ReportWire

Tag: iab-media industry

  • Vox Media announces new hosts of iconic Code Conference after Kara Swisher’s departure | CNN Business

    Vox Media announces new hosts of iconic Code Conference after Kara Swisher’s departure | CNN Business

    [ad_1]


    New York
    CNN
     — 

    Vox Media is gearing up for its first Code Conference without Kara Swisher at the helm.

    The invite-only event, which attracts top technology executives and journalists, will be hosted by The Verge Editor-In-Chief Nilay Patel, Platformer founder Casey Newton and CNBC senior media and tech reporter Julia Boorstin, Vox Media told CNN on Wednesday.

    Swisher, the journalist who co-founded the news-making conference with reporter Walt Mossberg and hosted it for the past two decades, will still participate in the conference, albeit in a less outsized role.

    “This year, there will be more to discuss than ever,” Jim Bankoff, chief executive of Vox Media, told CNN. “Code will build on Kara’s legacy, and we’ll continue to evolve the conference to best serve its audience. We’re proud to announce three new hosts, who are also leaders in tech journalism.”

    A version of this article first appeared in the “Reliable Sources” newsletter. Sign up for the daily digest chronicling the evolving media landscape here.

    The conference, which will take place September 26 to 27, will also switch locations. It will be hosted at the Ritz Carlton, Laguna Niguel.

    “Code is also about what happens off-stage,” Bankoff acknowledged. “It has always been a community for C-suiters and up-and-comers alike to gather, compare notes and make things happen.”

    “Personally, I’ve attended since the early days,” Bankoff added. “I was fortunate to be in the audience for so many of the iconic interviews. I’ve also benefited from the networking.”

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Warner Bros. Discovery unveils super-streamer ‘Max’ | CNN Business

    Warner Bros. Discovery unveils super-streamer ‘Max’ | CNN Business

    [ad_1]


    New York
    CNN
     — 

    Warner Bros. Discovery on Wednesday unveiled “Max,” its high-stakes super-streamer that unites some of the company’s most storied brands under one roof and aims to aggressively compete in the streaming marketplace as the traditional linear television business rapidly declines.

    The new service, announced by CEO David Zaslav at a press event Wednesday, will launch May 23 and give consumers access to a large library of programming across Warner Bros. Discovery’s sprawling portfolio: Warner Bros., HBO, HGTV, Food Network, Cartoon Network, TLC and others.

    “It’s the one to watch,” Zaslav said, referencing the service’s tagline, “because we have so many of the world’s iconic and globally recognized franchises. It’s our superpower.” The streaming platform is a service “every member of the household” can go to for entertainment, he added.

    Max subscribers can choose from three price tiers. The least expensive is $9.99 a month and will show ads. The ad-free version will cost $15.99, the price of the company’s existing HBO Max service. That tier will let customers stream on two devices at once and download up to 30 titles, but the content will be available only in high-definition rather than 4K.

    Users who want the higher-resolution 4K streams will have to buy the Max “ultimate plan” for $19.99 a month, which includes up to four concurrent streams, 100 downloads and Dolby Atmos sound.

    Existing HBO Max customers will be transitioned to the new service without any action on their part. Those users, said, a spokesperson for Warner Bros. Discovery told CNN, can keep existing features like 4K HDR resolution for a limited period before being prompted to move into the “ultimate plan.”

    The Max platform was borne of the mega-merger announced between WarnerMedia and Discovery in 2021 and completed last year. Warner Bros. Discovery is also the parent company of CNN.

    Company executives have touted the combined streaming service as unique in its content mix: It packages award-winning prestige programming like HBO’s “Succession” and “House of the Dragon” with unscripted shows like HGTV’s “Fixer Upper” and TLC’s “90 Day Fiancé.”

    Zaslav also hinted that news and sports programming will factor into the service in the future, given that Warner Bros. Discovery owns properties such as Turner Sports and CNN.

    “We are a global leader in sports and we are a global leader in news,” Zaslav said. “And in a few months we will come back to you on our attack plan to use this important and differentiating content to grow our streaming business even further.”

    The Max service represents the future for Warner Bros. Discovery, which has been entrenched in a traditional TV business that is declining as audiences switch to streaming.

    Other companies enmeshed in the cable business have also moved in recent years to launch streaming platforms, including Disney

    (DIS)
    , NBC, and Paramount. But none of these companies have achieved the success of Netflix

    (NFLX)
    , which pioneered the streaming business and has more than 230 million global subscribers.

    Warner Bros. Discovery hopes that it will amass 130 million subscribers by 2025. At the launch event, the company’s streaming chief Jean-Briac Perrette discussed several improvements to the HBO Max interface to increase retention and engagement, adding that the company had invested in machine learning so home feeds can recommend content using a “human-plus-machine approach.”

    But subscriber growth for streaming services has slowed in recent years as the market becomes more saturated. Some companies have introduced lower-priced ad-supported plans to draw people in.

    Increasingly, executives have moved to highlight profitability over subscriber growth as the most important barometer for a company’s success. Netflix even announced last year that it would stop providing guidance for its membership, stating that the company is “increasingly focused on revenue as our primary top-line metric.”

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • NPR stops using Twitter after receiving ‘government funded media’ label | CNN Business

    NPR stops using Twitter after receiving ‘government funded media’ label | CNN Business

    [ad_1]


    New York
    CNN
     — 

    NPR on Wednesday said that it is suspending its use of Twitter after clashing with the social media company and its owner Elon Musk over a controversial new “state-affiliated media” label applied to its accounts.

    “NPR’s organizational accounts will no longer be active on Twitter because the platform is taking actions that undermine our credibility by falsely implying that we are not editorially independent,” the broadcaster said in a statement. “We are not putting our journalism on platforms that have demonstrated an interest in undermining our credibility and the public’s understanding of our editorial independence.”

    Late last week, Twitter labeled the radio broadcaster as a “state-affiliated media” organization akin to foreign propaganda outlets such as Russia’s RT and Sputnik. The move was quickly rebuked by NPR, which is publicly funded by listeners. NPR CEO John Lansing called the label “unacceptable.” Twitter over the weekend updated the label to “government-funded media.”

    In a final series of tweets — its first in over a week — NPR noted other places its work can be found, including through its app and newsletters, as well as on other social media platforms.

    “Millions of Americans depend on NPR and their local public radio stations for the fact-based, independent, public service journalism they need to stay informed about the world and about their own communities,” Lansing said in an email to NPR staff Wednesday. “It would be a disservice to the serious work you all do here to continue to share it on a platform that is associating the federal charter for public media with an abandoning of editorial independence or standards.”

    The move threatens to undermine one of Twitter’s key selling points — its role as a central hub for news — especially if other outlets follow in NPR’s footsteps. Twitter has also faced backlash over applying a similar “government funded media” label to the BBC, which is also primarily funded by the public.

    In an interview with the BBC Tuesday, Musk acknowledged the pushback, saying, “I know the BBC … was not thrilled about being labeled ‘state affiliated media.’”

    “Our goal is simply to … be as truthful and accurate as possible,” Musk said, adding that he planned to update the BBC’s label to “publicly funded.”

    It’s just the latest example of Musk antagonizing media outlets. Twitter earlier this month also targeted the New York Times by removing the blue verification checkmark from its main account, after previously pledging to remove checks from all users verified under Twitter’s legacy system. And the platform riled some journalists when it briefly restricted users from sharing links to a popular newsletter platform, a move it quickly walked back.

    Meanwhile, Twitter also appears to have removed some restrictions on Russian government accounts that had been put in place following the outset of Russia’s war in Ukraine. “All news is to some degree propaganda. Let people decide for themselves,” Musk said in a tweet commenting on the decision Sunday.

    The chaos comes as Musk attempts to shore up Twitter’s business, which he has repeatedly said was on the brink of bankruptcy and had just “four months to live” following his takeover.

    Twitter has faced an exodus of advertisers, who have been concerned about increased hate speech on the platform and massive cuts to the company’s workforce. In the meantime, Musk has taken on the uphill battle of encouraging users to pay $8 per month for the platform’s subscription service.

    It’s “not fun at all” and can sometimes be “painful,” the billionaire CEO told the BBC Tuesday of running the company, although he suggested that some Twitter advertisers are returning to the platform.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Shares in Regal Cinemas’ owner hit all-time low | CNN Business

    Shares in Regal Cinemas’ owner hit all-time low | CNN Business

    [ad_1]


    London
    CNN
     — 

    Cineworld’s stock plummeted 36% Tuesday afternoon to an all-time low after the company said it had filed a plan to reorganize its business and shareholders would not recover any of their funds.

    The embattled owner of Regal Cinemas said it had submitted a final version of the plan to a US bankruptcy court in Texas. It first announced details of the proposal on April 3.

    The company said already back in February that it expected shareholders to be wiped out entirely by the bankruptcy process, even if it sold some of its businesses.

    “The proposed restructuring does not provide for any recovery for holders of Cineworld’s existing equity interests,” the company confirmed in a statement Tuesday.

    Under the plan, Cineworld’s lenders will cut its debt by $4.5 billion in exchange for equity in the reorganized company.

    Sophie Lund-Yates, lead equity analyst at Hargreaves Lansdown, described the market reaction to Cineworld’s announcement Tuesday as “severe.”

    Confirmation of the plan had “extinguished any remaining hope from shareholders that this route could be avoided,” she told CNN.

    Like many of its competitors, the world’s second-biggest movie theater operator was hit hard by the pandemic, reporting a combined loss of $3.3 billion over 2020 and 2021. It filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy in the United States in September.

    Cineworld shares have lost 98% of their value since the company listed on the London Stock Exchange in 2007. They were last trading at 1.1 pence (1.4 cents).

    The stock closed 33% lower on April 3 after the company announced its reorganization plan and said it would halt all efforts to sell its US, UK and Irish businesses.

    Tuesday’s stock declines came as “remaining equity holders rushed to sell their shares in an attempt to recoup something,” Victoria Scholar, head of investment at Interactive Investor, an online trading platform, told CNN.

    Cineworld reiterated that it hoped the restructuring plan — which the court and some of the company’s creditors have yet to approve — would help it emerge from Chapter 11 bankruptcy in the first half of this year. In the meantime, Cineworld said, its movie theaters will continue to operate “as usual without interruption.”

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • ‘The Super Mario Bros. Movie’ wins big at the box office with record opening | CNN

    ‘The Super Mario Bros. Movie’ wins big at the box office with record opening | CNN

    [ad_1]



    CNN
     — 

    “The Super Mario Bros. Movie” powered up at the box office with an impressive opening.

    The movie ran up the score with more than $200 million in the US and Canada for its five-day opening run, according to a news release, and an estimated $377 million worldwide – the latter topping the box office launch record for an animated movie, previously held by “Frozen 2.”

    It marks the biggest global box office opening of the year, with “Super Mario Bros.” standing ahead of “Ant-Man and the Wasp: Quantumania,” which brought in the $225.3 million during its February opening.

    The movie is based on the world of Nintendo’s classic 1985 “Super Mario” video games and stars Chris Pratt as Mario, Charlie Day as Luigi and Anya Taylor-Joy as Princess Peach.

    Jack Black, Keegan-Michael Key, Seth Rogen, Fred Armisen, Kevin Michael Richardson and Sebastian Maniscalco round out the cast.

    Actor Charles Martinet, Mario’s longtime official voice in the games – who many gamer purists felt should have been cast as the titular character instead of Pratt – makes a special appearance in the movie.

    “Super Mario Bros.” follows Brooklyn plumbers Mario and Luigi as they’re transported down a mysterious pipe while working underground to fix a water main. The brothers wander into a “magical new world” and when they’re separated, “Mario embarks on an epic quest to find Luigi,” according to a synopsis on the movie’s website.

    The solid opening is a healthy sign for movie theaters headed into the summer box office season, with the next “Guardians of the Galaxy” movie, also starring Pratt, kicking off in May.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Before Las Vegas mass shooting, a friend of the gunman implored him not to ‘shoot or kill innocent people,’ newspaper reports | CNN

    Before Las Vegas mass shooting, a friend of the gunman implored him not to ‘shoot or kill innocent people,’ newspaper reports | CNN

    [ad_1]



    CNN
     — 

    A friend of Stephen Paddock, who carried out the deadliest mass shooting in modern US history in Las Vegas in 2017, said in letters that he was concerned about Paddock committing a shooting and asked him not to “shoot or kill innocent people,” according to writings obtained by the Las Vegas Review-Journal.

    Ten letters, which were obtained through a public records request, were “found in late November 2017 by the new owners of an abandoned office building in Mesquite, Texas,” according to FBI records, the newspaper reported. CNN has requested the records.

    “I can get someone for you who can help you,” Jim Nixon, Paddock’s friend, wrote in a letter dated May 27, 2017, according to the newspaper. “Please don’t go out shooting or hurting people who did nothing to you. I am concern [sic] about the way you are talking and believe you are going to do something very bad. Steve please please don’t do what I think you are going to do.”

    In October 2017, Paddock opened fire on a massive crowd of concertgoers from a window of the Mandalay Bay Resort and Casino, killing 58 people in the initial shooting and injuring about 500 others. In the years after the massacre, two more victims have /died of shooting-related injuries.

    Paddock sent nine of the letters to Nixon between 2013 and June 2017, according to the report.None were shared in their entirety by the Review-Journal.

    Nixon told CNN he exchanged letters with Paddock about two or three times a year.

    They first met “around 2010 or 2011” in Virginia and developed a “good relationship,” he said. Nixon said after they became acquainted, he invited Paddock to Nevada to go fishing at Lake Mead and off-road biking in the desert.

    Nixon said there were never any problems with their relationship, but later Paddock became “bitter at the system” and started “talking a lot about death.” Paddock mentioned “going postal,” which made Nixon concerned about Paddock’s well-being, Nixon told CNN.

    Nixon asked in a letter from August 2014 about a statement Paddock allegedly made about executing an upcoming plan, the Review-Journal said.

    “You said in (3) years you would be ready and that your plan would show up in Nevada, California, Illinois, Texas, New York and other cities,” the Review-Journal reported one letter said. “What do you mean?”

    In another letter dated March 2, 2017, Nixon wrote: “You must going [sic] on a hunting trip with all those guns you are stockpiling,” according to the newspaper.

    “You are a good person and I want you to know that I am concern [sic] about you and your wellbeing,” Nixon wrote in the letter dated May 27, 2017, the Review-Journal reported. “I believe you are lying to me and you are going to hurt someone or kill someone. You sound like a real mad man on the phone tonight.”

    Nixon told CNN that he never conveyed his concerns about Paddock to authorities because “he didn’t know [Paddock] was going to do anything” and “couldn’t read [Paddock’s] mind.”

    Nixon said he didn’t believe Paddock did it when the first reports identifying the suspect surfaced. But when authorities was confirmed it was Paddock, he said he thought, “Damn, that fool.”

    About 22,000 people were attending a country music festival across the street from the Mandalay Bay on October 1, 2017, when Paddock opened fire. Witnesses said the gunfire last 10 to 15 minutes. Paddock, 64, took his own life before law enforcement officers knocked down his door, officials said.

    Authorities at the time said they found 23 guns in the room, and 24 more at his two homes.

    Investigators have for years searched for a motive. Recently, the FBI released a trove of documents that indicate he may have harbored resentment over how casinos treated him and other high rollers.

    The heavily redacted documents – which include hundreds of pages of investigation records, evidence inventories and interviews with people who knew Paddock – also provide a fuller picture of the gunman’s obsessive gambling habits.

    Still, the investigative documents never arrive at a definitive motive.

    The FBI opened its investigation the day after the massacre at the Route 91 Harvest music festival and closed it more than a year later, announcing it had found no clear motive for Paddock’s attack.

    Though the FBI said in 2019 that Paddock’s actions were not driven by a grievance against any particular casino or hotel, one fellow gambler interviewed by investigators after the attack said Paddock had become angry about how casinos generally dealt with VIP players.

    The gambler, whose name is redacted, told the FBI that Paddock was “upset at the way casinos were treating him and other high rollers” and that he believed the frustration could have caused the gunman to “snap,” according to the documents.

    The gambler said that while casinos typically treated high rollers to perks like free cruises and flights, he believed the venues’ approach to such players had changed in the years leading up to the shooting, including banning them from some hotels or casinos, the documents said.

    Paddock had been banned from three casinos he frequented in Reno, Nevada, the gambler said.

    The gambler also believed the Mandalay Bay “was not treating Paddock well because a player of his status should have been in a higher floor in a penthouse suite.”

    Due to the redactions, it is unclear how the gambler knew Paddock.

    In order to become the priority player he believed he was, Paddock had spent – and lost – exorbitant amounts of money at casinos, according to people interviewed by the FBI.

    The fellow gambler told investigators that Paddock had a bankroll of about $2 million to $3 million, the documents said.

    He would regularly play for six to eight hours a day at casinos, and sometimes as many as 18 hours a day, the gambler said.

    Investigators also spoke with a woman who worked at the Tropicana Las Vegas casino and resort – just down the Strip from the Mandalay Bay – who said Paddock would visit about every three months, according to the documents.

    She described Paddock as a “prolific video poker player” who would only want to discuss gambling when they talked, the documents said.

    During a three-day stay at the casino in September 2017, Paddock lost $38,000, she told the FBI.

    Real estate agents told CNN in 2017 that Paddock said his income came from gambling and that he gambled about $1 million a year. He paid $369,022 in cash for the home they sold him in 2014, the agents said.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Russia charges Wall Street Journal’s Evan Gershkovich with espionage | CNN

    Russia charges Wall Street Journal’s Evan Gershkovich with espionage | CNN

    [ad_1]



    CNN
     — 

    Russian investigators have formally charged Wall Street Journal reporter Evan Gershkovich with espionage, Russian state media reported Friday, adding he denied the accusations. 

    “The FSB investigation charged Gershkovich with espionage in the interests of his country. He categorically denied all accusations and stated that he was engaged in journalistic activities in Russia,” an agency representative said, according to state news agency TASS. 

    The representative declined to comment further, as the journalist’s case was marked “top secret,” according to TASS. 

    Gershkovich was detained by Russian authorities last week, who accused him of spying, signaling a significant ratcheting of both Moscow’s tensions with the United States and its campaign against foreign news media.

    A Moscow court on April 18 will hear an appeal filed by Gershkovich’s lawyers against his arrest, Russian state media said citing the court. The correspondent is currently held in the notorious Leftereovo pre-detention center until May 29.

    Gershkovich’s arrest marks the first time an American journalist has been detained on accusations by Moscow of spying since the Cold War.

    The arrest has been widely condemned by western officials and the Journal vehemently denied the espionage charge against Gershkovich, describing his arrest “a vicious affront to a free press” which “should spur outrage in all free people and governments throughout the world.”

    On Wednesday, Secretary of State Antony Blinken said he urged Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov to release Gershkovich immediately.

    “In my own mind, there’s no doubt that he’s being wrongfully detained by Russia, which is exactly what I said to Foreign Minister Lavrov when I spoke to him over the weekend,” Blinken said during a press conference in Brussels. “But I want to make sure that as always, because there is a formal process, that we go through it and we will, and I expect that to be to be completed soon.”

    CNN reported on Tuesday that the Biden administration is preparing to officially declare Gershkovich as wrongfully detained in Russia, two US officials told CNN, a move that will trigger new US government resources to work towards his release.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Cineworld shares tank after Regal Cinemas owner ditches plans to sell US and UK businesses | CNN Business

    Cineworld shares tank after Regal Cinemas owner ditches plans to sell US and UK businesses | CNN Business

    [ad_1]


    London
    CNN
     — 

    Shares in Cineworld plunged more than 30% Monday, hitting their lowest level since late August, after the owner of Regal Cinemas said it planned to terminate efforts to sell its US, UK and Irish businesses.

    The world’s second-largest movie theater chain also announced a debt restructuring plan with lenders to help it exit bankruptcy. The deal does not provide for any recovery of funds for shareholders, the company said in a statement.

    “This agreement with our lenders represents a ‘vote of confidence’ in our business and significantly advances Cineworld towards achieving its long-term strategy in a changing entertainment environment,” said CEO Mooky Greidinger.

    Cineworld which, like many cinema operators, was hit hard by the pandemic filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection in September. Over the past year, the company’s shares have lost more than 93% of their value.

    Under the proposed debt restructuring, lenders will reduce Cineworld’s debt pile by $4.5 billion and receive equity in the reorganized group; provide $1.46 billion in new debt; and backstop a $800 million share issue.

    The company said it had received offers for its businesses in other parts of the world and was considering them. In addition to the United States, the United Kingdom and Ireland, Cineworld operates cinemas in Poland, the Czech Republic, Slovakia, Hungary, Bulgaria, Romania and Israel.

    It will abandon plans to sell its US, UK and Ireland arms unless it receives an “all-cash bid” significantly higher than the current value of the businesses.

    The British company continues to operate its theaters around the world. After two rounds of closures in the United States, around 500 Cineworld theaters remain across the country.

    The company said in February that it expected shareholders to be wiped out entirely by the bankruptcy process, even in the event of a sale of some of its businesses.

    The pandemic forced movie theaters around the globe to close, dealing a devastating blow to Cineworld and others in the industry, and it is still affecting visitor numbers. Cineworld lost $2.7 billion in 2020 and another $566 million in 2021. It reported another loss, of $294 million, in the six months ending in June 2022.

    Cinema operators are coming up with creative ways to claw back revenue. Cineworld’s larger rival AMC Theaters announced recently that it would price tickets based on seat location, charging extra for more desirable seats in the middle of a theater.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Media organizations, including CNN, seek unsealing of Trump indictment and ask to broadcast Tuesday proceedings | CNN Politics

    Media organizations, including CNN, seek unsealing of Trump indictment and ask to broadcast Tuesday proceedings | CNN Politics

    [ad_1]


    Washington
    CNN
     — 

    Several media outlets, including CNN, have asked a New York judge to unseal the grand jury indictment against former President Donald Trump. The news organizations are also asking for permission to broadcast Trump’s expected appearance in a Manhattan courtroom on Tuesday for his arraignment on the charges.

    In their letter Friday seeking to make the indictment public, the media outlets told Judge Juan Merchan – who is slated to preside over the historic proceedings – that “the right of access is at its zenith when applied to the first ever indictment of a former U.S. president.”

    The New York Times, The Washington Post and The Wall Street Journal are among the outlets making the request.

    “And no higher values are served by keeping the indictment under seal. Aside from the fact that a former U.S. president is not a flight risk, maintaining the indictment under seal, despite the public disclosure of its existence, only fuels speculation as to its contents. Full disclosure of the indictment will enhance both the general public’s and the parties’ right to an accurate public understanding of the charges,” the request said. “As such, former President Trump’s indictment should be unsealed without delay.”

    If the judge does not grant the media outlets’ unsealing request, it is expected that the indictment will be made public when Trump appears in court Tuesday.

    With their request to broadcast those proceedings, the media outlets told the court that “the gravity of this proceeding – the unprecedented and historic arraignment of a former U.S. President – and, consequently, the need for the broadest possible public access, cannot be overstated.”

    The news organizations are asking for a “limited number of photographers, videographers, and radio journalists to be present at the arraignment,” and said in the letter that they are making “this limited request for audio-visual coverage in order to ensure that the operations of the Court will not be disrupted in any way.”

    “The News Organizations stand ready to work cooperatively with the Court to ensure that the public have an opportunity to observe this monumental and historical proceeding,” the media outlets said, while proposing that the court hold a hearing on the matter if it would helpful to making a decision.

    Merchan is expected to issue an order Monday on camera access in the courtroom for Trump’s Tuesday arraignment. On Sunday, he invited lawyers for Trump and for the Manhattan District Attorney’s Office to submit by 1 p.m. Monday any concerns or objections to the media outlets’ request to broadcast the arraignment.

    Trump faces more than 30 counts related to business fraud in the indictment. The investigation by the Manhattan District Attorney’s Office began when Trump was still in the White House and relates to a $130,000 payment made by his then-personal attorney Michael Cohen to adult film star Stormy Daniels in late October 2016, days before the presidential election, to silence her from going public about an alleged affair with Trump a decade earlier.

    Trump has denied the affair.

    This story has been updated with additional information.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • TikTok collects a lot of data. But that’s not the main reason officials say it’s a security risk | CNN Business

    TikTok collects a lot of data. But that’s not the main reason officials say it’s a security risk | CNN Business

    [ad_1]



    CNN
     — 

    After TikTok CEO Shou Chew testified for more than five hours on Thursday before a Congressional committee, one thing was clear: US lawmakers remain convinced that TikTok is an urgent threat to national security.

    The hearing, Chew’s first appearance before Congress, kicked off with a lawmaker calling for TikTok to be banned and remained combative throughout. A number of lawmakers expressed deep skepticism about TikTok’s efforts to safeguard US user data and ease concerns about its ties to China. Nothing Chew said appeared to move the needle.

    The rhetoric inside and outside the hearing room highlighted the growing, bipartisan momentum for cracking down on the app in the United States. As the hearing was taking place, House Speaker Kevin McCarthy said he supports legislation that would effectively ban TikTok; Secretary of State Antony Blinken said TikTok should be “ended one way or another,” and the Treasury Department issued a statement vowing to “safeguard national security,” without mentioning TikTok by name.

    Concerns about TikTok’s connections to China have led governments worldwide to ban the app on official devices, and those fears have factored into the increasingly tense US-China relationship. But the remarks across the federal government on Thursday, combined with a prior threat from the Biden administration to impose a nationwide ban unless TikTok’s Chinese owners sell their stakes, shows that a complete ban of the hugely popular app very much remains a live possibility.

    However, more than two years after the Trump administration first issued a similar threat to TikTok, evidence remains unclear about whether the app is a national security threat. Security experts say the government’s fears, while serious, currently appear to reflect only the potential for TikTok to be used for foreign intelligence, not that it has been. There is still no public evidence the Chinese government has actually spied on people through TikTok.

    TikTok doesn’t operate in China. But since the Chinese government enjoys significant leverage over businesses under its jurisdiction, the theory goes that ByteDance, and thus indirectly, TikTok, could be forced to cooperate with a broad range of security activities, including possibly the transfer of TikTok data.

    “It’s not that we know TikTok has done something, it’s that distrust of China and awareness of Chinese espionage has increased,” said James Lewis, an information security expert at the Center for Strategic and International Studies. “The context for TikTok is much worse as trust in China vanishes.”

    When Rob Joyce, the National Security Agency’s director of cybersecurity, was asked by reporters in December to articulate his security concerns about TikTok, he offered a general warning rather than a specific allegation.

    “People are always looking for the smoking gun in these technologies,” Joyce said. “I characterize it much more as a loaded gun.”

    Technical experts also draw a distinction between the TikTok app — which appears to operate very similarly to American social media in the amount of user tracking and data collection it performs — and TikTok’s approach to governance and ownership. It’s the latter that’s been the biggest source of concern, not the former.

    The US government has said it’s worried China could use its national security laws to access the significant amount of personal information that TikTok, like most social media applications, collects from its US users.

    The laws in question are extraordinarily broad, according to western legal experts, requiring “any organization or citizen” in China to “support, assist and cooperate with state intelligence work,” without defining what “intelligence work” means.

    Should Beijing gain access to TikTok’s user data, one concern is that the information could be used to identify intelligence opportunities — for example, by helping China uncover the vices, predilections or pressure points of a potential spy recruit or blackmail target, or by building a holistic profile of foreign visitors to the country by cross-referencing that data against other databases it holds. Even if many of TikTok’s users are young teens with seemingly nothing to hide, it’s possible some of those Americans may grow up to be government or industry officials whose social media history could prove useful to a foreign adversary.

    Another concern is that if China has a view into TikTok’s algorithm or business operations, it could try to exert pressure on the company to shape what users see on the platform — either by removing content through censorship or by pushing preferred content and propaganda to users. This could have enormous repercussions for US elections, policymaking and other democratic discourse.

    Security experts say these scenarios are a possibility based on what’s publicly known about China’s laws and TikTok’s ownership structure, but stress that they are hypothetical at best. To date, there is no public evidence that Beijing has actually harvested TikTok’s commercial data for intelligence or other purposes.

    Chew, the TikTok CEO, has publicly said that the Chinese government has never asked TikTok for its data, and that the company would refuse any such request. In Thursday’s hearing, Chew said that what US officials fear is a hypothetical scenario that has not been proven.

    “I think a lot of risks that are pointed out are hypothetical and theoretical risks,” Chew said. “I have not seen any evidence. I am eagerly awaiting discussions where we can talk about evidence and then we can address the concerns that are being raised.”

    If there’s a risk, it’s primarily concentrated in the relationship between TikTok’s Chinese parent, ByteDance, and Beijing. The main issue is that the public has few ways of verifying whether or how that relationship, if it exists, might have been exploited.

    TikTok has been erecting technical and organizational barriers that it says will keep US user data safe from unauthorized access. Under the plan, known as Project Texas, the US government and third-party companies such as Oracle would also have some degree of oversight of TikTok’s data practices. TikTok is working on a similar plan for the European Union known as Project Clover.

    But that hasn’t assuaged the doubts of US officials. Multiple lawmakers at the hearing specifically said they were not persuaded by Project Texas. That’s likely because no matter what TikTok does internally, China would still theoretically have leverage over TikTok’s Chinese owners. Exactly what that implies is ambiguous, and because it is ambiguous, it is unsettling.

    In congressional testimony, TikTok has sought to assure US lawmakers it is free from Chinese government influence, but it has not spoken to the degree that ByteDance may be susceptible. TikTok has also acknowledged that some China-based employees have accessed US user data, though it’s unclear for what purpose, and it has disclosed to European users that China-based employees may access their data as part of doing their jobs.

    Multiple privacy and security researchers who’ve examined TikTok’s app say there aren’t any glaring flaws suggesting the app itself is currently spying on people or leaking their information.

    In 2020, The Washington Post worked with a privacy researcher to look under the hood at TikTok, concluding that the app does not appear to collect any more data than your typical mainstream social network. The following year, Pellaeon Lin, a Taiwan-based researcher at the University of Toronto’s Citizen Lab, performed another technical analysis that reached similar conclusions.

    But even if TikTok collects about the same amount of information as Facebook or Twitter, that’s still quite a lot of data, including information about the videos you watch, comments you write, private messages you send, and — if you agree to grant this level of access — your exact geolocation and contact lists. TikTok’s privacy policy also says the company collects your email address, phone number, age, search and browsing history, information about what’s in the photos and videos you upload, and if you consent, the contents of your device’s clipboard so that you can copy and paste information into the app.

    TikTok’s source code closely resembles that of its China-based analogue, Douyin, said Lin in an interview. That implies both apps are developed on the same code base and customized for their respective markets, he said. Theoretically, TikTok could have “privacy-violating hidden features” that can be turned on and off with a tweak to its server code and that the public might not know about, but the limitations of trying to reverse-engineer an app made it impossible for Lin to find out whether those configurations or features exist.

    If TikTok used unencrypted communications protocols, or if it tried to access contact lists or precise geolocation data without permission, or if it moved to circumvent system-level privacy safeguards built into iOS or Android, then that would be evidence of a problem, Lin said. But he found none of those things.

    “We did not find any overt vulnerabilities regarding their communication protocols, nor did we find any overt security problems within the app,” Lin said. “Regarding privacy, we also did not see the TikTok app exhibiting any behaviors similar to malware.”

    TikTok has cited Lin’s research as part of its defense. But Citizen Lab came out swinging this week at the company’s characterizations of the paper, saying in a statement that TikTok has presented the research as “somehow exculpatory” when a key finding was that Lin couldn’t see what happens to user data after it is collected.

    Chew, in a rare moment of apparent frustration, told lawmakers at the hearing that TikTok and Citizen Lab were really saying a version of the same thing. “Citizen Lab is saying they cannot prove a negative, which is what I’ve been trying to do for the last four hours,” he said.

    TikTok has faced claims that its in-app browser tracks its users’ keyboard entries, and that this type of conduct, known as keylogging, could be a security risk. The privacy researcher who performed the analysis last year, Felix Krause, said that keylogging is not an inherently malicious activity, but it theoretically means TikTok could collect passwords, credit card information or other sensitive data that users may submit to websites when they visit them through TikTok’s in-app browser.

    There is no public evidence TikTok has actually done that, however. TikTok has said the keylogging function is used for “debugging, troubleshooting, and performance monitoring,” as well as to detect bots and spam. Other research has shown that the use of keyloggers is extremely widespread in the technology industry. That does not necessarily excuse TikTok or its peers for using a keylogger in the first place, but neither is it proof positive that TikTok’s product, by itself, is any more of a national security threat than other websites.

    There have also been a number of studies that report TikTok is tracking users around the internet even when they are not using the app. By embedding tracking pixels on third-party websites, TikTok can collect information about a website’s visitors, the studies have found. TikTok has said it uses the data to bolster its advertising business. And in this respect, TikTok is not unique: the same tool is used by US tech giants including Facebook-parent Meta and Google on a far larger scale, according to Malwarebytes, a leading cybersecurity firm.

    At the hearing, Chew said the company does keystroke logging to “identify bots,” not to track what users say. He also repeatedly noted that TikTok does not collect more user data than most of its peers in the industry.

    As with the keylogging tech, the fact TikTok uses tracking pixels does not on its own transform the company into a national security threat; the risk is that the Chinese government could compel or influence TikTok, through ByteDance, to abuse its data collection capabilities.

    Separately, a report last year found TikTok was spying on journalists, snooping on their user data and IP addresses to find out when or if certain reporters were sharing the same location as company employees. TikTok later confirmed the incident and ByteDance fired several employees who had improperly accessed the TikTok data of two journalists.

    The circumstances surrounding the incident suggest it was not the type of wide-scale, government-directed intelligence effort that US national security officials primarily fear. Instead, it appeared to be part of a specific internal effort by some ByteDance employees to hunt down leaks to the press, which may be deplorable but hardly uncommon for an organization under public scrutiny. (Nevertheless, the US government is reportedly investigating the incident.)

    Joyce, the NSA’s top cyber official, told reporters in December that what he really worries about is “large-scale influence” campaigns leveraging TikTok’s data, not “individualized targeting through [TikTok] to do malicious things.”

    To date, however, there’s no public evidence of that taking place.

    TikTok may collect an extensive amount of data, much of it quietly, but as far as researchers can tell, it isn’t any more invasive or illegal than what other US tech companies do.

    According to security experts, that’s more a reflection of the broad leeway we’ve given to tech companies in general to handle our data, not an issue that’s unique or specific to TikTok.

    “We have to trust that those companies are doing the right thing with the information and access we’ve provided them,” said Peiter “Mudge” Zatko, a longtime ethical hacker and Twitter’s former head of security who turned whistleblower. “We probably shouldn’t. And this comes down to a concern about the ultimate governance of these companies.”

    Lin told CNN that TikTok and other social media companies’ appetite for data highlights policy failures to pass strong privacy laws that regulate the tech industry writ large.

    “TikTok is only a product of the entire surveillance capitalism economy,” Lin said. “And governments around the world are ignoring their duty to protect citizens’ private information, allowing big tech companies to exploit user information for gain. Governments should try to better protect user information, instead of focusing on one particular app without good evidence.”

    Asked how he would advise policymakers to look at TikTok instead, Lin said: “What I would call for is more evidence-based policy.”

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Lawmakers say TikTok is a national security threat, but evidence remains unclear | CNN Business

    Lawmakers say TikTok is a national security threat, but evidence remains unclear | CNN Business

    [ad_1]



    CNN
     — 

    As TikTok CEO Shou Zi Chew prepares for his first congressional grilling on Thursday, much of the focus will undoubtedly be on the short-form video app’s potential national security risks.

    Concerns about TikTok’s connections to China have led governments worldwide to ban the app on official devices, and those fears have factored into the increasingly tense US-China relationship. The Biden administration has threatened TikTok with a nationwide ban unless its Chinese owners sell their stakes in the company.

    But more than two years after the Trump administration first issued a similar threat to TikTok, security experts say the government’s fears, while serious, currently appear to reflect only the potential for TikTok to be used for foreign intelligence, not that it has been. There is still no public evidence the Chinese government has actually spied on people through TikTok.

    TikTok doesn’t operate in China. But since the Chinese government enjoys significant leverage over businesses under its jurisdiction, the theory goes that ByteDance, and thus indirectly, TikTok, could be forced to cooperate with a broad range of security activities, including possibly the transfer of TikTok data.

    “It’s not that we know TikTok has done something, it’s that distrust of China and awareness of Chinese espionage has increased,” said James Lewis, an information security expert at the Center for Strategic and International Studies. “The context for TikTok is much worse as trust in China vanishes.”

    When Rob Joyce, the National Security Agency’s director of cybersecurity, was asked by reporters in December to articulate his security concerns about TikTok, he offered a general warning rather than a specific allegation.

    “People are always looking for the smoking gun in these technologies,” Joyce said. “I characterize it much more as a loaded gun.”

    Technical experts also draw a distinction between the TikTok app — which appears to operate very similarly to American social media in the amount of user tracking and data collection it performs — and TikTok’s approach to governance and ownership. It’s the latter that’s been the biggest source of concern, not the former.

    The US government has said it’s worried China could use its national security laws to access the significant amount of personal information that TikTok, like most social media applications, collects from its US users.

    The laws in question are extraordinarily broad, according to western legal experts, requiring “any organization or citizen” in China to “support, assist and cooperate with state intelligence work,” without defining what “intelligence work” means.

    Should Beijing gain access to TikTok’s user data, one concern is that the information could be used to identify intelligence opportunities — for example, by helping China uncover the vices, predilections or pressure points of a potential spy recruit or blackmail target, or by building a holistic profile of foreign visitors to the country by cross-referencing that data against other databases it holds. Even if many of TikTok’s users are young teens with seemingly nothing to hide, it’s possible some of those Americans may grow up to be government or industry officials whose social media history could prove useful to a foreign adversary.

    Another concern is that if China has a view into TikTok’s algorithm or business operations, it could try to exert pressure on the company to shape what users see on the platform — either by removing content through censorship or by pushing preferred content and propaganda to users. This could have enormous repercussions for US elections, policymaking and other democratic discourse.

    Security experts say these scenarios are a possibility based on what’s publicly known about China’s laws and TikTok’s ownership structure, but stress that they are hypothetical at best. To date, there is no public evidence that Beijing has actually harvested TikTok’s commercial data for intelligence or other purposes.

    Chew, the TikTok CEO, has publicly said that the Chinese government has never asked TikTok for its data, and that the company would refuse any such request.

    If there’s a risk, it’s primarily concentrated in the relationship between TikTok’s Chinese parent, ByteDance, and Beijing. The main issue is that the public has few ways of verifying whether or how that relationship, if it exists, might have been exploited.

    TikTok has been erecting technical and organizational barriers that it says will keep US user data safe from unauthorized access. Under the plan, known as Project Texas, the US government and third-party companies such as Oracle would also have some degree of oversight of TikTok’s data practices. TikTok is working on a similar plan for the European Union known as Project Clover.

    But that hasn’t assuaged the doubts of US officials, likely because no matter what TikTok does internally, China would still theoretically have leverage over TikTok’s Chinese owners. Exactly what that implies is ambiguous, and because it is ambiguous, it is unsettling.

    In congressional testimony, TikTok has sought to assure US lawmakers it is free from Chinese government influence, but it has not spoken to the degree that ByteDance may be susceptible. TikTok has also acknowledged that some China-based employees have accessed US user data, though it’s unclear for what purpose, and it has disclosed to European users that China-based employees may access their data as part of doing their jobs.

    Multiple privacy and security researchers who’ve examined TikTok’s app say there aren’t any glaring flaws suggesting the app itself is currently spying on people or leaking their information.

    In 2020, The Washington Post worked with a privacy researcher to look under the hood at TikTok, concluding that the app does not appear to collect any more data than your typical mainstream social network. The following year, Pellaeon Lin, a Taiwan-based researcher at the University of Toronto’s Citizen Lab, performed another technical analysis that reached similar conclusions.

    But even if TikTok collects about the same amount of information as Facebook or Twitter, that’s still quite a lot of data, including information about the videos you watch, comments you write, private messages you send, and — if you agree to grant this level of access — your exact geolocation and contact lists. TikTok’s privacy policy also says the company collects your email address, phone number, age, search and browsing history, information about what’s in the photos and videos you upload, and if you consent, the contents of your device’s clipboard so that you can copy and paste information into the app.

    TikTok’s source code closely resembles that of its China-based analogue, Douyin, said Lin in an interview. That implies both apps are developed on the same code base and customized for their respective markets, he said. Theoretically, TikTok could have “privacy-violating hidden features” that can be turned on and off with a tweak to its server code and that the public might not know about, but the limitations of trying to reverse-engineer an app made it impossible for Lin to find out whether those configurations or features exist.

    If TikTok used unencrypted communications protocols, or if it tried to access contact lists or precise geolocation data without permission, or if it moved to circumvent system-level privacy safeguards built into iOS or Android, then that would be evidence of a problem, Lin said. But he found none of those things.

    “We did not find any overt vulnerabilities regarding their communication protocols, nor did we find any overt security problems within the app,” Lin said. “Regarding privacy, we also did not see the TikTok app exhibiting any behaviors similar to malware.”

    TikTok has faced claims that its in-app browser tracks its users’ keyboard entries, and that this type of conduct, known as keylogging, could be a security risk. The privacy researcher who performed the analysis last year, Felix Krause, said that keylogging is not an inherently malicious activity, but it theoretically means TikTok could collect passwords, credit card information or other sensitive data that users may submit to websites when they visit them through TikTok’s in-app browser.

    There is no public evidence TikTok has actually done that, however. TikTok has said the keylogging function is used for “debugging, troubleshooting, and performance monitoring,” as well as to detect bots and spam. Other research has shown that the use of keyloggers is extremely widespread in the technology industry. That does not necessarily excuse TikTok or its peers for using a keylogger in the first place, but neither is it proof positive that TikTok’s product, by itself, is any more of a national security threat than other websites.

    There have also been a number of studies that report TikTok is tracking users around the internet even when they are not using the app. By embedding tracking pixels on third-party websites, TikTok can collect information about a website’s visitors, the studies have found. TikTok has said it uses the data to bolster its advertising business. And in this respect, TikTok is not unique: the same tool is used by US tech giants including Facebook-parent Meta and Google on a far larger scale, according to Malwarebytes, a leading cybersecurity firm.

    As with the keylogging tech, the fact TikTok uses tracking pixels does not on its own transform the company into a national security threat; the risk is that the Chinese government could compel or influence TikTok, through ByteDance, to abuse its data collection capabilities.

    Separately, a report last year found TikTok was spying on journalists, snooping on their user data and IP addresses to find out when or if certain reporters were sharing the same location as company employees. TikTok later confirmed the incident and ByteDance fired several employees who had improperly accessed the TikTok data of two journalists.

    The circumstances surrounding the incident suggest it was not the type of wide-scale, government-directed intelligence effort that US national security officials primarily fear. Instead, it appeared to be part of a specific internal effort by some ByteDance employees to hunt down leaks to the press, which may be deplorable but hardly uncommon for an organization under public scrutiny. (Nevertheless, the US government is reportedly investigating the incident.)

    Joyce, the NSA’s top cyber official, told reporters in December that what he really worries about is “large-scale influence” campaigns leveraging TikTok’s data, not “individualized targeting through [TikTok] to do malicious things.”

    To date, however, there’s no public evidence of that taking place.

    TikTok may collect an extensive amount of data, much of it quietly, but as far as researchers can tell, it isn’t any more invasive or illegal than what other US tech companies do.

    According to security experts, that’s more a reflection of the broad leeway we’ve given to tech companies in general to handle our data, not an issue that’s unique or specific to TikTok.

    “We have to trust that those companies are doing the right thing with the information and access we’ve provided them,” said Peiter “Mudge” Zatko, a longtime ethical hacker and Twitter’s former head of security who turned whistleblower. “We probably shouldn’t. And this comes down to a concern about the ultimate governance of these companies.”

    Lin told CNN that TikTok and other social media companies’ appetite for data highlights policy failures to pass strong privacy laws that regulate the tech industry writ large.

    “TikTok is only a product of the entire surveillance capitalism economy,” Lin said. “And governments around the world are ignoring their duty to protect citizens’ private information, allowing big tech companies to exploit user information for gain. Governments should try to better protect user information, instead of focusing on one particular app without good evidence.”

    Asked how he would advise policymakers to look at TikTok instead, Lin said: “What I would call for is more evidence-based policy.”

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Trump’s legal team seeks to throw out special grand jury report on 2020 election interference in Georgia | CNN Politics

    Trump’s legal team seeks to throw out special grand jury report on 2020 election interference in Georgia | CNN Politics

    [ad_1]



    CNN
     — 

    Attorneys for former President Donald Trump have asked for a judge to toss the final report and evidence from a special grand jury in Georgia that spent months investigating efforts by Trump and his allies to overturn the 2020 election.

    Trump’s attorneys also are asking that a judge disqualify the Fulton County District Attorney’s office from overseeing the investigation, according to a new court filing.

    “President Donald J. Trump hereby moves to quash the SPGJ’s [special purpose grand jury’s] report and preclude the use of any evidence derived therefrom, as it was conducted under an unconstitutional statute, through an illegal and unconstitutional process, and by a disqualified District Attorney’s Office who violated prosecutorial standards and acted with disregard for the gravity of the circumstances and the constitutional rights of those involved,” Trump’s attorneys wrote in the filing.

    The motion to quash the special grand jury’s work and disqualify the district attorney’s office from pursuing any charges in the case is Trump’s first effort to intervene in the long-running investigation conducted by Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis, a Democrat. It signals the aggressive approach Trump’s attorneys are likely to take in fighting any potential charges Trump could face.

    So far, no one has been charged in Georgia.

    Willis’ office is considering bringing racketeering and conspiracy charges, CNN reported Monday.

    CNN has requested comment from the Fulton County District Attorney’s office.

    The wide-ranging objections by Trump’s attorneys cover a number of decisions by the judge who oversaw the grand jury, the conduct of the Fulton County district attorney and a variety of interviews last month by the special grand jury’s foreperson.

    A special grand jury investigating Trump and his associates concluded its work in December and a judge overseeing the panel made small slivers of the report public in February. After the partial release, a foreperson for the panel went on a media tour during which she indicated roughly a dozen individuals had been recommended for criminal charges.

    The foreperson, Emily Kohrs, declined to say whether the special grand jury recommended criminal charges for Trump, telling CNN last month: “There may be some names on that list that you wouldn’t expect. But the big name that everyone keeps asking me about – I don’t think you will be shocked.”

    Special grand juries in Georgia can issue subpoenas and collect evidence, such as documents and testimony, but they cannot issue indictments. Instead, they write a final report that includes recommendations on whether anyone should face criminal charges. Then it’s up to the district attorney to decide whether to seek indictments from the regularly seated grand juries.

    Trump’s attorneys raised objections to several issues related to the special grand jury process, including the series of interviews by the foreperson and a recent media interview with other members of the special grand jury, who spoke to the Atlanta Journal-Constitution anonymously.

    “The results of the investigation cannot be relied upon and, therefore, must be suppressed given the constitutional violations,” Trump’s attorneys argued in the new filing. “The foreperson’s public comments in and of themselves likewise violate notions of fundamental fairness and due process and taint any future grand jury pool.”

    Trump’s team also argued that Willis’ office should have been disqualified from overseeing the entire case when we she was blocked from investigating now-Georgia Lt. Gov. Burt Jones, a Trump ally who served as a fake elector after the 2020 election. They also took issue with the media interviews Willis has provided.

    “The resulting prejudicial taint cannot be excised from the results of the investigation or any future prosecution,” Trump’s attorneys wrote, adding that the media interviews “violate prosecutorial standards and constitute forensic misconduct, and her social media activity creates the appearance of impropriety compounding the necessity for disqualification.”

    Trump’s legal team raised objections as well with how Fulton County Superior Court Judge Robert McBurney oversaw the grand jury and interviews he provided after the panel’s work concluded. CNN was among the media outlets to interview McBurney.

    “The Supervising Judge made inappropriate and prejudicial comments relating to the conduct under investigation as well as potential witnesses invocation of the Fifth Amendment,” according to the Trump attorneys. “He improperly applied the law and subsequently denied appellate review while knowing his application of the law in that manner had vast implications on the constitutionality of the investigation.”

    They argued that McBurney was incorrect in determining the special grand jury was a criminal investigative body, a decision that weighed heavily with other judges who forced out-of-state witnesses to comply with subpoenas they received to appear before the panel.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • CNBC’s Andrew Ross Sorkin says covering the SVB meltdown is like ‘walking a tight rope’ | CNN Business

    CNBC’s Andrew Ross Sorkin says covering the SVB meltdown is like ‘walking a tight rope’ | CNN Business

    [ad_1]


    New York
    CNN
     — 

    Andrew Ross Sorkin woke up early Monday morning, long before the crack of dawn, after managing to sneak in a handful of hours of sleep.

    The New York Times columnist had been up late into the night working on his DealBook newsletter. And now he needed to rise for a special edition of “Squawk Box,” the CNBC program he has co-hosted since 2011.

    The special 5am edition of “Squawk” had been tasked with covering the continuing fallout stemming from the sudden collapse of Silicon Valley Bank, a massive financial news story that has drawn some eerie comparisons to the beginnings of the 2008 financial disaster.

    A version of this article first appeared in the “Reliable Sources” newsletter. Sign up for the daily digest chronicling the evolving media landscape here.

    It is a story Sorkin described covering as “a balancing act, a little bit like walking a tight rope.” On one hand, he said, journalists must avoid sparking panic and causing a catastrophic run on the banks. But, on the other hand, journalists also owe it to their audiences to deliver them a clear-eyed assessment of the state of affairs.

    “Our job as journalists is to tell the public what is happening — and if you believe in transparency, we should all want that,” Sorkin said. “The downside of transparency in real-time is sometimes news that may not be positive can pile on itself in a way. And so I think it is really just about trying to contextualize what we’re seeing.”

    “You don’t want to cause a run on a bank,” Sorkin added, “but then at the same time, if everyone is running and they have reason to run, I think it’s important that the public understands what’s happening.”

    The approach to delivering the news and covering the implosion of SVB that Sorkin described stands in stark contrast to some of the commentary saturating the internet and at other media outlets.

    Over the weekend, some venture capital influencers amplified fear and suggested the entire US banking system was on the verge of collapse. The investor Jason Calacanis, who hosts a podcast and commands a Twitter audience of nearly 700,000 followers, tweeted, “YOU SHOULD BE ABSOLUTELY TERRIFIED RIGHT NOW.” On the right-wing talk channel Fox News Monday morning, “Fox & Friends” co-host Ainsley Earhardt suggested Americans needed “to go to our banks and take our money out.”

    Unprecedented in its sheer speed and volume, SVB’s collapse is “fascinating,” Sorkin said, causing a meltdown only now possible in the “true age of social media, as well as what might be described as digital banking.”

    “The ability for information to spread rapidly, both good information and bad, and for people to act on that information and then going to a bank app and transferring funds from one place to another, makes the responsibility [for journalists] even greater,” Sorkin said.

    Sorkin said banking is ultimately a “confidence game,” explaining that it is “genuinely about whether people have confidence in leaving their money in a particular institution.” And in this current environment where social media influencers and other irresponsible voices thrive, Sorkin said it “inherently makes things less stable.”

    “You have a lot of people who are on social media who don’t necessarily feel the same responsibilities to contextualize the news in the same way I might try,” Sorkin said. He suggested that in the case of SVB, there may have been “a little smoke in the corner of the theater” that could have been addressed before a fire burst out and prompted danger.

    “If you scream ‘fire,’ everyone runs out of the theater,” Sorkin said. “Could the smoke have been put out before everyone ran out of the theater? Maybe.”

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Media outlets urge judge to announce his plans for a hearing in blockbuster medication abortion case | CNN Politics

    Media outlets urge judge to announce his plans for a hearing in blockbuster medication abortion case | CNN Politics

    [ad_1]



    CNN
     — 

    Several media organizations asked a federal judge on Monday to publicly announce his plans to hold a hearing Wednesday in a blockbuster medication abortion case after the judge reportedly moved to keep the hearing under wraps.

    “Across the ideological spectrum, the public is intensely interested in this case,” the organizations wrote in their letter to US District Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk.

    The case concerns a challenge brought by anti-abortion doctors and medical associations to the federal government’s 2000 approval of a drug used to terminate pregnancies. Medication abortion is the most common method of abortion in the United States.

    “The Court’s delayed docketing of notice of Wednesday’s hearing, and its request to the parties and their counsel not to disclose the hearing schedule publicly, harm everyone, including those who support the plaintiffs’ position and those who support the defendants’ position,” the media outlets added.

    At 7 weeks pregnant she wanted an abortion. Here’s why she turned to a doctor in Austria

    The letter pointed to reporting by The Washington Post on Saturday that said on Friday, Kacsmaryk held a private phone call with the lawyers in the case and told them he was scheduling a hearing for Wednesday but not announcing those plans on the case’s docket until Tuesday evening. The judge reportedly told the lawyers not to publicize the hearing plans in the meantime.

    Kacsmaryk is currently considering the plaintiffs’ request for a preliminary injunction that would “withdrawal or suspend” that approval while the lawsuit plays out.

    If the judge grants the request to block access to the drug nationwide, it could make the pills harder to obtain even in states where medication abortion is legal.

    The media outlets told Kacsmaryk that the “Court’s attempt to delay notice of and, therefore, limit the ability of members of the public, including the press, to attend Wednesday’s hearing is unconstitutional, and undermines the important values served by public access to judicial proceedings and court records.”

    Kacsmaryk’s courtroom is in Amarillo, Texas – a division in the northern Texas panhandle that is a several hours’ drive from Texas’ biggest cities and accessible only by a limited number of direct flights.

    According to the Post, Kacsmaryk told the case’s lawyers he was holding off until Tuesday to announce the Wednesday hearing to limit the potential for protests and disruptions to the proceedings.

    “The Court cannot constitutionally close the courtroom indirectly when it cannot constitutionally close the courtroom directly,” the media outlets wrote.

    “The United States Supreme Court has made clear that, because of our historical tradition of public access to judicial proceedings, and because of the structural necessity of such access to ensure government transparency and accountability, the circumstances in which a courtroom can be closed without violating the First Amendment and common law rights of access are rare.”

    The organizations signing onto the letter are the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, The Washington Post, NBCUniversal News Group, ProPublica, Inc., Texas Press Association, The Freedom of Information Foundation of Texas, The Markup, and Gannett Co., Inc.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • China censors women modeling lingerie on livestream shopping — so men are doing it | CNN Business

    China censors women modeling lingerie on livestream shopping — so men are doing it | CNN Business

    [ad_1]


    Hong Kong
    CNN
     — 

    Donning a sassy piece of silk lingerie, a male model grooves to the beat and forms a heart shape with his fingers during a livestreaming session on Douyin, one of China’s most popular video-sharing platforms.

    His modeling performance is the latest illustration of the kind of entrepreneurial innovation sometimes needed to bypass China’s rigorous internet censorship, a dragnet that can ensnare seemingly innocuous activities – in this case retailers selling women’s underwear online.

    China deploys one of the world’s most stringent censorship regimes, with a track record of blocking out not just politically sensitive information but images of women’s bodies deemed marginally racy.

    Several businesses specializing in selling lingerie through livestreaming have had their sessions cut short after they featured a female model and their brush with internet censorship came to light in January.

    Hence the use of men instead.

    On one of the sales channels, a man is seen dressed in black lingerie, standing next to a mannequin showing a similar outfit, in what appears to be a screenshot of a livestream broadcast on Alibaba

    (BABA)
    ’s Taobao Live, a streaming platform for the e-commerce giant.

    In another image, a different male model put on a pink slip dress and silky shawl, accessorized with cat ear headbands.

    In one livestream clip, carried by multiple state media outlets, an owner of an online venture said he was simply trying to play it safe.

    “This is not an attempt at sarcasm. Everyone is being very serious about complying with the rules,” the man, who identified himself as Mr Xu, said.

    The emergence of male lingerie models has caused mixed views online in China, from merriment and annoyance to reluctant acceptance.

    “So what should I do if I want to promote and showcase lingerie in the live broadcast session? It’s very simple, find a man to wear it,” read one comment on China’s microblogging site Weibo.

    A man in a mini slip dress and velvet robe models beside a woman in pajamas in a video posted on Douyin on February 17, 2023.

    Livestreaming sales of products is a multibillion-dollar industry in mainland China, and was given a major boost during the three years of the country’s strict Covid lockdowns that battered many bricks and mortar businesses.

    As of June last year, the number of livestreaming e-commerce users in mainland China is over 460 million, according to the Academy of China Council for the Promotion of International Trade, a body affiliated with Beijing’s commerce ministry.

    A 2021 report by iResearch, a Beijing-based firm specializing in measuring audience growth online, predicted the livestream sector would be worth as much as $720 billion this year.

    Male models are not the only workaround.

    On Douyin, the Chinese domestic version of TikTok, other female models have circumvented the censorship by showcasing the latest style of lingerie on themselves on top of a t-shirt they are already wearing.

    Others displayed the items on mannequins.

    In 2015, China led a crackdown on television shows exposing actresses’ cleavage, forcing some of the most popular costume dramas to zoom in on their faces to avoid getting into trouble with the broadcast authorities.

    Having male influencers promoting female-oriented products is not new in China, either.

    One of the industry’s most successful livestream shopping influencers is Austin Li Jiaqi, who made his name as the “Lipstick King” after selling 15,000 lipsticks in just five minutes in 2018.

    As one of China’s biggest internet celebrities, Li also peddles cosmetics, skincare products and fashion apparel, often applying products he’s selling to his own face.

    Even outside of China, platforms such as Facebook and Instagram have faced criticism for restricting the sharing of images involving partial nudity, especially of women.

    Facebook and Instagram’s parent company, Meta, restricts the sharing of breasts, although it says it intends “to allow images that are shared for medical or health purposes.” But even Meta’s own Oversight Board has called on the company to make its policy less confusing and more gender inclusive.

    YouTube says it prohibits “the depiction of clothed or unclothed genitals, breasts, or buttocks that are meant for sexual gratification,” but it may age-restrict other images or videos involving nudity.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • BBC’s flagship soccer show boycotted over Gary Lineker impartiality row | CNN

    BBC’s flagship soccer show boycotted over Gary Lineker impartiality row | CNN

    [ad_1]



    CNN
     — 

    The BBC’s weekend soccer coverage has been plunged into chaos following its announcement Gary Lineker would “step back” from presenting, after he became embroiled in an impartiality row when he criticized British government policy on Twitter.

    The broadcaster now faces a boycott from pundits, presenters and even players of its flagship soccer show “Match of the Day,” while other soccer programs – Football Focus and Final Score – and some radio programming have been forced off-air as a result of the furore.

    Lineker criticized the government’s controversial new asylum-seeker policy on Tuesday and was subsequently relieved of his presenting duties this week since the BBC said his tweets breached their guidelines, specifically its commitment to “due impartiality.”

    The BBC’s decision has sparked controversy, leaving the organization under fire from opposition politicians, the Broadcasting Entertainment Communications and Theatre Union who represent BBC staff, and its former director general Greg Dyke.

    “The BBC will only be able to bring limited sport programming this weekend and our schedules will be updated to reflect that,” a BBC spokesperson said in a statement Saturday.

    “We are sorry for these changes which we recognize will be disappointing for BBC sport fans.

    “We are working hard to resolve the situation and hope to do so soon.”

    In an interview with BBC News on Saturday, the broadcaster’s Director General Tim Davie was asked if he should resign over the crisis. He said he would not.

    “I honestly do not believe, despite a lot of the commentary, that this is about left or right,” Davie said. The BBC is a “fierce champion of democratic debate, free speech, but with that comes the need to create an impartial organization,” he added.

    When asked if he was sorry about the way he handled the situation, he said: “We made decisions, and I made decisions based on a real passion about what the BBC is and it is difficult – it’s this balance between free speech and impartiality.”

    On Tuesday, Lineker tweeted “Good heavens, this is beyond awful” to a video posted on Twitter by the British Home Office announcing the new proposed policy – an attempt to stop migrant boats crossing the English Channel from France which has been criticized by the United Nations and other global bodies.

    He added: “There is no huge influx. We take far fewer refugees than other major European countries. This is just an immeasurably cruel policy directed at the most vulnerable people in language that is not dissimilar to that used by Germany in the 30s, and I’m out of order?”

    As Britain’s public broadcaster, the BBC is bound by “due impartiality” – a much debated term which the organization defines as holding “power to account with consistency” while not “allowing ourselves to be used to campaign to change public policy.”

    On Friday, the BBC announced Lineker would “step back from presenting Match of the Day until we’ve got an agreed and clear position on his use of social media,” adding it considered his recent social media activity to breach its guidelines.

    In response, first pundits, then commentators, and then even Premier League teams announced their intention to boycott the show in support of Lineker.

    BBC commentators Steve Wilson, Conor McNamara, Robyn Cowen and Steven Wyeth said in a joint statement issued late on Friday “in the circumstances, we do not feel it would be appropriate to take part in the programme.”

    A shortened version of the program did eventually air on Saturday. It opened with a BBC continuity announcer issuing an apology, instead of the usual title sequence and theme tune.

    It then showed highlights from Saturday’s English Premier League games with no commentary, only the background audio from the stadiums.

    The show aired for 20 minutes, an hour less than the originally scheduled time.

    Jermain Defoe, a former England striker, announced Saturday he would not appear as a pundit on the Sunday show.

    “It’s always such a privilege to work with BBC MOTD. But tomorrow I have taken the decision to stand down from my punditry duties. @GaryLineker,” Defoe tweeted.

    Defoe’s announcement appears to be the first sign the British broadcaster’s Sunday television programming will also be affected.

    Meanwhile, the Professional Footballers’ Association announced on Saturday “players involved in today’s games will not be asked to participate in interviews with Match of the Day.”

    “The PFA have been speaking to members who wanted to take a collective position and to be able to show their support for those who have chosen not to be part of tonight’s programme,” the statement added.

    “During those conversations we made clear that, as their union, we would support all members who might face consequences for choosing not to complete their broadcast commitments. This is a common sense decision that ensures players won’t now be put in that position.”

    Following his side’s 1-0 defeat against Bournemouth on Saturday, Liverpool manager Jurgen Klopp was asked about the BBC issue.

    “I cannot see any reason why they would ask anyone to step back for saying that. I’m not sure if that’s a language issue or not,” the German told reporters.

    “If I understand it right, then this is about an opinion about human rights and that should be possible to say.

    “What I don’t understand is why everybody goes on Twitter and says something. I don’t understand the social media part of it but that’s probably [because] I’m too old for that.”

    The BBC’s former director general Greg Dyke said the broadcaster has “undermined its own credibility” by suspending Lineker because it seemed like it had “bowed to government pressure.”

    Keir Starmer, leader of the opposition Labour Party, said the BBC had got “this one badly wrong and now they’re very, very exposed.”

    Scotland’s First Minister Nicola Sturgeon tweeted: “As a strong supporter of public service broadcasting, I want to be able to defend the BBC. But the decision to take Gary Lineker off air is indefensible. It is undermining free speech in the face of political pressure – & it does always seem to be rightwing pressure it caves to.”

    Opposition Labour Party deputy leader Angela Rayner also lambasted the BBC’s decision in a tweet on Saturday.

    “The BBC’s cowardly decision to take Gary Lineker off air is an assault on free speech in the face of political pressure from Tory politicians. They should rethink,” she tweeted.

    Meanwhile Nadine Dorries, an MP with the governing Conservative party and former Culture Secretary, welcomed the BBC’s decision, tweeting: “News that Gary Lineker has been stood down for investigation is welcome and shows BBC are serious about impartiality.

    “Gary is entitled to his views – free speech is paramount. Lots of non Public Service Broadcasters can accommodate him and his views and he would be better paid.”

    For his part, British Prime Minister Rishi Sunak on Saturday issued a statement saying he hopes the situation between the BBC and its star soccer host can be resolved but it is not a matter for the UK government.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Michelle Obama opens up about her ‘uncontrollable sobbing’ on day of Trump’s inauguration | CNN Politics

    Michelle Obama opens up about her ‘uncontrollable sobbing’ on day of Trump’s inauguration | CNN Politics

    [ad_1]


    Washington
    CNN
     — 

    Michelle Obama broke down shortly after leaving then-President Donald Trump’s inauguration, the former first lady candidly shared in a new podcast, as the emotions of leaving their family’s home after eight years and resentment over Trump taking office overwhelmed her.

    “When those doors shut, I cried for 30 minutes straight, uncontrollable sobbing, because that’s how much we were holding it together for eight years,” Obama said, referring to her final trip aboard the presidential airplane.

    The fresh revelation of Obama’s experience came in a clip of her “The Light Podcast,” which launched on Audible Tuesday. The podcast audio comes from the former first lady’s recent book tour for her third book, “The Light We Carry,” which reflects on how she’s dealt with relationships, self-doubt and anxiety during uncertain times. It captures conversations from her visits to six cities with all-star moderators, like Oprah Winfrey, Tyler Perry, David Letterman and Conan O’Brien to promote and discuss her best-selling book.

    “After the inauguration – and we know whose inauguration we were at – that day was so emotional on so many different reasons. We were leaving the home we had been in for eight years, the only home our kids really knew,” Obama shared. “They remembered Chicago but they had spent more time in the White House than anywhere. So we were saying goodbye to the staff and all the people who helped to raise them.”

    Obama confirmed she wasn’t in a “good mood” but she “had to hold it together.”

    “There were tears, there was that emotion. But then to sit on that stage and watch the opposite of what we represented on display – there was no diversity, there was no color on that stage, there was no reflection of the broader sense of America,” Obama said.

    She also took a jab at her husband’s successor over his inauguration crowd size, a long-running point of contention for the Trump White House which has falsely claimed the turnout was the largest ever.

    “You take your last flight off, flying over the Capitol, where there weren’t that many people there. We saw it,” she said, which gained laughs from the audience.

    Promoting the podcast on Twitter Monday, Obama said that she hopes it inspires others to “share your own light.”

    In the years since leaving the White House, the former first lady has revealed other tidbits about her mood that day in January 2017, including that she “stopped even trying to smile” during Trump’s inauguration. Speaking to Jimmy Fallon in 2018, she said, “A lot was going on that day,” but as she bid farewell to the White House one thought was clear: “Bye, Felicia!”

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Chris Rock makes Netflix history (live!) | CNN

    Chris Rock makes Netflix history (live!) | CNN

    [ad_1]



    CNN
     — 

    It’s the night Chris Rock makes streaming history.

    “Chris Rock is in Samurai mode,” comedian Leslie Jones said in an intro.

    And he is.

    “I’m going to try to do a show tonight without offending nobody. I’m going to try my best, because you never know who might get triggered,” Rock said as he opened his set from Baltimore. “People always say words hurt … anybody who says words hurt has never been punched in the face.”

    He went on: “I have no problem with the wokeness. I have no problem with it at all. I’m all for social justice. I’m all for marginalized people getting their rights. The thing I have a problem with is the selective outrage,” Rock said. “You know what i’m talking about. One person does something, they get canceled. Somebody else does the exact same thing, nothing. You know what I’m talking about … the kind of people who play Michael Jackson songs but won’t play R. Kelly. Same crime, one of them just has better songs.”

    Rock, wearing all white and a Prince symbol medallion necklace, stood in front of a background that resembled cracked mirrors. (Suggesting, perhaps, a theme of people who live in glass houses shouldn’t throw stones.)

    Rock hit on several topical issues, including addiction, abortion, racism in America, Meghan, Duchess of Sussex and the Kardashian family.

    Tackling the country’s division, Rocked said, “America is in horrible shape right now.”

    “We got it worse than Ukraine. Yeah, I said it. You know why? Because Ukraine is united and America is clearly divided,” Rock joked. “If the Russians came here right now, half the country would say, “Let’s hear them out.’ We’re in a bad place right now.”

    Rock delved into his romantic life, saying when he realized his pillow cases were dirty, he realized how much women do for men.

    “I’m trying to date women my age, which is 10 to 15 years younger than me,” he said. “Don’t hate the player, hate the game. I didn’t get rich and stay in shape to talk about Anita Baker. I’m trying to f— Doja Cat.”

    “Chris Rock: Selective Outrage,” the first ever live global streaming event for Netflix.

    The performance marks Rock’s sixth standup special and his second for Netflix after 2018’s “Tamborine,” directed by Bo Burnham.

    A pre-show kicked off with Ronny Chieng live from Los Angeles, where he told the crowd, “We could have pretaped this whole thing and nobody would have cared, but we are doing this for a noble cause: To finally try to kill off traditional TV and put it out of it’s misery. In fact, if you listen hard you can hear Baby Boomers canceling the last cable subscription packages.”

    Before that, U2’s Bono sang an opening about Rock.

    Arsenio Hall followed Chieng with a joke about how Will Smith is going to get so mad tonight he’ll slap the TV off the wall.

    This story is developing and will be updated….

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Fact check: Republicans at CPAC make false claims about Biden, Zelensky, the FBI and children | CNN Politics

    Fact check: Republicans at CPAC make false claims about Biden, Zelensky, the FBI and children | CNN Politics

    [ad_1]


    Washington
    CNN
     — 

    The Conservative Political Action Conference is underway in Maryland. And the members of Congress, former government officials and conservative personalities who spoke at the conference on Thursday and Friday made false claims about a variety of topics.

    Rep. Jim Jordan of Ohio uttered two false claims about President Joe Biden. Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene of Georgia repeated a debunked claim about Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky. Sen. Tommy Tuberville of Alabama used two inaccurate statistics as he lamented the state of the country. Former Trump White House official Steve Bannon repeated his regular lie about the 2020 election having been stolen from Trump, this time baselesly blaming Fox for Trump’s defeat.

    Rep. Kat Cammack of Florida incorrectly said a former Obama administration official had encouraged people to harass Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh. Rep. Ralph Norman of South Carolina inaccurately claimed Biden had laughed at a grieving mother and inaccurately insinuated that the FBI tipped off the media to its search of former President Donald Trump’s Florida residence. Two other speakers, Rep. Scott Perry of Pennsylvania and former Trump administration official Sebastian Gorka, inflated the number of deaths from fentanyl.

    And that’s not all. Here is a fact check of 13 false claims from the conference, which continues on Saturday.

    Marjorie Taylor Greene said the Republican Party has a duty to protect children. Listing supposed threats to children, she said, “Now whether it’s like Zelensky saying he wants our sons and daughters to go die in Ukraine…” Later in her speech, she said, “I will look at a camera and directly tell Zelensky: you’d better leave your hands off of our sons and daughters, because they’re not dying over there.”

    Facts First: Greene’s claim is false. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky didn’t say he wants American sons and daughters to fight or die for Ukraine. The false claim, which was debunked by CNN and others earlier in the week, is based on a viral video that clipped Zelensky’s comments out of context.

    19-second video of Zelensky goes viral. See what was edited out

    In reality, Zelensky predicted at a press conference in late February that if Ukraine loses the war against Russia because it does not receive sufficient support from elsewhere, Russia will proceed to enter North Atlantic Treaty Organization member countries in the Baltics (a region made up of Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia) that the US will be obligated to send troops to defend. Under the treaty that governs NATO, an attack on one member is considered an attack on all. Ukraine is not a NATO member, and Zelensky didn’t say Americans should fight there.

    Greene is one of the people who shared the out-of-context video on Twitter this week. You can read a full fact-check, with Zelensky’s complete quote, here.

    Right-wing commentator and former Trump White House chief strategist Steve Bannon criticized right-wing cable channel Fox at length for, he argued, being insufficiently supportive of Trump’s 2024 presidential campaign. Among other things, Bannon claimed that, on the night of the election in November 2020, “Fox News illegitimately called it for the opposition and not Donald J. Trump, of which our nation has never recovered.” Later, he said Trump is running again after “having it stolen, in broad daylight, of which they [Fox] participate in.”

    Facts First: This is nonsense. On election night in 2020, Fox accurately projected that Biden had won the state of Arizona. This projection did not change the outcome of the election; all of the votes are counted regardless of what media outlets have projected, and the counting showed that Biden won Arizona, and the election, fair and square. The 2020 election was not “stolen” from Trump.

    NATIONAL HARBOR, MARYLAND - MARCH 03: Former White House chief strategist for the Trump Administration Steve Bannon speaks during the annual Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) at the Gaylord National Resort Hotel And Convention Center on March 03, 2023 in National Harbor, Maryland. The annual conservative conference entered its second day of speakers including congressional members, media personalities and members of former President Donald Trump's administration. President Donald Trump will address the event on Saturday.  (Photo by Anna Moneymaker/Getty Images)

    Bannon has a harsh message for Fox News at CPAC

    Fox, like other major media outlets, did not project that Biden had won the presidency until four days later. Fox personalities went on to repeatedly promote lies that the election was stolen from Trump – even as they privately dismissed and mocked these false claims, according to court filings from a voting technology company that is suing Fox for defamation.

    Rep. Jim Jordan claimed that Biden, “on day one,” made “three key changes” to immigration policy. Jordan said one of those changes was this: “We’re not going to deport anyone who come.” He proceeded to argue that people knowing “we’re not going to get deported” was a reason they decided to migrate to the US under Biden.

    Facts First: Jordan inaccurately described the 100-day deportation pause that Biden attempted to impose immediately after he took office on January 20, 2021. The policy did not say the US wouldn’t deport “anyone who comes.” It explicitly did not apply to anyone who arrived in the country after the end of October 2020, meaning people who arrived under the Biden administration or in the last months of the Trump administration could still be deported.

    Biden did say during the 2020 Democratic primary that “no one, no one will be deported at all” in his first 100 days as president. But Jordan claimed that this was the policy Biden actually implemented on his first day in office; Biden’s actual first-day policy was considerably narrower.

    Biden’s attempted 100-day pause also did not apply to people who engaged in or were suspected of terrorism or espionage, were seen to pose a national security risk, had waived their right to remain in the US, or whom the acting director of Immigration and Customs Enforcement determined the law required to be removed.

    The pause was supposed to be in effect while the Department of Homeland Security conducted a review of immigration enforcement practices, but it was blocked by a federal judge shortly after it was announced.

    Rep. Ralph Norman strongly suggested the FBI had tipped off the media to its August search of Trump’s Mar-a-Lago home and resort in Florida for government documents in the former president’s possession – while concealing its subsequent document searches of properties connected to Biden.

    Norman said: “When I saw the raid at Mar-a-Lago – you know, the cameras, the FBI – and compare that to when they found Biden’s, all of the documents he had, where was the media, where was the FBI? They kept it quiet early on, didn’t let it out. The job of the next president is going to be getting rid of the insiders that are undermining this government, and you’ve gotta clean house.”

    Facts First: Norman’s narrative is false. The FBI did not tip off the media to its search of Mar-a-Lago; CNN reported the next day that the search “happened so quietly, so secretly, that it wasn’t caught on camera at all.” Rather, media outlets belatedly sent cameras to Mar-a-Lago because Peter Schorsch, publisher of the website Florida Politics, learned of the search from non-FBI sources and tweeted about it either after it was over or as it was just concluding, and because Trump himself made a public statement less than 20 minutes later confirming that a search had occurred. Schorsch told CNN on Thursday: “I can, unequivocally, state that the FBI was not one of my two sources which alerted me to the raid.”

    Brian Stelter, then CNN’s chief media correspondent, wrote in his article the day after the search: “By the time local TV news cameras showed up outside the club, there was almost nothing to see. Websites used file photos of the Florida resort since there were no dramatic shots of the search.”

    It’s true that the public didn’t find out until late January about the FBI’s November search of Biden’s former think tank office in Washington, which was conducted with the consent of Biden’s legal team. But the belated presence of journalists at Mar-a-Lago on the day of the Trump search in August is not evidence of a double standard.

    And it’s worth noting that media cameras were on the scene when Biden’s beach home in Delaware was searched by the FBI in February. News outlets had set up a media “pool” to make sure any search there was recorded.

    Sen. Tommy Tuberville, a former college and high school football coach, said, “Going into thousands of kids’ homes and talking to parents every year recruiting, half the kids in this country – I’m not talking about race, I’m just talking about – half the kids in this country have one or no parent. And it’s because of the attack on faith. People are losing faith because, for some reason, because the attack [on] God.”

    Facts First: Tuberville’s claim that half of American children don’t have two parents is incorrect. Official figures from the Census Bureau show that, in 2021, about 70% of US children under the age of 18 lived with two parents and about 65% lived with two married parents.

    About 22% of children lived with only a mother, about 5% with only a father, and about 3% with no parent. But the Census Bureau has explained that even children who are listed as living with only one parent may have a second parent; children are listed as living with only one parent if, for example, one parent is deployed overseas with the military or if their divorced parents share custody of them.

    It is true that the percentage of US children living in households with two parents has been declining for decades. Still, Tuberville’s statistic significantly exaggerated the current situation. His spokesperson told CNN on Thursday that the senator was speaking “anecdotally” from his personal experience meeting with families as a football coach.

    Tuberville claimed that today’s children are being “indoctrinated” in schools by “woke” ideology and critical race theory. He then said, “We don’t teach reading, writing and arithmetic anymore. You know, half the kids in this country, when they graduate – think about this: half the kids in this country, when they graduate, can’t read their diploma.”

    Facts First: This is false. While many Americans do struggle with reading, there is no basis for the claim that “half” of high school graduates can’t read a basic document like a diploma. “Mr. Tuberville does not know what he’s talking about at all,” said Patricia Edwards, a Michigan State University professor of language and literacy who is a past president of the International Literacy Association and the Literacy Research Association. Edwards said there is “no evidence” to support Tuberville’s claim. She also said that people who can’t read at all are highly unlikely to finish high school and that “sometimes politicians embellish information.”

    Tuberville could have accurately said that a significant number of American teenagers and adults have reading trouble, though there is no apparent basis for connecting these struggles with supposed “woke” indoctrination. The organization ProLiteracy pointed CNN to 2017 data that found 23% of Americans age 16 to 65 have “low” literacy skills in English. That’s not “half,” as ProLiteracy pointed out, and it includes people who didn’t graduate from high school and people who are able to read basic text but struggle with more complex literacy tasks.

    The Tuberville spokesperson said the senator was speaking informally after having been briefed on other statistics about Americans’ struggles with reading, like a report that half of adults can’t read a book written at an eighth-grade level.

    Rep. Jim Jordan claimed of Biden: “The president of the United States stood in front of Independence Hall, called half the country fascists.”

    Facts First: This is not true. Biden did not denounce even close to “half the country” in this 2022 speech at Independence Hall in Philadelphia. He made clear that he was speaking about a minority of Republicans.

    In the speech, in which he never used the word “fascists,” Biden warned that “MAGA Republicans” like Trump are “extreme,” “do not respect the Constitution” and “do not believe in the rule of law.” But he also emphasized that “not every Republican, not even the majority of Republicans, are MAGA Republicans.” In other words, he made clear that he was talking about far less than half of Americans.

    Trump earned fewer than 75 million votes in 2020 in a country of more than 258 million adults, so even a hypothetical criticism of every single Trump voter would not amount to criticism of “half the country.”

    Rep. Scott Perry claimed that “average citizens need to just at some point be willing to acknowledge and accept that every single facet of the federal government is weaponized against every single one of us.” Perry said moments later, “The government doesn’t have the right to tell you that you can’t buy a gas stove but that you must buy an electric vehicle.”

    Facts First: This is nonsense. The federal government has not told people that they can’t buy a gas stove or must buy an electric vehicle.

    The Biden administration has tried to encourage and incentivize the adoption of electric vehicles, but it has not tried to forbid the manufacture or purchase of traditional vehicles with internal combustion engines. Biden has set a goal of electric vehicles making up half of all new vehicles sold in the US by 2030.

    There was a January controversy about a Biden appointee to the United States Consumer Product Safety Commission, Richard Trumka Jr., saying that gas stoves pose a “hidden hazard,” as they emit air pollutants, and that “any option is on the table. Products that can’t be made safe can be banned.” But the commission as a whole has not shown support for a ban, and White House press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre said at a January press briefing: “The president does not support banning gas stoves. And the Consumer Product Safety Commission, which is independent, is not banning gas stoves.”

    Rep. Ralph Norman claimed that Biden had just laughed at a mother who lost two sons to fentanyl.

    “I don’t know whether y’all saw, I just saw it this morning: Biden laughing at the mother who had two sons – to die, and he’s basically laughing and saying the fentanyl came from the previous administration. Who cares where it came from? The fact is it’s here,” Norman said.

    Facts First: Norman’s claim is false. Biden did not laugh at the mother who lost her sons to fentanyl, the anti-abortion activist Rebecca Kiessling; in a somber tone, he called her “a poor mother who lost two kids to fentanyl.” Rather, he proceeded to laugh about how Republican Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene had baselessly blamed the Biden administration for the young men’s deaths even though the tragedy happened in mid-2020, during the Trump administration. You can watch the video of Biden’s remarks here.

    Kiessling has demanded an apology from Biden. She is entitled to her criticism of Biden’s remarks and his chuckle – but the video clearly shows Norman was wrong when he claimed Biden was “laughing at the mother.”

    Rep. Kat Cammack told a story about the first hearing of the new Republican-led House select subcommittee on the supposed “weaponization” of the federal government. Cammack claimed she had asked a Democratic witness at this February hearing about his “incredibly vitriolic” Twitter feed in which, she claimed, he not only repeatedly criticized Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh but even went “so far as to encourage people to harass this Supreme Court justice.”

    Facts First: This story is false. The witness Cammack questioned in this February exchange at the subcommittee, former Obama administration deputy assistant attorney general Elliot Williams, did not encourage people to harass Kavanaugh. In fact, it’s not even true that Cammack accused him at the February hearing of having encouraged people to harass Kavanaugh. Rather, at the hearing, she merely claimed that Williams had tweeted numerous critical tweets about Kavanaugh but had been “unusually quiet” on Twitter after an alleged assassination attempt against the justice. Clearly, not tweeting about the incident is not the same thing as encouraging harassment.

    Williams, now a CNN legal analyst (he appeared at the subcommittee hearing in his personal capacity), said in a Thursday email that he had “no idea” what Cammack was looking at on his innocuous Twitter feed. He said: “I used to prosecute violent crimes, and clerked for two federal judges. Any suggestion that I’ve ever encouraged harassment of anyone – and particularly any official of the United States – is insulting and not based in reality.”

    Cammack’s spokesperson responded helpfully on Thursday to CNN’s initial queries about the story Cammack told at CPAC, explaining that she was referring to her February exchange with Williams. But the spokesperson stopped responding after CNN asked if Cammack was accurately describing this exchange with Williams and if they had any evidence of Williams actually having encouraged the harassment of Kavanaugh.

    Sen. John Kennedy of Louisiana boasted about the state of the country “when Republicans were in charge.” Among other claims about Trump’s tenure, he said that “in four years,” Republicans “delivered 3.5% unemployment” and “created 8 million new jobs.”

    Facts First: This is inaccurate in two ways. First, the economic numbers for the full “four years” of Trump’s tenure are much worse than these numbers Kennedy cited; Kennedy was actually referring to Trump’s first three years while ignoring the fourth, which was marred by the Covid-19 pandemic. Second, there weren’t “8 million new jobs” created even in Trump’s first three years.

    Kennedy could have correctly said there was a 3.5% unemployment rate after three years of the Trump administration, but not after four. The unemployment rate skyrocketed early in Trump’s fourth year, on account of the pandemic, before coming down again, and it was 6.3% when Trump left office in early 2021. (It fell to 3.4% this January under Biden, better than in any month under Trump.)

    And while the economy added about 6.7 million jobs under Trump before the pandemic-related crash of March and April 2020, that’s not the “8 million jobs” Kennedy claimed – and the economy ended up shedding millions of jobs in Trump’s fourth year. Over the full four years of Trump’s tenure, the economy netted a loss of about 2.7 million jobs.

    Lara Trump, Donald Trump’s daughter-in-law and an adviser to his 2020 campaign, claimed that the last time a CPAC crowd was gathered at this venue in Maryland, in February 2020, “We had the lowest unemployment in American history.” After making other boasts about Donald Trump’s presidency, she said, “But how quickly it all changed.” She added, “Under Joe Biden, America is crumbling.”

    Facts First: Lara Trump’s claim about February 2020 having “the lowest unemployment in American history” is false. The unemployment rate was 3.5% at the time – tied for the lowest since 1969, but not the all-time lowest on record, which was 2.5% in 1953. And while Lara Trump didn’t make an explicit claim about unemployment under Biden, it’s not true that things are worse today on this measure; again, the most recent unemployment rate, 3.4% for January 2023, is better than the rate at the time of CPAC’s 2020 conference or at any other time during Donald Trump’s presidency.

    Multiple speakers at CPAC decried the high number of fentanyl overdose deaths. But some of the speakers inflated that number while attacking Biden’s immigration policy.

    Sebastian Gorka, a former Trump administration official, claimed that “in the last 12 months in America, deaths by fentanyl poisoning totaled 110,000 Americans.” He blamed “Biden’s open border” for these deaths.

    Rep. Scott Perry claimed: “Meanwhile over on this side of the border, where there isn’t anybody, they’re running this fentanyl in; it’s killing 100,000 Americans – over 100,000 Americans – a year.”

    Facts First: It’s not true that there are more than 100,000 fentanyl deaths per year. That is the total number of deaths from all drug overdoses in the US; there were 106,699 such deaths in 2021. But the number of overdose deaths involving synthetic opioids other than methadone, primarily fentanyl, is smaller – 70,601 in 2021.

    Fentanyl-related overdoses are clearly a major problem for the country and by far the biggest single contributor to the broader overdose problem. Nonetheless, claims of “110,000” and “over 100,000” fentanyl deaths per year are significant exaggerations. And while the number of overdose deaths and fentanyl-related deaths increased under Biden in 2021, it was also troubling under Trump in 2020 – 91,799 total overdose deaths and 56,516 for synthetic opioids other than methadone.

    It’s also worth noting that fentanyl is largely smuggled in by US citizens through legal ports of entry rather than by migrants sneaking past other parts of the border. Contrary to frequent Republican claims, the border is not “open”; border officers have seized thousands of pounds of fentanyl under Biden.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Fox News election fraud revelations could take down the network’s embattled chief | CNN Business

    Fox News election fraud revelations could take down the network’s embattled chief | CNN Business

    [ad_1]


    New York
    CNN
     — 

    Who will Rupert Murdoch exile from the Fox kingdom?

    The Fox Corporation chairman is facing an ever-deepening scandal that threatens to cause considerable financial and reputational damage to the crown jewel of his media empire, Fox News, as well as the parent company he leads. The scandal, exposed by Dominion Voting Systems’ blockbuster $1.6 billion lawsuit, has unearthed damning information, revealing the right-wing talk channel, driven by financial interests, was willing to lie to its viewers.

    The stunning levels of misconduct exposed in recent weeks raise questions about the future of Suzanne Scott, the embattled chief executive of Fox News. Will she be Murdoch’s sacrificial lamb? No moves are currently on the immediate horizon, CNN is told. But it’s certainly possible — perhaps even likely — that Murdoch might cancel her in an attempt to save himself and his legacy.

    The Murdochs “are certainly setting Suzanne Scott up to take the fall for this,” Ben Smith, the Semafor editor-in-chief who writes a Sunday night media column, said Wednesday.

    “They’re leaving a trail of crumbs that lead back to her office,” added David Folkenflik, the NPR media correspondent and Murdoch biographer.

    A version of this article first appeared in the “Reliable Sources” newsletter. Sign up for the daily digest chronicling the evolving media landscape here.

    There is no shortage of evidence to support the notion Scott is on the chopping block. Most notably, during his deposition, Murdoch sought to distance himself from decision making at Fox News. Instead, he pointed to Scott: “I appointed Ms. Scott to the job … and I delegate everything to her,” he said. In doing so, Murdoch made the case that Scott is in charge of the network — and if there was wrongdoing, it rests on her shoulders. Of course, astute media observers know that Murdoch is the person actually calling the shots. But it’s not hard to see how the company could advance this narrative.

    This is not the first time that Murdoch has been faced with a serious and embarrassing matter in his media empire. In 2011, his now-defunct News of the World newspaper was ensnared in a phone hacking scandal. In 2016, Fox News founder Roger Ailes was accused in an explosive lawsuit of sexual harassment. And in 2017, star host Bill O’Reilly was caught in his own sexual misconduct scandal.

    In each case, Murdoch made the decision to sever ties with top personnel. As one source who once worked in Murdoch-world said Wednesday, “His pattern has been to throw some money overboard and offer a head or two in the process to make it go away.” And cutting ties with Scott would appear to be one of the easier ousters for Murdoch to execute over the course of his decades at the helm of one of the world’s biggest media empires.

    “Looking back to previous scandals, Murdoch and the companies have tended to try to pay early and quietly to make things go away, or they ignore them thinking they’re so big they can ride things out,” Folkenflik said. “And then when things really come to a head, they try to cauterize the wound at the lowest level possible.”

    “If he threw [Scott] over, he would only do it because he thought he needed to cauterize the wound before it goes higher,” Folkenflik added. “That’s his record. That’s what he does. It can be editors. It can be executives. It can be stars. He’s not throwing himself over the side.”

    Jim Rutenberg, the former media columnist at The New York Times who has an extensive history covering Murdoch, echoed that sentiment.

    “Murdoch has a history of sacrificing loyal lieutenants, but he does it only in the most extreme circumstances,” Rutenberg said. “We know that he hates doing it. We know that he tends to try to fight for his loyalists, even for Ailes, certainly for O’Reilly. But when it’s a necessity to overcome a real threat to his business, he’ll do it.”

    Whether the circumstances have reached a boiling point yet are unclear. The Dominion lawsuit, which has already caused massive reputational damage to the Fox News brand, is still in the pre-trial phase of the case. There’s no telling what could emerge from a weeks-long trial in which prominent executives and hosts such as Tucker Carlson and Sean Hannity are called to the stand. And it remains to be seen whether outside forces, such as potential shareholder lawsuits, come into play and exert added pressure on Murdoch to take action.

    Regardless, it’s worth noting that Murdoch himself has signaled that firings could be coming. When asked in his deposition whether Fox News executives who knowingly allowed “lies to be broadcast” should face consequences, Murdoch responded in the affirmative: “They should be reprimanded,” he said. “They should be reprimanded, maybe got rid of.”

    As Folkenflik noted, “If you’re Rupert, you can’t fire Rupert. And you’re not going to fire [Fox CEO] Lachlan [Murdoch] either. So who are you going to chop?”

    “Everyone who takes a senior executive position under Rupert Murdoch knows that is the case, that is the ultimate fall position,” Folkenflik explained. “They understand that’s part of the job. You’re very well paid. It can be a somewhat glamorous life. If you fall out of favor with the sun king, or it is to his benefit, that’s part of the equation.”

    We’ll see what Scott’s fate ultimately looks like. For now, Fox is not offering any public statement of support for her. When I reached out to Fox spokespeople on Wednesday asking for comment, the company declined.

    [ad_2]

    Source link