Mediaboss Marketing

Lets make a few things crystal clear right up front. First and foremost, green beer has always been a bad choice and is without any saving grace. I also doubt that even St. Patrick in his prime could drive all the political snakes out of todays Washington. The history of St. Patricks Day itself is not without major warts particularly regarding who could and couldnt participate.

But despite these caveats, I believe there is something about Americas version of the holiday that embodies strengths our nation can and should lean into particularly going into a high-stakes, take-no-prisoners election year.

This suggestion isnt coming from a rabid St. Patricks Day fan. Growing up with a distinctly Irish name, I was ambivalent at best about a holiday that reinforced so many caricatures and myths. As a kid (with a big dose of adolescent snark) I would say it was my job to be Irish 364 days a year and March 17 was my one day off. I also saw many efforts to define Americans by ethnic, religious or racial differences doing more to fuel divisions than to build healthy pride.

As time went by, Ive softened my view. What brought that about? Part of it was learning more about history. Weve been at this in America for a very long time in fact our first St. Patricks Day parades took place well before the Declaration of Independence was signed. First as a reflection of Irish pride (and sometimes defiance), over the centuries they have become more welcoming. Like the greatest aspects of the American story itself, more and more people have been allowed to participate both as parade marchers and celebrants.

This hasnt come easily (it never does) and even involved a landmark Supreme Court case concerning access for LGBTQ groups. Today it can feel like the Supreme Court decides everything, but while that decision actually affirmed the right to restrict parade participation it wasnt the final word. What turned the tide was changing attitudes and the willingness of political and business leaders to stand up for pitching a bigger tent.

As important to changing my attitude was personally witnessing several St. Patricks Day miracles. These included a longstanding breakfast tradition in Boston that features Republicans and Democrats putting aside their differences and making jokes rather than scoring political points. Humor is a really important part of the St. Patricks Day magic. Punch lines that are bitter and come at the expense of others feed our collective anxiety and anger. Laughing at ourselves and with each other is what heals and builds bridges.

Ive also attended multiple parades including a big one in my conservative Florida town where Ive seen a cross-section of Americans joyfully marching and cheering each other on. Celebrating anything as a community is a very beautiful and powerful thing and all too rare in todays America.

The sad fact is that navigating holidays has become much too complex and politized lately. We now need to walk on eggshells when we sincerely offer best wishes for example, the whole Merry Christmas vs. Happy holidays thing. To date, St. Patricks Day has been spared and its really important we keep it that way. There are no sides to take, nobody is keeping score, and it isnt about red and blue its just about different and often crazy shades of green that are almost invariably unflattering. Just come as you are to celebrate Irish culture and/or the coming of spring. Its an example of what America can be at its most authentically exceptional and unpretentious.

We desperately need to expand the number of special days like this when we put aside us vs. them thinking and come together. We need days where we can wear silly stuff, not talk politics, and celebrate the contributions of different members of the American family. This attitude and the values behind it should have an important role to play every single day.

For example, I can envision Election Day as a celebration of these aspects of the American character. Sure we will vote for different candidates, but we could also see it as an opportunity to express shared gratitude for the freedoms we enjoy and for those who sacrificed so much to secure them for us. The bottom line is that St. Patricks Day shows were capable of celebrating together without putting our differences, frustrations and anger front and center. If we can pull that off (albeit imperfectly) for even one day, it means we can do it more often. I sincerely believe that for the American experiment to survive and thrive we need to find the wisdom and courage to do just that.

By the way, if our toxic politics is making you consider green beer or even something stronger to deaden the pain, try Citizen Connect first. Its a nonpartisan online platform I co-founded that puts 600 organizations dedicated to finding common ground at your fingertips.

___

(The Fulcrum covers whats making democracy dysfunctional and efforts to fix our governing systems. Sign up for our newsletter at thefulcrum.us. The Fulcrum is a nonprofit, nonpartisan news platform covering efforts to fix our governing systems. It is a project of, but editorially independent from, Issue One.)

2024 The Fulcrum. Visit at thefulcrum.us. Distributed by Tribune Content Agency, LLC.

Invalid username/password.

Please check your email to confirm and complete your registration.

Use the form below to reset your password. When you've submitted your account email, we will send an email with a reset code.

Previous

Next

Visit link:
Commentary: Can St. Patrick and green beer save American democracy? - Kennebec Journal and Morning Sentinel

Statement by Secretary General Marija Pejinovi Buri on the occasion of the finalisation of the Convention

This first-of-a-kind treaty will ensure that the rise of Artificial Intelligence upholds Council of Europe legal standards in human rights, democracy and the rule of law. Its finalisation by our Committee on Artificial Intelligence (CAI) is an extraordinary achievement and should be celebrated as such.

It sets out a legal framework that covers AI systems throughout their lifecycles, from start to end.

While this treaty has been elaborated by the Council of Europe with like-minded international partners, it will be a global instrument, open to the world. After its adoption by our Committee of Ministers in the coming weeks, countries from all over the world will be eligible to join it and meet the high ethical standards it sets.

The text strikes the right regulatory balance precisely because it has benefitted from the input of governments and experts, and industry and civil society. We thank all of those partners for their contribution and delivering this seminal text. We are convinced that, once adopted, this treaty will bring everyone together in appreciation of its impact.

* * *

The Framework Convention on Artificial Intelligence, Human Rights, Democracy and the Rule of Law has been finalised yesterday by the Council of Europe Committee on Artificial Intelligence. The draft text will be referred to the Committee of Ministers for adoption and opened for signature at a later stage.

Read the original post:
Artificial Intelligence, Human Rights, Democracy and the Rule of Law Framework Convention - Council of Europe

Senate Majority PAC, an independent group aligned with Majority Leader Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.), is spending $2.7 million to elevate Donald Trumps pick a fellow 2020 election denier in a three-way Republican primary on Tuesday. The idea is to help the candidate, former luxury car dealer Bernie Moreno, because he would be the easiest GOP nominee for incumbent Sen. Sherrod Brown (D-Ohio) to defeat in the fall.

Its a replay of the cynical tactic Democrats employed in the 2022 midterm elections. Then, they spent more than $53 million across nine states primaries to boost far-right Republican House candidates who had questioned or denied the validity of Joe Bidens victory in the 2020 election, as well as MAGA-inclined gubernatorial candidates in Maryland, Pennsylvania and Illinois.

Theres no question it paid off: Democrats hold several House seats they might not have otherwise and won all three governorships. Theres also no question it reeked powerfully, and enduringly, of hypocrisy. Who knows why so many Americans still back Mr. Trump despite his evident lies about 2020? But maybe one small part of the reason is that Democratic operatives keep manipulating the issue for short-term political advantage.

Mr. Moreno wasnt always an election denier. He urged his social media followers to accept the results in late 2020 and tweeted on Jan. 6, 2021, that Mr. Trump deserved lots and lots of blame for this. But then he decided to run for office. President Trump says the election was stolen, and hes right, Mr. Moreno said in a commercial during a short-lived 2022 bid for the Senate. More recently, hes called those prosecuted for storming the Capitol political prisoners.

The Democratic commercial doesnt mention any of that. Nominally, its an attack ad because it calls Mr. Moreno too conservative and mentions his support for a national abortion ban and repealing Obamacare. But those points appeal to GOP base voters. Moreno would lead the charge to enact Trumps MAGA agenda, a narrator says. The spot says that the former president calls Mr. Moreno exactly the type of MAGA fighter that we need. A spokeswoman for Senate Majority PAC said in a statement that Ohioans deserve to know the truth about Bernie Moreno.

In the Ohio race, state Sen. Matt Dolan would be the strongest Republican candidate against Mr. Brown in November. Hes a governance-minded conservative in the mold of former senator Rob Portman and Gov. Mike DeWine, who both endorse his bid. (Mr. Dolans father owns the Cleveland Guardians; one reason Mr. Trump has attacked the son is that the baseball team changed its name from the Indians.) Mr. Dolan would likely be a vote in the Senate for aiding Ukraine, which has a large diaspora in Ohio, while Mr. Moreno is critical of sending any more money. So the Democratic push for Mr. Moreno flies in the face of the partys position on that crucial issue, too.

Polling shows the GOP primary within the margin of error, with Mr. Dolan opening a slight lead and Ohio Secretary of State Frank LaRose in a distant third. In a general election matchup, Mr. Brown leads Mr. Moreno but trails Mr. Dolan.

To repeat: Senate Majority PACs sole job is winning elections, so its rational for it to intervene in favor of Mr. Moreno. The $2.7 million buy is a drop in the ocean of likely spending on what could be this cycles most expensive Senate race. The group plans to air $65 million of television ads in Ohio during the general election while its Republican rival, Senate Leadership Fund, plans to spend $57.5 million.

But Senate Majority PACs tactics clash grotesquely with President Bidens portrayal of the 2024 stakes in this months State of the Union address: January 6th and the lies about the 2020 election, and the plots to steal the election, posed the gravest threat to our democracy since the Civil War, he declared. Mr. Biden said those who stormed the Capitol placed a dagger at the throat of American democracy, adding: The threat remains, and democracy must be defended. The president called on lawmakers to respect free and fair elections, restore trust in our institutions, and make clear political violence has absolutely no place in America.

Mr. Trump has twice carried Ohio by eight points. The Moreno campaign points out that many Democrats assumed Mr. Trump would be the easiest Republican for Hillary Clinton to defeat in 2016. Whoever wins Tuesdays primary even Mr. Moreno has a real chance of sitting in the Senate a year from now. Democrats should be careful what they wish for.

See more here:
Opinion | Democratic ads to help Bernie Moreno win Ohio GOP Senate primary reek of hypocrisy - The Washington Post - The Washington Post

The months surrounding the 2022 midterm elections in Arizona were like a powderkeg. The Grand Canyon State was the epicenter of election conspiracy theories in 2020, fueled by former President Donald Trump and his allies. And in 2022, the fervor on the right over another stolen election based on categorically false allegations of mass voter fraud reached a boiling point.

In the days after Arizonas primary election in August of 2022, an Alabama man left a string of violent, threatening direct messages to an Instagram account maintained by Maricopa County Elections, according to a recently unsealed indictment from the U.S. Department of Justice. [Y]ou people are so ducking [sic] stupid. Everyone knows you are lots [sic], cheats, frauds and in doing so in relation to elections have committed treason. You will all be executed. Bang [expletive]! one message said.

Months later, during the general election in November of 2022, a California man got hold of a Maricopa County election officials cell phone number and, the day after the county certified the 2022 election results declaring Democrat Katie Hobbs the winner in the hotly contested gubernatorial race he left a voicemail. You wanna cheat our elections? You wanna screw Americans out of true votes? Were coming, [expletive]. Youd better [expletive] hide, he said, according to another recently unsealed DOJ indictment.

And in Georgia, two election workers sued Trump attorney Rudy Giuliani for promoting election conspiracy theories in 2020 that directly led to harassment and death threats. I was afraid for my life, one of the workers said in a testimony, according to NPR. I literally felt that someone would attempt to hang me and there was nothing anyone could do about it. Giuliani was found liable and ordered to pay $148 million to the two workers.

These werent isolated incidents but rather part of a growing, unfortunate trend in the last few election cycles: political violence particularly threats to election workers and public officials is surging. The 2020 and 2022 elections saw a sharp rise in violence and threats of violence against election workers:more than 40% of state legislators experienced threats or attacks in the past three years, and more than 18% experienced them within the past year and a half, according to a recent report from the Brennan Center for Justice. As we barrel head first into the thick of the 2024 election, all signs indicate the problem hasnt gone away.

Given everything we know about this alarming trend, are state and local election officials adequately prepared to handle threats of violence and another barrage of misinformation and conspiracy theories that pose an existential threat to the election process? Democracy Docket spoke to extremism researchers and experts from the Global Project Against Hate and Extremism (GPAHE), the Program on Extremism at George Washington University (GWU), Princeton Universitys Bridging Divides Initiative and Georgetown Laws Institute for Constitutional Advocacy and Protection about the biggest threats to the 2024 election and whats being done to address them.

Theres one thing that Shannon Hiller, the executive director of the Bridging Divide Initiative, wants people to know: voting and participating in the electoral process in the United States, especially compared to the rest of the world, is extremely safe. Weve had some really tense elections, she told Democracy Docket. But even just looking at 2022, a lot of the work that election officials, civil society has done to make sure that voting is still incredibly secure and safe in this country, is continuing to work.

At the same time, the risk of violence toward election workers, and those participating in the electoral practice, is higher than its been in decades. A recent report from the National Counterterrorism Innovation, Technology, and Education Center at the University of Nebraska Omaha examined every single federally investigated threat toward a public official over the past 10 years and found that 2022 and 2023 had the highest number of threats in that time period. The data, according to the authors of the report, reflects a growing public acceptance of and tolerance for political violence attitudes that threaten U.S. institutions and weaken democracy.

Election workers and elected officials have found themselves on the receiving end of threats and intimidation fairly consistently, Mary McCord, the executive director of Georgetown Laws ICAP, told Democracy Docket. But obviously, it gets worse in the lead up to an election and then right after an election And I think, right now, theres no real reason to think that its going to be significantly different.

Thats especially true after the events of Jan. 6, 2021. Since then, the rise in extremist violence profoundly changed how many people feel about voting. A 2022 poll commissioned by GPAHE found that only 41% of Americans feel safe at polling places, due to the steady rise of mass shootings, political and racial divisions and extremist violence and rhetoric.

Heidi Beirich, the co-founder and chief strategy officer of GPAHE, told Democracy Docket that shes preparing for a rise in threats, and possibly violence, this election season. Emotions are going to be running so high that we have to expect violence of some sort to result ultimately, unfortunately, she predicted.

The threat of violence from far-right extremist groups like the Proud Boys and the Oathkeepers were of grave concern in the 2020 and 2022 elections and, while such groups are still active, extremist researchers arent as worried about what they might do. In 2021, we saw Proud Boys showing up in all kinds of school board meetings and things like this, and just basically threatening people, Beirich said. I think thats a real possibility. I also think lone wolf violence somebody whos just not happy about the direction things are going, that might be a serious problem.

Jon Lewis, a research fellow at GWUs Program on Extremism, shares that concern. I think the biggest thing that has been the case since Jan. 6, consistently from the extremism space, is that the threat is the network, he told Democracy Docket. Its not about these individual organizations or groups its this coalitional kind of culture war narrative.

The network Lewis is referring to is the conservative outrage machine, with Trump in the drivers seat and the far-right media in the passenger seat amplifying whatever hateful rhetoric and call to action hes spewing on any given day. Lewis points to some of the people arrested for acts of violence on Jan. 6 as prime examples of what such rhetoric can drive people to. Its not so much the members of extremist groups that stick out to him, but the ordinary people like the yoga teacher from California, or the Texas real estate agent who were incited by Trumps words to violently storm the U.S. Capitol.

They were the ones who, when push comes to shove, they were told day after day, month after month, year after year, that those people over there in [the Capitol] are not your people. That they are less than you because they hate America, they hate what you stand for. They hate this country. Theyre trying to take what is yours and you have to fight, Lewis explained. Its an emotional message and it taps into these root primal fears. This is the right-wing media ecosystem that has been pumping out day after day, week after week.

As the GOP officially declares Trump as their presumptive nominee for the November election, theres no indication that the former president is holding back on making incendiary comments to rile up his base. He keeps promoting conspiracy theories and lies about the 2020 election, parroting language used by Adolf Hitler to describe the immigration crisis and has claimed that President Joe Biden is conspiring to overthrow the country. The cumulative effect of Trumps rhetoric especially as the election draws closer is what worries Lewis.

All it takes is the eye of this right-wing rage machine to target some election worker in Georgia, some state election official in a purple state like Pennsylvania or Michigan, where weve seen these conspiracies pop up time and time again.

As was the case in 2020 and 2022, the states on high alert for potential violence this election season are swing states. States like Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, Nevada, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin where the race between Biden and Trump is expected to be razor thin and could ultimately decide the outcome of the election. With all eyes on just a handful of states, theres concern that state and local officials might not be prepared for whatever potential threats may develop.

But a lot of states have taken necessary steps in the past few years to secure their elections, and effectively respond to threats of violence. Plus, as McCord noted, theres been a lot of turnover of election workers and volunteers between this election and previous ones.

Those coming in, I think are coming in clear eyed and steely, with resolve about what they need to do, and that they may, depending on where theyre at in the country, have to be prepared for intimidation and threats and things like that, she told Democracy Docket. But I think in a lot of places, theres just a lot more support now than in previous elections.

Through their organizations, both Hiller and McCord train state and local officials for best practices to assess potential election threats and how to address them. Some of it is about just helping them to better understand the specific types of concerns and trends around political violence or threats, Hiller said of the work she does in these training sessions. And a lot of it is about helping to support them continue to do the work that theyre doing, while understanding the nature of political violence, threats and how to get ahead of it.

Most importantly, though, is that a high number of states have passed legislation since the midterm elections aimed specifically at protecting election workings and the voting process. That includes legislation in 12 states and Washington, D.C. to ban possessing firearms near polling places, as well as other laws to either make it illegal or increase the penalties for harassing poll workers, including doxxing, making threats of violence and interfering with their duties. Since 2022, 15 states have passed laws to protect public officials and election workers and at least 26 states have introduced new legislation, according to Public Citizen.

My sense is, for example, here in Georgia that the election infrastructure is pretty strong, says Beirich. And given the sort of hell that Trump put them through in 2020, they realize what the possibilities are.

Read more:
Combating Threats to Election Workers Ahead of the 2024 Election - Democracy Docket

This is a rush transcript. Copy may not be in its final form.

NERMEEN SHAIKH: The death toll in Gaza has topped 31,300. At least five people were killed on Wednesday when Israel bombed an UNRWA aid distribution center in Rafah one of the U.N. agencys last remaining aid sites in Gaza. The head of UNRWA called the attack a, quote, blatant disregard to international humanitarian law.

This comes as much of Gaza is on the brink of famine as Israel continues to limit the amount of aid allowed into the besieged territory. At least 27 Palestinians have died of starvation, including 23 children.

Meanwhile, Al Jazeera is reporting six Palestinians were killed in Gaza City when Israeli forces opened fire again on crowds waiting for food aid. Over 80 people were injured.

In other news from Gaza, Politico reports the Biden administration has privately told Israel that the U.S. would support Israel attacking Rafah as long as it did not carry out a large-scale invasion.

AMY GOODMAN: Well, we begin todays show looking at how the U.S. media is covering Israels assault on Gaza with the acclaimed TV broadcaster Mehdi Hasan. In January, he announced he was leaving MSNBC after his shows were canceled. Mehdi was one of the most prominent Muslim voices on American television. In October, the news outlet Semafor reported MSNBC had reduced the roles of Hasan and two other Muslim broadcasters on the network, Ayman Mohyeldin and Ali Velshi, following the October 7th Hamas attack on Israel. Then, in November, MSNBC announced it was canceling Hasans show shortly after he conducted this interview with Mark Regev, an adviser to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. This is an excerpt.

MEHDI HASAN: You say Hamass numbers I should point out,just pull up on the screen, in the last two major Gaza conflicts, 2009 and 2014, the Israeli militarys death tolls matched Hamass Health Ministry death tolls, so and the U.N., human rights groups all agree that those numbers are credible. But look, your wider point is true.

MARK REGEV: Can I challenge that?

MEHDI HASAN: We shouldnt

MARK REGEV: Will you allow me

MEHDI HASAN: We shouldnt

MARK REGEV: to challenge that, please? Can I just challenge that?

MEHDI HASAN: Briefly, if you can.

MARK REGEV: Id like to challenge that.

MEHDI HASAN: Briefly.

MARK REGEV: Ill try to be as brief as you are, sir. Those numbers are provided by Hamas. Theres no independent verification. And secondly, more importantly, you have no idea how many of them are Hamas terrorists, combatants, and how many are civilians. Hamas would have you believe that theyre all civilians, that theyre all children.

And here we have to say something that isnt said enough. Hamas, until now, were destroying their military machine, and with that, were eroding their control. But up until now, theyve been in control of the Gaza Strip. And as a result, they control all the images coming out of Gaza. Have you seen one picture of a single dead Hamas terrorist in the fighting in Gaza? Not one.

MEHDI HASAN: Yeah, but I have

MARK REGEV: Is that by accident, or is that

MEHDI HASAN: But I have, Mark

MARK REGEV: because Hamas can control Hamas can control the information coming out of Gaza?

MEHDI HASAN: Mark, but you asked me a question, and you said you would be brief. I havent. Youre right. But I have seen lots of children with my own lying eyes being pulled from the rubble. So

MARK REGEV: Now, because theyre the pictures Hamas wants you to see. Exactly my point, Mehdi.

MEHDI HASAN: And also because theyre dead, Mark. Also

MARK REGEV: Theyre the pictures Hamas wants no.

MEHDI HASAN: But theyre also people your government has killed. You accept that, right? Youve killed children? Or do you deny that?

MARK REGEV: No, I do not. I do not. I do not. First of all, you dont know how those people died, those children.

MEHDI HASAN: Oh wow.

AMY GOODMAN: Oh wow, Mehdi Hasan responded, interviewing Netanyahu adviser Mark Regev on MSNBC. Soon after, MSNBC announced that he was losing his shows. Since leaving the network, Mehdi Hasan has launched a new digital media company named Zeteo.

Mehdi, welcome back to Democracy Now! Its great to have you with us. I want to start with that interview you did with Regev. After, you lost your two shows, soon after. Do you think thats the reason those shows were canceled? Interviews like that?

MEHDI HASAN: You would have to ask MSNBC, Amy. And, Amy and Nermeen, thank you for having me on. Its great to be back here after a few years away. Look, the advantage of not being at MSNBC anymore is I get to come on shows like this and talk to you all. You should get someone from MSNBC on and ask them why they canceled the shows, because I cant answer that question. I wish I knew. But there we go.

The shows were canceled at the end of November. I quit at the beginning of January, because I wanted to have a platform of my own. I couldnt really spend 2024, one of the most important news years of our lives genocide in Gaza, fascism at the door here in America with elections couldnt really spend that being a guest anchor and a political analyst, which is what I was offered at MSNBC while I was staying there. I wanted to leave. I wanted to get my voice back. And thats why I launched my own media company, as you mentioned, called Zeteo, which weve done a soft launch on and were going to launch properly next month. But Im excited about all the opportunities ahead, the opportunity to do more interviews like the one I did with Mark Regev.

NERMEEN SHAIKH: So, Mehdi, could you explain Zeteo? First of all, what does it mean? And what is the gap in the U.S. media landscape that you hope to fill? Youve been extremely critical of the U.S. medias coverage of Gaza, saying, quite correctly, that the coverage has not been as consistent or clear as the last time we saw an invasion of this kind, though far less brutal, which was the Russian invasion of Ukraine.

MEHDI HASAN: Yeah, its a great question. So, on Zeteo, its an ancient Greek word, going back to Socrates and Plato, which means to seek out, to search, to inquire for the truth. And at a time when we live in a, some would say, post-truth society or people on the right are attempting to turn it into a post-truth society I thought that was an important endeavor to embark upon as a journalist, to go back to our roots.

In terms of why I launch it and the media space, look, there is a gap in the market, first of all, on the left for a company like this one. Not many progressives have pulled off a for-profit, subscription-based business, media business. Weve seen it on the right, Nermeen, with, you know, Ben Shapiros Daily Wire and Bari Weisss The Free Press, and even Tucker Carlson has launched his own subscription-based platform since leaving Fox. And on the progressive space, we havent really done it. Now, of course, there are wonderful shows like Democracy Now! which are doing important, invaluable journalism on subjects like Gaza, on subjects like the climate. But across the media industry as a whole, sadly, in the U.S., the massive gap is there are not enough I dont know how to put it bluntly, truth tellers, people who are willing to say and when I say truth tellers, I dont just mean, you know, truth in a conventional sense of saying what is true and what is false; Im saying the language in which we talk about what is happening in the world today.

Too many of my colleagues in the media, unfortunately, hide behind lazy euphemisms, a both-sides journalism, the idea that you cant say Donald Trump is racist because you dont know whats in his heart; you cant say the Republican Party is going full fascist, even as they proclaim that they dont believe in democracy as we conventionally understand it; we cant say theres a genocide in Gaza, even though the International Court of Justice says such a thing is plausible. You know, we run away from very blunt terms which help us understand world. And I want to treat American consumers of news, global consumers of news its a global news organization which Im founding with some respect. Stop patronizing them. Tell them what is happening in the world, in a blunt way.

NERMEEN SHAIKH: So, Mehdi, talk about this. I mean, in your criticism of the U.S. medias coverage, in particular, of Israels assault on Gaza I mean, of course, you have condemned what happened, the Hamas attack in Israel on October 7th. Youve also situated the attack in a broader historical frame, and youve received criticism for doing that. And in response, youve said, Context is not causation, and Context is not justification. So, could you explain why you think context, history, is so important, and the way in which this question is kind of elided in U.S. media coverage, not just of the Gaza crisis, but especially so now?

MEHDI HASAN: So, I did an interview with Piers Morgan this week. And if you watch Piers Morgans shows, he always asks his pro-Palestinian guests or anyone criticizing Israel, you know, Condemn what happened on October 7th. Its all about October the 7th. And what happened on October 7th was barbarism. It was a tragedy. It was a terror attack. Civilians were killed. War crimes were carried out. Hostages were taken. And we should condemn it. Of course we should, as human beings, if nothing else.

But the world did not begin on October the 7th. The idea that the entire Middle East conflict, Israel-Palestine, the occupation, apartheid, can be reduced to October 7th is madness. And its not just me saying that. You talk to, you know, leading Israeli peace campaigners, even some leading Israeli generals, people like Shlomo Brom, who talk about having to understand the root causes of a people under occupation fighting for freedom. And its absurd to me that in our media industry people should try and run away from context. My former colleagues Ali Velshi and Ayman Mohyeldin, who Amy mentioned in the introduction, they were on air on October the 7th as news was coming in of the attacks, and they provided context, because theyre two anchors who really understand that part of the world. Ayman Mohyeldin is perhaps the only U.S. anchor whos ever lived in Gaza. And they came under attack online from certain pro-Israel people for providing context. This idea that we should be embarrassed or ashamed or apologetic as journalists for providing context on one of the biggest stories in the world is madness. You cannot understand what is happening in the world unless we, unless you and I, unless journalists, broadcasters, are explaining to our viewers and our listeners and our readers why things are happening, where forces are coming from, why people are behaving the way they do. And I know America is a country of amnesiacs, but we cannot keep acting as if the world just began yesterday.

AMY GOODMAN: I want to ask you about a piece in The Intercept you also used to report for The Intercept the headline, In Internal Meeting, Christiane Amanpour Confronts CNN Brass About 'Double Standards' on Israel Coverage. Its a really interesting piece. They were confronting the executives, and One issue that came up, says The Intercept, repeatedly is CNNs longtime process for routing almost all coverage relating to Israel and Palestine through the networks Jerusalem bureau. As The Intercept reported in January, the protocol which has existed for years but was expanded and rebranded as SecondEyes last summer slows down reporting on Gaza and filters news about the war through journalists in Jerusalem who operate under the shadow of Israels military censor. And then it quotes Christiane Amanpour, identified in a recording of that meeting. She said, Youve heard from me, youve heard my, you know, real distress with SecondEyes changing copy, double standards, and all the rest, Amanpour said. The significance of this and what we see, Mehdi? You know, Im not talking Fox right now. On MSNBC

MEHDI HASAN: Yes.

AMY GOODMAN: and on CNN, you rarely see Palestinians interviewed in extended discussions.

MEHDI HASAN: So, I think theres a few issues there, Amy. Number one, first of all, we should recognize that Christiane Amanpour has done some very excellent coverage of Gaza for CNN in this conflict. Shes had some very powerful interviews and very important guests on. So, credit to Christiane during this conflict. Number two

AMY GOODMAN: International

MEHDI HASAN: I think U.S. media organizations

AMY GOODMAN: I just wanted to say, particularly on CNN International, which is often not seen

MEHDI HASAN: Very good point.

JUAN GONZLEZ: on CNN domestic.

MEHDI HASAN: Very good very good point, Amy. Touch.

The second point, I would say, is U.S. media organizations, as a whole, are engaging in journalistic malpractice by not informing viewers, listeners, readers that a lot of their coverage out of Israel and the Occupied Territories is coming under the shadow of an Israeli military censor. How many Americans understand or even know about the Israeli military censor, about how much information is controlled? We barely understand that Western journalists are kept out of Gaza, or if when they go in, theyre embedded with Israeli military forces and limited to what they can say and do. So I think we should talk about that in a country which kind of prides itself on the First Amendment and free speech and a free press. We should understand the way in which information comes out of the Occupied Territories, in particular from Gaza.

And the third point, I would say, is, yeah, Palestinian voices not being on American television or in American print is one of the biggest problems when it comes to our coverage of this conflict. When we talk about why the media is structurally biased towards one party in this conflict, the more powerful party, the occupier, we have to remember that this is one of the reasons. Why are Palestinians dehumanized in our media? This is one of the reasons. We dont let people speak. Thats what leads to dehumanization. Thats what leads to bias.

We understand it at home when it comes to, for example, Black voices. In recent years, media organizations have tried to take steps to improve diversity on air, when it comes to on-air talent, when it comes to on-air guests, when it comes to balancing panels. We get that we need underrepresented communities to be able to speak. But when it comes to foreign conflicts, we still dont seem to have made that calculation.

There was a study done a few years ago of op-eds in The New York Times and The Washington Post on the subject of Israel-Palestine from 1970 to, I think it was, 2000-and-something, and it was like 2% of all op-eds in the Times and 1% in the Post were written by Palestinians, which is a shocking statistic. We deny these people a voice, and then we wonder why people dont sympathize with their plight or dont arent, you know, marching in the street well, they are marching in the streets but in bigger numbers. Why America is OK and kind of, you know, blind to the fact that we are complicit in a genocide of these people? Because we dont hear from these people.

NERMEEN SHAIKH: Well, Mehdi, I mean, explain why thats especially relevant in this instance, because journalists have not been permitted access to Gaza, so there is no reporting going on on the ground thats being shown here. I mean, dozens and dozens of journalists have signed a letter asking Israel and Egypt to allow journalists access into Gaza. So, if you could talk about that, why its especially important to hear from Palestinian voices here?

MEHDI HASAN: Well, for a start, Nermeen, much of the imagery we see on our screens here or in our newspapers are sanitized images. We dont see the full level of the destruction. And when we try and understand, well, why are young people why is there such a generational gap when it comes to the polling on Gaza, on ceasefire, why are young people so much more antiwar than their elder peers, part of the reason is that young people are on TikTok or Instagram and seeing a much less sanitized version of this war, of Israels bombardment. They are seeing babies being pulled from the rubble, limbs missing. They are seeing hospitals being you know, hospitals carrying out procedures without anesthetic. They are seeing just absolute brutality, the kind of stuff that U.N. humanitarian chiefs are saying we havent seen in this world for 50 years.

And thats the problem, right? If were sanitizing the coverage, Americans arent being told, really, arent being informed, are, again, missing context on what is happening on the ground. And, of course, Israel, by keeping Western journalists out, makes it even easier for those images to be blocked, and therefore you have Palestinian brave Palestinian journalists on the ground trying to film, trying to document their own genocide, streaming it to our phones. And weve seen over a hundred of them killed over the last five months. That is not an accident. That is not a coincidence. Israel wants to stamp out independent voices, stamp out any kind of coverage of its own genocidal behavior.

And therefore, again, youre able to have a debate in this country where the political debate is completely disconnected to the public debate, and the public debate is completely misinformed. Im amazed, Nermeen, when you look at the polling, that theres a majority in favor of a ceasefire, that half of all Democrats say this is a genocide. Americans are saying that to pollsters despite not even getting the full picture. Can you imagine what those numbers would look like if they actually saw what was happening on the ground?

NERMEEN SHAIKH: Well, I want to go to what is unfolding right now in Gaza. You said in a recent interview that in the past Israel was, quote, mowing the lawn, but now the Netanyahu governments intention is to erase the population of Gaza. So lets go to what Prime Minister Netanyahu said about the invasion of Rafah, saying it would go ahead and would last weeks, not months. He was speaking to Politico on Sunday.

PRIME MINISTER BENJAMIN NETANYAHU: Were not going to leave them. You know, I have a red line. You know what the red line is? That October 7th doesnt happen again, never happens again. And to do that, we have to complete the destruction of the Hamas terrorist army. Were very close to victory. Its close at hand. Weve destroyed three-quarters of Hamas fighting terrorist battalions, and were close to finishing the last part in Rafah, and were not going to give it up. Once we begin the intense action of eradicating the Hamas terrorist battalions in Rafah, its a matter of weeks and not months.

NERMEEN SHAIKH: So, Mehdi, your response to what Netanyahu said and what the Israelis have proposed as a safe place for Gazans to go namely, humanitarian islands?

MEHDI HASAN: So, number one, when you hear Netanyahu speak, Nermeen, doesnt it remind you of George Bush in kind of 2002, 2003? Its very you know, invoking 9/11 to justify every atrocity, claiming that youre trying to protect the country, when you, yourself, your idiocy and your incompetency, is what led to the attacks. You know, George Bush was unable to prevent 9/11, and then used 9/11 to justify every atrocity, even though his incompetence helped allow 9/11 to happen. And I feel the same way: Netanyahu allowed the worst terror attack, the worst massacre in Israel to happen on his watch. Many of his own, you know, generals, many of his own people blame him for this. And so, its rich to hear him saying, My aim is to stop this from happening again. Well, you couldnt stop it from happening the first time, and now youre killing innocent Palestinians under the pretense that this is national security.

Number two, again George Bush-like, claiming that the war is nearly done, mission is nearly accomplished, thats nonsense. No serious observer believes that Hamas is finished or that Israel has won some total victory. A member of Netanyahus own war cabinet said recently, Anyone who says you can absolutely defeat Hamas is telling tall tales, is lying. That was a colleague of Netanyahus, in government, who said that.

And number three, the red line on Rafah that Biden suppposedly set down and that Netanyahu is now mocking, saying, My own red line is to do the opposite, what on Earth is Joe Biden doing in allowing Benjamin Netanyahu to humiliate him in this way with this invasion of Rafah, even after he said he opposes it? I mean, its one thing to leak stuff

AMY GOODMAN: Mehdi

MEHDI HASAN: over a few months

AMY GOODMAN: lets go to Biden speaking on MSNBC. Hes being interviewed by your former colleague Jonathan Capehart, as he was being questioned about Benjamin Netanyahu and saying hes hurting Israel more than helping Israel.

PRESIDENT JOE BIDEN: He has a right to defend Israel, a right to continue to pursue Hamas. But he must, he must, he must pay more attention to the innocent lives being lost as a consequence of the actions taken. Hes hurting in my view, hes hurting Israel more than helping Israel by making the rest of the world its contrary to what Israel stands for. And I think its a big mistake. So I want to see a ceasefire.

AMY GOODMAN: And he talked about a, well, kind of a red line. If you can address what Biden is saying and what he proposed in the State of the Union, this pier, to get more aid in, and also the dropping the airdropping of food, which recently killed five Palestinians because it crushed them to death, and the humanitarian groups, United Nations saying these airdrops, the pier come nowhere near being able to provide the aid thats needed, at the same time, and the reason theyre doing all of this, is because Israel is using U.S. bombs and artillery to attack the Palestinians and these aid trucks?

MEHDI HASAN: Yeah, its just so bizarre, the idea that you could drop bombs, on the one hand, and then drop aid, on the other, and youre paying for both, and then your aid ends up killing people, too. Its like some kind of dark Onion headline. Its just beyond parody. Its beyond belief.

And as for the pier, as you say, it does not come anywhere near to adequately addressing the needs of the Palestinian people, in terms of the sheer scale of the suffering, half a million people on the brink of famine, over a million people displaced. Four out of five of the hungriest people in the world, according to the World Food Programme, are in Gaza right now. The idea that this pier would, A, address the scale of the suffering, and, B, in time I mean, its going to take time to do this. What happens to the Palestinians who literally starve to death, including children, while this pier is being built? Finally, I would say, theres reporting in the Israeli press, Amy, that Ive seen that suggests that the pier idea comes from Netanyahu, that the Israeli government are totally fine with this pier, because it allows them still to control land and air access into Gaza, which is what theyve always controlled and which in this war theyve monopolized.

The idea that the United States of America, the worlds only superpower, cannot tell its ally, You know what? Were going to put aid into Gaza because we want to, and youre not going to stop us, especially since were the ones arming you, is bizarre. Its something I think Biden will never be able to get past or live down. Its a stain on his record, on Americas conscience. The idea that were arming a country thats engaged in a plausible genocide, to quote the ICJ, is bad enough. That we cant even get our own aid in, while theyre bombing with our bombs, is just madness. And by the way, its also illegal. Under U.S. law, you cannot provide weaponry to a country which is blocking U.S. aid. And by the way, its not me saying theyre blocking U.S. aid. U.S. government officials have said, Yes, the Israeli government blocked us from sending flour in, for example.

NERMEEN SHAIKH: So, Mehdi, lets go to the regional response to this assault on Gaza thats been unfolding with the kind of violence and tens of thousands of deaths of Palestinians, as weve reported. Now, what has how has the Arab and Muslim world responded to whats going on? Egypt, of course, has repeatedly said that it does not want displaced Palestinians crossing its border. The most powerful Muslim countries, Saudi Arabia, Qatar and the Emirates, if you can talk about how theyve responded? And then the Axis the so-called Axis of Resistance Houthis, Hezbollah, etc. how they have been trying to disrupt this war, or at least make the backers of Israel pay a price for it?

MEHDI HASAN: So, I hear people saying, Oh, were disappointed in the response from the Arab countries. The problem with the word disappointment is it implies you had any expectations to begin with. I certainly didnt. Arab countries have never had the Palestinians backs. The Arab quote-unquote, Arab street has always been very pro-Palestinian. But the autocratic, the despotic, the dictatorial rulers of much of the Arab world have never really had the interests of the Palestinian people at their heart, going back right to 1948, when, you know, Arab countries attacked Israel to push it into the sea, but, actually, as we know from historians like Avi Shlaim, were not doing that at all, and that some of them, like Jordan, had done deals with Israel behind the scenes. So, look, Arab countries have never really prioritized the Palestinian people or their needs or their freedom. And so, when you see some of these statements that come out of the Arab world at times like this, you know, you have to take them with a shovel of salt, not just a grain.

Also, I would point out the hypocrisy here on all sides in the region. You have countries like Saudi Arabia and the UAE, which were involved in a brutal assault on Yemen for many years, carried out very similar acts to Israel in Gaza in terms of blockades, starvation, malnourishment of the Yemeni children, in terms of bombing of refugee camps and hospitals and kids and school buses. That all happened in Yemen. Arab countries did that, lets just be clear about that, things that they criticize Israel for doing now. And, of course, Iran, which sets itself up as a champion of the Palestinan people, when Bashar al-Assad was killing many of his own people, including Palestinian refugees, in places like the al-Yarmouk refugee camp, Iran and Russia, by the way, were both perfectly happy to help arm and support Assad as he did that. So, you know, spare me some of the grandiose statements from Middle East countries, from Arab nations to Iran, on all of it. Theres a lot of hypocrisy to go around.

Very few countries in the world, especially in that region, actually have Palestinian interests at heart. If they did, we would have a very different geopolitical scene. There is reporting, Nermeen, that a lot of these governments, like Saudi Arabia, privately are telling Israel, Finish the job. Get rid of them. We dont like Hamas, either. Get rid of them, and that Saudis actually want to do a deal with Israel once this war is over, just as they were on course to do, apparently, according to the Biden administration. We know that other Arab countries already signed the, quote-unquote, Abraham Accords with Israel on Trumps watch.

AMY GOODMAN: I wanted to ask you about the number of dead Palestinian journalists and also the new U.N. investigation that just accused Israel of breaking international law over the killing of the Reuters video journalist Issam Abdallah in southern Lebanon. On October 13th, an Israeli tank opened fire on him and a group of other journalists. He had just set up a live stream on the border in southern Lebanon, so that all his colleagues at Reuters and others saw him blown up. The report stating, quote, The firing at civilians, in this instance clearly identifiable journalists, constitutes a violation of international law. And its not just Issam in southern Lebanon. Well over a hundred Palestinian journalists in Gaza have died. Weve never seen anything like the concentration of numbers of journalists killed in any other conflict or conflicts combined recently. Can you talk about the lack of outrage of other major news organizations and what Israel is doing here? Do you think theyre being directly targeted, one after another, wearing those well-known press flak jackets? It looks like we just lost audio to Mehdi Hasan.

MEHDI HASAN: Amy, I can I can hear you, Amy, very faintly.

AMY GOODMAN: Oh, OK. So

MEHDI HASAN: Im going to answer your question, if you can still hear me.

AMY GOODMAN: Great. We can hear you perfectly.

MEHDI HASAN: So, youre very faint to me. So, while I speak, if someone want to fix the volume in my ear. Let me answer your question about journalists.

It is an absolute tragedy and a scandal, what has happened to journalists in Gaza, that we have seen so many deaths in Gaza. And the real scandal, Amy, is that Western media, a lot of my colleagues here in the U.S. media, have not sounded the alarm, have not called out Israel for what its done. Its outrageous that so many of our fellow colleagues can be killed in Gaza while reporting, while at home, losing family members, and yet theres not a huge global outcry. When Wael al-Dahdouh, who we just saw on the screen, from Al Jazeera, loses his immediate family members and carries on reporting for Al Jazeera Arabic, why is he not on every front page in the world? Why is he not a hero? Why is he not sitting down with Oprah Winfrey? I feel like, you know, when Evan Gershkovich from The Wall Street Journal is wrongly imprisoned in Russia, we all campaign for Evan to be released. When Ukrainian journalists are killed, we all speak out and are angry about it. But when Palestinian journalists are killed on a level weve never seen before, according to the Committee to Protect Journalists, where is the outcry here in the West over the killing of them? We claim to care about a free press. We claim to oppose countries that crack down on a free press, on journalism. We say journalism is not a crime. But then I dont hear the outrage from my colleagues here at this barbarism in Gaza, where journalists are being killed in record numbers.

The rest is here:
Mehdi Hasan on Genocide in Gaza, the Silencing of Palestinian Voices in U.S. Media & Why He Left MSNBC - Democracy Now!