Archives for category: Media

Scott Pelley worked CBS News for 37 years. Most recently, he was part of the team at “60 Minutes,” which is the most prestigious, most watched news program on television.

After CBS was sold to the Ellison family, which is close to Trump, the entire news division was shaken up. Bari Weiss, a journalist with center-right views, was hired as editor-in-chief of CBS News. The firings began. “60 Minutes” was one of the targets.

When the program’s executive producer was fired, her replacement met with the “60 Minutes” staff. Scott Pelley lambasted him, Weiss, the firings, and the undermining of the program.

The next day, he was fired.

He released this statement:
 
There has never been anything in America like 60 Minutes.
 
The Sunday tradition is the most successful program of any kind in history. For more than a decade, its innovative growth on every major online platform has extended its reach to countless millions around the world. This spring, at the end of our 58th season, 60 Minutes grew rapidly with an unheard-of 9% jump in viewers on CBS.
 
“60” has been the number-one program in America for decades because our beloved audience finds integrity, quality, and humanity in our stories. When stewardship of the program passed to my colleagues and me, our responsibility was to expand energetically into a new age of media technology while preserving the values our audience expects. Now, the new owner of our network is casting this legend aside, apparently to curry a moment of favor with the Trump administration.
 
The waste is heartbreaking.
 
Last month, 60 Minutes lost its DNA when our entire senior leadership and two of our best on-air correspondents were cruelly fired without cause. Good people were silenced because they stood up for our audience. They stood for fairness against the forces of political bias; they stood for professionalism against chaos.
 
For my part, new management has instructed me to inject falsehoods and bias into a politically sensitive story. I’ve been told to include assertions that are unverified. To date, in every case, I have managed to ignore these instructions or refuse them. Recently, politicians have been invited to choose correspondents for interviews on the broadcast. Giving politicians control over 60 Minutes interviews is not how this is done. Finally, incompetence and unprofessionalism in the new management have wreaked havoc. In a case involving one of my stories, the entire program came within 19 minutes of not getting on the air at all.
 
At 60 Minutes, we have fought harder than anyone knows to save the program that became an American icon. We owed that to our millions of viewers. I am deeply moved by the thousands of wishes we have received to “keep up the good fight.” Most of the men and women of CBS News are still in that fight. But now the collapse of values at the top has become untenable. The leadership of 60 Minutes is no longer recognizable. The principles I hold dear are gone, and so I must leave as well.
 
I depart after 37 years at CBS with one emotion—a heart brimming with gratitude for the men and women of CBS News who encouraged and enriched my work, very often at the risk of their own lives. I pray for a day when those people and their ideals are honored again—a day when sanity, competence, and courage return.
 
Scott Pelley

Oliver Darcy posts a very informative update on news of the media world. This is an unusual one, which appeared yesterday, based upon a recording of a meeting of the staff of “60 Minutes” with its new executive producer.

“60 Minutes” is the leading news program in the nation. It’s investigative reporting is known for being fearless.

When CBS was purchased by the billionaire Ellison family, they set about making the network more Trump/friendly. Part of the deal to sell CBS was the cancellation of Stephen Colbert’s show by the previous owner Shari Redstone.

After ownership changed, David Ellison hired Bari Weiss, editor of a center-right blog called “The Free Press” to be editor-in-chief of news. She was a print journalist with no experience in broadcast journalism.

There was an immediate uproar at “60 Minutes,” when Weiss delayed a segment on immigration because the producer Sharyn Alfonsi did not obtain a comment from the Trump administration. Eventually, the show aired and later Alfonsi was fired, along with other correspondents and staff, including the executive producer Tanya Simon.

The veteran staff of “60 Minutes” is clearly outraged by the firings and by the choice of an executive producer selected by Weiss.

Pelley’s ‘60 Minutes’ Revolt

In a stunning confrontation, Scott Pelley accused Bari Weiss of “murdering” the newsmagazine and relentlessly grilled her newly installed executive producer, Nick Bilton, over the show’s recent firings, according to audio obtained by Status. 

On Monday morning, the staff of “60 Minutes” convened for an introductory meeting with Bari Weiss‘ handpicked new executive producer of the program, Nick Bilton. Bilton, the technology journalist who lacks both broadcast news and managerial experience, opened the meeting by reading from some prepared notes. He didn’t get far. 

Scott Pelley, the iconic “60 Minutes” correspondent and longtime CBS News journalist, interjected and started grilling Bilton about what he dubbed “Black Thursday”—referencing the day last week in which Weiss carried out mass firings, terminating Tanya Simon as executive producer, ousting Sharyn Alfonsi and Cecilia Vega as correspondents, and showing the door to other senior staffers. 

In the extraordinary back and forth, an impassioned Pelley relentlessly pressed Bilton on Weiss’ intentions for the storied newsmagazine, pointed out that he has no relevant experience to helm television’s most prestigious news program, grilled Bilton on what he knew about the firings, and more. 

“Bari loves this institution,” Bilton told staffers at one point during the highly contentious meeting. “She loves ’60 Minutes.'” 

“She’s murdering ’60 Minutes,'” Pelley countered. “She does not love this place. She was brought in to kill it—and she’s doing exactly that.” 

This story is based on audio of the meeting obtained by Status. A CBS News spokesperson did not respond to a request for comment, but Pelley’s stunning series of remarks left staffers on the newsmagazine wondering if he will resign. 

In the meeting, Pelley pointed out that Weiss has “no qualifications for her job” and told Bilton “you have slender qualifications for this job.” Pelley, the former anchor of “CBS Evening News,” noted that the changes Weiss has made to that program “have been catastrophic.” 

“So why should we expect any of this is going to be any better?” Pelley asked Bilton. 

Bilton tried to move the meeting along, but Pelley pressed on, challenging the new executive producer’s references in interviews to “60 Minutes” creator Don Hewitt’s vision for the program as he outlined his plans. 

“I have another question,” the veteran journalist said. “Did you at any point work with Don Hewitt, telling everybody about what Don Hewitt thought, and what his inspiration was? I worked for Don Hewitt from 1999 to 2004 and Lesley Stahl probably worked with him for 30 years. Just wondering how you have such deep insight?” 

Bilton replied that he was simply quoting Hewitt’s own words from past interviews and asked Pelley whether he had any other questions. Pelley said that he did. 

“I have many questions,” Pelley responded. “What was wrong with Sharyn Alfonsi?” 

As Bilton started to say he would “defer,” Pelley interrupted: “This is not the crowd to dodge.” 

Bilton insisted he was not dodging. 

“Nobody talked to you about that?” Pelley continued, pressing him on the firing. “They’re taking one of your correspondents away and nobody mentioned to you what was wrong with Sharyn?” 

Bilton acknowledged that he “had conversations with people.” 

“And what came out of those conversations?” Pelley asked. “They are private conversations?” 

Bilton reiterated that he “did not fire” Alfonsi or Vega. Pelley pointed out that Bilton had nonetheless discussed the matter with others. Charles Forelle, a top Weiss deputy and managing editor of CBS News, interjected, telling Pelley that he was being “rude.” 

“This is not actually productive,” Forelle said. “This is not an interview.” 

“It’s working for me,” Pelley replied. 

“Anybody came into our house—this is ’60 Minutes,'” Pelley added. “I guess you wandered in expecting to read a statement off?” 

Pelley then asked Bilton “what was wrong with” Draggan Mihailovich, the executive editor of “60 Minutes” who was fired on Thursday. 

Bilton again said that he did not fire Mihailovich. Forelle one more told Pelley that he was being “rude.” 

Pelley did not let up, however. The veteran newsman told Bilton and Forelle that the way management handled the firings was “cruel.” Forelle—yet again—responded by calling Pelley “rude.” 

“I’m not being rude,” Pelley shot back. “I have some pretty—you know what was rude? Black Thursday. That was the absolute definition of rudeness. Telling Tanya Simon she had to be out of here at five o’clock. Sending Draggan Mihailovich to HR to get fired, because nobody could look him in the eye. Not talking about Tanya’s contract. Not talking about Sharyn Alfonsi’s contract. Not talking about Cecilia Vega’s contract. Just calling them up and telling they were fired. That’s rude. This is a conversation. That is rude, and you were part of that.” 

At that point, Bilton acknowledged that there were many questions about the moves that Weiss had made last week. He said he did “not feel comfortable” answering some of them and proposed going to Weiss—who was notably absent from the meeting—so that Pelley could raise his concerns to her directly. 

“What I would like to do right now is talk about what happens next,” Bilton added. 

As Bilton tried to move the discussion on to the show’s future, another staffer pointed out that it “takes years” to develop new correspondents for the program and noted that new correspondents would require training. 

Bilton pushed back, saying “these are not going to be new correspondents that have never done this before.” The remark drew laughter, to which Bilton said, “You have no idea what my plans are, so I will present those plans to you. I will present them when the time is right.” 

Pelley, who was applauded multiple times during the meeting by other staffers present, then refocused the conversation on the firings. 

“Here’s a question: Were you aware of how Black Friday was going to play out?” he asked. “I find it odd that you would take this job knowing that you would never be welcomed here.” 

“I have no problem taking a job in a place that I am not welcome, OK? I don’t believe that will be the case,” Bilton replied. 

“I am not intimidated by—I have been a journalist for 25 years, Scott. I have sat and talked with incredibly powerful people like you have,” Bilton continued. “None of it intimidates me, OK? So you are not going to intimidate me in front of this group of people.” 

“Does it show good judgment to take this job under those circumstances?” Pelley asked. 

“Yes, it does,” Bilton replied, saying he would end on this note: “The reason it takes good judgment is because I care so deeply about this institution, and I want to ensure that what happened to TIME magazine and all of these other institutions does not happen here.” 

“Well, we feel protected,” Pelley replied. “That’s great. Thank you.” 

Bilton then brought the acrimonious meeting to a close, thanking the staff for “graciously being so welcoming.” 

Paul Waldman was a top journalist at The Washington Post who left after Post publisher Jeff Bezos changed the newspaper’s political orientation and initiated staff cuts. Waldman now writes a blog called “The Cross Section,” where this post appeared.

Waldman writes:

Former Google CEO Eric Schmidt is not just an incredibly rich guy, with a net worth standing at a tidy $43.6 billion. He also fancies himself a thought leader, eager to share his insights on the critical challenges of our age. In particular, he worries about the negative effects of Americans’ skepticism about artificial intelligence. As he wrote in a recent New York Times op-ed, “It’s paramount that more people outside Silicon Valley feel the beneficial impact of A.I. on their lives.”

So when he was invited to give the commencement address at the University of Arizona this year, he probably thought this was a great opportunity to explain to young people how important it is for them to be ready to navigate this brave new world, in which nothing they do will be untouched by the technological revolution that has already begun. “That really made me think,” they’d say to each other afterward. “I will take Eric Schmidt’s wise words with me as I embark on my career.”

But that’s not what happened. Instead, the students greeted his rather banal comments on AI with a round of lusty jeers. The same thing happened at other universities when commencement speakers from the business world delivered similar messages about how we’re embarking on “the next Industrial Revolution” and the kids had better adapt whether they like it or not:

I want to congratulate the students at these universities for showing what they actually think about this message, and it’s not because the business titans are completely wrong. There will be dramatic changes because of AI, and people working in a wide variety of industries will have to adapt. But sometimes, when you find yourself in the company of extremely rich and powerful people, there’s a great deal of value in taking a big breath, cupping your hands around your mouth, and shouting “YOU SUCK!”

One thing social media is good for

While social media is a virus that spread across the globe and made our entire existence worse in a remarkably short amount of time, it also allows ordinary people to tell those with great power that they suck. Unfortunately, doing so often has the effect of cooking the brains of those powerful people to an even greater degree than their isolated existences already do.

Take Mark Andreessen, one of the most important figures in Silicon Valley and leader of the firm Andreessen Horowitz, also known as a16z. A year ago, Andreessen shared with podcaster Lex Fridman why dinner parties and text chats among Valley power brokers are so liberating:

“At least in the last decade, those are like the happiest moments of everybody’s lives,” Andreessen said. “Everybody’s just ecstatic, because they’re just like, ‘I don’t have to worry about getting yelled at and shamed for every third sentence that comes out of my mouth.’”

Who precisely is yelling at Marc Andreessen? Someone on his household staff? His employees at a16z? The aspiring tech bros desperate for him to fund their startups? A server at the Michelin-starred restaurant where he ate dinner last night?

The answer is that there is no one in Andreessen’s actual life who would dare treat him with anything but obsequious deference. No, it’s online where Andreessen is hounded and oppressed. 

Under the totalitarian regime that prevailed before Elon Musk bought Twitter, Andreessen explained, group chats were “the equivalent of samizdat,” where for a brief fleeting moment, billionaires could whisper to one another in hushed tones. True, the punishment for being caught uttering forbidden truths in more public forums was not execution or banishment to the gulag, but having a bunch of peasants on social media call you an asshole. Isn’t that just as bad, though? Surely if one of those poor dissidents starving in a Siberian prison camp in 1952 could have looked into the future, they would have said, “My suffering is great, but at least I don’t have to endure getting ratioed on Twitter.”

The horror of being called an asshole pushed Andreessen to become an even more enthusiastic ally of President Trump than he was already becoming. This year, a16z is sinking more money into the midterm elections than any other organization or person, $115 million so farto support Republican candidates who will advocate minimal regulation of AI and crypto (in which the firm is heavily invested).

Even in Silicon Valley, most of the elite don’t spend their time tweeting and going on podcasts. But enough of them do that we have a good window into the culture and thinking of the wealthiest and most powerful business leaders of our day. And what comes through loud and clear is that they’re appalled that we aren’t more thankful for the technologies they are bestowing upon us. They take our money and mine our lives for data, but don’t we realize how glorious the future they’re creating for us will be? Where’s the gratitude?

What they don’t seem to appreciate is that most of the ways people are currently experiencing AI are invasive, threatening, or just stupid and frustrating. For instance, Taco Bell is experimenting with an AI-driven menu board that will “dynamically change the layout, content, and visuals on a car-by-car basis.” You thought you just wanted a menu that was easy to read and understand, but have you considered how great it would be if the AI made judgments about what kind of person you are based on the car you’re driving, then slapped a bunch of crappy graphics on the menu based on some stereotypes it picked up from trawling the internet? Awesome!

When oligarchs like Eric Schmidt tell young people that their lives are going to be shaped by AI whether they like it or not, it’s that kind of crap the young people think of, not the possibility that one day AI will devise a cure for cancer. Perhaps the utopian version of AI will come to pass, but right now that AI future is hypothetical, while the slop is our reality today.

Nobody likes being criticized, and the more highly you think of yourself the less you like it — and while Silicon Valley billionaires are not allnarcissistic sociopaths, lots of them are. We have many means of pushing back at them — electing leaders who approach technology with a healthy skepticism and are willing to regulate it to protect the public, organizing in our communities (as people are doing against data center construction), choosing not to patronize companies that try to jam AI down our throats when we don’t want it. But when you have the chance, it doesn’t hurt to shout “YOU SUCK!” at the wealthy and powerful. They’ve certainly earned it.

Dan Froomkin writes “Press Watch,” a blog that covers the media. In this post, he criticizes the mainstream media for treating the U.S. Supreme Court’s Callais decision as a partisan issue. It is that, but it is at bottom a decision that destroys Black political power. It allows states to divvy up districts in ways that eliminates Black representation. And former Confederate states wasted no time in breaking up districts that elect Blacks to Congress.

He writes:

States across the South are redrawing election maps to eliminate majority-Black congressional districts.

Much of the major-media coverage is casting this in purely political terms – as just another part of the partisan battle for the House in November.

So for example, a May 9 Associated Press article headlined “What to know about the latest wave of changes to congressional districts,” started off this way:

The remaking of the U.S. political map accelerated this week in courts and legislatures, all of it in this round expected to boost Republicans in their attempt to keep control of Congress in November’s elections.

May 13 New York Times article started off like this:

Gov. Brian Kemp of Georgia on Wednesday called lawmakers back to the capital next month to redraw the state’s legislative districts for the 2028 election cycle, and to work on changes to the state’s voting system.

The call for a special session, which will begin on June 17, comes as Southern lawmakers have been rushing to reconfigure congressional maps to be more favorable to Republicans for this year’s midterms in response to the recent Supreme Court decision that weakened the Voting Rights Act of 1965.

But in the South, the significance of redistricting goes far beyond any partisan issue.

So let me rewrite that for you:

In a stunning display of racism, white Republican leaders throughout the South are stripping Black people of their franchise in order to retain political power.

The catalyst was a 6-3 Supreme Court decision on April 29 that gutted the Voting Rights Act of 1965, landmark legislation that gave Black people the opportunity to elect candidates of their choice.

Six right-wing justices insisted that intentional voting discrimination is a thing of the past. Southern legislators immediately responded by redrawing election boundaries to dilute the Black vote, in many cases making it virtually impossible for Black people to be elected to Congress.

What has happened in a matter of days amounts to a wrenching reversal of 60 years of racial progress — a revival of the Jim Crow era when Black people had no political power, no matter their number.

On a personal level, Black voters in the South are struggling with the repercussions of having one of their essential rights being brutally ripped away from them.

In states like Georgia, Louisiana, and Mississippi, where they make up more than 30 percent of the population, Black Americans will have little to no say in who is elected to Congress. And as the effects of the court decision trickle down to the local level, they may get shut out of some of those elections as well.

Meanwhile, the leaders of the white nationalist movement known as MAGA are celebrating. In some cases, their racism is expressed openly. “For too long, Tennessee politics has been dominated by cosmopolitan communists and race hustlers imposing their corrupt will on a deeply rural and conservative state,” Representative Andy Ogles of Tennessee posted on social media.

For the authoritarian leaders of MAGA, the dilution and nullification of Black votes is a crucial step in their quest to remain in power — even as most voters have turned against them.

MAGA’s future depends on suppressing the votes of groups that don’t support its white-male dominated Christian nationalist ideology. Reducing minority representation, to them, is essential to destroying majority rule. Destroying Majority rule is how they win.

Gerrymandering that leads to Southern states being almost entirely represented by white, right-wing elected officials dramatically improves MAGA’s political calculus. In the short run, it improves the odds of retaining Congress in November. MAGA’ strategy to keep the White House in 2028 includes yet more Black disenfranchisement, through voter intimidation, deception and disruption.

So far, MAGA’s plan is working, raising the prospect that Trump and his successors may remain in power for the foreseeable future.

But another way to characterize the current drive to disenfranchise Black voters is that it is the desperate – and maybe final — act of a white nationalist party that is being rejected by increasing number of voters.

For American journalists, this ought to be epic, tectonic stuff, worth aggressive and ongoing coverage.

And keep in mind that in the mid- to late-20th century, the struggle for civil rights was the dominant story in American politics, the subject of vast amount of journalism, some of it heroic. Ultimately it was journalism that brought the civil rights marchers into the American public’s breakfast nooks and living rooms, forcing the country to reckon with a brutal and sordid history of racism, and, eventually, try to move beyond it.

But today, as in the early days of the civil rights movement, too much of the media is averting its eyes from the experience of Black people. Too much coverage treats this extraordinary and consequential display of racism and societal regression as if it were just an ordinary political battle.

Some Reporters Get It

Some mainstream journalists have recognized the racial element of redistricting, and their work provides models of better, more appropriate coverage.

As evidence that you can address both the racial and political nature of the Republican moves in a news article, consider Emily Cochrane’s reporting in the Times about a new Tennessee map “that slices up Memphis to scatter Black voters into neighboring districts, a move intended to eliminate the state’s last Democratic House seat.” After several paragraphs of partisan framing, she wrote:

Democrats, noting that about two-thirds of Memphis voters are Black, said it was a blatant attack on hard-won gains for fair representation in a state shaped by slavery, segregation and the civil rights movement.

She described the scene in the state capitol in Nashville during the special session to pass the new map:

Black lawmakers delivered emotional speeches about family members, friends and colleagues who endured segregation or struggled with barriers to voting in the 1960s. State Senator Charlane Oliver of Nashville, a Democrat, stood on her desk right before the vote, holding a banner reading “No Jim Crow 2.”

And she quoted an attendee:

“My race is who I am and it informs my politics,” said Danyelle Norment, 30, who woke up early to drive in from Memphis. “It’s not something that’s separate or can be left behind.”

She added, “it’s really, really important to have folks who can understand our lived experience.”

In the Washington PostJustin Jouvenal profiled Press Robinson, an 88-year-old civil rights pioneer. “That law passed in 1965 was the bedrock of improvement of life in America for people of color,” Robinson told Jouvenal.

Now, Robinson fears a wipeout of Black political power, much like the one that occurred after Reconstruction.

“History is now repeating itself,” he said.

On PBS Newshour, Liz Landers covered the story as part of the network’s “Race Matters” series, bringing us the voice of Leona Tate, a civil rights activist:

So now we move backwards with the Supreme Court decision that will go down as one of the most racist rulings in our nation’s history.

Tate was 6 years old when she became one of the first students to desegregate a New Orleans school, Landers noted. Then Tate continued:

I had no idea what racism was at that time, but I knew by third grade that it was the color of my skin that made a difference. I just can’t believe that it’s still happening 66 years later. It’s cheating, to me. That’s how I feel. It’s really cheating. And it’s really illegal.

It does bring back that feeling from a long time ago, and it’s not a good feeling.

Read the Black Press

As in the 1950s and 60s, the Black press is revealing what the white press is slow to acknowledge.

Brandon Tensley, writing for Capital B, explained “How One Supreme Court Ruling Is Rewriting 60 Years of Voting Protections.” “Most Black Americans reside in the South,” he wrote. Lawmakers in former slaveholding states dismantling majority-Black districts “could change the balance of power and the complexion of leadership in this country.”

Gerren Keith Gaynor, writing for TheGrio, headlined the fact that “Black legislators lead the resistance as Republicans rush to redraw maps after gutting of Voting Rights Act.” “It’s disturbing and disgusting to see how this administration and the white leadership here are trying to codify white supremacy and dilute Black political voting power because that’s what’s happening,” Tennessee State Rep. Justin J. Pearson told Gaynor. “I think none of us should make any mistake about what is going on. The attempt to remove Black representation and our ability to elect representatives of our choice is one of the most significant attacks on Black voter participation and Black voter representation since the end of Reconstruction.”

TheRoot published a viral video of Louisiana resident Marshan Camese delivering a powerful speech at a state Senate hearing over redistricting. “I believe the country as a whole is rebuking your party. Y’all are in a death spiral,” he said. “That’s why y’all have to redistrict. That’s why y’all have to cheat.” MAGA, he said, “is the last breath of the Confederacy.”

Civil rights leaders are headed to Alabama tomorrow for a rally they’re calling “All Roads Lead to the South.” As I wrote in my Heads Up News newsletter this week, this could be the birth of a movement that combines the battle for voting rights with the battle for democracy.

“Black folks from across the country are gonna be busing in, flying in, to show up and to really begin organizing to turn out in the November election,” Wisdom Cole, the Senior National Director of Advocacy for the NAACP, told TheRoot. “This is such an important moment to activate all of us.”

Note: the rally in Alabama was held last Saturday.

Anna Gomez, the sole Democratic member of the board of the Federal Comminications Commission (FCC) took the unusual step of writing a letter to the CEO of ABC to warn him about the federal government’s goal of censoring the media. Early on in the second Trump administration, Trump sued ABC because one of its hosts, George Stephanopolous, asked Trump about “rape” charges in the E. Jean Carroll case, when Trump denied the charge and even denied the charge of defaming her, of which he was convicted. ABC paid Trump $16 million to persuade him to drop the lawsuit.

But the payoff did not buy peace. The FCC has now opened an investigation of ABC because of its talk show “The View,” which it accuses of bias.

The Wall Street Journal has the story:

ABC has been a victim of a “sustained, coordinated campaign of censorship and control” by the Trump administration, Federal Communications Commissioner Anna Gomez told Josh D’Amaro, chief executive of Disney , the network’s parent company.

The FCC under Republican Chairman Brendan Carr has been weaponized to pressure “a free and independent press and all media into submission,” Gomez wrote in a letter sent to D’Amaro on Monday and viewed by The Wall Street Journal.

The lone Democratic commissioner, Gomez has been an outspoken critic of many of Carr’s actions, which she has alleged are aimed at pressuring broadcasters for political purposes. 

The letter to D’Amaro comes in the wake of several investigations into Disney and ABC initiated by Carr’s FCC, including whether the talk show “The View” should continue to be granted certain exemptions as a news program…

Gomez told D’Amaro that these investigations and incidents, along with an FCC decision to reinstate a complaint into ABC’s moderating of a 2024 debate between then-candidate Donald Trump and opponent Kamala Harris, are “not a series of coincidental regulatory actions….”

The FCC is also investigating whether Disney has engaged in diversity, equity and inclusion initiatives that run afoul of the agency’s equal-employment-opportunity rules….

Gomez said the administration’s attacks on the network began in earnest with a defamation lawsuit against the network and “Good Morning America” anchor George Stephanopoulos that ABC settled for $16 million, including legal fees.

“That settlement did not buy you peace,” Gomez wrote, adding “you cannot buy this Administration’s favor. For the right price, you can only borrow it. And the price always goes up.”

In her letter, Gomez pledged to use “every tool available to me as a Commissioner to shine a light on what this FCC is doing to curtail press freedom and to hold this process to account at every step.”

While Gomez is a frequent critic of Carr, it is highly unusual for a government regulator to tell a company under investigation that the probe is without merit.

The investigations, Gomez said, are unlikely to succeed but that is not the point.

“The threat is the point. As sitting Supreme Court Justice Neil Gorsuch recently reminded us by invoking Justice Thurgood Marshall: ‘The value of a sword of Damocles is that it hangs, not that it drops,’” she wrote.

The only Democrat on the board of the FCC (Federal Communications Corporation) wants to know why two of the major sources of news in the U.S.–CBS and CNN–are likely to have major investors from foreign sources.

Status, a first-rate site for coverage of media, describes the situation;

Ellison’s Sovereign Scrutiny: The lone Democrat on the FCC is pushing back on what looks like a fast-tracked blessing for one of the biggest media deals in history.

Commissioner Anna Gomez on Tuesday demanded a rigorous national security review of the foreign money flowing into David Ellison’s takeover of Warner Bros. Discovery, a merger that would reshape Hollywood and fuse CBS News with CNNParamount recently revealed that 49.5% of the combined company will be owned by foreign investors—including Saudi ArabiaQatar, and Abu Dhabi—if the deal gets a green light. 

► “The American public deserves to know who owns the airwaves that carry their news,” Gomez said. “I am alarmed by what appears to be an effort to rubber stamp a financial structure that places nearly half of one of America’s largest broadcast and media companies into the hands of foreign governments with documented records of press suppression and a troubling willingness to silence journalists.”

In this post, Dr. Jeremy Faust interviews Dr. Joe Sachs, executive producer of the popular television series “The Pitt.” Both Dr. Faust and Dr. Sachs are emergency room physicians.

The show is an hour-by-hour depiction of life in an emergency room in Pittsburgh. Every hour brings new emergencies, new crises. The viewer sees doctors teaching resident doctors and making crucial decisions in an instant. If they make a mistake, the patient may die. Not every story has a happy ending.

As a viewer, you see patients who worry how they can afford the medical care; you see patients die; you see ICE agents bring in a woman who is injured, but whose very presence terrifies patients and staff. you see patients who are cooperative but also patients who are drunk and aggressive.

You see the staff acting and reacting in a situation that is always stressful. Some thrive on the stress. Others don’t.

This interview is really wonderful as an inside view about how the show was made. Many doctors and nurses are on set to make sure that their acting counterparts are doing what they would do. Every word in the script is reviewed by doctors.

Because I enjoy the program, I enjoyed the interview. I think you will too.

Imagine this: The multi-billionaire Ellison family, which recently bought CBS, is currently the winner of a bidding war for Warner Brothers Discovery, which includes CNN and other news and entertainment outlets. The total deal is worth $111 billion. The Ellisons won’t buy Warner Brothers Discovery on their own. Some $24 billion of the $111 billion deal will be advanced by three Middle Eastern states: Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and Abu Dhabi. Saudi Arabia is putting up $10 billion of the $24 billion.

The Ellisons say that these investors will have no role in corporate governance or policymakers. It’s possible, but can you imagine CBS or CNN airing a Frank documentary on women’s rights in Arabic nations?

Ellison’s Middle Eastern Money: It’s happening: David Ellison is set to take $24 billion in Middle Eastern money to fund his acquisition of Warner Bros. Discovery, raising a mountain of ethical and regulatory questions. The WSJ’s Jessica Toonkel and Lauren Thomas reported that about $10 billion will come from Saudi Arabia, an anti-free speech country with a long list of human rights abuses, including cracking down on independent journalism. Now the country will be part-owner of a giant U.S. media conglomerate with not only tremendous cultural influence, but which will own and control two newsrooms, CNN and CBS News

The funding, of course, has already raised concerns on Capitol Hill, where Democrats have demanded the Treasury Department conduct a thorough review of the transaction. Of course, given that the Treasury Department is under Donald Trump’s control, that is unlikely. But if Democrats win in November, they could drag Ellison in to testify—and Ellison will still need approval from the states and the European Union.

This afternoon, a federal judge in Washington, D.C., stopped work on Trump’s ballroom, saying it needs Congressional approval.

Federal Judge Richard Leon ruled against the ballroom, saying Trump’s lawyers made “brazen” claims. Among them, that completing the ballroom was a matter of national security. If completed, the ballroom will be more than double the size of the White House.

The New York Times wrote:

A federal judge ordered a halt to construction of President Donald Trump’s White House ballroom, ruling that Trump lacks authority to fund the estimated $400 million project through private donations.

U.S. District Judge Richard Leon disagreed with the Trump administration’s argument that the president has broad authority to make changes to the White House, including on the scale of a $400 million, 90,000-square-foot ballroom.

“The President of the United States is the steward of the White House for future generations of First Families. He is not, however, the owner!” Leon wrote in a 35-page ruling issued Tuesday afternoon. He said that “no statute comes close to giving the President the authority he claims to have.”

Leon also wrote that Trump must identify a law that allowed him to demolish the White House’s East Wing annex last year without congressional approval.

Judge Leon was appointed by President George W. Bush in 2002.

In a 35-page opinion, Judge Leon wrote that Mr. Trump likely did not have the authority to act on his own, without consulting Congress, to replace entire sections of the White House — changes that could endure for generations.

He also reiterated concerns he had raised for months in court: that from the start, the administration has provided shifting and questionable accounts of who was in charge of the project and under what authority private donations could be accepted to fund it.

“Unless and until Congress blesses this project through statutory authorization, construction has to stop!” he wrote. “But here is the good news. It is not too late for Congress to authorize the continued construction of the ballroom project.”

Judge Leon wrote that if the White House sought congressional approval, the legislature would “retain its authority over the nation’s property and its oversight over the government’s spending.”

“The National Trust’s interests in a constitutional and lawful process will be vindicated,” he added. “And the American people will benefit from the branches of Government exercising their constitutionally prescribed roles.”

“Not a bad outcome, that!” he concluded.

The decision suggested that Judge Leon was satisfied that the National Trust for Historic Preservation, a nonprofit chartered by Congress to guard America’s historic buildings which had sued over the project, had put together a workable challenge following several misfires.

In another federal court, the Trump administration’s executive order canceling the funding for NPR and PBS were ruled unconstitutional by federal judge Randolph Moss, who was appointed by President Barack Obama in 2014.

The New York Times reported:

A federal judge ruled on Tuesday that President Trump’s executive order barring the federal funding of NPR and PBS violated the First Amendment.

Randolph Moss, a judge in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, said in his ruling that Mr. Trump’s order, signed last May, was unlawful because it instructed federal agencies to refrain from funding NPR and PBS because the president believed their news coverage had a liberal viewpoint.

“The message is clear: NPR and PBS need not apply for any federal benefit because the President disapproves of their ‘left-wing’ coverage of the news,” Judge Moss wrote. But the First Amendment, he said, “does not tolerate viewpoint discrimination and retaliation of this type.”

The ruling will likely have minimal effect on the federal funding of public media. Two months after the executive order, Congress voted to claw back roughly $500 million in annual funding for the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, the organization that distributes federal money to NPR and PBS. The Corporation for Public Broadcasting has since shut down, and public radio and TV stations across the country have sought alternate forms of revenue…

In his opinion, Judge Moss wrote that the executive order and other public statements from the White House criticizing NPR reporting, including about Russia’s attempt to interfere in the 2016 U.S. presidential election, “targets a disfavored viewpoint.”

“It is difficult to conceive of clearer evidence that a government action is targeted at viewpoints that the president does not like and seeks to squelch,” Judge Moss wrote

If I read this correctly, the money is gone. It probably was shifted to the military, where it is a drop in the bucket.

The Trump FCC has no objection to media consolidation under rightwing auspices. But it does not like media where critical thinking and debate are encouraged.

Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont posted this message on social media:

@BernieSanders •

One family, the right-wing Trump-aligned Ellisons, will soon control:

TikTok

CBS

CNN

HBO

Discovery Channel

BET

Cartoon Network

Comedy Central

DC Studios

Fandango

Miramax

MTV

Nickelodeon

Paramount

Pluto TV

Showtime

TBS

The CW

TNT

Warner Bros.

And more

This is oligarchy.