On July 11, a group of men overran a polling station in Ablekuma North constituency and assaulted a candidate, forcing voting to be temporarily suspended.

Kwabena Agyekum Banahene, a reporter with GHOne TV, told CPJ that amid the turmoil, a police officer asked him to leave the area and slapped and pushed him. Banahene’s mouth was injured, according to GhanaWeb.

At the same polling station, ATV Ghana reporter Vida Wiafe was hit with pepper spray deployed by police, according to a video posted by Metro TV Ghana. CPJ could not confirm whether the journalist was deliberately targeted. 

In a third incident at the polling station, a partially masked man struck with his hand and shoved Joy News reporter Sally Martey from behind, a video posted by the outlet showed.

“The July 11 assaults on journalists Kwabena Agyekum Banahene and Sally Martey, as well as the tear-gassing of reporter Vida Wiafe, are just the latest examples of the threats regularly faced by journalists in Ghana,” said CPJ Regional Director Angela Quintal. “There has not been enough accountability for attacks on the press — it should be a top priority for authorities.”

In a July 12 statement, police promised to arrest anyone found to have engaged in acts of violence during the Ablekuma North elections. Banahene told CPJ that he reported his attack to the police and the officer involved was suspended and charged. 

In April, CPJ wrote to President John Dramani Mahama — on his 100^th day in office— to call for swift investigations into cases of attacks against the press.

CPJ’s calls and text messages seeking comment from police spokesperson Grace Ansah-Akrofi received no response.

This content originally appeared on Committee to Protect Journalists and was authored by CPJ Staff.

More than 400 candidates have put their hands up to contest the Bougainville general election in September, hoping to enter Parliament.

Incumbent President Ishmael Toroama is among the 404 people lining up to win a seat.

Bougainville is involved in the process of achieving independence from Papua New Guinea — an issue expected to dominate campaigning, which lasts until the beginning of September.

• READ MORE: Other Bougainville reports

Voting is scheduled to start on September 2, finishing a week later, depending on the weather.

Seven candidates — all men — are contesting the Bougainville presidency. This number is down from when 25 people stood, including two women.

Toroama is seeking a second term and is being challenged by his former colleague in the leadership of the Bougainville Revolutionary Army (BRA), Sam Kauona.

Kauona is one of several contesting a second time, along with Thomas Raivet and a former holder of the Bougainville Regional Seat in the PNG Parliament, Joe Lera.

There are 46 seats to be decided, including six new constituencies.

Two seats will have 21 candidates: the northern seat of Peit and the Ex-Combatants constituency.

Several other constituencies — Haku, Tsitalato, Taonita Tinputz, Taonita Teop, Rau, and Kokoda — also have high numbers of candidates.

This article is republished under a community partnership agreement with RNZ.

This content originally appeared on Asia Pacific Report and was authored by APR editor.

The Bougainville election process begins today with the issuance of the writs yesterday.

Nominations open Tuesday, July 8, and close on Thursday, July 10.

Voting is scheduled for one week starting on September 2, allowing seven weeks of campaigning.

• READ MORE: Other Bougainville articles

Candidates will be vying for a total of 46 seats, with the autonomous Parliament agreeing earlier this year to add five additional seats.

The seats were created with the establishment of five new constituencies: two in South and Central, and one in North Bougainville.

“This is one of the most important democratic tasks of any nation — to conduct elections where the people exercise the ultimate power to re-elect or de-elect the representatives who have served them in the last House,” Bougainville Parliament Speaker Simon Pentanu said.

“The elections in Bougainville have always been fair, honest, transparent, and equitable. This is a history we should all be proud of and a record we must continue to uphold,” he said.

The region’s Electoral Commissioner Desmond Tsianai said the issuing of writs was a significant event in the electoral calendar.

“We have delivered credible elections in the past and I assure you all that we are prepared, and we will have this election delivered at international standards of free, fair and inclusive — and most importantly, according to the law.”

This article is republished under a community partnership agreement with RNZ.

This content originally appeared on Asia Pacific Report and was authored by APR editor.

The Sunday morning talkshows have for decades played an important part in shaping political narratives in the United States. They typically bring on high-profile Washington guests for one-on-one interviews, aiming to set the political agenda for the week ahead. But these shows also have consistently marginalized the voices of women and BIPOC people, and those who might represent the public interest, rather than the interests of a narrow, wealthy elite (Extra!, 9–10/01, 4/12).

After Donald Trump was declared the winner of the 2016 and 2024 elections, the Sunday shows had an opportunity to hold up both his campaign promises and his cabinet picks to scrutiny. With his campaigns’ racist attacks on immigrants and diversity initiatives, as well as his movement’s assaults on the rights of women and trans people, inviting guests who more accurately reflect the diversity of the country would seem to be a journalistic imperative. Yet a new FAIR study finds that the Sunday shows’ coverage of the Trump transitions were even more heavily white and male than usual.

We also found that in 2024, when Trump’s rhetoric and cabinet picks became even more extreme, fewer guests voiced criticism of Trump and his cabinet than in 2016. By downplaying critiques of Trump, these shows used their inside-the-Beltway influence to tell insiders that the MAGA presidency should get a more deferential reception the second time around.

Methodology

FAIR documented all guests on ABC‘s This Week, CBS‘s Face the Nation, CNN‘s State of the Union, Fox News Sunday and NBC‘s Meet the Press from November 13, 2016, through January 22, 2017, and from November 10, 2024, through January 19, 2025. We used the Nexis news database, Archive.org and news outlet websites to obtain complete transcripts. We included all guests invited to speak on the show with the host, whether individually or in groups. (Most panel discussions—which were typically journalist roundtables—were excluded; the exceptions were those conducted in an interview format.)

We documented the guests’ occupation, gender and race or ethnicity, as well as whether they voiced critical or supportive opinions of Trump, his campaign and his cabinet picks. For politicians and other political professionals, we recorded partisan affiliation.

We counted 162 guests in the first Trump transition period, and 186 in the second. (Much of the difference can be accounted for by the fact that Christmas fell on a Sunday in 2016, resulting in only three guests across all shows, rather than the usual 15 to 17.)

From the first to the second transition period, there were some notable shifts in the shows’ guest demographics and views on the president-elect, particularly from nonpartisan guests and guests from the defeated Democratic Party.

Focus on Beltway insiders

The vast majority of guests in both time periods were current and former government officials, in line with the Sunday shows’ focus on Washington insiders. This habit has the effect of marginalizing other kinds of people with deep knowledge about various policy areas, such as academics, NGO leaders, labor leaders, activists or other public interest voices.

In 2016, current and former US officials and politicians made up 86% of all guest appearances. In 2024–25, that number stayed nearly the same, at 84%. In 2016, journalists came in a distant second, at 7%. In 2024, that distinction went to former military officials, with 6%.

Of the partisan sources, Republicans outnumbered Democrats (and independents who caucused with the Democrats) 56% to 40% in 2016–17. Interestingly, Democrats slightly outnumbered Republicans in 2024–25, 49% to 47%. (The remainder were primarily people who had served as appointees under both Republican and Democratic administrations, and one Green Party guest in 2016.)

Historically, Republicans have been overrepresented on the Sunday shows. It’s noteworthy that that wasn’t the case in the transition to the second Trump administration. But at the same time, the number of invited guests who voiced criticism of Trump or his cabinet picks decreased from 2016 to 2024, from 28% to 22%. This can be largely attributed to the fact that far fewer of the Sunday shows’ Democratic guests and nonpartisan guests took a critical position on Trump in 2024—a phenomenon that will be discussed in more detail below.

Skewing (more) male

The Sunday show guests were highly skewed toward men (81% of guests) in 2016; they were even more skewed (84%) in 2024. This was driven primarily by the shift in GOP guests, whose 3.5:1 male-to-female ratio in 2016 skyrocketed to an astounding 24:1 ratio in 2024. (Trump’s 2016 campaign manager Kellyanne Conway accounted for 15 of the 17 female GOP appearances in the first time period.)

Not every Sunday show guest talked about Trump; other interview topics ranged from political issues, like Middle East policy or the opioid epidemic, to largely apolitical interviews about things like sports or books. In 2024–25, there were 19 of these guests, and they were nearly evenly split along gender lines—meaning the gender split among those talking about Trump was even more skewed towards men.

Fox News was consistently the worst in this category, inviting 89% male guests in 2016 and 90% in 2024, but most of the others weren’t far behind. The high mark in female representation for any show in the study was CNN in 2016, when just 27% of its guests were women. In 2024, CBS bucked the trend as the only show that increased its female representation, moving from 20% to 25%, and also was the only show to invite a trans guest (Rep. Sarah McBride, 11/24/24) during either study period.

In other words, as Trump retook office under the shadow of Project 2025, with its promises to reverse decades of gains on gender equity and reproductive rights, nearly every show moved toward a greater silencing of women’s voices.

Marginalizing women’s voices is consequential. For instance, State of the Union host Jake Tapper (1/5/25) directed questions about Trump nominee Pete Hegseth to two white male guests, Republican Sen. Jim Banks and Democratic Sen. Mark Kelly. Asked directly by Tapper about the sexual assault claim against Hegseth, Banks waved it off; the only “concerns” Kelly expressed were about Hegseth’s lack of experience.

When CBS Face the Nation (11/24/24) asked similar questions of Democrat Sen. Tammy Duckworth, she responded directly: “It’s frankly an insult and really troubling that Mr. Trump would nominate someone who has admitted that he’s paid off a victim who has claimed rape allegations against him.” Female guests won’t always raise issues of women’s rights, gender equity or misogyny, nor should they be expected to shoulder that responsibility alone—but they are certainly more likely to.

Overwhelmingly white

The shows also invited overwhelmingly white guests to interview, though that number decreased from 2016 to 2024, from 85% to 78%. While not quite as extreme an overrepresentation as gender, the percentage of white guests still far exceeded their proportion among the general public: In 2024, 58% of the US population identified as non-Hispanic white, down from 62% in 2016.

From 2016 to 2024, Black representation on the Sunday shows decreased from 10% to 5%, while Asian-American guests increased, from less than 1% to 8%. This increase was in part due to repeat appearances by Democrats Duckworth and Rep. Ro Khanna. GOP guests also increased in diversity, due largely to four appearances by Republican Sen. Markwayne Mullin, a member of the Cherokee Nation.

During the 2024–25 time period, neither CBS nor CNN invited any Black guests, and Fox invited no Latine guests, as the Trump team geared up for Day One attacks on anti-racism initiatives and on immigrant communities.

In 2016, then–Rep. Keith Ellison (D–Minn.) said of Trump on ABC (11/13/16):

We oppose his misogyny. We oppose his picking on people of different ethnic and religious groups. And we want to be making clear that if he tries to deliver on his word, that we will be there to say no.

Ellison appeared the next week on CBS (11/20/16), similarly decrying Trump’s “racism, misogyny,” and declaring, “It’s hard to normalize that, and we can never do it.” But eight years later, that racism and misogyny were repeatedly normalized by Sunday show guests—mostly of the white male variety.

Guestlists are not entirely determined by the shows themselves, as administrations choose who to make available as guests, and not every invited guest will agree to appear. Because shows lean so heavily on congressmembers for guest interviews, they also draw from a pool that is demographically skewed (76% non-Hispanic white, 72% male). But the Sunday shows clearly aren’t making any effort to offer voices more representative of the US population, tilting even further white and male than Congress does.

Democrats’ shift on Trump

When a guest spoke about Trump, his campaign or his cabinet picks, FAIR coded those comments as positive, neutral or critical. We defined those who praised Trump, his cabinet picks or his policy positions (as opposed to general Republican positions) as positive; those who do not take an explicit stance on these as neutral; and those who disparaged these as critical. Statements about Trump’s opponents, like Vice President Kamala Harris or Sen. Hillary Clinton, were not considered unless they also included specific references to Trump. The balance of these comments changed markedly between the first and second Trump transitions—particularly among Democratic and nonpartisan guests.

Overall, guest interviews became more neutral in the second transition. In 2016–17, 94% of guests made comments about Trump, and in 2024–25, 90% did so. But in the first transition, 30% of those guests spoke critically, while in the second, only 24% were critical. Neutral takes rose from 19% of sources to 28%. Nearly half the guests who commented on Trump had positive things to say in both transitions: 51% in the first, 48% in the second. It’s notable that there was a marked shift toward neutrality among guests, even as Trump’s rhetoric and cabinet picks became more extreme.

This was particularly noteworthy among those Democratic guests (and independents who caucused with Democrats) who made comments about Trump. In 2016–17, the combined Democratic and independent guests’ comments about Trump were critical 62% of the time, and only 4% of such comments were positive. In contrast, in 2024–25, when far more such guests were invited to appear, only 49% spoke critically, while 11% spoke positively. Trump-related commentary from Democrats shifted from 35% to 40% neutral.

Senators, who make up a large portion of partisan guests, didn’t shift their perspectives much between the years, from 63% to 62% critical. Representatives tilted a little more neutral, but the biggest shift can be seen in which Democrats the Sunday shows invited: more former White House officials in 2016–17 (10, vs. 4 in the second transition), and more officials of the current/outgoing White House in 2024–25 (13, vs. five in the first).

All the guests representing the outgoing administration were either neutral or voiced support for Trump. Meanwhile, in the first time period, seven of the critical Democratic interviews about Trump (and three of the neutrals) were from former presidential appointees. Only three former appointees were asked about Trump in the second transition—all of whom were critical.

It’s predictable that former officials, who are not representing the current White House team that is seeking a smooth transition, feel more free to speak critically. For instance, Norm Eisen, a former special counsel on ethics to Barack Obama, spoke to This Week (12/11/16) about Trump’s conflicts of interest, predicting, “He’s going to be tainted by scandal.”

In contrast, Biden national security adviser Jake Sullivan offered a more flattering perspective (NBC Meet the Press, 12/1/24):

First I would just say that we’ve had good consultations with the incoming team. We’ve been transparent with them. We are committed to ensuring a smooth transition. Second, I’m glad to see the incoming team is welcoming the ceasefire.

Interestingly, Republican guests also trended slightly more toward neutral comments in the second transition period. Five Republicans (6%) spoke about Trump critically in the first time period, while only three (4%) did so in the second. At the same time, the percentage of Republicans making pro-Trump comments dipped from 87% to 84%. GOP guests making neutral comments increased from 6% to 12%.

A different kind of nonpartisan

Nonpartisan guests, who accounted for 15% of guests in both time periods, shifted even more markedly: Half of those who made comments about Trump expressed criticism in 2016–17, and none did so in 2024–25. Meanwhile, positive comments increased from 21% to 50%.

The types of guests dominating this category also changed: In 2016, the largest group consisted of journalists invited for one-on-one interviews (8); these often made critical remarks about Trump, as when the Washington Post‘s David Ignatius told Face the Nation (12/18/16), “I was struck…by his reluctance to do what typically happens in national security matters, which is seek some kind of bipartisan unified consensus.” Or when the New York Times‘ Dean Baquet said to Meet the Press (1/1/17), “I think that there are a lot of question marks about Donald Trump.”

In 2024, there was only one journalist (radio host Charlamagne tha God—This Week, 11/12/24), while business elites (4) and foreign diplomats (3) dominated.

As one might expect, diplomats tended to express more enthusiasm for the incoming president. “I know they share our goal of wanting to have security and stability,” British Ambassador Karen Pierce said of the incoming Trump administration (Face the Nation, 11/10/24). Ukrainian Ambassador Oksana Markarova told Face the Nation (12/15/24): “Let me thank President Trump. He is the one who made a historic decision…to provide us with lethal aid in the first place.”

Business leaders likewise tended to praise Trump. “The American consumer today, as well as corporate America, is quite excited about what the Trump administration is talking about,” IBM vice chair Gary Cohn—a Trump advisor—told Face the Nation (12/15/24). OpenAI CEO Sam Altman said to Fox News Sunday (12/1/24): “We need to be able to have the best AI infrastructure in the world….. I believe President-elect Trump will be very good at that.”

With Trump’s threats of retribution a major factor in the second transition, it’s not necessarily surprising that partisan guests might be more wary of voicing criticism—which is all the more reason for the Sunday shows to look outside their usual suspects. Instead, the few nonpartisan guests they invited came from occupations much more likely to say flattering things of the incoming president in order to curry favor.

Research assistance: Wilson Korik, Emma Llano

This content originally appeared on FAIR and was authored by Keiwana Grant-Floyd.

Tuesday’s New York City mayoral primary could determine the future of the most populous city in the United States. We speak to John Tarleton, editor-in-chief of the The Indypendent, about the race, which pits the young, progressive socialist Zohran Mamdani against Andrew Cuomo, an establishment Democrat and the former state governor who resigned in 2020 amid an investigation into allegations of sexual harassment. Tarleton discusses Mamdani’s unique grassroots campaign, the influence of the powerful real-estate industry and why everything may come down to New York City’s ranked-choice voting system.

This content originally appeared on Democracy Now! and was authored by Democracy Now!.

Elections in Latin America are often controversial. While many countries in the Global North regularly shuffle between parties offering alternating versions of neoliberalism, voting in Central and South America often offers starker contrasts: An anti-imperialist candidate in the mold of Venezuela’s Hugo Chávez might be up against a neoliberal such as Brazil’s Jair Bolsonaro. It could hardly be otherwise, in a region with the world’s biggest gap between the richest and poorest.

North American and European corporate media are conscious of this complexity, but rarely convey it to their readers, instead issuing reports that lack sufficient context or history. Washington’s influence on their messaging—as if the media had their own Monroe Doctrine—is never far below the surface, especially when it comes to reporting political turning points such as elections. Doubts about the results, or questions about outside influence, can be set aside if the outcome fits the consensus narrative, especially if it is endorsed by a White House spokesperson, or a surrogate body like the Organization of American States (OAS).

Ecuador provides an example. Its President Daniel Noboa, son of the country’s richest landowner, began his second term of office on May 25. He was declared victor by a huge margin in a run-off election on April 13, even though his opponent, leftist Luisa González, virtually tied with him in the first round in February.

According to the corporate media, Noboa’s victory was clear-cut, the reasons for it were obvious and there was little reason to question the outcome. The Washington Post (4/13/25) headlined “President Who Declared War on Ecuador’s Drug Gangs Is Reelected.” The Wall Street Journal (4/13/25) said “Ecuador Re-Elects Leader Fighting War on Gangs Smuggling Cocaine to US.” The New York Times (4/13/25) proclaimed that “Ecuador’s President Wins Re-Election in Nation Rocked by Drug Violence.” The headlines were so similar they might have been modeled on the agency story from the Associated Press (4/13/25): “Daniel Noboa Is Reelected Ecuador’s President by Voters Weary of Crime.”

Linking the election to the war on drugs added a useful North American perspective. And, of course, this could be strengthened by reminding readers that Noboa is an ally of Donald Trump, as the Post, Journal and Times duly did.

‘Increasingly authoritarian’

The New York Times (4/13/25) dismissed candidate Luisa González as someone “largely seen as the representative of the former president” Rafael Correa, who is condemned for his “authoritarian tendencies.”

Had González won instead, she would have become Ecuador’s first female president (aside from Rosalía Arteaga, who was president for two days in 1997). However, all three outlets felt it necessary to remind readers of her dangerous link to former President Rafael Correa, known for “antagonizing the United States,” as the Post put it. The Times patronizingly suggested she would be Correa’s “handpicked successor,” or even “the representative of the former president, a divisive figure in Ecuador” (emphasis added), who (the Post claimed) “grew increasingly authoritarian” before he left office in 2017.

This grossly inverts history. Arguably, Ecuador “grew increasingly authoritarian” after Correa’s presidency (FAIR.org, 8/17/20). His party, and three others, were banned in 2020. This decision was later reversed, but then both Correa and his vice president, Jorge Glas, were convicted of corruption, in what appeared to be obvious cases of “lawfare,” based on evidence from a source funded by the US National Endowment for Democracy.

Correa fled to Belgium, where he was granted asylum. Glas spent five years in prison and, seriously ill and facing new charges after Noboa first took office in late 2023, was granted asylum by Mexico. He never managed to leave Quito, because Noboa had him violently abducted from Mexico’s embassy and thrown into prison, in a clear breach of international law (London Review of Books, 4/9/24).

Five years of escalating violence

Correa had successfully reduced violence in Ecuador, making it one of Latin America’s safest countries. Progress was reversed under successive neoliberal governments, beginning with President Lenín Moreno. Victims have included several political figures, but the most egregious incident occurred only five months ago under Noboa’s presidency, when a group of soldiers captured, tortured and then murdered four children in Ecuador’s second city, Guayaquil (El Pais, 5/5/25).

Source: Primicias (5/21/25), based on Ecuadorian police data for the first four months of each year.

Violence continues to escalate, despite Noboa’s promises to tackle it. The first four months of 2025 saw a 58% increase in homicides, compared with the same period in 2024 (see chart), turning Ecuador into the most dangerous country in the Americas. Much violence is related to drug trafficking, with Ecuador now “an open funnel for cocaine exports and money laundering” under recent right-wing governments (London Review of Books, 4/30/25). Despite being part of the problem, Noboa maintained that only he could solve it, offering to adopt the hardline policies for which El Salvador’s President Nayib Bukele has become famous.

Ecuador’s contested ballot

After the media chorus of welcome for Noboa, it seems almost churlish to ask if he really won a clean election. Yet while Foreign Policy (4/17/25) said his win was “not surprising,” it certainly did surprise many commentators. It is instructive to review the evidence, starting with the first round of the elections and ending with the results of the final round.

February’s first round could hardly have been closer, with Noboa gaining 44.17% of the votes, barely ahead of González with 44.00% (see table), a difference of only 16,746 votes. Turnout was 82%. The result suggested that opinion polls were exaggerating Noboa’s popularity, since for the preceding month they had given him a comfortable average lead.

A third candidate, representing the largest Indigenous party, garnered 5.25%, and was obliged to drop out ahead of the final top-two round two months later. This candidate would later support González, but smaller Indigenous parties would favor Noboa.

Source: Wikipedia.

The electoral campaign period saw a series of illegal moves on Noboa’s part. He refused to step down temporarily, as required constitutionally. Instead he suspended his vice-president, Verónica Abad, ignoring a court ruling that she should temporarily replace him and shut her office (Financial Times, 1/18/25). A right-wing rival was barred from standing, and Ecuadorians in Venezuela were denied the vote while their compatriots elsewhere were not.

Noboa’s massive social media campaign was allegedly financed from public funds (La Calle, 10/22/24); troll centers were established to attack his opponent (Pandemia Digital, 2/3/25). Bonuses costing over $500 million were paid to hundreds of thousands of poor Ecuadorians from public funds (Primicias, 3/28/25); CEPR’s Mark Weisbrot dubbed this “vote buying,” at an estimated $475 each. Noboa was photographed with Trump, Ecuador’s Washington embassy having paid at least $165,000 for the opportunity (People’s Dispatch, 4/6/25).

Like El Salvador’s Bukele, Noboa enhances his powers by declaring states of emergency. Prior to the poll on April 13, he declared one that covered the capital and several urban centers which González had won in the first round, intimidating voters and allowing unannounced searches (CBS News, 4/12/25). On election day, machine gun–bearing soldiers were posted at polling stations. Even so, two exit polls showed a close result, one indicating a win by González. During the count, images were posted of voting sheets published by the Noboa-manipulated electoral council that were invalid because they were unsigned.

‘Impossible’ result

The April 13 results were extraordinary, awarding Noboa victory by a full 11.25 percentage points. They gave Noboa 1.3 million more votes than he won in the first round, while González gained only 160,000. This happened despite the first-round tie, González’s endorsement by the leading Indigenous candidate, opinion polls slightly favoring her, two close exit polls and a much smaller difference (2 percentage points) between the two candidates’ parties in the simultaneous vote for the National Assembly.

Former President Rafael Correa wrote in his X account:

Ecuadorian people: You know that, unlike our adversaries, we have always accepted the opponent’s victory when it has been clean. This time it is NOT. Statistically, the result is IMPOSSIBLE.

González’s requests for recounts were twice rejected by the judicial bodies governing the election, in a series of decisions demonstrating bias in Noboa’s favor. Several leftist presidents, such as Colombia’s Gustavo Petro and Mexico’s Claudia Sheinbaum, endorsed González’s protests, and the latter refused to recognize Noboa’s presidency.

Truthout (5/2/25): “President Noboa carried out one of the dirtiest and unequal campaigns in memory—relying on fake news, vote buying and threats.”

A week after the poll, Denver University Professor Francisco Rodríguez published a statistical comparison of the result in Ecuador with 31 other recent Latin American run-off elections. He concluded that Ecuador’s was “not normal,” and “deviates sharply from regional experience.” He said he was not claiming fraud, but was calling for careful scrutiny.

Ecuadorian political sociologist Franklin Ramírez Gallegos went further in Truthout (5/2/25): “These were absolutely unequal, opaque, fraudulent elections,” he said. Within a few days of the election, there were reports of Noboa’s opponents being persecuted, and of a “blacklist” naming more than 100 people to be tracked down.

None of the US corporate media suggested the election was problem-free. But where, for example, they reported that González had claimed fraud, they qualified this by saying she did so “without presenting evidence” (Washington Post, 4/13/25). They also repeated Noboa’s phony counterclaims of irregularities (AP, 4/13/25). Reassurances by electoral observers from the OAS and US State Department were duly cited (Reuters, 4/14/25).

Framing Latin American elections

The New York Times (10/23/19) shows highly selective skepticism over Latin American electoral results.

The OAS has a 70-year history of bending to Washington’s whim when judging elections. Media reliance on its verdicts, despite—or really because of—its close alignment with US interests, speaks to the wider problem of media reporting of Latin American elections. Here are just three further examples—of many.

In 2019, the unsubstantiated findings by OAS observers of faults in the presidential election in Bolivia were swallowed wholesale by corporate media (FAIR.org, 11/18/19). The New York Times, citing the OAS’s “withering assessment” (10/23/19), quickly scorned the “highly fishy vote” (11/11/19) which extended the presidency of leftist Evo Morales. It turned out not to be fishy at all, but before the truth emerged, Morales had resigned, faced likely assassination and fled to Mexico. Morales’s forced resignation by Bolivia’s rightist-aligned military was called a “coup” by Argentina and Mexico.

The year before, when Bolsonaro won the election in Brazil while his principal opponent, Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva, was imprisoned (later to be released, post-election), the Times published 37 relevant articles, but not one examined the falsity of the charges. Reporting from Brazil, journalist Brian Mier (FAIR.org, 3/8/21) observed that this “helped normalize” Bolsonaro’s victory and “opened the door for a neofascist/military takeover of Brazil.”

In Honduras in 2013, after the neoliberal candidate Juan Orlando Hernández had “all the ducks lined up for a fraudulent election” (London Review of Books, 11/21/13), the Washington Post (11/26/13) produced a scurrilous editorial claiming that his victory had avoided a dictatorship. Instead, it created one: Hernández won two fraudulent elections, was extradited on drug charges after leaving office, and is now in a US prison.

After the dubious victory

Since the election, Noboa has been busy in pursuing the “blacklisted” political opponents who tried to stand in his way. A few days before his May 25 investiture, dubious charges were pressed against former presidential candidate Andrés Arauz. It was Arauz who published the images of invalid voting sheets on April 13—to no avail, as they were ignored not only by the electoral authorities, but by the observers from the OAS and European Union.

Noboa’s big if highly questionable victory will strengthen his hand in creating a permanent and violent security state. Blackwater’s founder Erik Prince was hired in April to help him in the task. Two new military bases, one of them in the Galápagos Islands, have been offered to the US, in defiance of a prohibition on foreign bases in Ecuador’s constitution—a prohibition that the National Assembly rescinded this month at Noboa’s request.

On April 30, the Defense and interior ministers were pictured in El Salvador, inspecting Bukele’s notorious CECOT prison (Infobae, 4/30/25). Presumably these are the first steps in delivering the promise, made in Noboa’s short and vacuous speech at the investiture last month, to “rescue” Ecuador.

• Originally published at FAIR.org.

This content originally appeared on Dissident Voice and was authored by John Perry.

AP (4/13/25) attributes Ecuadorian President Daniel Noboa’s re-election to “voters weary of crime”—even though murders rose sharply under his administration.

Elections in Latin America are often controversial. While many countries in the Global North regularly shuffle between parties offering alternating versions of neoliberalism, voting in Central and South America often offers starker contrasts: An anti-imperialist candidate in the mold of Venezuela’s Hugo Chávez might be up against a neoliberal such as Brazil’s Jair Bolsonaro. It could hardly be otherwise, in a region with the world’s biggest gap between the richest and poorest.

North American and European corporate media are conscious of this complexity, but rarely convey it to their readers, instead issuing reports that lack sufficient context or history. Washington’s influence on their messaging—as if the media had their own Monroe Doctrine—is never far below the surface, especially when it comes to reporting political turning points such as elections. Doubts about the results, or questions about outside influence, can be set aside if the outcome fits the consensus narrative, especially if it is endorsed by a White House spokesperson, or a surrogate body like the Organization of American States (OAS).

Ecuador provides an example. Its President Daniel Noboa, son of the country’s richest landowner, began his second term of office on May 25. He was declared victor by a huge margin in a run-off election on April 13, even though his opponent, leftist Luisa González, virtually tied with him in the first round in February.

According to the corporate media, Noboa’s victory was clear-cut, the reasons for it were obvious and there was little reason to question the outcome. The Washington Post (4/13/25) headlined “President Who Declared War on Ecuador’s Drug Gangs Is Reelected.” The Wall Street Journal (4/13/25) said “Ecuador Re-Elects Leader Fighting War on Gangs Smuggling Cocaine to US.” The New York Times (4/13/25) proclaimed that “Ecuador’s President Wins Re-Election in Nation Rocked by Drug Violence.” The headlines were so similar they might have been modeled on the agency story from the Associated Press (4/13/25): “Daniel Noboa Is Reelected Ecuador’s President by Voters Weary of Crime.”

Linking the election to the war on drugs added a useful North American perspective. And, of course, this could be strengthened by reminding readers that Noboa is an ally of Donald Trump, as the Post, Journal and Times duly did.

‘Increasingly authoritarian’

The New York Times (4/13/25) dismissed candidate Luisa González as someone “largely seen as the representative of the former president” Rafael Correa, who is condemned for his “authoritarian tendencies.”

Had González won instead, she would have become Ecuador’s first female president (aside from Rosalía Arteaga, who was president for two days in 1997). However, all three outlets felt it necessary to remind readers of her dangerous link to former President Rafael Correa, known for “antagonizing the United States,” as the Post put it. The Times patronizingly suggested she would be Correa’s “handpicked successor,” or even “the representative of the former president, a divisive figure in Ecuador” (emphasis added), who (the Post claimed) “grew increasingly authoritarian” before he left office in 2017.

This grossly inverts history. Arguably, Ecuador “grew increasingly authoritarian” after Correa’s presidency (FAIR.org, 8/17/20). His party, and three others, were banned in 2020. This decision was later reversed, but then both Correa and his vice president, Jorge Glas, were convicted of corruption, in what appeared to be obvious cases of “lawfare,” based on evidence from a source funded by the US National Endowment for Democracy.

Correa fled to Belgium, where he was granted asylum. Glas spent five years in prison and, seriously ill and facing new charges after Noboa first took office in late 2023, was granted asylum by Mexico. He never managed to leave Quito, because Noboa had him violently abducted from Mexico’s embassy and thrown into prison, in a clear breach of international law (London Review of Books, 4/9/24).

Five years of escalating violence

Correa had successfully reduced violence in Ecuador, making it one of Latin America’s safest countries. Progress was reversed under successive neoliberal governments, beginning with President Lenín Moreno. Victims have included several political figures, but the most egregious incident occurred only five months ago under Noboa’s presidency, when a group of soldiers captured, tortured and then murdered four children in Ecuador’s second city, Guayaquil (El Pais, 5/5/25).

Source: Primicias (5/21/25), based on Ecuadorian police data for the first four months of each year.

Violence continues to escalate, despite Noboa’s promises to tackle it. The first four months of 2025 saw a 58% increase in homicides, compared with the same period in 2024 (see chart), turning Ecuador into the most dangerous country in the Americas. Much violence is related to drug trafficking, with Ecuador now “an open funnel for cocaine exports and money laundering” under recent right-wing governments (London Review of Books, 4/30/25). Despite being part of the problem, Noboa maintained that only he could solve it, offering to adopt the hardline policies for which El Salvador’s President Nayib Bukele has become famous.

Ecuador’s contested ballot

After the media chorus of welcome for Noboa, it seems almost churlish to ask if he really won a clean election. Yet while Foreign Policy (4/17/25) said his win was “not surprising,” it certainly did surprise many commentators. It is instructive to review the evidence, starting with the first round of the elections and ending with the results of the final round.

February’s first round could hardly have been closer, with Noboa gaining 44.17% of the votes, barely ahead of González with 44.00% (see table), a difference of only 16,746 votes. Turnout was 82%. The result suggested that opinion polls were exaggerating Noboa’s popularity, since for the preceding month they had given him a comfortable average lead.

A third candidate, representing the largest Indigenous party, garnered 5.25%, and was obliged to drop out ahead of the final top-two round two months later. This candidate would later support González, but smaller Indigenous parties would favor Noboa.

Source: Wikipedia.

The electoral campaign period saw a series of illegal moves on Noboa’s part. He refused to step down temporarily, as required constitutionally. Instead he suspended his vice-president, Verónica Abad, ignoring a court ruling that she should temporarily replace him and shut her office (Financial Times, 1/18/25). A right-wing rival was barred from standing, and Ecuadorians in Venezuela were denied the vote while their compatriots elsewhere were not.

Noboa’s massive social media campaign was allegedly financed from public funds (La Calle, 10/22/24); troll centers were established to attack his opponent (Pandemia Digital, 2/3/25). Bonuses costing over $500 million were paid to hundreds of thousands of poor Ecuadorians from public funds (Primicias, 3/28/25); CEPR’s Mark Weisbrot dubbed this “vote buying,” at an estimated $475 each. Noboa was photographed with Trump, Ecuador’s Washington embassy having paid at least $165,000 for the opportunity (People’s Dispatch, 4/6/25).

Like El Salvador’s Bukele, Noboa enhances his powers by declaring states of emergency. Prior to the poll on April 13, he declared one that covered the capital and several urban centers which González had won in the first round, intimidating voters and allowing unannounced searches (CBS News, 4/12/25). On election day, machine gun–bearing soldiers were posted at polling stations. Even so, two exit polls showed a close result, one indicating a win by González. During the count, images were posted of voting sheets published by the Noboa-manipulated electoral council that were invalid because they were unsigned.

‘Impossible’ result

The April 13 results were extraordinary, awarding Noboa victory by a full 11.25 percentage points. They gave Noboa 1.3 million more votes than he won in the first round, while González gained only 160,000. This happened despite the first-round tie, González’s endorsement by the leading Indigenous candidate, opinion polls slightly favoring her, two close exit polls and a much smaller difference (2 percentage points) between the two candidates’ parties in the simultaneous vote for the National Assembly.

Former President Rafael Correa wrote in his X account:

Ecuadorian people: You know that, unlike our adversaries, we have always accepted the opponent’s victory when it has been clean. This time it is NOT. Statistically, the result is IMPOSSIBLE.

González’s requests for recounts were twice rejected by the judicial bodies governing the election, in a series of decisions demonstrating bias in Noboa’s favor. Several leftist presidents, such as Colombia’s Gustavo Petro and Mexico’s Claudia Sheinbaum, endorsed González’s protests, and the latter refused to recognize Noboa’s presidency.

Truthout (5/2/25): “President Noboa carried out one of the dirtiest and unequal campaigns in memory—relying on fake news, vote buying and threats.”

A week after the poll, Denver University Professor Francisco Rodríguez published a statistical comparison of the result in Ecuador with 31 other recent Latin American run-off elections. He concluded that Ecuador’s was “not normal,” and “deviates sharply from regional experience.” He said he was not claiming fraud, but was calling for careful scrutiny.

Ecuadorian political sociologist Franklin Ramírez Gallegos went further in Truthout (5/2/25): “These were absolutely unequal, opaque, fraudulent elections,” he said. Within a few days of the election, there were reports of Noboa’s opponents being persecuted, and of a “blacklist” naming more than 100 people to be tracked down.

None of the US corporate media suggested the election was problem-free. But where, for example, they reported that González had claimed fraud, they qualified this by saying she did so “without presenting evidence” (Washington Post, 4/13/25). They also repeated Noboa’s phony counterclaims of irregularities (AP, 4/13/25). Reassurances by electoral observers from the OAS and US State Department were duly cited (Reuters, 4/14/25).

Framing Latin American elections

The New York Times (10/23/19) shows highly selective skepticism over Latin American electoral results.

The OAS has a 70-year history of bending to Washington’s whim when judging elections. Media reliance on its verdicts, despite—or really because of—its close alignment with US interests, speaks to the wider problem of media reporting of Latin American elections. Here are just three further examples—of many.

In 2019, the unsubstantiated findings by OAS observers of faults in the presidential election in Bolivia were swallowed wholesale by corporate media (FAIR.org, 11/18/19). The New York Times, citing the OAS’s “withering assessment” (10/23/19), quickly scorned the “highly fishy vote” (11/11/19) which extended the presidency of leftist Evo Morales. It turned out not to be fishy at all, but before the truth emerged, Morales had resigned, faced likely assassination and fled to Mexico. Morales’s forced resignation by Bolivia’s rightist-aligned military was called a “coup” by Argentina and Mexico.

The year before, when Bolsonaro won the election in Brazil while his principal opponent, Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva, was imprisoned (later to be released, post-election), the Times published 37 relevant articles, but not one examined the falsity of the charges. Reporting from Brazil, journalist Brian Mier (FAIR.org, 3/8/21) observed that this “helped normalize” Bolsonaro’s victory and “opened the door for a neofascist/military takeover of Brazil.”

In Honduras in 2013, after the neoliberal candidate Juan Orlando Hernández had “all the ducks lined up for a fraudulent election” (London Review of Books, 11/21/13), the Washington Post (11/26/13) produced a scurrilous editorial claiming that his victory had avoided a dictatorship. Instead, it created one: Hernández won two fraudulent elections, was extradited on drug charges after leaving office, and is now in a US prison.

After the dubious victory

Since the election, Noboa has been busy in pursuing the “blacklisted” political opponents who tried to stand in his way. A few days before his May 25 investiture, dubious charges were pressed against former presidential candidate Andrés Arauz. It was Arauz who published the images of invalid voting sheets on April 13—to no avail, as they were ignored not only by the electoral authorities, but by the observers from the OAS and European Union.

Noboa’s big if highly questionable victory will strengthen his hand in creating a permanent and violent security state. Blackwater’s founder Erik Prince was hired in April to help him in the task. Two new military bases, one of them in the Galápagos Islands, have been offered to the US, in defiance of a prohibition on foreign bases in Ecuador’s constitution—a prohibition that the National Assembly rescinded this month at Noboa’s request.

On April 30, the Defense and interior ministers were pictured in El Salvador, inspecting Bukele’s notorious CECOT prison (Infobae, 4/30/25). Presumably these are the first steps in delivering the promise, made in Noboa’s short and vacuous speech at the investiture last month, to “rescue” Ecuador.

This content originally appeared on FAIR and was authored by John Perry.

Its official. Samoa’s Parliament will be dissolved next week and the country will have an early return to the polls.

The confirmation comes after a dramatic day in Parliament on Tuesday, which saw the government’s budget voted down at its first reading.

In a live address today, Prime Minister Fiame Naomi Mata’afa confirmed the dissolution of Parliament.

• READ MORE: Samoan PM Fiamē advises dissolution of parliament, calls for snap elections
• Other Samoa politics reports

“Upon the adjournment of Parliament yesterday, I met with the Head of State and tendered my advice to dissolve Parliament,” she said.

Fiame said that advice was accepted, and the Head of State has confirmed that the official dissolution of Parliament will take place on Tuesday, June 3.

According to Samoa’s constitution, an election must be held within three months of parliament being dissolved.

Fiame reassured the public that constitutional arrangements are in place to ensure the elections are held lawfully and smoothly.

Caretaker mode
In the meantime, she said the government would operate in caretaker mode with oversight on public expenditure.

“There are constitutional provisions governing the use of public funds by a caretaker government,” she said.

“Priority will be given to ensuring that the machinery of government continues to function.”

She also took a moment to thank the public for their prayers and support during this time.

Despite the political instability, Fiame said Samoa’s 63rd Independence Day celebrations would proceed as planned.

The official programme begins with a Thanksgiving Service on Sunday, June 1, at 6pm at Muliwai Cathedral.

This will be followed by a flag-raising ceremony on Monday, June 2, in front of the Government Building at Eleele Fou.

The dissolution of Parliament brings to an end months of political instability which began in January.

This article is republished under a community partnership agreement with RNZ.

This content originally appeared on Asia Pacific Report and was authored by APR editor.

Prime Minister Fiamē Naomi Mata’afa has advised Samoa’s head of state that it is necessary to dissolve Parliament so the country can move to an election.

This follows the bill for the budget not getting enough support for a first reading on yesterday, and Fiame announcing she would therefore seek an early election.

Tuimaleali’ifano Va’aleto’a Sualauvi II has accepted Fiame’s advice and a formal notice will be duly gazetted to confirm the dissolution of the Legislative Assembly.

• READ MORE: Other Samoan reports

Parliament will go into caretaker mode, and the Cabinet will have the general direction and control of the existing government until the first session of the Legislative Assembly following dissolution.

Fiame, who has led a minority government since being ousted from her former FAST party in January, finally conceded defeat on the floor of Parliament yesterday morning after her government’s 2025 Budget was voted down.

MPs from both the opposition Human Rights Protection Party and Fiame’s former FAST party joined forces to defeat the budget with the final vote coming in 34 against, 16 in support and two abstentions.

Defeated motions
Tuesday was the Samoan Parliament’s first sitting since back-to-back no-confidence motions were moved — unsuccessfully — against prime minister Fiame.

In January, Fiame removed her FAST Party chairman La’auli Leuatea Schmidt and several FAST ministers from her Cabinet.

In turn, La’auli ejected her from the FAST Party, leaving her leading a minority government.

Her former party had been pushing for an early election, including via legal action.

The election is set to be held within three months.

This article is republished under a community partnership agreement with RNZ.

This content originally appeared on Asia Pacific Report and was authored by APR editor.

X user @Shizu____4evr shared a picture of Jyoti Malhotra wearing a cap and scarf with the BJP symbol and wrote, “Jyoti you are a traitor.. the BJP stands with you..” (Archived link)

ज्योति तुम गद्दारी करो..
बीजेपी तुम्हारे साथ है..!!#JyotiMalhotraArrested pic.twitter.com/s4hqnNdrkz

— ✼ ҉ ҉ ҉ ҉ 𝑺𝒉𝒊𝒁𝒖 ҉ ҉ ҉ ҉ ✼ (@Shizu____4evr) May 17, 2025

Several ex-handles @kachaaalloo, @bamboo_cell, @SCR4India and Samajwadi Party national spokesperson IP Singh also shared this viral picture.

Sakshi Gupta, who claims to be the district president of AAP Mahila wing Delhi on X, also shared a picture of Jyoti Malhotra wearing a BJP cap, in response to which some users shared a picture of Jyoti Malhotra allegedly wearing an AAP cap and scarf.

आतंकियों की बहन तो ज्योति मल्होत्रा निकली।
सोफिया कुरैशी तो भारतीयों की बहन है जनाब pic.twitter.com/6LVo2nkPUm

— Sakshi Gupta AAP (@SakshiGupta_AAP) May 18, 2025

X handles @arpit637163, @ChamkeeleChuze, and @Deepak25189 also shared another picture of Jyoti wearing an Aam Aadmi cap and scarf. 

Fact Check

Alt News scoured all social media platforms of Aaj Tak News to fact-check the viral images. We found news reports related to YouTuber Jyoti Malhotra’s arrest and alleged spying for Pakistan. But we did not find the viral images anywhere.

We compared the viral image with other pictures (templates) posted on Aaj Tak’s social media handle. We noticed a significant difference between them, in terms of layout and style.

Besides, the lighting seen in the viral photos seem unnatural, and the design of the cap and scarf worn by Jyoti Malhotra is different from that of the election caps and scarves used by the BJP and Aam Aadmi Party.

We uploaded the first viral photo on the AI ​​detector tool sightengine.com. According to the results obtained from this, there was a 99% chance of this photo being AI generated.

The AI ​​detector tool sightengine.com said that there was a 99% chance of the second photo being created with the help of AI as well.

To sum up, both the viral photos of YouTuber Jyoti Malhotra which are being shared on social media targeting the Aam Aadmi Party and the BJP are fake and AI generated. 

The post Arrested YouTuber Jyoti Malhotra in BJP, AAP election caps? Fake photos viral appeared first on Alt News.

This content originally appeared on Alt News and was authored by Pawan Kumar.

This article is co-published with The Texas Tribune, a nonprofit, nonpartisan local newsroom that informs and engages with Texans. Sign up for The Brief Weekly to get up to speed on their essential coverage of Texas issues.

Texas lawmakers are pushing to impose steep penalties on local governments that don’t post campaign finance reports online, after an investigation by ProPublica and The Texas Tribune found some school districts weren’t doing so.

The initial posting requirements, designed to make election spending more transparent, went into effect nearly two years ago. Most of the school district leaders said they had no idea they were out of compliance until the newsrooms contacted them. Even after many districts uploaded whatever documentation they had on file for their trustee elections, reports were still missing because candidates hadn’t turned them in or the schools lost them.

“I was surprised and disappointed,” said Republican state Rep. Carl Tepper, who authored the online posting requirement. “I did realize that we didn’t really put any teeth into the bill.”

Tepper is aiming to correct that with a new bill this legislative session. He cited the newsrooms’ findings in a written explanation of why the state needs to implement greater enforcement.

The measure would require the Texas Ethics Commission, the agency that enforces the state’s election laws, to monitor thousands of local governments’ websites across the state and to notify them if any campaign finance reports are missing. If those government agencies do not upload the records that candidates have turned in within 30 days of the state’s notice, the commission can fine them up to $2,500 every day until they comply.

The proposed measure also recommends the state allot funding for the ethics commission to hire two additional staff members, whose job would be to monitor all local government entities that hold public elections in the state’s 254 counties and roughly 1,200 cities and towns. The newsrooms previously found the agency did not have any staff dedicated to enforcing compliance in local elections and, instead, investigated missing or late reports only when it received a tip.

The bill has cleared the Texas House but still needs approval from the Senate by May 28 if it has a chance of becoming law.

The superintendent of Galveston Independent School District, which was among those that ProPublica and the Tribune found hadn’t posted any campaign finance reports online last year, said the measure would help schools like his.

“I do like the suggestion of a 30-day period to achieve compliance after an issue is reported,” Matthew Neighbors said of the new proposal in an emailed statement. “Our district, for example, had no objections to posting the necessary campaign information once our new employees were aware of the requirements.”

Kelly Rasti, the associate executive director of governmental relations for the Texas Association of School Boards, said districts do not flout the law intentionally. Rasti said the employees tasked with handling school board election documentation are not always well versed in the state’s regulations but that the association plans to provide additional resources later this year.

District employees are accustomed to handling a plethora of education-related paperwork and reporting requirements imposed by the state. But “elections are just different, and they seem to have ever-evolving laws and rules associated with them,” Rasti said.

Notably, Tepper’s bill would not directly require the ethics commission to penalize or follow up with candidates who fail to turn in their reports. He initially included a provision in his bill that would make candidates ineligible to run for office if they didn’t file those records, even if they won an election. He told the newsrooms that he cut the penalty after realizing the logistical challenges it might present.

That means the ethics commission must still decide whether to investigate and fine any of the candidates and officeholders for the state’s estimated 22,000 local elected positions should they miss a filing. By contrast, candidates who run for statewide office are automatically fined by the commission if they don’t make a deadline.

Tepper’s ultimate goal is to create a unified system in which the ethics commission compiles campaign finance records for state and local candidates in one central database, rather than leaving local filings scattered across thousands of city, county and school district government websites. The Republican lawmaker withdrew his proposal to create such a system in 2023 after the commission estimated it would cost $20 million, but he told the newsrooms that he hopes to gain enough support to make that investment next session, in 2027.

For now, he sees his proposal as a necessary advance.

“I’m a big believer in incrementalism,” said Tepper. “This is another step toward better enforcement.”

This content originally appeared on ProPublica and was authored by by Lexi Churchill, ProPublica and The Texas Tribune.

ProPublica is a nonprofit newsroom that investigates abuses of power. Sign up for Dispatches, a newsletter that spotlights wrongdoing around the country, to receive our stories in your inbox every week.

Last week, North Carolina Democrats scored a victory when Republican Judge Jefferson Griffin, who’d lost a tight race for the state’s Supreme Court, finally conceded defeat after a six-month legal battle to throw out ballots that he contended were illegitimate.

But that same morning, the party suffered a setback that may be more consequential: losing control of the state board that sets voting rules and adjudicates election disputes.

The board oversees virtually every aspect of state elections, large and small, from setting rules dictating what makes ballots valid or invalid to monitoring compliance with campaign finance laws. In the Supreme Court race, it consistently worked to block Griffin’s challenges.

The conservative takeover comes after the Republican-controlled state legislature passed a law stripping the power to appoint board members from North Carolina’s Democratic governor and gave it to the Republican state auditor.

Although a board spokesperson said its chair was traveling and unavailable to answer questions about how the new Republican majority would reshape North Carolina elections, experts said it will likely make it easier for challenges like Griffin’s to succeed and reduce expansive access to early voting.

It will “tilt the playing field to the advantage of the GOP,” said Gene Nichol, a law professor at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill who studies democracy in the state.

The party that controls the board holds significant power over who votes, how those votes are counted and who ultimately wins races.

Ann Webb, the policy director for Common Cause North Carolina, a liberal voting advocacy organization, called the shift “very consequential” and said she was worried the new board would seek to remove voters whose registrations have missing information from the state’s rolls and tighten requirements for people seeking to register or have provisional ballots count.

Conservatives called Democrats’ concerns overblown, particularly after years of Democratic control. Mitch Kokai, a senior political analyst at the John Locke Foundation, a conservative North Carolina think tank, conceded the board’s new majority might alter early voting locations or voter ID rules, over which the parties are divided. But he pointed out that many board decisions are made unanimously, not split along party lines.

“There is some sense that in the age of Trump there is some grand scheme to throw out election results and let the GOP win despite how people voted,” Kokai said. “I don’t think you’re seeing the stage being set for anything like that.”

Historically, the board’s five members have been appointed by North Carolina’s governor, with three of them coming from the governor’s party. Since 2016, the governor has been a Democrat.

When Josh Stein won a four-year term last fall, a Republican supermajority in the state legislature passed a law, then overrode his predecessor’s veto, to transfer this power to the state auditor. It was an unusual step. No other state has elections overseen by the state auditor.

Stein sued to block the law and, initially, a lower court sided with him. But in April, the state’s Court of Appeals, which has a Republican majority, issued a three-sentence decision overturning the lower court’s ruling without hearing oral arguments.

The next day, the state auditor named two new Republican members to the elections board, flipping control of it to conservatives. One is a former legislator who led efforts to redraw the state’s congressional districts in conservatives’ favor. The other was the longtime head of a conservative think tank with a history of advancing unsubstantiated voter fraud claims.

After swearing in the new members last week, the board’s first move was to fire its executive director, Karen Brinson Bell, replacing her with the general counsel to the speaker of the North Carolina House, a Republican. The board denied Bell’s request to address her staff during the meeting, but she subsequently released a statement that a spokesperson provided to ProPublica in response to a request for comment.

“We have done this work under incredibly difficult circumstances and in a toxic political environment that has targeted election professionals with harassment and threats,” she said of the board’s employees. “I hope we return to a time when those who lose elections concede defeat rather than trying to tear down the entire election system and erode voter confidence.”

Experts say the just-concluded battle over the Supreme Court seat provides a window into how changes at the elections board could affect future races, especially close ones with contested results. North Carolina is a swing state, and there have been several such cases in recent years. After the 2018 election, the board ordered a new election for a U.S. House of Representatives seat when a Republican victory was found to be tainted by an illegal absentee ballot scheme.

Before the 2024 election, right-wing activists discussed ways to overturn close election losses using a plan similar to the one Griffin put into action, according to a recording of a call obtained by ProPublica.

In the month after suffering a 734-vote loss to incumbent Democrat Allison Riggs, Griffin asked the elections board to toss out tens of thousands of ballots, mostly because information about the voters who cast them was missing from the state’s election database. The board, then majority Democrat, dismissed his challenges, concluding that voters had followed the rules in place at the time and that much of the missing information reflected administrative or clerical errors. Then Griffin sued.

Gerry Cohen, a former counsel for the legislature who is now a Democratic member of the Wake County Board of Elections, said it was “a real possibility” that a Republican-controlled state board “would have approved some of Griffin’s challenges” to throw out ballots. If that had happened, Riggs could have fought the board’s decision in the courts and won, but she would have then been litigating against the board rather than on the same side as it.

The law that gave the state auditor the power to appoint members of the state election board also gives him similar authority over North Carolina’s county election boards, which will mean each of them will be controlled by Republican majorities by the end of next month.

County boards approve locations and times for early voting, which is when the vast majority of North Carolinians vote. Experts predicted this could lead some boards to reduce the number of polling sites in areas that have more Democrats, like college campuses, or to close polls when Democratic voters are more likely to use them, such as Sundays when Black churches conduct “souls to the polls” voter drives.

Kokai contends that such changes aren’t necessarily meant to suppress the vote, if they even happen, and doubts they’d have much of an effect on Democratic turnout.

“If you really do care about voting, you do it,” he said. “If you go a mile off campus to do other things, you can do it to vote, too.”

Liberals, however, expect the revamped board to work hand-in-hand with the Republican-controlled legislature to transform elections in other ways.

“Things are going to look very different,” Webb said, in the 2026 midterm elections.

This content originally appeared on ProPublica and was authored by by Doug Bock Clark.

Taking a punt on who the new leader of the Catholic Church will be once the conclave of Cardinals concludes is a failing bet. A mischievous remark was once made by an Australian commentator on Church matters that you would have better chances picking a winner at the Melbourne Cup horse race than the next pontiff.

The choice of Leo XIV, formerly Cardinal Robert Francis Prevost, Prefect of the Dicastery of Bishops, was suitably surprising. Few had their cards on a pick from the United States, let alone a pick from Chicago, Illinois. But ever politic, the church narrative was quick to point out his naturalised status as a Peruvian and his elevation to the position of Bishop of Chiclayo in September 2015. He had been an Augustinian missionary. Not only was he a Western hemispheric representative, but one who doubled up as truly American, comprising North and South. This was an identitarian jackpot, a treat for the advertising wing of the Vatican.

Clues on what Leo’s reign will look like are few in number. “We must seek together,” he urges, “how to be a missionary Church, a Church that builds bridges, dialogue, always open to receive like this square with its open arms, all, all who need our charity, our presence, dialogue and love.” His choice of name suggests a lineage of diplomatic and doctrinal-minded figures.

Much Fourth Estate commentary has been vague, laden with cryptic references and snatches of speculation. In the absence of detail, obsession over minutiae becomes paramount. He turned up in the garb of Benedict XVI, suggested one observer on the BBC World Service, but spoke like his immediate predecessor, Pope Francis I. “We saw a balance of the aesthetics of the traditional church,” opined Charlie Gillespie of Sacred Heart University, “along with language that sounded like Pope Francis.”

Any use of the term “moderate” is also bound to be meaningless, though Leo’s brother, John Prevost, has aired his own prediction: “I don’t think we’ll see any extremes either way.” Such a figure is straitjacketed by doctrine and buttoned up by process. One who is bound to follow ancient texts drafted by the superstitious, however modernised in interpretation, will be caged by them. In 2012, for instance, Prevost was revealing on that very issue when commenting on church attitudes to homosexuality. Certain Western values, he thought, proved sympathetic to views “at odds with the gospel”, one of them being the “homosexual lifestyle.”

The same cannot be said about Leo’s attitudes to migrants and the poor. A social media account bearing Prevost’s name did not shy away from attacking the immigration policy of the Trump administration via a number of reposted articles. In February, for instance, an article from the National Catholic Reporter titled “JD Vance is wrong: Jesus doesn’t ask us to rank our love for others” featured. Suffice to say that his selection did not impress certain figures in the MAGA movement, most notably Steve Bannon. Calling Leo the “worst pick for MAGA Catholics,” Bannon sniffed a conspiracy. “This is an anti-Trump vote by the globalists that run the Curia – this is the pope Bergoglio [Francis I] and his clique wanted.”

The orbit of other problems will also be impossible for the new pontiff to escape. The stain of clerical sex abuse remains an immovable reminder of organisational defect and depravity. Terrier like activists continue their sorties against the Church, demanding redress and publishing their findings on such outlets as ConclaveWatch.org. Earlier this year, the Survivors Network of those Abused by Priests (SNAP), along with Nates Mission, another survivors’ organisation, named the then Cardinal Prevost as one of six figures seminal in covering up sexual abuse in the church. These formed a dossier of complaints submitted to Cardinal Pietro Parolin, the Vatican’s secretary of state. According to the campaigners, the dossier documenting claims of mismanagement and cover-ups marked “the first time multiple high-ranking cardinals have been targeted … by co-ordinated, survivor-led action.”

An open letter published on May 8 by SNAP also proved sharp on the election. “The sex offender in the collar commits two crimes: one against the body, and one against the voice. The grand pageantry around your election reminds us: survivors do not carry the same weight in this world as you do.” The organisation further stated that Prevost, when provincial of the Augustinians, permitted Father James Ray, a priest accused of child abuse with restricted ministry since 1991, to reside at the Augustinians’ St. John Stone Friary in 2000. From the outset, the Pope’s ledger is already a heavy one.

This content originally appeared on Dissident Voice and was authored by Binoy Kampmark.

The Aotearoa Philippines Solidarity national assembly has condemned the National Party-led Coalition government in New Zealand over signing a “deplorable” visiting forces agreement with the Philippine government

“Given the Armed Forces of the Philippines’ appalling human rights record and continuing attacks on activists in the Philippines, it is deplorable for the New Zealand government to even consider forging such an agreement,” the APS said in a statement today.

Activists from Filipino communities and concerned New Zealanders gathered in Auckland yesterday to discuss the current human rights crisis in the Philippines and resolved to organise solidarity actions in Aotearoa New Zealand.

• READ MORE: Philippines, New Zealand sign visiting forces deal
• Other Philippines reports

The visiting forces agreement (VFA), signed in Manila last month, allows closer military relations between the two countries, including granting allowing each other’s militaries to enter the country to participate in joint exercises.

“By entering into a VFA with the Philippines, the coalition government is being complicit in crimes against humanity being perpetrated by the AFP and the regime of President Ferdinand Marcos Jr. against the Filipino people,” the statement said.

Having such an agreement in place with the Philippine military tarnished New Zealand’s global reputation of respecting human rights and having an independent foreign policy.

“The APS reiterates its call to the New Zealand government to junk the VFA with the Philippines and to end all ties with the Philippine military,” the statement said.

Mid-term general election tomorrow
“Assembly participants also discussed the mid-term general election campaign in the Philippines “and the violence borne out of it”.

“Elections are typically a bloody affair in the country, but the vote set to occur on Monday [May 12] is especially volatile given the high stakes,” the statement said.

“The country’s two dominant political factions, the Marcos and Duterte camps, are vying for control of the country’s political arena and there is no telling how far they would go to obtain power.”

The statement said there were reports of campaigners going missing, being extrajudicially killed and also being detained without due process.

“We expect electoral fraud and violence will again be committed by the biggest political dynasties especially against the progressive candidates representing the most marginalised sectors.

“The Philippine government must do everything it can to avoid further bloodshed and violent skirmishes that aim to preserve power for the competing political dynasties.”

The statement said that the APS called for the immediate and unconditional freedom for Bayan Muna campaigner Pauline Joy Panjawan.

“Her abduction, torture and continuing detention on trumped up charges speak volumes about the reality of the ongoing human rights crisis in the Philippines.

With yesterday’sassembly, the APS renewed its commitment to raise awareness over the human rights crisis in the Philippines and to do everything it could to raise solidarity with the Filipino people struggling to “achieve a truly just and democratic society”.

• Former President Rodrigo Duterte is currently held in The Hague by the International Criminal Court (ICC) to answer changes of crimes against humanity over the extrajudicial killing of thousands of Filipinos in the so-called “war against drugs” between 2016 and 2022.

This content originally appeared on Asia Pacific Report and was authored by APR editor.

Minority Impact Coalition is a shadowy organisation which appeared on Australia’s political landscape in February of this year.

According to its constitution, its object is to promote “mutual respect and tolerance between groups of people in Australia by actively countering racism and bringing widespread understanding and tolerance amongst all sectors of the community”.

However, it is spreading ignorance, fear and Islamophobia to millions of mostly male Australians living in the outer suburbs and the regions.

• READ MORE: Dark money: Labor and Liberal join forces in attacks on Teals and Greens for Australian election
• Albanese ignored Palestinian and Arabic background Australians in his own electorate – now they speak out
• Rightwing astroturfers infiltrate Australian local councils, fire up unrest over Israel
• Other Australian election reports

Advance is ‘transparent … easy to deal with’
Speaking to an Australian Jewish Association webinar, Roslyn Mendelle, who is of Israeli-American origin and a director of Minority Impact Coalition (MIC), said the rightwing Advance introduced her to the concept of a third party.

“Advance has been nothing but absolutely honest, transparent, direct, and easy to deal with,” Mendelle said.

The electoral laws, which many say are “broken by design”, mean that it will be several months before MIC’s major donors are revealed. Donors making repeated donations below $15,900 are unlisted “dark money”. (This threshold will change to $5000 in 2026).

Who’s paying to undermine Australian democracy? Scam of the week  Video: MWM

Coming in second place, are the returns from the Australian Taxation Office.

Further down is a $50,000 donation from Henroth Pty Ltd, co-owned by brothers Stanley and John Roth. Stanley is also a director of the $51 million charity United Israel Appeal, while John Roth is married to Australia’s Special Envoy for Combating Antisemitism Jillian Segal.

$14.5 million of Advance’s funds is unlisted dark money.

In NSW, it is targeting Greens candidates everywhere and is also focussed on the Labor-held seat of Gilmore, challenged by Liberal Party candidate Andrew Constance.

Roslyn (nee Wolberger) and her wife Hava Mendelle founded MIC last year. The couple met in 2017 while Roslyn was living in the Israeli settlement of Talpiot in Occupied East Jerusalem in breach of international law.

Independent journalist Alex McKinnon reported that MIC spokesperson and midwife, Sharon Stoliar, wrote in an open letter:

“When you chant ‘from the river to the sea Palestine will be free’ . . .  while wearing NSW Health uniforms, you are representing NSW Health in a call for genocide of Jews. YOU. ARE. SUPPORTING. TERRORISM… I. WILL. REPORT. YOU.”

Its campaign material is authorised by Joshu Turier, a retired boxer and right-wing extremist.

According to Facebook library, MIC’s ads are targeted at men, particularly between ages 35 and 54 in Queensland, Victoria and New South Wales.

In mid-April, the group paid for an ad so extreme that Instagram pulled it, leading to Turier reposting on his own Facebook page again this week. He complained that “It’s beyond troubling when our media platforms remove simple, factual material.”

They are ‘coming for us’ {Editor … oh no!}
By Wednesday, the video was back on MIC’s Facebook account. The video says that the Greens are deliberately enabling pro-Palestine student protesters, who

“Don’t actually believe in the concept of a nation. They don’t believe in borders. They don’t believe there is a national identity. They believe in the Islamic brotherhood.”

“. . . It is just the beginning. When antisemitism starts, it’s not going to stop. They are going to come for Christians, for Atheists, for Agnostics.”

MIC is spending big on billboards, campaign trucks, and professional videos targeting at least five electorates. But despite their big spending, they cannot be found on the Australian Electoral Commission transparency register.

According to the transparency advocacy group WhoTargets.Me, MIC has spent more than $50,000 on Google and Meta ads in the last month alone. This doesn’t account for billboards, trucks, labour, or the 200,000 addresses letterboxed in late March.

More investigation shows their donations will all flow through the QJ Collective Ltd (QJC), which also “powers” the Minority Impact Coalition website. QJC is registered as a significant third party with the Australian Electoral Commission.

Clones with ghost offices

MIC and Queensland Jewish Collective are virtually identical. They have always had the same directors — with Azin Naghibi replacing Roslyn’s partner, Hava Mendelle, as both QJC and MIC director in March 2025.

When QJC first came to MWM’s notice last year, it was running a relatively well-funded campaign — although limited to several seats — to “Put the Greens Last” in the Queensland state election.

In September 2024, the group’s website stated that it was “non-partisan and not left or right-wing”, and that its “goal was to support Queenslanders in making informed decisions when voting for our leaders”. MIC is the vehicle for this campaign.

Today, neither the QJC nor MIC makes any such claim. The Collective’s website lists its leading “campaign’” as “exposing the two-faced nature of the Labor party”.

The alarming detail
While the two “grassroots” groups share several of their total five different associated addresses, mostly consisting of shared offices, it is not a perfect match.

For both groups, directors Mendelle and Turier list their address as 470 St Pauls Terrace, Fortitude Valley, Queensland. There was no name or company, just an address, however, shared offices run by Jubilee Place are available at that location.

QJC and MIC director Naghibi lists her address on both extracts as 740 St Pauls Terrace, a non-commercial building.

Either Mendelle and Turier are living out of a shared office, or Naghibi is unable to remember the address of the shared office she has little real connection to.

Last year, MWM contacted the owners of QJC’s listed office address at Insolvency Company Accountants in Tewantin, Queensland. At first, the firm said that no one had heard of them. Following that, the firm said that the Collective is a client of the firm, however denied any further connection.

A fresh search this year showed an additional contact address listed by the grassroots Collective — this time 1700 km away — at 1250 Malvern Road, Malvern, Victoria. Again there was no name or company, just an address.

Located at that address is boutique accounting firm Greenberg & Co, which specialises in serving clients who are “high net worth individuals”. MWM contacted senior partner Jay Greenberg who said his role was only one of ‘financial compliance’. He said that he did have personal views on the election but these were not relevant. He declined to discuss further details.

Previously Greenberg served as Treasurer (2018-2019), under Jillian Segal as President, of the peak roof body the Executive Council of Australian Jewry.

Attack of the clones
Better Australia is a third party campaigner that, like QJ Collective in 2024, claims to be bipartisan.

Its communications are authorised by Sophie Calland, an active member of NSW Labor’s Alexandria Branch. Her husband Ofir Birenbaum — from the nearby Rosebery Branch — is also a member of the third party Better Australia.

Co-convenor of Labor Friends of Israel, Eric Roozendaal, and former Prime Minister Scott Morrison’s secretary, Yaron Finkelstein, provided further campaign advice at a members meeting.

Patron of Labor Friends of Israel and former Senator Nova Peris teamed up with Better Australia for a campaign video last week.

“When Greens leader Adam Bandt refuses to stand in front of the Australian flag,” Peris said, “I ask, how can you possibly stand for our country?”

Better Australia’s stated goal is to campaign for a major government “regardless of which major party is in office”.

The group urges voters to “put the Greens and Teals last”, warning that a Labor minority government would be chaos. The “non-partisan” third party has made no statements on the Liberal-National Coalition, nor on a minority government with One Nation.

Some Better Australia workers — who wear bright yellow jackets labelled “community advisor” — are paid, and others volunteer.

“Isabella” told MWM that her enlistment as a volunteer for the third party campaigner is “not political” — rather it is all “about Israel”.

Previously Isabella had protested in support of the Israeli hostages and prisoners of war held in Gaza.

Another campaigner told us he was paid by Better Australia. He spoke little English and declined to say more.

Two schoolgirls campaigning at Rose Bay told MWM that they were paid by their father who had chaired a Better Australia meeting the previous evening. They declined to disclose his name.

On Wednesday, the group posted a video of Calland campaigning at Wentworth’s Kings Cross booth which included an image of her talking with  a young Better Australia worker.

MWM later interviewed this woman who is an Israeli on a working holiday visa. She was supporting the campaign because it fits her political “vision”: the Greens and independent MPs like Allegra Spender must be removed from office because they are “against Israel” and for a “Free Palestine” which would mean the end of “my country”.

Allegra Spender denies these assertions.

Greens leader Adam Bandt remained determinedly optimistic, telling MWM that organisations such as Better Australia and MIC,

“are able to run their disinformation campaigns because Australia has no truth in political advertising laws, which enables them to lie about the priorities of the Greens and crossbench without consequence, as well as huge corporate money flowing into politics.

“In this term of Parliament, Labor failed to progress truth in political advertising laws, and instead did a dirty deal with the Liberals on electoral reforms to try and shut out third parties and independents.”

Labor’s candidate for Wentworth, Savannah Peake, told MWM on Tuesday that she had known Calland for 18 months.

Peake said that while she knew Calland had previously founded Better Council, she had only discovered Calland was authorising Better Australia when she arrived at the booth that morning.

Peake told MWM that she had contacted the NSW Labor Head Office to voice her objections and was confident the issue would be “dealt with swiftly”.

The third party campaign runs contrary to Peake’s preferences, which tells supporters in Wentworth to vote #1 Labor and #2 Allegra Spender. MWM repeatedly tried to follow up with Peake throughout the week to find out what action NSW Labor had taken but received no reply.

Liberal candidate for Wentworth, Ro Knox, complies with Better Australia’s call to put Greens last on her voting preferences.

Many people in NSW Labor know about their fellow members’ involvement in Better Australia. The Minister for Environment and MP for Sydney Tanya Plibersek, state member Ron Hoenig and NSW Labor have all previously refused to answer questions.

A Labor volunteer at a Wentworth pre-poll booth told MWM that he disapproved if a fellow party member was involved with the third party. Two older Labor volunteers were in disbelief, having incorrectly assumed that the anti-Teal posters were authorised by the Trumpet of Patriots party.

Another said he was aware of Calland’s activities but had decided “not to investigate” further.

Better Australia focuses on Richmond
By the end of the week, Better Australia had left a trail of “Put the Greens last’ placards across Sydney’s Inner West, one of them outside the Cairo Takeaway cafe where the third party’s organiser Ofir Birenbaum was first exposed.

The third party have extended their polling campaign to the seat of Richmond, on the North coast of NSW where campaign sources are expecting more volunteers on election day.

As parties dash to the finishing line, they are calling for more donations to counter the astroturfers. According to website TheyTargetYou, the major parties alone have spent $11.5 million on Meta and Google ads over the last month.

Better Australia splurged $200,000 on ads targeting digital TV, social media, and the Australian Financial Review. Digital ads will continue in the final three days of the election, exploiting loopholes in the mandated political advertising blackout.

The Australian public has made little progress towards transparency in the current term of government.

Until reforms are made, Silicon Valley tech giants will continue to profit from dodgy ads and astroturfing groups sowing division with each Australian election cycle.

Wendy Bacon is an investigative journalist who was the Professor of Journalism at UTS. She worked for Fairfax, Channel Nine and SBS and has published in The Guardian, New Matilda, City Hub and Overland. She has a long history in promoting independent and alternative journalism. She is a long-term supporter of a peaceful BDS and the Greens.

Yaakov Aharon is a Jewish-Australian living in Wollongong. He enjoys long walks on Wollongong Beach, unimpeded by Port Kembla smoke fumes and AUKUS submarines. The article was first published by Michael West Media and is republished with permission.

This content originally appeared on Asia Pacific Report and was authored by APR editor.

SPECIAL REPORT: By Wendy Bacon and Yaakov Aharon

On February 12 this year, former prime minister Scott Morrison’s principal private secretary Yaron Finkelstein, and former Labor NSW Treasurer Eric Roozendaal, met in the plush 50 Bridge St offices in the heart of Sydney’s CBD.

The powerbrokers were there to discuss election strategies for the astroturfing campaign group Better Australia 2025 Inc.

Finkelstein now runs his own discreet advisory firm Society Advisory, while also a director of the Liberal Party’s primary think-tank Menzies Research Centre. Previously, he worked as head of global campaigns for the conservative lobby firm Crosby Textor (CT), before working for Morrison and as Special Counsel to former NSW Premier Dominic Perrottet.

• READ MORE: Albanese ignored Palestinian and Arabic background Australians in his own electorate – now they speak out
• Rightwing astroturfers infiltrate Australian local councils, fire up unrest over Israel
• Other Australian election reports

Roozendaal earned a reputation as a top fundraiser during his term as general secretary of NSW Labor and a later stint for the Yuhu property developer. He is now a co-convenor of Labor Friends of Israel.

The two strategists have previously served together on the executive of the NSW Jewish Board of Deputies, where Finkelstein was vice-president (2010-2019) and Roozendaal was later the chair of public affairs (2019-2020).

Better for whom?
Better Australia chairperson Sophie Calland, a software engineer and active member of the Alexandria Branch of the Labor party attended the meeting. She is a director of Better Australia and carries formal responsibility for electoral campaigns (and partner of Israel agitator Ofir Birenbaum).

Also present at the meeting was Better Australia 2025 member Alex Polson, a former staffer to retiring Senator Simon Birmingham and CEO of firm DBK Advisory. Other members present included another director, Charline Samuell, and her husband, psychiatrist Dr Doron Samuell.

Last week, Dr Samuell attracted negative publicity when Liberal campaigners in the electorate of Reid leaked Whatsapp messages where he insisted on referring to Greens as Nazis. “Nazis at Chiswick wharf,” Samuell wrote, alongside a photograph of two Greens volunteers.

The Better Australia group already have experience as astroturfers. Their “Put The Greens Last” campaign was previously directed by Calland and Polson under the entity Better Council Inc. in the NSW Local government elections in September 2024.

The Greens lost three councillors in Sydney’s East but maintained five seats on the Inner West Council.

But the group had developed bigger electoral plans. They also registered the name Better NSW in mid-2024. By the time the group met for the first time this year on January 8, their plans to play a role in the Federal election were already well advanced.

They voted to change the name Better NSW Inc. to Better Australia 2025 Inc.

Calland and Birenbaum
Group member Ofir Birenbaum joined the January meeting to discuss “potential campaign fundraising materials” and a “pool of national volunteers”. Birenbaum is Calland’s husband and member of the Rosebery Branch of the Labor Party.

But by the time the group met with Finkelstein and Roozendaal in February, Birenbaum was missing. The day before the meeting, Birenbaum’s role in the #UndercoverJew stunt at Cairo Takeaway cafe was sprung.

This incident focused attention on Birenbaum’s track record as an agitator at Pro-Palestine events and as a “close friend” of the extreme-right Australian Jewish Association. The former Instagram influencer has since closed his social media accounts and disappeared from public view.

The minutes of the February meeting lodged with NSW Fair Trading mention a “discussion of potential campaign management candidates; an in-depth presentation and discussion of strategy; a review and amendments of draft campaign fundraising materials”. All of this suggests that consultants had been hired and work was well underway.

The group also voted to change Better Council’s business address and register a national association with ASIC so they could legally campaign at a national level.

On March 4, Calland registered Better Australia as a “significant third party” with the Australian Electoral Commission. This is required for organisations that expect their campaign to cost more than $250,000.

Three weeks later, Prime Minister Albanese called the election, and Better Australia’s federal campaign was off to the races.

Labor or Liberal, it doesn’t matter…
According to its website, Better Australia’s stated goals are non-partisan: they want a majority government, “regardless of which major party is in office”.

“In Australia, past minority governments have seen stalled reforms, frequent leadership changes, and uncertainty that paralysed effective governance.”

No evidence has been provided by either Better Australia’s website or campaigning materials for these statements. In fact, in its short lifetime, the Gillard Labor minority government passed legislation at a record pace.

Instead, it is all about creating fear.  A stream of campaigning videos, posts, flyers and placards carrying simple messages tapping into fear, insecurity, distrust and disappointment have appeared on social media and the streets of Sydney in recent weeks.

Wentworth independent Allegra Spender wasted no time posting her own video telling voters she was unfazed, and for her electorate to make their own voting choices rather than fall for a crude scare campaign.

Spender is accused of supporting anti-Israel terrorism by voting to reinstate funding for the United Nations aid agency UNRWA. Better Australia warns that billionaires and dark money fund the Teal campaign, alleging average voters will lose their money if Teals are reelected.

It doesn’t matter that most Teal MPs have policies in favour of increasing accountability in government or that no information is provided about who is backing Better Australia.

Anti-Green, too
The anti-Greens angle of Better Australia’s campaign sends a broad message to all electorates to “Put the Greens Last”. It aims to starve the Greens of preferences. The campaign message is simple: the Greens are “antisemitic, support terrorism, and have abandoned their environmental roots”.

It does not matter that calls unite the peaceful Palestine protests for a ceasefire, or that the Greens have never stopped campaigning for the environment and against new fossil fuel projects.

Better Australia promotes itself as a grassroots organisation. In February, Sophie Calland told The Guardian that “Better Australia is led by a broad coalition of Australians who believe that political representation should be based on integrity and action, not extremist or elite activism”.

It has very few members and its operations are marked by secrecy, and voters will have to wait a full year before the AEC registry of political donations reveals Better Australia’s backers.

It fits into a patchwork of organisations aiming to influence voters towards a framework of right-wing values, including

“support for the Israel Defence Force, fossil fuel industries, nationalism and anti-immigration and anti-transgender issues.”

Advance Australia (not so fair)
Advance is the lead organisation in this space. It campaigns in its own right and also supports other organisations, including Minority Impact Coalition, Queensland Jewish Collective and J-United.

Advance claims to have raised $5 million to smash the Greens and a supporter base of more than 245,000. It has received donations up to $500,000 from the Victorian Liberal Party’s holding company, Cormack Foundation.

In Melbourne, ex-Labor member for Macnamara, Michael Danby, directs and authorises “Macnamara Voters Against Extremism”, which pushes voters to preference either Liberals or Labor first, and the Greens last. Danby has spoken alongside Birenbaum at Together With Israel rallies.

The message of Better Australia — and Better Council before it — mostly aligns with Advance. These campaigns target women aged 35 to 49, who Advance claims are twice as likely to vote for the Greens as men of the same age.

The scare campaign targets female voters with its fear-mongering and Greens MPS, including Australia’s first Muslim Senator Mehreen Faruqi, and independent female MPS with its loathing.

Meanwhile, Advance is funded by mining billionaires and advocates against renewable energy.

Labor standing by in silence
Better Australia is different from Advance, which is targeting Labor because it is an alliance of Zionist Labor and LIberal interests. Calland’s campaign may be effectively contributing to the election of a Dutton government. In the face of what would appear to be betrayal, the NSW Labor Party simply stands by.

The NSW Labor Rules Book (Section A.7c) states that a member may be suspended for “disloyal or unworthy conduct [or] action or conduct contrary to the principles and solidarity of the Party.”

Following MWM’s February exposé of Birenbaum, we sent questions to NSW Labor Head Office, and MPs Tanya Plibersek and Ron Hoenig, without reply. Hoenig is a member of the Parliamentary Friends of Israel and has attended Alexandria Branch meetings with Calland.

MWM asked Plibersek to comment on Birenbaum’s membership of her own Rosebery Branch, and on Birenbaum’s covert filming of Luc Velez, the Greens candidate in Plibersek’s seat of Sydney. Birenbaum shared the video and generated homophobic commentary, but we received no answers to any of our questions.

According to MWM sources, Calland’s involvement in Better Australia and Better Council before that is well known in Inner Sydney Labor circles. Last Tuesday night, she attended an Alexandria Branch meeting that discussed the Federal election. She also attended a meeting of Plibersek’s campaign.

No one raised or asked questions about Calland’s activities. MWM is not aware if NSW Labor has received complaints from any of its members alleging that Calland or Birenbaum has breached the party’s rules.

After all, when top Liberal and Labor strategists walk into a corporate boardroom, there is much to agree on.

It begins with a national campaign to keep the major parties in and independents and Greens out.

• MWM has sent questions to Calland, Finkelstein, and Roozendaal, regarding funding and the alliance between Liberal and Labor powerbrokers but we have yet to receive any replies.

Wendy Bacon is an investigative journalist who was professor of journalism at UTS. She has worked for Fairfax, Channel Nine and SBS and has published in The Guardian, New Matilda, City Hub and Overland. She has a long history in promoting independent and alternative journalism. She is not a member of any political party but is a Greens supporter and long-term supporter of peaceful BDS strategies.

Yaakov Aharon is a Jewish-Australian living in Wollongong. He enjoys long walks on Wollongong Beach, unimpeded by Port Kembla smoke fumes and AUKUS submarines. This article was first published by Michael West Media and is republished with permission of the authors.

This content originally appeared on Asia Pacific Report and was authored by APR editor.

The Liberal Party in Canada had been massively trailing in the polls. Then it pulled off a victory that seemed impossible just two months ago, largely thanks to one man: President Donald Trump, who repeatedly threatened to make Canada the 51st state. After former Prime Minister Justin Trudeau resigned, former central banker Mark Carney took over as Liberal leader and campaigned as someone willing to stand up to the United States, while painting the opposition Conservatives as too close to a hostile Trump administration. “If you’d asked people around Christmas if the Liberal Party had any chance of forming government in the next election, they would have said, 'Absolutely not,'” says Canadian tech writer and critic Paris Marx, who notes that Carney has quickly moved to weaken some of his party’s more progressive policies and cozy up to tech executives. “So, even though we have a Liberal Party coming to power over a Conservative Party, that doesn’t mean there aren’t things to still be worried about, as we see the way that they might potentially govern.”

This content originally appeared on Democracy Now! and was authored by Democracy Now!.

This story originally appeared in Common Dreams on Apr. 29, 2024. It is shared here with permission under a Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0) license.

Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney declared that his country’s “old relationship with the United States… is over” after leading his Liberal Party to victory in Monday’s federal election, a contest that came amid U.S. President Donald Trump’s destructive trade war and threats to forcibly annex Canada.

“As I have been warning for months, America wants our land, our resources, our water, our country. But these are not idle threats,” Carney, a former central banker who succeeded Justin Trudeau as Canada’s prime minister last month, said after he was projected the winner of Monday’s election.

On the day of the contest, Trump reiterated his desire to make Canada “the cherished 51st. State of the United States of America.”

“President Trump is trying to break us so that America can own us,” Carney said Monday. “That will never, ever happen.”

Carney: President Trump is trying to break us so that America can own us. That will never, ever happen pic.twitter.com/dUEI0YGSM2

— Acyn (@Acyn) April 29, 2025

It’s not yet clear whether the Liberal Party will secure enough seats for a parliamentary majority, but its victory Monday was seen as a stunning comeback after the party appeared to be spiraling toward defeat under Trudeau’s leadership.

Pierre Poilievre, the head of Canada’s Conservative Party, looked for much of the past year to be “cruising to one of the largest majority governments in Canada’s history,” The Washington Post noted.

But on Monday, Poilievre—who was embraced by Trump allies, including mega-billionaire Elon Musk—lost his parliamentary seat to his Liberal opponent, Bruce Fanjoy.

Vox‘s Zack Beauchamp wrote Tuesday that “Trump has single-handedly created the greatest surge of nationalist anti-Americanism in Canada’s history as an independent country,” pointing to a recent survey showing that “61% of Canadians are currently boycotting American-made goods.”

“Trump’s aggressive economic policy isn’t, as he claimed, making America Great or respected again. Instead, it’s having the opposite effect: turning longtime allies into places where campaigning against American leadership is a winning strategy,” Beauchamp added. “If we are indeed witnessing the beginning of the end of the American-led world order, the history books will likely record April 28, 2025, as a notable date—one where even America’s closest ally started eying the geopolitical exits.”

This content originally appeared on The Real News Network and was authored by Jake Johnson.

Back in August 2014, the New Democratic Party (NDP) was led by Tom Mulcair whose Zionism was so extreme that a sitting MP, Sana Hassainia, of the Montreal-area riding of Vercheres-Les Patriotes, could not accept Mulcair’s position and chose to sit as an independent.

The current NDP leader Jagmeet Singh forthrightly denounced the genocide in Gaza and questioned current Canadian prime minister Mark Carney (Liberal Party) about his position on Gaza.

“Mr. Carney, why don’t you call it what it is? It’s a genocide,” said Singh.

Carney replied, “This question is in front of the International Court of Justice. The situation is a horrible situation. I will not, and I will never politicize that word or this situation.”

The Conservative Party leader Pierre Poilievre is a Trump-style politician in Canada. Poilievre promises to deport critics, move Canada’s embassy in Israel, and cut funding to the United Nations Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA) and other international bodies assisting Palestinians.

Poilievre accused UNRWA employees of being involved in the 7 October 2023 attacks on Israel.

Singh demurred, “What you said about UNRWA was disgusting.… Calling it a terrorist organization is unacceptable. It’s hateful and it’s entirely inappropriate.”

There was a choice in the United States election to vote against genocide, but people overwhelmingly voted for one of the two pro-Zionist presidential candidates in the 2024 election, despite there being presidential candidates who were opposed to the Zionist genocide.

The leaders of the two major parties in Canada present as Zionist appeasers, as demonstrated by their own words. The difference from the 2024 US election is that in Canada there is a prominent political party, the NDP, whose leader calls genocide by what it is.

Canadians have a choice to vote No to genocide on Monday, 28 April.

This content originally appeared on Dissident Voice and was authored by Kim Petersen.

Ecuador’s president and Trump ally Daniel Noboa has declared victory in the recent election, claiming 56% of the vote in Sunday’s presidential election, according to the country’s National Electoral Council. But analysts say Noboa’s campaign was riddled with illegalities, and that he waged a dirty fake news war against challenger Luisa González the likes of which the country has never seen—and González has challenged the legitimacy of the final vote tally. Reporting from the streets of Quito, journalist Michael Fox breaks down the political tumult in Ecuador and the implications of Noboa’s victory for Ecuadorians, for Latin America, and the new international right.

Videography / Production / Narration: Michael Fox

Transcript

Michael Fox, narrator: Ecuador’s president, Daniel Noboa, has been reelected. He’s 37 years old. The son of a banana tycoon. And a Trump ally. He was one of only three Latin American presidents to attend Donald Trump’s inauguration in January, alongside Argentina’s Javier Milei and El Salvador’s Nayib Bukele—all international figureheads of the “new right”.

Noboa’s campaign focused on one thing: Security. See, gangs and narco-groups have sent violence spiraling out of control in recent years. 

Decio Machado, political analyst: If things continue this way this year, Ecuador won’t be the second most violent country in Latin America, it will be the first.

Michael Fox, narrator: Noboa has promised to take it to the gangs. He’s building high-security prisons, like El Salvador’s Nayib Bukele, and like Bukele has done to execute his war on the gangs and extrajudicial imprisonment of 2% of his country’s population, the highest incarceration rate in the world.

Daniel Noboa has also decreed states of emergency to claim exceptional powers, suspending constitutional rights in the name of the war on drugs. 

He’s even invited the United States to help. 

Daniel Noboa, Ecuador’s President [speech]: We are going to end delinquency. We are going to end criminality. We are going to do away with these miserable politicians that have kept us behind.

Michael Fox, narrator: Iron fist. Tough on crime. This is Noboa’s bread and butter. And his people love it.

According to the National Electoral Council, Noboa won Sunday’s election with 56% of the vote. His supporters danced in the streets.

Noboa supporter: I’m so happy. We’ve won again.

Michael Fox, narrator: But analysts say Noboa’s campaign was riddled with illegalities, and that he waged a dirty fake news war against challenger Luisa González the likes of which the country has never seen.

And on election night… González refused to recognize the results.

Luisa González, presidential candidate [speech]: I denounce, before the people, before the media and the world that Ecuador is living under a dictatorship. This is the biggest fraud in the history of Ecuador!

Michael Fox, narrator: Luisa González is a former national assembly member, a lawyer, and the leader of the Citizen’s Revolution. That’s the leftist political party created by former president Rafael Correa in the mid 2000s. He oversaw a tremendous increase in spending for education, healthcare, and social programs. They helped to lift almost two million people out of poverty.

Luisa ran on this legacy, with a campaign focused on both battling crime, and also tackling unemployment and poverty. Almost 30 percent of Ecuadorians live under the poverty line. González called for unity and promised to reinvest in Ecuador. Social programs. Education.

Her supporters were excited for a return to the good days of the past.

Marlene Yacchirema, Luisa González supporter: There was a lot of security. We lived in peace for 10 years, which we had not experienced for many years. And today, it’s gotten so much worse.

Michael Fox, narrator: Polls showed her leading ahead of the vote. Even the exit polls showed a virtual tie. That is, in part why, when the results started to roll in showing a more than 10-point lead for Noboa, Luisa González’s team believed there must be something wrong.

In a historic agreement, González was endorsed by the country’s most powerful Indigenous political party. In the first round of voting in February, Pachakutik had come in third with 5% of the vote . Nevertheless, on Sunday night, González received roughly the same number of votes she had in the first round.

Luisa González is now calling for a recount. It is still unclear if the electoral council will permit it and how everything will unfold. But beyond the fraud allegations, this entire election was rife with abuse, violations, and a dirty campaign carried out by president Daniel Noboa.

Decio Machado, political analyst: We have witnessed the shadiest electoral campaign since the return of democracy in Ecuador, from the year 1979 onward. And I say shady because it’s been the campaign with the dirtiest war, with the worst fake news campaign, with the most lies, and violations of the constitution.

Lee Brown, political analyst & election observer: I came here about five days before the election, and even in those few days before the vote itself took place, it was very obvious that the election wasn’t taking place in what you and I would call free and fair conditions. So most extraordinarily, the day before the election, there was a state of emergency. And this was called in, in particular, in all the areas where Luisa’s vote was strongest in the first round, but also in the capital city. Obviously that creates a climate of fear. People couldn’t move freely. So this is the sort of context the election was taking place even before that. That was on the day before the election.

I saw in my own eyes and, you know, people were telling me clear, clear abuses of power that were taking place. One clear example is the failure for there to be a separation between the government itself and the election campaign. One of those examples is just the state spending literally hundreds of millions of pounds in grants other things in the run up to the election, effectively buying votes. So that’s caused a lot of concern for people.

Michael Fox, narrator: Above all else, this high-stakes election was defined by a rabid fake news campaign against candidate Luisa González, which clearly influenced voters.

Alejandra Costa, doctor & Noboa supporter: I don’t want socialism from other countries to be implemented here in Ecuador. I want to continue to live in freedom. And I want my nephews to have this future as well. We want a free country.

Decio Machado, political analyst: There’s been a huge fake news campaign. It’s targeted Luisa supporters and has tried to insinuate links of candidate Luisa González with drug gangs, with links to drug trafficking, with the Tren de Aragua, with Mexican cartels. There’s been a whole strategy of poisoning the Ecuadorian electorate with information through social media, WhatsApp groups, etc., and it’s been very powerful on the part of the ruling party’s candidacy and on the part of Daniel Noboa’s candidacy. It’s all clearly part of the dirtiest campaign we’ve ever seen in Ecuador.

Michael Fox, narrator: Noboa’s fake news campaign wasn’t just negative against Luisa González, it was also positive in favor of himself.

Lee Brown, political analyst & election observer: The most incredible fake news that I’ve seen is that the government is resolving the question of security, because with your own eyes you can see that with all the data points, you cannot see them.

Michael Fox, narrator: This is an interesting reality. Despite Noboa’s discourse, his state of exceptions, and his increasing the military and police on the streets… the violence, homicides, and theft in the country have actually gotten worse. 

Decio Machado, political analyst: Between January, February, and March, according to the official figures, the levels of violence have risen 70% compared with the numbers from the same period last year.

Lee Brown, political analyst & election observer: The propaganda campaign means people are really, really getting this unified message that only they can resolve this issue of security, and, on the flip side, that if you bring back the progressive movement Luisa González and representatives of the citizens Revolution, that if you were to do that then the drug the narco traffickers would take over the country.

Michael Fox, narrator: These types of lies and fake news campaigns we have seen before. From Donald Trump. From Bolsonaro, in Brazil. From Bukele, in El Salvador. They are a dirty, but highly effective tactic of the far right across the region. Their push to spread false narratives and weaponize misinformation across media platforms has been key to securing sufficient popular support and consolidating power.

Analysts expect Daniel Noboa to double down in his new term. A willing ally of Donald Trump and the United States, Noboa even traveled to the US two weeks before the election for a photo-op at Mar-A-Lago with the US president. Noboa has invited the United States to help fight his war on drugs.

Francesca Emanuele, Center for Economic and Policy Research: He is trying to get to that position of being part of the Latin American far right. And actually his policies are from the far right. He has militarized the whole country in the name of fighting crime. He is committing human rights abuses, forced disappearances with impunity, and he’s offering the US to have military bases.

So he’s definitely working to be the far right of the Americas and the far right of the world. And that’s really scary. That’s really scary for the population here in Ecuador. And I think that in the next four years, the situation is going to be worse.

Michael Fox, narrator: But there will be resistance. Social explosions are common in Ecuador when people’s rights are being trampled, or their communities disrespected, or their native lands threatened. 

Nation-wide protests shut down the country in 2019 and again in 2022 against neoliberal government reforms and the rising cost of gas and basic products.

If Luisa González and the Indigenous movement continue united, it is only a matter of time, before a new wave of protests ignites. As we have seen time and time again, in Ecuador, if rights are not respected and won at the ballot box, they will be fought for and reclaimed on the streets.

This content originally appeared on The Real News Network and was authored by Michael Fox.

As Ecuador’s President Daniel Noboa claims victory in a contested election, Noboa’s leftist rival Luisa González is challenging the results, calling Noboa a “dictator” who committed election fraud to be reelected. The widow of former candidate Fernando Villavicencio also released a new video seemingly confirming allegations that Noboa had been involved in an attempt to frame a third candidate for Villavicencio’s assassination during the 2023 presidential election. Journalist José Olivares, who reported on the allegations for Drop Site, responds to the new video and the Noboa administration’s “cozying up” to Donald Trump and his allies, including the notorious private military contractor Erik Prince.

This content originally appeared on Democracy Now! and was authored by Democracy Now!.

The statement calls on the two politicians to ensure free expression is protected as guaranteed in the constitution and international human rights treaties signed by Ecuador, to respect journalistic work without interference or reprisals, and to refrain from using political or judicial power to intimidate or persecute the media.

Ecuador is going through an unprecedented security crisis, driven by organized crime, institutional weakening and growing social conflict.

Read the full statement here in Spanish.

This content originally appeared on Committee to Protect Journalists and was authored by CPJ Staff.

Myanmar junta has announced that the election it plans to hold in December and January would be held in four phases, marking the first time the military has outlined a specific schedule for the controversial vote.

The junta said in early March that the elections were slated for December 2025 with the possibility of January 2026, but observers at that time dismissed its plan, saying the military won’t be able to hold the vote in territory it doesn’t control – about half the country – and that the public will view the results as a sham.

“A provisional date for the election is set on the third week and fourth week of December this year and first week and second week of January,” the junta’s Office of the Commander-in-Chief of Defense Services said in a statement on Wednesday, adding that the election would be held in four-part phases.

“The government must take advanced measures to hold a fraud-free multi-party democracy general election that is truly free and fair,” it added, without elaborating.

Since the 2021 coup, the junta has repeatedly attempted to hold elections, but these efforts have been consistently delayed.

The military regime has extended the State of Emergency multiple times over the past four years, citing alleged fraud in the 2020 general elections, in which the National League for Democracy secured a decisive victory.

By issuing back-to-back emergency declarations, the junta has effectively postponed the election process, prolonging its grip on power.

Signs of progress toward holding elections have emerged in recent months as Myanmar’s junta chief traveled abroad to secure international support.

Following diplomatic visits to Russia and Belarus in March, both countries pledged their backing for the junta’s controversial election plan.

They join India and China, which have also expressed support for the isolated nation’s electoral process, despite the military regime’s decision to bar some political parties from re-registering due to alleged ties to rebel militias.

RELATED STORIES

Junta chief vows to hike defense budget, seeking to expand global presence

Myanmar to organize election in fewer than half of townships, parties say

Myanmar junta chief says election to be held by January 2026

But observers, including human rights groups and officials from the ousted National League for Democracy government, question the legitimacy of the junta-led election after an opaque census by the military left dozens of administrators dead and large parts of the country untouched.

Widespread violence in embattled areas, coupled with near-daily airstrikes from the Myanmar military that often target civilians, also leave many skeptical about the feasibility of the election.

Insurgent groups now control large swathes of the country’s borderlands, leaving the areas like Rakhine and Shan states under uncertain jurisdiction with minimal junta presence.

Translated by Kiana Duncan. Edited by Taejun Kang.

This content originally appeared on Radio Free Asia and was authored by RFA Burmese.

A Chinese envoy has met Myanmar’s junta chief to discuss help for an election that the military aims to hold by January, days after the Myanmar leader secured a promise of support for the vote from its other main foreign backer, Russia.

Myanmar’s ruling military has been shunned by most Western countries since it overthrew an elected government led by Nobel laureate Aung San Suu Kyi in 2021 but China and Russia have maintained close economic and military ties, and both have promised support for an election that the embattled junta will be hoping can bolster its legitimacy.

China’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs Envoy Deng Xijun and Senior Gen. Min Aung Hlaing met in the Myanmar capital Naypyidaw on Tuesday and discussed the junta’s overarching plan for the future, what it calls its “five-pont roadmap”, and “preparation to hold an election”, the junta’s Ministry of Information said in a statement.

China has extensive economic interests in its southern neighbor, including energy pipelines from the Indian Ocean and rare earth mines, and it is hoping that an election will help end the civil war that erupted in Myanmar after the military’s 2021 coup.

The junta will also be hoping that an election will ease international isolation and sanctions and bolster its legitimacy by showing a commitment to a democratic process, despite widespread skepticism about the fairness of a vote under military rule, analysts say.

On March 7, while on a visit to Russia and Belarus, Min Aung Hlaing announced that the elections would be held by January next year.

One Myanmar political analyst said China was expected to provide Myanmar with an electronic voting system and other support for the polls, which would be a significant help.

“They can prepare really well,” said the analyst, who declined to be identified as talking to foreign media.

China’s embassy in Myanmar has not released any information about help for the election and it did not respond to inquiries from RFA.

RELATED STORIES

China undermines its interests by boosting support for Myanmar’s faltering junta

Caveat creditor: China offers a financial lifeline to Myanmar’s junta

Myanmar military battles to push rebels back from Chinese economic zone

Russia, which has recently discussed investing in a deep sea port in southern Myanmar, also promised Min Aung Hlaing help with election observers as did Belarus. India has also promised help, as have some of Myanmar’s Southeast Asian neighbors.

But there are huge doubts about an election in a country where the vote can probably only be organized in less than half of the constituencies because of armed opposition from pro-democracy and ethnic minority insurgents.

Opponents of the junta say any vote under the military while the most popular politicians are locked up and their parties are banned would be a “sham.”

Human Rights Watch said on Tuesday the plan for an election was “farcical.”

“Myanmar’s citizens would head to the polls under a junta that has been committing numerous atrocities since the military took power,” the group’s deputy Asia director, Bryony Lau, said in a statement.

“Widespread repression, including the arbitrary detention of opposition politicians and the dissolution of their political parties, has created a climate of fear that makes free and fair elections impossible.”

Suu Kyi’s party swept Myanmar’s last election in late 2020 but the military complained of voter fraud, staged a coup, declared a state of emergency and locked up Suu Kyi and many others.

Min Aung Hlaing said in a speech in Belarus last week that 53 political parties had registered to take part in the election.

But Suu Kyi’s party has been disqualified under the military’s registration rules as have scores of parties with suspected political sympathies or ideological links to rebel groups.

Translated by Kiana Duncan. Edited by RFA Staff.

This content originally appeared on Radio Free Asia and was authored by RFA Burmese.

The junta’s opponents say a vote under the military while the most popular politicians are locked up and their parties banned will be a sham. The junta is in control of only about half the country after significant losses to pro-democracy and ethnic minority insurgents fighting to end military rule.

Senior Gen. Min Aung Hlaing announced the timing of the election while on a visit to Belarus on Friday, the military-run Global New Light of Myanmar newspaper reported.

“The election is slated for December 2025, with the possibility of … January 2026,” the newspaper quoted Min Aung Hlaing as saying.

There was no immediate comment from forces opposed to military rule but a parallel civilian government in exile, the National Unity Government, has previously dismissed the junta’s plan for an election as window-dressing to bolster the military’s legitimacy at home and abroad.

Allied ethnic minority insurgent groups fighting for self-determination have also rejected an election under military rule.

Nobel laureate Aung San Suu Kyi, by far the most popular political leader in Myanmar, has been jailed since the military ousted her elected government on Feb. 1, 2021.

Suu Kyi’s National League for Democracy party, which swept elections in 2015 and 2020, has been dissolved under military regulations and thousands of its members and supporters are in jail or have fled to rebel zones or into self-exile.

China, which has major investments in Myanmar and is keen to see an end to its turmoil, supports the vote and has offered help to organize it, as have some of Myanmar’s Southeast Asian neighbors.

Min Aung Hlaing, in a speech in Belarus, said 53 political parties had submitted paperwork to take part in the election.

“We also invite the observation teams from Belarus to come and observe,” he said.

RELATED STORIES

EXPLAINED: Why does Myanmar’s junta want to hold elections?

China undermines its interests by boosting support for Myanmar’s faltering junta

Myanmar childhoods upended by civil war

Voting is expected to be held in fewer than half of Myanmar’s 330 townships in the first phase of a staggered vote, a political party official said late last year after discussion with the election organizers.

In Myanmar’s last election in 2020, voting was held in 315 out of the 330 townships.

After Suu Kyi’s party swept the vote, as it did in a 2015 election, the army complained of cheating and overthrew her government. She has been jailed for 27 years.

Election organizers said at the time there was no evidence of any significant cheating.

Min Aung Hlaing was in Belarus after a visit to Russia where he held talks with President Vladimir Putin.

Edited by Mike Firn

This content originally appeared on Radio Free Asia and was authored by RFA Staff.

Friedrich Merz is poised to become the next German chancellor after his conservative Christian Democratic Union placed first in Sunday’s key election. Social scientist David Bebnowski, speaking from Berlin, tells Democracy Now! that Merz is likely to join with the diminished SPD of outgoing Chancellor Olaf Scholz for another “grand coalition” of establishment parties, which has ruled Germany for much of the last couple decades. He also comments on the alarming rise of the “Nazi-curious” AfD party, which was endorsed by Elon Musk and made significant gains in the election, winning the second-most votes. “The AfD is a party that is definitely part of the extreme right in Germany,” Bebnowski says.

This content originally appeared on Democracy Now! and was authored by Democracy Now!.

Friedrich Merz is poised to become the next German chancellor after his conservative Christian Democratic Union placed first in Sunday’s key election. Social scientist David Bebnowski, speaking from Berlin, tells Democracy Now! that Merz is likely to join with the diminished SPD of outgoing Chancellor Olaf Scholz for another “grand coalition” of establishment parties, which has ruled Germany for much of the last couple decades. He also comments on the alarming rise of the “Nazi-curious” AfD party, which was endorsed by Elon Musk and made significant gains in the election, winning the second-most votes. “The AfD is a party that is definitely part of the extreme right in Germany,” Bebnowski says.

This content originally appeared on Democracy Now! and was authored by Democracy Now!.

Friedrich Merz is poised to become the next German chancellor after his conservative Christian Democratic Union placed first in Sunday’s key election. Social scientist David Bebnowski, speaking from Berlin, tells Democracy Now! that Merz is likely to join with the diminished SPD of outgoing Chancellor Olaf Scholz for another “grand coalition” of establishment parties, which has ruled Germany for much of the last couple decades. He also comments on the alarming rise of the “Nazi-curious” AfD party, which was endorsed by Elon Musk and made significant gains in the election, winning the second-most votes. “The AfD is a party that is definitely part of the extreme right in Germany,” Bebnowski says.

This content originally appeared on Democracy Now! and was authored by Democracy Now!.

The murder of UnitedHealth Group executive Brian Thompson, and the subsequent arrest of Luigi Mangione, focused media and policymakers’ attention on the savage practices of private US health insurance. In the immediate aftermath, major media outlets scolded social media posters for mocking Thompson with sarcastic posts, such as “I’m sorry, prior authorization is required for thoughts and prayers.”

As public fury failed to subside, it began to dawn on at least some media organizations that the response to Thompson’s murder might possibly reflect deep, widespread anger at a healthcare system that collects twice as much money as those in other wealthy countries, makes it difficult for half the adult population to afford healthcare even when they’re supposedly “insured,” and maims, murders and bankrupts millions of people by denying payment when they actually try to use their alleged benefits. As Rep. Ro Khanna (D.–Calif.) said to ABC News  (12/8/24), “There is no justification for violence, but the outpouring afterwards has not surprised me.”

Any reporter, editor or pundit who writes regularly about healthcare and professes to be mystified or outraged by the public reaction to Thompson’s murder should take a deep look at their own assumptions, sources and professional behavior.

FAIR reviewed coverage of healthcare in the presidential election by the New York Times, Wall Street Journal and Washington Post, as well as KFF Health News (KHN), the leading outlet specializing in the healthcare issue, whose reporting is often picked up by corporate media. The coverage by these outlets amounts to little more than sophisticated public relations for this corporate healthcare killing machine and, especially, the Republican and Democratic politicians who created and nurture it.

The coverage was marred by many of the media failings FAIR has exposed since its inception. These outlets:

• took false major-party “facts” at face value and published candidates’ platitudes without challenging their substance;
• anointed former President Donald Trump and Vice President Kamala Harris as the only legitimate horses in the race, blacking out the content of third-party candidate proposals like “Medicare for All”; and
• added insult to injury by legitimizing their own failed coverage with analysis asking why there were no major healthcare reform proposals to cover.

Tsunami of fake good news

In March 2024, I reported (Healing and Stealing, 3/23/24) that Democrats were preparing to unleash a “tsunami of fake good news” about healthcare and the Affordable Care Act to try to influence media coverage of the campaign.

Major media fell for it hook, line and sinker. No campaign tactic and media failure did more to lengthen the distance between a public brutalized by a failing healthcare system and an out-of-touch corporate media.

President Joe Biden (until he dropped out) and Harris spun a narrative of “progress” under the Affordable Care Act to attract voters. The progress narrative relied on two new healthcare policy “records”: a record-low uninsurance rate and record-high Obamacare enrollment.

In a story on why “big, prominent plans for health reform are nowhere to be seen,” the New York Times’ Margot Sanger-Katz (9/13/24) explained that the “overall state of the health system” is different than in 2019 for several reasons, including that the “uninsured rate is near a record low.”

The New York Times (1/10/24) reported that signups for the ACA set a “record”—but not that this was less than the number of people who had been kicked off Medicaid.

KHN’s Phil Galewitz (9/10/24) similarly reported:

Before Congress passed the ACA in 2010, the uninsured rate had been in double digits for decades. The rate fell steadily under Barack Obama but reversed under President Donald Trump, only to come down again under President Joe Biden.

Meanwhile, insurance plans sold on the Affordable Care Act exchanges reached a record enrollment of 21 million in early 2024, or, as the Times’ Noah Weiland (1/10/24) put it, “blowing by the previous record and elevating the health and political costs of a repeal.”

The two “facts” are both distorted and largely irrelevant to people’s actual experience of the healthcare system. As Galewitz acknowledged, because of survey lags, the uninsurance data don’t reflect the 2023–24 disenrollment of some 25 million from Medicaid, the joint federal/state insurance program for low-income Americans, which had been temporarily expanded under Covid.

But the Medicaid disenrollment is reflected in the record signups to Obamacare, where some of those who lost Medicaid coverage fled in 2024. Yet according to KHN, 6 million of the 25 million people who lost Medicaid coverage became uninsured. Most of them haven’t yet been captured in uninsured data, allowing the Democrats to have their cake and eat it too.

The fact that the uninsured data likely understate uninsurance by as much as 6 million people escaped most political coverage—the Washington Post’s Dan Diamond (9/11/24), for example, added no caveats when reporting that the Biden administration

had released data showing that nearly 50 million Americans have obtained health coverage through the Affordable Care Act’s health insurance exchanges since they were established more than a decade ago, helping lower the national uninsured rate to record lows in recent years.

The Times‘ Sanger-Katz (9/13/24) likewise failed to mention it.

Private insurance ≠ healthcare 

The lesson Kamala Harris learned, according to the Washington Post (9/11/24), is that “incremental change, not a sweeping overhaul, is the best path to improving US healthcare.”

Far more importantly, the rate of uninsurance no longer measures whether or not people have adequate healthcare, or are protected from financial ruin if they get sick or injured. Data show that people who supposedly have insurance can’t get healthcare, rendering the raw uninsurance rate a relatively meaningless measure of the burden of the crisis-stricken US healthcare system.

National surveys by the Commonwealth Fund every two years include one of the few comprehensive attempts to measure underinsurance, and the impact of medical costs on people nominally “covered.” In 2022, Commonwealth found that 46% of adults aged 19–64 skipped needed medical treatment due to out-of-pocket costs. That number included 44% of adults buying insurance through ACA exchanges or the individual insurance market—even with the much-hyped expanded premium subsidies in place.

Commonwealth didn’t release its 2024 surveys until November 21, well after Election Day. During the last two years of the Biden/Harris administration, the percentage of working age adults skipping medical care due to costs increased from 46% to 48%, no matter the source of coverage (Healing and Stealing, 11/21/24).

When people with private insurance do attempt to get healthcare, their insurers often refuse to pay for care. The slain Brian Thompson was CEO of UnitedHealth Group’s insurance subsidiary. According to an analysis of federal data by ValuePenguin (5/15/24), a consumer website run by online lender LendingTree, UnitedHealthcare denied 32% of claims submitted to its ACA and individual market plans in 2022, the highest rate in the industry.

Corporate media political reporters usually delivered the misleading progress narrative “facts” without reference to this critical context. The Washington Post’s Dan Diamond (9/11/24), explaining that Harris learned “the importance of incremental progress” as vice president after retreating from support for Medicare for All, noted the administration’s achievement of “record levels of health coverage through the Affordable Care Act,” with no reference to the Medicaid purge or underinsurance.

Substance-free coverage of a substance-free campaign 

New York Times (9/13/24): “After years of crises and emergencies, no part of the system is currently ablaze.”

The New York Times’ Margot Sanger-Katz wrote in “The Campaign Issue That Isn’t: Healthcare Reform” (9/13/24):

As you may have noticed, with less than two months until Election Day, big, prominent plans for health reform are nowhere to be seen. Even in an election that has been fairly light on policy proposals, healthcare’s absence is notable.

It’s true that neither Harris nor Trump offered any concrete proposals for improving US healthcare. Harris campaigned on “strengthening” the ACA, but her only specific “improvement” was a promise to support keeping the expanded subsidies that help people pay their ACA health insurance premiums—passed in the first year of Biden’s term—from expiring as scheduled next year. In other words, “strengthen” the ACA by maintaining its dismal status quo.

As for Trump, the Times’ Weiland (8/12/24) reported that the authors of Project 2025, the consensus right-wing NGO blueprint published by the Heritage Foundation, “were not calling for a repeal of the Affordable Care Act.” At the debate, Trump said he wouldn’t repeal unless he had a better plan, and drew mockery for saying he had “concepts of a plan.”

Ultimately, mass deportation was his primary healthcare policy (Healing and Stealing, 10/16/24, 9/10/24); the RNC Platform maintained that undocumented immigrants were the cause of high healthcare costs. (It’s nonsense. Undocumented taxpayers actually paid more in taxes that were earmarked specifically for healthcare in 2022 than the estimated total cost of healthcare for all undocumented immigrants in the US.)

What you see depends on where you look 

One reason Sanger-Katz and colleagues had a hard time finding “big” plans for healthcare is that she and her colleagues chose to look for them only in the two major parties’ platforms.

Whether Eugene Debs campaigning for Social Security from prison in 1920, Henry Wallace fighting for desegregation after walking out of the 1948 Democratic convention, or Cynthia McKinney proposing an end to the Afghan War in 2008, third-party candidates have a long track record of promoting policies dismissed as unrealistic ideological fantasies that later become consensus policy. Yet corporate media outlets repeat the same failure to pay attention every four years (FAIR.org, 10/23/08).

Green Party candidate Jill Stein, the only medical doctor in the race, supported Medicare for All as a

precursor to establishing a British-style National Healthcare Service which will replace private hospitals, private medical practice and private medical insurance with a publicly owned, democratically controlled healthcare service that will guarantee healthcare as a human right to everyone in the United States.

Stein placed special emphasis on taking “the pharmaceutical industry into public ownership and democratic control.”

Justice for All Party candidate Cornel West’s Health Justice agenda also envisioned a system “Beyond Medicare for All,” including “nationalization of healthcare industries.”

Prior to suspending his campaign and endorsing Trump, Robert F. Kennedy Jr. told Jacobin (6/9/23) he would keep private insurance for those who want it, but also have a public program “available to everybody.” Although he used the phrase “single-payer,” Kennedy described a program most similar to a voluntary “public option,” an untested idea whose ultimate impact on the breadth, depth and cost of coverage remains speculative.

Outside the world inhabited by elite media, Medicare for All is a fiscally modest proposal that receives consistent support among large segments of the US population, reaching majorities depending on the wording of poll questions (KFF, 10/26/20). In 2022, the Congressional Budget Office (2/22) estimated that a single-payer system with no out-of-pocket costs for doctor visits or hospital care, minimal copays for prescription drugs, and doctor and hospital prices at the current average would cover everyone for all medical conditions—including services that are almost never fully covered, like vision, dental and hearing—and still lower expected total national health expenditures by about a half a percent.

Even with candidates in the race proposing even broader expansion of the public role in healthcare, through nationalizing hospitals and drug manufacturing, Medicare for All remains beyond the boundary of acceptable corporate media debate. This has been true for 30 years, when FAIR (Extra!, 1–2/94) reported on media coverage of the failed Clinton administration healthcare reform effort.

Just one election cycle back, during the Democratic primaries, multiple candidates—led by Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders, but also including Kamala Harris—supported Medicare for All, and media were forced to cover it, generally with considerable hostility (FAIR.org, 3/20/19, 4/29/19, 10/2/19). But with Harris backing away from it entirely, media found themselves returning to a place of comfortably ignoring the popular proposal.

Missing Medicare for All

Leading papers covered third parties as potential spoilers, but not as potential sources of new ideas (Washington Post, 3/14/24).

FAIR searched the Nexis, ProQuest and Dow Jones databases, and the websites of the New York Times, Washington Post, Wall Street Journal and KFF Health News, for election or healthcare policy stories and podcasts mentioning different iterations of “Medicare for All,” “single-payer” and “universal healthcare,” between January 1 and Election Day 2024. We found 89 news and 107 opinion pieces.

Ninety percent of the news articles came after Biden dropped out of the race. The coverage overwhelmingly focused on Harris’s reversal of her brief support for Medicare for All in 2019, with 96% of these stories mentioning her shift.

The ubiquitous Republican claim that Harris sought to give undocumented people free Medicare was based on the obviously false premise that Harris had not abandoned support for Medicare for All. Asked in 2019 whether her support for universal health insurance would include eligibility for undocumented immigrants, she said yes (New York Times, 10/30/24). Since that time, Harris has repudiated Medicare for All, and no Democrat has advocated enrolling the 11 million undocumented immigrants in Medicare, let alone for “free.”

KHN (8/1/24) and the New York Times (10/30/24) corrected this GOP distortion, but all four outlets left readers hard-pressed to learn any other details of Medicare for All, or other meaningful alternatives to the status quo, especially not any proposed by other candidates.

All four outlets wrote frequently about whether third-party candidates might siphon votes from Trump or Harris (e.g., Wall Street Journal, 11/10/23; Washington Post, 3/14/24; New York Times, 10/14/24). However, they blacked out the content of those parties’ healthcare policy positions, leaving readers with no information to help them decide if voting for a candidate other than Trump or Harris might benefit them.

Voters in the dark

In 2,000 words on “Where Robert F. Kennedy Jr. Stands on the Issues,” the New York Times (6/14/24) avoided any discussion of where he stands on major healthcare reform issues.

The New York Times, Washington Post, Wall Street Journal and KHN frequently mentioned one or more of the third-party candidates in other political coverage as a threat to the major-party candidates. But out of the 89 news articles bringing up Medicare for All, single-payer or universal healthcare, only three included third-party candidates at all, each one in passing as possible spoilers. Exactly zero offered any information at all about the candidates’ healthcare proposals.

For example, the New York Times published 34 news articles and podcasts mentioning a version of Medicare for All or single-payer, without a single word on the healthcare proposals of the third-party candidates who remained after Kennedy’s endorsement of Trump. One article (10/24/24) included a passing Stein spoiler reference. Another (8/22/24), on Harris’s commitment to “the art of the possible,” quoted West’s vice presidential running mate, Melina Abdullah, criticizing Harris for shifting many of her policy positions, but again without reference to West and Abdullah’s proposals for healthcare.

Times readers were more likely to get news about the healthcare reform positions of foreign political leaders than non–major-party candidates running for president of the United States. The paper ran six stories about Indonesia (2/12/24, 2/15/24, 10/19/24), Thailand (2/18/24) and South Africa (6/3/24, 6/7/24) that mentioned a politician’s position on “universal healthcare,” while blacking out discussion of third-party candidates’ healthcare proposals, except to some degree for Robert F. Kennedy Jr.

Before leaving the race, Kennedy’s half-baked notions about vaccines, activism on environmental health and food safety, and criticism of Covid lockdowns received frequent mention, but as with the other third-party candidates, his views on major healthcare reform issues went missing, including from a 2,000-word Times analysis of “Where Robert F. Kennedy Jr. Stands on the Issues” (6/14/24).

The third-party healthcare blackout was even tighter in the Washington Post. The 38 Post news articles mentioning Medicare for All or single-payer had only one reference to Stein or West—a quote from West unrelated to healthcare (8/21/24). The Post never reported either candidate’s healthcare proposals. A webpage on which reporters tracked third-party ballot access offered a short “Pitch to Voters” for each party that included no healthcare policy.

Medicare for All spin and bad facts

Like Democrats, the New York Times‘ Noah Weiland (8/22/24) largely avoided talking about what Medicare for All would do.

The four outlets’ descriptions of Medicare for All, single payer and universal healthcare were nearly as sparse as coverage of third-party candidates’ healthcare positions, and as distorted as reporting on the ACA. Only 23 of the 89 news stories included any description at all of these policies, the overwhelming majority of them a brief phrase in the reporter’s own words.

Only three New York Times stories included any Medicare for All substance, and these were barely intelligible. The most extensive was an article debunking Trump’s claims that Harris continued to support the policy, in which Noah Weiland (8/22/24) wrote nearly 1,300 words without explaining what the Medicare for All is or would do. Readers wouldn’t know that the current Medicare for All bills before Congress would cover everyone in the country with no out-of-pocket costs, and free choice of doctors and hospitals. They would, however, have learned that Harris “proposed a less sweeping plan” in 2019, which would include “a role for private plans.”

Weiland treated readers to what may be the most emphatic recitation of the ACA progress narrative. Biden’s pursuit of a “more traditional set of healthcare priorities” has yielded “explosive growth” in the ACA exchanges, he wrote. According to unnamed experts, that growth, and changes to Medicare and Medicaid, have “complicated” pursuit of Medicare for All.

Times readers would also have learned that expanding Medicaid is an incremental step toward Medicare for All, what bill supporter Rep. Ed Markey says is part of the policy’s “DNA.” In reality, Medicaid’s eligibility standards are literally the opposite of Medicare for All—means-tested coverage that requires you to prove you’re appropriately impoverished every year, and which disappears if you get a big enough raise at your job.

The vast majority of Times coverage of Medicare for All included no content whatsoever, simply mentioning it as a policy that Harris once supported, with the occasional political characterization (7/24/24) that it was one of her since-abandoned “left-leaning positions that can now leave her vulnerable to attack from Republicans.”

‘A proposal that worried many Americans’

Washington Post factchecker Glenn Kessler (9/9/24) said it was mostly true that Medicare for All would “raise taxes [and] increase national debt,” citing studies of Bernie Sanders’ plan that “estimated that national health expenditures would rise over 10 years.” He didn’t note that CBO found that under most single-payer plans, national health expenditures would rise—but much less than they would under the status quo.

The Post‘s Glenn Kessler (9/9/24) “factchecked” Republican claims that Medicare for All would “raise taxes, increase national debt and functionally eliminate private health insurance.” Calling it “mostly true,” Kessler cited the figure of $32.6 trillion over 10 years, and claimed that “four of the five key studies on the effect of the Sanders plan estimated that national health expenditures would rise over 10 years.”

Kessler skipped a big fact. When the CBO insisted that raising the minimum wage would cause 1.4 million lost jobs, his editors (4/18/21) indignantly defended the agency as “admirably apolitical.” But Kessler neglected to mention that the “nonpartisan scorekeepers” at the CBO (12/10/20) found that four of the five versions of single-payer healthcare that they analyzed would raise national health expenditures, but by significantly less  than preserving the status quo.

Healthcare reporter Dan Diamond (9/11/24) wrote the Post’s most detailed take on Harris’s about-face on a plan “to eliminate private insurance, a proposal that worried many Americans who feared losing access to their doctors.” Diamond managed not to let readers know that, in contrast to private insurance plans that penalize patients for seeing “out-of-network” doctors, Medicare for All would free patients to see any doctor they want without financial penalty.

Diamond added that Harris pulled back from Medicare for All because “polls across 2019 found that many Americans were worried that shifting to a national government-run health system could delay access to care,” without mentioning that half of all American working adults already skip treatments altogether every year (Commonwealth, 11/24).

Voters’ 2019 “worries” were likely stimulated in part by a multi-million-dollar lobbying and advertising blitz by the hospital, insurance and pharmaceutical industries, reported on by the Post‘s Jeff Stein (4/12/19), and based on the same distortions and inaccuracies Diamond and Kessler repeated five years later (Public Citizen, 6/28/19).

In a story (Washington Post, 4/3/20) on Sen. Bernie Sanders supporting the Biden/Harris administration’s drug cost control policies, Diamond reported that during the 2020 primaries, Sanders “argued that Medicare for All would help rein in high drug costs by forcing pharmaceutical companies to negotiate with the government.” It was the only positive framing of Medicare for All we could find in the Post’s coverage. Biden and Harris have done exactly what Sanders proposed, although to date they’ve only negotiated lower prices for 10 drugs, the prices won’t take effect for another year, and they only apply to our current “Medicare for Some.”

Expert content suppression 

KFF’s website limited its discussion of candidates’ healthcare proposals to the “viable contenders”—a choice that excluded virtually all ideas for improving the US healthcare system.

No outlet ignored the third-party candidates’ healthcare proposals more firmly, or took the tiny increments proposed by the major parties more seriously, than the one best equipped to inform the public about the state of US healthcare: KFF Health News.

KHN is a subsidiary of what used to be known as the Kaiser Family Foundations, but now goes by the acronym KFF. Founded with money from the family of steel magnate Henry Kaiser, tax-exempt KFF occupies a unique role as both news outlet and major source for healthcare information, calling itself “a one-of-a-kind information organization.”

KFF’s research and polling arms publish a large volume of detailed data and analysis of healthcare policy, covered widely in the media. This work lends additional credibility to KHN’s respected and widely republished news reporting.

With a staff of 71 reporters, editors, producers and administrators, as of November 1, KHN is devoted entirely to healthcare. Unlike taxpaying competitors like Modern Healthcare and Healthcare Dive—which regularly cover KFF’s research output—KHN publishes without a paywall, and permits reprints without charge. KHN forms partnerships with outlets of all sizes and focus, from an in-depth investigative series on medical debt with NPR and CBS News, to providing regular policy and political reporting to the physician-targeted website Medscape.

Excluding opinion articles, letters to the editor and brief daily newsletter blurbs linking to other outlets’ content, FAIR’s searches yielded just five KHN news stories from January 1 to Election Day that referred to Medicare for All, single-payer or universal healthcare. Two were state-focused—a one-paragraph mention of a proposed California single-payer bill in a broader legislative round-up (4/24/24), and a profile (7/15/24) of Anthony Wright, newly appointed executive director of the DC nonprofit Families USA.

The remaining three (7/21/24, 8/1/24, 9/11/24) were passing mentions without substance. KHN went the entire year without once mentioning Jill Stein or Cornel West.

KHN’s news coverage appeared to follow the lead of its affiliated research entity. KFF published a web page to “Compare the Candidates on Healthcare Policy,” last updated October 8, that declared

the general election campaign is underway, spotlighting former President Trump, the Republican nominee, and Vice President Harris, the Democratic nominee, as the viable contenders for the presidency.

The comparisons highlighted the differences rather than the similarities, and included without context the standard claim that the Biden/Harris “administration achieved record-high enrollment in ACA Marketplace plans.”

KFF had long since decided that discussion of Medicare for All is over. President Drew Altman told the New York Times (8/22/24) that KFF stopped polling on Medicare for All after the 2020 primaries because “there hasn’t been debate about it.” Yet pollsters regularly ask voters about healthcare issues that have no immediate chance of passage. The AP has asked people for a quarter century if they think it’s the federal government’s responsibility to “make sure all Americans have healthcare coverage,” and the Pew Research Center and other organizations have polled on abortion for decades, even when federal legislation was extremely unlikely.

The lack of “debate” about Medicare for All or single-payer is a flimsy excuse for blinkered coverage. In fact, KHN and the other outlets all ignored major healthcare reform stories with looming deadlines for action by the incoming president—federal approval for state-level reform (Healthcare Dive, 4/24/24). California and Oregon passed laws in 2023 instructing their governors to seek federal permission to dramatically restructure their state healthcare systems, including formation of a single-payer system in Oregon. Negotiations were supposed to begin in the first half of this year. None of these four agenda-setting outlets asked 2024 presidential candidates whether they planned to flex White House power to help major state-level reforms.

Complicit in mass death

All four of these outlets have done detailed reporting on some aspects of the extraordinarily expensive mass-killing machine that passes for the US “healthcare system.” Claims denials, aggressive collections, medical debt and massively inflated prices have all graced their pages.

But when it comes to political coverage, reporters and editors refuse to use their knowledge to challenge candidates effectively. The public’s experiences disappear, as journalists regurgitate bad facts and focus on self-evidently meaningless “proposals” framed by corporate power within their insular Beltway cultural bubble.

UnitedHealth Group executive Brian Thompson’s murder exposed the degree to which that behavior makes them complicit in mass death.

This content originally appeared on FAIR and was authored by John Canham-Clyne.

Janine Jackson interviewed Americans for Tax Fairness’s David Kass about billionaire election-buying for the January 31, 2025, episode of CounterSpin. This is a lightly edited transcript.

Americans for Tax Fairness (10/29/24)

Janine Jackson: In October of last year, our guest’s organization reported that 150 billionaire families had broken the record for billionaire campaign spending, putting some $1.9 billion in the coffers of presidential and congressional candidates, with the 10 biggest billionaire family contributors providing almost half of that total. This dystopian situation is an indication, not just of the spiraling power and wealth of the super rich, but of the relative weakness of the forces set up to countervail that power.

David Kass is executive director of Americans for Tax Fairness. He joins us now by phone. Welcome to CounterSpin, David Kass.

David Kass: Thank you so much. I’m really glad to be here.

JJ: Tell us a little bit more about what you found in this research on “billionaire clan,” as you call it, spending on the 2024 elections. It was an unprecedented amount of money, yes?

AP (1/20/25)

DK: It really is. So we did an analysis of how much billionaire families gave in political contributions to the election, and we found that $1.9 billion have been given in this cycle. And that is really just a shocking amount of money. It is unprecedented, it is a record amount.

And we see the impact of that. Just the inauguration, I think that picture where you had a number of these billionaires in front of the cabinet, you had Musk and Bezos and these other folks who made massive contributions to the campaign, and now they’re enjoying the fruits of that, which is really building this incredible amount of influence in this new administration.

JJ: We’re going to talk about that influence and that impact, but just some details. First of all, this billionaire spending, it’s very concentrated. It’s a relatively small group of super-wealthy folks we’re talking about, right?

DK: Yeah, exactly. There are 800 billionaires in the country, and we say 150 billionaire families. And really just a handful of folks gave an enormous amount of that money. So it really is incredibly concentrated.

JJ: Right. And it seems worth saying that this isn’t, I don’t know why I need to say this, but it isn’t families digging deep to show support for candidates they believe in, and putting all their resources towards them. The numbers are huge, but for these people, it’s like it’s a lunch tab.

DK: It really is. I mean, it’d be like you and I maybe getting something at Starbucks. And we found that the amount of the $1.9 billion, it’s $700 million more than we found in the entire 2020 campaign. So the escalation of the money, the amount of money the billionaires are giving, is going dramatically up.

JJ: It’s not just that the numbers are bigger because they’re richer. It does represent an intensified focus on campaign spending from these billionaires.

Common Dreams (11/21/24)

DK: That’s true. But they also are significantly richer, too. I mean, they really have even more money. The total billionaire wealth has surged by $3.8 trillion since the passage of the Trump tax law in 2017, and it surged even since the election. So they do have an incredible amount of money, and the money keeps going up.

JJ: It’s all intertwined, all of these things. But, again, if the question is the super wealthy’s ability to buy power, well, then, the corollary question is, why can’t we stop what we see happening? So I guess I would ask why, legally, are we where we are right now?

DK: No, that’s a great question. And the Supreme Court, unfortunately, in the Citizens United case, said that people could spend an unlimited amount of money, as long as it wasn’t, as they say, coordinated with the candidates. So that just opened the floodgates. And we’ve really seen this incredible flow of billionaire money, of corporate money, into campaigns because of it. And I think the solution there is to make sure that we change Citizens United, that there needs to be a constitutional amendment to really roll that back, so that we can make sure that: the richer you are, the bigger your voice is, that’s not democracy.

JJ: And lawmakers will always say, “Oh, well yeah, they gave me millions of dollars, but I still just vote the way I want to vote anyway.” And I think a lot of folks buy that narrative, unfortunately. But appearance of conflict of interest is itself a conflict of interest, isn’t it? I mean, there’s a reason to study these relationships, even as lawmakers are saying, “Oh, I don’t care who gives me money, I just vote what’s in my heart.”

DK: I wish it were true that everyone was so pure and did that, but we know that’s not the case, right? I mean, if you’re getting a huge amount of money from somebody, they’re going to have power over you. That is just the facts. And somebody like Elon Musk, who gave more than $250 million to Donald Trump in this past presidential election, you can see what that bought him, right? I mean, from his point of view, he’s the world’s richest man, and that’s a good investment. He’s buying access, because he has lots of government contracts, and this protects his interests, at the expense of everyday Americans.

JJ: I guess I would lift up here that, maybe people have assumed it, but still your research bore it out, that the majority of this billionaire spending went to Republicans and to Trump. We should just point that out.

DK: That is right.

JJ: Americans for Tax Fairness follows the money to its impacts, its already evident and its easily foreseeable impacts on public policy. So let’s move you on to what fallout can we expect to see, with not just the billionaire campaign spending, but then I know you’ve also worked on the billionaires now in and around the White House. They feel they’re buying something. So what can we regular folks expect?

Americans for Tax Fairness (1/17/25)

DK: I think what they expect is that these billionaires who are going to be having enormous influence are going to be enriching themselves and making decisions that benefit the wealthiest people. We did an analysis that looked at the Trump nominees, and people who are worth a billion or more, and the average worth of the Trump proposed economic policy aides is over $500 million. So half a billion dollars. I mean, the guy proposed for the commerce secretary, Howard Lutnick, is worth $2 billion. The guy who’s the treasury secretary is worth $1 billion.

You just have to ask yourself, are people who are that wealthy, are they going to really understand the everyday needs of that firefighter, of that single mom, of that teacher, of that plumber? It’s just such a rarefied, extraordinary wealth, and they’re not going to understand the needs of everyday people.

And they may have their own conflict of interest. For example, Lutnick, who’s the proposed commerce secretary, he has interests in cryptocurrency. Is he going to be able to promote his private business interests, or what’s really best for the American people? And I think we see these conflicts up and down the line of these people.

JJ: In terms of news media, it’s very rankling to me how, if the story is something like retail theft, we get alarm and outrage, folks boosting baby formula from the CVS is a public concern, and it’s maybe the reason that things cost so much. But then a story will blandly note that billionaires or billionaire corporations are getting “favorable tax policy,” as though there were no human harm in that, as though that were the natural order.

Where do you see the role of journalism? Are there things that you would like to see more or less of, in terms of reporting around this set of issues?

American Progress (3/27/23)

DK: Absolutely. I think the media really has a responsibility to help tie these pieces together. So what we see is the Republicans are proposing these massive cuts, trillions of dollars in cuts, in programs that families count on, healthcare, education, housing. So taking money, really, out of the pockets of families, to give huge tax cuts to the very wealthy. So giving millions to people who have billions.

And I think the media really has a responsibility to make sure that people understand that this isn’t just these cuts to get government more efficient. That’s, of course, what they say. The reality is that they’re cutting these programs to pay for tax cuts for billionaires. So I think that narrative is really important.

And I think the other thing is, there was a study done by the Center for American Progress that showed that 57% of the growth in the federal debt this century is due to the Trump and the Bush tax cuts passed by Republican congresses. So there’s this narrative that somehow spending by Democrats was out of control. Well, the truth is that the majority of the debt in this century is due to Trump and Bush tax cuts, which overwhelmingly benefit the rich. So what’s driving our debt is tax cuts for the very rich. That’s really the problem. And now they’re trying to make cuts to pay for this. If it weren’t true, it would almost be humorous.

JJ: Right. And I wish the storyline weren’t so simplistic, but we sometimes see elite news media present campaign finance reform or regulation or even just fair tax policies the same way that billionaires do: It’s kind of like it’s punishment for people who worked really hard, you guys. And it’s just such a silly storyline. And I feel like the fact that so many people are walking around thinking that the government only helps some people, and other people do it all on their own–that’s a failure of news media that also lets down public understanding, and that leads to inadequate public policy.

David Kass: “That’s the real problem here, is that workers pay taxes every two weeks and billionaires can basically never pay taxes.”

DK: I think that’s exactly right. And the truth is, and again, what the facts are, is that there are two tax codes. There’s one for workers. If you’re that firefighter, if you’re that teacher, you get a paycheck every two weeks, and you pay taxes on it. But if you’re a billionaire, if you’re super wealthy, basically you cannot pay taxes on almost any of it, because so much of your stuff is really these investments and stocks and things, which, if you don’t sell them, can never be taxed.

And that’s why the White House did a study showing that the wealthiest 400 billionaire families paid an average of 8.2% of their income, when you include their wealth that goes largely untaxed. But average Americans, they pay 13%, so close to double the rate of America’s 400 wealthiest families.

So that’s the real problem here, is that workers pay taxes every two weeks and billionaires can basically never pay taxes. And that’s crazy. For example, if you paid a single penny in taxes this year, you’ve paid more than Elon Musk did in 2018, or that Jeff Bezos did in 2007 or 2011. So that’s a crazy system that we really have to fix.

JJ: And let’s talk about fixing it. And I think it’s been made clear enough to listeners that your concern about billionaire campaign spending isn’t just, billionaires spend a lot of money. It’s that they are drowning out the voices and concerns of ordinary Americans. And that’s the point. If we have a so-called representative democracy, then this is a problem. So let me ask you, what can we do to change things?

DK: I think there’s a number of things. Obviously, people need to share their concerns with their representatives, and to talk about how we shouldn’t be cutting key programs that families rely on to pay for tax cuts for the wealthy. So right now, the Republicans are trying to pass this big tax bill, and they’re meeting at one of Trump’s fancy resorts in Florida to talk about what they’re going to do. So this thing is coming, we know it’s coming, and we really need to talk about that they’re going to spend $4 trillion, $4 trillion, for tax cuts that overwhelmingly benefit the rich. And that is just crazy. That is really crazy.

JJ: Yeah. And are there policies, I mean, it seems like folks are saying, “Why can’t we bring back the world before Citizens United?” But maybe we just need a whole new vision. Is there anything in the works, legislatively or policy-wise, apart from vigilance and reporting, that we can look to to support?

ProPublica (2/28/22)

DK: There are really great things that we can do to make sure that your average family is treated fairly. So the first thing is to let these Trump tax cuts expire for people who are wealthy. I mean, just let this stuff go. They passed in 2017 and for the wealthy, they shouldn’t get any more tax cuts.

And then there’s lots of other things that we can do. President Biden, and also the top Democrat on the finance committee, Ron Wyden, had these proposals to make sure that we were taxing billionaires, so that their wealth, just like when you pay every two weeks, you pay taxes on your paycheck, that they would have to pay taxes on their wealth. And I think that would be a very important change to make sure that we had a much more fair tax system.

And I think the other part of this is, we’ve talked about, but it is just so undemocratic to have this extreme wealth gap, where billionaires can use this wealth to be able to make a much louder voice than your average American.

So those are some of the things. I think there are things we can do. We’ve got to stop this bill from passing. People thought when Trump came into office in 2017 that the ACA, Obamacare, was going to be gone, that Republicans would get rid of it, and they didn’t, weren’t able to. They tried, but because there was so much backlash, because so many people protested, they lost.

And this is an uphill battle, but we really have to work and organize and fight to show that more tax cuts for the wealthy coming out of the pockets of families is the wrong approach.

JJ: All right then, we’ll end on that note. We’ve been speaking with David Kass from Americans for Tax Fairness. Their work is online at AmericansForTaxFairness.org.

Thank you so much, David Kass, for joining us this week on CounterSpin.

DK: Thank you so much. It was great talking to you.

This content originally appeared on FAIR and was authored by Janine Jackson.

• Medicaid faces challenges under Trump administration, changes could hurt patients
• Congo war flareup threatens civilians, human rights, vital minerals, and regional stability
• Democratic National Committee meets to choose new leader, reckon with last election
• LA wildfires leave risks of future problems from toxic pollution to floods and landslides
• Snow-pack survey shows dry January, could affect future water supplies

The post Congo fighting threatens civilians and rights; Democrats mull last election as they choose new leader – January 31, 2025 appeared first on KPFA.

This content originally appeared on KPFA - The Pacifica Evening News, Weekdays and was authored by KPFA.

Right-click here to download this episode (“Save link as…”).

Tech billionaires at Trump’s second inauguration: Amazon‘s Jeff Bezos, Google’s Sundar Pichai and X‘s Elon Musk (image: C-SPAN)

This week on CounterSpin: You may remember the testimony: former Starbucks CEO Howard Schultz pouting to a Senate hearing on the company’s union-busting in which he was referred to as a billionaire that using that “moniker constantly is unfair”: “Yes, I have billions of dollars—I earned it. No one gave it to me. And I’ve shared it constantly with the people of Starbucks.”

The delusion that a billionaire “earned” every penny of it, or that it is shared equitably with workers, may be special to billionaires, but the broader notion—that “the government only helps some people; other people do it on their own” is conveyed throughout corporate media’s narrative, even as it’s corrosive to an understanding of democracy, much less the fight for it. The increasing influence of not merely the rich, but the super rich, on the politics and policy we all have to live with is an urgent story, if not a new one. Yet somehow, elite media seem less and less interested in it.

We’ll talk with David Kass, executive director of the Americans for Tax Fairness campaign, about that on this week’s show.

Plus Janine Jackson takes a quick look at some recent press coverage of Trump’s illegal funding freeze, immigration raids and the Gaza death toll.

This content originally appeared on FAIR and was authored by CounterSpin.

ProPublica is a nonprofit newsroom that investigates abuses of power. Sign up for Dispatches, a newsletter that spotlights wrongdoing around the country, to receive our stories in your inbox every week.

A Republican judge has spent more than two months trying to overturn his narrow defeat for a North Carolina Supreme Court seat by arguing that around 60,000 ballots should be tossed out. But many residents have only recently learned that their votes are in danger of not being counted and say they have done nothing wrong.

ProPublica has heard from dozens of voters who expressed astonishment and anger at state appeals court Judge Jefferson Griffin’s ongoing attempts to cancel their ballots. The claim at the heart of Griffin’s challenge: No ballot should be counted for a voter whose registration is missing a driver’s license number or the last four digits of their Social Security number.

The state election board and a Donald Trump-appointed federal judge have dismissed Griffin’s argument that the missing information should invalidate votes. What’s more, state election officials have made clear that there are many legitimate reasons for driver’s license or Social Security information to be missing. And it’s not as if voters can cast ballots without confirming who they are. North Carolina law requires that people verify their identity at the polls — in most cases by showing a driver’s license.

Elizabeth MacDonald, who registered as an unaffiliated voter and lives in an area of Western North Carolina ravaged by Hurricane Helene, made sure to cast a ballot, even though she was still consumed by both the devastation of the storm and the demands of caring for her infant. “The prospect of losing my vote for arbitrary and political reasons is especially painful given the personal and communal trauma we’ve endured over the past several months,” McDonald wrote in a letter to Griffin, which she shared with ProPublica.

“We’re extremely upset,” said Frank Jarvis, whose wife’s registration was challenged and who lives on the state’s eastern coast. “We’re traditional conservatives and Republicans — but it leaves a terrible taste in my mouth, no matter what side it is doing this. I don’t need that kind of person representing me on the Supreme Court.”

Multiple data analyses show that the voters whose ballots were targeted by Griffin are disproportionately Black, Democratic and young. Griffin’s lawyers have written in a legal brief that if a court grants their requests to nullify the ballots, Griffin will likely be able to overturn his 734-vote loss to Democratic incumbent Allison Riggs. The majority-Republican Supreme Court has issued an order blocking certification of Riggs’ win until Griffin’s challenge can be heard in a lower court.

Griffin responded to a list of detailed questions from ProPublica by writing, “I can’t comment on pending litigation. It would be a violation of our Judicial Code of Conduct for me to do so.”

Below are the stories of four of the dozens of voters ProPublica heard from, whose experiences reflect various reasons that driver’s license and Social Security information could be missing from their registration. One has a health condition that prevents him from driving and therefore doesn’t have a license. Another is among the voters who claim that their registration application was filled out correctly and that a clerical error is likely to blame. A newcomer to the state is among the many who didn’t yet have a North Carolina driver’s license when they registered to vote. And, at the other end of the spectrum, a longtime North Carolina voter is one of millions who registered before the information was marked as required on a state voter registration form.

In mid-January, dozens of mostly Black voters gathered in a historical church in New Bern, North Carolina, to learn why a white judge was trying to throw out their votes. The congregation of St. Peters AME Zion Church was established during the Civil War for newly emancipated African Americans, and since then it has remained a central stage for the state’s political struggles. One of the organizers of the gathering was Vicki Sykes, a 58-year-old poll worker, who had been surprised one evening in early January to receive a call from a voting rights advocate informing her that her ballot was among those Griffin was attempting to disqualify.

“The audacity of challenging me was shocking,” Sykes said. “I know the rules.”

Sykes said she brought her driver’s license with her when she registered to vote in 2024 after moving to another North Carolina county and gave it to an election worker — and now suspects an administrative error could have been to blame for her driver’s license number not being entered on her form. Concerned that many people weren’t aware that their votes were in danger of being nullified, Sykes and her sister-in-law, a pastor, arranged the gathering, putting out the word through Facebook messages, calls, voting rights groups and flyers.

“I want people to know today it’s North Carolina, and tomorrow it’s another state,” said Sykes. “It could be a blueprint for what’s to come. So we’re going to fight like hell for that not to happen.”

Connor Addison has epilepsy, a condition that makes it dangerous for him to drive if seizure were to strike while he was behind the wheel. But Addison never expected his medical condition would affect his ability to vote.

He said that around 2022, when he turned 18, he registered in Wake County using his Social Security number. He voted in the 2022 and 2024 elections without problems using a state-approved ID card.

Then, a few weeks ago, his mother told him his registration had been challenged by Griffin, after she heard about the challenges and searched a copy of them available online. “I was almost in disbelief. I’d had to take special actions already to make sure I could vote,” Addison said. “It felt like Griffin was trying to cast me aside.”

Since then, Addison has been speaking out about the challenges, especially in online communities, where he spends much of his time, as his health limits his ability to move about in the physical world. “I want people to understand that what is happening shouldn’t be happening,” said Addison.

One afternoon last week, Sofia Dib-Gomez, an 18-year-old college freshman, set up a table in Duke University’s main dining hall with a sign declaring, “Make Sure Your Vote Counts.” Then she began asking passersby hurrying to class if they knew whether their ballot was being challenged in the 2024 election. The first student who stopped by was shocked to find that his was.

Dib-Gomez is a member of the Student Voting Rights Lab at Duke and North Carolina Central University, a group that combed the list of Griffin’s challenges to identify around 750 students from Duke whose ballots were targeted and around 4,300 more from other colleges. Research by the group suggests that Griffin’s challenges disproportionately affect young voters. According to the research, people between the ages of 18 and 25 were 3.4 times more likely to be challenged than those over 65.

While assisting with the research, Dib-Gomez was surprised to discover that she was among the challenged voters. When she moved from New York to North Carolina last year, she registered to vote by providing her Social Security number, since she lacked a state driver’s license.

“This was the first election I was able to vote in, so I was very frustrated when I found out,” said Dib-Gomez, who provided her passport to prove her identity when voting. “Students shouldn’t have to feel that this is their fault or they did something wrong. This is targeting them in an attempt to overturn an election.”

When Mindy Beller was growing up, her mother would take her to the polls and talk to her about how important voting was. In November, Beller took her own daughter to vote for the first time. Afterward, they went out to eat at an Indian restaurant to celebrate. “I said, ‘Thanks for voting,’ and she said, ‘Thanks for raising me to be a voter,” Beller recalled.

Not long after, a voting rights group contacted Beller to let her know that her vote was being challenged by Griffin. It’s been more than two decades since Beller, who is 62, registered to vote. Until about a year ago, the state’s voter registration form did not require people to include their drivers license or Social Security information, instead coding it as optional, before updating it after a complaint to the state election board pointed out that the form should require the information. Beller felt especially frustrated with Griffin’s challenge, as she lives outside Asheville, North Carolina, portions of which were wiped away by Hurricane Helene, and felt that neither she nor other impacted voters needed the additional stress of the challenges after striving to vote in the storm’s aftermath.

“I keep thinking it can’t be real,” said Beller. “But as it gets closer, he might really actually get away with this.”

Rachel Jessen contributed reporting.

This content originally appeared on ProPublica and was authored by by Doug Bock Clark.

Vanuatu’s only incumbent female parliamentarian has lost her seat in a snap election leaving only one woman candidate in contention after an unofficial vote count.

The unofficial counting at polling locations indicated the majority of the 52 incumbent MPs have been reelected but also with some high profile departures.

Former deputy prime minister Jotham Napat, head of the Leaders Party, has secured up to nine MPs, putting him in poll position to try to form a coalition government.

• READ MORE: Leaders Party on track to be Vanuatu’s largest bloc as coalition talks underway
• Vanuatu one month on: aftershocks, a no-go zone and anxiety
• Other Vanuatu election reports

Vanuatu’s snap election last Thursday was called in November and held in spite of a 7.3 magnitude earthquake that devastated the capital Port Vila in December.

The election results will be confirmed by the official count of votes in the capital once all ballot boxes have been transported from electorates to Port Vila.

Former female MP Julia King from the Efate constituency has likely lost her seat.

She made international headlines in 2022 as the first woman elected in Vanuatu in more than a decade and only the sixth woman to serve in Parliament since the nation’s independence in 1980.

Only hope for women
Marie Louis Milne, a candidate for the Port Vila constituency, has emerged as the only hope for a woman to sit in the chamber in the next term. Both Milne and a male candidate claim to have won the sixth and final seat in the electorate, based on the unofficial figures.

“The high number of voters supporting women is a positive indication of changing perceptions surrounding women’s leadership and decision-making,” Milne told BenarNews.

“There are numerous pressing issues we want to address in Parliament, including women’s health and their economic development.”

The possible lack of female representation is a disappointment for Vanuatu governance and development policy specialist Anna Naupa.

Marie Louis Milne, a candidate for the Port Vila constituency, has emerged as the only hope for a woman to sit in the chamber in the next term. Both Milne and a male candidate claim to have won the sixth and final seat in the electorate, based on the unofficial figures.

“The high number of voters supporting women is a positive indication of changing perceptions surrounding women’s leadership and decision-making,” Milne told BenarNews.

“There are numerous pressing issues we want to address in Parliament, including women’s health and their economic development.”

Gender disappointment
The possible lack of female representation is a disappointment for Vanuatu governance and development policy specialist Anna Naupa.

“We will wait for the official results, and if that turns out to be true, it is a sad reality for our country (that) women continue to face significant challenges in entering Parliament,” Naupa told BenarNews.

“We really need to look back at systems we have in place to help facilitate voices of women and vulnerable groups in our society.

“This means the new legislature needs to pull up its socks to listen to all people, at every level of society.”

This election there were seven women among the 217 candidates contesting, matching the number in 2022 but down from 18 in 2020.

Several high profile MPs losing seats
The unofficial results show several high profile MPs are likely to lose their seats, including four-time prime minister Sato Kilman, head of the People’s Progressive Party.

Leaders from seven parties were re-elected including former prime minister Charlot Salwai from the Reunification Movement for Change, former prime minister Ishmael Kalsakau of the Union of Moderate Parties and former foreign minister Ralph Regenvanu of the Graon mo Jastis Pati.

“I am happy to return again and start working very soon — that’s all I have to say for now,” Regenvanu told BenarNews.

Other leaders thanked their voters on social media for their re-election.

Hopes for a generational change in Parliament rest with the few new MPs who look likely to be elected, including Matai Kaltabang in Julia King’s former electorate in Efate.

If elected, the member of the Iauko Group will be the youngest person in the 14th Parliament, at the age of 28 years old, and one of the youngest ever elected.

Parliamentary standing orders require the first sitting of the house be convened within 21 days of the election.

Despite the setbacks in the unofficial results for women, Milne remains optimistic, urging the six other female candidates who participated in the elections to persevere.

“I encourage them to never give up, build on what they have, and continue to make a difference in their communities so that in four years, we can see more women represented in Parliament,” she said.

Leah Lowonbu is a BenarNews contributor. Stefan Armbruster contributed to this report from Brisbane. Copyright BenarNews 2025 and republished with permission.

This content originally appeared on Asia Pacific Report and was authored by APR editor.

Today marks one month since a 7.3-magnitude earthquake struck Vanuatu’s capital, Port Vila, claiming 14 lives, injuring more than 200 people, and displacing thousands more.

Downtown Port Vila remains a no-go zone.

Star Wharf, the international port, is still out of action and parts of the city and some of the villages surrounding it still have not had their water supply reconnected.

• READ MORE: Vanuatu polling underway in snap election one month after quake
• Vanuatu election: Preparation almost complete for snap ballot
• Other Vanuatu election reports

The Recovery Operations Centre estimates around 6000 workers from 200 businesses that operate in the CBD have been impacted.

All the while, loud rumbling tremors continue to rock the city; a recent one measuring above magnitude 5 on the Richter scale.

Leinasei Tarisiu lives outside of Vila but came in to vote in the snap election yesterday. She said children in her household still panic when there is an earthquake, even if it is small.

“They are still afraid. Even last night when we had that one that happened, we all ran outside,” she said.

“It’s hard for us to remain in the house.”

Ongoing trauma
The only mental health specialist at Vila Central Hospital, Dr Jimmy Obed, said the ongoing seismic activity is re-traumatising many.

Obed said as things slowly returned to something resembling normalcy, more people were reaching out for mental health support.

“What we try and tell them is that it’s a normal thing for you to be having this anxiety,” he said.

“And then we give them some skills. How to calm themselves down . . . when they are panicking, or are under stress, or have difficulty sleeping.

“Simple skills that they can use — even how children can calm and regulate their emotions.”

Trenold Tari, an aviation worker who spoke to RNZ Pacific after he had cast his vote, said he hopes they are able to elect leaders with good ideas for Vanuatu’s future.

“And not just the vision to run the government and the nation but also who has leadership qualities and is transparent. People who can work with communities and who don’t just think about themselves,” he said.

Wanting quick rebuild
Many voters in the capital said they wanted leaders who would act quickly to rebuild the quake-stricken city.

Others said they were sick of political instability.

This week’s snap election was triggered by a premature dissolution of parliament last year; the second consecutive time President Nike Vurobaravu has acted on a council of ministers’ request to dissolve the house in the face of a leadership challenge.

Counting this week’s election, Vanuatu will have had five prime ministers in the last four years.

The chairperson of the Seaside Tongoa community, Paul Fred Tariliu, said they have discussed this as a group and made their feelings clear to their election candidate.

“We told our candidate to tell the presidents of all the political parties they are affiliated with — that if they end up in government and they find at some point they don’t have the number and a motion is brought against you, please be honest and set a good example — tell one group to step down and let another government come in,” Tariliu said.

Desperate need of aid
Election fever aside, thousands of people in Port Vila are still in desperate need of assistance.

The head of the Vanuatu Red Cross Society is looking to start distributing financial relief assistance to families affected by last month’s earthquake.

The society’s secretary-general, Dickinson Tevi, said some villages were still without water and a lot of people were out of work.

“We have realised that there are still a few requests coming from the communities. People who haven’t been assessed during the emergency,” Tevi said.

“So, we have made plans to do a more detailed assessment after this to make sure we don’t leave anyone out.”

Tevi said with schools due to restart soon, parents and families who had lost their main source of income were under a lot of stress.

In a release, Save the Children Vanuatu country director Polly Bank, said disasters often had the power to suddenly turn children’s lives upside down, especially if they had lost loved ones, had their education interrupted, or had been forced to flee their homes.

Critical for children’s recovery
“In the aftermath of any disaster, it is critical for children recovering that they are able to return to their normal routines as soon as possible,” she said.

“And for most kids, this would include returning to school, where they can reconnect with friends and share their experiences.”

She said at least 12,500 children in the country may be forced to start the new school year in temporary learning centres with at least 100 classrooms across the country damaged or destroyed.

It is back to business for Vanuatu today after the public holiday that was declared yesterday to allow people to go and vote.

Unofficial election results continue to trickle in with local media reporting an even distribution of seats across the country for the Leaders Party, Vanua’aku Party, Reunification Movement for Change and the Iauko Group.

But it is still early days, with official results a while away.

This article is republished under a community partnership agreement with RNZ.

This content originally appeared on Asia Pacific Report and was authored by APR editor.

In her confirmation hearing Wednesday, Trump’s nominee for attorney general, Pam Bondi, refused to answer Democrats’ questions about maintaining the Department of Justice’s independence from the president and pursuing his personal vendettas. Bondi also avoided directly answering questions about Trump’s vow to pardon January 6 defendants and refused to say Trump definitively lost the 2020 election. “Bondi clearly has a comfort level with basing her prosecutorial discretion on whether someone has power and influence, and whether they’re willing to give her a taste of that,” says The American Prospect’s David Dayen, who explains how such abuse of power could dangerously expand the ability of the president to go after political enemies.

This content originally appeared on Democracy Now! and was authored by Democracy Now!.

More than 180,000 registered voters are expected to cast their votes today with polls now open in Vanuatu.

It is remarkable the snap election is even able to happen with Friday marking one month since the 7.3 magnitude earthquake struck the capital Port Vila.

According to the government, 14 people died as a result of the quake, more than 210 were injured and thousands displaced.

• READ MORE: Vanuatu election: Preparation almost complete for snap ballot
• Other Vanuatu election reports

Despite all of this Principal Electoral Officer Guilain Malessas said they worked around the clock to deliver the election within the two-month timeframe stipulated by the constitution.

The voter turnout at the last election was less than 50 percent but Malessas is optimistic participation today will be high.

He urged voters to go and exercise their democratic right.

“This country — we own it, it’s ours. If we just sit and complain that, this, that and the other thing aren’t good but then don’t contribute to making decisions then we will never change,” Malessas said.

Not everybody convinced
But not everybody is convinced that proceeding with the election was the right decision.

The president of the Port Vila Council of Women, Jane Iatika, said many families were still grieving, traumatised and struggling to put food on the table.

“If they were thinking about the people they would have [postponed] the election and dealt with the disaster first,” she said.

“Like right now if a mother goes and lines up to vote in the election — when they come back home what are they going to eat?”

This is the second consecutive time Vanuatu’s Parliament has been dissolved in the face of political instability.

And the country has had four prime ministerial changes in as many years.

The chairman of the Seaside Tongoa community, Paul Fred Tariliu,. said people were starting to lose faith in leadership, not just in Parliament but at the community level as well.

Urging candidates to ‘be humble’
He said they had been urging their candidates to be humble and concede defeat if they found themselves short of the numbers needed to rule.

“Instead of just going [into Parliament] for a short time [then] finding out they don’t have the numbers and dissolving Parliament,” Tariliu said.

“We are wasting money.

“When we continue with this kind of attitude people lose their trust in us [community] leaders and our national leaders.”

The official results of the last election in 2022 show a low voter turnout of just over 44 percent with the lowest participation in the country, just 34 percent, registered here in the capital Port Vila.

Conducting the election itself is a complicated logistical exercise with 352 polling stations spread out over the 12,000-sq km archipelago manned by 1700 polling officials and an additional one in Nouméa for citizens residing in New Caledonia.

Proxy voting is also being facilitated for workers overseas.

360 police for security
Deputy Police Commissioner Operations Kalo Willie Ben said more than 360 police officers had been deployed to provide security for the election process.

He said there were no active security threats for the election, but he said they were prepared to deploy more resources to any part of the country should the need arise.

“My advice [to the public] is that we conduct ourselves peacefully and raise any issues through the election dispute process,” Kalo Willie Ben said.

The head of the government Recovery Unit, Peter Korisa, said according to their initial estimates it would cost just over US$230 million to fully rebuild the capital after the earthquake.

Korisa said they were getting backlash for the indefinite closure of the CBD but continued to work diligently to ensure that, whatever government comes to power this month, it would be presented with a clear recovery plan.

“We still have a bit of funding but there is a greater challenge because we need to have a government in place so that we can trigger the bigger funding,” Korisa said.

Polling stations close at 4:30pm local time.

Unofficial check count
Principal electoral officer Malessas said an unofficial count would be conducted at all polling station venues before ballot boxes were transported back to the capital Port Vila for the official tally.

According to parliamentary standing orders, the first sitting of the new Parliament must be called within 21 days of the official election results being declared.

A spokesperson for the caretaker government has confirmed to RNZ Pacific that constitutional amendments aimed at curbing political instability would apply after the snap election.

The most immediate impact of these amendments will be that all independent MPs, and MPs who are the only member of their party or custom movement, must affiliate themselves with a larger political party for the full term of Parliament.

They also lock MPs into political parties with any defection or removal from a party resulting in the MP concerned losing their seat in Parliament.

However, the amendments do not prohibit entire parties from crossing the floor to either side so long as they do it as a united group.

It remains to be seen how effective the amendments will be in curbing instability.

The only real certainty provided by the constitution after this snap election is that the option to dissolve Parliament will not be available for the next 12 months.

This article is republished under a community partnership agreement with RNZ.

This content originally appeared on Asia Pacific Report and was authored by APR editor.

The electoral commission in Vanuatu is trying its best to clear up some confusion with the voting process for tomorrow’s snap election.

Principal Electoral Officer Guilain Malessas said this is due to the tight turnaround to deliver this election after Parliament was dissolved last year.

The Vanuatu Electoral Office has confirmed that 52 seats, across 18 constituencies, will be contested by 217 candidates, seven of whom are women.

• READ MORE: Other Vanuatu election reports

But Malessas said against all odds, preparations were almost complete.

The final ballot boxes are being deployed to the farthest polling stations in the country and final checks are being carried out.

He said the premature dissolution of parliament last year forced them to have to deliver an election a year early, and within a two-month timeframe, as required in the constitution.

“The final challenge that remains is for us to make sure all the ballot boxes that we have deployed have reached all the polling stations safely,” he said.

“Also, there is the challenge of a new ballot structure which we have not had enough awareness on.”

He said they had not had enough time to conduct community awareness about the new system, and there was also new electoral legislation, which was passed in preparation for 2026 — the original date for the next election.

“With the new ballot structure you just have a single page with all the candidates and their symbols on it and you just have to tick the one you want,” Malessas said.

“We have not had enough awareness.

“We have used all existing social media platforms but lots of people in rural areas do not have access to these things.”

Extra training
Malessas said they had had extra training for polling station officials to help voters on Thursday, and had printed lots of informational material to be posted up at polling stations.

He said election candidates had also been conducting awareness during their political campaigns.

With the December 17 earthquake forcing the relocation of many polling stations, they were also anticipating people turning up with national ID cards at the wrong polling stations.

To manage this, they plan to verify that the person is a resident of the constituency and that their ID card was issued before the close of voter registrations for this election on 3 December 2024.

This article is republished under a community partnership agreement with RNZ.

This content originally appeared on Asia Pacific Report and was authored by APR editor.

Remember when the exuberant yelling of Gov. Howard  Dean was enough for corporate media to declare him unfit for the presidency (Extra!, 3–4/04)?

Remember January 2004, when Democratic presidential candidate Howard Dean yelled in a pep talk to supporters after the Iowa caucus, and elite media declared that his “growling and defiant” “emotional outburst” was patent evidence of unacceptability? Having  already declared Dean too excitable—“Yelling and hollering is not an endearing quality in the leader of the free world,” said the Washington Post (8/2/03)—media found verification in the “Dean scream,” which was played on TV news some 700 times, enough to finish off his candidacy (Extra!, 3–4/04). As Pat Buchanan on the McLaughlin Group (1/23/04) scoffed: “Is this the guy who ought to be in control of our nuclear arsenal?”

Fast forward to the present day, when Donald Trump states, “For purposes of National Security and Freedom throughout the World the United States of America feels that the ownership and control of Greenland is an absolute necessity.”

And today’s journalistic response looks like a CBS News explainer (1/8/25), headed “Why Would Trump Want Greenland and the Panama Canal? Here’s What’s Behind US interest.”  It’s simple, you see, and not at all weird. “Greenland has oil, natural gas and highly sought after mineral resources.” And you know what? “Western powers have already voiced concern about Russia and China using it to boost their presence in the North Atlantic.”

In an effort to make Trump’s proposal seem rational, CBS (1/8/25) offered a map that made Greenland look like a chokepoint on the all-important Dalian/Rotterdam sea route. In fact, Greenland is more than 1,500 miles from Eurasia—greater than the distance between Boston and New Orleans.

CBS tells us Trump is “falsely alleging” that the Panama Canal is being “operated by China,” but then adds in their own, awkward, words, “China has also denied trying to claim any control over the canal.” Takeaway: who knows, really? Believe what you want. PS—you’re Americun, right?

The New York Times (1/2/25) assured us that,” Trump’s Falsehoods Aside, China’s Influence Over Global Ports Raises Concerns.” The story made it obvious that Chinese companies in charge of shipping ports is inherently scary—what might they do?—in a way that the US having 750 military bases around the world never is.

The message isn’t that no one country should have that much power; it’s that no country except the US should have that much power. That assumption suffuses corporate news reporting; and China threatens it. So whatever China does or doesn’t do, look for that lens to color any news you get.

Featured image: MSNBC (12/23/24)

This content originally appeared on FAIR and was authored by Janine Jackson.

Out of the rubble of last year’s 7.3 magnitude earthquake that hit Vanuatu’s capital Port Vila on December 17 and the snap election due next week on January 16, a new leadership is required to reset the country’s developmental trajectory.

Persistent political turmoil has hampered the Pacific nation’s ability to deal with a compounding set of social and economic shocks over recent years, caused by climate-related and other natural disasters.

The earthquake is estimated to have conservatively caused US$244 million (VUV29 billion) in damage, and the Vanuatu government’s ability to pay for disaster response, the election, and resume public service delivery will require strong, committed and stable leadership.

• READ MORE: Pacific 2025: Vanuatu quake, Tongan and Kanaky shakeups, Trump questions set tone for coming year
• Other Vanuatu snap election reports

Prior to the devastating quake and dramatic dissolution of Parliament on November 18, economist Peter Judge from Vanuatu-based Pacific Consulting warned of an evolving economic emergency.

Vanuatu’s US$1 billion economy faced a concerning decline in government revenue from value-added tax, down 25 percent on the previous year.

This was a ripple effect from the decline in economic activity after the collapse of national airline Air Vanuatu last May, as well as the falling revenues from the troubled Citizenship by Investment Programme.

Both were plagued by lack of oversight by parliamentarians.

Struggling economy
In 2024, Vanuatu is expected to record about 1 percent economic growth, as it struggles to climb out of the red and back to pre-pandemic levels.

Conversely, Vanuatu has a much more positive, although somewhat contradictory democratic profile.

According to the Global State of Democracy Initiative, Vanuatu is one of the more democratic states in the Pacific islands region, and currently ranks as 45th in the world.

But this performance comes with a significant price. Leadership turnover is frequent, with 28 prime ministerial terms in just 44 years of statehood, 20 of those in the last 25 years — the highest frequency of change in the Melanesian region.

The impacts of disrupted leadership and political instability are highly visible. Government decision-making and service delivery is grindingly slow.

In Vanuatu’s Parliament, the legislative process is frequently deferred due to regular motions of no confidence, with several critical bills still awaiting MPs’ attention.

Last October, for example, the Vanuatu government proposed a 2025 budget 10 percent smaller than 2024’s, due to reduced economic activity and declining government revenue.

Sudden dissolution
Parliament was unable to approve this year’s budget due to its sudden dissolution on November 18, only two-and-a-half years into a four-year political term.

This is the second consecutive presidential dissolution of Parliament, the previous one in 2022 also occurring barely two-and-a-half years into its term.

The Bill for the appropriation of the 2025 budget now awaits the formation of the next legislature for approval. In the meantime, earthquake recovery and election management costs accumulate under a caretaker government.

With deepening economic hardship and industries facing slow economic growth across multiple sectors, voters are looking for leadership that can stabilise the compounding cost of living pressures.

The new government will need to urgently tackle overdue, unresolved issues pertaining to reliable inter-island transport and air connectivity, outstanding teacher salaries and greater opportunities for the nation’s restive youth.

The youth unemployment rate is at 10.7 percent and rising.

Democracy with political stability is the holy grail for Vanuatu. But attaining this legendary and supposedly miraculous prize comes with costs attached.

Rules come into force
In response to civic and youth activism in late 2023 calling for political stability and transparency, the last Parliament approved a national referendum to make political affiliation more accountable and end party hopping.The rules come into force in the next parliamentary term for the first time.

The referendum passed successfully on May 29, 2024, but cost US$2.9 million. The 2022 snap election required US$1.4 million and the 2025 poll is expected to require another US$1.6 million.

While revenue from candidature fees of US$250,000 does cover part of these costs, each legislature transition also weighs on the public purse.

The current crop of outgoing 52 parliamentarians were paid out US$1.62 million in gratuities and benefits — around US$31,000 per MP — even though most did not see out their full terms.

Vanuatu’s average annual household income in 2020 was US$9000.

Whatever the outcome of the 2025 snap election, the incoming government will need to refocus attention on stabilising the trajectory of Vanuatu’s economy and development.

The next legislature — the 14th — will need to commit to stability in the interests of Vanuatu’s people and the nation’s development.

Budget, earthquake recovery priorities
The most immediate priorities for a new government should be the passage of the 2025 national budget and the implementation of an earthquake recovery and reconstruction plan.

In the 45 years since throwing off the British and French colonial yoke, citizens have enthusiastically done their duty at elections in the expectation of a national leadership that will take Vanuatu forward.

Now their faith appears to be waning, after the 2022 poll saw voter turnout — a key indicator of the health of a democracy — dropped below 50 percent for the first time since independence.

This election therefore needs to see a return on the considerable investment made in Vanuatu’s democratic processes, both in terms of financial cost to successive governments and donors, and more to the point, a political dividend for voters.

Anna Naupa is a ni-Vanuatu scholar and currently a PhD student at the Australian National University. Republished from BenarNews with permission.

This content originally appeared on Asia Pacific Report and was authored by APR editor.

Janine Jackson: Welcome to The Best of CounterSpin 2024. I’m Janine Jackson.

This is the time of year when we take a listen back to some of the conversations that have helped us clarify the events that bombard us, in part, by showing how elite news media are clouding them. It’s not to say big media always get the facts wrong, but that what facts they point us toward day after day, whose interpretation of those facts they suggest we credit, what responses we’re told are worth pursuing—all of that serves media’s corporate owners and sponsors, at the expense of the rest of our lives and our futures.

An important part of the work we do as producers and as listeners is to help create and support different ways to inform ourselves and to stay in conversation. As always, we are deeply thankful to all of the activists, researchers, reporters and advocates who appear on the show. You’re listening to CounterSpin, brought to you each week by the mediawatch group FAIR.

***

2024 included many reasons for public protest, which our guest reminded is both a fundamental right and a core tool for achieving other rights. Journalist and activist Chip Gibbons is policy director at Defending Rights and Dissent.

Chip Gibbons: “There’s always been what’s called a Palestine exception to free speech.”

Chip Gibbons: And I think it’s hard to talk about the future of dissent in this country this year without talking about what’s happening in Gaza, because that looms over everything. And we’re seeing a real outburst of protest around the ceasefire, around the occupation, around apartheid. And we’re also seeing a real heavy-handed attempt to demonize and repress these movements.

There’s always been what’s called a Palestine exception to free speech. Palestine supporters have been censored, jailed, spied on for decades. So this isn’t entirely new, but the level of public vitriol, where you have Congress passing resolutions condemning student groups, Congress passing resolutions that condemn university presidents, Congress calling on the FBI (this isn’t a resolution, these are just letters from individual members of the Congress) to investigate media outlets for these conspiracy theories that they had freelancers who—and mainstream ones, like New York Times; they’re not talking about small left-wing publications—were somehow involved in October 7.

It’s a really dark time, and I know a lot of people I talk to feel very strongly that the repression will backfire, because the movement is so strong, and people are so disgusted by what our government is complicit in. And I think that’s potentially true.

But I do have to caution: Before World War I, the left was very powerful in this country. The Socialist Party had members of Congress, they had mayors. And the repression of that war completely decimated them.

In the run-up to the Cold War, the FBI had all these internal files about how powerful they think the Communist Party is, that people are taking them seriously, that liberals work with them, that the 1930s were a pink decade or a red decade, and the FBI security apparatus is going to be like penicillin to the spread of the pink decade.

So a lot of the periods of repression have followed the left when it was at its strongest, not when it was at its weakest. And I’m not saying we’re going to be decimated, like we were during World War I or during McCarthyism, but I do think we should be cautious, that repression does have an impact, and it does follow popular movement successes.

And I do think part of the reason why we see this unhinged level of repression around the Gaza War—if you want to call it war; it’s more of a genocide—is because the atrocities that are being committed are so horrifying that, even if you’re someone who doesn’t think Israel’s an apartheid state, even if you’re a centrist, it’s hard to watch and hear about hospitals being targeted, to hear about refugee camps being blown up, and not be morally repulsed by what you’re seeing.

And I do think that people know that, and that’s why they’re escalating the ratcheting up of oppression around the ceasefire protest. Because there’s no defense of bombing a refugee camp. There’s no defense of having snipers outside a Catholic church and shooting church women who are going to use the restroom. There’s not really a strong defense of this. You can either deny it, or try to shut everyone up.

***

JJ: Svante Myrick is president of People for the American Way, and former mayor of Ithaca, New York. We spoke with him about voting rights and roadblocks.

Svante Myrick: “They’re not trying to take away everyone’s right to vote. They’re trying to take away certain people’s right to vote.”

Svante Myrick: Especially after the 2020 election, led by Donald Trump, state legislators—people who are not household names, folks that you won’t often see on CNN or MSNBC—state legislators are taking their cues from Donald Trump and passing dozens and dozens…. I just came from Utah, where yet another law was passed that makes it harder to vote.

Utah used to have very good voting laws. Everybody got a ballot in the mail. You could just fill it out, send it back in. You had weeks and weeks to do it. They just repealed that. Why? Is it because Donald Trump lost Utah? No, it’s because the state legislators are trying to curry favor with a president that just, frankly, does not want everyone’s vote to count.

And if it’s OK, if I just say what probably is obvious to many of your listeners, but I think it deserves to be said: They’re not trying to take away everyone’s right to vote. They’re trying to take away certain people’s right to vote. I’m a Black American, and I just know for a fact that this Trump-led faction of the Republican Party would love for Black Americans’ votes not to be counted. And I know that because they are moving with almost surgical precision to disenfranchise people like me and my family.

JJ: I am surprised when people are surprised that people don’t vote. While I lament it, I see the fact that some people just don’t see a connection between this lever they pull, and the policies and laws governing their lives. I see that as an indictment of the system, and not of the people.

And so I wanted to ask you to talk about what we’ve seen labeled “low-propensity voters,” and different responses, like what People For is talking about, responses that are better than saying, “These people are so dumb, they don’t even know how to vote their own interests.”

SM: And that’s so well said. Certainly our system has failed in many ways. But extreme right-wingers have also been waging an 80-year war, maybe longer, to convince Americans that government does nothing for them, that their representatives don’t improve their lives. And so when they do things like starve schools and school budgets, starve road budgets so that there are potholes in the street, and try to shrink government down to a size where you can drown it in a bathtub, they make sure it is dysfunctional, from Reagan to George W. Bush to Donald Trump, they break the system, and then say, “Hey, see, government, it can’t work at all. Why bother? Why bother to vote at all?”

***

JJ: Though it’s dropped from many outlets’ radar, police violence continued in 2024, but so did efforts to reimagine public safety without cops at the center. Monifa Bandele is an activist with Movement for Black Lives, as well as senior vice president and chief strategy officer at MomsRising. She talked about a new report mapping police violence.

Monifa Bandele: “We actually know what keeps us safe. We know that people need care and not punishment.”

Monifa Bandele: Black people are just like any other people, right, all over the world. And so, for a long time, people had no idea what options there could be, what alternatives there could be, for community safety other than policing.

It’s not just presented in our policies and what we see on the streets, we’re fed a daily dose of it in our larger popular culture. The police shows, the true crime series. All of your favorite actors at some point have been on the policing shows, or even if it’s shows about “gangsters” or “criminals,” it really has what we call this copaganda—which is police propaganda—storyline, which ultimately says, you need police, you need vigilantes, you need this tough-on-crime entity in order to have some semblance of safety in your community.

So I’m actually really proud and impressed in the Black community, because what our report shows is that, even though we are really bombarded, millions and millions of dollars are spent to convince people that this is the only way that you can get safety, and people have lived their entire lives only experiencing this one model, that large portions of our community are really questioning that, and are really listening to folks who are saying: “Hey, we actually know what keeps us safe. We know that people need care and not punishment.”

And this is something that, while we do it sometimes in our buildings and in our tenant associations or in our families, this could be scaled up community-wide. This could be scaled up citywide, statewide, nationally, where we actually figure out and get to the root of violence. You prevent most of it from happening, because you have the right mechanisms in place. And then when people are in crisis, and may cause harm to themselves or others, we combat that by giving them what they need to not be in crisis in that moment.

***

JJ: Immigration stayed critical in 2024, but we didn’t hear much from folks particularly on the US southern border who don’t support aggressive unto lethal state responses. Aron Thorn joined us from the Rio Grande Valley. He’s senior staff attorney at the Beyond Borders program of the Texas Civil Rights Project.

Aron Thorn: “The very vast majority of folks who are showing up to the US/Mexico border are folks who are in need of protection.”

Aron Thorn: I think one angle of this story that we don’t always see, it’s been heartbreaking to see, for example, the state’s rhetoric of “come and cut it,” be very aggressive, “we have a right to defend ourselves,” etc., etc. The, in my opinion, overblown claims about just how many cartel members are among people, just how many drugs they’re finding on people, for example.

The very vast majority of folks who are showing up to the US/Mexico border are folks who are in need of protection, they’re in need of safety, they’re in need of stability. That is the very vast majority of people.

And so something that does not often show up in these stories, that is particularly pertinent right now, is, let’s be clear, Texas is fighting for its right to lay concertina wire so that people can get caught in it for hours, and get injured and languish there as punishment for trying to seek safety.

And what they want to do is push people back into Mexico where they are kidnapped, assaulted, raped, worse, as punishment for wanting to seek safety. That is what Texas is asserting its right to do. That’s what the Trump administration’s primary goal was on the US/Mexico border. That’s what Greg Abbott’s primary goal is at the US/Mexico border. And we don’t talk about that, as a country, of what that actually looks like every day, what that looks like on the ground.

What we talk about are US communities, we talk about people “taking our jobs,” we talk about the fentanyl that’s coming in—all real issues that are not touched, not controlled, by people who are desperate and are trying to seek safety. So to me, that is one of the biggest holes that I always see in these stories, that we don’t really take: our right to defend our border, but from what?

As a Texan, I don’t think what Texas is doing on the border day-to-day will actually improve the lives of Texans. We are spending billions of dollars of our own tax money for this political ploy that we are improving the lives of Texans, while we are stripping Texans off of Medicaid faster than any other state in the country. Texans are very strapped in an economy where inflation is still an issue, and nothing that we’re doing at our border is going to affect that.

***

JJ: Media Matters took a look at coverage of climate disruption, finding that, where there were some improvements, they just didn’t match the severity of the crisis. Evlondo Cooper is a senior writer with the Climate and Energy Program at Media Matters.

Evlondo Cooper: “Even the best coverage we see…there is no accountability for the fossil fuel industry and other industries that are driving the crisis.”

Evlondo Cooper: We look at coverage of, broadly, climate justice. I think a lot of people believe it’s representation for representation’s sake, but I think when people most impacted by climate change—and we’re talking about communities of color, we’re talking about low-income communities, we’re talking about low-wealth rural communities—when these folks are left out of the conversation, you’re missing important context about how climate change is impacting them, in many cases, first and worse. And you’re missing important context about the solutions that these communities are trying to employ to deal with it. And I think you’re missing an opportunity to humanize and broaden support for climate solutions at the public policy level.

So these aren’t communities where these random acts of God are occurring; these are policy decisions, or indecisions, that have created an environment where these communities are being most harmed, but least talked about, and they’re receiving the least redress to their challenges. And so those voices are necessary to tell those stories to a broad audience on the corporate broadcast networks.

JJ: Yes, absolutely.

Another finding that I thought was very interesting was that extreme weather seemed to be the biggest driver of climate coverage, and that, to me, suggests that the way corporate broadcast media are coming at climate disruption is reactive: “Look at what happened.”

EC: Totally.

JJ:  And even when they say, “Look at what’s happening,” and you know what, folks pretty much agree that this is due to climate disruption, these houses sliding into the river, it’s still not saying, “While you look at this disaster, know that this is preventable, and here is who is keeping us from acting on it and why.”

EC: Yeah, that is so insightful, because that’s a core critique of even the best coverage we see, that there is no accountability for the fossil fuel industry and other industries that are driving the crisis. And then there’s no real—solutions are mentioned in about 20% of climate segments this year. But the solutions are siloed, like there are solution “segments.”

But to your point, when we’re talking about extreme weather, when you have the most eyeballs hearing about climate change, to me, it would be very impactful to connect what’s happening in that moment—these wildfires, these droughts, these heat waves, these hurricanes and storms and flooding—to connect that to a key driver, fossil fuel industry, and talk about some potential solutions to mitigate these impacts while people are actually paying the most attention.

***

JJ: The oft-heard phrase “crisis of journalism” means different things to different people. This year, the Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science ran an article, “Repairing Journalism’s History of Anti-Black Harm.” It was co-authored by our guests, Collette Watson, co-founder of the group Black River Life, and Joe Torres, senior advisor at the group Free Press. The two are co-founders of the Media 2070 project.

Colette Watson: “What’s missing is an acknowledgement of our media system’s history of harm.”

Collette Watson: What’s missing is an acknowledgement of our media system’s history of harm. And when we talk about that—Joe and I are both co-creators of the Media 2070 project—when Media 2070 talks about this, we often say that, similar to our education system and our legal system, which so many people understand as oppressive, our media system is rooted in anti-Blackness, and in racism and racial hierarchy, since the very beginning.

When you look at the earliest colonial newspapers, which stayed afloat on the revenues that they were gaining from serving as brokers in the trafficking of enslaved African people, by not only posting ads, paid ads, for people who had emancipated themselves and run away, but also in the sales of enslaved folks and serving as a broker for those transactions.

We know that from that earliest root, right on through till now, our system of news, information, journalism—even entertainment media, book publishing—all of those are interconnected, and have been rooted in upholding a myth of Black inferiority, and have actually perpetuated white supremacy and even white nationalism. So you have to have that in mind, whenever you are thinking about journalism and the role it has played in society, and the role that we want it to play in the safe, just, multiracial democracy we want in the future. We can’t achieve that without acknowledging the history of harm.

Joseph Torres: “We’re asking the question: When hasn’t journalism been in crisis for Black people, and when hasn’t democracy?”

Joseph Torres: There is this big debate happening right now about the future of journalism, and how it goes, is mostly a white-led space. And the way the discussion has taken place is, the democracy is in crisis and so is journalism, and we need to save local journalism to save democracy. But as Collette is describing, what that does not acknowledge is the role of local news organizations and in local journalism in undermining democracy for Black people and people of color.

At the Media 2070 project, we’re asking the question: When hasn’t journalism been in crisis for Black people, and when hasn’t democracy? And these media institutions have played a direct role in undermining democracy.

And in recent years, we have the Los Angeles Times apologizing for it being the paper of white supremacy for at least its first 80-plus years. We have the Oregonian saying that it was a paper, when it began, to try to ensure that Oregon remained a white state. The Baltimore Sun apologizing for its role in upholding the housing segregation in its editorials in the newspaper in support of it in Baltimore; and the Kansas City Star did much the same. The Philadelphia Inquirer apologized.

These are all just within recent years, and within the future of journalism debate, there isn’t even acknowledgement that this actually happened, that these papers have actually apologized. What are we creating that’s different?

***

JJ: Throughout the year, more and more entities declared Israel’s violent assaults on Palestinians a genocide. But how did elite US media talk about it? Greg Shupak of the University of Guelph-Humber in Toronto, and author of The Wrong Story: Palestine Israel and the Media, talked with CounterSpin.

Gregory Shupak: “Genocide can and should never be just a normal story, but that is very much what it’s being treated like.”

Gregory Shupak: First of all, genocide can and should never be just a normal story, but that is very much what it’s being treated like. And second of all, it’s also: Yes, brutal, violent oppression of Palestinians has been the case since Israel came into existence in 1948, and, in fact, in the years leading up to it, there were certainly steps taken to create the conditions for Israel. So it is a decades-old story. But there is a kind of hand-waving that creeps into public discourse, and I think does underlie some of this lack of attention to what continues to happen in Gaza and the West Bank.

In reality, this is a very modern conflict, right? It’s a US-brokered, settler-colonial insurgency/counterinsurgency. It’s got very little to do with religion and everything to do with geopolitics and capitalism and colonialism. But it’s easier to just treat it as, “Oh, well, these backwards, savage barbarian and their ancient, inscrutable blood feuds are just doing what they have always done and always will. So that’s not worthy of our attention.” But that, aside from being wildly inaccurate, just enables the slaughter and dispossession, as well as resistance to it, to continue.

***

JJ: As we all reeled from the presidential election results, I talked with FAIR’s own editor, Jim Naureckas, and senior analyst Julie Hollar, for some thoughts about how we got here.

Jim Naureckas: “Trump was able to piggyback on a picture that had already been painted for him by corporate media, that these immigrants are something you should be afraid of.”

Jim Naureckas: I think that there’s an interesting parallel between the Trump campaign strategy and the business strategy of corporate media; there was kind of a synergy there. I don’t think that MAGA Republicans and corporate media have the same goals, necessarily, but I think they share a strategy, which is “fear sells.”

And that is also the strategy that Donald Trump has hit on. His campaign ads were all about fear, all about the danger of Democrats and the Biden/Harris administration. And he played on a lot of issues that corporate media have used to sell their papers, to sell their TV programs.

Immigration is one of the most obvious ones: Corporate media have treated immigration as, “Here’s something that you should be afraid about. There’s this flood of immigrants coming over the border. It’s a border crisis.” Particularly since the beginning of the Biden administration, this has been a drumbeat.

And there’s been a lot of distortions of numbers, of presenting this as some kind of unprecedented wave of migrants, that is not true. But by presenting it as this brand new threat, they’re able to sell more papers than they would otherwise have done—or sell clicks, I guess is what they’re in the business of now.

And so Trump was able to piggyback on a picture that had already been painted for him by corporate media, that these immigrants are something you should be afraid of. And he was the person who was promising to do something about them.

Julie Hollar: “Journalism is absolutely critical for democracy, and we have to remember that moving forward.”

Julie Hollar: I was thinking about how the corporate media, to me, bear such responsibility on both the issues of immigration and trans rights, because those two issues are miscovered by the corporate media in a very similar way. They’re both this beleaguered, very small minority—although the right wing, of course, is trying to make everyone believe that they are not a small minority, either of them—but both are very small minorities who are the target of these really punitive campaigns, whose bottom-line goal really is eliminating them from our society, which is classic fascism.

So you would expect journalists in a democratic society to take as the central story here that targeting of these minority groups. For the past many years, they should have been reporting these issues from the perspective of immigrants, from the perspective of trans people, humanizing them, providing us with this understanding of who’s really being harmed here, which is the opposite story of what the right wing is trying to tell.

And by not doing that at all—and I should also interrupt to say that not every corporate media outlet has been doing that on trans issues; the New York Times does really stand out, in terms of being bad about this. On immigration, it’s pretty much across the board bad in corporate media.

But instead of doing the kind of democratic journalism that you need in a moment like this, you have them really just feeding into the same narrative that the right-wing movement is putting out there. So when they then turn around—well, I’m getting ahead of myself—and then blame the left for these losses, it’s very angering.

Journalism is absolutely critical for democracy, and we have to remember that moving forward. And I think we can’t just ignore the big corporate outlets and let them off the hook and say, “Well, write them off because they’re never going to get better.” I mean, there are structural issues that are going to always limit them, and we have to keep demanding better, always.

And at the same time, I think it’s really important that everybody dig deep and support tough, strong, independent journalism that exists all over this country. Local outlets, wherever you are, that are doing really important work in your city or in your neighborhood, all of the independent media that are working nationwide as well, all the media critics; everyone is going to need so much support for the coming years to help defend this democracy, and we all really need to step up and support them.

***

JJ: That was FAIR’s Julie Hollar and Jim Naureckas. Before them, you heard Greg Shupak, Collette Watson and Joe Torres, Evlondo Cooper, Aron Thorn, Monifa Bandele, Svante Myrick and Chip Gibbons, just some of the voices it’s been our pleasure to bring you this past year.

This content originally appeared on FAIR and was authored by Janine Jackson.

Right-click here to download this episode (“Save link as…”).

CounterSpin host Janine Jackson

CounterSpin is your weekly look behind the headlines of the mainstream news. This is the time of year when we take a listen back to some of the conversations from the past year that have helped us clarify the events that bombard us—in part by showing how elite media are clouding them.

It’s not to say Big Media always get the facts wrong; but that what facts they point us toward, day after day, whose interpretation of those facts they suggest we credit, what responses we’re told are worth pursuing—all of that serves media’s corporate owners’ and sponsors’ bottom line, at the expense of all of our lives and our futures. An important part of the work we do—as producers and as listeners—is to help create and support different ways to inform ourselves and stay in conversation.

Guests featured on this year’s Best of CounterSpin include Chip Gibbons,  Svante Myrick, Monifa Bandele, Aron Thorn, Evlondo Cooper, Joe Torres, Colette Watson, Greg Shupak and FAIR’s Julie Hollar and Jim Naureckas.

As always, we are deeply thankful to all of the activists, researchers, reporters and advocates who appear on the show.

This content originally appeared on FAIR and was authored by Fairness & Accuracy In Reporting.

ProPublica is a nonprofit newsroom that investigates abuses of power. Sign up for Dispatches, a newsletter that spotlights wrongdoing around the country, to receive our stories in your inbox every week.

Months before voters went to the polls in November, a group of election skeptics based in North Carolina gathered on a call and discussed what actions to take if they doubted any of the results.

One of the ideas they floated: try to get the courts or state election board to throw out hundreds of thousands of ballots cast by voters whose registrations are missing a driver’s license number and the last four digits of a Social Security number.

But that idea was resisted by two activists on the call, including the leader of the North Carolina chapter of the Election Integrity Network. The data was missing not because voters had done something wrong but largely as a result of an administrative error by the state. The leader said the idea was “voter suppression” and “100%” certain to fail in the courts, according to a recording of the July call obtained by ProPublica.

This novel theory is now at the center of a legal challenge by North Carolina appeals court Judge Jefferson Griffin, a Republican who lost a race for a state Supreme Court seat to the Democratic incumbent, Allison Riggs, by just 734 votes and is seeking to have the result overturned.

The state election board dismissed a previous version of the challenge, which is now being considered in federal court. Before the election, a Trump-appointed judge denied an attempt by the Republican National Committee to remove 225,000 voters from the rolls based on the same theory.

The latest case is getting attention statewide and across the country. But it has not yet been reported that members of the group that had helped publicize the idea had cast doubt on its legality.

“I don’t comment on pending litigation,” Griffin wrote to ProPublica in response to a detailed list of questions. “It would be a violation of our code of judicial conduct.”

Embry Owen, Riggs’ campaign manager, disputed the challenge and called on Griffin to concede. “It’s not appropriate for this election to be decided in court, period. NC voters have already made the decision to send Justice Riggs back to the Supreme Court,” she said.

The theory Griffin is citing originated with a right-wing activist, Carol Snow, who described herself to ProPublica in an email as “a Bona Fide Grade-A Election Denier.” Snow promoted it with the help of the state chapter of the Election Integrity Network, a national group whose leader worked with President Donald Trump in his failed effort to overturn the 2020 election. The network also was behind extensive efforts to prepare to contest a Trump loss this year in other states, as ProPublica has reported, as well as in North Carolina, according to previously unreported recordings and transcripts of meetings of the state chapter.

State election officials have found that missing information on a voter’s registration is not disqualifying because there are numerous valid reasons for the state’s database to lack that those details.

Those reasons include voters registering before state paperwork was updated about a year ago to require that information or using alternate approved documents, such as a utility bill, to verify their identities. What’s more, voters must still prove their identity when casting a ballot — most often with a driver’s license. “There is virtually no chance of voter fraud resulting from a voter not providing her driver’s license or social security number on her voter registration,” attorneys for the state election board wrote in response to the RNC lawsuit.

Bob Orr, a former GOP state Supreme Court justice who left the Republican Party in 2021, said he too doubts the theory. “I appreciate fighting for every vote: If you honestly think illegal votes have been cast, it’s legitimate to try to prove that,” he said. “But the bottom line is: Did anyone vote illegally? Have you been able to prove one person voted illegally? At this point, no. And we’re weeks past the election and multiple recounts, and there’s no evidence of that.”

In modern history, the state board’s decision on who wins elections has been final, said Chris Cooper, a professor specializing in North Carolina politics at Western Carolina University. That includes an even tighter race in 2020, when a Democratic justice conceded to a Republican after protesting her 401-vote loss to the board.

“We’re used to close elections, we’re used to protests, we’re used to candidates pushing every legal action up to the point the state election board rules,” Cooper said. But, he added, there is an important difference with Griffin’s petition, which goes beyond the state election board to the courts.

“This is basically saying the state elections system is wrong, and we’re going to court to try to change the rules of the game after the game has been played — which is unprecedented.”

In July 2024, the North Carolina chapter of the Election Integrity Network convened online to plan its efforts ahead of the presidential election. Worried about a surge of voter registrations from nonwhite voters who they believed would back Democrats, the activists discussed how to assemble a “suspicious voters list” of people whose ballots they could challenge.

Then, one of the group’s board members, Jay DeLancy, said he had another idea “that’s a lot slicker.”

DeLancy said that if a candidate lost a close election, the loss could be overturned by questioning the validity of voters whose registrations are missing their driver’s license and Social Security information. “Those are illegal votes,” he claimed. “I would file a protest.”

Jim Womack, the leader of the chapter, immediately pushed back: “That’s a records keeping problem on the part of the state board. That’s not illegal.”

Later in the call Womack said, “I’m 100% sure you’re not going to get a successful prosecution.” And he told the group, “That’s considered to be voter suppression, and there’s no way a court is going to find that way.”

But DeLancy asked for backup from the originator of that theory: Carol Snow. She argued that her theory could in fact overturn the outcome of an election.

“I guess we’re gonna find that out,” Snow said.

Snow is a leader of the conservative activist group North Carolina Audit Force and lives in the state’s rural mountains. After Trump’s loss in 2020, she threw herself into questioning the election’s results. In 2022, she accompanied a pair of far-right activists to a North Carolina election office where the two men unsuccessfully tried to forcefully access voting machines, and she participated in a failed pressure campaign to oust the election director who resisted them, ProPublica previously reported.

She also began filing overwhelming numbers of records requests and complaints to state election officials, an effort that Womack praised on the July call: “I think Carol has shown a way of really harassing — not that we want to do it for harassment purposes — but really needling the Board of Elections to do their jobs by just constantly deluging them.”

Since late 2021, the state elections board had spent far more time on her requests and complaints than those of any other individual, spokesperson Patrick Gannon said in a statement. “Ms. Snow’s constant barrage of requests and complaints causes other priorities and responsibilities to suffer,” Gannon said.

Snow described her work to ProPublica as “simply taking the time to learn about my state’s electoral process” and acting for the public good. “The records I’ve requested are owned by the public. In other words, I’m asking for what belongs to me,” Snow wrote to ProPublica. “If government agencies are understaffed and unable to comply with this state’s Public Records law, they should address the issue with the entities that fund them.”

In the fall of 2023, Snow filed a complaint alleging that North Carolina’s voter registration form did not clearly require voters to provide their driver’s license number and the last four digits of their Social Security number, as required by federal law — instead that information was coded as optional. Snow later described the missing information as a “line of attack” through which bad actors could cast fraudulent votes using fake identities. (A right-wing conspiracy theory holds that this was how Biden won the 2020 election.)

But she was not able to demonstrate that the missing information had led to anyone improperly voting. After obtaining public records for hundreds of thousands of voter registrations, Snow provided the state board with only seven examples of what she called potential double voting. The state board found all seven to be innocuous things like data entry errors.

The state board quickly updated the form to require the information. But from late 2023 through the fall of 2024, six complaints, some of which were partly based on Snow’s theory, were filed with the state election board. Aside from the updates to the form, the state board dismissed the complaints.

By the time of the July call, some of Snow’s peers seemed dismissive as well.

“I’m not suggesting that we can’t arm a candidate that loses a short, a close race with the information they need to file a protest using this,” Womack said on the call. “But I would just suggest to you that that’s not the way to win on this thing.”

Yet the information did end up in the Republican National Committee’s lawsuit trying to disqualify 225,000 voters, a challenge DeLancy filed against Riggs’ victory in North Carolina’s most populous county, and, the day after that was dismissed, Griffin’s challenge to over 60,000 voters.

DeLancy wrote to ProPublica that he filed the challenge on his own and did not coordinate with Griffin. He also said he disagreed with Womack’s description of such challenges as “voter suppression.” Instead, he said, he saw it as “a proper response” to the state election board’s “violation of federal law.” “Carol Snow deserves an Order of the Long Leaf Pine for exposing this treasonous behavior on the part of the election officials,” he wrote, referring to an award bestowed by North Carolina’s governor.

Womack wrote to ProPublica that the group he leads “is a non-partisan, neutral organization” that does “not favor one party over another.”

He also said that recordings of the group’s calls are “prohibited and violate our internal policies” and “whatever bootleg recording you may have is unauthorized and may well be altered.” ProPublica has seen a video recording of the call and verified portions of it with some participants.

Though Griffin’s challenge of Riggs’ victory is now being considered in federal court, legal experts say it could still end up back where he intended: in front of the state Supreme Court.

Griffin’s petition is making what experts describe as extreme asks to the Supreme Court: to allow him to bypass the lower courts, to allow ballots to be thrown out without proving that voters did anything knowingly wrong and to essentially decide whether to change its composition to six Republicans and one Democrat.

“Even if they do their best to be open-minded and independent, the facts of the potential conflicts of interest are just too obvious to the public,” said Orr, the former Republican justice.

Griffin has described Republican Supreme Court Chief Justice Paul Newby as a “good friend and mentor,” and Newby promoted Griffin’s 2020 run for the court of appeals. What’s more, a ProPublica review of campaign finance reports show that the spouses of three justices, including Newby’s wife, donated over $12,000 to Griffin’s most recent or previous campaigns. (The husband of the Supreme Court’s other Democratic justice donated to Riggs.)

Newby and other justices did not respond to a detailed list of questions sent to spokespeople for the Supreme Court.

When announcing his candidacy for the Supreme Court, Griffin declared, “We are a team that knows how to win — the same team that helped elect Chief Justice Paul Newby and three other members of the current Republican majority.”

A cartoon illustration that hangs in the Supreme Court depicts all the Republican appellate jurists as superheroes from the Justice League, with Newby caricatured as Superman and Griffin as the Flash.

This content originally appeared on ProPublica and was authored by by Doug Bock Clark.

São Paulo, December 12, 2024—Female journalists experienced the majority of online and offline attacks against the press during the 2024 Brazilian municipal elections, found a report published today by the Coalition in Defense of Journalism (CDJor), a coalition of civil society organizations working to protect press freedom and freedom of expression in Brazil, which the Committee to Protect Journalists (CPJ) is a member.

The report found criticism of female journalists was often followed by misogynistic attacks and comments on their physical appearance. Female journalists received 50.8% of the attacks while only representing 45.9% of the total number of professionals monitored.

Online attacks against female journalists were significant, underscoring a concerning trend of journalists harassed online in an attempt to intimidate or force them into silence. On Instagram, female journalists were the target of 68.3% of the total attacks and on X they experienced 53% of attacks. Vera Magalhães, host of Roda Viva, a popular interview show on TV Cultura, and political analyst for CNN Brasil, received 32.3% of the attacks on Instagram, demonstrating the targeted nature of online abuse.

Black journalists were also subject to targeting amid the 2024 Brazilian municipal elections. Pedro Borges, co-founder of the news portal Alma Preta Jornalismo, was the victim of racist attacks on social media following an interview with right-wing candidate Pablo Marçal (PRTB) on TV Cultura’s Roda Viva program.

The Coalition in Defense of Journalism proposes a series of recommendations to address the challenges faced by journalists in Brazil during elections. These include strengthening public policies to protect journalists and holding aggressors accountable both online and offline.

Additionally, the coalition suggested the review of abusive judicial practices and development of more effective mechanisms by digital platforms to curb online attacks. Media organizations are also urged to adopt security and support policies that provide institutional and psychological assistance to media professionals.

The monitoring was done in partnership with the Internet and Data Science Lab (Labic) of the Federal University of Espírito Santo (UFES) and the digital research center ITS Rio, and covers the period between August 15 and October 27, 2024.

###

About the Committee to Protect Journalists

The Committee to Protect Journalists is an independent, nonprofit organization that promotes press freedom worldwide. We defend the right of journalists to report the news safely and without fear of reprisal.

The Coalition in Defense of Journalism (CDJor) is comprised of Abraji (Brazilian Association of Investigative Journalism), Ajor (Digital Journalism Association), Article 19, Fenaj (National Union of Journalists), Committee to Protect Journalists, Instituto Palavra Aberta, Instituto Vladimir Herzog, Instituto Tornavoz, Intervozes, Jeduca (Education Journalists Association) and Reporters Without Borders (RSF).

Read the executive summary in English.

Read the full report in Portuguese here.

This content originally appeared on Committee to Protect Journalists and was authored by Committee to Protect Journalists.

Myanmar is expected to organize an election next year in fewer than half of its 330 townships in the first phase of a staggered vote, a political party official said on Tuesday, with an insurgency by anti-junta forces likely to prevent the polls from opening in large parts of the country.

The generals who seized power in 2021 are hoping that an election will legitimize their rule and please neighbors, including China. The junta’s opponents say a vote under the military, with the most popular politicians locked up and their parties banned, will be a sham.

More than 6,000 people have been killed in Myanmar’s war since the coup and some 21,000 have been jailed, U.N. experts said last week, calling on governments around the world to reject the junta’s election plan.

No date has been set for the vote but it is expected this year.

The chairman of the Election Commission, Ko Ko, met representatives of political parties in the capital, Naypyidaw, on the weekend to outline arrangements, said Myo Set Thway, general secretary of the People’s Pioneer Party.

“He’s saying elections will just be held in places that are already safe and trusted,” Myo Set Thway, who attended the meeting, told Radio Free Asia.

He cited the commission chairman as saying voting would be held in 161 of the 330 townships.

Myo Set Thway did not say which townships would vote first but large parts of the country, including some central areas, have been rocked by fighting over the past year. Insurgents controlled at least 86 towns as of November, said the Burma News International’s Myanmar Peace Monitor.

“He’ll hold the next elections in places that can be made secure, that was the connotation,” Myo Set Thway said, referring to the chairman.

A spokesperson for the Election Commission could not immediately be reached for comment.

China, with energy pipelines and other economic interests in Myanmar, supports the election and has been pressing ethnic minority insurgents to talk peace with the junta.

RELATED STORIES

As Myanmar’s census draws to a close, observers question its accuracy

Chinese aid cannot overcome Myanmar junta’s declining finances and morale

EXPLAINED: Why does Myanmar’s junta want to hold elections?

Votes for the displaced

In Myanmar’s last election in 2020, voting was held in 315 out of the 330 townships. The party led by democracy champion Aung San Suu Kyi swept that vote, as it did in 2015.

The army complained of cheating in 2020 and overthrew Suu Kyi’s government on Feb. 1, 2021. She has been jailed for 27 years.

Authorities have effectively barred many parties from the vote, including Suu Kyi’s National League for Democracy, but 53 have registered, said Ko Ko.

Voting will likely take place in Mon state and the Thanintharyi region in the south, Yangon and the Mandalay and Ayeyarwaddy regions, where the military retains strongholds, analysts say.

A party leader from war-torn Rakhine state said people displaced by fighting had to be able to vote.

“The Election Commission must protect the rights of internally displaced people fleeing from the military and sheltering in areas outside their scope,” said Aye Maung, chairman of the Arakan Front party.

The U.N. says more than 3 million people have been displaced by the fighting and by flooding this year.

Neighbors will be hoping an election can help to bring stability to resource-rich Myanmar. Thailand, China and India have discussed support for a census now underway and the vote.

Edited by Kiana Duncan.

This content originally appeared on Radio Free Asia and was authored by RFA Burmese.

In the aftermath of the Trump victory, the opinion pages of the New York Times and the Wall Street Journal both published post-election eulogies for conventional economics. Remarkably, these columns shared almost the exact same headline.

Peter Coy’s column in the Times (11/8/24) read “The Election’s Other Biggest Losers? Economists.” In the Journal (11/7/24), Joseph C. Sternberg’s piece was headed “The 2024 Election’s Other Loser: Economists.”

While the headlines were nearly identical, the ideological differences between the Times and the Journal mean that Coy and Sternberg arrived at very different conclusions for the future of the field of study.

Coy’s piece is a lament for mainstream economists, who in his view perfectly analyzed the economic situation of the election, only to have their expertise rejected by the voters. Sternberg strikes a smugger tone, arguing that economists deserve scorn for not understanding what the economy meant to voters, as evidenced by the election results.

Despite their divergent tones, both columns suffered from similar problems, including a fundamental misunderstanding of how voters interface with “the economy” as a political concern.

‘Moment of reckoning’

Peter Coy (New York Times, 11/8/24): “Maybe I’ve spent too much time around economists.”

Peter Coy is the resident economics and business columnist at the New York Times. A longtime writer for BusinessWeek, he is an unabashed apologist for mainstream economics, so when “voters utterly ignored” the wisdom of 23 Nobel Prize–winning economists, Coy seemed to take it personally.

Coy ticked off Trump’s economic sins, including tariffs and immigration restrictions, before conceding that “voters ate it up. Economists were perceived as spokespeople for the power structure—if not outright harmful, then at least ignorable.”

One doesn’t have to be a Trump supporter to recognize that economists (or at least, the ones quoted in corporate media) are generally spokespeople for the power structure. That aside, Coy went on to pose the election loss as a “moment of reckoning” for Democrats:

Should Democrats stick to the economic platform of 2024, which on the whole is based on standard economic principles, with a few concessions to electoral politics, such as promises of mortgage down-payment assistance and fulminations against “nefarious price-gouging”? Or should they go full-on populist to compete with Trump?

Coy was vague on what he meant by “standard economic principles,” elaborating only to say “trade should be free, within reason,” and that “monetary policy should be insulated from politics.” (“Insulated from politics” is what media say when they mean bankers should be allowed to set interest rates without regard for their impact on people.)

In other words, Coy stumped for the status quo, in the most general sense. He believes that Biden bet big and lost on “deliverism,” the idea that voters will reward politicians at the ballot box for material gains delivered. Coy failed to mention the Covid-era relief, like the expanded child tax credit, that was delivered then taken back from US workers. Deliverism is far from full-fledged economic populism, but Coy uses Harris’s election loss to argue that interventions in the economy on behalf of working people are a fool’s errand.

‘Unfortunate’ populism

Franklin Roosevelt

Coy invoked the example of President Franklin Roosevelt, a president who turned to economic populism to “fight off threats” from political populists, as a “reference point” for Democrats.

But instead of investigating why Roosevelt’s populism was successful, both electorally and economically, in an effort to imagine what modern left economic populism could look like, Coy decried a hypothetical progressive populism as “unfortunate”:

Higher tariffs would slow economic growth and raise prices, no matter how many times Trump denies it. As for immigration, effective border controls make sense, but sharp restrictions on new arrivals and expulsion of people who are already in the country would leave millions of jobs unfilled and possibly unfillable.

Most progressives who wish a return to economic populism would agree with this analysis. The problem is that Coy presented tariffs and mass deportations as the only forms Democrats’ economic populism could take. Unmentioned were universal healthcare, a wealth tax and guaranteed basic income, to name just a few examples—odd omissions, given that he acknowledged that FDR called for “higher taxes on the rich, a federal minimum wage and Social Security.”

Advice from the right

A scholar from the highly ideological Hoover Institution advised Democrats to “offer nonideological solutions.” (Creative Commons photo: Jim Naureckas)

Instead, Coy sought advice from Larry Diamond of the right-wing Hoover Institution, and experts from the arms maker–funded Center for a New American Security, on what Democrats can do to “fend off populism.” Their prescriptions include “offer non-ideological solutions…create unifying and aspirational narratives, use blame attributions sparingly,” and other safely capital-friendly methods.

Unsurprisingly, these experts agreed wholeheartedly with Coy’s assertion that left-wing populism in any form is the wrong path for Democrats. The fact that Vice President Kamala Harris lost the election after she renounced the progressive policies she once supported, then offered many “nonideological solutions” of her own, didn’t seem to concern Coy.

Instead, Coy concluded, Democrats would be better served by sticking to their (Hoover Institution–vetted) principles, and waiting for Trump to mess up. “Maybe I’ve spent too much time around economists,” Coy conceded, “but I do think the prescriptions of mainstream economics still make sense.”

It is clear why Coy and his fellow fans of mainstream economics were so disappointed by this election. In his eyes, the Harris campaign did everything right. She ran on an incumbent record that posted strong growth and low unemployment, and lowered inflation rates. She ran on a business-friendly platform (despite Coy’s disapproval of her anti-price-gouging “concession” to voters).

And after all that, Harris lost, decisively. Nonetheless, Coy was optimistic for the future of a Democratic Party committed to centrism: “In the long run, Democrats will be better off sticking to their economic principles while Trump and the party he controls founder.”

‘Those parts that matter most’

Aside from pointing to phony wage growth statistics, the Wall Street Journal‘s Joseph Sternberg (11/7/24) argued that numbers like the “business-investment component of …quarterly GDP releases” mattered most to voters.

Sternberg spent the first half of his Wall Street Journal column (11/7/24) arguing that “prominent economics commentators missed (or chose to overlook) those parts of the economy that matter most to most voters.” As someone who studies Marxian political economy, I am highly sympathetic to the view that the conventional economists have it dead wrong. However, instead of calling for a true reevaluation of the economics field, Sternberg limited his critique to Monday morning–quarterbacking his ideological opponents.

Sternberg claims that real weekly earnings fell 0.5% over Biden’s term in office, as opposed to 7% growth during Trump’s term. Sternberg appears to be looking at Current Population Survey earnings data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics, which show a phantom spike in income just before the end of Trump’s first term. This clearly reflects lower-paid workers disproportionately losing their jobs during the lockdown rather than actual gains for workers’ pocketbooks (FAIR.org, 11/20/24).

More dependable statistics show real incomes increased at all income levels during the Biden administration, and increased the most at lower income levels. Per the Center for American Progress, workers poorer than 90% of all earners saw a 16% increase in real wages (wages adjusted for inflation) between February 2020 and September 2024; workers poorer than 80% of earners saw a 9% increase.

Other analyses similarly found across-the-board income increases from the Biden economic recovery (especially among lower income levels) in terms of both real wages and real weekly earnings. In other words, if you look at data without known aberrations, workers have indeed come out ahead.

Those datasets, however, don’t post-confirm Sternberg’s notion that economists sleepwalked into an election loss. Whether it’s earnings data or anything else, there will always be statistics that can support one’s post-hoc reasoning. Confidently proclaiming which economic indicators decide an election after the election takes place is low-hanging fruit.

Sternberg declared that “only an economist could be surprised by Donald Trump’s presidential victory.” But economists who favorably compared Kamala Harris’ platform to Trump’s weren’t predicting that she would therefore win; they were saying they thought her policies would result in better economic outcomes. That voters most concerned about economic issues picked the candidate most economists thought would hurt the economy is more an indictment of journalism than of economics.

Workers the actual losers

FAIR.org (7/13/23): “Any discussion of Biden’s poor approval ratings on economic policy has to include consideration of the media’s role in manufacturing those ratings.”

The job of communicating economic activity to the masses is not that of economists, after all, but rather journalists and the punditocracy (of which Sternberg is a part). Throughout his column, Sternberg referred to the “economics pundit class,” “economics commentators,” “economists,” “academics,” “punditry” and “economic analysts,” all in more or less the same role. The problem is, these words describe people in a wide variety of jobs, who were by no means united in their electoral prognostication.

FAIR (1/25/23, 7/13/23, 1/5/24) has documented the media obsession with Biden-era inflation, and indeed, continuous news reports that decry the effects inflation will have on people’s quality of life go a long way to shaping perceptions of the economy. When media bleat for years about inflation, and workers recognize that prices have indeed increased, then workers’ justified dissatisfaction with the economy will be identified as “inflation.”

The pundit class has displayed an inability to differentiate between short-run grievances and long-term disaffection. It may be true that inflation is down, thanks to Biden’s remarkable recovery. It may also be true that workers are fed up with the status quo, as represented by Harris’s bid to change “not a thing” about the current administration. Of course, Donald Trump has few real offerings for improvements for the working class, but that is another issue altogether.

To Coy, a dramatic Democratic underperformance, especially among workers, is a sign that economists should stick to the same great policies that have generated historic wealth inequality. To Sternberg, economists are fools because they weren’t looking at the figures that exactly predicted the election, notwithstanding the fact that 1) that’s not the job of economists, 2) he only chose his magic figures after the election took place, and 3) Sternberg’s chief data point, how much voters were paid, is known to misrepresent reality.

As long as writers like Coy and Sternberg fail to understand the motivations of voters, then the losers won’t be the economists, but the workers who are forced to vote for one faction of capital against another.

This content originally appeared on FAIR and was authored by Paul Hedreen.

But the claim is false. Documents released by the court on Nov. 19 show that the prosecution intends to proceed with post-trial sentencing and denies Trump’s impending presidency is sufficient grounds to dismiss the case.

The claim was shared on X on Nov. 22, 2024.

“Donald Trump’s sentencing for 34 criminal charges in the state of New York abruptly adjourned by Judge Merchan without explanation. All charges have been dropped,” the claim reads.

Former President Trump secured a second, non-consecutive term by defeating Vice President Kamala Harris in the 2024 U.S. presidential election on Nov. 5.

In March 2023, a Manhattan grand jury indicted Trump on 34 felony counts of falsifying business records.

The indictment accused Trump of orchestrating hush money payments to adult film actress Stormy Daniels to suppress information about a sexual encounter that she says they had aiming to influence the 2016 presidential election. Trump denies any sexual encounter with Daniels.

The payments were purportedly disguised in business records as legal expenses to conceal their true purpose.

The claim that the felony accounts against Trump were dropped following the election is incorrect.

Charge vs account

Chinese social media users appear to have confused the terms “charges” and “counts.”

A “charge” refers to a specific crime someone is accused of committing, while a “count” indicates the number of times the person is accused of committing that crime.

In Trump’s case, he was accused of one crime – falsifying business records – but was charged with committing it 34 separate times.

To be proceeded

The Manhattan district attorney offices’ charge against Trump has not been dropped.

Documents released by the court on November 19 show that the prosecution intends to proceed with post-trial sentencing and denies Trump’s impending presidency is sufficient grounds to dismiss the felony counts against him.

However, the prosecution noted that it will consider a stay of proceedings, which would pause sentencing until after Trump leaves office after his second term ends in four years.

It stated this would allow the court “to balance competing constitutional interests.”

Uncertainties

On Nov. 22, the presiding judge Juan Merchan postponed sentencing to receive more arguments from both sides.

Trump’s lawyers were ordered to file their arguments for dismissal by Dec. 2, while the prosecutors were given until Dec. 9 to submit their arguments for proceeding with the conviction.

Given the unique situation of a president-elect awaiting criminal sentencing, the exact outcome of the case is still unclear.

While the prosecution has signaled its plans to continue forward with sentencing at some point in the future, Trump’s lawyers are still attempting to have the case dismissed.

U.S. constitutional law expert Robert Mcwhirter said in an interview with the American broadcaster CBS that any sentencing against Trump would likely be enforced after leaving his second term in office.

However, Mcwhirter noted there is “a slim chance” that he could impose a short prison sentence on Trump before his inauguration in January 2025 or probationary measures during his time in office.

Other cases

In addition to the Manhattan court case, one other state-level criminal case in Georgia and two federal criminal cases have been brought against Trump.

Following Trump’s election victory, the Department of Justice dismissed the two federal cases against him on Nov. 25.

The case in Georgia is stalled in pretrial procedures and its progress is unclear.

A Supreme Court decision from July 2024 ruled that Trump was ineligible to be prosecuted for acts that fall under the president’s “core constitutional powers.”

The president’s “unofficial acts” share no such immunity.

Translated by Shen Ke. Edited by Shen Ke and Taejun Kang.

Asia Fact Check Lab (AFCL) was established to counter disinformation in today’s complex media environment. We publish fact-checks, media-watches and in-depth reports that aim to sharpen and deepen our readers’ understanding of current affairs and public issues. If you like our content, you can also follow us on Facebook, Instagram and X.

This content originally appeared on Radio Free Asia and was authored by Alan Lu for Asia Fact Check Lab.

In the week before the 2024 election, attorneys representing Donald Trump pursued legal action against multiple news outlets they alleged were biased against the Republican nominee and had defamed him or attempted to sway the election in favor of his opponent.

An attorney in Palm Beach, Florida, sent a letter to The New York Times and Penguin Random House in late October, according to the Columbia Journalism Review, demanding $10 billion in damages for “false and defamatory statements” about Trump by multiple Times journalists.

The letter, reviewed by CJR, pointed to articles by Peter Baker, Michael S. Schmidt, Susanne Craig and Russ Buettner.

“There was a time, long ago, when the New York Times was considered the ‘newspaper of record,’” the letter reportedly said. “Those halcyon days have passed.” CJR added that the letter accused the Times of being “a full-throated mouthpiece of the Democratic Party” that employs “industrial-scale libel against political opponents.”

The Times responded to the letter Oct. 31, according to CJR, directing Trump’s attorney to Penguin Random House for claims concerning the book coauthored by Buettner and Craig, and stating that it stands by the reporting of its staff. A spokesperson for the Times declined to comment when reached by the U.S. Press Freedom Tracker.

That same day, attorneys filed a federal lawsuit on Trump’s behalf against CBS Broadcasting, alleging that the network was attempting to influence the election by favorably editing an interview with Democratic candidate Kamala Harris.

In the complaint, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas, Trump charges CBS “doctored” a Harris exchange over U.S. relations with Israel as part of an effort to “confuse, deceive, and mislead the public” about her alleged weaknesses as a candidate.

Trump had repeatedly disparaged the network since the interview aired Oct. 7, threatening legal action, demanding it release unedited tapes and transcripts and calling for CBS to be taken off the air.

In an emailed statement to the Tracker, a spokesperson for CBS said: “Former President Trump’s repeated claims against 60 Minutes are false. The Interview was not doctored; and ‘60 Minutes’ did not hide any part of the Vice President’s answer to the question at issue. ‘60 Minutes’ fairly presented the Interview to inform the viewing audience, and not to mislead it.”

The spokesperson added, “The lawsuit Trump has brought today against CBS is completely without merit and we will vigorously defend against it.”

The suit — in which Trump also sought $10 billion in damages — bases its claims on CBS’ alleged violation of the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Consumer Protection Act, normally meant to protect consumers from being misled by advertisers.

But several legal observers dismissed the claim as frivolous. First Amendment expert Floyd Abrams told CNN the First Amendment was drafted to protect the press from such lawsuits, and scholar Geoffrey Stone called it a “misapplication” of the law.

“That statute is about sales — a salesperson can be held liable for stating that a product has certain positive effects when he knows it doesn’t,” Stone told CBS News. “But CBS is not engaged in advertising here.”

On Nov. 5, Trump’s campaign co-chief Chris LaCivita also issued a letter to The Daily Beast, demanding that it correct articles stating that LaCivita raised $22 million for Trump’s reelection, CJR reported.

In response, the outlet added editor’s notes stating: “Based on a further review of FEC records, the correct total is $19.2m. The Beast regrets the error. The article has also been updated to make clear that payments were to LaCivita’s LLC not to LaCivita personally.”

Trump’s campaign found the note insufficient and, according to CJR, said in a follow-up legal letter that it “does not remedy the overall messaging of the story—which depicts Mr. LaCivita as deceptively pocketing campaign money for his own personal gain and that he was and is on the verge of being ‘fired’ because of it.”

The Beast did not respond to a request for comment as of press time.

Trump has sustained his hostile comments toward the press in the wake of the election: During his Nov. 6 victory speech, for instance, he referred to the media as “the enemy camp,” and he has continued his tirades against journalists on social media.

This content originally appeared on U.S. Press Freedom Tracker: Incident Database and was authored by U.S. Press Freedom Tracker: Incident Database.

Janine Jackson: Among other happenings on November 5, Missouri narrowly passed a ballot measure that will legalize sports gambling in the state. Like similar measures in other states, Amendment Two came with a lot of promises and perhaps not-deep-enough questions, as our guest explored in a timely report.

Journalist Amos Barshad is senior enterprise reporter for the Lever, online at LeverNews.com, and author of the book No One Man Should Have All That Power: How Rasputins Manipulate the World, from Abrams Press. He joins us now by phone from here in New York City. Welcome to CounterSpin, Amos Barshad.

Missouri Independent (10/29/24)

Amos Barshad: Thank you so much for having me.

JJ: So “ballot measure” sounds very bottom-up, but Amendment Two did not arise, as it were, organically from the community. Who did you find to be the driving forces behind it?

AB: Yeah, we found that backers of the ballot measure were the two big sports gambling companies, FanDuel and DraftKings, which are national corporations that probably a lot of people are familiar with through their advertising. And they allied with the professional sports teams in Missouri; there’s six of them. And everyone got together to push forward this ballot measure. I don’t know what the final number was; at least something like $36 million was spent backing this ballot measure.

JJ: We should take a minute to note that there’s a relevant Supreme Court ruling from 2018 that opened the floodgates to states doing this legalizing of sports gambling, right? Essentially, there was a law on the books, and it got taken off.

AB: That’s right, yeah. So the 2018 Supreme Court decision opened the door for states to make their own decisions on sports gambling. And very quickly, many states legalized; so we were up to 38 as of this year before November, and then Missouri did become the 39th state.

JJ: Now, there’s a sort of a blueprint that the industry uses, and it seems to be working. There’s kind of a template that’s gone from one state to another, right? Can you talk about that?

Amos Barshad: “The industry makes these promises that they can’t keep. They’re telling you that this will solve your issues, but it’s not true.”

AB: Yeah, so what we’ve found through our reporting is that the industry often makes promises that the tax revenue from sports gambling will go to causes that most people could get behind. So in Missouri, specifically, it was education, the public school system, money for teachers, money for kids in the public school system. And that’s common, I think a lot of people would maybe know that a lot of state lotteries allocate money for education.

From there, we found that it gets a little bit more cynical, for two reasons. Specifically in Missouri, the critics, the group that was opposing this ballot measure, made the compelling argument that there isn’t that much guaranteed money going to education, that the way the rule was written both creates carve-outs for the gambling companies to actually not pay quite as much in taxes as it might seem. Plus, then from there, there’s not even a direct conduit created so the money will go to education.

Yeah, that’s kind of been, like you said, the blueprint. So we looked at other states, and it seems like, for example, in Colorado, which faces drought via climate change, the money will be earmarked to address water scarcity; Washington, DC, parents faced really high family expenses, so the promise is with funding for childcare. And it’s almost like they’re engineering the end result; they’re saying, we can fix your problem.

And in California, which voted down a legalized sports gambling ballot measure in 2022, the money would have gone to try to alleviate the homelessness crisis. But, basically, the groups opposing that were able to effectively communicate that the industry makes these promises that they can’t keep. They’re telling you that this will solve your issues, but it’s not true.

Kansas City Star (11/6/24)

JJ: And I wanted to ask you a little more about what we do know about that track record, but I just wanted to point out that in this piece in the Kansas City Star from November 6, it says:

A fiscal note attached to the measure estimated that the state revenue generated from legalized sports betting would range from nothing to $28.9 million each year. But the campaign argued those figures would be much higher.

Well, yeah, higher than nothing would be great, but, I mean, this is even, in the measure itself, it doesn’t sound like a promise.

AB: Yeah, exactly. It’s really interesting, because whatever any given voter’s personal opinion on sports gambling is, you can then go from, “OK, but we should write the legislation to ensure that the promises that are being made are being kept.”

And, basically, part of the reason why that minimum could be zero is because of this carve-out that the industry has successfully pushed for in state after state, which is that they can use their promotional spending against their tax bill, basically, which means the money that they use to lure in new gamblers. And it’s a whole big conversation about issues with sports gambling, where that, again, it gets pretty cynical, and that’s money basically spent on luring in, say, problem gamblers, people with gambling addiction issues. So they’re using that money, money that’s spent trying to hook new gamblers, and that not only maybe exacerbates the situation for any given person gambling too much, that can go into debt, create personal problems in their life, but then they get to deduct that from the tax bill. So, yeah.

JJ: So we have at least 38 sort of case studies, and it sounds as though you’ve said it, but can we say that there’s not a strong track record here in terms of sports betting filling budget holes in any meaningful way?

AB: It’s an interesting question, because, again, you can go state by state. So in the state of New York, they were able to push for a 51% tax rate, which is, as it sounds, extremely high, that’s the highest in the nation. There’s a few other states that have it at that rate as well, and they have been able to collect significant funds, and in New York state, that goes to education as well.

But it’s interesting, even there, there’s legislators that are friendly to the industry, that have tried to claw back, lower that tax rate, actually have tried to introduce that same carve-out where the gambling companies get to use the promotional spending to deduct from the tax bill.

And then in the other states, it can be 10%. I think that’s the tax rate in Missouri, a lot of the other states are set at 10%, and, yeah, it doesn’t become a significant enough source of funding to ameliorate all the issues that are then caused from legalized sports gambling. And I think the other point on that is: Education costs go up. These big issues costs go up, year after year. But is the revenue from the gambling going up year after year? It seems that that’s not necessarily the case.

JJ: You have a fact in the piece that says, “in the run up to the 2023 Super Bowl, Kansans bet $194 million, from which the state of Kansas raked in $1,134.” That is not impressive.

AB: It’s a stark figure, and that’s all about that carve-out that I mentioned. All that money, a lot of it was promotional money for their “free” app. What actually happens is, they get you onto their app; once you’re on there, it says, “Oh, you have to spend this $5 by a certain time.” So these gambling companies are extremely good at getting people onto the apps, and getting them to spend more than they necessarily intended to. And you hear, “Here’s a free $5 bet,” but from there, you have to spend a certain amount of money within a certain amount of time to cash in on the offers. So as you can see, a particularly egregious example, but you’re talking about a ton of money being spent, and the end result is not what would seem to be the correct amount of correlating tax revenue for the state.

Lever (10/24/24)

JJ: The piece starts with a photo op in which the mascots from Missouri’s professional sports teams delivered boxes of signatures in support of Amendment Two to the secretary of state’s office.

AB: [Laughs]

JJ: Very cute. What is in it for the teams? What do the teams see that made them put millions and millions of dollars into this?

AB: Historically, the professional sports teams in America were against legalized sports gambling, for probably reasons you’d expect, feeling that it would corrupt the sport in ways. We’re probably all familiar with certain scandals over the history of American professional sports in the 20th century, most famously Pete Rose, the baseball player. The idea that maybe once you legalized, you incentivize more gambling, that players would have reasons to throw games, or affect what’s happening on the field because of gambling interests.

But, basically, once the 2018 Supreme Court decision came out, once they saw just how much money was there to make, sports teams in America did a complete 180, and are all behind this.

And they’re not directly collecting money, there’s not anything written into the law where they get a certain percentage of the amount that’s gambled. But what ends up happening is, with these sports gambling companies, they have so much money to spend, and they end up spending it through the sports teams. They might set up by advertising inside the stadium, or during the broadcast of the team’s games. They might even set up booths inside the stadium, so they have to pay teams for the right to do that. The teams know that if gambling is legalized in their state, that their marketing revenue is going to go up a certain amount.

Reuters (7/3/24)

JJ: Another interesting part of this very interesting piece is FanDuel, their parent company, called Flutter, they operate in the UK, that’s where they started, but they have different rules about just the kinds of things that you’ve been talking about over there, don’t they?

AB: Yeah, and I think that’s really an important part of everything, because, again, any given person might think about sports gambling, and the legalization of it, and say: “It does exist in other states or other countries. Is it really so bad?” And I think that the counterargument would really be to look at the regulation that is happening in other countries.

Specifically in the UK, it’s actually been about 20 years since this kind of online mobile betting took off. And what critics say is that it took decades of families being ruined, individual lives being ruined through gambling debts, for really good regulation to come, in which gambling companies are legally obligated to make sure that the people betting aren’t betting beyond their means, and that they aren’t exhibiting problem gambling behaviors. And in the US, because this is relatively new, that regulation just doesn’t exist.

So you could say, OK, I believe in legalized sports gambling, I want the tax revenue to come in. But from there, you’ve got to think, what is the impact on people? What is actually going to happen next? And you can see, where sports gambling is legal, there is a spike in addiction, and issues of that nature. And so the question is, are we just going to let companies write the rule book, or is there common-sense regulation that could come in that would really save a lot of people?

Forbes (10/17/23)

JJ: I do see in the writeups from Missouri and other states, there’s kind of an offhand reference to, oh yeah, some of the revenue has to go to this fund to combat problem gambling, or something. But it is very vague.

AB: So it’s basically, anytime a state legalizes sports gambling, it will also either indicate that a certain amount of money is going to go to a preexisting state problem-gambling fund, or create a whole new one. So it’s very much, we are aware that these issues are going to come in, and we’re going to try to tackle them.

What I tried to point out in the piece is that there isn’t some sense that we’re going to prevent people from becoming addicts in the first place. We’re just going to be there to treat them after they become addicts. And I think we can see the obvious issue there, to accept the fact that harm is going to happen on a large public scale, and then say, “And then we’ll deal with it,” is not ever going to be as effective as trying to make sure that that harm doesn’t take place in the first place.

JJ: There is, as you’ve been discussing, a real incentive system to keep people betting, but right now this is still betting on actual games that actually happen. But some folks see a slippery slope. Talk about iGaming.

AB: iGaming is the industry-preferred term for any kind of casino game that we might be familiar with, probably most famously slots. And you could just basically play a digital version of that on your phone. But it just creates an endless variety of options for people to gamble on. It’s legal in some states, and the push is to continue legalizing it, and it’s basically much more lucrative because people lose more money playing it.

And the way that it’s set up, the way that certain games are created, for example, you could play multiple hands of blackjack. There’s one infamous game that you’re basically betting on watching a little cartoon rocket go up, and you’re trying to guess when the rocket will explode. So it’s almost cutesy, children’s entertainment almost, but people are spending real money and losing real money playing these games.

CNBC (9/13/24)

Again, it goes back to the idea of regulation. What are we going to allow people to bet on, as far as knowing that if they get hooked on these games, that it could damage their lives? I think with the iGaming, the way that some critics of the industry have talked about it, is that this sports gambling wave was always the prelude to this next phase, this iGaming phase. And when you think about it that way, yeah, it can feel a bit alarming that there isn’t any kind of organized pushback on a national level, because I think that’s what we’re talking about.

As we mentioned, it has passed in Missouri, and looking at the last few states left in the country, there’s good reason to think that they’ll get up to or close to having sports gambling be legal in every state in the country. You just have to wait and see. But I think the question is from there, then, that obviously indicates the need for a national response. And there are, Rep. Paul Tonko, congressman from the state of New York, he has introduced a bill called the SAFE Bet Act, and this is the first attempt to create restrictions, to create protections, to push back on gambling companies, who currently have a complete green light to do what they want.

JJ: Finally, it was a very tight race. Amendment Two passed by something like half a percentage point in Missouri, and we should understand that in the context that there were all these major sports teams, and millions and millions of dollars, supporting it. So there are a lot of people, it seems, who are concerned about this, who are pushing back on this. There’s a constituency there to stay in conversation with, it seems. I just wonder what you would like to see, along with the regulation from the state and perhaps from the federal level, what would you like to see in terms of reporting, follow-up reporting, on this incredibly impactful and interesting issue?

AB: As we talked about, all this has only been legal since 2018, so the data that has come in since then is starting to indicate the exact severity of the problem, and I think we’re just only going to see more of that. We’re going to have more hard numbers on what this is actually doing to people. There has been and continues to be great reporting on this and, yeah, definitely would just love to see more of that. We can really quantify this and say, OK, sports gambling would come in, here’s the amount of tax revenue that is created, and here’s the corresponding issues that it’s led to. And I think if you look at it in that way, here’s the black and white, and people can make informed decisions on where they stand on it, rather than, like we spoke about, being swayed by the funny mascots running around pushing it, their beloved sports teams pushing it, or being told that money is going to go to education. You can divorce yourself from the sales pitch and say, “OK, what’s the reality?” The numbers are all going to be there.

JJ: All right then; we’ve been speaking with Amos Barshad. You can find the article “The Gambling Industry’s Cynical Play for Your Vote” at LeverNews.com. Thank you so much, Amos Barshad, for joining us this week on CounterSpin.

AB: Thank you.

This content originally appeared on FAIR and was authored by Janine Jackson.

The election of Emmanuel Tjibaou as the new president of New Caledonia’s main pro-independence party, the Union Calédonienne (UC), has triggered a whole range of political reactions — mostly favourable, some more cautious.

Within the pro-independence camp, the two main moderate parties UPM (Progressist Union in Melanesia) and PALIKA (Kanak Liberation Party), have reacted favourably, although they have recently distanced themselves from UC.

UPM leader Victor Tutugoro hailed Tjibaou’s election while pointing out that it was “not easy” . . . “given the difficult circumstances”.

• READ MORE: UN experts ‘alarmed’ by Kanaky New Caledonia deaths
• Other Kanaky New Caledonia reports

“It’s courageous of him to take this responsibility,” he told public broadcaster NC la 1ère.

“He is a man of dialogue, a pragmatic man.”

PALIKA leader Jean-Pierre Djaïwé reacted similarly, saying Tjibaou “is well aware that the present situation is very difficult”.

Both PALIKA and UPM hoped the new UC leadership could have the potential to pave the way for a reconciliation between all members of the Kanak Socialist National Liberation Front (FLNKS), which has been experiencing profound differences for the past few years.

‘Real generational change’
On the pro-France (and therefore anti-independence) side, which is also divided, the moderate Calédonie Ensemble’s Philippe Michel saw in this new leadership a “real generational change” and noted that Tjibaou’s “appeasing” style could build new bridges between opposing sides of New Caledonia’s political spectrum.

“We’ll have to leave him some time to put his mark on UC’s operating mode,” Michel said.

“We all have to find our way back towards an agreement.”

Over the past two years, attempts from France to have all parties reach an agreement that could potentially produce a document to succeed the 1998 Nouméa autonomy Accord have failed, partly because of UC’s refusal to attend discussions involving all parties around the same table.

Pro-France Rassemblement-LR President Alcide Ponga said it was a big responsibility Tjibaou had on his shoulders in the coming months.

“Because we have these negotiations coming on how to exit the Nouméa Accord.

“I think it’s good that everyone comes back to the table — this is something New Caledonians are expecting.”

‘Wait and see’
Gil Brial, vice-president of a more radical pro-France Les Loyalistes, had a “wait and see” approach.

“We’re waiting now to see what motions UC has endorsed,” he said.

“Because if it’s returning to negotiations with only one goal, of accessing independence, despite three referendums which rejected independence, it won’t make things any simpler.”

Brial said he was well aware that UC’s newly-elected political bureau now included about half of “moderate” members, and the rest remained more radical.

“We want to see which of these trends will take the lead, who will act as negotiators and for what goal.”

UC has yet to publish the exact content of the motions adopted by its militants following its weekend congress.

Les Loyalistes leader and Southern province President Sonia Backès also reacted to Tjibaou’s election, saying this was “expected”.

Writing on social media, she expressed the hope that under its new leadership, UC would now “constructively return to the negotiating table”.

She said her party’s approach was “wait and see, without any naivety”.

Tjibaou’s first post-election comments
Tjibaou told journalists: “Now we have to pull up our sleeves and also shed some light on what has transpired since the 13 May (insurrection riots).”

He also placed a high priority on the upcoming political talks on New Caledonia’s institutional and political future.

“We still need to map out a framework and scope — what negotiations, what framework, what contents for this new agreement everyone is calling for.

“What we’ll be looking for is an agreement towards full emancipation and sovereignty. Based on this, we’ll have to build.”

He elaborated on Monday by defining UC’s pro-independence intentions as “a basket of negotiations”.

He, like his predecessor Daniel Goa, also placed a strong emphasis on the need for UC to take stock of past shortcomings (especially in relation to the younger generations) in order to “transform and move forward”.

CCAT ‘an important tool’
Asked about his perception of the role a UC-created “field action coordinating cell” (CCAT) has played in the May riots, Tjibaou said this remained “an important tool, especially to mobilise our militants on the ground”.

“But [CCAT] objectives have to be well-defined at all times.

“There is no political motion from UC that condones violence as a means to reach our goals.

“If abuses have been committed, justice will take its course.”

At its latest congress in August 2024 (which both UPM and PALIKA decided not to attend), the FLNKS appointed CCAT leader Christian Téin as its new president.

Téin is in jail in Mulhouse in the north-east of France, following his arrest in June and pending his trial.

In the newly-elected UC political bureau, the UC’s congress, which was held in the small village of Mia (near Canala, East Coast of the main island of Grande Terre) has maintained Téin as the party’s “commissar-general”.

Tjibaou only candidate
Tjibaou was the only candidate for the president’s position.

His election on Sunday comes as UC’s former leader, Daniel Goa, 71, announced last week that he did not intend to seek another mandate, partly for health reasons, after leading the party for the past 12 years.

Goa told militants this was a “heavy burden” his successor would now have to carry.

He also said there was a need to work on political awareness and training for the younger generations.

He said the heavy involvement of the youth in the recent riots, not necessarily within the UC’s political framework, was partly caused by “all these years during which we did not train (UC) political commissioners” on the ground.

He told local media at the weekend this has been “completely neglected”, saying this was his mea culpa.

After the riots started, there was a perception that calls for calm coming from UC and other political parties were no longer heeded and that, somehow, the whole insurrection had got out of control.

The 48-year-old Tjibaou was also elected earlier this year as one of New Caledonia’s two representatives to the French National Assembly (Lower House in the French Parkiament).

This article is republished under a community partnership agreement with RNZ.

This content originally appeared on Asia Pacific Report and was authored by APR editor.

Despite the severity of these actions, which posed significant threats to the integrity of future elections, federal authorities—specifically the DOJ and FBI—failed to act. Even after being alerted about these breaches for years, both agencies took no meaningful steps to investigate or halt the illicit activity. This inaction mirrors their failure to prevent the events of January 6, 2021, raising serious concerns about their commitment to protecting the electoral process and our very democracy. 

Election security experts, including Susan Greenhalgh from Free Speech for People, have been sounding the alarm for years, urging the government to take action. They argue that this breach, coupled with the failure of federal authorities to intervene, poses a real threat to the future of U.S. democracy. Without accountability and a thorough investigation into the stolen software, it’s impossible to ensure the integrity of upcoming elections. The lack of response from federal agencies raises questions about their willingness to protect election systems from both internal and external threats. 

This breach should not be ignored. It’s time for a full investigation and immediate action to safeguard our elections. Greenhalgh joins Gaslit Nation in this urgent interview, before a live-audience of listeners, to discuss a skeptic's guide to why Vice President Kamala Harris must call for a recount in key states in the 2024 election, before it's too late. 

To amplify this urgent call-to-action: 

1. SHARE THIS SOCIAL MEDIA POST: Listen to @gaslitnation’s urgent interview w/Susan Greenhalgh of Free Speech for People. They warned Congress, FBI, DOJ for years about election system breaches by MAGA as part of the Big Lie. Join their call for Harris to demand a recount https://gaslitnation.libsyn.com/election-security-experts-harris-must-call-for-recounts

2. CONTACT YOUR REPS IN CONGRESS AND ALSO AOC, BECAUSE SHE IS A FIGHTER: Listen to @gaslitnation’s urgent interview with Susan Greenhalgh of Free Speech for People. They warned members of Congress, the FBI, and the DOJ for years about election system breaches by MAGA as part of their Big Lie efforts to overturn the 2020 election. Given the confirmed facts, many documented in court cases, that they stole and distributed election data used to count our votes, our elections are vulnerable and may easily be compromised by threats foreign and domestic. Join their call for Harris to demand a recount and publicly call for investigations by the FBI and DOJ: https://gaslitnation.libsyn.com/election-security-experts-harris-must-call-for-recounts

3. SHARE THIS INTERVIEW ON SOCIAL MEDIA WITH JOURNALISTS YOU TRUST: Listen to @gaslitnation’s urgent interview w/Susan Greenhalgh of Free Speech for People. They warned Congress, FBI, DOJ for years about election system breaches by MAGA as part of the Big Lie. Join their call for Harris to demand a recount https://gaslitnation.libsyn.com/election-security-experts-harris-must-call-for-recounts

Show Notes:

The Georgia Voting Machine Theft Poses a Direct Threat to the 2024 Election https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2023/10/georgia-trump-vote-theft-2024-election.html

Computer Scientists: Breaches of Voting System Software Warrant Recounts to Ensure Election Verification https://freespeechforpeople.org/computer-scientists-breaches-of-voting-system-software-warrant-recounts-to-ensure-election-verification/

Merrick Garland Lets MAGA Steal the Election https://sites.libsyn.com/124622/merrick-garland-lets-maga-steal-the-election-teaser

MAGA Openly Tries to Steal Georgia https://gaslitnation.libsyn.com/brian-kemp-is-a-klansman

Want to enjoy Gaslit Nation ad-free? Join our community of listeners for bonus shows, ad-free episodes, exclusive Q&A sessions, our group chat, invites to live events, and more! Sign up at Patreon.com/Gaslit!

This content originally appeared on Gaslit Nation and was authored by Andrea Chalupa.

Right-click here to download this episode (“Save link as…”).

Lever (10/24/24)

This week on CounterSpin: Passed by a whisker in Missouri on November 5, legal sports gambling is the apple of the eye of many corporate and private state actors—but how does it affect states, communities, people? Our guest wrote in-depth on the question ahead of the election. Journalist Amos Barshad is senior enterprise reporter for the Lever, and author of the book No One Man Should Have All That Power: How Rasputins Manipulate the World, from Abrams Press. We hear from him on this week’s show.

Plus Janine Jackson takes a quick look at recent press coverage of Trump’s nominees and a Nazi march.

This content originally appeared on FAIR and was authored by CounterSpin.

But for every good analysis, there are a dozen awful commentaries that ultimately blame the voters’ judgment or endorse their worst fears.

However, if pressed for a simple explanation of the election results, one might consider the following:

Once again, offered the odious, devil’s choice between two candidates who are rich, elitist, and completely detached from “ordinary” people, the US voter chose a candidate who was rich, elitist, and completely detached from the lives and interests of most people. 

Of course, people want to know why the voters chose this particular rich elitist at this particular time. That question calls forth both a specific, practical response and a far deeper, concerning answer.

Polls and disregarded economic data show that most voters have a profoundly negative and often painful relationship with their economic status– they are not doing well. They typically punish incumbents when under economic distress. This should come as no surprise. But the highly paid consultants of both parties– with approaching two billion dollars to spend– chose to press many other issues as well and deal with the economy only superficially.

But in the end, exit polls show that economic distress played a decisive role in shaping voters’ choices. Apparently, the pundits forgot how persistent, value-sucking inflation led to the election of Ronald Reagan forty-four years ago.

Again, like today, the 1970s were a period of realignment. The Democrats had lost the South to the Republicans over desegregation and the Civil Rights legislation. After the Nixonian scandals associated with the Watergate burglaries and other dirty tricks, the Democrats won over suburbanites disgusted with Republican chicaneries– a demographic thought by many functionaries to be the needed replacement for the lost South.

In 1976, the Democrats swept in with a squeaky-clean, untarnished candidate, James Carter. With the decade-long stagflation coming to a climax, the Carter regime was short-lived; despite a rightward turn on his part, Carter was beaten by an ultra-right movie star turned politician, Ronald Reagan. Reagan was the default choice for voters wanting change after a lost decade.

For those who like their history repeating from tragedy to farce, consider the transition from the self-righteous old red-baiter, Ronald Reagan, to the pompous, supercilious windbag, Donald Trump. History has a wicked sense of humor.

Few pundits acknowledge that Democratic Party strategists decided in the 1980s that the future of the party would be determined by the interests and concerns of metropolitan voters, especially those in the suburban upper-middle stratum who were “super voters,” economically secure, and attuned to lifestyle and identity liberalism. While they represented the legacy of “white flight,” the suburbanites contradictorily espoused the urbanity of tolerance and personal choice.

Coincident with the embrace of the suburban vote, Democratic Party strategists saw no need to attend to past central components of their coalition: the working class and multi-class Blacks. Loyal union leaders would corral the working-class vote and ascendant Black leaders would rally African Americans of all classes.

Besides, it was believed that neither had any other place to go besides the Democratic Party.

Senate majority leader, Chuck Schumer, revealed this thinking in 2016, when he said: “For every blue-collar Democrat we lose in western Pennsylvania, we will pick up two moderate Republicans in the suburbs in Philadelphia, and you can repeat that in Ohio and Illinois and Wisconsin.” Even before that careless remark, both Hilary Clinton and Barack Obama– in moments of candor– revealed their contempt for working people outside of the metropolis.

This election stamped “paid” on this program, with nearly all the assumed components of the Democratic coalition drifting towards the Republicans.

The always insightful Adam Tooze, writing in The London Review of Books, concludes that the Democratic Party failings demonstrate “the high-achieving, insincere, vacuous incoherence that thrives at the top of the American political class.”

There is, however, a far deeper explanation of the Trump phenomenon seldom mentioned by mainstream commentators. Those who cite the specific issues of abortion rights, immigration, trans rights, crime, racism, etc.– issues that indeed played a role in the November election– neglect the fact that Trumpism is part of an international trend that infects the politics of such far-flung countries as India, Japan, and Argentina, as well as many European countries for often vastly different reasons. The rise of right populism in virtually all European countries– Orban’s Hungary, Meloni’s Italy, RN in France, AfD in Germany, Vox in Spain, Chega in Portugal, and similar parties in virtually every other European country– share one defining feature with the politics of India’s Modi and Argentina’s Milei: a rejection of centrist, traditional parties. 

Right populism rises as a response to the ineffectiveness of the politics of normality. It reflects the dissatisfaction with business as usual.

For hundreds of millions throughout the world, the twenty-first century has brought a series of crises eroding, even destroying their quality of life. Ruling classes have stubbornly refused to address these crises through the indifference of traditional bourgeois political parties. Voters have punished these parties by turning to opportunist right-populist formations that promise to give voice to their anger. Of course, this often takes the form of ugly, reprehensible claims and slogans– appealing to the basest of motives.

But it is not enough to denounce these backward policies without addressing the desperation that unfortunately popularizes those policies. It is not helpful to righteously raise the alarm of “fascism” if we fail to offer an alternative that will answer the hopelessness and misery that serves as the fertile soil for reaction.

From the tragedy of the Reagan election to the farce of the Trump re-election, we have suffered from two sham parties taking turns representing the “people,” while neither did. Isn’t it time for an independent people’s party– a party of the working class majority– that addresses the twenty-first century economic crises and their aftermath, the acute environmental crisis, the broken public health and health care systems, the insidious impoverishment of inflation, the crumbling infrastructure, and a host of other urgent demands, a party dedicated to serving the working people of the US and not its wealthy and powerful?

This content originally appeared on Dissident Voice and was authored by Greg Godels.

Ask voters to verify basic facts related to major political issues, and the results are depressing. An Ipsos survey from October of this year, for instance, discovered most Americans were unaware that unauthorized border crossings were at or near their lowest point over the last several years, that violent crime was not at or near all-time highs in most major cities—and that inflation was down from a year earlier and near historic averages.

The political implications of such ignorance are both predictable and striking, with more ignorance associated with greater support for Donald Trump.

Conservative media, unsurprisingly, appears to be a major culprit in the miseducation of the American public, with people whose primary media source is conservative media registering lower familiarity with reality than those who stuck mainly to other media sources. (Reliance on social media, too, was associated with less knowledge of basic facts.)

But even among those who primarily get their news from the more general category of cable/national newspapers, a third didn’t realize that inflation had declined over the past year. Voters’ lack of knowledge, therefore, cannot simply be laid at the feet of the conservative press. Corporate outlets more broadly must share the blame.

And on perhaps no other issue has corporate media’s failure to inform been more consequential than on inflation. This was, after all, arguably the key factor in the election: Inflation surged, and Democrats were pummeled.

Did they deserve this fate, though? That’s a tougher question, but one that corporate media could help the public grapple with—if only they weren’t committed to misinforming the public about the issue at hand.

Artificially spiking Trump’s economy

It would be absurd to expect the public at large to have the time or ability to do a deep dive into statistics in order to develop as accurate an image of the economy as possible. It wouldn’t be so absurd, however, to expect journalists to perform this task. After all, their essential function is to deliver high-quality, accurate information to a lay audience. Unfortunately, in reality, they often fail at this job. We might refashion an old phrase to say: There are lies, damned lies and statistics as represented by journalists.

Take a recent piece by Washington Post columnist, and former economics correspondent, Heather Long (11/8/24). In it, she makes the claim that voters enjoyed much more robust wage growth under Trump than under Joe Biden, after accounting for inflation. Her column includes a chart showing wage growth outpacing inflation by 7.6 percentage points under Trump and only 0.6 percentage points under Biden.

Something important goes unmentioned here, something that might surprise a casual reader. Specifically, there was a serious and well-known—at least among experts—methodological issue that led to an artificial spike during 2020/2021 in the wage measure Long is citing. As many more low-wage than high-wage workers lost their jobs at the height of the pandemic, this measure artificially inflates wage growth under Trump and deflates it under Biden. Maybe an issue worth mentioning, if you’re making a claim about comparative real wage growth under the two.

When you chart the measure the Washington Post (11/8/24) used to show the superiority of Trump’s wage growth, it’s revealed as an artifact of people dropping out of the workforce during the pandemic (Arin’s Substack, 1/18/24).

Does Long mention this, though? No. Will the average reader be sufficiently in the economic weeds to know she is misleading them? Also no.

An unreal measure of real income

What explains everything for the Atlantic (11/11/24) is a cost-of-living crisis that disappears if you use a better measures of the cost of living.

Another offending piece appeared recently in the Atlantic (11/11/24). There, staff writer Annie Lowrey made the case that the cost-of-living crisis, and the Democrats’ inability to tackle it, explains the election results. Curiously, the media’s role in distracting the public from the remarkable achievements of macroeconomic policy during Biden’s tenure in office went unmentioned.

Lowrey at least acknowledged how impressive the macroeconomic figures have been coming out of the Covid downturn, but she asserted that this obscured a darker story: “Headline economic figures have become less and less of a useful guide to how actual families are doing.” Instead of relying solely on these numbers, Lowrey proposed consulting “more granular data” that “pointed to considerable strain.”

First among these data points was an apparent fall in real median income since 2019. As Lowrey put it, “Real median household income fell relative to its pre-Covid peak.”

What she failed to disclose was the flimsiness of the underlying measure being used. As economist Dean Baker (Beat the Press, 9/10/24) pointed out a couple months back, when the Washington Post (9/10/24) ran a piece highlighting trends in the same metric—a median income measure designed by the Census Bureau—making a comparison between the 2024 figure and the 2019 one is messy:

The problem is with the comparison to 2019, the last year before the pandemic. There was a large problem of non-response to the survey for 2019, which was fielded in the middle of the pandemic shutdown in the spring of 2020. The Census Bureau wrote about this problem when it released the 2019 data in the fall of 2020.

As a result of the non-response issue, the 2019 number is artificially inflated, and a comparison between it and more recent figures, which seem to also be inflated but to a lesser degree, is difficult at best. Other measures of income, meanwhile, find real income increasing for Americans since 2019. These critical pieces of information, however, are missing from the Lowrey piece.

Sloppy reporting of real problems  

This is not to say that Lowrey and others who have made similar arguments don’t have a point that there are real issues facing the American public. For such a wealthy country, the US has obscenely high poverty, internationally aberrant levels of inequality, and a notoriously ramshackle welfare state.

Partially out of sheer necessity, the US welfare state was substantially boosted during the pandemic, and the unwinding of this enhanced safety net after 2021 must have had some effect on Americans’ perceptions of the economy and their own economic standing. Real disposable income, for example, spiked in 2021 due to temporary measures like stimulus checks, but then fell back to the pre-pandemic trend of growth, which may have felt like a loss to some.

And though the Washington Post‘s Long mucked up her analysis of wage trends under the Biden and Trump presidencies, the data that we have does indicate that inflation bit into workers’ wages early in Biden’s term, with median real wage growth turning negative in 2021 and 2022. (It’s nonetheless worth noting that these wage declines were concentrated among high-wage workers, not low-wage ones.)

From December 2019 through December 2023, inflation-adjusted growth in wages was highest in the poorest quintile, and only negative for the top quintile (Arin’s Substack, 1/18/24).

Clearly, there are reasons for people to be angry about the economy. The issue is that imprecise descriptions of the trajectory of the US economy over recent years leave people unable to decipher how the economic situation has deteriorated, and in which ways there actually has been improvement.

Citing a flawed measure of median income to suggest that people are worse off than in 2019, for example, is careless at best. We know that, even after adjusting for inflation, Americans’ wages, disposable incomes and, perhaps most crucially, spending levels are higher today than they were in 2019. Notably, this is true across income groups, with real retail spending up for low-, middle- and high-income households.

There are many ways in which the US economy flatly fails, but addressing those failures becomes even harder when the public is misled into thinking that inflation is outpacing wages, or that real median income is actually decreasing.

(Financial Times, 12/1/23)

Joblessness affects ‘only a minority’

For the New York Times (11/8/24), inflation affects “everyone,” whereas unemployment matters to “only a minority of the population.”

Messing up the technical details when presenting statistical information is bad enough. But corporate media misinformation goes beyond that. Recently, for instance, the New York Times (11/8/24) decided to add to the barrage of inflation misinformation by blatantly misrepresenting how inflation and unemployment affect the public. In a piece titled “How Inflation Shaped Voting,” reporter German Lopez wrote:

Why does inflation anger voters so much? Some economic problems, like high unemployment, affect only a minority of the population. But higher prices affect everyone.

This is wrong. An increase in unemployment has economy-wide effects, dragging down wage growth across the income distribution, though particularly at the bottom. In fact, the societal effects of higher unemployment seem to be much more dramatic than those of higher inflation. According to a piece from the Times (7/20/22) published back in 2022:

In a 2003 paper, the economist Justin Wolfers, then of Stanford University, found that a percentage-point increase in the unemployment rate caused roughly five times as much unhappiness as a percentage-point increase in inflation.

Had Lopez written that high unemployment directly affects a small percentage of the population, he obviously would have been on solid ground. But that’s not what he wrote.

Skewing in one direction

“There’s another fundamental cause of economic discontent that should be getting more attention: corporate media’s single-minded obsession with inflation, which has left the public with an objectively inaccurate view of the economy” (FAIR.org, 1/5/24).

These criticisms of how journalists present economic information are technical, but they are important. Notably, in each instance cited, the skewing of facts has specific political implications.

In Long’s piece, workers’ gains under Trump were exaggerated, and their gains under Biden were understated. In Lowrey’s piece, income gains under Biden were disregarded. And in Lopez’s piece, the negative impacts of increased unemployment, which the Biden administration avoided at the cost of a somewhat larger spike in inflation, were downplayed. The negative effects of inflation were played up.

It’s not hard to see how such an approach to reporting will benefit one political party at the expense of the other. This would be totally reasonable if the reporting were based in reality, with journalists sticking to the facts and representing statistics with care. But that’s not what’s happening.

Instead, journalists over the past several years have engaged in a collective freak-out over a surge in inflation, feeding the public’s pre-existing negativity bias with a hyper-fixation on rising prices in economic coverage. That this coverage has not only overshadowed coverage of more positive economic stories—such as the successes of a historically progressive stimulus bill, and the massive wage gains it has spurred—but has misled the public about basic economic facts in the process is a scandal.

Journalists should face flak for imprecision in their reporting, and should be pushed to improve when they fall short of a high standard of accuracy, especially when they occupy elite perches in the US media environment. Otherwise, an information environment polluted by conservative outlets and social media misinformation will never get cleaned up. If corporate media’s mission is truly to inform the public, they have a long way to go.

This content originally appeared on FAIR and was authored by Conor Smyth.

Georgian opposition parties have alleged fraud and are protesting the results of the October 26 parliamentary election, in which the ruling Georgian Dream party was declared winner.

“Georgian police officers’ detention of camera operator Sergi Baramidze and forceful obstruction of other journalists covering ongoing election protests is unacceptable and threatens the Georgian people’s access to information on important public events,” said Gulnoza Said, CPJ’s Europe and Central Asia program coordinator. “Authorities in Georgia should swiftly investigate all instances of police violence against members of the press and ensure that perpetrators are held to account.”

Police used force against these four journalists during the November 19 protest: 

• Five or six officers grabbed Sergi Baramidze, a camera operator for pro-opposition broadcaster Mtavari Arkhi, while he filmed police dragging a protester, according to news reports and footage of the incident posted by his employer. The officers pulled Baramidze, held him by the neck, and briefly detained him at a police station. 

Tamta Muradashvili, director of Mtavari Arkhi, told CPJ the journalist was released after signing a document agreeing to appear if summoned, adding that it is unclear if he’ll be charged. 

Muradashvili told CPJ that Baramidze sustained injuries to his eye and lip.

• Three officers repeatedly shoved Mindia Gabadze, a reporter for independent news website Publika, while he filmed police dispersing. Gabadze told CPJ he identified himself to police as a journalist and described one of the shoves as “forceful,” leaving him in significant pain.
• Officers briefly confiscated the phone of independent regional outlet OC Media chief editor Mariam Nikuradze, obstructing her work. 
• Officers pushed Givi Avaliani, a reporter with independent news website Netgazeti, preventing him from filming police.

Georgia’s Special Investigation Service, a government body responsible for investigating crimes against journalists, opened investigations into incidents of obstruction of journalistic activities during the protests. CPJ’s message to the service on its Facebook page for comment did not immediately receive a reply.

Ahead of the elections, Georgian authorities denied entry to Czech photojournalist Ray Baseley and Swiss photojournalist Stephan Goss, who both reported on large anti-government protests earlier this year.

During the elections, media rights groups recorded dozens of incidents of obstruction and intimidation of journalists, many of them reporting on alleged election fraud. Local journalists and advocates previously told CPJ they feared the ruling party’s victory could diminish press freedom in the country.  

This content originally appeared on Committee to Protect Journalists and was authored by Committee to Protect Journalists.

Following the election, online platforms in China saw a surge of activity, with some users targeting Trump and Harris with a wave of rumors and misinformation.

Here is what AFCL found.

Did Trump say the Taiwan issue is ‘China’s internal affair’ after winning the election?

A video emerged in Chinese-language social media posts alongside a claim that it shows Trump after his election win saying that the Taiwan issue is China’s internal affair.

A 21-second video posted on X on Nov. 10 features Chinese subtitles showing a purported conversation between a reporter and Trump.

The subtitles read: “Reporter: How will you handle the Taiwan issue?”

“Trump : Why would I care… Are you teaching me how to handle things? That’s a domestic matter for China.”

But the claim is false.

Keyword searches found the original clip published by the American broadcaster CNN in January 2019.

A review of the original clip shows then-President Trump signing a bill related to protection for human trafficking victims and discussing a federal government shutdown crisis with reporters – topics unrelated to Taiwan.

Trump made no mention of the Taiwan issue.

China considers Taiwan a breakaway province and its sovereign territory, even though the island has been governed independently since 1949.

Taiwan, however, operates as a self-governing democracy with its own institutions and society, where many identify independently of the mainland.

The United States takes a nuanced stance, officially recognizing the “One China” policy, which is guided by the Taiwan Relations Act, the three U.S.-China Joint Communiques, and the Six Assurances, while supporting Taiwan’s right to self-defense through arms sales and unofficial diplomatic relations.

Separately, images of Trump also circulated in Chinese-language social media posts claiming to show Trump saying the Taiwan issue is China’s internal affairs.

The superimposed texts in Chinese, attributed to Trump, on the images read: “Independence or unification is their internal matter! Taiwan affairs do not need U.S. interference!”

Keyword searches found the images were taken from Trump’s pre-election appearance on the podcast “The Joe Rogan Experience” where he discussed Taiwan’s semiconductor business and protection fees.

A review of the segment found that Trump made no mention of Taiwan’s independence or unification.

Separate keyword searches found no recent interviews in which Trump made statements about Taiwan independence.

Did Trump say he would ban Black Lives Matter and Pride flags from American classrooms?

A screenshot of what appears to be Trump’s X account circulated in Chinese-language social media that claim to show the president-elect saying he would ban Black Lives Matter and LGBT flags from American classrooms.

The Black Lives Matter, commonly known as the BLM movement, began in 2013 to address systemic racism and police violence against Black people.

Pride is a global celebration and advocacy movement for LGBTQ+ rights and equality, honoring the 1969 Stonewall Riots.

But the claim about Trump’s statement is false.

The X account seen in the Chinese social media posts is a parody account and doesn’t belong to the former president.

The parody account’s handle is @DonaldTNews, while that of Trump’s official X account is @readlDonaldTrump.

Keyword searches found no credible reports of Trump mentioning banning BLM and Pride flags from American classrooms.

Does a video show Harris losing her temper after election loss?

A video of Harris emerged in Chinese-language social media posts claiming to show Harris losing her composure after the election loss.

The caption of the video shared on X on Nov. 7 reads: “After losing, Harris can no longer smile, angrily lashing out in frustration.”

But the claim is false.

Keyword searches found the original video posted on Oct. 25, 2024, by the American public broadcaster PBS, days before the U.S. presidential election.

The video shows a Harris rally in Houston, Texas, on Oct. 25. At the 3-hour and 57-minute mark of the video, Harris and her supporters can be heard chanting “We’re not going back” three times.

At the rally, Harris discussed women’s reproductive rights in the U.S., urging supporters to vote promptly, as only 11 days remained until the election, and early voting had already begun in Texas.

Does a video show Biden and Obama discussing Harris after the election?

A video of U.S. President Joe Biden and the former president Barack Obama circulated on Chinese-language social media posts that claim it shows Biden and Obama discussing post-election strategy and Harris.

“How’s Harris doing?” subtitles in Chinese read attributed to Biden.

“She’s done. I think they found out she’s mentally challenged. Now we’re basically screwed, Trump crushed us in the election,” read subtitles attributed to Obama.

But the claim is false.

Keyword searches found the original video published on Oct. 16 by the American broadcaster C-SPAN, days before the election.

The video shows Biden and Obama participating at the private funeral of Ethel Kennedy, the widow of the late Robert F. Kennedy, on Oct. 16, 2024.

Edited by Taejun Kang.

Asia Fact Check Lab (AFCL) was established to counter disinformation in today’s complex media environment. We publish fact-checks, media-watches and in-depth reports that aim to sharpen and deepen our readers’ understanding of current affairs and public issues. If you like our content, you can also follow us on Facebook, Instagram and X.

This content originally appeared on Radio Free Asia and was authored by Zhuang Jing and Alan Lu for Asia Fact Check Lab.

Janine Jackson interviewed FAIR’s Julie Hollar and Jim Naureckas about placing blame for Trump for the November 8, 2024, episode of CounterSpin. This is a lightly edited transcript.

Janine Jackson: Of the many things to be discussed about what just happened, surely the role of corporate news media is critical. Some issues are legend: Horserace over substance, ignoring actual popular opinion that doesn’t serve major-party talking points, top-down sourcing that ensures that those most harmed by social policies are not at the table when responses are discussed.

But there’s also something about the role of elite media in this election that needs some illuminating as we try to move forward. My guests have just written the first of no doubt many pieces about media’s role. I’m joined by FAIR’s senior analyst Julie Hollar from Brooklyn, and FAIR’s editor Jim Naureckas here in studio. Welcome back to CounterSpin, both of you.

Jim Naureckas: Thanks for having us on.

Julie Hollar: Thank you, Janine.

FAIR.org (10/30/24)

JJ: Well, Jim, the Washington Post’s non-endorsement was a pretend silence that actually said a lot. But we know that most outlets would not stand up and yell, “Donald Trump is our guy.” So we have to think deeper than these once-in-four-years endorsements about how elite news media, still labeled liberal by very many, can grease the wheels of something like what just happened.

JN: Yeah, I do think that the non-endorsement was an important moment in the election. By saying, “We’re not going to take a position between Donald Trump and Kamala Harris,” they’re saying these are two acceptable positions that you can take. And, obviously, a lot of people took the Donald Trump position, so I think that did have more impact than the expected Kamala Harris endorsement would’ve had.

JJ: But when you look at the issues and the other things apart from the election per se, when you look at the way media covered particular issues, you found something that you found important.

JN: I think that there’s an interesting parallel between the Trump campaign strategy and the business strategy of corporate media; there was kind of a synergy there. I don’t think that MAGA Republicans and corporate media have the same goals, necessarily, but I think they share a strategy, which is “fear sells.”

FAIR.org (11/8/24)

I think that media have long understood that fear is a great way to catch and hold an audience’s attention, because we are really evolutionarily attuned to things that are dangerous. Our brains tell us to pay extra attention to those things. And so news media are prone to describe issues in terms of, “Here’s something scary, here’s something that’s going to hurt you.”

And that is also the strategy that Donald Trump has hit on. His campaign ads were all about fear, all about the danger of Democrats and the Biden/Harris administration. And he played on a lot of issues that corporate media have used to sell their papers, to sell their TV programs.

Immigration is one of the most obvious ones: Corporate media have treated immigration as, “Here’s something that you should be afraid about. There’s this flood of immigrants coming over the border. It’s a border crisis.” Particularly since the beginning of the Biden administration, this has been a drumbeat.

And there’s been a lot of distortions of numbers, of presenting this as some kind of unprecedented wave of migrants, that is not true. But by presenting it as this brand new threat, they’re able to sell more papers than they would otherwise have done–or sell clicks, I guess is what they’re in the business of now.

And so Trump was able to piggyback on a picture that had already been painted for him by corporate media, that these immigrants are something you should be afraid of. And he was the person who was promising to do something about them.

FAIR.org (7/25/24)

JJ: And it built on years, also, of crime coverage. The way that immigration and crime were stirred up together, I think, is also part of that fear mongering that you’re talking about.

JN: When you look at crime statistics, the striking thing is how much lower crime is now than it was 30 years ago, 40 years ago. It was at a much higher level than it is today, but that is not a story that is going to sell news to people. You want to sell people with the idea that, “You’re in danger, read our news report to find out how.”

And so even though crime is both historically down from earlier decades, and it’s been down over the course of the Biden administration, that is not the story that people have been told. The story is that, “Here’s some scary crimes, and what are we going to do about this crime crisis?” And, again, Donald Trump was able to use that picture, that had been painted by right-wing and centrist media alike, in order to present himself as this strong man who is going to do something about the criminal threat.

JJ: We can add to that: Truthout reported, as you note, that “Republicans spent nearly $215 million on network TV ads vilifying transgender people in this election cycle.” And that fits, too, with this, “There’s something to be afraid of. There are people to be afraid of.”

FAIR.org (5/11/23)

JN: Yeah, it is really striking that this was the big push in the closing days of the campaign; the Trump campaign was pumping their campaign funds into ads that presented this transgender threat. That was the thing that they thought was going to get people to vote.

Interestingly, a lot of the ads focused on the idea that Kamala Harris wanted to pay for gender reassignment surgery for federal prisoners. So it sort of ties in the trans threat and the crime threat, as trans criminals…. It’s hard to construct a rational danger that is posed by the situation.

JH: Can I jump in here? Correct me if I’m wrong, but wasn’t it also immigrant trans prisoners?

JJ: Just to tie it all up with a bow.

JH: I could be wrong, so delete that if I’m wrong. But….

JJ: I don’t doubt it. Just for the reason that Jim’s saying, it’s hard to create a rational story around it. And the truth is, you don’t have to. You just say a number of words that have been designated hot buttons, and if you can throw ’em all together, well, then, so much the better.

JN: And this is really an issue where the groundwork was laid by right-wing and centrist media alike. Fox News, trans threat stories are part of their bread and butter, but the New York Times has also done a great number of stories about the supposed threat trans youth pose. They’re going to be getting into girls sports, or gender-affirming care is somehow going to snatch your child away from you.

These are stories that the supposedly liberal press has been hammering hard on, and so really given someone like Trump, who wants to demagogue these issues, a real platform to begin his harangue from, because you’ve already read about it in a supposedly authoritative source like the New York Times.

Julie Hollar: “You would expect journalists in a democratic society to take as the central story here that targeting of these minority groups.”

JH: I wanted to underscore that. I was thinking about how the corporate media, to me, bear such responsibility on both the issues of immigration and trans rights, because those two issues are miscovered by the corporate media in a very similar way. They’re both this beleaguered, very small minority–although the right wing, of course, is trying to make everyone believe that they are not a small minority, either of them–but both are very small minorities who are the target of these really punitive campaigns, whose bottom-line goal really is eliminating them from our society, which is classic fascism.

So you would expect journalists in a democratic society to take as the central story here that targeting of these minority groups. For the past many years, they should have been reporting these issues from the perspective of immigrants, from the perspective of trans people, humanizing them, providing us with this understanding of who’s really being harmed here, which is the opposite story of what the right wing is trying to tell.

And by not doing that at all–and I should also interrupt to say that not every corporate media outlet has been doing that on trans issues; the New York Times does really stand out, in terms of being bad about this. On immigration, it’s pretty much across the board bad in corporate media.

But instead of doing the kind of democratic journalism that you need in a moment like this, you have them really just feeding into the same narrative that the right-wing movement is putting out there. So when they then turn around–well, I’m getting ahead of myself–and then blame the left for these losses, it’s very angering.

JJ: I want to draw you out on that, because the New York Times itself came out swinging. They’re pretty sure why Democrats lost, but you described their explanation as “mind boggling,” so just keep going with what you’re saying there.

New York Times (11/6/24)

JH: So the editorial board put out their diagnosis of the Democrats’ problem the day after the election. They had no doubts about this. They blamed it, in part, on the fact that it took, here I’m going to quote, “it took too long to recognize that large swaths of their progressive agenda were alienating voters.”

They don’t say exactly what progressive agenda this was. From a progressive perspective, it’s hard to see very much progressivism in the Democratic agenda. But in the same paragraph, it goes on to talk about how Democrats have really struggled for the last three elections to find a persuasive message that Americans really can believe in, that they can’t find a way to offer a vision to people to improve their lives.

This is the same paragraph where they’re talking about this alienating progressive agenda, and when you look at the exit polls, it’s very clear that the main driver, it seems, of the Trump vote, when you set aside the real core believers, this election was won because of the economy.

And if the Democrats are struggling to find a vision that appeals to voters, the progressive agenda is the agenda that appeals to voters. It’s not in question. Medicare for All, a wealth tax, living minimum wage: all of these big, very popular progressive agenda items that the Democratic Party flirted with in the primaries four years ago, and has since really run pretty hard away from.

Harris had a few little economic agenda items that were somewhat progressive, like her anti–price gouging plan. She did have something about minimum wage, but, really, the big ticket items that people really want to see and could really make a big difference in their lives, those weren’t the things that Kamala Harris was hitching her wagon to.

Jim Naureckas: “When Democrats do talk about progressive economic programs, that is when the corporate media really watchdogs them.”

JN: And when Democrats do talk about progressive economic programs, that is when the corporate media really watchdogs them. They are very alert to any signs of economic radicalism, like universal healthcare. When Harris was talking to media, the repeated demand that she re-renounce her former endorsement of Medicare for All was really striking. There was a suspicion that “you haven’t really changed from the candidate in 2020, who was suggesting that we ought to pay for everybody’s healthcare.” That is the kind of stance that that community finds very suspicious, and very nervous-making.

JJ: We only have a couple more minutes, and I do want you both to have an opportunity to talk about other takeaways. Obviously, this is a work in progress. We’re just getting started here, but it seems as though asking for corporate news media to be self-aware, to actually take some accountability, to acknowledge that there’s a relationship between what they report and how and what happens in the world. It seems like we’re moving farther and farther from that, and I’m reminded of the Upton Sinclair quote, “It’s difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends on his not understanding it.”

Now, you might say that more of media owners, more so than reporters, but it does just bring us back, doesn’t it, to the fact of who owns and controls our news media, who they feel accountable to. And it’s not us. The top-down problems that we’re talking about, they’re structural.

JN: Absolutely. If you have a media that is dominated by billionaires, you are going to get a different take on the problems facing the country than if you had democratic media that was answerable to the general public.

Going back to the Washington Post, and Jeff Bezos refusing to let them endorse a candidate in the election, he’s a guy who is one of the richest people on earth. His fortune is largely based on government contracts, and so he has a super strong interest in making sure that the president of the United States doesn’t have a vendetta against him.

FAIR.org (7/14/23)

And he’s got another strong interest in the fact that the Biden administration was pursuing antitrust claims against Amazon, which was very important. The amount of money taken from the public by Amazon‘s artificially increased prices is actually quite large, and has a lot to do with why Jeff Bezos is one of the richest people on Earth. And so having Harris not in the White House could be a real boon for his personal fortune.

And then you have Elon Musk, again, someone who depends heavily on government contracts, who has been promised a prominent role in a Trump administration, and he was using his takeover of Twitter to pump out election disinformation on a really wholesale scale. The claims about illegal immigrants voting was a nonstop flow on what he calls X now, in the weeks running up to the election.

And he’s got tens of millions of people who are getting his stuff, and he’s rigged the platform so that if you’re on it, you’re definitely going to hear from the boss. It is just a firehose of disinformation, coming from the owner himself of this centrally important social media platform.

JJ: Julie Hollar, any final thoughts?

CounterSpin (10/27/24)

JH: Journalism is absolutely critical for democracy, and we have to remember that moving forward. And I think we can’t just ignore the big corporate outlets and let them off the hook and say, “Well, write them off because they’re never going to get better.” I mean, there are structural issues that are going to always limit them, and we have to keep demanding better, always.

And at the same time, I think it’s really important that everybody dig deep and support tough, strong, independent journalism that exists all over this country. Local outlets, wherever you are, that are doing really important work in your city or in your neighborhood, all of the independent media that are working nationwide as well, all the media critics; everyone is going to need so much support for the coming years to help defend this democracy, and we all really need to step up and support them.

JJ: We’ve been speaking with FAIR senior analyst, Julie Hollar, and FAIR’s editor, Jim Naureckas. Thank you both, Julie and Jim, for joining us this week on CounterSpin.

JN: Thank you.

JH: Thank you.

This content originally appeared on FAIR and was authored by Janine Jackson.

In November 2024, we see similar tremors of doubt and consternation, though the official stance, as expressed by President Joe Biden, is to “accept the choice the country made.”  In the vast, noisy hinterland of social media speculation lie unproven claims that some 20 million votes have gone missing, necessitating a recount.  Ditto problems with failing voting machines.  In a statement of cool dismissive confidence, Jen Easterly, director of the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency, is adamant: “we have no evidence of any malicious activity that had a material impact on the security and integrity of our election infrastructure.”

2016 might have given the Democrats meditative pause as to why Trump was elected.  Even more significantly, why Trump’s election was more apotheosis rather than gnarly distortion.  Instead of vanishing as aberrant over the Biden years, Trumpism has come home to roost in winning, not only the Electoral College but the majority vote by convincing margins.

Much is made of Trump’s pathological campaign against the legitimacy of his loss in 2020, as well as it might.  Less is made, certainly from the centre left and Democratic quarters, of the conspiratorial webbing that served to excuse an appalling electoral performance on behalf of the donkey party and their chosen candidate, Hillary Clinton.  Doing so shifted any coherent analysis about loss and misjudgement to plot and the sorcery of disruption – the very sorts of things that Trump would use to such effect after 2020.  Indeed, the seeds of election denialism were already sown in 2016 by the Democrats.  Trump would draw on this shoddy model with vengeful enthusiasm in 2020.

In Shattered: Inside Hillary Clinton’s Doomed Campaign, journalists Jonathan Allen and Amie Parnes make the point that the Clinton team took a matter of hours to concoct “the case that the election wasn’t entirely on the up-and-up… Already, Russian hacking was the centrepiece of the argument.”

In declassified notes provided in September 2020 by the then Director of National Intelligence John Ratcliffe to the Senate Judiciary Committee, the picture of pre-emptive delegitimization becomes vivid.  Clinton, in late July 2016, “had approved a campaign plan to stir a scandal against US Presidential candidate Donald Trump by tying him to Putin and the Russians’ hacking of the Democratic National Committee.”  Then Central Intelligence Agency Director John Brennan “subsequently briefed President Obama and other senior national security officials on the intelligence, including the ‘alleged approval by Hillary Clinton July 26, 2016 of a proposal from one of her foreign policy advisors to vilify Donald Trump by stirring up a scandal claiming interference by Russian security services.’”

Since her loss, Clinton has been impervious to the notion that she lacked sufficient appeal in the electoral race.  Trump was, she has continued to insist, never a legitimate president to begin with.

Other Democrat worthies never deviated from the narrative.  The late Californian Senator Dianne Feinstein was certain in January 2017 that the change in fortunes in the Clinton camp had much to do with the announcement the previous October that the FBI would be investigating Clinton’s private email server.  Typically, the issue of what was exposed was less relevant than the fact of exposure.  The former was irrelevant; the latter, Russian, unpardonable, causal and fundamental.

In June 2019, former President Jimmy Carter went even further, showing that the Democrats would remain indifferent to Trump as a serious electoral phenomenon.  “I think a full investigation would show that Trump didn’t actually win the election in 2016,” he stated on a panel hosted by the Carter Center at Leesburg, Virginia.  “He lost the election, and he was put into office because the Russians interfered on his behalf.”  This execrable nonsense was fanned, fed and nurtured by media servitors, to such a degree as to prompt Gerard Baker, currently editor-at-large for the Wall Street Journal, to remark that it was mostly “among the most disturbing, dishonest, and tendentious I’ve ever seen.”

An odd analysis in Politico by David Faris about the latest election suggests that Democrats “have the advantage of introspection” while the Republicans, after losing in 2020, “chose not to look inward and instead descended into a conspiratorial morass of denial and rage that prevented them, at least publicly, from addressing the sources of their defeat.”

Faris misses the mark in one fundamental respect.  The Democrats were, fascinatingly enough, the proto-election denialists.  They did not storm the Capitol in patriotic, costumed moodiness, but they did try to eliminate Trump as an electoral force.  In doing so, they failed to see Trumpland take root under their noses.  His stunning and conclusive return to office demands something far more substantive in response than the amateurish, foamy undergraduate rage that has become the hallmark of a distinct monomania.

This content originally appeared on Dissident Voice and was authored by Binoy Kampmark.

The FBI is investigating a spate of racist text messages targeting Black Americans in the wake of Donald Trump’s election victory last week. The texts were reported in states including Alabama, North Carolina, Pennsylvania and Virginia, addressing recipients as young as 13 by name and telling them they were “selected to pick cotton at the nearest plantation” and other messages referencing slavery. For more, we speak with Robert Greene II, a history professor at Claflin University, South Carolina’s first and oldest historically Black university in Orangeburg, where many students were targeted. “Initially when I heard about the texts, I thought it was a bit of a hoax, but … it quickly became clear that this wasn’t just a Claflin problem, it was a national issue, as well,” says Greene. We also speak with Wisdom Cole, senior national director of advocacy for the NAACP, who says “this is only the beginning,” with a second Trump administration expected to attack civil rights and embolden hate groups.

This content originally appeared on Democracy Now! and was authored by Democracy Now!.

Anger and fear have greeted the return to power of former US strongman Donald Trump, a corrupt far-white extremist coup plotter who is also a convicted felon and rapist, following this week’s shock presidential election result.

Ethnic tensions have been on the rise with members of the historically oppressed minority Black ethnic group reporting receiving threatening text messages, warning of a return to an era of enslavement.

In a startling editorial, the tension-wracked country’s paper of record, The New York Times, declared that the country had made “a perilous choice” and that its fragile democracy was now on “a precarious course”.

• READ MORE: Kamala Harris’s support for Israel’s genocide in Gaza ‘betrayal of true feminism’
• ‘All-out catastrophe’: Famine fears as Israeli siege of north Gaza tightens
• Pacific nation leaders look forward to strengthened US relations with Trump
• All in all, Trump’s election is a calamity in he making — Paul Buchanan
• Other Israeli war on Gaza reports

President-elect Trump’s victory marks the second time in eight years the extremist leader, who is awaiting sentencing after being convicted of using campaign funds to pay off a porn star he had cheated on his wife with, has defeated a female opponent from the ruling Democratic Party.

Women continue to struggle to reach the highest office in the deeply conservative nation where their rights are increasingly under attack and child marriage is widespread.

This has prompted traumatised supporters of Vice-President Kamala Harris, who had been handpicked to replace the unpopular, ageing incumbent, Joe Biden, to accuse American voters of racism to sexism.

“It’s misogyny from Hispanic men, it’s misogyny from Black . . . who do not want a woman leading them,” insisted one TV anchor, adding that there “might be race issues with Hispanics that don’t want a Black woman as president of the United States.”

Hateful tribal rhetoric
The hateful tribal rhetoric has also included social media posts calling for any people of mixed race who failed to vote for Harris to be deported and for intensification of the genocide in Gaza due to Arab-American rejection of Harris over her support for the continued provision of weapons to the brutal apartheid state committing it.

America Makes a Perilous Choice https://t.co/sKW5ZZa3Q3

— Xandre Rodríguez (@xandrerodriguez) November 6, 2024

“Victory has many fathers but defeat is an orphan,” goes the saying popularised by former US President John F Kennedy, who was shot 61 years ago this month.

The reluctance to attribute the loss to the grave and gratuitous missteps made by the Harris campaign has mystified America-watchers around the world.

As an example, analysts point to her wholesale embrace of the Biden regime’s genocidal policy in the Middle East despite opinion polls showing that it was alienating voters.

Harris and her supporters had tried to counter that by claiming that Trump would also be genocidal and that she would ameliorate the pain of bereaved families in the US by lowering the price of groceries.

However, the election results showed that this was not a message voters appreciated. “Genocide is bad politics,” said one Arab-American activist.

Worried over democracy
As the scale of the extremists’ electoral win becomes increasingly clear, having taken control of not just the presidency but the upper house of Congress as well, many are worried about the prospects for democracy in the US which is still struggling to emerge from Trump’s first term.

Despite conceding defeat, Harris has pledged to continue to “wage this fight” even as pro-democracy protests have broken out in several cities, raising fears of violence and political uncertainty in the gun-strewn country.

This could imperil stability in North America and sub-Scandinavian Europe where a Caucasian Spring democratic revolution has failed to take hold, and a plethora of white-wing authoritarian populists have instead come to power across the region.

However, there is a silver lining. The elections themselves were a massive improvement over the chaotic and shambolic, disputed November 2020 presidential polls which paved the way for a failed putsch two months later.

This time, the voting was largely peaceful and there was relatively little delay in releasing results, a remarkable achievement for the numeracy-challenged nation where conspiracy theorists remain suspicious about the Islamic origins of mathematics, seeing it is as a ploy by the terror group “Al Jibra” to introduce Sharia Law to the US.

In the coming months and years, there will be a need for the international community to stay engaged with the US and assist the country to try and undertake much-needed reforms to its electoral and governance systems, including changes to its constitution.

During the campaigns, Harris loyalists warned that a win by Trump could lead to the complete gutting of its weak democratic systems, an outcome the world must work hard to avoid.

However, figuring out how to support reform in the US and engage with a Trump regime while not being seen to legitimise the election of a man convicted of serious crimes, will be a tricky challenge for the globe’s mature Third-World democracies.

Many may be forced to limit direct contact with him. “Choices have consequences,” as a US diplomat eloquently put it 11 years ago.

Patrick Gathara is a Kenyan journalist, cartoonist, blogger and author. He is also senior editor for inclusive storytelling at The New Humanitarian. This article was first published by Al Jazeera and is republished under Creative Commons.

This content originally appeared on Asia Pacific Report and was authored by APR editor.

Anger and fear have greeted the return to power of former US strongman Donald Trump, a corrupt far-white extremist coup plotter who is also a convicted felon and rapist, following this week’s shock presidential election result.

Ethnic tensions have been on the rise with members of the historically oppressed minority Black ethnic group reporting receiving threatening text messages, warning of a return to an era of enslavement.

In a startling editorial, the tension-wracked country’s paper of record, The New York Times, declared that the country had made “a perilous choice” and that its fragile democracy was now on “a precarious course”.

• READ MORE: Kamala Harris’s support for Israel’s genocide in Gaza ‘betrayal of true feminism’
• ‘All-out catastrophe’: Famine fears as Israeli siege of north Gaza tightens
• Pacific nation leaders look forward to strengthened US relations with Trump
• All in all, Trump’s election is a calamity in he making — Paul Buchanan
• Other Israeli war on Gaza reports

President-elect Trump’s victory marks the second time in eight years the extremist leader, who is awaiting sentencing after being convicted of using campaign funds to pay off a porn star he had cheated on his wife with, has defeated a female opponent from the ruling Democratic Party.

Women continue to struggle to reach the highest office in the deeply conservative nation where their rights are increasingly under attack and child marriage is widespread.

This has prompted traumatised supporters of Vice-President Kamala Harris, who had been handpicked to replace the unpopular, ageing incumbent, Joe Biden, to accuse American voters of racism to sexism.

“It’s misogyny from Hispanic men, it’s misogyny from Black . . . who do not want a woman leading them,” insisted one TV anchor, adding that there “might be race issues with Hispanics that don’t want a Black woman as president of the United States.”

Hateful tribal rhetoric
The hateful tribal rhetoric has also included social media posts calling for any people of mixed race who failed to vote for Harris to be deported and for intensification of the genocide in Gaza due to Arab-American rejection of Harris over her support for the continued provision of weapons to the brutal apartheid state committing it.

America Makes a Perilous Choice https://t.co/sKW5ZZa3Q3

— Xandre Rodríguez (@xandrerodriguez) November 6, 2024

“Victory has many fathers but defeat is an orphan,” goes the saying popularised by former US President John F Kennedy, who was shot 61 years ago this month.

The reluctance to attribute the loss to the grave and gratuitous missteps made by the Harris campaign has mystified America-watchers around the world.

As an example, analysts point to her wholesale embrace of the Biden regime’s genocidal policy in the Middle East despite opinion polls showing that it was alienating voters.

Harris and her supporters had tried to counter that by claiming that Trump would also be genocidal and that she would ameliorate the pain of bereaved families in the US by lowering the price of groceries.

However, the election results showed that this was not a message voters appreciated. “Genocide is bad politics,” said one Arab-American activist.

Worried over democracy
As the scale of the extremists’ electoral win becomes increasingly clear, having taken control of not just the presidency but the upper house of Congress as well, many are worried about the prospects for democracy in the US which is still struggling to emerge from Trump’s first term.

Despite conceding defeat, Harris has pledged to continue to “wage this fight” even as pro-democracy protests have broken out in several cities, raising fears of violence and political uncertainty in the gun-strewn country.

This could imperil stability in North America and sub-Scandinavian Europe where a Caucasian Spring democratic revolution has failed to take hold, and a plethora of white-wing authoritarian populists have instead come to power across the region.

However, there is a silver lining. The elections themselves were a massive improvement over the chaotic and shambolic, disputed November 2020 presidential polls which paved the way for a failed putsch two months later.

This time, the voting was largely peaceful and there was relatively little delay in releasing results, a remarkable achievement for the numeracy-challenged nation where conspiracy theorists remain suspicious about the Islamic origins of mathematics, seeing it is as a ploy by the terror group “Al Jibra” to introduce Sharia Law to the US.

In the coming months and years, there will be a need for the international community to stay engaged with the US and assist the country to try and undertake much-needed reforms to its electoral and governance systems, including changes to its constitution.

During the campaigns, Harris loyalists warned that a win by Trump could lead to the complete gutting of its weak democratic systems, an outcome the world must work hard to avoid.

However, figuring out how to support reform in the US and engage with a Trump regime while not being seen to legitimise the election of a man convicted of serious crimes, will be a tricky challenge for the globe’s mature Third-World democracies.

Many may be forced to limit direct contact with him. “Choices have consequences,” as a US diplomat eloquently put it 11 years ago.

Patrick Gathara is a Kenyan journalist, cartoonist, blogger and author. He is also senior editor for inclusive storytelling at The New Humanitarian. This article was first published by Al Jazeera and is republished under Creative Commons.

This content originally appeared on Asia Pacific Report and was authored by APR editor.

MSNBC‘s Chris Matthews, once one of the most prominent pundits on cable TV, used his post-election appearance on Morning Joe (Mediaite, 11/6/24) to demonstrate just how unhelpful political commentary can be.

Asked by host Willie Geist for his “morning after assessment of what happened,” Matthews fumed:

Immigration has been a terrible decision for Democrats. I don’t know who they think they were playing to when they let millions of people come cruising through the border at their own will. Because of their own decisions, they came right running to that border, and they didn’t do a thing about it.

And a lot of people are very angry about that. Working people, especially, feel betrayed. They feel that their country has been given away, and they don’t like it.

And I don’t know who liked it. The Hispanics apparently didn’t like it. They want the law enforced. And so I’m not sure they were playing to anything that was smart here, in terms of an open border. And that’s what it is, an open border. And I think it’s a bad decision. I hope they learn from it.

You could not hope for a more distorted picture of Biden administration immigration policy from Fox News or OAN. “They didn’t do a thing about it”? President Joe Biden deported, turned back or expelled more than 4 million immigrants and refugees through February 2024—more than President Donald Trump excluded during his entire first term (Migration Policy Institute, 6/27/24).

Human Rights Watch (1/5/23) criticized Biden for continuing many of Trump’s brutal anti-asylum policies; the ACLU (6/12/24) called those restrictions unconstitutional. How can you have any kind of rational debate about what the nation’s approach to immigration should be when the supposedly liberal 24-hour news network is pretending such measures amount to an “open border”?

‘Democrats don’t know how people think’

In one brief segment, MSNBC‘s Chris Matthews (Morning Joe, 11/6/24) was able to mangle the most important issues of 42% of the electorate.

“It’s all about immigration and the economy,” Matthews told Geist. Well, he got the economics just as wrong:

I think you can talk all you want about the rates of inflation going down. What people do is they remember what the price of something was, whether it’s gas or anything, or cream cheese, or anything else, and they’ll say, “I remember when it was $2, and now it’s $7.” But they remember it in the last five years. That’s how people think. Democrats don’t know how people think anymore. They think about their country and they think about the cost of things.

The suggestion here is that success in fighting inflation would not be bringing the rate of price increases down, but returning prices to what they were before the inflationary period. That’s called deflation, a phenomenon generally viewed as disastrous that policy makers make strenuous efforts to prevent.

A decade ago, the Wall Street Journal (10/16/14) described “the specter of deflation” as “a worry that top policy makers thought they had beaten back”:

A general fall in consumer prices emerged as a big concern after the 2008 financial crisis because it summoned memories of deep and lingering downturns like the Great Depression and two decades of lost growth in Japan. The world’s central banks in recent years have used a variety of easy-money policies to fight its debilitating effects.

Paul Krugman (New York Times, 8/2/10) noted that

in a deflationary economy, wages as well as prices often have to fall—and…in general economies don’t manage to have falling wages unless they also have mass unemployment, so that workers are desperate enough to accept those wage declines.

It’s natural for ordinary consumers to think that if prices going up is bad, prices going down must be good. For someone like Matthews to think that, when he’s been covering national politics for more than three decades, is incompetence.

ACTION ALERT: You can send a message to MSNBC at MSNBCTVinfo@nbcuni.com.

Please remember that respectful communication is the most effective. Feel free to leave a copy of your message in the comments thread here.

This content originally appeared on FAIR and was authored by Jim Naureckas.

Off Beat

RFA English’s state department correspondent Alex Willemyns joins Eugene and Amy in the studio to share his opinions on how President-elect Donald Trump may change or maintain U.S. foreign policy in Asia under his second term. While there’s much to discuss regarding ramifications for U.S.-China relations, tune in to hear Alex’s thoughts on how the new administration will approach Taiwan, North Korea, Cambodia, Myanmar and more.

Podcast Free Asia

Eugene and Amy read comments from listeners responding to China-centric stories, including one that argues that Halloween festivities were in full swing in Shanghai despite authorities’ attempts to tamp down the holiday. And this was true! Revelers still donned costumes and celebrated this year; what Shanghai district authorities hoped to quash in their heavy-handed measures was costuming as a form of protest against the state, rather than the holiday itself.

The Rundown

Amy opens The Rundown with a report on how a critical movie review landed a man in police custody. In late October, 33-year-old Shine Htet Aung, an Indian-Burmese activist living in Myanmar, called an upcoming Burmese rom-com out on Facebook for its racist undertones. The movie’s title, “Jar Kit Sar Pu Thee,” is a line that is jokingly said to Hindus in Myanmar because of its similarity to a Hindi greeting. Shine Htet Aung also noted that the clothing worn by the actors in the promotional poster was overly stereotypical of Hindu culture.

His review struck a nerve – thousands liked and shared his Facebook post, while pro-military junta channels on Telegram called for his arrest for instigating division in the majority Buddhist country. Days later, the activist’s Facebook account was deactivated, and he was declared to be in police custody, where he remains under investigation for “inciting propaganda through social media to undermine national stability.”

Turning to the seas, Eugene tackles the world of territorial disputes. Satellite imagery analyzed by RFA reveals Vietnam’s development of a new airstrip on the Barque Canada reef in the disputed Spratly archipelago in the South China Sea. But why pour so much resources converting a submerged reef in middle of the ocean into an artificial island, and then enlarging the island to accommodate such a huge project? Under the international law of the sea, a country’s exclusive economic zone (EEZ) extends 200 nautical miles from its furthest shoreline.

When two countries’ EEZs overlap due to proximity, then the area between the two countries is divided down the middle. Thus, the governments of Malaysia, China, Taiwan, the Philippines, Vietnam and Brunei have all scrambled to gain more territory (and thus, economic power) by claiming various islands belonging to the Spratly archipelago, with Vietnam’s likely serving to strengthen Vietnam’s claim.

BACK TO MAIN

This content originally appeared on Radio Free Asia and was authored by Amy Lee for RFA Insider.

The Philippines stands to lose the most, potentially, if the United States, under the president-elect’s expected inward turn, reduces or questions the current deep bilateral ties as increasingly dangerous Manila-Beijing standoffs play out in the South China Sea, security experts noted.

Southeast Asian countries that claim not to take sides in the superpower rivalry would now need to perform a diplomatic dance to exhibit their neutrality, especially because three of them recently joined BRICS, the economic grouping spearheaded by Washington rivals Beijing and Moscow.

Unlike the current Democratic administration’s more measured approach to mitigating China’s oversized influence in Southeast Asia, a Republican government under Trump may not fancy such a strategy if it sees itself as being slighted, analysts said.

Still, the biggest impact of a second Trump administration on Southeast Asia will be trade-related because the election-winner has made no secret of his economic nationalism, said Ahmad Mohsein Azman, an analyst at the Malaysia office of BowerGroup Asia, a political risk consultancy.

Ahmad forecast “a general slowdown in trade with the U.S.,” with Trump’s return as president.

“A recurring theme from Trump’s political campaign is the emphasis on localizing the U.S. economy through the ‘America First’ platform,” Ahmad told BenarNews.

“This includes the enactment of industry and trade policies to encourage the return of key industries and job opportunities to American soil. New import tariffs would also be introduced.”

‘Tariff Man’

Trump said during his campaign to return to the White House that he planned to tax all imports by 10-20%, except goods from China that would get a special 60% tariff — all in an effort to spur U.S. manufacturing.

Over the past months he has called tariffs the “the greatest thing ever invented,” “the most beautiful word in the dictionary,” and his “favorite word.” And he has called himself “Tariff Man.”

U.S. import tariffs will accelerate the shift to a more contested and chaotic world, said Ben Bland, director Asia-Pacific at Chatham House, a London-based international affairs think tank.

“We know that, in foreign policy, Trump likes trade wars, is not keen on real wars, and has a zero-sum worldview,” Bland said in a short analysis on X (formerly Twitter).

“[T]rump’s deep protectionist instincts, and the possible turbulence in U.S.-China relations, could make life difficult for many states in Asia.”

An ‘inward-looking approach’

With Southeast Asia being the site of one of the world’s top geopolitical theaters due to the contested South China Sea, a potentially heated U.S. trade war with China could also be a regional security risk, analysts said.

Syed Hamid Albar, a former Malaysian foreign minister, said the incoming American president would likely “adopt an inward-looking approach,” focused on Washington’s interests to the exclusion of all else.

“Any actions by other countries that he perceives as against U.S. national interests would likely prompt retaliation,” Albar told BenarNews.

An Indonesian international affairs expert, Poltak Partogi Nainggolan, concurred, adding that Washington’s traditionally multilateral approach would weaken under Trump, likely destabilizing key regions.

“In the Asia-Pacific, particularly in the South China Sea, tensions would likely rise due to Trump’s inward-focused policies,” the expert from Indonesia’s National Research and Innovation Agency (BRIN) told BenarNews.

This isolationist approach is what may be of concern to the Philippines, according to Susannah Patton, director of the Southeast Asia Program at The Lowy Institute, an Australian think tank.

“The Philippines, which has staked the most on the U.S. alliance under the [current Joe] Biden administration, has the most to lose,” Patton said.

“A failure to back up Manila if it is tested further by Beijing in the South China Sea would put great pressure on the alliance,” she said as part of a collection of opinions from the institute’s experts published online.

Beijing claims most of the South China Sea, but its claims overlap those of Brunei, Indonesia, Malaysia, the Philippines and Vietnam, all members of ASEAN, as well as Taiwan.

The countries with overlapping claims often allege Chinese incursions in their exclusive economic zones in the waterway.

Manila ‘nervous’

But of all the claimants, it is Philippine waters and vessels that the Chinese ships allegedly threaten the most.

The United States under Trump would continue to back the Philippines to counter China, said Derek Grossman, a senior defense analyst at Rand Corp., an American think tank.

If Vice President Kamala Harris had defeated Trump in the polls, then the alliance would have further expanded and deepened to counter China in the South China Sea, Grossman wrote on X.

“If Trump, then probably the same, though more questioning around [the] utility of the alliance, especially continued spending on it. That will make Manila nervous,” he added.

Trump’s ‘unpredictability’

Southeast Asian nations may also need to reassess their foreign policy strategy with a new Trump administration, diplomacy experts said.

Albar, the former Malaysian foreign minister, said he believed Trump would be easily offended so it was important to proceed with care.

“Malaysia must exercise caution in its foreign policy approach, especially regarding Israel and Palestine,” he said.

“Trump is not warm or refined.”

Additionally, Malaysia’s involvement with BRICS “will require Anwar to carefully maneuver diplomatically, which could further complicate the country’s position,” Asrul Hadi Abdullah Sani, a partner at a strategic advisory firm ADA Southeast Asia, told BenarNews.

Indonesian analyst Muradi believes that Jakarta should advocate for a “forum of medium-power nations” to address what he said would be rising tensions under another Trump presidency.

“Without such an initiative, we risk being drawn into the U.S.-China rivalry. Our recent entry into BRICS already places us between these superpowers,” he said.

A study of Trump’s personality would help a great deal and Thailand should do that, said Dulyapak Preecharush, a Southeast Asia expert from Thammasat University in Bangkok.

“[T]he team must understand [his] analytical principles and his psychology towards various stances,” Dulyapak told BenarNews.

“Trump’s special characteristic is his unpredictability.”

Muzliza Mustafa, Minderjeet Kaur and Iman Muttaqin Yusof in Kuala Lumpur; Pizaro Gozali Idris in Jakarta; and Nontarat Phaicharoen and Ruj Chuenban in Bangkok contributed to this article.

BenarNews is an RFA-affiliated online news organization.

This content originally appeared on Radio Free Asia and was authored by Shailaja Neelakantan for BenarNews.

Right-click here to download this episode (“Save link as…”).

This week on CounterSpin: We talk about what just happened, and corporate media’s role in it, with Julie Hollar, senior analyst at the media watch group FAIR, and FAIR’s editor Jim Naureckas.

Washington Post (7/25/21)

We also hear some of an important conversation we had with political scientist Dorothee Benz the day after the January 6 attack on the Capitol.

Plus Janine Jackson takes a quick look at non-presidential election results.

Featured image: Women’s March to the White House, November 2, 2024 (Creative Commons photo: Amaury Laporte)

This content originally appeared on FAIR and was authored by Fairness & Accuracy In Reporting.

In the wake of the reelection of Donald Trump, some of the richest people in the world saw their net worths soar as stock prices rapidly shot up. “What was different about this election was how central billionaires were in the entire political discourse,” says The Lever's David Sirota, who joins Democracy Now! to discuss the outsized role of the super-rich in U.S politics, pointing out that both Trump and Kamala Harris campaigned heavily with billionaires, including Elon Musk and Mark Cuban. “These people are not giving money simply out of the goodness of their hearts. They want things. They have policy demands,” Sirota says. “The investors, the donors, like billionaires, are looking for a return on their investment.” Sirota, who previously worked as a communications adviser and speechwriter for the Bernie Sanders presidential campaign, also explains how Elon Musk's influence on Trump’s campaign is a preview of the power he could wield if he ends up appointed to the Trump administration.

This content originally appeared on Democracy Now! and was authored by Democracy Now!.

AMY GOODMAN: This is Democracy Now!, “War, Peace and the Presidency.” I’m Amy Goodman, with Nermeen Shaikh.

NERMEEN SHAIKH: As we continue to look at Donald Trump’s return to the White House, we turn now to look at what it means for the world, from Israel’s war on Gaza to the Russian invasion of Ukraine. During his victory speech, Trump vowed that he was going to “stop wars”.

But what will Trump’s foreign policy actually look like?

AMY GOODMAN: We’re joined now by Fatima Bhutto, award-winning author of several works of fiction and nonfiction, including The Runaways, New Kings of the World. She is co-editing a book along with Sonia Faleiro titled Gaza: The Story of a Genocide, due out next year. She writes a monthly column for Zeteo.

Start off by just responding to Trump’s runaway victory across the United States, Fatima.

Fatima Bhutto on the Kamala Harris “support for genocide”.   Video: Democracy Now!

FATIMA BHUTTO: Well, Amy, I don’t think it’s an aberration that he won. I think it’s an aberration that he lost in 2020. And I think anyone looking at the American elections for the last year, even longer, could see very clearly that the Democrats were speaking to — I’m not sure who, to a hall of mirrors.

They ran an incredibly weak and actually macabre campaign, to see Kamala Harris describe her politics as one of joy as she promised the most lethal military in the world, talking about women’s rights in America, essentially focusing those rights on the right to termination, while the rest of the world has watched women slaughtered in Gaza for 13 months straight.

You know, it’s very curious to think that they thought a winning strategy was Beyoncé and that Taylor Swift was somehow a political winning strategy that was going to defeat — who? — Trump, who was speaking to people, who was speaking against wars. You know, whether we believe him or not, it was a marked difference from what Kamala Harris was saying and was not saying.

NERMEEN SHAIKH: And, Fatima, you wrote a piece for Zeteo earlier this year titled “Gaza Has Exposed the Shameful Hypocrisy of Western Feminism.” So, you just mentioned the irony of Kamala Harris as, you know, the second presidential candidate who is a woman, where so much of the campaign was about women, and the fact that — you know, of what’s been unfolding on women, against women and children in Gaza for the last year. If you could elaborate?

FATIMA BHUTTO: Yeah, we’ve seen, Nermeen, over the last year, you know, 70 percent of those slaughtered in Gaza by Israel and, let’s also be clear, by America, because it’s American bombs and American diplomatic cover that allows this slaughter to continue unabated — 70 percent of those victims are women and children.

We have watched children with their heads blown off. We have watched children with no surviving family members find themselves in hospital with limbs missing. Gaza has the largest cohort of child amputees in the world. And we have seen newborns left to die as Israel switches off electricity and fuel of hospitals.

So, for Kamala Harris to come out and talk repeatedly about abortion, and I say this as someone who is pro-choice, who has always been pro-choice, was not just macabre, but it’s obscene. It’s an absolute betrayal of feminism, because feminism is about liberation. It’s not about termination.

And it’s about protecting women at their most vulnerable and at their most frightened. And there was no sign of that. You know, we also saw Kamala Harris bring out celebrities. I mean, the utter vacuousness of bringing out Jennifer Lopez, Beyoncé and others to talk about being a mother, while mothers are being widowed, are being orphaned in Gaza, it was not just tone deaf, it seemed to have a certain hostility, a certain contempt for the suffering that the rest of us have been watching.

I’d also like to add a point about toxic masculinity. There was so much toxicity in Kamala Harris’s campaign. You know, I watched her laugh with Oprah as she spoke about shooting someone who might enter her house with a gun, and giggling and saying her PR team may not like that, but she would kill them.

You don’t need to be a man to practice toxic masculinity, and you don’t need to be white to practice white supremacy, as we’ve seen very clearly from this election cycle.

AMY GOODMAN: And yet, Fatima Bhutto, if you look at what Trump represented, and certainly the Muslim American community, the Arab American community, Jewish progressives, young people, African-Americans certainly understood what Trump’s policy was when he was president.

And it’s rare, you know, a president comes back to serve again after a term away. It’s only happened once before in history.

But you have, for example, Trump moving the US Embassy to Jerusalem. You have an illegal settlement named after Trump in the West Bank. The whole question of Netanyahu and his right-wing allies in Israel pushing for annexation of the West Bank, where Trump would stand on this.

And, of course, you have the Abraham Accords, which many Palestinians felt left them out completely. If you can talk about this? These were put forward by Trump and his son-in-law Jared Kushner, who, when the massive Gaza destruction was at its height, talked about Gaza as waterfront real estate.

FATIMA BHUTTO: Absolutely. There’s no question that Trump has been a malign force, not just when it concerns Palestinians, but, frankly, out in the world. But I would argue there’s not very much difference between what these two administrations or parties do. The difference is that Trump doesn’t have the gloss and the charisma of an Obama or — I mean, I can’t even say that Biden has charisma, but certainly the gloss.

Trump says it. They do it. The difference — I can’t really tell the difference anymore.

We saw the Biden administration send over 500 shipments of arms to Israel, betraying America’s own laws, the fact that they are not allowed to export weapons of war to a country committing gross violations of human rights. We saw Bill Clinton trotted out in Michigan to tell Muslims that, actually, they should stop killing Israelis and that Jews were there before them.

I mean, it was an utterly contemptuous speech. So, what is the difference exactly?

We saw Bernie Sanders, who was mentioned earlier, write an op-ed in The Guardian in the days before the election, warning people that if they were not to vote for Kamala Harris, if Donald Trump was to get in, think about the climate crisis. Well, we have watched Israel’s emissions in the first five months of their deadly attack on Gaza release more planet-warming gases into the atmosphere than 20 of the world’s most climate-vulnerable nations release in a year.

So, I don’t quite see that there’s a difference between what Democrats allow and what Trump brags about. I think it’s just a question of crudeness and decorum and politeness. One has it, and one doesn’t. In a sense, Trump is much clearer for the rest of the world, because he says what he’s going to do, and, you know, you take him at his word, whereas we have been gaslit and lied to by Antony Blinken on a daily basis now since October 7th.

Every time that AOC or Kamala Harris spoke about fighting desperately for a ceasefire, we saw more carnage, more massacres and Israel committing crimes with total impunity. You know, it wasn’t under Trump that Israel has killed more journalists than have ever been killed in any recorded conflict. It’s under Biden that Israel has killed more UN workers than have ever been killed in the UN’s history. So, I’m not sure there’s a difference.

And, you know, we’ll have to wait to see in the months ahead. But I don’t think anyone is bracing for an upturn. Certainly, people didn’t vote for Kamala Harris. I’m not sure they voted for Trump. We know that she lost 14 million votes from Biden’s win in 2020. And we know that those votes just didn’t come out for the Democrats. Some may have migrated to Trump. Some may have gone to third parties. But 14 million just didn’t go anywhere.

NERMEEN SHAIKH: So, Fatima, if you could, you know, tell us what do you think the reasons are for that? I mean, the kind of — as you said, because it is really horrifying, what has unfolded in Gaza in the last 13 months. You’ve written about this. You now have an edited anthology that you’re editing, co-editing. You know, what do you think accounts for this, the sheer disregard for the lives of tens of thousands of Palestinians who have been killed in Gaza?

FATIMA BHUTTO: It’s a total racism on the part not just of America, but I’m speaking of the West here. This has been betrayed over the last year, the fact that Ukraine is spoken about with an admiration, you know, Zelensky is spoken about with a sort of hero worship, Ukrainian resisters to Russia’s invasion are valorised.

You know, Nancy Pelosi wore a bracelet of bullets used by the Ukrainian resistance against Trump [sic]. But Palestinians are painted as terrorists, are dehumanised to such an extent. You know, we saw that dehumanisation from the mouths of Bill Clinton no less, from the mouths of Kamala Harris, who interrupted somebody speaking out against the genocide, and saying, “I am speaking.”

What is more toxically masculine than that?

We’ve also seen a concerted crackdown in universities across the United States on college students. I’m speaking also here of my own alma mater of Columbia University, of Barnard College, that called the NYPD, who fired live ammunition at the students. You know, this didn’t happen — this extreme response didn’t happen in protests against apartheid. It didn’t happen in protests against Vietnam in quite the same way.

And all I can think is, America and the West, who have been fighting Muslim countries for the last 25, 30 years, see that as acceptable to do so. Our deaths are acceptable to them, and genocide is not a red line.

And, you know, to go back to what what was mentioned earlier about the working class, that is absolutely ignored in America — and I would make the argument across the West, too — they have watched administration after, you know, president and congressmen give billions and billions of dollars to Ukraine, while they have no relief at home.

They have no relief from debt. They have no relief from student debt. They have no medical care, no coverage. They’re struggling to survive. And this is across the board. And after Ukraine, they saw billions go to Israel in the same way, while they get, frankly, nothing.

AMY GOODMAN: Fatima Bhutto, we want to thank you so much for being with us, award-winning author of a number of works of fiction and nonfiction, including The Runaways and New Kings of the World, co-editing a book called Gaza: The Story of a Genocide, due out next year, writes a monthly column for Zeteo.

Coming up, we look at Trump’s vow to deport as many as 20 million immigrants and JD Vance saying, yes, US children born of immigrant parents could also be deported.

Republished under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0 United States Licence.

This content originally appeared on Asia Pacific Report and was authored by APR editor.

The U.N.’s International Court of Justice, or ICJ, is set to begin hearings on Dec. 2 that will culminate in it issuing an opinion on states’ responsibilities and the legal consequences for countries that fail to act. More than 130 nations – but not top polluters China and the U.S. – supported a push by Pacific island nation Vanuatu at the U.N. General Assembly in 2023 for the ICJ opinion.

“All the core norms at stake in the proceedings are norms of customary international law. So, that means that these obligations apply to all states. That is particularly relevant in a volatile political climate,” said Margaretha Wewerinke-Singh, legal counsel for Vanuatu at the ICJ hearings.

During Trump’s first presidency, the U.S. in late 2019 announced its withdrawal from the Paris agreement that obligates countries to make far-reaching changes to limit the increase in average global temperature to well below 2.0 degrees Celsius.

At the time, the State Department cited the “unfair economic burden” imposed on American workers and businesses by U.S. pledges to reduce reliance on fossil fuels under the 2015 agreement. The withdrawal, only briefly in effect because it required a year’s notice, was reversed under President Joe Biden, whose administration began in early 2021.

“There are real threats of, for example, a new U.S. administration again pulling out of the Paris agreement and potentially even pulling out of the climate change convention,” Wewerinke-Singh told a briefing on Thursday. The convention is the foundational 1992 international agreement for preventing climate change.

“So that makes it even more relevant to have a good understanding of what these obligations are, that are universally applicable,” she said.

Vanuatu’s spearheading of the ICJ case has amplified the voices of small island nations whose national interests and even existence are often overlooked as more powerful nations jostle on the international stage.

Collectively, Pacific island nations have made a minute contribution to greenhouse gas emissions but warn they could suffer the brunt of consequences from higher global temperatures.

Tropical cyclones, for example, could become more intense and destructive. Sea-level rise could outpace the natural growth of low-lying coral atoll nations, making them prone to inundation by even normal tides.

Pacific island leaders have said the ICJ case is necessary because of lack of action to implement the Paris agreement. The 29th U.N. climate summit, known as COP, takes place in Baku, Azerbaijan next week.

Vanuatu’s special envoy Ralph Regenvanu said the new U.K. government’s decision to implement an ICJ opinion from 2019 that it should return the Chagos Archipelago to former British colony Mauritius shows the role of political will in international law.

“We hope for the right timing as well. We hope for political situations to get to the stage where countries may actually [act],” he told the briefing.

“I’m sure many countries will abide by the advisory opinion, but there will be changes in circumstances also where we get new governments who are more willing to abide than previous governments,” he said.

RELATED STORIES

UN climate case could be global circuit breaker: Vanuatu official

Vanuatu fights for marine protection at pivotal UN deep-sea mining meeting

Greenhouse gas inventory highlights stakes ahead of annual climate talks

The U.N. court based in The Hague, in the Netherlands, has received 91 written statements from governments and international organizations on the climate change case – the highest number of written statements ever filed in an advisory proceeding before the court.

The court also received dozens of written responses to the initial submissions. It extended the deadline for written submissions several times.

China and the U.S. both made written submissions, as have organizations such as OPEC and the International Union for Conservation of Nature.

Regenvanu said in a statement Hurricane Milton last month showed the U.S., like Pacific island nations, increasingly faces extreme weather.

“This is a shared problem that will not solve itself without international cooperation, and we will continue to make that case to the incoming president of one of the world’s largest polluters,” he said.

Edited by Mike Firn.

This content originally appeared on Radio Free Asia and was authored by Stephen Wright for RFA.

Corporate media may not have all the same goals as MAGA Republicans, but they share the same strategy: Fear works.

Appeals to fear have an advantage over other kinds of messages in that they stimulate the deeper parts of our brains, those associated with fight-or-flight responses. Fear-based messages tend to circumvent our higher reasoning faculties and demand our attention, because evolution has taught our species to react strongly and quickly to things that are dangerous.

This innate human tendency has long been noted by the media industry (Psychology Today, 12/27/21), resulting in the old press adage, “If it bleeds, it leads.” Politicians, too, are aware of this brain hack (Conversation, 1/11/19)—and no one relies on evoking fear more than once-and-future President Donald Trump (New York Times, 10/1/24).

This is why coverage of issues in this election season have dovetailed so well with the Trump campaign’s lines of attack against the Biden/Harris administration—even in outlets that are editorially opposed, at least ostensibly, to Trumpism.

Scary issues

Corporate media rarely point, as this New York Times graphic (7/24/24) did, that crime has fallen dramatically since 1991, and continued to fall during the Biden/Harris administration.

Take immigration, a topic that could easily be covered as a human interest story, with profiles of people struggling to reach a better life against stark challenges. Instead, corporate media tend to report on it as a “border crisis,” with a “flood” of often-faceless migrants whose very existence is treated as a threat (FAIR.org, 5/24/21).

This is the news business deciding that fear attracts and holds an audience better than empathy does. And that business model would be undermined by reporting that consistently acknowledged that the percentage of US residents who are undocumented workers rose only slightly under the Biden administration, from 3.2% in 2019 to 3.3% in 2022 (the latest year available)—and is down from a peak of 4.0% in 2007 (Pew, 7/22/24; FAIR.org, 10/16/24).

With refugees treated as a scourge in centrist and right-wing media alike, is it any wonder that Trump can harvest votes by promising to do something about this menace? Eleven percent of respondents in NBC‘s exit poll said that immigration was the single issue that mattered most in casting their vote; 90% of the voters in that group voted for Trump.

Crime is another fear-based issue that Trump hammered on in his stump speech. “Have you seen what’s been happening?” he said of Washington, DC (Washington Post, 3/11/24). “Have you seen people being murdered? They come from South Carolina to go for a nice visit and they end up being murdered, shot, mugged, beat up.”

Trump could make such hyperbolic claims sound credible because corporate media had paved the way with alarmist coverage of crime (FAIR.org, 11/10/22). It was rare to see a report that acknowledged, as an infographic in the New York Times (7/24/24) did, that crime has dropped considerably from 2020 to 2024, when it hit a four-decade low (FAIR.org, 7/26/24).

‘Classic fear campaign’

Republicans spent so much on transphobic ads (Truthout, 11/5/04) because they knew voters had been primed by media to fear trans people.

Trans people, improbably enough, are another favorite subject of fear stories for media and MAGA alike. “Republicans spent nearly $215 million on network TV ads vilifying transgender people this election cycle,” Truthout (11/5/04) reported, with Trump spending “more money on anti-trans ads than on ads concerning housing, immigration and the economy combined.”

Journalist Erin Reed (PBS NewsHour, 11/2/24) described this as “a classic fear campaign”:

The purpose of a fear campaign is to distract you from issues that you normally care about by making you so afraid of a group of people, of somebody like me, for instance, that you’re willing to throw everything else away because you’re scared.

Transphobia has been a major theme in right-wing media, but has been a prominent feature of centrist news coverage as well, particularly in the New York Times (FAIR.org, 5/11/23). Rather than reporting centered on trans people, which could have humanized a marginalized demographic that’s unfamiliar to many readers, the Times chose instead to present trans youth in particular as a threat—focusing on  “whether trans people are receiving too many rights, and accessing too much medical care, too quickly,” as FAIR noted.

‘Alienating voters’ with ‘progressive agenda’

The New York Times (11/6/24) didn’t want people to vote for Trump—but its reporting contributed to the perception that “an infusion of immigrants” and “a porous southern border” were among “the nation’s urgent problems.”

But rather than examining their own role in promoting the irrational fears that were the lifeblood of the successful Trump campaign, corporate media focused on their perennial electoral scapegoat: the left (FAIR.org, 11/5/21). The New York Times editorial board (11/6/24) quickly diagnosed the Democrats’ problem (aside from sticking with Biden too long):

The party must also take a hard look at why it lost the election…. It took too long to recognize that large swaths of their progressive agenda were alienating voters, including some of the most loyal supporters of their party. And Democrats have struggled for three elections now to settle on a persuasive message that resonates with Americans from both parties who have lost faith in the system—which pushed skeptical voters toward the more obviously disruptive figure, even though a large majority of Americans acknowledge his serious faults. If the Democrats are to effectively oppose Mr. Trump, it must be not just through resisting his worst impulses but also by offering a vision of what they would do to improve the lives of all Americans and respond to anxieties that people have about the direction of the country and how they would change it.

It’s a mind-boggling contortion of logic. The Times doesn’t say which aspects of Democrats’ “progressive agenda” were so alienating to people. But the media all agreed—based largely on exit polls—that Republicans won because of the economy and immigration. The “persuasive message” and “vision…to improve the lives of all Americans” that Democrats failed to offer was pretty clearly an economic one. Which is exactly what progressives in the party have been pushing for the last decade: Medicare for All, a wealth tax, a living minimum wage, etc. In other words, if the Democrats had adopted a progressive agenda, it likely would have been their best shot at offering that vision to improve people’s lives.

More likely, the paper was referring to “identity politics,” which has been a media scapegoat for years—indeed, pundits roundly blamed Hillary Clinton’s loss to Trump on identity politics (or “political correctness”) (FAIR.org, 11/20/16). Then, as now, it was an accusation without evidence.

‘Democratic self-sabotage’

The Washington Post‘s Matt Bai (11/6/24) thought Trump’s anti-trans ads resonated with “a lot of traditionally Democratic voters who feel like the party is consumed with cultural issues.”

At the Washington Post, columnist Matt Bai‘s answer (11/6/24) to “Where Did Kamala Harris’s Campaign Go Wrong?” was, in part, that “Democrats have dug themselves into a hole on cultural issues and identity politics,” naming Trump’s transphobic ads as evidence of that. (In a Post roundup of columnist opinions, Bai declared that Harris “couldn’t outrun her party’s focus on trans rights and fighting other forms of oppression.”)

At the same time, Bai acknowledged that he does “think of Trump as being equally consumed with identity—just a different kind.” Fortunately for Republicans, Bai and his fellow journalists never take their kind of identity politics as worth highlighting (FAIR.org, 9/18/24).

George Will (10/6/24), a Never Trumper at the Washington Post, chalked up Harris’s loss largely to “the Democratic Party’s self-sabotage, via identity politics (race, gender), that made Harris vice president.”

Bret Stephens (10/6/24), one of the New York Times‘ set of Never Trumpers, likewise pointed a finger at Democrats’ supposed tilt toward progressives and “identity.” Much like other pundits, Stephens argued that “the politics of today’s left is heavy on social engineering according to group identity.”

Of the Harris campaigns’ “tactical missteps,” Stephens’ first complaint was “her choice of a progressive running mate”—Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz. He also accused the party of a “dismissiveness toward the moral objections many Americans have to various progressive causes.” Here he mentioned trans kids’ rights, DEI seminars and “new terminology that is supposed to be more inclusive,” none of which Harris vocally embraced.

But underlying all of these arguments is a giant fundamental problem: It’s simply a fantasy (advanced repeatedly by Republicans) that Harris was running on identity politics, or as a radical progressive. News articles (e.g., Slate, 9/5/24; Forbes, 11/5/24) regularly acknowledged that Harris, in contrast to Hillary Clinton, for instance, shied away from centering her gender or ethnic background, or appealing to identity in her campaign.

‘Wary and alienated’

In a rare instance of actually listening to left-wing voices, a New York Times article (10/24/24) focused on pre-election warnings that Harris “risks chilling Democratic enthusiasm by alienating progressives and working-class voters.”

The Times‘ own reporting made Harris’s distancing from progressive politics perfectly clear not two weeks ago, in an article (10/24/24) headlined, “As Harris Courts Republicans, the Left Grows Wary and Alienated.” In a rare example of the Times centering a left perspective in a political article, reporters Nicholas Nehamas and Erica L. Green wrote:

In making her closing argument this month, Ms. Harris has campaigned four times with Liz Cheney, the Republican former congresswoman, stumping with her more than with any other ally. She has appeared more in October with the billionaire Mark Cuban than with Shawn Fain, the president of the United Auto Workers and one of the nation’s most visible labor leaders.

She has centered her economic platform on middle-class issues like small businesses and entrepreneurship rather than raising the minimum wage, a deeply held goal of many Democrats that polls well across the board. She has taken a harder-line stance on the border than has any member of her party in a generation and has talked more prominently about owning a Glock than about combating climate change. She has not broken from President Biden on the war Israel is waging in Gaza.

Kamala Harris did not run as a progressive, either in terms of economic policy or identity politics. But to a corporate media that largely complemented, rather than countered, Trump’s fear-based narratives on immigrants, trans people and crime, blaming the left is infinitely more appealing than recognizing their own culpability.

This content originally appeared on FAIR and was authored by Julie Hollar.

Surveying the wreckage of the US elections, here are some observations that have emerged:

Campaigns based on hope do not always defeat campaigns based on fear.

Having dozens of retired high ranking military and diplomatic officials warn against the danger Donald Trump poses to democracy (including people who worked for him) did not matter to many voters.

• READ MORE: America makes a perilous choice – The New York Times
• Trump 2.0 will not be like anything we have seen before – the US and the world should be prepared for the second coming of Trump and the new global order he will try to create
• Other US elections reports
• Paul Buchanan and Selwyn Manning’s weekly global affairs podcasts

Likewise, having former politicians and hundreds of academics, intellectuals, legal scholars, community leaders and social activists repudiate Trump’s policies of division mattered not an iota to the voting majority.

Nor did Kamala Harris’s endorsement by dozens of high profile celebrities make a difference to the MAGA mob.

Raising +US$ billion in political donations did not produce victory got Harris. It turns out outspending the opponent is not the key to electoral success.

Incoherent racist and xenophobic rants (“they are eating the dogs, they are eating the cats”) did not give the MAGA mob any pause when considering their choices. In fact, it appears that the resort to crude depictions of opponents (“stupid KaMAla”)and scapegoats (like Puerto Ricans) strengthened the bond between Trump and his supporters.

‘Garbage can’ narrative
Macroeconomic and social indicators such as higher employment and lower crime and undocumented immigrant numbers could not overcome the MAGA narrative that the US was “the garbage can of the world.”

Nor could Harris, despite her accomplished resume in all three government branches at the local, state and federal levels, overcome the narrative that she was “dumb” and a DEI hire who was promoted for reasons other than merit.

It did not matter to the MAGA mob that Trump threatened retribution against his opponents, real and imagined, using the Federal State as his instrument of revenge.

Age was not a factor even though Trump displays evident signs of cognitive decline.

Reproductive rights were not the watershed issue many thought that they would be, including for many female voters. Conversely, the MAGA efforts to court “bro” support via social media catering to younger men worked very well.

In a way, this is a double setback for women: as an issue of bodily autonomy and as an issue of gender equality given the attitudes of Trump endorsers like Tucker Carlson, Joe Rogan and Andrew Tate. Those angry younger men interact with females, and their misogyny has now been reaffirmed as part of a political winning strategy.

Ukraine, Europe much to fear
Ukraine and Western Europe have much to fear.

So does the federal bureaucracy and regulatory system, which will now be subject to Project 2025, Elon Musk’s razor gang approach to public spending and RFK Jr’s public health edicts.

In fact, it looks like the Trump second term approach to governance will take a page out of Argentine president Javier Milei’s “chainsaw” approach, with results that will be similar but far broader in scope if implemented in the same way.

So all in all, from where I sit it looks like a bit of a calamity in the making. But then again, I am just another fool with a “woke” degree.

Dr Paul G Buchanan is the director of 36th-Parallel Assessments, a geopolitical and strategic analysis consultancy. This article is republished with the permission of the author.

This content originally appeared on Asia Pacific Report and was authored by APR editor.