NOT REAL NEWS: A look at what didn’t happen this week
A roundup of some of the most popular but completely untrue stories and visuals of the week. None of these is legit, even though they were shared widely on social media. The Associated Press checked these out. Here are the real facts: ___ NOT REAL NEWS: FLASHBACK: Obama kicks out reporter at press briefing THE FACTS: Former President Barack Obama did not throw a reporter out of a press conference for asking a question in 2015, as a claim circulating widely online suggests. The false claim surfaced after a heated exchange Wednesday between President Donald Trump and CNN White House Correspondent Jim Acosta, whose White House press pass was suspended afterward. Some social media users then circulated a video they said showed Obama kicking a reporter out of press briefing. As reported by the AP, Obama was actually responding to a protester who was heckling him during a gay pride month reception at the White House in June 2015. “Shame on you, you shouldn’t be doing this,” Obama told the protester, adding he had the option of staying quiet or being removed. The protester was removed. ___ NOT REAL NEWS: CNN anchor shown laughing as American flag burns THE FACTS: An image circulating online that shows CNN anchor Don Lemon laughing during an apparent segment about Democrats burning flags on Election Day was fabricated. A CNN spokeswoman told the AP on Tuesday that the image of Lemon, which was paired with a banner claiming “Dems celebrate ‘blue wave’ burning flags on Election Day,” is false. The banner identified the show as “Reliable Sources,” which Lemon does not host. He is the host of “CNN Tonight.” ___ NOT REAL NEWS: Voting machine rigged in Ohio precinct THE FACTS: An Instagram video shared widely online Tuesday showed a voter selecting Republican gubernatorial candidate Mike DeWine on a touch screen, but then receiving a paper record reflecting a vote for Democratic candidate Richard Cordray. The video was circulated on social media as evidence that a machine was rigged. Aaron Sellers, a spokesman for the Franklin County Board of Elections, told the AP in an email that the machine in question had a paper jam that showed a previous voter’s choice. Sellers says the voter who experienced the problem got a poll worker to cancel out the vote on the machine in question and then voted successfully on another machine. Republished with permission from the Associated Press.
Pepper Bryars: Officials claiming voter suppression in Alabama are crying wolf
We need words to mean things. The phrase “fake news” has been so widely applied that it’s now essentially meaningless, other than identifying those who would rather dismiss than deal with an argument or evidence challenging their conclusions. The extremely important phrase “voter suppression” is now also tittering on the edge of meaninglessness, thanks in part to the ill-considered efforts of some in the Huntsville area. They’re exaggerating the impact of the routine process that Alabama uses to mail voter I.D. cards and manage its voter lists. Here’s the process. Step one: Register to vote. Step two: Election officials mail you a voter I.D. card, and ask you to verify the information. Step three: Follow the instructions on the card if anything needs to be changed. Easy-peasy. Or not, according to a group that includes Madison County Probate Judge Tommy Ragland, the county’s top voting official. “It’s voter suppression, and it gives our county a black eye,” he told AL.com last week. Suppression? To quote Inigo Montoya, “You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.” Here’s what’s being alleged: A number of students at Alabama A&M and Oakwood University, both in Madison County, used their campus addresses when registering to vote recently. But when the cards were mailed to those addresses, some of the students reportedly didn’t receive them. The post office sent the undeliverable cards back to county election officials, who, quite reasonably, assumed the lack of acceptance meant an individual had moved. When this happens, people are placed on the “inactive” voter list which means they can still vote but must first update their information. Why do this? If the state doesn’t periodically verify its rolls and move unresponsive voters to an inactive list, then the main list would eventually include any registered voter who ever lived in Alabama – alive, dead, or those who moved away. The rolls would become utterly unmanageable. Why didn’t some students receive the card? Maybe because Alabama A&M doesn’t have individual mailboxes for students, just one big general delivery pile. University staff said they emailed students asking them to pick up their cards, but hundreds still haven’t. Not to worry, though. When they show up to vote and learn that they’re on the inactive list, all they have to do is complete a simple form and are then immediately given a ballot, according to Alabama Secretary of State John Merrill. “It’s a simple one-page voter update form,” Merrill said. “It takes less than three-minutes to complete.” Still, Madison County Commissioner Roger Jones thinks that’s “suppressing their right to vote.” “They have just registered to vote and this is the first time they will be able to vote and then have to go through an ordeal when they go vote Tuesday,” Jones told AL.com. Ordeal? Seriously? It’s a one-page form, commissioner, and while waiting in a line is inconvenient, it’s hardly voter suppression. This is hyperbole and nasty politics at their worst because we’re supposed to assume that this is racist since Alabama A&M and Oakwood have predominantly African-American student bodies. Folks, this hurts us all. We need voter suppression to describe exactly what a reasonable person would assume it means: people being denied their right to vote. Voter suppression is a gravely serious charge that should warrant investigation when alleged, and if proven, it must carry swift and stern punishment. But the way the phrase is being thrown around is remarkably reckless, weakens the strength of the allegation, and reduces the credibility of those making the charge. Those crying voter suppression right now should remember why we teach our children Aesop’s fable of “The Boy Who Cried Wolf.” Because when the wolf really does come around, will any of us heed their cries? ••• Pepper Bryars is the author of American Warfighter. He is a senior fellow at the Alabama Policy Institute. Follow him on Twitter at @jpepperbryars.
Daniel Sutter: Fake news and the market for ideas
Traditional social media have been criticized recently for purveying fake news. California may form a commission to investigate stemming fake news, while Congressional hearings have implored Facebook and Twitter to act. Is the news market failing? Classical liberals back to John Milton and John Stuart Mill have stressed freedom of speech and expression as crucial in allowing citizens to control government. Free expression is vital for two reasons. The first is the value of free inquiry in discovering the truth. The second is the potential for government power to regulate expression to stifle criticism. The metaphor of a marketplace of ideas illustrates the truth-seeking argument. Just as competition supplies us with cars, clothes or soft drinks, competition will work for ideas. Let truth and falsehood compete, and truth will win out. This reasoning believes that most citizens can distinguish good from bad arguments. Yet I find the marketplace of ideas metaphor slightly off. In my research on media bias, I emphasize how our evaluations of public policies draw on our personal values and information about the world. Is the $15 per hour minimum wage recently enacted by some cities wise policy? The answer depends in part on values – whether one believes that government should try to raise poorer households’ income. And also on information – the number of $9 an hour jobs eliminated by a $15 minimum wage. News deals with the information element of policy assessment. Peoples’ values differ, but to paraphrase Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan, we all face the same facts. The news media hopefully provides truthful information for readers or viewers. Information differs from ideas. Assessing the truth of information requires significant resources and not just common sense; specifically, a news organization’s reporters and editors. Ideas combine information and values. Citizens have no capacity to verify a report claiming that the $15 minimum wage eliminated 10,000 jobs. Media bias involves deliberate manipulation of information to advance political values, not inevitable reporting errors. A story might deliberately exaggerate the job losses from the $15 minimum wage to influence people’s policy evaluation. We can only identify some relevant factors about when biased reporting will advance specific values. For example, the persons we trust most can most easily mislead us. Blatant propaganda is often recognized and consequently ineffective. Information advancing an organization’s values may be discounted. And bad news is frequently denied; President Trump dismisses any report suggesting that his policies are not working perfectly as fake news. President Trump has seemingly used evidence of liberal bias to convince his supporters to dismiss all news from prestigious news organizations as fake. Convincing analyses find that liberal bias is typically nuanced and subtle, involving misleading headlines, a lack of perspective, or perhaps omissions, not outright falsification. Biased news still contains truth. Charges of liberal bias are decades old, so what has changed? The more explicit branding of outlets as liberal or conservative, I think, encourages wholesale dismissal. Hosts like Sean Hannity or Rachel Maddow with conservative or liberal views organize most cable news content. (This is not necessarily bad; contrasting takes on current events may be a good way to assess the truth.) Editorials set a newspaper’s brand, even though the rules of objectivity still apply to the news content. And conservative outlets like Fox News and the Washington Times makes liberal branding of CNN and the Washington Post more plausible. The most surprising aspect in our more partisan news market has been the lack of an outlet building an information-only brand trusted across the political spectrum. The New York Times and Washington Post may think they occupy this space, but conservatives’ dismissal demonstrates otherwise. The marketplace of ideas is a powerful metaphor, but information is not ideas. Common sense cannot substitute for a network of trained, experienced reporters. Is the market for news hopelessly broken? Fortunately, a missing product creates a profit opportunity for a clever entrepreneur. Perhaps trusted news sources are evolving right now, obscured by the noise of current events. ••• Daniel Sutter is the Charles G. Koch Professor of Economics with the Manuel H. Johnson Center for Political Economy at Troy University and host of Econversations on TrojanVision. The opinions expressed in this column are the author’s and do not necessarily reflect the views of Troy University.
Facebook’s election ‘war room’ takes aim at fake information
In an otherwise innocuous part of Facebook’s expansive Silicon Valley campus, a locked door bears a taped-on sign that reads “War Room.” Behind the door lies a nerve center the social network has set up to combat fake accounts and bogus news stories ahead of upcoming elections. Inside the room are dozens of employees staring intently at their monitors while data streams across giant dashboards. On the walls are posters of the sort Facebook frequently uses to caution or exhort its employees. One reads, “Nothing at Facebook is somebody else’s problem.” That motto might strike some as ironic, given that the war room was created to counter threats that almost no one at the company, least of all CEO Mark Zuckerberg, took seriously just two years ago — and which the company’s critics now believe pose a threat to democracy. Days after President Donald Trump‘s surprise victory, Zuckerberg brushed off assertions that the outcome had been influenced by fictional news stories on Facebook, calling the idea “pretty crazy .” But Facebook’s blase attitude shifted as criticism of the company mounted in Congress and elsewhere. Later that year, it acknowledged having run thousands of ads promoting false information placed by Russian agents. Zuckerberg eventually made fixing Facebook his personal challenge for 2018. The war room is a major part of Facebook’s ongoing repairs. Its technology draws upon the artificial-intelligence system Facebook has been using to help identify “inauthentic” posts and user behavior. Facebook provided a tightly controlled glimpse at its war room to The Associated Press and other media ahead of the second round of presidential elections in Brazil on Oct. 28 and the U.S. midterm elections on Nov. 6. “There is no substitute for physical, real-world interaction,” said Samidh Chakrabarti, Facebook’s director of elections and civic engagement. “The primary thing we have learned is just how effective it is to have people in the same room all together.” More than 20 different teams now coordinate the efforts of more than 20,000 people — mostly contractors — devoted to blocking fake accounts and fictional news and stopping other abuses on Facebook and its other services. As part of the crackdown, Facebook also has hired fact checkers, including The Associated Press, to vet new stories posted on its social network. Facebook credits its war room and other stepped-up patrolling efforts for booting 1.3 billion fake accounts over the past year and jettisoning hundreds of pages set up by foreign governments and other agents looking to create mischief. But it remains unclear whether Facebook is doing enough, said Angelo Carusone, president of Media Matters For America, a liberal group that monitors misinformation. He noted that the sensational themes distributed in fictional news stories can be highly effective at keeping people “engaged” on Facebook — which in turn makes it possible to sell more of the ads that generate most of Facebook’s revenue. “What they are doing so far seems to be more about trying to prevent another public relations disaster and less so about putting in meaningful solutions to the problem,” Carusone said. “On balance, I would say they that are still way off.” Facebook disagrees with that assessment, although its efforts are still a work in progress. Chakrabarti, for instance, acknowledged that some “bugs” prevented Facebook from taking some unspecified actions to prevent manipulation efforts in the first round of Brazil’s presidential election earlier this month. He declined to elaborate. The war room is currently focused on Brazil’s next round of elections and upcoming U.S. midterms. Large U.S. and Brazilian flags hang on opposing walls and clocks show the time in both countries. Facebook declined to let the media scrutinize the computer screens in front of the employees, and required reporters to refrain from mentioning some of the equipment inside the war room, calling it “proprietary information.” While on duty, war-room workers are only allowed to leave the room for short bathroom breaks or to grab food to eat at their desks. Although no final decisions have been made, the war room is likely to become a permanent fixture at Facebook, said Katie Harbath, Facebook’s director of global politics and government outreach. “It is a constant arms race,” she said. “This is our new normal.” Republished with permission from the Associated Press.
Gary Palmer caught in Jeff Sessions, Donald Trump crossfire
Alabama 7th District U.S. Rep. Gary Palmer has been caught in the crossfire between President Donald Trump and Attorney General Jeff Sessions. Last week, Trump fired several barbs at Sessions, telling Fox news channel’s “Fox & Friends” that Sessions “took the job and then he said, ‘I’m going to recuse myself.” “[He] never took control of the Justice Department and it’s a sort of an incredible thing,” Trump continued. Sessions then fired back at the president, saying that the Justice department would not be “improperly influenced by political considerations.” Rachael Bade, a Politico reporter and CNN political analyst, appeared on CNN Friday, saying she contacted Palmer to speak with him on the subject. “I called Gary Palmer, who is a Republican from Alabama, close with Sessions, yesterday to get his take on this sort of back and forth,” Bade said according to CNN Transcripts. “At one point Gary Palmer was very adamantly defending and blasting his colleagues who were in any way criticizing Sessions. But Gary Palmer told me he has his own problems with Sessions. And he specifically listed some of those things that the president was tweeting about this morning regarding document production to Congress, Rod Rosenstein perhaps not being the best person to be working in the Justice Department, according to him.” “And he was unhappy with certain things that Sessions was doing,” Bade continued. “So I just — I think it’s really interesting, the conversation is changing. And I don’t think that’s a good sign for Sessions. It’s a matter of time, I think, before he goes.” Palmer responded on Twitter by calling out CNN, and denying that the story was true. “A recent CNN news story mischaracterized my trust in Attorney General Jeff Sessions. He has my full trust and I think he’s done an excellent job in de-politicizing the DOJ. The DOJ has many ongoing investigations and Jeff Sessions will ultimately be judged by their outcomes,” Palmer tweeted. “As it stands, Jeff Sessions is doing his job when the only leaks are coming from those being investigated. While I share the President’s concerns about the Russia investigation and believe it should end, Jeff Sessions is recused from that,” he continued. “On the other hand, I think Rod Rosenstein has not represented the DOJ well, especially regarding Congressional oversight and document production. This is what I told the CNN reporter; CNN reinterpreting my comments for the sake of headlines is the very definition of fake news.” A recent CNN news story mischaracterized my trust in Attorney General Jeff Sessions. He has my full trust and I think he’s done an excellent job in de-politicizing the DOJ. The DOJ has many ongoing investigations and Jeff Sessions will ultimately be judged by their outcomes. — Gary Palmer (@USRepGaryPalmer) August 24, 2018 As it stands, Jeff Sessions is doing his job when the only leaks are coming from those being investigated. While I share the President’s concerns about the Russia investigation and believe it should end, Jeff Sessions is recused from that. — Gary Palmer (@USRepGaryPalmer) August 24, 2018 On the other hand, I think Rod Rosenstein has not represented the DOJ well, especially regarding Congressional oversight and document production. This is what I told the CNN reporter; CNN reinterpreting my comments for the sake of headlines is the very definition of fake news. — Gary Palmer (@USRepGaryPalmer) August 24, 2018
Parker Snider: A guide to fake news
More than once every day. That’s how often President Donald Trump publicly calls something “fake”—be it a story, poll, or news organization. Just this week, Facebook CEO and Founder Mark Zuckerberg testified before Congress about, among other things, the proliferation of falsities on his social media platform, including in Alabama’s special election for U.S. Senate last year. We see the term everywhere, hear it lobbied daily on cable news, and use it ourselves (although perhaps often in jest). But what really is fake news and how do we spot it? The term “fake news” is often used to describe three very distinct and separate entities. First, the reporting of reputable national organizations (think press that have a seat in the White House briefing room, especially those in the first few rows) is often labeled as “fake news”. Although many would argue otherwise, the fact is that outright lies by the news divisions of these organizations are rare. When reporting failures do occur, news organizations hold their reporters accountable and publicly apologize and correct the story. The suspension of ABC’s Brian Ross after incorrectly reporting that Trump had directed Michael Flynn to contact Russian officials before the 2016 election is one example. This doesn’t mean, however, that print or televised media are free from falsehoods. They’re not. That’s because newspapers and news channels aren’t just publishing journalism—no, their business requires something else—opinion and commentary, the second bearer of the “fake news” label. Fox News’ Chief News Anchor Shephard Smith isn’t shy about rebutting the unsubstantiated claims of his primetime opinion counterparts. Why? In his words, “We serve different masters.” In his interview with Time, he goes on to say, “They don’t really have rules on the opinion side…some of our opinion programming is there strictly to be entertaining.” Nevertheless, false news and misrepresentation is most onerous and rampant, not on television or in newspapers, but on social media, the third and most appropriately labeled agent of “fake news”. Facebook and its competitors are places where claims, no matter how ridiculous, baseless, and unproven, spread like wildfire. It’s where we see a supposed ‘Friends’ reunion, that President Obama was a Black Panther, that Pope Francis cancelled the Bible, and that Snopes, a useful fact checking website, has ties to George Soros. Even so, Facebook is a major source of news for many people. Thanks to this and increased cries of “fake news”, I’ve found a few practices helpful in maneuvering this volatile news environment. As NPR’s Anya Kamenetz suggests, I begin with a gut check. Does what I’m reading affirm my biases, my hopes, and my expectations? If so, I should adopt a healthy level of suspicion. Second, I automatically reject any news in the form of a meme or screenshot. These easily sharable images often have incendiary captions, outlandish claims, and lack sources. They are designed to go viral—like the emails of yesteryear that promise a free vacation if you simply forward to ten friends—and they are rarely factual. Political memes and screenshots are one way Russians fostered division in 2016, and they are genuinely worthless. Third, I check the source. Does the website, newspaper, or cable news channel have a history of deceptive practices or falsehoods? Are they well-known and given access to government officials, or do they have a strange web address, an unknown name, or a homepage full of inflammatory headlines? Fourth, I look to see if other sources are corroborating the report. If not and the news is a credible exclusive, I expect the reporting organization to include their sources in the article. Fifth, I determine whether the author is a journalist or a commentator. As described earlier, commentators and journalists are very different, as are their standards. Finally, before reposting or sharing, I consider my own credibility. Do I want to be someone who shares unsubstantiated news and memes, or do I want to ensure its accuracy, and therefore my own? I’ve found these methods helpful, and I hope you do as well. ••• Parker Snider is Policy Relations Manager at the Alabama Policy Institute (API). API is an independent, nonpartisan, nonprofit research and educational organization dedicated to strengthening free enterprise, defending limited government, and championing strong families. If you would like to speak with the author, please e-mail communications@alabamapolicy.org or call (205) 870-9900.
Can we agree to ban the term “Fake News”?
President Donald Trump has shaken up a lot norms in the political world. Some things he’s introduced to the Office of President for the better, like communicating directly to the American people through his twitter account, some for the worse like what he chooses to communicate through his twitter. One of the Trumpisms from the blessing/curse that is his twitter account that I truly wish would go away is the term “fake news.” When Trump says “fake news” sometimes he’s actually talking about news coverage that rely on nameless sources and bad information, or biased reporters and/or media outlets. Fake news is a fine enough term to describe news stories whose entire premise contradicted by actual evidence or facts or as is the case for many stories Trump disputes is based on blind sources peddling what can best be described as White House or administration gossip and back-stabbing. Unfortunately, Trump has digressed — he’s gone from calling out actual fake news stories to simply using the term to refer to any news he doesn’t like or that isn’t favorable to him. What’s worse, now others are doing it too. From every day media consumers to communications professionals and their staffs, the term has taken on a life of its own. For those of us in the press and media, Trump’s “fake news” rallying cry has become the catch-phrase for people from both sides of the aisle when they don’t like what a news story is saying. Don’t agree with the facts as described by a news story or journalist no matter how balanced the reporting? Just decry it as “fake news.” We at Alabama Today have been dealing with a “fake news story” just this morning. There are few things as infuriating as trying to explain to the subject of a piece, or their staff for that matter, that their dislike of the facts does not render the news fake. Politicians are human.They make mistakes and sometimes what they do or say is misinterpreted. Then again, sometimes what they do or say is exactly how they meant it and they just don’t like that someone’s writing a story about it. I’ve seen it all. Moreover, I’ve lived it from the other side as a communications professional as well. Let’s not parse words when someone is calling a story or an outlet “fake news.” Their intent to discredit the story. Sometimes it’s an effort to discredit the people behind it, sometimes it’s an effort to discredit those who wrote it, but all in all it’s generally a way of deflection. And a lazy one at that. While there are reporters whose bias is so clear that their reporting is generally skewed one way or another, that’s certainly not every reporter and every outlet. Nor is it anyone on the Alabama Today team. I personally chuckle a little when someone says an editorial I wrote is “fake news.” Editorials are opinion pieces. How can you say my opinion is fake? You’re not discrediting me at that point, you’re showing an ignorance to the fact that news outlets provide two types of content: news and editorial. There is a difference between the two. My editorial isn’t fake news just because you don’t like it. Screaming “fake news” — and I’m seeing the left, and the right, do it these days — is an intellectually dishonest and lazy cop-out. Rather than saying something is “fake news,” be specific about your objections and voice those in a mature way. That goes for any subjects of so-called “fake news,” as well as readers. I found myself explaining to someone today that a media outlet’s job is to report relevant and timely facts (yes, facts, not opinion), and then allow the reader decide what to make of those facts. We need to do better job of this as a society. We need to do better as political and communications professionals and stop trying to vilify those who are putting information in the hands of readers, listeners or watchers, or whatever medium people are getting their news through, and allow them decide what they think on their own. Let’s reserve screaming “fake news” for stories about Big Foot and Elvis sightings.
Martha Roby goes after POLITICO for fake news
Taking a page straight from President Donald Trump’s playbook, Alabama 2nd District U.S. Rep. Martha Roby is calling out “fake news” just like Trump has on countless occasions. On Tuesday, Roby stood up to POLITICO for a piece they published the day before titled “President Trump’s enemies list” that purported she is on said list, calling the story “fake news.” “The term ‘fake news’ gets thrown around a lot lately, but this narrative from Politico really is pure fiction,” Todd Stacy, a spokesman for Roby, said in an email to Alabama Today. “Some in the media have a hard time accepting that Republicans are united and working together to advance a conservative agenda. The facts are that Rep. Roby has a good working relationship with the White House; she has been invited to several meetings with the President and Ivanka Trump; she has been clear and consistent about supporting the President’s policy agenda. But those facts don’t line up with Politico’s narrative of Republican infighting, so they get buried or tossed aside.” Stacy explained to Alabama Today that no such “enemies list” exists and that POLITICO is creating a story where one doesn’t exist simply because the Congresswoman is now working to advance conservative issues with the President, despite the fact she disagreed with the derogatory comments he made about women in a 2005 Access Hollywood video. “Fake news” is nothing new in the world of journalism, but it is a relatively new term to the American public that caught on at the end of 2016, after Trump began tweeting about it to describe stories that were complete fabrications. Reports by @CNN that I will be working on The Apprentice during my Presidency, even part time, are ridiculous & untrue – FAKE NEWS! — Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) December 10, 2016 In the months that have followed, Trump has turned the phrase into one of his most popular on social media. But in Roby’s office, it’s not a term they use lightly. Stacy confirmed this is the first time he has gone on record calling an article “fake news,” signifying just how “fake” they believe the POLITICO piece to be.
Retracted CNN story a boon for president at war with media
For a president seemingly at perpetual war with “fake news,” the resignation of three CNN journalists over a retracted story about a Donald Trump Russian connection is a gift from the political gods when the struggling effort to pass a health bill dominates the headlines. The White House quickly took advantage Tuesday with blistering presidential tweets and a media scolding at the afternoon press briefing. Conservative provocateur James O’Keefe piled on by releasing a video with a CNN producer caught on camera talking about the network’s Russia coverage being ratings-driven. CNN late Monday accepted the resignations of journalists Thomas Frank, Eric Lichtblau and Lex Haris over last week’s web story about Trump aide Anthony Scaramucci‘s pre-inaugural meeting with the head of a Russian investment fund. The network retracted the story on Friday and apologized to Scaramucci. Trump has been unhappy with CNN since he was a candidate, and has been particularly annoyed by its reporting on connections with Russia. The misstep on a relatively minor story – it was never mentioned on any of CNN’s television networks – left some White House staff members jubilant, believing it handed them a new talking point to use as a cudgel against mainstream media organizations they feel are largely biased against them. That happened quickly Tuesday when Sarah Huckabee Sanders called on a Breitbart News reporter for the first question of the White House briefing. It was about CNN. She said the “constant barrage of fake news” at the president has frustrated Trump. She called stories about Russia and Trump “a hoax” that is distracting from other news. Sanders urged all Americans to watch a video posted by O’Keefe’s Project Veritas featuring CNN producer John Bonifield – even though she couldn’t vouch for its accuracy. “If it is accurate, I think it’s a disgrace to all of media, to all of journalism,” Sanders said. “I think that if we have gone to a place where the media can’t be trusted to report the news, then that’s a dangerous place for America. And I think if that is that place that certain outlets are going – particularly for the purpose of spiking ratings, and if that’s coming directly from the top, I think that’s even more scary.” She was interrupted by reporter Brian Karem of the Sentinel newspapers, who accused Sanders of inflaming anti-media sentiment. “Everyone in this room is only trying to do their job,” he said. Sanders ignored CNN reporter Jeff Zeleny‘s attempt to ask a question before ending her briefing. After Sanders left the stage, she was criticized on Fox News Channel, where Trump-friendly views usually dominate. Wall Street Journal editor John Bussey told Fox’s Shepard Smith that “the White House could actually learn from CNN’s example” about being forthright when caught saying something untrue. Earlier in the day, Trump tweeted that “they caught Fake News CNN cold.” He lumped ABC, CBS, NBC, The New York Times and The Washington Post together in the same “fake news” category. He said that “CNN is looking at big management changes now that they got caught falsely pushing their phony Russian stories. Ratings way down!” A spokeswoman for CNN chief Jeff Zucker didn’t respond to a request for comment on Tuesday. CNN’s public relations staff refuted Trump’s notion that the network is hurting, saying it is completing the most-watched second quarter in its history. The president was livid at CNN’s story but also felt vindicated because it seemed to confirm his belief that the cable network was trying to undermine his presidency, according to one staffer who demanded anonymity to discuss private conversations. The CNN issue enables the White House to change the subject for what has been a rough stretch for the presidency, with constant questions about the Russia probe and a vote on the Republican health care bill delayed. Aides also believe that highlighting media mistakes could be a useful way of questioning reporters’ credibility and convincing supporters that Trump was the victim of a witch hunt. Trump’s son, Donald Trump Jr., tweeted a link to the Bonifield video. Besides talking about ratings, the Atlanta-based producer in CNN’s medical unit said the network has no “smoking gun” showing wrongdoing by Trump and that “the president is probably right to say, look, you are witch-hunting me.” CNN said in a statement that it is standing by Bonifield. “Diversity of personal opinion is what makes CNN strong,” CNN said. “We welcome it and embrace it.” O’Keefe told The Associated Press that Project Veritas got the video on Friday and that a portion, in an elevator, was recorded at CNN’s headquarters. He said that Project Veritas plans to release another video involving another CNN employee, with the timing dependent on how CNN reacts to the Bonifield material. O’Keefe and Project Veritas have a track record of aiding Republican causes, often by using hidden cameras and hiding identities, and Trump’s nonprofit foundation has made two $10,000 donations to the organization. His sting operation led to the downfall of ACORN, a community organizing group that O’Keefe portrayed as engaging in criminal activity via hidden camera. Before last November’s election, Project Veritas released a series of heavily edited videos that included a Democratic activist appearing to brag about deploying troublemakers at Trump rallies. The fallout included the two people most prominently featured, Scott Foval and Robert Creamer, cutting ties with the Democratic National Committee. Creamer’s firm recently sued Project Veritas alleging the sting violated federal wiretap law. O’Keefe declined to discuss how the Bonifield video came about. O’Keefe said his efforts are journalistic and, since they include video, he contends that it is more believable than media stories based on anonymous sources. The retracted CNN story was heavily dependent upon one anonymous source. One social media exchange about the CNN story indicated how feelings about the network were running strong among Trump supporters. John Podhoretz, a conservative columnist for The New York Post and editor of Commentary magazine tweeted that “CNN published a bad story, pulled it,
Donald Trump marks his first month with tweets, turmoil
One month after the inauguration, the stretch of Pennsylvania Avenue in front of Donald Trump‘s White House still is a hard-hat zone. Skeletal remains of the inaugural reviewing stands poke skyward. Random piles of plywood and cables are heaped on the ground inside crooked lines of metal fencing. The disarray outside the president’s front door, though not his fault, serves as a metaphor for the tumult still unfolding inside. Four weeks in, the man who says he inherited “a mess” at home and abroad is presiding over a White House that is widely described as itself being a mess. At a stunning pace, Trump has riled world leaders and frustrated allies. He was dealt a bruising legal blow on one of his signature policies. He lost his national security adviser and his pick for labor secretary to scandal. He’s seen forces within his government push back against his policies and leak confidential information. All of this has played out amid a steady drip of revelations about an FBI investigation into his campaign’s contacts with Russian intelligence officials. Trump says his administration is running like a “fine-tuned machine.” He points to the rising stock market and the devotion of his still-loyal supporters as evidence that all is well, although his job approval rating is much lower than that for prior presidents in their first weeks in office. Stung by the unrelenting criticism coming his way, Trump dismisses much of it as “fake news” delivered by “the enemy of the people” — aka the press. Daily denunciations of the media are just one of the new White House fixtures Americans are adjusting to. Most days start (and end) with presidential tweets riffing off of whatever’s on TV talk shows or teasing coming events or hurling insults at the media. At some point in the day, count on Trump to cast back to the marvels of his upset of Democrat Hillary Clinton in the November election and quite possibly overstate his margins of support. Expect more denunciations of the “dishonest” press and its “fake news.” From there, things can veer in unexpected directions as Trump offers up policy pronouncements or offhand remarks that leave even White House aides struggling to interpret them. The long-standing U.S. policy of seeking a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict? Trump this past week offered this cryptic pronouncement: “I’m looking at two-state and one-state, and I like the one that both parties like. I can live with either one.” His U.N. ambassador, Nikki Haley, the next day insisted, “We absolutely support a two-state solution.” Trump’s days are busy. Outside groups troop in for “listening sessions.” Foreign leaders call or come to visit. (Or, in the case of Mexico’s president, cancel out in pique over Trump’s talk about the planned border wall.) After the president signed two dozen executive actions, the White House was awaiting a rush order of more of the gold-plated Cross pens that Trump prefers to the chrome-plated ones used by his predecessor. Trump hands them out as souvenirs at the signing ceremonies that he points to as evidence of his ambitious pace. “This last month has represented an unprecedented degree of action on behalf of the great citizens of our country,” Trump said at a Thursday news conference. “Again, I say it. There has never been a presidency that’s done so much in such a short period of time.” That’s all music to the ears of his followers, who sent him to Washington to upend the established order and play the role of disrupter. “I can’t believe there’s actually a politician doing what he says he would do,” says an approving Scott Hiltgen, a 66-year-old office furniture sales broker from River Falls, Wisconsin. “That never happens.” Disrupt Trump has. But there may be more sound and fury than substance to many of his early actions. Trump did select Judge Neil Gorsuch to replace the late Antonin Scalia on the Supreme Court, a nomination that has drawn strong reviews from conservatives. But the president is regrouping on immigration after federal judges blocked his order to suspend the United States’ refugee program and ban visitors from seven Muslim-majority countries, which had caused chaos for travelers around the globe. Some other orders on issues such as the U.S.-Mexico border wall and former President Barack Obama’s health care law are of limited effect. Trump says his early actions show he means to deliver on the promises he made during the campaign. “A lot of people say, ‘Oh, oh, Trump was only kidding with the wall,’” the president told a group of police chiefs recently. “I wasn’t kidding. I don’t kid.” But the Republican-led Congress is still waiting to see specifics on how Trump wants to proceed legislatively on top initiatives such as replacing the health care law, enacting tax cuts and revising trade deals. The messy rollout of the travel ban and tumult over the ouster of national security adviser Michael Flynn for misrepresenting his contacts with Russia are part of a broader state of disarray as different figures in Trump’s White House jockey for power and leaks reveal internal discord in the machinations of the presidency. “I thought by now you’d at least hear the outlines of domestic legislation like tax cuts,” says Princeton historian Julian Zelizer. “But a lot of that has slowed. Trump shouldn’t mistake the fact that some of his supporters like his style with the fact that a lot of Republicans just want the policies he promised them. He has to deliver that.” Put Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., in the camp of those more interested in substance than style. “I’m not a great fan of daily tweets,” McConnell said Friday, referring to the “extra discussion” that Trump likes to engage in. But McConnell was quick to add: “What I am a fan of is what he’s been actually doing.” He credits Trump with assembling a conservative Cabinet and taking steps to reduce government regulation, and promised: “We like his positions and
White House taps billionaire to head intelligence review
The Trump administration asked the founder of a New York-based private equity firm to lead a review of the intelligence community as President Donald Trump vows to crack down on what he describes as “illegal leaks” of classified information. A senior White House official said Thursday that Stephen Feinberg of Cerberus Capital Management has been asked to head the review of the various intelligence agencies and make recommendations on improvements to efficiency and coordination between the various intelligence agencies. The official was not authorized to discuss private personnel matters and spoke on condition of anonymity. The official said that Feinberg’s role is not official until he completes an ethics review. The president has vowed to crack down on leaks and add new oversight over intelligence. His moves have not been well received and look to many like retaliation against intelligence officials who are investigating his campaign aides’ ties to Russia. Trump on Tuesday tweeted, “The real scandal here is that classified information is illegally given out by “intelligence” like candy. Very un-American!” On Thursday, he accused Democrats of planting “fake news” stories on Russia in retaliation for their loss in the general election. Republished with permission of The Associated Press.
Donald Trump says White House ‘fine-tuned machine,’ despite turmoil
Donald Trump mounted an aggressive defense of his young presidency Thursday, lambasting reports that his campaign advisers had inappropriate contact with Russian officials and vowing to crack down on the leaking of classified information. Nearly a month into his presidency, Trump insisted in a freewheeling White House news conference that his new administration had made “significant progress” and took credit for an optimistic business climate and a rising stock market. The president denounced media reports of a chaotic start to his administration marked by his contentious executive order — rejected by a federal appeals court — to place a ban on travelers from seven predominantly Muslim nations. Trump said he would announce a “new and very comprehensive order to protect our people” next week. “This administration is running like a fine-tuned machine,” Trump declared in a lengthy news conference that saw the new commander in chief repeatedly interrupting reporters’ questions and airing his grievances. Throughout the encounter the new president delivered recurring criticism of the news media, accusing it of being “out of control” and promising to take his message “straight to the people.” He dismissed recent reports in The New York Times and on CNN that Trump campaign aides had been in contact with Russian officials before his election. Trump called Paul Manafort, his former campaign manager who has ties to Ukraine and Russia, a “respected man.” Pressed repeatedly, Trump said that “nobody that I know of” on his campaign staff had contacted Russian officials. He called such reports a “ruse” and said he had “nothing to do with Russia.” Trump added, “Russia is fake news. This is fake news put out by the media.” Amid reports of widespread leaks within his administration, Trump also warned that he would clamp down on the dissemination of sensitive information, saying he had asked the Justice Department to investigate. “Those are criminal leaks,” adding, “The leaks are real. The news is fake.” He blamed any problems on the outgoing Obama administration. “I inherited a mess at home and abroad — a mess,” Trump said. The president announced that Alexander Acosta, the dean of the Florida International University law school, would be his nominee for Labor secretary. That came a day after fast-food executive Andrew Puzder withdrew his nomination for Labor after losing support among Republican senators. Trump, a reality television star and real estate mogul who was elected as an outsider intent on change, said his ousted national security adviser, Michael Flynn, was “just doing his job” in talking with Russian officials before the inauguration. But he said he was “not happy” with how Flynn described his phone call with a Russian diplomat to Vice President Mike Pence. Trump knew for weeks that Flynn had misled Pence but did not inform the vice president, according to a timeline of events supplied by the White House. Trump said he had identified a strong replacement for Flynn, which made the decision to let him go easier. Trump is said to favor Vice Admiral Robert Harward, a former Navy SEAL, as his next national security adviser, according to a White House official. Harward met with top White House officials last week and has the backing of Defense Secretary Jim Mattis. He was meeting with officials later Thursday. Addressing immigration, one of the biggest issues of the past campaign, Trump said it was difficult dealing with the policy known as DACA, which allows young adults to get work permits and Social Security numbers and protects them from deportation. Referring to the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals rule, he said he would “deal with DACA with heart.” While Trump has promised to halt illegal immigration as a cornerstone of his administration, he has also promised to focus on people who have committed crimes. He said he had the “best lawyers” working on the policy now and the “new executive order is being tailored to the decision we got from the court.” Earlier in the day, Trump had a breakfast meeting with some of his staunchest House supporters. The White House has said Trump asked for Flynn’s resignation because he had misled Vice President Mike Pence over his dealings with Russia and whether he had discussed sanctions with Russia’s ambassador to the U.S. before Trump’s Jan. 20 inauguration. Flynn previously had denied those conversations to Pence and other top officials. On Thursday, he warned in a pair of tweets that “lowlife leakers” of classified information will be caught. As journalists were being escorted out of the breakfast meeting, Trump responded to a reporter’s question on the subject by saying: “We’re going to find the leakers” and “they’re going to pay a big price.” Republished with permission of The Associated Press.
