She should recruit some her like thinking journalists and start an upstart. She should be able to raise enough money to get it started.
Already done. Fta:
... It is that belief that led Rubin to announce that she was beginning a new media venture with a tagline—“Not Owned By Anybody”—that makes clear her disdain for Bezos’ ownership.
The 62-year-old indicated she will continue to write scathing columns about Trump at her new site, The Contrarian, which she launched Monday along with the CNN legal analyst Norm Eisen (who is also exiting his role).
“Our goal is to combat, with every fiber of our being, the authoritarian threat that we face,” Rubin told CNN....
Eisen, 64, said his vision for The Contrarian is a “defiant and uncompromising platform free from false equivalence.” He added that the U.S., on the verge of Trump 2.0, faces an “existential threat to American democracy.”
The site plans to feature about two dozen contributors who are “diverse across parties and generations,” but are “connected by the shared belief that we need an unshackled media in order to meet this moment.”...
She should recruit some her like thinking journalists and start an upstart. She should be able to raise enough money to get it started.
Already done. Fta:
... It is that belief that led Rubin to announce that she was beginning a new media venture with a tagline—“Not Owned By Anybody”—that makes clear her disdain for Bezos’ ownership.
The 62-year-old indicated she will continue to write scathing columns about Trump at her new site, The Contrarian, which she launched Monday along with the CNN legal analyst Norm Eisen (who is also exiting his role).
“Our goal is to combat, with every fiber of our being, the authoritarian threat that we face,” Rubin told CNN....
Eisen, 64, said his vision for The Contrarian is a “defiant and uncompromising platform free from false equivalence.” He added that the U.S., on the verge of Trump 2.0, faces an “existential threat to American democracy.”
The site plans to feature about two dozen contributors who are “diverse across parties and generations,” but are “connected by the shared belief that we need an unshackled media in order to meet this moment.”...
If I happen to run across anything I will probably read it.
No need to leave it to chance. As is linked from the article: https://contrarian.substack.com/
You don't have to subscribe, there is some free content.
... The nixed wrap ad — one of two ads purchased for $115,000 by Common Cause and the Southern Poverty Law Center Action Fund that were slated to run on Tuesday — shows the White House superimposed over Musk with a bright red backdrop and the caption “Who’s running this country: Donald Trump or Elon Musk?” The wrap adds that Musk has “created chaos and confusion” and “is accountable to no one by himself.”
“The Constitution only allows for one president at a time,” the wrap notes.
The pair of ads are part of a petition from Common Cause and SPLC to “raise a massive public outcry demanding US lawmakers take action before more damage is done.” At the time of publication, the petition had 95,556 signatures.
TO: US Congress
Elon Musk is a danger to democracy, business, and the wider public. We urge you to use everything in your power to stop Elon Musk before he causes further irreparable damage to the world.
103,622 signatures
I signed. Back to the article:
... When the advocacy group asked the Jeff Bezos-owned outlet whether there was anything they could do to alter the wrap to make it more suitable, they were simply told that the Post could not run it....
The Post does not comment on internal decisions related to specific ad campaigns and declined to comment when asked whether Bezos was involved with the decision....
Virginia Kase Solomón, Common Cause’s president and chief executive, told CNN the Post’s decision was “concerning,” saying the paper — which uses the slogan “Democracy dies in the darkness” — “seems to have forgotten that democracy also dies when a free press operates from a place of fear or compliance.”
“Yet now, we are forced to ask ourselves if The Washington Post — a pillar of investigative journalism during Watergate — is unwilling to challenge those in power,” Solomón said. “Under Jeff Bezos’ ownership, concerns about corporate influence over the press have only grown, and this decision raises serious questions about the paper’s independence.”
“If even a media outlet of its stature bows to pressure, what hope is there for smaller, hometown newspapers,” Solomón added. “At a time when the free press is already under attack, we cannot allow political or corporate influences to dictate what stories get told.”...
... A number of news outlets signed on to a letter sent by the White House Correspondents’ Association, and Fox News and Newsmax were among those urging that the AP be reinstated....
Newsmax said in a statement, “We can understand President Trump’s frustration because the media has often been unfair to him, but Newsmax still supports the AP’s right, as a private organization, to use the language it wants to use in its reporting. We fear a future administration may not like something Newsmax writes and seek to ban us. This is why news organizations like Newsmax and Fox News are supporting the AP’s First Amendment rights though we may disagree with its editorial point of view from time to time.”
Meanwhile, the Reporters Committee for the Freedom of the Press has sent its own letter to Susie Wiles, the White House chief of staff.
“Conditioning pool access to White House events on the editorial decisions of any news organization violates First Amendment principles,” according to the letter. “All news organizations covering the White House are negatively affected when one peer outlet is singled out in a manner that crosses a constitutional line. As a group, we ask you to restore AP’s pool participation and ensure that going forward access to White House events is not predicated on improper considerations or disagreement with editorial choices.”
More than two dozen media outlets signed on to the letter, including CNN, The New York Times, the Los Angeles Times, The Wall Street Journal and The Washington Post.
The Reporters Committee letter cites court decisions on press access to the White House, including a 1977 case and a more recent 2019 incident in which the Trump White House revoked the press pass of Playboy’s Brian Karem. He sued and won.
MAGA already knows it's illegal.
“The federal courts have been clear for decades that, once the White House opens its facilities to press access, denying access to certain reporters or outlets using ‘arbitrary or content-based criteria’ or ‘for less than compelling reasons’ violates the First Amendment,” the Reporters Committee wrote. “That the White House is conducting its campaign against an accredited member of the press corps short of pulling its credential does not justify its actions.”
“We are going to keep them out until such time that they agree it is the Gulf of America,” Trump said earlier this week.
Trump goes full fascist during his speech at the DOJ: "I believe that CNN and MSNDC, who literally write 97.6% bad about me, are political arms of the Democrat Party. And in my opinion, they are really corrupt and they are illegal. What they do is illegal."
factcheckchic
Trump labeling CNN and MSNBC as "illegal" because they criticize him 97.6% of the time? That's rich, considering the First Amendment explicitly protects freedom of the press. Maybe someone should remind him that "illegal" doesn't mean "hurts my feelings." But hey, when facts aren't on your side, just declare the truth-tellers criminals, right?
A federal judge ordered the White House on Tuesday to restore The Associated Press’ full access to cover presidential events, ruling on a case that touched at the heart of the First Amendment and affirming that the government cannot punish the news organization for the content of its speech.
U.S.. District Judge Trevor N. McFadden, an appointee of Donald Trump, ruled that the government had can’t retaliate against the AP’s decision not to follow the president’s executive order to rename the Gulf of Mexico. The decision handed the AP a major victory at a time the White House has been challenging the press on several levels.
ICYMI: "an appointee of Donald Trump"
“Under the First Amendment, if the Government opens its doors to some journalists—be it to the Oval Office, the East Room, or elsewhere—it cannot then shut those doors to other journalists because of their viewpoints,” McFadden wrote. “The Constitution requires no less.” ...
The White House has created a website to amplify favorable news articles about President Donald Trump, prompting critics to accuse the administration of running a taxpayer-funded “propaganda” outlet.
The White House Wire, or WHWIRE, mostly features stories from conservative outlets such as Fox News and the Daily Caller ― and all are complimentary takes on the president and the administration. Government staffers also contributed reports.
One headline that appeared early Thursday, “100 Days Of Hoaxes: Cutting Through The Fake News,” didn’t link directly to a story.
The headline is a hoax. Irony.
... Axios wrote the website “represents the administration’s latest effort to circumvent the mainstream media and present itself in a positive light.” ...
Gov owned news
News without filters? You mean news without fact-checks. I’ll stick to sources that don’t rewrite reality, thanks.
President Trump issued an executive order late Thursday directing the Corporation for Public Broadcasting's board of directors to "cease federal funding for NPR and PBS," the nation's primary public broadcasters, claiming ideological bias.
"Neither entity presents a fair, accurate or unbiased portrayal of current events to tax-paying citizens," the order says. "The CPB Board shall cancel existing direct funding to the maximum extent allowed by law and shall decline to provide future funding."
It is not clear that the president has the authority to make such orders to CPB under the law.
PBS President and CEO Paula Kerger called it a "blatantly unlawful Executive Order, issued in the middle of the night."
CPB is already suing the Trump administration over his executive order seeking to fire three of its five board members; on Friday, it dismissed the validity of the president's new order.
"CPB is not a federal executive agency subject to the President's authority," the corporation wrote in a statement issued Friday morning. "Congress directly authorized and funded CPB to be a private nonprofit corporation wholly independent of the federal government."
The CPB noted that the statute Congress passed to create it "expressly forbade 'any department, agency, officer, or employee of the United States to exercise any direction, supervision, or control over educational television or radio broadcasting, or over [CPB] or any of its grantees or contractors."
Congress said that such funds "may be used at the discretion of the recipient" for producing or acquiring programs to put on the air....
NPR vowed to fight back in a statement released Friday by Heather Walls, its senior vice president of communications.
"We will vigorously defend our right to provide essential news, information and life-saving services to the American public," NPR said in the statement. "The President's order is an affront to the First Amendment rights of NPR and locally owned and operated stations throughout America to produce and air programming that meets the needs of their communities."
It said the executive order jeopardizes the national airing of NPR newscasts, and programs like Morning Edition and Tiny Desk Radio.
Fight! Fight! Fight!
... Earlier this week, the Federal Election Commission unanimously dismissed a complaint of bias and illegal electioneering against NPR, finding that the network is engaged in a "legitimate press function."
... While the CPB is suing the Trump administration over the attempted firings of three of the five board members, were Trump to succeed in doing so, it would appear he would have, for now, erased the quorum necessary for the CPB board to take any actions. That includes, presumably, the elimination of funds for PBS and NPR.
Already done. Fta:
JoltJoeJolt!
MAGAts detest truth, transparency, business freedom and the 1st Amendment.
Nttawwt. GoHomicidal DanGo.
PINO, RepuQs and MAGA - always victimized by something. What a bunch of wimps!
