Biden continues to push for extending the pause.

November 29, 2023

          Another group of Israeli hostages and Palestinian prisoners were released on the fifth day of the pause in fighting in the Israeli-Hamas war. According to the Times of Israel, the Israeli government is currently negotiating a further extension of the pause in fighting to release all women and children. The Israeli government is at least considering “a potential broader framework to see male hostages freed.” See Israel open to weighing further hostage deal once all children and women freed | The Times of Israel.

          The NYTimes is reporting on internal disagreement within the White House over the next steps. A front-page story emphasized the criticism that President Biden is receiving from the Muslim-American community and some White House staffers. See NYTimes, Biden Navigates Divisions Over Gaza Inside the White House and Beyond. (Accessible to all.)  (Sub-headline of the article: “President Biden is facing deep anger over his solidarity with Israel among supporters and even from some staff members who have said they feel disenchanted with the president.”)

          But the text of the article describes an earnest Joe Biden listening to representatives of the Muslim American community and responding to their concerns in good faith:

The private meeting, which had been scheduled for 30 minutes, stretched to more than an hour, attendees said. Mr. Biden waved off aides who tried to pull him out of the room as he listened to the criticism and shared his own experience with loss and grief.

“He recognized there may have been missteps on the rhetoric,” said Wa’el Alzayat, the chief executive of Emgage, a group that mobilizes Muslim voters, who attended the meeting in the Roosevelt Room on Oct 26. “He listened, he did show empathy and he promised to do better, particularly on humanizing Palestinians.”

          Peter Baker of the NYTimes wrote an article on Monday that gave Biden due credit for his key role in extending the pause. See NYTimes, Biden Hopes to Alter the Trajectory of the War as Hostages Are Released.  Indeed, Baker noted that Biden has leaned on Israel too much for the liking of some Republican Senators, including Tom Cotton, who told the Times:

While he [Tom Cotton] said he did not “want to second-guess the Israeli government,” he was happy to second-guess Mr. Biden, accusing him of not supporting Israel enough.

“I have to say it seems like President Biden puts more pressure on Israel than he does on Hamas and its hosts in Qatar,” Mr. Cotton said. “The Biden administration has consistently behind the scenes insisted that Israel’s government take steps that are clearly not in Israel’s interest.”

          Senator Cotton appears to be unfamiliar with the concept of “compromise,” in which each party gives up some benefits to achieve an agreement—in this case, a pause for humanitarian aid and hostage releases.

          Many readers sent notes today saying they had written to leading newspapers and media outlets to complain about biased coverage. Some posted their letters in the Comment section to yesterday’s newsletter. One reader—Davis D.—wrote the following note to the Times and received this reply:

Davis D: I wrote to the NYT to tell them I was disappointed in their coverage of Biden and Trump, noting the false equivalency that is so obvious. This is the email I got back and I plan to continue the conversation with them. Just thought you might be interested.

The Times replied:

Good afternoon,

Thank you for writing to us. We appreciate your feedback.

We are an independent newsroom that aims to provide our readers with a full picture of what is happening in the world by pursuing the facts without fear or favor.

We agree that the actions and policies of the Biden administration merit the attention of our readers. We have devoted considerable resources to covering this presidency (as we did for the others before it) and will continue to do so aggressively: https://www.nytimes.com/spotlight/joe-biden

If it appears that we've devoted more of our report to Donald J. Trump than to President Biden, I'd wager that's because two presidencies and the men who have led them differ in significant ways. Much of the coverage of Mr. Trump's presidency (and its aftermath) has been about his conduct as a person, whereas coverage of Mr. Biden's tends to be about his agenda and administration. Mr. Biden rarely makes himself the center of the story in the way his predecessor did (and still does).

We will continue to cover Mr. Trump as long as he affects current events. At the moment, among other things, he still holds tremendous influence over the Republican party and his political future remains an active question.

That said, our editors will continue to assess the effects of his actions to calibrate the prominence that coverage is due among the many pieces of journalism on a variety of topics that we produce every day.

          I have a few observations. First, kudos to the reader for writing to the NYTimes, and kudos to the NYTimes for sending a reply that partially responds to Davis D.’s note. The good news is that the NYTimes appears to “get” that readers are upset about its coverage of Biden and Trump. That is a start. For that, we should be thankful.

          But it is not enough. Davis D. raised the question of “false equivalency” between Trump and Biden—i.e., treating both as legitimate candidates when one seeks to destroy democracy and the other hopes to save it. (Per the Times’ response, “[Trump]still holds tremendous influence over the Republican party and his political future remains an active question.”]

          The response by the NYTimes did not address that false equivalency—it merely addressed the amount of coverage that it devoted to Biden and Trump. Worse, the NYTimes reply seems to admit that the excessive coverage of Trump focuses on “his conduct as a person, whereas coverage of Mr. Biden's tends to be about his agenda and administration.” In other words, boring stories like Biden delivering on his promises to the American people are less newsworthy than Trump's outrageous behavior—at least to the Times.

          So, while it appears that the Times is slouching toward an appropriate balance in covering Trump, it has buried the lede: Trump seeks to destroy democracy while Biden is trying to save it. Until the Times can embed that fundamental truth into every story about Biden and Trump, no amount of politely worded replies will conceal its dereliction of duty.

The Koch Network endorses Nikki Haley.

          The Koch brothers’ political network opposed Trump in 2016—until they didn’t. Like other “Never-Trumpers,” they collapsed into obeisance as soon as Trump's nomination became inevitable. And while the Kochs supported Trump for a while, they ultimately came to recognize Trump as a wannabe dictator who would destroy American capitalism along with American democracy. But when they finally abandoned Trump in 2020, it was too late. The Frankenstein’s monster they helped create could no longer be controlled by them.  

          The Koch network is now endorsing Nikki Haley in the apparent hope that Trump will self-destruct or be convicted and imprisoned before 2024. See Axios, Why the Koch network's endorsement of Nikki Haley matters.

          Nikki Haley isn’t going to win the GOP nomination, but the decision by major donors to abandon Trump (for now) is good news for President Biden’s re-election bid. In the meantime, no one should be deceived by Nikki Haley’s insincere effort to re-brand herself as a “moderate” from the “New South.” In 2010, she was telling neo-Confederate groups that South Carolina still had the right to secede from the Union because “that’s what the Constitution says.” (It doesn’t say that.) See Kevin M. Levin on Substack, Nikki Haley's Revisionist History of the Confederate Flag Debate in South Carolina.

The problem of extremist groups on social media—and Substack.

          Well, that was fast! Just back from Israel to convince the world he is not antisemitic, Elon Musk retweeted a post that promoted the bizarre QAnon “Pizzagate” conspiracy. See Huffington Post, As Advertisers Flee, Elon Musk Doubles Down On . . . Pizzagate. That theory is—wait for it—vaguely antisemitic because it asserts that an international ring of pedophiles sacrifices children in Satanic rituals to drink their blood (echoes of blood libel).

          But Twitter isn’t the only platform with a problem of extremists who have embedded themselves into social media platforms. Indeed, Facebook, Instagram, YouTube, and Twitter all have documented problems with antisemitism and neo-Nazis. Now, we can add Substack to that list. See Jonathan Katz in The Atlantic, Substack Has a Nazi Problem. (Unfortunately, I can’t “gift” access to this article under The Atlantic’s policies.)

          Katz explains that of the 17,000+ writers on Substack,

At least 16 of the newsletters that I reviewed have overt Nazi symbols, including the swastika and the sonnenrad, in their logos or in prominent graphics. Andkon’s Reich Press, for example, calls itself “a National Socialist newsletter”; its logo shows Nazi banners on Berlin’s Brandenburg Gate, and one recent post features a racist caricature of a Chinese person.

Some Substack newsletters by Nazis and white nationalists have thousands or tens of thousands of subscribers, making the platform a new and valuable tool for creating mailing lists for the far right. And many accept paid subscriptions through Substack, seemingly flouting terms of service that ban attempts to “publish content or fund initiatives that incite violence based on protected classes.”

          Substack’s founders, like executives at other social media platforms, claim that they are attempting to balance freedom of expression and social responsibility:

In a post earlier this year, a Substack co-founder, Hamish McKenzie, implied that his company’s business model would largely obviate the need for content moderation. “We give communities on Substack the tools to establish their own norms and set their own terms of engagement rather than have all that handed down to them by a central authority,” he wrote.

          I should note here that Substack not only has a Nazi problem, but it also has an anti-vaxxer, 9-11 truther, climate denier, and election denier problem. In other words, it has the same problems as all other social media platforms that are open to members of the public.

          I am not attempting to defend Substack—or any social media platform. (Twitter falls into a special category because its owner is one of the users promoting antisemitic content.) But Substack is also home to Heather Cox Richardson, Joyce Vance, Jessica Craven, Robert Reich, Dan Rather, Jay Kuo, Thom Hartmann, Judd Legum, The Bulwark, and hundreds of other progressive voices who are providing an alternative to major media outlets.

          One reader has already written to me asking, “I have unsubscribed from Facebook, Twitter, and Threads. Do I have to unsubscribe from Substack?” I responded that I would not tell her what to do, but she has to get her news somewhere—from major media, alternative news sites, or platforms like Substack.

          In any event, I wanted to raise this issue head-on in case any readers saw Katz’s article in The Atlantic and have concerns. As always, you should feel free to write me at rbhubbell@gmail.com to share your thoughts and opinions.

Hunter Biden offers to testify in public before House Oversight Committee.

          James Comer, Chair of the House Oversight Committee, has spent the last several months trying to subpoena Hunter Biden to testify about the non-existent Biden Crime Family. Hunter Biden called the Committee’s bluff and offered to testify—in public. James Comer went ballistic because . . . well, “How dare Hunter Biden attempt to bring transparency to a process driven by leaks and innuendo!” (For those who missed the tone, that last sentence was sarcastic and hyperbolic.) See Talking Points Memo,  Another Data Point On How Unserious House Republicans’ Hunter Biden ‘Investigation’ Is.

          As TPM notes, Rep. Jamie Raskin had the following to say about James Comer’s response to Hunter Biden’s offer to provide testimony in public:

Let me get this straight.  After wailing and moaning for ten months about Hunter Biden and alluding to some vast unproven family conspiracy, after sending Hunter Biden a subpoena to appear and testify, Chairman Comer and the Oversight Republicans now reject his offer to appear before the full Committee and the eyes of the world and to answer any questions that they pose? What an epic humiliation for our colleagues and what a frank confession that they are simply not interested in the facts and have no confidence in their own case or the ability of their own Members to pursue it.

Democracy Labs explains how to design a poll showing that broccoli is more popular than hamburgers.

          I have recommended the Democracy Labs website previously, which is devoted to modeling how grassroots organizations can use free technology tools to spread their message. In its most recent post, Democracy Labs explains how a pollster can manipulate methodology to ensure that respondents overwhelmingly favor broccoli over hamburgers. See How to fool people with BOGUS SURVEYS (thedemlabs.org).

          In full disclosure, the Democracy Labs post uses my recent rant against the Washington Post’s article, “Biden’s resistance to cease-fire could alienate youth voters in 2024” to illustrate the not-so-subtle art of deception in surveys and polls.  Check it out.

Concluding Thoughts.

          I was heartened today by the number of readers who shared letters to major newspapers and journalists expressing their disagreement with the editorial slant and news bias in the outlets. I sincerely believe such efforts are having a positive impact. In the end, all that it will take to change the narrative is for tens of millions of Americans to make their voices heard.

          The solution is easy, but the task is hard. Motivating people when their lives are already burdened with jobs, family, health issues, and burnout is difficult. Those of you who step up to rally the faithful servants of democracy are performing a sacred duty. It is frequently thankless work that requires an iron constitution and an unwavering sense of optimism.

          So, for the countless times when people forgot to say “Thank you” for your selflessness, fortitude, and activism, let me say here and now: Thank you! Your nation owes you a debt of gratitude. Every American does. We can’t say it often enough!

          Talk to you tomorrow!