Archives for category: Media

Eugene Robinson, a regular columnist for The Washington Post, says that Bret Baier intended to make Kamala Harris look bad when he interviewed her on FOX News, but he actually allowed her to demonstrate that she’s articulate, fearless, and strong.

He writes:

One of the people Vice President Kamala Harris might want to thank in her victory speech, if she wins the election, is Fox News anchor Bret Baier. His combative interview Wednesday gave Harris the chance to display qualities — and present facts — that Donald Trump desperately wants to keep hidden from the network’s millions of viewers.

Don’t take it from me; take it from Baier himself. He said afterward that he thought Harris came to the interview seeking “a viral moment” and added: “I think she may have gotten that.”

Baier was surely referring to the exchange about Trump’s repeated threat to deploy the U.S. military against domestic critics he calls “the enemy within” — using the language of totalitarian despots. Baier presented a too-brief clip from a town hall event, aired on Fox earlier Wednesday, in which Trump denied saying any such thing. This was gaslighting: A slightly longer clip would have shown Trump railing against “the enemy from within” and naming two leading Democrats, Reps. Nancy Pelosi and Adam Schiff, as being part of that “sick” group.

Baier obviously knew that — and Harris called him on it.

“Bret, I’m sorry, and with all due respect, that clip was not what he has been saying about the ‘enemy within,’ that he has repeated. … That’s not what you just showed,” Harris said forcefully. “Here’s the bottom line: He has repeated it many times, and you and I both know that. And you and I both know that he has talked about turning the American military on the American people. He has talked about going after people who are engaged in peaceful protest. He has talked about locking people up because they disagree with him.”

Only after having her say — and mentioning that retired Gen. Mark A. Milley, who was chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff under Trump, believes he is a threat to U.S. democracy and national security — did she let Baier move on to another topic.

Practically since the day Harris became the Democratic nominee, Fox News hosts and guests have blasted her for not doing more unscripted interviews. Wednesday’s half-hour encounter was a reminder that we should all be careful what we wish for.

From start to finish, Baier was more of an inquisitor than an interviewer; there was none of the deference that fellow Fox anchor Harris Faulkner had given Trump when she moderated his town hall. Baier repeatedly interrupted the vice president, trying to talk over her and posing questions seemingly cut and pasted from the list of Republican talking points.

Intentionally or not, all of this was a gift to Harris. She stood her ground, refuting the Trump campaign’s claim that she is weak and easily pushed around. She spoke fluently and cogently, putting to rest GOP claims that all she offers is word salad. She brushed off the most tendentious questions, engaged with the substantive ones, and insisted on finishing her answers whether or not Baier liked it.

When he laid an obvious trap, asking whether she thought the millions of voters who support Trump are “stupid,” she sidestepped it with ease. “Oh, God, I would never say that about the American people,” she said — before reminding Baier of some of the vicious things Trump does say about Americans who oppose him.

Harris got to present facts that Fox tries to keep its audience from learning. Viewers heard that Harris had just come from a rally attended by 100 prominent Republicans who are crossing party lines to endorse her candidacy. They heard about the host of Trump administration officials who oppose giving their former boss another term in office. They heard Harris say she does not favor “decriminalizing” undocumented border crossings, despite what some Fox hosts regularly claim.

Fox viewers heard, perhaps for the first time, that Harris has offered concrete plans to boost the economy and support middle-class families. And they learned about all the economists who say Trump’s policies, compared with hers, will make inflation much worse and add trillions of dollars to the national debt.

In a contest that polls show as margin-of-error close, will Harris’s foray into hostile territory make any difference? Who knows. It is hard for me to imagine anything Harris might say or do that would weaken the bond between Trump and the core MAGA faithful. They are accustomed to believing what their Dear Leader says over the “lies” told by their own eyes and ears.

But there are moderate Republicans and right-leaning independents who recognize Trump’s faults but have been told by Fox News that Harris is insubstantial, inarticulate and unqualified. If they watched the interview, they saw a woman whose policies they might not love but who has command of the issues, handles pressure with ease and is nobody’s pushover. Those voters saw a viable alternative to four more years of Trump and his insanity.

Some might think Baier was properly adversarial, others might think he was obnoxiously rude. Either way, the Harris campaign ought to send him flowers.

In my household, there was a vigorous debate about whether Kamala Harris should sit for an interview with Bret Baier of FOX News. Was it wise to enter the Lion’s den? I thought it was a great idea; Mary did not. From what I have read, it was a debate, not an interview, as Baier turned his questions into MAGA talking points.

Heather Cox Richardson watched the debate and believes that Kamala was dominant, even though Baier repeatedly interrupted her, spoke over her, and didn’t let her finish her answers to his questions.

She wrote:

Two Fox News Channel interviews bracketed today: one this morning with Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump in front of an audience of hand-picked Republican women in Georgia, the other by Democratic presidential candidate Vice President Kamala Harris with host Bret Baier. Together, the two were a performance of dominance. 

FNC billed Trump’s so-called town hall as a chance for female voters, a demographic that is swinging heavily to Harris, to ask Trump about issues they care about. But Hadas Gold and Liam Reilly of CNN reported that FNC had packed the audience with Trump supporters. The first question came from the president of the Fulton County Republican Women, though she was not identified as such. FNC then edited the broadcast to cut out remarks in which the attendees expressed support for Trump. 

It seems unlikely that Trump attracted any new voters by speaking to an audience of loyalists audibly cheering him on.

After Trump refused to debate her again, Harris voluntarily moved into his right-wing territory, agreeing to an interview with FNC host Bret Baier. In that interview, Baier reframed right-wing talking points as questions, essentially giving Trump a second shot at a debate. Baier kept talking over the vice president’s attempts to answer—even putting out a hand to interrupt her—in a stark contrast to FNC’s deference to Trump. Harris asked him to let her reply, and then answered his questions, sometimes testily, usually turning them into opportunities to contrast her own candidacy and record with Trump’s. 

Control of the interview changed abruptly when Harris called out Trump for referring to the “enemy within” and talking about using the American military against those he considers enemies. Baier used that opportunity to show a clip of Trump saying he wasn’t threatening anyone, but the clip was edited to remove his threats against “sick,” “evil,” “dangerous” “Marxists and communists and fascists” including Representative Adam Schiff (D-CA) and “the Pelosis”—presumably former House speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) and her husband, who was attacked by a man with a hammer in 2022 by a man who wanted to force Nancy Pelosi to renounce the investigation into the 2016 Trump campaign’s ties to Russia. 

Harris had had enough propaganda.

“Bret, I’m sorry, and with all due respect, that clip was not what he has been saying about the enemy within that he has repeated when he’s speaking about the American people. That’s not what you just showed…. You and I both know that he’s talked about turning the American military on the American people. He has talked about going after people who are engaged in peaceful protest. He has talked about locking people up because they disagree with him. This is a democracy. And in a democracy, the president of the United States in the United States of America should be… able to handle criticism without saying he’d lock people up for doing it. And this is what is at stake, which is why you have someone like the former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff saying what Mark Milley has said about Donald Trump being a threat to the United States of America.” 

Simply by going on the right-wing network, Harris was demonstrating dominance. Then, by answering as thoroughly as she did, she undercut the right-wing narrative that she is stupid and inarticulate. By calling out the FNC for deliberately misleading its viewers, she took command. Baier, rather than Harris, was the one doing the post-interview spinning.

Writer Peter Wehner, who worked for presidents Ronald Reagan, George H.W. Bush, and George W. Bush, wrote: “Bret Baier has rarely looked as bad (or tendentious) as he did in his interview with Kamala Harris. On the flip side, this was one of her best interviews. She dominated Bret. All in all it was quite a bad day for MAGA world’s most important media outlet.”

In between the two FNC events were two others that also told a story, this one about how the Republican Party’s descent into MAGA is creating a new political coalition to defend American principles.

Trump held a town hall with undecided Latino voters moderated by Mexican journalist Enrique Acevedo for Univision. Members of the audience asked excellent questions: how would he bring down household costs, who would take the jobs left behind by undocumented workers if Trump deported them and how much would that drive up food costs, why Trump took so long to stop the January 6 rioters, if he had caused deaths during the pandemic by misleading Americans, and if he agrees with his wife, Melania, about protecting abortion rights. 

But Trump did not answer the questions, instead regurgitating his usual talking points. He promised to produce more oil and gas, called undocumented immigrants criminals, repeated the lie about Haitian migrants eating pets, and, after notably referring to the January 6 rioters as “we” and law enforcement officers as “the others,” called January 6 “a day of love.” The audience did not appear convinced.

Meanwhile, Vice President Harris joined more than 100 Republicans in Pennsylvania, near the spot where George Washington and more than 2,000 Continental soldiers crossed the Delaware River on Christmas night 1776 to surprise a garrison of British soldiers at Trenton, New Jersey, where they won a strategic victory. 

Harris noted that those gathered were also near Philadelphia, where in 1787 delegates from across the country gathered to write and sign the U.S. Constitution. 

“That work was not easy. The founders often disagreed. Often quite passionately. But in the end, the Constitution of the United States laid out the foundations of our democracy, including the rule of law, that there would be checks and balances, that we would have free and fair elections and a peaceful transfer of power. And these principles and traditions have sustained our nation for over two centuries, sustained because generations of Americans, from all backgrounds, from all beliefs, have cherished them, upheld them, and defended them. 

“And now, the baton is in our hands,” she said. [A]t stake in this race are the democratic ideals that our founders and generations of Americans before us have fought for. At stake in this election is the Constitution of the United States…its very self.” 

Harris welcomed the Republicans in the crowd, saying that everyone there shared a core belief: “That we must put country before party.” The crowd chanted, “USA, USA, USA.” 

Harris noted that many of the Republicans on stage had taken the same oath to the Constitution that she had. “We here know the Constitution is not a relic from our past, but determines whether we are a country where the people can speak freely, and even criticize the president, without fear of being thrown in jail, or targeted by the military. Where the people can worship as they choose without the government interfering. Where you can vote without fear that your vote will be thrown away. All this and more depends on whether or not our leaders honor their oath to the Constitution.”

Trump, she pointed out, tried to overturn the will of the people expressed in a free and fair election, has vowed to use the military to go after any American who doesn’t support him, and has called for the “termination” of the Constitution. “It is clear,” she said, “Donald Trump is increasingly unstable and unhinged, and he is seeking unchecked power.” Trump, she said, “must never again stand behind the seal of the President of the United States.”

“And to those who are watching,” she said, “if you share that view, no matter your party, no matter who you voted for last time: There is a place for you in this campaign. The coalition we have built has room for everyone who is ready to turn the page on the chaos and instability of Donald Trump.”

“I pledge to you to be a President for all Americans. And I take that pledge seriously.”

She reiterated her promise to appoint a Republican to her cabinet and to establish a Council on Bipartisan Solutions to strengthen the middle class, secure the border, defend our freedoms, and maintain the nation’s leadership in the world. She noted that the country needs a healthy two-party system, and described how the Senate Intelligence Committee left partisanship at the door. It “was “country over party in action,” when she sat on the committee, she said, “[s]o I know it can be done.”

“[O]ur campaign is not a fight against something,” she said. “It is a fight for something. It is a fight for the fundamental principles upon which we were founded, It is a fight for a new generation of leadership that is optimistic about what we can achieve together—Republicans, Democrats, and independents who want to move past the politics of division and blame and get things done on behalf of the American people.

“[W]e are all here together this beautiful afternoon because we love our country…and we know the deep privilege and pride that comes with being an American and the duty that comes along with it…. Imperfect though we may be, America is still that ‘shining city upon a hill’ that inspires people around the world. And I do believe it is one of the highest forms of patriotism to fight for the ideals of our country.”

“So, to people from across Pennsylvania, and across our nation, let us together stand up for the rule of law, for our democratic ideals, and for the Constitution of the United States. And in twenty days, we have the power to chart a New Way Forward, one that is worthy of this magnificent country that we are all blessed to call home.” 

Trump is weird. He says outrageous things whenever he speaks, and no one is shocked anymore. He lies and makes things up, and it’s another day on the campaign trail. It’s just Trump being Trump.

Trump was furious at CBS “60 Minutes” for allegedly editing Kamala Harris’s comments about Israel. He called it “election interference” and demanded that the FCC strip away CBS license to broadcast. The first question that occurred to me was, how did he know what she said before the conversation was edited (which is customary)?

The Washington Post pulled no punches in its story, pointing out Trump’s authoritarian bent.

Former president Donald Trump said Thursday that CBS News should lose a broadcasting license over how it edited a “60 Minutes” interview with Vice President Kamala Harris, even though the federal government does not issue licenses for such television networks.

It was the latest example of Trump calling for media outlets that have angered him to lose their rights to broadcast — a push that evokes government control of media, which is a hallmark of authoritarianism.

Federal Communications Commission Chairwoman Jessica Rosenworcel denounced Trump’s latest call targeting CBS, flatly rejecting an idea the independent agency has ruled out under both the Biden and Trump administrations.

“While repeated attacks against broadcast stations by the former President may now be familiar, these threats against free speech are serious and should not be ignored,” Rosenworcel said in a statement. “As I’ve said before, the First Amendment is a cornerstone of our democracy. The FCC does not and will not revoke licenses for broadcast stations simply because a political candidate disagrees with or dislikes content or coverage.”

CBS declined to comment.

Trump has been fixated for days on Harris’s interview with “60 Minutes,” which came after he backed out of sitting for his own interview with the show, according to the network. Since Harris’s interview aired Monday night, Trump has focused on how it featured a shorter version of Harris’s answer to a question about Israel than was shown in a clip previewing the interview.

It is standard for television networks to edit interviews for broadcast, especially to fit time restraints.

“Her REAL ANSWER WAS CRAZY, OR DUMB, so they actually REPLACED it with another answer in order to save her or, at least, make her look better,” Trump claimed in a post on his social media platform Thursday morning. “A FAKE NEWS SCAM, which is totally illegal. TAKE AWAY THE CBS LICENSE.”

Trump went on to baselessly accuse Democrats of making CBS “do this,” calling it “Election Interference” and saying the party should be forced to concede the election.

He later suggested that all broadcast licenses “should be bid out to the Highest Bidder.”

Trump raised the issue again during an afternoon speech in Detroit, claiming the edited Harris interview “will go down as the single biggest scandal in broadcast history.”

The FCC says on its website that its “role in overseeing program content is very limited.” The agency licenses individual broadcast stations, not networks in their entirety.

“We do not license TV or radio networks (such as CBS, NBC, ABC or Fox) or other organizations that stations have relationships with, such as PBS or NPR, except if those entities are also station licensees,” the FCC website says.

It is not the first time Trump has called for a network to lose its broadcasting license because he was not happy with what aired or with how he was portrayed. Trump last month suggested ABC should lose its license over its moderating of the debate between him and Harris. Rosenworcel also rejected that suggestion at the time.

Even the FCC head during Trump’s presidency, Ajit Pai, had dismissed Trump’s talk of targeting broadcast licenses.

“I believe in the First Amendment,” Pai said in 2017 after Trump suggested NBC should face consequences for critical coverage of his administration. “The FCC, under my leadership, will stand for the First Amendment. Under the law, the FCC does not have the authority to revoke a license of a broadcast station based on the content of a particular newscast.”

Democrats have long criticized Trump over his authoritarian tendencies, both in his public comments and in his affinities for certain foreign leaders. He said last year that he would not be a dictator if he wins the November election — “except for Day 1,” a comment that Harris has continued to highlight through the final weeks of their race.

The “60 Minutes” episode broadcast Monday — a special pre-election episode — sparked controversy in the days before it aired. CBS said Trump pulled out of an interview with the show because it would be fact-checked, per usual. Trump’s campaign said Trump never fully committed to the interview but also acknowledged that fact-checking was an area of dispute.

Well, by now, we have all grown accustomed to Trump’s mad ravings, so they are no longer newsworthy. So says Michael Tomasky, editor of The New Republic. Some readers of this blog will say that he suffers from NY Times‘ derangement syndrome, but hear him out. To be fair, Tomasky almost forgave the New York Times after he read Peter Baker’s article about Trump’s incoherence and cognitive decline, which appeared soon after he wrote this piece, titled “The Media Is Finally Waking Up to the Story of Trump’s Mental Fitness.”

He wrote:

It’s a pretty sad commentary on the way our mainstream media cover Donald Trump that if you really want to know what Trump said at a given rally, you would be wasting your time going to The New York Times or The Washington Post and you really need to read Aaron Rupar.

He writes:

Who is Rupar? He’s a liberal Substacker and prolific tweeter who prints all the news The New York Times doesn’t deem fit to print. The latest case in point is Trump’s weekend rally at Prairie du Chien, Wisconsin—an appropriately named venue for a speech in which Trump was barking out hatred and bile like a mad dog.

If you’re the sort of person really steeped in campaign coverage, you may have read about what went down; if you missed it, spoiler alert: Trump said something at this rally so insane and offensive that even the Times finally roused itself to cover it. Trump called Kamala Harris “mentally disabled” and added: “Joe Biden became mentally impaired; Kamala was born that way.”

That statement, whatever else we might call it, was obviously news, so the Times couldn’t help leading with it. Ditto the Post, which decided to produce a story that emphasized Trump’s violation of politically correct manners. The Post piece quoted a mental health advocate scolding Trump for his insensitive language—as if what he said was offensive only to people struggling with mental illness!

Meanwhile, here are some other things Trump said at the rally, which you had to read Rupar’s X feed to know about.

 “These people are animals” (referring to migrants).

“I will liberate Wisconsin from this mass migrant invasion of murderers, rapists, hoodlums, drug dealers, thugs, and vicious gang members. We’re going to liberate our country.”

“You gotta get these people back where they came from. You have no choice. You’re gonna lose your culture.”

And, finally, this gem: “They will walk into your kitchen, they’ll cut your throat.”

Let’s tarry over that last one for a bit. Here’s a man who wants to be the president of the United States saying of immigrants—all immigrants: women, children, old people, everyone—that they will invade your home and attack you in one of the most violent and painful (and terrifying) ways possible. They will cut your throat.

Maybe it’s just me, but I find that shocking, even coming from Trump. It’s one thing to say that Mexico is “sending rapists,” as he infamously did in 2015. Even making a general statement about how these people come here and commit crimes, while bad enough, isn’t nearly as bad as this. This is saying directly to every American that they will break into your house and cut your throat.

That sure seems like news to me. Yet it didn’t appear in either the Times or the Post account. The Times piece did have a sentence noting that Trump “continued to vilify” migrants and called them “stone-cold killers,” so let’s give them that, at least. But the plain implication of Trump’s statement here is that migrants are an imminent threat to one’s safety. This is an unambiguous incitement to preemptive violence. How can such a vicious statement not be thought of as news?

Here’s how. If your definition of “news” is simply that which is new, then OK, maybe. Calling his opponent who happens to be the sitting vice president of the United States “mentally disabled” was new, and ergo it was news. That I get.

But Trump attacking migrants isn’t new. Obviously, I would argue that a candidate for president raising the specter of people breaking into people’s homes and cutting their throats is new. Perhaps reasonable minds can differ on that, I guess. And if it isn’t new, it isn’t news…

Why is age fair game for discussion but mental infirmity taboo? Is it because of basic human emotional responses to each matter—that is, we all see people age, it’s familiar, we’re comfortable talking about it—whereas with respect to mental health, talking about it makes us uncomfortable? If so, that’s a pretty lousy excuse. It’s journalism’s job to raise uncomfortable questions.

My commentary:

As for me, I don’t think that the issue is Trump’s mental health, although he is apparently suffering cognitive decline as video clips of his meanderings demonstrate.

The fact is that his campaign is based on demonizing immigrants, without regard to facts. He has launched a hateful campaign against them, making them targets of fear. It seems as though he is encouraging his followers to beat them up.

If he carried out his proposed mass deportation of millions of immigrants, not only would it be an act of inhumanity, but it would cripple important sectors of our economy: agriculture, tourism, meat and seafood processing, construction, restaurants, and more.

There’s been a lot of grumbling in the media about Kamala not sitting for interviews, so these past few days she has sat for interviews. She was on “The View.” She sat for a long interview with Howard Stern. She did a podcast with Alex Cooper’s “Call Her Daddy,” a very popular show whose audience is women., especially young women. And she did the obligatory interview with “60 Minutes.” So did Tim Walz. I thought she was terrific. Watch and seeehat you think.

Trump was supposed to be interviewed but he canceled at the last minute. He said the show owed him an apology for something Lesley Stahl said four years ago. He claimed she said that Hunter Biden’s laptop came from Russia; CBS denied it. He complained that CBS would fact check him; that was unacceptable. CBS said it always fact checks.

Veteran journalist James Fallows put up a post today on his blog comparing the front page of the New York Times on October 29, 2016 to the front page of the same newspaper on October 3, 2024.

I recommend that you open the link and see what he was comparing.

Bloggers are quick to report on Trump’s latest mistakes, lies, gaffes, outrages, and mental confusion, but a large swathe of the media reports on his speeches without pointing out his lies, threats, and incoherence. A group called the Media and Democracy Project decided to bring their complaints directly to the nation’s most influential newspaper, The New York Times.

THE GOOD NEWS

Members of Media and Democracy Project joined Rise and Resist’s protest outside the New York Times offices in Manhattan on September 18th, 2024

Peaceful Protest Outside The Times

The New York Times is the most powerful news organization in the United States. The narratives created by its editors and journalists have a cascading effect; the rest of the political press internalizes the Times’ agenda and then spits out its priorities and frames to the wider masses. The editorial decisions made on 8th Avenue in New York have a real impact on Americans’ understanding of the stakes of the upcoming elections and the future of our democracy.

An increasing number of regular people are joining media critics in pointing out that the Times is failing catastrophically with its election coverage, in what feels like their leadership willfully ceding to abnormalcy. This month, Times publisher A.G. Sulzberger wrote an exhaustive chronicle of worldwide threats to press freedoms, yet still drew the conclusion that he mustn’t direct his staff to accurately contextualize, or warn of, the threat to democracy here at home.

Yours truly protesting outside the New York Times offices in Manhattan on September 18th, 2024

By failing to join the fight and act as partisans for democracy, Sulzberger and the Times are failing in their critical role to accurately inform American citizens. Drew Magary recently commented in SFGATE that the “Times cares more about its place in the power structure than in actually affecting that power structure.” Magary’s piece goes further to say no one should care what the Times says anymore and we should all ignore its political coverage. His righteous dismissal is a response to the Times’ efforts to reject criticism, both internal and external.

Members of Media and Democracy Project joined Rise and Resist’s protest outside the New York Times offices in Manhattan on September 18th, 2024

When A.G. Sulzberger’s father eliminated the Public Editor position in 2017, he assured his readership that they were now the most important critics. Dan Froomkin chronicled this for his Press Watch website:

At the time, Sulzberger wrote in a memo to the newsroom that “our followers on social media and our readers across the internet have come together to collectively serve as a modern watchdog, more vigilant and forceful than one person could ever be. Our responsibility is to empower all of those watchdogs, and to listen to them, rather than to channel their voice through a single office.”

The charade of newsroom responsiveness to outside criticism did not last long. Only a few years later, Times chief Dean Baquet was completely dismissive of “followers on social media,” saying “I could care less about the unnuanced voices on Twitter. That doesn’t mean I don’t care about what our readers think, but I don’t pay as much attention to Twitter as Twitter might want me to.”

Members of Media and Democracy Project joined Rise and Resist’s protest outside the New York Times offices in Manhattan on September 18th, 2024

We’ve explored all manner of tactics to get the Times to improve its coverage and regain its credibility, including calling on them in January to reinstate the position of Public Editor. We have not heard back as of the writing of this piece. 

While some, like Magary, believe it’s no longer worth anyone’s energy trying to effect change at the Times, we disagree. A workplace is not a monolith and there are many employees there who disagree with the Times’ normalizing coverage of the Trump/MAGA threat to democracy. We want to aid those workers by facilitating a culture of dissent. 

Members of Media and Democracy Project joined Rise and Resist’s protest outside the New York Times offices in Manhattan on September 18th, 2024

On September 18th, we joined a peaceful protest outside the Times building organized by Rise and Resist, a New York City-based direct action group. Flyers with criticisms of A.G. Sulzberger and senior editors were handed to employees entering the building with the goal of inspiring the humans who power the New York Times to activate their moral core and advocate for a change in political coverage. 

The flyer that was handed out to Timesemployees

No more excuses can be made for the upper management’s normalizing and sanewashing of the most manifestly unfit person ever to run for president. It is unlikely that the Times’ HR department would approve a person like Trump for any position in their building. So why are the powerful people who run the Times deceiving America about his fitness to take a job leading us all?

On September 9, Lisa Dye of Public Notice wrote about why Brazilian authorities banished Twitter (or, as its proprietor calls it, X). She wrote that he sticks up for his rightwing buddies, not free speech. In 2022, Brazil’s strongman leader Bolsonaro bestowed a prestigious national award on Musk.

She writes:

As of this writing Brazil’s 215 million citizens cannot access X (or “twitter” as we’ll call it). And yet, they are still living in the dumbest timeline.

Elon Musk, the world’s foremost “free speech absolutist,” has picked a fight with the Brazilian government over its demand that he censor rightwing misinformation. It’s a classic situation of “why can’t they both lose?” But right now, the only ones losing are the Brazilian people.

The saga began with former Brazilian President Jair Bolsonaro, a rightwing conservative who lost his bid for reelection in 2022 to leftwing politician Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva. On January 8 of last year, Bolsonaro’s supporters stormed Congress and the Supreme Court in a failed attempt to keep him in power. 

The reaction of the Brazilian government to January 8 stands in stark contrast to official reaction to January 6 in the US. In Brazil, hundreds of people were immediately arrested, including some senior government officials. Bolsonaro was barred from running for office again. And Supreme Court justice Alexandre de Moraes led an operation that was both investigatory and preventative. In short, they wanted to figure out why their government had been attacked, and they wanted to make damn sure that it never happened again. 

To that end, Judge de Moraes sought to banish rightwing incitement, the so-called “digital militias,” from social media. In sealed rulings, he ordered Meta, Instagram, and Telegram to remove posts and users who flogged misinformation about the attack on government and advocated for Bolonsaro’s return. 

Meanwhile, Bolsonaro fled to Florida, where he launched a second act as hero of the American right. The Brazilian leader spews the same jingoistic populism, fueled by hatred of minorities and LGBTQ+ people, that animates Trumpism. He even consulted Steve Bannon on his 2018 campaign. And perhaps most importantly, he reinforces their bedrock belief that election fraud is rampant.

As former congressman and current Trump Media CEO Devin Nunes told CNN, “The way his narrative is built, to a large extent, as a copy or a mirror image of the narrative that they have in the US is very useful in the sense of showing people this is happening in other places, too. This proves the whole idea that there is a global conspiracy, a global leftwing conspiracy to keep us, the people who represent the real people, out of power.”

However, Musk has 20 million Twitter subscribers in Brazil, and they were drifting to other platforms, like Mark Zuckerberg’s Threads. Worse, the Brazilian Supreme Court took $2 million from Musk’s Starlink to satisfy its claims against Musk’s X. What did Musk do when threatened with fines and the loss of market share?

The New York Times reported on September 21:

Elon Musk suddenly appears to be giving up.

After defying court orders in Brazil for three weeks, Mr. Musk’s social network, X, has capitulated. In a court filing on Friday night, the company’s lawyers said that X had complied with orders from Brazil’s Supreme Court in the hopes that the court would lift a block on its site.

The decision was a surprise move by Mr. Musk, who owns and controls X, after he said he had refused to obey what he called illegal orders to censor voices on his social network. Mr. Musk had dismissed local employees and refused to pay fines. The court responded by blocking X across Brazil last month.

Now, X’s lawyers said the company had done exactly what Mr. Musk vowed not to: take down accounts that a Brazilian justice ordered removed because the judge said they threatened Brazil’s democracy. X also complied with the justice’s other demands, including paying fines and naming a new formal representative in the country, the lawyers said.

Brazil’s Supreme Court confirmed X’s moves in a filing on Saturday, but said the company had not filed the proper paperwork. It gave X five days to send further documentation.

The abrupt about-face from Mr. Musk in Brazil appeared to be a defeat for the outspoken businessman and his self-designed image as a warrior for free speech. Mr. Musk and his company had loudly and harshly criticized Brazil’s Supreme Court for months, even publicly releasing some of its sealed orders, but neither had publicly mentioned their reversal by Saturday morning.

The moment showed how, in the yearslong power struggle between tech giants and nation-states, governments have been able to keep the upper hand.

Mr. Musk has had to come to terms with that reality in other countries, including India and Turkey, where his social network complied with orders to censor certain posts. But in Brazil and Australia, he complained about government orders he disagreed with and accused local officials of censorship. His company’s responses to governments have often been in line with his personal politics.

In the U.S., where Musk will never be censored, he has restored accounts of neo-Nazis, election deniers, and COVID science deniers. His own Twitter feed is an advertising platform for Trump. He frequently highlights outrageous pro-Trump, anti-Harris messages.

It’s sad to think that this hateful, bigoted man “owns” the world’s town square, where no one ever fact-checks him or moderates his Tweets.

Just proves, as if proof were needed, that money is power.

Rex Huppke is a columnist for USA Today. He wrote on Twitter about two important tech bros who are his pets. Then he quoted his own tweet as “evidence” that it was true.

He wrote in USA Today:

Given all the uproar over GOP presidential nominee Donald Trump’s baseless, utterly false and profoundly racist claims that Haitian immigrants are eating people’s pets in an Ohio town, I would like to make a public statement that is supported by an equal amount of evidence:

“Not long ago, billionaire Elon Musk ate my cat, Mr. Smushyface. Days later, Donald Trump’s running mate, Sen. JD Vance of Ohio, stole and then barbecued and ate my dog, Zoe. I remained quiet about these incidents for fear other tech bros like Musk and Vance might come for my hamster, Dennis. But after much thoughts and prayer, I have decided to honor the memories of Zoe and Mr. Smushyface by letting the world know what I claim to be the truth.”

For those fortunate enough to not yet be aware of the “immigrants are eating our pets” allegations that bubbled up from the right-wing fever swamps and got spouted by Trump during Tuesday’s presidential debate, here’s the deal: A random Facebook post, grounded in something along the authoritative lines of “I heard from a friend of a friend’s kid,” claimed a cat went missing and was (maybe) eaten by a Haitian immigrant.

It’s true that JD Vance ate my dog because I wrote it on the internet

There’s no evidence of that happening, of course. But xenophobic fearmongers saw it is a perfect way to monger some xenophobic fear. So Musk started trumpeting the ludicrous claim on X, the enormous social media platform he owns, and then Vance was babbling about it and then Trump spoke the words no presidential-debate-watcher ever imagined they’d hear, saying of Springfield, Ohio: “In Springfield, 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.”

OK.

If an actual former president who is also the Republican Party’s standard-bearer and its presidential nominee is so concerned about a fabricated story aimed at dehumanizing an entire swath of people, he damn well better be equally concerned about my story, which is true because I read it on the internet. (Granted, what I read on the internet was from my own social media post, but that’s not important.)

My brave admission that Elon ate my cat

Here’s how this real-because-I-say-it-is story of Vance and Musk being ravenous pet devourers developed.

On Monday, I bravely posted the following on X, the social media cesspool formerly known as Twitter ‒ “True story: Elon Musk ate my cat. Please share your own story of Elon Musk eating your pet.”

The response was overwhelming and revealed my pet was far from the only victim of Musk’s decidedly un-American appetite. Others came out of the we’ve-lost-our-pets-to-hungry-tech-bros closet, with posts that included:

“Elon Musk ate my precious bearded dragon Cupcake.”

“Elon Musk ate my worm farm!”

“True story: Elon Musk ate my ferret.”

“He ate my kitten. I was at a conference where he was one day, holding my kitten. He grabbed it from my hand, poured ketchup on it, and just started chomping into it. It was so scary.”

There’s as much evidence Musk ate my cat as there is immigrants ate pets

Posts on X containing false or inaccurate information are often corrected with a “community note.” No such note appeared on my post or on any of the replies, which I took as proof that it’s all 100% true. 

Buoyed by the support of other victims, I posted an additional admission Thursday: “JD Vance ate my dog, Zoe. It’s true, because I am posting it here.”

I added: “I fear there is widespread pet-eating in the tech-bro community. They’re coming to our cities and towns, we don’t know much about them, they bring radical new ideas about what they view as ‘free speech,’ and they are apparently eating our pets. This has to stop.”

Support from others who say their pets were eaten by Musk and Vance

Again, the responses revealed that Vance’s consumption of my beloved Zoe was not a one-off. 

“I caught JD Vance running away with my dog in his grocery wagon.”

“I walked into my house only to find Elon up to his shoulders in my fish tank, bobbing for them while JD chased my cat with a fork and knife! It was horrifying!”

“My Pugs, Montez and Pearl, may they rest in peace, were also consumed by Elon Musk and JD Vance. They had a Pug-B-Que. I grieve every single day for my Pug babies.”

What monsters.

I hope Donald Trump condemns his running mate’s pet-eating ways

Clearly there’s more than enough evidence here for Trump to loudly address the problem, condemn his running mate and Musk and imply there’s something scary, evil and unwelcome about wealthy tech dudes who incorrectly think they’re hilarious.

Nothing will bring back my precious Mr. Smushyface or my lovable dog Zoe. Nothing can bring back any of the wonderful pets I know were stolen and eaten by Vance and Musk because I read something somebody posted on the internet and declined to consider it might just be fabricated bull(expletive). 

Something must be done about these rabid tech bros before all our pets wind up down their seemingly bottomless gullets.

I look forward to Trump making this a central part of his campaign in the weeks ahead.

In this excellent clip from last night, Lawrence O’Donnell of MSNBC shows in detail how the New York Times “sane-washes” Trump’s nonsensical assertions.

In an article yesterday about Trump’s incoherent and rambling response to a question about whether he planned to lower the cost of child care for American families, the Times published his comments in full.

The article attempted to make sense of what he said, commenting that he believed the vast sums of money collected by tariffs would pay for everything, including child care. Trump thinks that tariffs are a tax on foreign nations.

As O’Donnell explains, tariffs raise the price of imported goods. They are not a “tax” on foreign nations.

But the Times does not explain this basic fact. Instead the article says, “In itself that would be a disputable policy assumption.”

Watch Lawrence O’Donnell eviscerate this lame article and the Times‘ failure to acknowledge that Trump’s claims were demonstrably wrong, not “a disputable policy assumption.”