|
How US, Facebook Are 'Complicit in Censoring Non-Western Media' |
|
|
Tuesday, 01 May 2018 13:20 |
|
Reynoso writes: "The United States prides itself on being the land of the free; however, this narrative shifts in regards to U.S. government censorship of non-Western media, particularly through major social media outlets such as Facebook."
Facebook. (photo: AP)

How US, Facebook Are 'Complicit in Censoring Non-Western Media'
By Val Reynoso, teleSUR
01 May 18
It's more than evident that non-Western media are having their rights to free speech infringed upon, writes Val Reynoso.
he United States prides itself on being the land of the free; however, this narrative shifts in regards to U.S. government censorship of non-Western media, particularly through major social media outlets such as Facebook.
Contemporary social media giants and politicians have been complicit in the censorship of media coverage that opposes that of mainstream news, with the justification that such outlets pose a threat to U.S. values; violate the safety of U.S. allies, and are backed by nations and proxies that are political opponents of the United States. While some may argue that suppression of such news is beneficial to public safety in the United States, doing so is an infringement of free speech. In addition, alternative media sources whose stances don't align with those of Washington are vital in helping expose government corruption and U.S. involvement in the Global South – information that is oftentimes biased or ignored in Western media in favor of hegemonic imperialist forces.
Moreover, leading social media corporations such as Facebook, Twitter and YouTube have strengthened their artificial intelligence systems and repress user content, at the request of the U.S. government and in partnership with U.S. spy organizations. According to a report from MintPressNews, the director of the Global Policy Management at Facebook, Monika Bickert, said Facebook now has a rapidly growing security team consisting of 10,000 members, with 7,500 of them in charge of assessing what the media giant considers potentially violating content. The team also has a counterterrorism group made up of former intelligence and law enforcement figures who specialized in counterterrorism. Facebook has collaborated with numerous other companies to form a blacklist of media content identified by the corporation as violating standards and which would ultimately be restricted from all social media, according to Bickert.
Advocates of censoring media perceived as a 'foreign threat' justify this because they believe such media endangers their existence and encourages political opposition. Contrary to what these censorship advocates – incuding some U.S. politicians – believe, it is undeniable that state-backed media repression purposely targets anti-U.S. establishment media and anti-Western narratives surrounding the Middle East and affiliated groups. For instance, in March, congressmen addressed a letter to Attorney General Jeff Sessions stating that Qatari news outlet Al Jazeera is a mouthpiece for Qatari foreign policy views, appears to be a state-controlled operation, and is a source of deceptive propaganda. The congressmen also consider the news station to be anti-American, anti-Semitic and anti-Israeli, given its commentary on organizations such as Hamas and Hezbollah. Reports that run contrary to those of the West are deemed a threat and therefore deserving of having their free speech infringed upon, but outlets that air favorably on Western views are not seen as a threat to the U.S. establishment and as a result do not experience media repression.
Congressmen aren't the only ones who have explicitly voiced opposition to non-Western news companies; Facebook has also targeted publications that support such views. On March 24, Facebook shut down the page of Palestinian news source the Safa Palestinian Press Agency and also removed their Instagram account. The social media corporation provided no explanation for this, other than stating that the outlet violated community standards.
Given all this, it's more than evident that non-Western media are having their rights to free speech infringed upon. The only solution is for these companies to have their full rights restored and for social media giants and the U.S. government to not restrict the speech of those who simply have a view that does not align with their own agendas.

|
|
FOCUS: Want to Bring Down Trump? Follow the People Who Follow the Money |
|
|
Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=31568"><span class="small">Rebecca Gordon, TomDispatch</span></a>
|
|
Tuesday, 01 May 2018 11:03 |
|
Gordon writes: "Maybe bookkeepers and accountants deserve a little more respect. They're often the ones who actually bring down corrupt officials through dogged attention to those 'irrelevant' distractions."
Donald Trump. (photo: AP)

Want to Bring Down Trump? Follow the People Who Follow the Money
By Rebecca Gordon, TomDispatch
01 May 18
Recently, I visited New York’s Guggenheim Museum for a show of conceptual art by Danh Vo, whose family fled Vietnam as the American war there ended in 1975. He was four years old when he became a refugee and, through a series of flukes, found himself in Denmark, which has been his home ever since. Much of his work is focused on that grim war and the colonial history leading up to it. Among the eerie exhibits at the Guggenheim are two chairs (stripped down and exhibited in bits and pieces) that originally came from the White House cabinet room. Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara and President John F. Kennedy used them while discussing key Vietnam decisions. Jackie Kennedy gave them to McNamara after her husband’s death (and Vo bought them at a Sotheby’s auction). There are also a series of notes that Henry Kissinger, President Richard Nixon’s national security adviser and then secretary of state, a man deeply involved in the horrors of that same war, sent to the New York Post’s Broadway gossip columnist Leonard Lyons. In those letters, successively framed on a wall, Dr. K responds to offers of free ballet and Broadway show tickets that Lyons seems to have regularly dangled in front of him. They capture the smallest scale form of corruption imaginable but are no less eerie for that. In perhaps the creepiest one, Kissinger writes Lyons jokingly in May 1970, “Dear Leonard, You must be a fiend. I would choose your ballet over contemplation of Cambodia any day -- if only I were given the choice. Keep tempting me; one day perhaps I will succumb.” Keep in mind that this was just months after he had transmitted a presidential order to the U.S. military to intensify the devastating secret bombing of that land with these words: "A massive bombing campaign in Cambodia. Anything that flies on anything that moves." Ballet indeed.
Those ticket offers, of course, were something less than a Teapot Dome scandal, but they certainly should be considered a reminder that Washington has been and remains a swamp in every sense of the word. In his 2016 campaign, Donald Trump swore that he would drain that very swamp, shut down K Street lobbying activities, and bring that city's myriad revolving doors to a halt. Instead, a year and a quarter into his presidency, he and his administration are already involved in a staggering set of activities guaranteed to swamp the drain in Washington. We don’t know about ballet or theater tickets for Trump administration figures yet. (That will perhaps await some conceptual artist of the mid-twenty-first century.) We do, however, already know about a veritable deluge of everyday corruption at the highest levels, ranging from condo rentals to plane flights to dining room furniture -- and that’s just the churn at the edges of that drain. There are already at least 10 investigations of, for instance, Environmental Protection Agency head Scott Pruitt’s profligate spending habits. And at the center of that vortex of corruption lies the president and his family, the man whose taxes remain an American mystery and who couldn’t even get them in on time this year. He’s brought his family operation directly into the Oval Office, along with his daughter and son-in-law, and they’ve all but raised his Golden Letters over the building. So I’m sure you won’t be surprised that his new hotel, just down Pennsylvania Avenue from the White House, has become a must-stop spot for every lobbyist, foreign diplomat, or anyone else who cares to influence the Oval Office.
The question, of course, is: Who exactly will find the ultimate piece of tape on the latch of the Trump Organization’s basement door? TomDispatch regular Rebecca Gordon, author of American Nuremberg: The U.S. Officials Who Should Stand Trial for Post-9/11 War Crimes, suspects that it’s likely to be a classic “bean counter” and, with that in mind, she’s written a paean of prospective praise to the one or ones who will someday take down the president. Think of it as an ode not on a Grecian urn, but on a gimlet-eyed accountant.
-Tom Engelhardt, TomDispatch
Want to Bring Down Donald Trump? Follow the People Who Follow the Money
hey call people like us “bean counters” -- the soulless ones beavering away in some windowless accounting department, the living calculators who don’t care about desperation or aspirations, who just want you to turn in your expense report on time and explain those perfectly legitimate charges on the company credit card. We’re the ones whose demands are mere distractions from any organization’s or government agency’s true mission.
But maybe bookkeepers and accountants deserve a little more respect. They’re often the ones who actually bring down corrupt officials through dogged attention to those “irrelevant” distractions. It wasn’t for nothing that Washington Post reporters Woodward and Bernstein decided to “follow the money” when they were trying to unravel the mystery of the Watergate scandal. By following that infamous money trail, the two journalists were indeed able to discover secret campaign funds used to pay off the people who had burglarized Democratic Party offices in the Watergate building, along with the men who later covered it up. Eventually that money trail led all the way to Richard Nixon’s reelection campaign, and uncovering it brought down a corrupt president.
If, one of these days, Donald Trump is taken down, it may well be the bean counters who ultimately do it. When it comes to draining the Trumpian swamp, they’ve already done a pretty good job on several of his appointees. Think, for instance of Environmental Protection Agency head Scott Pruitt’s $43,000 soundproof booth and Secretary of Housing and Urban Development Ben Carson’s $31,000 customized dining room set.
The Keys to the Kingdom
I’m old, as I like to tell the students I now teach, so I’ve done a lot of things in my life. For some years, almost by accident, I made my living as a bookkeeper and accountant. (The difference between the two isn’t actually a legal one; often it’s more a question of gender than anything else, with a bookkeeper more likely to be a woman and an accountant a man. A certified public accountant is a licensed professional who has the authority to audit an organization’s books. A regular accountant is anyone who understands debits and credits.)
When I was young, there were generally three career paths open to a woman with a bachelor’s degree: teacher, nurse, and secretary. As a college student in those ancient days before computers took over, I’d refused to learn touch-typing because I was determined never to be a secretary. However, after a stint packing ice cream cones in a factory and a few years as a clerk in Oregon’s state-run liquor stores, I found myself at a temp agency looking for something that might pay a little better. As it turned out, there was a 25-cents-per-hour differential in pay between a “general office worker” and an “accounting clerk.” The latter, however, had to know how to run a 10-key calculator by touch. I admit it: I lied and swore that I could. Eventually, after clicking those keys often enough, I learned how to do it pretty well.
Later, a friend initiated me into the mysteries of double-entry bookkeeping. I learned why debits (and expenses) are positive and credits (and income) negative, and how at any given moment the whole system should total up to a beautiful zero. I worked by hand in those days, making entries in journals with actual pages. The company’s general ledger was an actual ledger: a big, leather-bound book. When it came time to transfer my skills to computerized systems, I counted myself lucky to have a physical, kinesthetic understanding of accounting.
Eventually, I used those skills to give nonprofits a hand in grasping one of the keys to power: understanding their own money. I helped them stay out of trouble with the IRS and avoid fines from the California Fair Political Practices Commission. I showed them that their much-coveted 501(c)(3) status did not mean that they had to eschew all political work -- that they could, for example, focus on ballot initiatives. I taught immigrant women how to control their own organization’s budget and understand what their financial statements could tell them about where their money came from and how they were spending it.
Who invented this brilliant system of debits and credits? Arguments over this still rage -- albeit in dusty corners of the academic world. It seems clear that a fifteenth-century Italian mathematician, Luca Pacioli, wrote the first formal treatise on the subject of accounting, laying out the system pretty much in its modern form. But claims have been made for earlier origins in disparate parts of the medieval world, including India, the Islamic empire in northern Africa and the Iberian Peninsula (today’s Spain and Portugal), and imperial China.
It’s clear at least that, without Arabic numerals (courtesy of the medieval Arab mathematicians, who also gave us algebra), double-entry bookkeeping would have been impossible. Without systematic double-entry bookkeeping -- to accurately record not only what an enterprise receives and spends but what it is owed and owes -- capitalism itself would have been almost inconceivable. Today, understanding how money is counted and accounted for offers those of us who seek to expose capitalism’s plundering and exploitation a powerful tool for laying bare thieves of state like Donald Trump.
Counting Beans
Maybe accountants and all the rest of us should stop thinking of the epithet “bean counter” as an insult. What could be more important, after all, than keeping track of humanity’s most basic needs? We need to count the foods we eat, the stuff we drink, the clothes that cover us, and the plants and animals they come from. We need to know if we have enough and to make decisions about how to use any surplus our labors generate. Do we invest it in projects that serve the common good (health care, education, libraries, parks, renewable energy, infrastructure) or do we transfer that surplus into the hands of a very few, creating a global gilded age of plutocrats on a planet in danger of becoming uninhabitable?
It’s only by such accounting that we can grasp what expressions like “wealth disparity” and “income inequality” actually mean in people’s lives. If you’ve been poor, you know what it is to be cold or hungry, to feel anxiety about tomorrow’s meals and where they’ll come from. In 2016, the U.S. Department of Agriculture reported that this anxiety, called “food insecurity” by the experts, affected at least one in eight Americans. That’s 42 million people, 13 million of them children. And that was before House Agriculture Committee Chairman Michael Conaway proposed to slash the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or SNAP (formerly the food stamp program), over the next 10 years, by more than $20 billion. Such vicious cuts constitute a minor “fix” in response to the staggering federal deficit -- expected to increase $1 trillion by 2020 and $1.9 trillion by 2028 -- thanks to President Trump’s tax “reform” bill. The proposed SNAP reductions are to be accompanied by punitive new work requirements -- despite the fact that, as the Center for Budget and Policy Priorities (CBPP) explains, most recipients are already working -- even if at precarious, unstable jobs.
The CBPP, by the way, is an excellent example of the contributions to human well-being of people who know how to count beans -- and dollars. The members of that group dig deep into every federal budget to reveal the often-hidden national priorities it represents. They work ceaselessly to present a vision of national security based on the actual security and well-being of the people of this country, rather than on using our military forces to destroy the security and well-being of people in other nations.
Not only has such bean counting helped keep us food-secure for much of human history, history itself -- as defined by written records of human activity -- began with the need to count beans, or more generally to keep track of things people needed for food, drink, and clothing. The earliest Mesopotamian writings are enumerations on clay tablets of wheat, sheep, and importantly, beer. From this written method of counting and recording things emerged the first writing systems. And writing in turn, allowed us to preserve for the future our species’ history and all the great literature of the world, from the Hindu Vedas to Sappho’s lyrics to Kendrick Lamar’s hip-hop rhymes.
Follow the Money
But how, to return to the present, are the bean counters supposed to bring down Donald Trump? By following the money to reveal the international morass of gangsterism and corruption that is the Trump Organization. First, they’ll have to pick off his venal appointees like EPA director Scott Pruitt, with his penchant for first-class flights, $100,000 SUVs with bullet-resistant seats, and frequent flights home to Oklahoma at taxpayer expense. Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke has taken airborne luxury a step farther, preferring to charter private planes for his travel -- like the $12,375 taxpayers spent to fly him the thousand miles from Las Vegas to his hometown of Whitefish, Montana.
Then there are the people who worked on Trump’s campaign. Special counsel Robert Mueller has already indicted former Trump campaign director Paul Manafort and his deputy Rick Gates for laundering $18.5 million earned for lobbying work they did in Ukraine and this country. Following the bean trail also led prosecutors to uncover Manafort’s and Gates’s $2 million payments to a Washington lobbying firm working for Ukraine's former president, Viktor Yanukovych, and his pro-Russia party -- although the two Trump campaign workers had never registered as agents for this foreign client. You may recall that Michael Flynn, briefly Trump’s national security adviser, found himself in similar trouble for failing to register as an agent of the Turkish government.
Closer to home, there’s Jared Kushner, Trump’s son-in-law and security-clearance-less adviser on all things Mexican and on bringing peace to the Middle East. Following the money trail allowed New York Times journalists to report that Kushner’s real estate business got startlingly large loans from Apollo Global Management, one of the world’s biggest private equity firms. That was after he had several meetings at the White House with one of the company’s founders, Joshua Harris, who was reportedly under consideration for a White House job, although, as the Times indicates, “the job never materialized.” The Apollo loan refinanced an already-mortgaged Kushner family “Chicago skyscraper” and “was triple the size of the average property loan made by Apollo’s real estate lending arm.”
Then there was the under-reported Deutsche Bank-Trump-Kushner connection, which Congresswoman Maxine Waters has doggedly pursued and Mueller is now investigating. The bank, suspected of using so-called mirror trading to launder money for Russian oligarchs, has loans with Trump's real estate business totaling as much as $364 million; Deutsche has also extended lines of credit in the millions of dollars to the Kushners. Some might consider that a possible significant conflict of interest for a U.S. president. CNN has also reported that Mueller interviewed “at least two Russian oligarchs” about possible contributions to the 2016 Trump campaign.
It’s not just Deutsche Bank that has occasionally bailed out the Trump and Kushner operations with mega-loans. As the Nation magazine reported, both operations have long relied on the kindness of Russian bankers:
“The Trump and Kushner families, a marriage (via Ivanka) between two of New York’s leading real-estate dynasties, are multiply connected to Russian real-estate deals. ‘We don’t rely on American banks,’ said Eric Trump back in 2014. ‘We have all the funding we need out of Russia.’”
None of this should be too surprising, given what is apparently a long association with Russian gangsters and their oligarch bosses. As former Wall Street Journal reporter Glenn Simpson told a congressional committee, Trump “built relationships with Russian gangsters who were themselves tied to the Russian government.” Those ties were related to money-losing golf courses in Ireland and Scotland. Simpson testified that Trump’s gangster ties go back decades to his association with the Italian mafia, whose loans may well have kept some of his businesses afloat. But wait, there’s more! In Panama, the Trump Organization lent its name to the Trump Ocean Club Panama, a high-rise condo where Russian and other organized-crime figures evidently used the purchase and sale of units to launder millions.
And then there’s that potential firestorm of a subject: Did the Trump Organization use real estate deals to launder money from global criminal activities of various sorts? The New York Times describes a number of possible deals involving shady characters in countries from Azerbaijan to Panama, not to mention the U.S. Such deals may well have allowed government officials and other thieves to turn ill-gotten gains into clean money by parking it in shell corporations, which then invested in real estate. When condos or shares in a building are sold to another party, hey presto, the dirty money is now clean.
Suspicions have long been rife that Trump & Co. were neck deep in the dismal swamp of pay-to-play money laundering and other I’ll-scratch-your-back-you-scratch-mine corruption schemes. But no one will be sure until the bean counters get their hands on the appropriate documents and lay out that money trail, dollar by ruble by hryvnia by peso, for Robert Mueller and others to follow. And when that happens, we can thank the women and men clicking their calculators and filling their spreadsheets in the accounting department.
Rebecca Gordon, a TomDispatch regular, teaches at the University of San Francisco. She is the author of American Nuremberg: The U.S. Officials Who Should Stand Trial for Post-9/11 War Crimes. Her previous books include Mainstreaming Torture: Ethical Approaches in the Post-9/11 United States and Letters from Nicaragua. Prior to her academic life, she worked as an accountant for a variety of nonprofit organizations, including as controller of the Tides Foundation in San Francisco.
Follow TomDispatch on Twitter and join us on Facebook. Check out the newest Dispatch Book, Alfred McCoy's In the Shadows of the American Century: The Rise and Decline of U.S. Global Power, as well as John Dower's The Violent American Century: War and Terror Since World War II, John Feffer's dystopian novel Splinterlands, Nick Turse's Next Time They’ll Come to Count the Dead, and Tom Engelhardt's Shadow Government: Surveillance, Secret Wars, and a Global Security State in a Single-Superpower World.

|
|
|
FOCUS: Michelle Wolf Slays Useless White House Correspondents' Dinner |
|
|
Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=48123"><span class="small">Matt Taibbi, The Rolling Stone</span></a>
|
|
Tuesday, 01 May 2018 10:41 |
|
Taibbi writes: "Could this be the long-overdue end of the Sycophants' Ball?"
Michelle Wolf provides the entertainment at the 2018 White House Correspondents Association Annual Dinner at the Washington Hilton Hotel. (photo: REX Shutterstock)

Michelle Wolf Slays Useless White House Correspondents' Dinner
By Matt Taibbi, The Rolling Stone
01 May 18
Could this be the long-overdue end of the Sycophants' Ball?
fter the annual mutual congratulation session known as the White House Correspondents' Dinner concluded Saturday, NBC News White House reporter Kelly O'Donnell distanced herself from the program. O'Donnell thought Daily Show comedienne Michelle Wolf had been too rough on Trump press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders.
"The spirit of the event had always been jokes that singe but don't burn," O'Donnell wrote.
Like your reporting, you mean?
The White House Correspondents' dinner has always been a bad aristocratic joke, the punch line obvious to everyone but the participants. "Make a joke – but not a real one" has been its unofficial motto since forever.
That is exactly what was said, for instance, in 1996, when shock jock Don Imus made his infamous appearance at the Radio and TV Correspondents’ dinner. Somehow reporters were surprised when Imus said the same things in front of Bill and Hillary Clinton he'd been saying on the radio for years, making jokes about Whitewater and Bill's womanizing rep, among other things. The D.C. press was horrified.
"Now none of us can go on [Imus's] show again," complained Cokie Roberts.
"We wanted some discomfort, but not that much," said ABC's Jackie Judd, one of that event's organizers, perfectly predicting future sentiments about Wolf.
The Imus incident really should have been the last correspondents' ball of any kind, as it revealed the basic nature of the proceeding. It's designed to be a chummy mutual admiration society, in which pols and pundits dressed in black tie stroke each other to the edge of ecstasy over champagne and filet mignon.
A comic is often invited. The humorist's job is to make an anodyne joke or two about the first family before rapidly sitting down and shutting the %$^k up (a curtsey is optional).
After this "roast," the president is supposed to get up and take a free shot at one or two or six of the administration's most hated journos, before quickly retreating into a state of feigned respect for the weasel-audience.
It's a repulsive scene, and only ever becomes interesting when someone forgets to tell the comic to leave the gloves on, as with Wolf.
The consensus among media pros seems to be that Wolf went too far with a routine that began, "Like a porn star says when she's about to have sex with a Trump, let's get this over with."
The line most-often cited as being the most offensive was this one, aimed at Sanders: "I actually really like Sarah. I think she's very resourceful. But she burns facts and then she uses that ash to create a perfect smokey eye…"
It seems this was a makeup joke, and too mean for poor Sanders – who of course spends her days non-answering questions directed by this same White House "press" toward the Trump White House.
Rather than be offended by that, the press took offense on Sanders' behalf. O'Donnell's NBC colleague Andrea Mitchell tweeted a typical reaction:
"Apology is owed to @PressSec and others grossly insulted ny [sic] Michelle Wolf at White House Correspondents Assoc dinner which started with uplifting heartfelt speech by @margarettalev - comedian was worst since Imus insulted Clinton's [sic]"
Apparently Mitchell is still scarred by that 1996 experience of having to watch a comedian make a mean joke to the face of a sitting president, and not be executed on the spot.
Of course, there was no chance of that this year, as the current president does not attend the correspondents' ball – not for any good reason, of course, but because he can't take a joke and also is preemptively bitter that he won't be slobbered over by the audience as was the custom with, say, Barack Obama.
That didn't mean Wolf let Trump off the hook. On the contrary, she ripped him from start to finish, to the early delight of the crowd.
"You can't shut me up as a woman ... unless you are Michael Cohen and wire me $130,000," she joked. "You can find me on Venmo under my porn star name, Reince Priebus."
But the crowd of reporters turned silent when Wolf started in on them, noting that we in the media could be covering a lot of things, but instead only cover "like three topics":
"Every hour it's Trump, Russia, Hillary, and a panel of four people who remind you why you don't go home for Thanksgiving," she quipped.
The laughs here slowed to a kind of half-laughing, half-grumbling sound that Steve Martin would have called "just a general murmur."
"You guys are obsessed with Trump," Wolf went on, smiling. "Did you use to date him? You pretend like you hate him, but I think you love him."
Murmur, murmur, murmur!
"What no one in this room wants to admit is Trump helped all of you," she went on. "He couldn't sell steaks, vodka, water, college, ties or Eric. [But] he has helped you sell your papers, books, and TV. You created this monster, and now you're profiting off of him."
She went on to remind the crowd that there's still no clean water in Flint, a not-so-subtle reference to the topics we could be covering instead of the all-Trump, all-the-time format that everyone from Les Moonves of CBS to CNN International chief Tony Maddox has admitted has been great for the bottom line of our business.
Afterward, the head of the White House Correspondents' Association, Margaret Talev, effusively apologized for her own invitee's unconscionable decision to say true things in public.
"Last night's program was meant to offer a unifying message about our common commitment to a vigorous and free press while honoring civility," Talev wrote. "Unfortunately, the entertainer's monologue was not in the spirit of that mission."
Everything that is revolting about the D.C. press corps was on display in this incident. On the one hand, who cares – it's just a party, right? On the other hand, why are we partying with the people we're supposed to be covering?
The reason is that a significant portion of the national press corps genuinely gets off on the experience of being close to power. They love going to fancy restaurants and being whispered to by a Senatorial aide or, better yet, an actual Senator. Even more titillating is being handed a packet of secrets by someone at the CIA, the FBI, the Pentagon!
This is why so many journalists circle the wagons when someone dares to interrupt their public love sessions with the people who misuse our tax money, bomb innocent civilians, lie to us, give get-out-of-jail free cards to white collar criminals, etc.
We're supposed to recoil from them, as from scorpions, but instead we host dinners for them, beg for photo ops, and defend them from even the most remotely pointed barbs. It's gross.
The 1999 Overseas Press Club awards, in which famous journos ripped then-Pacifica reporters Jeremy Scahill and Amy Goodman for disrupting the ceremony to ask a question about Kosovo of keynote speaker and Clinton Yugoslavia envoy Richard Holbrooke, was a classic example of the wagon-circling phenomenon.
Wolf's take on the press relationship to Trump, of course, was dead-on. The press affects to hate Trump, and on an individual level some reporters may, but the degree to which he's been a financial boon to the entire media business has long been the dirty little secret of the Trump era. The bit about acting like we used to date him is totally true. There's a glee in how much we talk about him that's unseemly.
Moreover, while the vast majority of reporters in this country don't work in Washington or get off on prostrating themselves before the rich and powerful, the most visible among us do often act that way, which has considerable impact on public perception of the press.
We didn't just "create this monster" by giving Trump oodles of free coverage during the campaign season. We also did so by too often acting like courtiers to power instead of adversaries who challenge it, behavior that allowed the billionaire Trump to ludicrously – but successfully – portray the press as the real "elite" during the 2016 race, while he, Trump, was just a regular guy.
The White House Correspondents' Dinner has always been an odd concept. It's strange to me when reporters try to have friends at all, much less ones in the White House. What's the point? If the public thinks the news is Nerf-balled and stage-managed for our powerful would-be buddies – "some discomfort, but not that much" – they'll tune us out more than they already have.
To me this is like the all-too-common scenario when pundits and pols who rip each other on TV glad-hand each other and exchange digits in the green room afterward. The public may not see these scenes, but they pick up on the phoniness nonetheless, and end up hating press and politicians alike.
There haven't been too many positive developments of the Trump years, but the end of black tie lovefests and the charade of buddy-buddy press-pol relations might be one. Is being on the outside so bad?

|
|
Jeff Weaver: "Bernie Would Have Won. Period." |
|
|
Tuesday, 01 May 2018 08:29 |
|
Thompson writes: "Weaver thinks Bernie's still the one to take on Trump. 'I also believe he is the strongest candidate to reclaim the White House in 2020 in this moment in history,' Weaver writes - adding the standard caveat that Sanders hasn't yet decided to run."
Bernie Sanders. (photo: Antonella Crescimbeni)

Jeff Weaver: "Bernie Would Have Won. Period."
By Alex Thompson, VICE
01 May 18
he 2016 presidential election never ends. Hillary Clinton wrote a book about it. So did James Comey. Reporters and political scientists have written a shelf full of them, and there's more coming. Historians will have their turn soon enough.
Now add to the list Jeff Weaver, Bernie Sanders’ campaign manager, whose 2016 tell-all was obtained early by VICE News before its release next month.
While those legacy-focused books aim at reputation management while sharing campaign gossip and airing grievances — this book has those, too — this one is written with the future in mind. Namely, a possible 2020 presidential campaign.
“Run, Bernie, Run!” are the final words of Weaver’s book, "How Bernie Won: Inside the Revolution That’s Taking Back Our Country—and Where We Go From Here," a title that suggests Bernieworld doesn’t think the revolution is over.
Indeed, Weaver thinks Sanders has the “neoliberal,” “corporatist” Democrats on the run. There’s reason to think he may be right, as many 2020 contenders are now embracing liberal positions that Sanders has held for decades, like Medicare for all, tuition-free college, and even public option banking at post offices.
But Weaver thinks Bernie’s still the one to take on Trump.
“I also believe he is the strongest candidate to reclaim the White House in 2020 in this moment in history,” Weaver writes — adding the standard caveat that Sanders hasn’t yet decided to run.
Before the 2020 race officially starts in about six months, however, Weaver wants to talk 2016 and what he thinks people either got wrong or missed. Most notably, he wants to rewrite some of the conventional wisdom about Hillary Clinton, race, the media, and, of course, Bernie Bros.
Here are some of the highlights of the book, which is officially out May 15. (You can buy it here.)
“We caught her cheating”
Weaver isn’t quite over the rough primary fight (neither is Clinton, for that matter) and rehashes instances when he felt the Clinton campaign played cheaper and dirtier than politics-as-usual. From flouting debate rules to colluding with the DNC to spreading disinformation online, Weaver argues that Clinton didn't win the nomination fair and square.
Weaver’s recollections are further informed by emails that WikiLeaks published during the election from the DNC and Clinton campaign chairman John Podesta.
“[G]etting the questions in advance was cheating,” Weaver writes about how CNN commentator Donna Brazile leaked debate questions to the Clinton camp beforehand (a revelation from the Podesta emails).
He recounts another instance when “we caught her cheating” at a debate by huddling with her campaign staff during a break. “We had photographic evidence that during a critical debate following a surprise loss in Michigan, the front-runner for the Democratic nomination was cheating,” he writes. The mainstream media’s response, he complains, was “radio silence.”
He's also especially critical of Clinton ally David Brock, who ran the Correct the Record super PAC (Weaver says campaign aides called it “Distort the Record”). The super PAC regularly spent at least a $1 million to flood comment sections on sites like Facebook and Reddit and regularly shopped around opposition research on Sanders while allowing the Clinton campaign to maintain deniability.
Weaver recounts Bernie’s quip to Time magazine about Brock in 2016: “I don’t think you hire scum of the Earth to be on your team just because the other side does it.”
Let’s not and say we did
The primary race was so tense at one point that the traditional congratulatory call after the South Carolina primary was handled by him and top Clinton aide Huma Abedin instead of the candidates themselves.
Weaver recounts that he called Abedin to find out the best way to call Clinton after the election results came in. Abedin said Clinton would likely be traveling, and when Weaver insisted, she replied, “If it’s OK with you, let’s just count the call we're having right now as the congratulatory call.” She said. “And if anyone asks, we will certainly say that Bernie called.”
FDR’s fifth term?
Forget Obama’s third term. Weaver says one of his biggest regrets regarding strategy was not trying harder to cast Sanders as the heir to Franklin Roosevelt’s Democratic Party in contrast to the more moderate Clinton version.
“What was not sufficiently articulated by us was that in many ways Bernie was running for FDR’s fifth term,” he writes. “Bernie Sanders represented a rediscovery of the values of the Democratic Party’s modern roots and an articulation of the unfinished business of the New Deal. By contrast, the neoliberals are a recent aberration.”
Perhaps the FDR angle will be more pronounced in a 2020 campaign.
Bernie Bros are fake news
Not surprisingly, Weaver says the most persistent caricature of the Bernie supporter is a myth. He takes on what he calls the “Berniebros meme advanced by the media and echoed by the Clinton campaign.”
“There is no doubt that there were some supporters who posted offensive and hateful content,” Weaver concedes, adding the campaign tried “to tamp it down.”
What’s irks Weaver more, however, is that this meme devalued the real support Bernie had from minority communities and fed the narrative that Sanders could only win white dudes.
“Soon it was being said that all Bernie supporters were racist, misogynistic, 21-year-old men. There were no women, no people of color. Just Berniebros,” he wrote.
Perhaps with an eye on 2020, Weaver attempts to debunk this narrative, emphasizing Sanders’ interactions with black and Latino activists on the campaign trail, including “dedicated cadres of African-American surrogates” in the South Carolina primary, including Dr. Cornel West, former NAACP head Ben Jealous, and actor Danny Glover.
He also recounts a moment when campaign aides watched a four-minute ad for Sanders featuring Erica Garner, the daughter of Eric Garner, the black man choked to death by police on the street in New York City for allegedly selling loose cigarettes, whose "I can't breathe" plea became a rallying cry against police violence.
“He’s not scared to go up against the criminal justice system. He’s not scared,” Garner says of Sanders in the ad while recounting the death of her father. Weaver recalls when he first watched the ad with campaign colleagues: “As I looked around at the rest of the staff, I understood what the expression ‘not a dry eye in the house’ really meant.”
Weaver even publishes internal campaign poll data from the Nevada caucus showing Sanders beating Clinton among Latino voters (a claim the Clinton campaign called “bullshit” at the time). “This reality went to the heart of their false narrative that Bernie had no support from voters of color,” Weaver writes.
There was some truth to the narrative that black voters largely preferred Clinton during the primary race, but Weaver argues it had more to do with Clinton’s decades of experience in Democratic politics rather than a racial tone-deafness from Bernie.
Weaver goes on to accuse the Clinton campaign of pushing this race narrative for their own benefit. “This fact, that Bernie was winning with young people of all races, was ignored by most of the media,” he says after recalling Sanders' surprise win in the Michigan primary when he tied Clinton with black voters under 40. “It ran counter to the Clinton campaign’s self-serving message.”
And of course, Bernie would have ...
Weaver also ends the book with a message echoed as an anthem by many Sanders supporters after Trump took the election: “Finally, let me be upfront about what I am sure is painfully obvious,” Weaver writes.
“Bernie would have won. Period.”

|
|