plug pulled on him.

Of course, this only amplifies the truth of what Sanders is saying about the villainy of corporate profiteers, and it fuels a greater determination by his millions of grassroots supporters to end the reign of greed in America.

Jim Hightower is a national radio commentator, writer, public speaker, and author of the new book, "Swim Against the Current: Even a Dead Fish Can Go With the Flow." (Wiley, March 2008) He publishes the monthly "Hightower Lowdown," co-edited by Phillip Frazer.

exxon busted, jrnl fail

http://mediamatters.org/research/2015/11/13/network-evening-news-programs-yet-to-address-wh/206839

In recent months, media investigations have revealed that Exxon Mobil peddled climate science denial for years after its scientists recognized that burning fossil fuels causes global warming, prompting New York's Attorney General to issue a subpoena to Exxon and all three Democratic presidential candidates to call for a federal probe of the company. But despite these developments, the nightly news programs of all three major broadcast networks -- ABC, CBS, and NBC -- have failed to air a single segment addressing the evidence that Exxon knowingly deceived its shareholders and the public about climate change.

Media Reports Revealed Exxon's Acceptance Of Climate Science Pre-Dated Its Funding Of Climate Denial, Prompting Calls For Investigations

Media Report: Email Shows "Exxon Knew Of Climate Change In 1981 ... But It Funded Deniers For 27 More Years."On July 8, InsideClimate News and The Guardian reported on an email from a former Exxon employee that was highlighted by the Union of Concerned Scientists. InsideClimate News noted that the email showed "Exxon scientists studied the impact of greenhouse gas emissions on global warming as far back as 1981," and that "company's early awareness of climate change and willingness to factor it into business decisions starkly contrasts with the path it took a decade later, when it led efforts to cloud public understanding of climate science and delay action to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases, such as carbon dioxide." The Guardian similarly reported that ExxonMobil "knew as early as 1981 of climate change -- seven years before it became a public issue, according to a newly discovered email from one of the firm's own scientists. Despite this, the firm spent millions over the next 27 years to promote climate denial." The Guardian further reported:    

==

==

Mother Jones [1] / By Chris Mooney [2]

Meet the CNN Anchor Who Called Fox News "Ignorant F#&ksticks" Over Climate Change

August 7, 2014 |

The following story first appeared on Mother Jones. For more great Mother Jones content, click here [3] to subscribe.

Last week, the internet went nuts about this tweet [4]. It is not hard to see why:

Weather is not climate, you willfully ignorant fucksticks. MT @foxnation [5]: Climate Doesn’t Cooperate With Al Gore http://t.co/QKe0PkyYQK [6]

— Bill Weir (@BillWeirCNN) July 31, 2014 [7]

Weir, a CNN anchor, was responding to this *Washington Times* article [8], which Fox Nation (a Fox News website [9]) highlighted under the headline, "Climate Doesn't Cooperate With Al Gore's Group's Visit to Denver EPA Hearings." It was a short piece noting that when Gore's Climate Reality Project attended an EPA climate change hearing at 9 a.m., "the temperature was a chilly 58 degrees. Plus, it was raining." Har-har.

Weir was correct to point out in this context that weather isn't climate. The way he did so, however, was ill advised (even if internet-applauded), and he later sent out this apologizing tweet:

The glop of Midwestern guilt stuck in my chest prob won't go away until I apologize to @foxnation [5] for name-calling. Dumb move. My bad.

— Bill Weir (@BillWeirCNN) July 31, 2014 [10]

But why was Weir so upset? A look back at his past coverage, mainly at ABC (he only moved to CNN in late 2013 [11]), suggests that he's a journalist who covers climate change well, and really cares about science and technology. His official title upon moving to CNN was, after all, "Chief Innovation Correspondent." That might explain why he lost his cool over yet another Fox News-connected attack on the science of climate change. (CNN did not respond to a request for comment from Weir late last week.)

Weir appears to be a pretty big science aficionado. When he was cohost of ABC's Good Morning America weekend edition back in 2008, he fronted this stunning love song segment on science [12] (titled "Science Rocks!"), which included Weir saying that "science is the new sexy" and describing how New York's World Science Festival is striving to turn "geek chic." Watch it:

ABC News [13] | More ABC News Videos [14]

You don't put together a segment like that unless you think science really matters. And if you think that, then in turn, you probably get annoyed when people attack and undermine it.

Which brings us to Weir's coverage of climate change while at ABC (where, after his role at Good Morning America, he was an anchor of Nightline). Consider a late 2012 segment [15] featuring James Balog, the photographer and daredevil behind the powerful climate documentary Chasing Ice. Weir started off the segment as follows:

Well, only in America is it controversial for me to begin tonight's program by declaring that global warming is really happening. For doubters, 332 straight months of above average temperatures is not proof enough.

Or, still more apropos of the current "fucksticks" controversy, consider Weir's April 2011 coverage [16] of a deadly tornado outbreak and other recent weather extremes. Weir featured NASA expert Gavin Schmidt, who explained that the climate truly is changing. But then Weir went on to point out (paraphrasing Schmidt) that climate change can't necessarily be detected in individual weather events:

But blaming a tornado in St Louis on climate change? That is a leap too far, [Schmidt] says. Think of it this way. Weather is what happened lately. Climate is what has happened forever.

You can watch it here:

ABC News [13] | More ABC News Videos [14]

Since moving to CNN, meanwhile, Weir has also made a mark covering climate change. Consider this May 2014 interview [17], where he questioned Marco Rubio on climate science, prompting the senator to declare that President Obama is "not a meteorologist":

In other words, in reporting on climate, Weir seems to be one of the good guys. At ABC, he didn't hesitate to describe what we know about global warming—namely, it's real and human caused—but also carefully explained that that doesn't mean you can see it in every new weather event. At CNN, he has already pressed the issue.

So when Fox Nation tweeted out a lame attack on Al Gore…well, at least you can now see where Weir was coming from. That doesn't defend his lack of decorum. But it does explain his exasperation.

See more stories tagged with:

Bill Weir [19],

climate change [20],

cnn [21],

abc news [22],

marco rubio [23],

fox news [24]

Source URL: http://www.alternet.org/environment/meet-cnn-anchor-who-called-fox-news-ignorant-fksticks-over-climate-change

==

 abc white house repoter geoff morrell qwent to dod to be spokes for brobt gates (pal of bob barnett) offered leadership gig and H&K, run by Dan Bartlett (also job offer from Podesta tony gp) ended up at BP in time for oil spill; recruited by purple strat guy dick kiel (WH rept bloomberg)

alex cast cnn this town 253

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/tag/pink-slime-lawsuit

SIOUX FALLS, S.D. (AP) — A federal judge on Wednesday moved a South Dakota beef processing company's defamation lawsuit against ABC News back to state court.

Beef Products Inc. sued American Broadcasting Companies Inc. and ABC News Inc. for defamation in September over its coverage of a meat product the company calls lean, finely textured beef but that critics dubbed "pink slime." The meat processor claims the network damaged the company by misleading consumers into believing the product is unhealthy and unsafe. BPI is seeking $1.2 billion in damages.

On Wednesday, U.S. District Judge Karen Schreier ordered the case back to the circuit court in Union County.

Erik Connolly, a lawyer for BPI, said the company is looking forward to presenting its case.

"We originally filed the case in state court because that was the proper jurisdiction," Connolly said in an email. "The Court's decision confirms we were correct."

Lawyers for ABC wanted the suit moved to federal district court in South Dakota because it said the parties involved are all from different states. A lawyer for the broadcasting company did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

In order for the federal court to take a case under the concept of diversity jurisdiction, none of the defendants must hold citizenship in the same state where any plaintiff holds citizenship.

mojo Manage the media. Big Tobacco's advertising dollars muffle criticism in the print media, while its lawyers intimidate broadcasters with lawsuits. In one historic case, ABC killed an outstanding TV documentary. Mother Jones, which was leaked a copy of the tape, prints the edited transcript.  http://www.motherjones.com/print/20337

tobacco: Manage the media. Big Tobacco's advertising dollars muffle criticism in the print media, while its lawyers intimidate broadcasters withlawsuits. In one historic case, ABC killed an outstanding TV documentary. Mother Jones, which was leaked a copy of the tape, prints the edited transcript.  1996 art

What you are about to read was killed -- twice. First, in March 1994, ABC executives shelved "Tobacco Under Fire," a documentary for the show "Turning Point," the same day Philip Morris lawyers filed a lawsuit against the network regarding an earlier exposé on nicotine in cigarettes.

Next, this documentary was smothered with cover-your-butt statements by the same ABC execs. They claimed, for example, that its Emmy-award-winning producers, Martin and Frank Koughan, refused to allow the program to be edited to a shorter length. In fact, ABC owns the tape and could air any part of it on any show tonight. In a final insult to the producers, reporters, viewers -- everyone, really -- ABC Executive Vice President Paul Friedman called the tape a "boring" rehash.

We disagree. The documentary serves as a good introduction to the tobacco wars. In the past two years, whistleblowers have confirmed much of the information on the tape. And at least one newsbreak has yet to be aired: Former Surgeon General C. Everett Koop reveals his disgust after learning of a memo from President Reagan to R.J. Reynolds promising the tobacco industry freedom from any trouble on his watch. Koop explains how Reagan's trade representatives threatened tariffs in order to open Asian markets to American cigarettes. Even now, most Americans don't know our government helps push Marlboros on the Chinese, Japanese, and Vietnamese.

"Tobacco Under Fire" was one of the early battlegrounds in the war between brave journalists and compromised network execs. By showing you the full transcript and QuickTime clips from the leaked tape, do you think we've taken sides?

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/1996/05/censored-leaked-abc-tape

--

salon http://www.salon.com/2000/02/25/stossel/

Chitester Fund is a conservative foundation, sporting John Fund of the Wall Street Journal editorial page, actor Arnold Schwarzenegger and Williams among others on its boards. Text on the Chitester Fund Web site describes the organization’s mission: “We are particularly interested in illuminating the prerequisites of a free society — (with an) emphasis on projects that examine the role of government and explain the interrelationship of economic, personal and political freedom,” code for a closeted conservative group.

Though Stossel’s special reports for ABC News are conservative, they’re also good journalism. He doesn’t pull any punches against Republican sacred cows from big business lobbyists to B-2 bombers. But “Stossel in the Classroom” crosses the line between edgy journalism and pure propaganda.

The study guide section on robber barons, for example, (based on Stossel’s “Greed” special) doesn’t mention the word monopoly. In a “case study” on John D. Rockefeller, the word does pop up, but only to argue that oil tycoon Rockefeller wasn’t a monopolist. But at least Stossel takes the time to explain that, often, monopolies come to be not because of market failure, but because of government favors for business.

Another guide (accompanying Stossel’s “Scaring Ourselves to Death”) snidely attacks the government for changing dietary recommendations to emphasize fruits and vegetables over meat and dairy products. Ironically, most of the critics of the health scares Stossel debunks in his special are big believers in just those health recommendations. People like Bruce Ames, an internationally reknowned scientist and vocal critic of the Environmental Protection Agency believe that lower fat, higher fruit and vegetable diets fight cancer and other health problems, just like the government does. Here’s the last sentence of that guide: “Will headline hysteria and federal regulatory agencies continue to divorce public policy from reality?”

Many, if not most, of the 35 to 40 footnotes accompanying each guide cite predictably conservative sources like the Heritage Foundation, the CATO Institute, the Hoover Institution, the Young Americas Foundation and the Wall Street Journal op-ed pages. They’re not exactly the sources a skeptical reader would find convincing.

Chitester board member and George Mason University professor Williams is also a major on-air presence in two of the three Stossel specials sold by the organization, but he is only identified as an economist. Incidentally, Williams supervises the work of Thomas Rustici and Alan Koczela, the economics instructors who wrote the classroom materials for “Stossel in the Classroom” at George Mason. Rustici’s George Mason bio describes his participation in the Chitester project like this: “He is the editor and coauthor of a series of free market books for high school students that will accompany a video series by John Stossel of ABC.”

The connections among Chitester, Stossel and ABC News and the level of cooperation involved in the project have been considerable. Stossel is a financial contributor to Chitester (he’s even been known to donate his hefty lecture fees to the organization) and a vice president at ABC News admits that he helped edit one of the study guides. Chitester is also the registered owner of the stossel.org, johnstossel.com and johnstossel.org domain names on the Internet. (johnstossel.org is unused, stossel.org links to the Chitester site and johnstossel.com gives you the choice of moving on to ABC, the Chitester Fund or the Web site of another charity Stossel is involved with.) ABC News gets a cut on all sales of Chitester’s sales of the series, but neither organization will say how big it is.

Given a week and dozens of phone calls and e-mails, Stossel wouldn’t explain himself and the study guide authors at George Mason University were “unavailable.”

Williams, however, defends the project. “The study guides just elaborate on some of the economic principles in Stossel’s shows in as truthful a fashion as possible,” he argued, also stating that they weren’t propagandistic. But when presented with specific examples from the text he admitted there were problems. For instance, where the authors write, “Another common myth asserts that a nation’s wealth depends on labor unions. Unions do not create wealth.” Williams concedes, “That might be misleading language.” Williams is right — anyone who has ever coveredunions knows that their premise is that they redistribute wealth from the owners and managers of companies to the workers, not that the union “creates” wealth.

And Williams sees no problem with serving both as a source for Stossel and a promoter of his work. Further, Williams argues that just because an ABC News logo appears on the cover of study guides written by the GMU economics instructors, nobody would assume that ABC News had anything to do with the content — even though the authors’ names don’t appear until the inside cover at the back of the book.

Richard Wald, senior vice president of editorial quality at ABC News, originally signed off on the deal. Wald readily admitted that he had read only one of the three study guides. He said he was unaware of the Chitester Funds’ conservative economic agenda, that Stossel gave them money and that Williams was on the fund’s board.

When asked about the fact that the authors’ names don’t appear until the end of the book, Wald finally admitted, “Maybe it is a bad idea, maybe we should have drawn a better line.”

Bob Chitester, founder and president of the Chitester Fund, believes the matter boils down to a business misunderstanding. “There was some confusion,” he says, “our written agreement did not speak to any editorial role for ABC, but now we’ve adjusted our process.”

Chitester is a combative interview subject, starting each answer with “You’re a liar!” or “That’s not true, you’re making it up.” Any questions about the ethics of this deal are “just made up,” too, he said.

If any of this sounds familiar, it’s because the Los Angeles Times found itself in a similar situation last fall when it agreed to share revenues from its Sunday magazine with Staples Center, the subject of a special issue.

Far less money changed hands in the ABC News-Stossel deal, but in some respects, the ABC deal is more ominous. No one alleges that the Los Angeles Times ever allowed Staples Center to control the content that was published under its logo. ABC News did. And unlike the one-time Los Angeles Times-Staples alliance, ABC News’ complicated relationship with Chitester Fund is ongoing.

In the end, it may not be ethics that determines the fate of “Stossel in the Classroom.” The program has apparently been unpopular with instructors. Chitester said that the student guides are being rewritten in response to negative feedback from the teachers who were using them. “There are some sections where the authors went beyond economics, so they have to change.”

As Stossel himself said in an interview a few years ago, “All we have in the news is our reputation. People have a hundred choices for news now.”

David Mastio is a Washington correspondent for The Detroit News and a contributing editor to USA TODAY. He also writes for the National Review, Reason, Policy Review and the Weekly Standard.

Sunday show had george will

stossel book published byDisney hyperion, along w/ Miley Cyrus autobio

sued by Hunton and Wiliams in Food Lion lawsuit

http://www.nytimes.com/1999/10/21/us/appeals-court-rejects-damages-against-abc-in-food-lion-case.html?pagewanted=all&src=pm

Appeals Court Rejects Damages Against ABC in Food Lion Case

By FELICITY BARRINGER

Published: October 21, 1999

A divided Federal appeals court yesterday threw out all but $2 of the damages that a jury had ordered ABC News to pay to the Food Lion supermarket chain after it reported that the grocery chain sold beef and other food that was unsanitary.

In the majority opinion, a panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit in Richmond wrote that Food Lion's attempt to win a multimillion-dollar fraud verdict because two ABC employees had lied their way into jobs in Food Lion stores was ''an end-run'' around First Amendment protections for journalists.

In the case, a Federal District Court jury in Greensboro, N.C., awarded the supermarket chain $5.5 million in January 1997 after finding that ABC had engaged in fraud, though that was later reduced to $315,000. The case had been closely followed by news organizations that feared that plaintiffs could win crippling damage awards without having to prove that the news reports in question were false or malicious.