It’s as bad as we thought—and worse.

February 28, 2023

          One of the most maddening aspects of Trump's tenure was the apparent illicit collaboration between a sitting president and a major media company posing as a news organization. Fox News promoted Trump’s lies, excused his crimes, and attacked Democrats for defending democracy by attempting to hold Trump to account. Although difficult to prove, most of us believed that the management and “news anchors” at Fox despised Trump but viewed him as “a useful idiot” who generated ratings and revenue. At their worst, Fox management and on-air personalities repeated Trump's lies about Dominion Voting System machines “flipping” votes from Trump to Biden—lies that no one at Fox believed. That lie directly contributed to the violence on January 6^th.

          It is a rare event to see one’s suspicions about liars and dissemblers proven in a court proceeding. But the lawyers of Dominion have skillfully extracted dozens of admissions from Fox executives, including Rupert Murdoch, confirming that they did not believe Trump's claims of a “stolen” election but re-published those lies, nonetheless. Worse, for Fox, is that its executives have admitted their motivation for publishing known falsehoods was to retain viewers and advertisers. For a fair summary of the disclosures, see Law & Crime, Dominion bombshells reveal how Robert Murdoch, Paul Ryan, and Fox’s top lawyer secretly reacted to Trump’s ‘wild’ election claims.

          The above disclosures demonstrate that it was as bad as we thought it was at Fox. It is reassuring to know that our worldview was neither delusional nor conspiratorial. But recent revelations show that it was even worse at Fox News than we imagined. In a stupefying disclosure, Dominion has learned that Rupert Murdoch provided Jared Kushner advance copies of Joe Biden’s political ads to be run on Fox—a practice that amounted to political espionage. See Mediate, Rupert Murdoch Gave Jared Kushner ‘Fox Confidential Information’ About Biden Ads During Campaign, Claims Court Filing.

          No political candidate should ever trust Fox again with campaign ads for fear that Rupert Murdoch will leak copies of the ads over martinis shared on Fox corporate jet(s).

          The legal brief filed by Dominion that describes the testimony of Murdoch and other Fox executives is here (not behind a paywall): See NYTimes, Read What Murdoch Said in His Deposition in the Fox-Dominion Case. If you have the opportunity, I recommend reading the pages of the brief numbered 1 through 7. Ignore the case citations and references to legal standards. Read the words of Murdoch, his son, the Fox Chief legal officer, and the president of Fox News uttered under oath.

          To summarize, (a) most Fox on-air entertainers and senior executives did not believe Trump's lies about a stolen election, (b) after discussion, they concluded that Fox would continue to publish those lies for fear of alienating viewers and advertisers, (c) Rupert Murdoch blamed Fox on-air entertainers—as opposed to Fox—for promoting the lies, and (d) Murdoch believes that on-air entertainers who intentionally publish information they believe to be false should disciplined or terminated.

          Of course, none of the Fox on-air entertainers who promoted the false election lies have been disciplined or fired. Instead, Fox has decided not to allow its on-air entertainers to discuss the shocking revelation that prove Fox is a house of cards built on lies, fear, and contempt. See Talking Points Memo, Fox News Holds Its Own Media Reporter Hostage As Defamation Case Plays Out. (Fox on-air personality Howard Kurtz explains that he would like to report on the Dominion news story, but has been instructed by Fox not to discuss the matter in his news coverage.)

          While it is gratifying to see the truth emerge, there is still an element of gaslighting that pervades the debacle. Imagine if a similar lawsuit revealed that news anchors at CNN or MSNBC or reporters the NYTimes or WaPo were republishing falsehoods they did not believe. What reaction would occur at Fox, Breitbart, or Newsmax (which buried the story as the 35^th item in long list of “news” of the day)? Of course, the reaction would be vitriolic, explosive, and damning. The conservative outlets would demand mass firings, resignations, and congressional investigations. And the viewers and readers of those outlets would expect as much from their allegedly “trusted” news sources exposed as frauds.

          But when the scandal occurs at Fox there is collective silence on the right—even among Fox’s conservative competitors in the media. The conservative National Review does not mention the Dominion lawsuit disclosures in its coverage today, but laughably leads its news stories with a plea for donations to help to “Combat the Lies” that “are conscious deception driven by activists and fanatics [and by] “learned ignorance” by people who don’t dare buck a politically correct consensus.” While the National Review is outraged by “lies” by activists, it apparently doesn’t care that Fox executives have admitted to republishing known falsehoods to boost ratings and maximize revenue.

          Here’s my point: Even on the day of reckoning for Fox there is an asymmetry of consequence and accountability. MSNBC and CNN would have cleaned house in the face of such a scandal. The conservative media, on the other hand, has joined ranks to pretend the scandal does not exist. That outcome is a feature, not a bug, in a system where one political party and its media apparatus seek to destroy the democracy that guarantees their existence while the other political party is doing its darnedest to preserve that democracy.

          Given the asymmetry in political objectives of the Republican and Democratic parties, we must endure the unfairness of a right-wing media landscape pretending that a once-in-century scandal in journalism does not exist. But we now know the truth and should take great satisfaction in that knowledge. We should also be more motivated than ever before. They will stop at nothing, including running a so-called news network as a fraudulent enterprise to destroy democracy so that Rupert Murdoch can increase his personal wealth.

The Department of Energy report on the “lab leak” origin of SARS-CoV-2.

          The Department of Energy has apparently concluded with “low confidence” that a lab leak in Wuhan, China was the likely origin of the Covid pandemic. Many media outlets, especially right-wing outlets, have distorted that intelligence assessment into a conclusive statement about the origin of Covid and are demanding an apology from those who characterized the lab leak theory as a “conspiracy.”

          No apology is necessary because the DOE report is not conclusive, is contradicted by at least four other US intelligence agency findings and expresses only “low confidence” in its conclusion. Whatever else one might say about the DOE report, “low confidence” does not mean that the conclusion establishes the “likely” source of Covid. According to guidance for national security assessments, a finding of “low confidence” means the following:

A low confidence level generally indicates that the information used in the analysis is scant, questionable, fragmented, or that solid analytical conclusions cannot be inferred from the information, or that the IC has significant concerns or problems with the information sources.

See Office of the Director of National Intelligence, Intelligence Community Consumers Guide.

          The state of play is this: The FBI concluded with “moderate” confidence that a lab leak was the likely source of Covid, while four US intelligence agencies concluded that the sources of Covid was “natural”, while two US intelligence agencies could not reach a conclusion. None of those agencies changed their conclusions because of the DOE finding. See Rolling Stone, Energy Dept. Concludes with ‘Low Confidence’ Covid Came from Lab Leak.

          So, where does this leave us? A fair description is that the source of SARS-CoV-2 (the virus that causes Covid) is either unknown or contested, with one possibility being a lab leak. But genetic studies in peer-reviewed journals point to zoonotic transmission in the Wuhan meat market in China. See The Guardian, How seriously should we take the US DoE’s Covid lab leak theory?. Until China cooperates with the international science community, it may be difficult or impossible to learn the true origins of the Covid pandemic.

          While we should make every effort to learn the origins of Covid and approach that question with an open mind, we should also ask ourselves whether such knowledge would affect advice regarding mRna vaccines, masking, and Paxlovid on the one hand, and ivermectin, hydroxychloroquine, and herd immunity on the other. It would not.

          Finally, we should remember that the early “lab leak” conspiracy theories went far beyond asserting an accidental lab leak. The conspiracy theorists claimed that SARS-CoV-2 was a biological weapon invented by China or developed and released by the always anonymous “them” to help Joe Biden defeat Trump. So, no apologies are owed to the conspiracy theorists.

Legal updates.

          Depending on which source you consult, a regular grand jury in Fulton County, Georgia, will conclude its work tomorrow (Tuesday), or a new grand jury will be empaneled on March 1 or March 7, 2023. The point is that many court observers are expecting indictments in Georgia soon relating to efforts to interfere in the 2020 presidential election. If so, indictments cannot happen soon enough. Trump is making pre-primary appearances at organizations that vet candidates for the GOP nomination. See Newsweek, CPAC 2023 Speakers, Schedule as Donald Trump Headlines D.C. Event.

          There is a lot on the Supreme Court docket this week, including student loan forgiveness and the continued existence of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. A panel of the reactionary 5^th Circuit Court of Appeals essentially ruled that the CFPB is unconstitutional—a ruling that would devastate consumer protection in the US if upheld by the Supreme Court. Ian Millhiser, writing in Vox, believes it is highly unlikely the Court will uphold the 5^th Circuit’s ruling. See Vox, The Supreme Court will decide if a whole federal agency is unconstitutional, in CFPB v. Community Financial Services. Millhiser believes it will be good to remove the cloud that has hung over the CFPB since its creation. Stay tuned!

More on the Wisconsin Supreme Court election.

          Jessica Craven over at Chop Wood Carry Water has put together a fantastic resource sheet to help elect Judge Janet Protasiewicz. If you are interested in the Wisconsin election (and you should be!), check out Jessica’s helpful resource at ADOPT WISCONSIN!

          The resource sheet includes infographics to include in your social media accounts for VoteRiders (helping with voter ID) and links to post-carding sites like Vote Forward (which was favorably mentioned by many readers in today’s emails and Comment section).

          Other organizations and activities highlighted by Jessica include donating to Wisconsin Democrats (Wisdems.org), the Movement Voter Wisconsin Fund, or Blue Tent’s Wisconsin fund, which will split your money between Working America and Movement Labs.

          Sister District is raising money for Citizen Action and WISDOM through the Sister District's State Bridges Program.

          The Center for Common Ground is running phone banking directed to “Black and Brown voters in Wisconsin who are specifically targeted by voter suppression efforts.”

          There are more opportunities listed in Jessica’s resource sheet, but you get the point! There are many ways to get involved or help support the race. Pick one or two and tell a friend!

Concluding Thoughts.

          We are about to enter the first round of speeches by GOP hopefuls. They will each attempt to out-compete the other by running to the right of Trump without mentioning his name or acknowledging his efforts to overthrow the government in January 2021. That will be strange—to say the least. It is not normal (or should not be) to have a failed coup-plotter running for re-election. But that is where we find ourselves.

          If the media performs true to form, their coverage will be limited to (a) “He said, she said,” and (b) “Who is ahead in the horse race?” Don’t expect most media outlets to qualify their description of Trump as a twice-impeached failed insurrectionist who has told anyone who will listen that he will do it again.

          Here’s my advice for dealing with the onslaught of normalizing coverage of Trump: ignore it. Recognize that it is easy for the media to look past the elephant in the room at this stage, but it will become increasingly difficult if Trump is indicted or appears to be moving toward securing the GOP nomination. The breathless reporting in the coming weeks will be long forgotten by mid-summer and early fall. There will be time for hard-hitting critical reporting of Trump when the campaigns ramp up later in the year. So, do not despair or give up. The spectacle of the GOP vetting conventions is a distraction that rarely has predictive value about the eventual nominee. So, relax if you can, and focus on improving the field of battle going into 2024 by helping Judge Janet Protasiewicz win a seat on the Wisconsin Supreme Court.

Talk to you tomorrow!