Mediaboss Marketing

Who edits The New York Times? This is not, at least at first glance, a particularly complicated question. Dean Baquet has been the executive editor of the newspaper of record since 2014, a period of profound growth, when the company amassed six million subscribers (it had about 1.5 million the year Baquet took over). While The Washington Post has made strides in recent years, the Times is still an agenda-setting newspaper like no other. In recent years it has become an industry-swallowing behemoth, hiring whoever it wants whenever it wants, while dominating a number of media formatsaudio, visual, and, of course, text.

But the question Who edits The New York Times? has taken on a different dimension in recent years. While the obsession over the Times foibles and fuck-ups has long been a cottage industry, it is now firmly entrenched in the culture wars. According to the anti-woke contingent, the Times is increasingly run by a pitchfork-wielding mob of scolds demanding ideological purity and adherence to faddish identity politics. Last year, in the wake of a controversial op-ed by Senator Tom Cotton calling for troops to quell violence associated with the George Floyd protests, the mob was able to force out the papers opinion editor (who was pushed out) and a controversial employee (who resigned). This mob, the argument goes, is holding the rest of the paper hostage. Baquet is only nominally in charge.

On Friday, there were anti-woke howls across the internet after the Times announced that Donald McNeil, a prize-winning health care reporter, was leaving the paper he had worked at since 1976. McNeil had recently received widespread acclaim for his reporting on Covid-19, but a report from The Daily Beast two weeks ago alleged that he had repeated a racial slur in front of teenagers while accompanying a high school trip to Peru. (The Times apparently sends its reporters on these trips, which cost $5,500 each, as guides. Fancy!) McNeil had initially been given a reprieve by Baquet but was pushed out after 150 staff members objected to his light treatment in a letter to management. Here was another smoking gun: The paper of record devouring its own on command from a legion of woke, illiberal scolds.

See more here:
Can We Stop Obsessing Over Every Personnel Decision Made by The New York Times? - The New Republic

TribLIVE's Daily and Weekly email newsletters deliver the news you want and information you need, right to your inbox.

Last Monday night, nearly a month after Trump-supporting insurrectionists stormed the U.S. Capitol looking to overturn a democratic election and, in some cases, kill U.S. lawmakers, New York Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez took to Instagram Live to share her harrowing account of that day.

Traumatized not only by the close encounter with people who were there to harm her but also the PTSD she suffers as a result of a previous sexual assault, Ocasio-Cortez said that as she hid in another congresswomans office, she thought she was going to die.

She was inarguably right to be terrified. Terrorism was, in part, the goal of the Capitol insurrection. Last month, in fact, a 34-year-old Texan named Garret Miller was arrested for taking part in the riot and posting violent threats online, including a tweet that simply said, Assassinate AOC.

But to the many on the right who have told her and other Democrats to move on from those events, Ocasio-Cortez says they were using the same tactics of every other abuser who just tells you to move on. Just a cursory scroll through Twitter in the wake of her powerful testimony proves her point.

This is a masterclass in emotional manipulation, journalist Michael Tracey says.

Only AOC can make the Capitol riots all about herself, Breanna Morello tweets.

Members of congress lie, including AOC. Especially AOC, Austin Petersen says.

Sadly, this is not surprising. In the ugly, divisive and tribal political hellscape in which we are currently living, AOC is a reviled figure on the right, ergo we shouldnt expect even the revelation that shed been sexually assaulted, or that she was fearing for her life on Jan. 6, cowering in a closet and wondering aloud if shell live to be a mother one day to be met with basic decency or empathy by some hardened partisans who see only enemy avatars, not actual people.

The rioters who breached the Capitol, the ones who shouted hang Mike Pence, the women who went looking for Speaker Nancy Pelosi to shoot her in the friggin brain, the man who beat a police officer with an American flag, another who attacked a police officer with a hockey stick, another who etched Murder the Media into a door inside the building, the people who planted pipe bombs around Washington, D.C., that day, the ones who marched swastikas into the peoples house, the ones who carried Confederate flags and white pride signs they werent thinking about the people in that building, only their own hate.

They werent thinking about moms and dads, daughters and sons, grandparents and grandchildren in that building when they went looking for scalps. They didnt see Officer Brian Sicknick as Charles and Gladys son, or Ken and Craigs brother, when they killed him with a fire extinguisher. They didnt see Pelosi as Bellas grandma or Pence as Charlottes dad.

The Republican lawmakers like Sens. Ted Cruz and Josh Hawley, and Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene, who taunted their supporters into fighting the election results, hyping baseless claims of fraud and stolen elections, werent thinking about the people on the other side of the anger they were stoking. They werent thinking about the human cost of all that frothing, fearmongering and incitement. Remarkably and chillingly, they dont appear to be even now, as they continue to spread the lies.

This kind of unconscionable moral rot has infected America deep in its core. Its in our partisan politics, our self-destructive culture wars, our hysterical media and our addiction to hate.

Its becoming clearer with every passing day that amid all the things posing an imminent threat to our way of life disease, climate change, war its truly our inability to see each other as people before politics thats going to destroy us.

S.E. Cupp is the host of S.E. Cupp Unfiltered on CNN.

Categories:Opinion | S.E. Cupp Columns

TribLIVE's Daily and Weekly email newsletters deliver the news you want and information you need, right to your inbox.

More S.E. Cupp Columns Stories

Follow this link:
S.E. Cupp: Bitter, partisan reactions to AOC are proof American politics has lost its way - TribLIVE

Charities that support politically or culturally contentious causes should expect their charitable status to come under regulatory scrutiny even if they are acting within the law, according to the outgoing chair of the Charity Commission.

The peer Tina Stowell, who is stepping down after three years in the post, warned charities against being captured by unnamed people who wish to push a partial view of the world and use charity platforms to wage war on political enemies.

The commission, whose remit covers England and Wales, has recently pursued high-profile investigations against charities after Tory MPs complained they had strayed into ideological dogma or a woke agenda on issues such as race equality.

Charities can challenge things, charities can shake things up, they can even change the world, but they cant and they shouldnt go out of their way to divide people, Lady Stowell said in a speech on Thursday hosted by the Social Market Foundation.

Investigations were launched into the National Trust over its publication of a report on some of its properties past links to slavery, and against the childrens charity Barnardos which was accused of political activism for publishing a blogpost on racial inequality and white privilege. Both investigations are continuing.

Charity figures responded furiously to the speech, accusing Stowell of demonstrating the very attitudes she was warning charities against. One charity leader told the Guardian: Lady Stowell warns charities against being divisive and yet she is drawing them into a culture war by saying they cant legitimately make a stand on issues.

Stowell, who some believe lost the trust of the charity sector after using rightwing newspapers to warn charities against getting involved in politics or culture wars, said charities had to be more respectful of public expectations of what they were for.

If charity is to remain at the forefront of our national life, it cannot afford to be captured by those who want to advance or defend their own view of the world to the exclusion of all others, she said. Charities can adapt to the latest social and cultural trends but there is a real risk of generating unnecessary controversy and division by picking sides in a battle some have no wish to fight.

Many seek out charities as an antidote to politics and division, not as another front on which to wage a war against political enemies, and they have the right to be respected.

Charity Commission guidance states that campaigning and political activity can be legitimate and valuable activities for charities to undertake within limits that require charities not to have a political purpose and to be independent of political parties.

Asked after her speech whether charities with a political agenda should lose their charitable status, Stowell suggested that party politics was too narrow a definition of the limits of charity political activity. Not everything which is contentious is defined as a particular partys position on something, she said.

So in that respect what charities have to be mindful of is there are risks to adopting or getting involved in particular sorts of movement or causes that are outside of their objects and then they start to make people question whether or not they really are entitled to retain that status of charity.

Stowell was appointed as the Charity Commissions chair in 2018 despite a unanimous parliamentary select committee recommendation that her nomination should be rejected on the grounds that she lacked experience of both charity and regulatory roles.

Stowell, a Conservative politician and former civil servant, became a peer in 2011. She was leader of the House of Lords before resigning the Tory whip upon her Charity Commission appointment. The commission was unable to say whether she would have the whip restored after her term ends.

Responding to Stowells speech, Sue Tibballs, of the campaigning charity the Sheila McKechnie Foundation, said: Throughout her tenure Tina Stowell has been a leading voice amongst those who accuse charities of stoking culture wars by not reflecting public opinion. Charities by law, however, are required to act in the public interest, not to reflect public opinion.

Andrew Purkis, a former Charity Commission board member, said it was important that Stowells successor as commission chair focused on what the law said charities were allowed to do, not what he or she thought they ought to do. The guidance is clear: charities are allowed to be political with a small p if we are in pursuit of our charitable objects, he said.

This article was amended on 5 February 2021. An earlier version described Tina Stowell as a Tory peer. Text has been added to clarify that Lady Stowell was the Conservative leader in the Lords, but resigned the party whip on her appointment to the Charity Commission. Text was also added to clarify the commissions remit covers England and Wales only.

Read the rest here:
Commission chief tells charities not to be 'captured' for politics - The Guardian

By David M. Greenwald

It looks increasingly like a recall effort will get the matter of Gavin Newsom on the ballot. But, while his standing has fallen from 64 percent approval in September to 46 percent now (against 48 percent disapproval), it does not appear right now that there are the votes to remove him from office.

An IGS (Institute of Governmental Studies from UC Berkeley) poll released last week shows only 36 percent of votes support removing him from office, but there is a large number of undecided at, 19 percent.

These results should provide a strong warning to the Governor, IGS co-director Eric Schickler said in a release accompanying the poll. If the recall election does go forward, the states response to the pandemic needs to be seen as more successful for the Governor than it is now for him to be confident of the election outcome.

IGS poll director Mark DiCamillo said that the trendline is not great, but he is in a far stronger position than Gray Davis was in 2003 when he was removed from office.

I would say that a lot depends on the events of the next three or four months. Whats unusual about the measure on his recall is the relatively large proportions of voters still undecided, DiCamillo said. I think that the job rating hit is serious, but if things start to improve on the pandemic front I think the recall will be less of a problem for him.

The partisan split is interesting. A PPIC Poll (Public Policy Institute of California poll) released on February 2 showed 71 percent of Democrats versus 46 percent of independents and 16 percent of Republicans support his job approval. But Republican dislike is not enough in a state where they only represent 24 percent of all votes and where Trump received just over one third of the vote.

Newsom can survive by shoring up his base71 percent Democratic voter approval is worrisome for the governor.

One thing to watch potentially is the appointment for attorney general. He is under pressure from various groups to name a reformerthe question is which one, as the reform community seems divided.

However, one thing is clearthere has been speculation that he could name either Sacramento Mayor Darrell Steinberg or Los Angeles area Congressional Leader Adam Schiff.

For Steinberg, once the States Senate leader, there was grumbling even before the city botched shelter for homeless people in the arealeading to a potential push for a recall of the mayor by homeless advocates.

Meanwhile, Adam Schiff would serve as a lightning rod both on the left and the right. The right sees his outspoken opposition to former President Trump as a huge negative, while the left is unimpressed with his record on criminal justice reform matters.

The justified anger from the left has not been getting enough attention, Kate Chatfield tweeted on Saturday. The right is upset with Newsom as they fight their increasingly bizarre culture wars, but the anger on the left is real and deep.

Chatfield, a Senior Legal Analyst with the Appeal who helped draft SB 1437 legislation, believes that whomever Newsom appoints as AG will speak volumes.

She said, If he appoints Adam Schiff or some carceral DA, or someone who has done nothing against mass incarceration or who has been supported by right wing law enforcement, he will (again) be telling so many communities that they do not matter to him.

A letter the Vanguard published last week from a coalition of reformers noted, When Adam Schiff was a member of the California legislature, he was not only supportive of, but deeply invested in, creating our current system of incarceration. This system of incarceration has continued to devastate communities of color and continues to take resources away from our schools, cities, and from all Californians in need.

They continue: We know that many Democratic politicians in the 1990s and 2000s espoused a tough on crime platform. However, even President Biden, one such politician, campaigned on ending the federal death sentence and acknowledged that his prior tough on crime policies were a mistake.

They point out that, in contrast to Biden who has moved toward justice reform and opposition to the death penalty, Schiff has continued to support legislation that would expand the size and scope of our system of incarceration, including voting recently to expand the federal death penalty, legislation that was part of a right wing narrative against Black Lives Matter and calls across the United States for police accountability.

For example, Schiff was one of just 48 Democrats to vote for The Thin Blue Line Act of 2017, a bill that would expand the federal death penalty when a law enforcement officer is killed, despite there already being laws that allowed for this.

This bill was was strongly opposed by the Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights and the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund.

They argue, This bill fed into a right-wing narrative against the Black Lives Matter movement and the movement for police accountability, suggesting that these racial justice groups were putting law enforcement lives in danger. The dog-whistle was heard by many.

One problem that reformers facethey seem divided on whom to support.

For instance, two weeks ago the Vanguard published a letter with over 160 signatures from the Asian American community pushing for California Supreme Court Justice Goodwin Liu.

On and off the bench, Justice Liu has distinguished himself as a leading voice for racial justice and inclusion in the legal profession and beyond, said Mia Yamamoto, LGBTQ+ rights advocate and co-founder of the Multi-Cultural Bar Alliance of Southern California. Asian Americans too often remain an invisible minority. Justice Lius pathbreaking 2017 study on Asian Americans in the legal profession enabled our communitys accomplishments to be celebrated and our challenges to be addressed.

Meanwhile, public defenders are pushing for Assemblymember Ash Kalraa former public defender.

Signed by, among others, Yolo County Public Defender Tracie Olson and San Francisco Public Defender Mano Raju, they write: As public defenders who represent people and serve families most impacted by our criminal legal system, we call upon Governor Gavin Newsom to appoint Assemblyman Ash Kalra as Californias next Attorney General.

Others are supporting Rob Bonta,

As a career-long advocate for justice and equality, Rob Bonta has led the fight in the Legislature to reform the criminal justice system and treat people with dignity, Assemblymember Evan Low said in a statement. Ive known Rob for years, and he would lead the California Department of Justice with distinction.

The Legislative Black Caucus is supporting Contra Costa DA Diana Becton.

Becton, a strong progressive prosecutor, was endorsed in a unanimous vote by the legislative group, who called her a well-respected jurist and litigator with an exceptional statewide and national reputation among her colleagues, Californias law enforcement, and social justice communities.

She is an experienced executive leader of large organizations, a strong supporter of progressive policies aligned with CLBC priorities, and has a track record of working with Californias diverse communities, according to the CLBC.

For Newsom to survive, the pandemic in California will have to improveas people are vaccinated, numbers go down, and schools and businesses open, his standing will improve. But maintaining his base in a state where Biden was a +29 over Trump is critical and the AG appointment could be a signal to progressives as to whether Newsom is worth saving.

David M. Greenwald reporting

To sign up for our new newsletter Everyday Injustice https://tinyurl.com/yyultcf9

Support our work to become a sustaining at $5 $10- $25 per month hit the link:

See the original post:
Monday Morning Thoughts: AG Appointment Could Be Pivotal for Newsom - The Peoples Vanguard of Davis

Introduction by Croakey: Liberal backbencher and prolific Facebook poster Craig Kelly continues to publish misinformation about public health issues, including COVID-19 and climate change, as well as to attack the ABC and others who question his claims.

On 8 February he posted about a BBC report on climate change that quoted Mark Carney, the United Nations envoy for climate action and finance and formerly Bank of England governor and the head of the Bank of Canada.

Kelly wrote:

Mr Carney is speaking complete unmitigated BS.

Its just another scare campaign designed to hand more power to the global elites and the big wbankers [sic].

Kellys page has almost 81,000 followers. While some commentators, including Michelle Grattan, have questioned whether his views on COVID-19 have much influence with the public, Dr Tim Senior, a general practitioner working in Aboriginal health in NSW, says Kellys actions are making the work of clinicians more difficult.

Should I have the vaccine?

Many of my patients have been asking this over the last few weeks. Lots of people want to have this discussion. One or two people have said they definitely don t want it, mainly concerned about safety. Most people are up for a discussion, and expect me to know about the vaccine options.

I can have these discussions because its a basic part of the job of being a GP. Throughout the pandemic, weve had to keep up to date, for the public health prevention of social distancing, hand sanitisation, wearing masks.

Weve had to keep abreast of public health orders, being careful in discussion of the most appropriate orders not to undermine public confidence.

Weve prepared for conversations with our patients who have caught COVID fortunately, not too often in Australia about the best available treatment, and symptoms that suggest hospital care is needed. Our hospital colleagues have had these conversations with patients and their families.

We do this all the time, across many illnesses. Sitting with patients and their families, who feel unwell and vulnerable, we dont have the opportunity of just making things up. We need the evidence about the safety and effectiveness of the treatments we offer to have discussions about these, to allow patients to make decisions for themselves.

In a sense, Prime Minister Scott Morrison is right when he says about Craig Kellys misinformation page on Facebook, Craig Kelly is not my doctor, and hes not yours to Laura Tingle. Craig Kelly will never have to have these conversations or make these decisions.

But this is disingenuous. I am not Scott Morrisons doctor either, and neither are many thousands of other doctors across Australia, but the information they give out is still trustworthy. This comment is the medical equivalent of I dont hold a hose, mate, that only front-line individual interactions matter.

Theres a denial that policy matters, or even that there might be room for policy. (To be fair, this was Scott Morrisons election platform, which can be summarised as I drink beer and wear hats, not like those boring policy wonks on the other side.) Its not that they dont do policy, its that this explicit lack of admitting to policy allows actual policies of climate inaction, decreasing social security and engaging in culture wars.

Which brings us back to Craig Kelly. Despite the reported dressing down, hes still posting misinformation to Facebook, which the Prime Minister says is fine because its not about vaccination.

Craig Kelly doesnt have to sit down with anyone worried about COVID. He will never have to provide advice, or discuss the pros and cons to someone about the risks of heart disease or their immunosuppression. He will never have to make a decision as to whether the evidence is strong enough to get a benefit from an intervention, knowing there will be risks.

None of these should be partisan right/left issues, or part of the culture wars. (I cant really believe I even have to write a sentence like that!)

The discussions I have with my patients rely on trust. We have to trust that the ethical processes of research mean that studies are done fairly and written up accurately, and peer reviewed appropriately (not always the case!). We rely on the Therapeutic Goods Administration and Australian Technical Advisory Group on Immunisations to assess the evidence and make appropriate recommendations.

And, most visibly, we rely on politicians and the political system to make these decisions fairly for the common good. It is this that Craig Kelly undermines by spending his time posting misinformation. It is this that Scott Morrison undermines when he allows Kelly to continue posting it.

Courage in this case is not claiming Kellys right of free speech to say nonsensical things any fool with a keyboard can do that. Courage would be to say its more important to have consistent public messaging about the evidence than it is to court the votes of those tempted by conspiracy theories.

Courage would be admitting to posting nonsense. And real courage would be the feeling of vulnerability that many patients and families feel in the face of COVID, and being able to sit and hear their fears, and answer their questions honestly.

I think its too much to hope for, though. Unlike health professionals, theres no enforceable code of conduct for backbenchers, and the ministerial code of conduct never seems to be enforced. Theres no ethical expectation to Do no harm.

Well continue to do our work while Craig Kelly and the PM make it harder for all of us.

Dr Tim Senior is a GP working in NSW and a contributing editor at Croakey. Follow on Twitter: @timsenior

On ABC, Casey Briggs investigates Craig Kellys Facebook impact. On Twitter, follow @CaseyBriggs and his bot @auspol_posts

View post:
On Craig Kelly, misinformation and a view from the clinical frontlines - Croakey