In an astonishing 30-minute segment, Donald Trump called in to Fox & Friends on April 26, 2018, to rant, vent, yell, interrupt,  and blurt out some things that may place him in further legal jeopardy. He starts out slowly, but he quickly builds to an increasingly angry, out-of-control tone. As you watch, you get a sense that he’s talking this way because he feels at home, and therefore unfettered and unguarded, with his sycophants on Fox & Friends. And in that comfort zone, he escalates into a scary, epic rant—so out of control that even his Fox buddies squirm and try to help him out by cutting the interview off.

The rantiest part starts at about 9 minutes in, and it just gets worse and worse. This is Trump unbound, talking to his intimate friends, unfiltered, unrestricted by a teleprompter. The “interviewers” can’t get a word in. They actually try, weakly, but he talks over them, his tone getting louder and angrier as he continues. The “conversation” gives us insight into how he must rant in White House discussions, where actual policy is made and executed.  Frightening.

He manages, too, to reveal some information that is sure to make both Special Prosecutor Robert Mueller and Stormy Daniels’ attorney Michael Avanatti sit up and take notes:  He admits that he spent an overnight in Moscow [which, according to James Comey’s notes, Trump said he did not.] He acknowledges that Michael Cohen represented him in the Stormy Daniels affair [which Trump has previously denied]. He asserts [a nice word for his aggressive speaking style] that Michael Cohen handled only a “tiny fraction” of his legal work [which would mean that most of what was seized by the FBI raid on Cohen would not contain attorney-client privileged information, as Trump has previously claimed.]  He threatens the Justice Department [the most worrisome–for our legal and checks-and-balances system–of all].

See for yourself, if you can stand it. And enjoy the end, when Fox hosts try to get the hook and get him offstage. Even they are embarrassed about what this rant reveals about Trump.

The post Jaw dropping: Trump’s rant on Fox & Friends appeared first on Occasional Planet.

Calling Fox News “a mere propaganda machine for a destructive and ethically ruinous administration,” Lt. Colonel Ralph Peters [US Army, retired]  quit his job as strategic analyst for Fox on March 1, 2018. Peters, a military intelligence veteran who specialized in the Soviet Union, had been affiliated with Fox for 10 years. On his way out, he sent an explanatory note to his co-workers at Fox News, castigating the organization and many of its on-air personalities for “assaulting our constitutional order and the rule of law, while fostering corrosive and unjustified paranoia among viewers.”

In one section of his scathing departure letter, Peters—an intelligences professional who knows Russia very well—affirms the contents of the controversial Steele dossier, which describes links between Trump world and Russia. “It rings very true,” he states. “That’s how the Russians do things.”

Here is the full text of his email letter, which was first published by BuzzFeed.   It’s worth a read. And stick around for the sign off. It’s priceless.

On March 1st, I informed Fox that I would not renew my contract. The purpose of this message to all of you is twofold:

First, I must thank each of you for the cooperation and support you’ve shown me over the years. Those working off-camera, the bookers and producers, don’t often get the recognition you deserve, but I want you to know that I have always appreciated the challenges you face and the skill with which you master them.

Second, I feel compelled to explain why I have to leave. Four decades ago, I took an oath as a newly commissioned officer. I swore to “support and defend the Constitution,” and that oath did not expire when I took off my uniform. Today, I feel that Fox News is assaulting our constitutional order and the rule of law, while fostering corrosive and unjustified paranoia among viewers. Over my decade with Fox, I long was proud of the association. Now I am ashamed.

In my view, Fox has degenerated from providing a legitimate and much-needed outlet for conservative voices to a mere propaganda machine for a destructive and ethically ruinous administration. When prime-time hosts–who have never served our country in any capacity–dismiss facts and empirical reality to launch profoundly dishonest assaults on the FBI, the Justice Department, the courts, the intelligence community (in which I served) and, not least, a model public servant and genuine war hero such as Robert Mueller–all the while scaremongering with lurid warnings of “deep-state” machinations– I cannot be part of the same organization, even at a remove. To me, Fox News is now wittingly harming our system of government for profit.

As a Russia analyst for many years, it also has appalled me that hosts who made their reputations as super-patriots and who, justifiably, savaged President Obama for his duplicitous folly with Putin, now advance Putin’s agenda by making light of Russian penetration of our elections and the Trump campaign. Despite increasingly pathetic denials, it turns out that the “nothing-burger” has been covered with Russian dressing all along. And by the way: As an intelligence professional, I can tell you that the Steele dossier rings true–that’s how the Russians do things.. The result is that we have an American president who is terrified of his counterpart in Moscow.

I do not apply the above criticisms in full to Fox Business, where numerous hosts retain a respect for facts and maintain a measure of integrity (nor is every host at Fox News a propaganda mouthpiece–some have shown courage). I have enjoyed and valued my relationship with Fox Business, and I will miss a number of hosts and staff members. You’re the grown-ups.

Also, I deeply respect the hard-news reporters at Fox, who continue to do their best as talented professionals in a poisoned environment. These are some of the best men and women in the business.

So, to all of you: Thanks, and, as our president’s favorite world leader would say, “Das vidanya.”

The post Why he quit: Fox News analyst denounces propaganda channel appeared first on Occasional Planet.

In unison, the talking heads at Fox News and Republicans on the House Judiciary Committee assaulted both current FBI Director Christopher Wray and former Director Robert Mueller. Mueller also happens to be Special Counsel investigating foreign election intervention by Russia. Their complaint was that the F.B.I. is politicized and out to get Donald Trump. In the minds of those on the right, the same is true of Special Counsel Mueller.

Fox anchor and commentator Gregg Jarrett said,

“I think that we now know that the Mueller Investigation is illegitimate and corrupt. And Mueller has been using the F.B.I. as a political weapon, and the F.B.I. has become America’s secret police, secret surveillance, wire-tapping, intimidation, harassment and threats. It’s like the old KGB that comes for you in the dark of the night, banging through your door. The F.B.I. is a shadow government now; it has become highly politicized.”

Peter Strzok is the perfect example of it. He led both the Hillary Clinton investigation and, until recently, the Mueller investigation. This is a guy who has corrupt political motives. We now know it. Congress has the emails. But he’s the tip of the iceberg.

Rarely has a public figure received as much universal praise as Robert Mueller, at least up until a few weeks ago. But as his investigation has evolved to the point where we now have perp walks, the heat is getting to be too much for many on the right. In their minds, Mueller and those working for him no longer have objectivity; their clear and present motive is to get Donald Trump and those close to him.

If you believe that we are now living in two un-parallel universes, the right is right. Mueller is out to get Trump and those close to him. At least this is how most people in Trump’s 34% universe of the American electorate see it.

Here’s the problem that the right has. Mueller is coming from a perspective founded in the Age of Reason. He is employing logic and deductive reasoning. He is hiring people who come from the same school. When the Trump-o-philes complain that Mueller has hired lawyers who have represented Democrats or contributed to the campaign of Democrats, they are right. What do they expect, lawyers from Breitbart? Mueller is hiring lawyers who can follow both the facts and the law.

Mueller is an evidence-based person. This comes with the territory when you are a post-J-Edgar director of the F.B.I. Or as Sergeant Joe Friday of Dragnet fame said, “Just the facts, ma’am.” He is following what is empirical, and often times this means following the money. For Trump, this means getting into his “privates.” His allies think that’s off-limits, but in reality, his finances should be in the public domain.

These two universes go beyond disagreeing on policies or even on proper legal procedure. They reflect a huge cultural divide in our country. It has gotten so wide that each side goes beyond calling the other side “bad” or misguided; now each side challenges the mental health of those on the other side.

Conventional analysis would indicate that Trump or Roy Moore are people whose mental stability should be questioned, but to those on the right it is the likes of Mueller or Barack Obama who are unstable.

There is a connection between rational thinking and those who are politically more to the left. Mueller’s investigation is reflective of that; the best investigators tend to be closer to non-conspiratorial journalists and others looking to document occurrences. This has to be frightening to Trump, Fox News and others of similar mind-sets. From where they sit, it is indeed true that Mueller is stacking the deck against Trump. It will be that way so long as two plus two equals four.

The post The right is right: Mueller is stacking deck against Trump appeared first on Occasional Planet.

The next time you hear Donald Trump, Ted Cruz, or any of the phony journalists and sneering pundits of Fox News claim that Muslims have failed to speak out against extremism and terrorism, remember the faces of Naji Jerf and Ruqia Hassan. These determined, anti-Isis activists are just the latest victims of a targeted assassination campaign waged against journalists and filmmakers who are putting their lives on the line to bear witness to the human-rights abuses of the Islamic State in Syria.

Jerf and Hassan, along with three other Syrian journalists murdered by Isis since October 2015, had their lives taken from them because they refused to keep silent. A recently released video shows another five men—who were falsely accused of spying—recounting the crimes that ultimately led to their executions. What exactly did they do? The first crime was operating an Internet café. The second was sending photos of life in Syria to Turkey.

It’s shameful that American media provides a seemingly unlimited platform for pundits and politicians spreading unsubstantiated claims of widespread Muslim acceptance and support for terrorism. It is even more shameful to witness how the narrative of hatred and fear is successfully exploited to gain airtime and rack up a few more polling points, while courageous Muslims are risking—and losing—their lives to protest the violence and let the rest of the world know the truth.

Naji Jerf was a Syrian documentary filmmaker, anti-Isis activist, and editor-in-chief of Hentah, a magazine reporting on Syrian life.

The 38-year-old father of two made films documenting massacres by the Islamic State in Syria. According to reports from the Committee to Protect Journalists—a non-profit organization promoting press freedom world wide—Jerf was shot and killed just one week before traveling to France where his wife and children had already been granted asylum status.

Jerf had been working with the citizen group Raqqa Is Being Slaughtered Silently, which in recent months has lost three other members of its staff by assassination.

Ruqia Hassan was killed by Jihadists in September of 2015. Thirty-year-old Hassan was the first female journalist and activist killed by Isis.

Hassan, who studied philosophy at Aleppo University, used social media to post information about everyday life in Raqqa, Syria, and the challenges of women living under the rule of the Islamic State. She also shared information about coalition airstrikes on social media using the pseudonym Nisan Ibrahim.

Confirmation of Hassan’s execution on charges of espionage was only recently announced, even though she had been killed in September.

According to The Independent, for months Isis claimed that Ruqia, who was imprisoned, was still alive. During the interim Isis hijacked her Facebook account and continued posting in her name, hoping to entrap other dissidents.

Two months before her murder, Hassan tweeted these defiant words:

“I’m in Raqqa, and I received death threats, and when Isis [arrests] me and kills me it’s ok because they will cut my head and I have dignity its better than I live in humiliation with Isis”

The post Brave Muslim journalists assassinated for reporting on ISIS appeared first on Occasional Planet.

When AlterNet reporter Eric Stern saw Sean Hannity’s report on Obamacare horror stories, he decided to check it out. Hannity presented three married couples who claimed to have been harmed by the new Affordable Care Act. Stern, who has worked as a senior ACA implementation advisor to a governor,  decided to track down those families to get more details, and he wrote about what he found out.  Here’s a link to his full article, “Fox News coverage about Obamacare was extremely misleading,” which debunks virtually everything in the Fox News feature.

I’m not saying that ACA is going to be perfect for everyone, but Stern’s fact-checking shows several things: The right-wing propaganda machine has done a great job of scaring people off—so much so that people who could be benefiting from Obamacare are not even bothering to find out about it. Also, it doesn’t take much to find out that most of the anti-Obamacare hype is false—and, worse yet, Fox knows that.

Kudos to Stern for going the extra step—oh, wait, isn’t that what journalists are supposed to do?

The post More Affordable Care Act [Obamacare] deception, courtesy of Fox News appeared first on Occasional Planet.

Dear Chris M., Rachel, and Lawrence at MSNBC:

Sorry old friends. You got me through a lot of hard times. But you’ve lost  me. I’m weaning myself away.  So here’s my confession.  It might help you  understand why it’s really, truly over.

In the run up to the 2012 election, I confess I indulged in a nightly dose of MSNBC for four straight, mind-numbing hours. From Chris to Ed to Rachel to Lawrence, it didn’t matter that most nights each one of you hashed over the same tidbit, embellishing it just enough with your own spicy sauce to make it sound as if you were the first and only one stirring the pot.

You could say I ate, drank, and slept the news. That’s what fear will do.  The dread I felt about a Mitt Romney presidency and the crazies of the Republican party gaining more sway than they already had kept me glued to your news casting.  You coddled my political leanings, and so I clung to you—my fellow progressives and your words—for dear life.

In the uncertainty of how the election would end, MSNBC became my lifeline.  MSNBC became my surrogate mommy—soothing me with a gentle touch to my fevered head while crooning that “yes, my dear, there is a tooth fairy”; and, “yes, my dear, she’s doing everything she can to get Obama elected.”

And this: “Yes, dear, there are still sane—nay, even thoughtful, rational people out there somewhere in the universe.” (Can you hear it?  This is where we cut to the mellifluous opening notes of Judy’s “Somewhere Over the Rainbow.”) And there was even more: “Yes, dear, there will be life after the next election, no matter who wins.” (That one I wasn’t so sure about.)

Let me be clear.  You news-junky hosts on MSNBC and your smarter-than-smart staffs were the only ones on national television highlighting stories and framing the news in a way that squared with my progressive viewpoint. And for that I was grateful.

But post-election, the thrill is gone.

I don’t know. Maybe I’ve gotten tired of the graphic gimmicks and silly bells and whistles that are there to seduce an audience decades younger than I.   Or maybe it’s that Chris M. interrupting the thought flow of yet another distinguished guest became too infuriating or the brilliance of Rachel’s mind and the circular construction of her solo arguments became too familiar and too predictable.  (Must familiarity always breed contempt?)

Or maybe it’s just that I thought that after you got over the first blush of finding yourselves on the big stage trumpeting the progressive line, you’d settle in to some good old-fashioned, serious journalism.  Of course, things haven’t turned out as I thought they might.

To be fair, there’s serious journalism underpinning your programs, but to this viewer the egos gone wild and self-indulgent strutting of wit and intelligence kick the serious box out from under all of you.

Edward R. Murrow you are not.

It was March 21, at 9:27 pm to be exact, when I knew it was over. That night, during a segment on Rachel’s show, the commentary encapsulated everything that’s turned me off MSNBC’s news coverage.

Something really important had happened that day.  Something really important that illustrated the cynical propaganda campaign that’s undermining what we know about our elected officials, the world, and the real workings of our democracy.

Of course, I know that you, Rachel, know.  But did you present the story with the seriousness it deserved?  The answer is no. First off, you were nearly squirming with delight to show us how clever you and your staff were for discovering and connecting the dots.  If I had you in front of me, I’d say: Stop touting your smarts.  It demeans your calling.

If you remember, on March 21 President Obama was in the midst of his first visit to Israel.  He was being shown, by live feed, receiving Israel’s highest honor as a true friend and trusted ally. As Rachel and her staff discovered, at the same time, Fox News was running a program excoriating Obama as the archenemy of Israel.

The contrast between reality and the imaginary world of Fox could not have been more stark. But Rachel, you sneered and giggled.  Your demeanor said, “You’re in on the joke, viewers, can you believe this?  Those wild and crazy, out of it guys at Fox. Those wild and crazy Republican wing nuts.  You and me, we’re educated, smart, with it, not like those bozos.”  (Hear the sound of laughter.)

That kind of delivery might make you, Rachel, your staff, and your audience (me, included) feel good about what we believe to be our superior knowledge, education, and nuanced understanding of politics, but it’s not journalism.  And it’s not what we need right now.

And Rachel, you’re not alone.  Lawrence and guests indulge in barely disguised snickers during a nightly Rush Limbaugh segment.  You might say that laughing at Rush is the best medicine. (Remember how Mel Brooks said the same about another demagogue?) But an awful lot of people take Rush very, very seriously—to their detriment and ours. After all, Rush’s lies are why we have people in need who believe that Obamacare is a Frankenstein (as someone recently referred to it in my local newspaper).

So I say, grow up MSNBC hosts. Maybe there’s still time to win back this viewer. Focus a little less on glorifying your own opinions and displaying your self-satisfaction and more on giving us the facts. Make your hours less about you and more about the news. Forget about entertainment and start creating some grown-up news casts because that’s what we—and our democracy—really need.

The post Dear MSNBC: Grow up, already appeared first on Occasional Planet.

In a turn of events that will shock no one, “fair and balanced” news source, Fox News, was discovered to be using incorrect data on a graphic during one of its regular news shows. The image in question reported that unemployment in 2009 was 7.8% and that in 2012 it was now 14.7%. It’s a shocking change in numbers, particularly because it’s false.

Media Matters called Fox out on the deception by pulling up the old national employment rate (7.8% in January 2009) and the current national unemployment rate, which is 8.1%. So where did the other number come from? As Media Matters reports,

“The 14.7 percent figure is a completely different measurement of the unemployed, which in addition to those who are actively looking for work, also counts people who are unemployed and discouraged from looking for a new job, part-time workers who prefer full-time employment, and more. This alternative measure of unemployment, which conservatives often call the “real” unemployment rate, was 14.2 percent in January 2009 — 0.5 percentage points lower than it is today.”

It’s one thing to have a typo. It’s another to mix together two different sets of numbers to create a misleading statistic. That’s not reporting the news, it’s lying. And Fox has fudged the numbers on employment numerous times before. A day later, Fox and Friends issued a correction for the graphic. If they are serious about making amends, they should stop their pattern of spreading misinformation and trying to pass it off as the truth.

The post Fox news lies about employment rates (again) appeared first on Occasional Planet.

A new book, set for release on February 21, 2012, uses leaked emails and Fox Network employees’ own words to show Fox News for what it is—a political operation masquerading as a news network.

The authors of the book are top executives of Media Matters for America, a progressive research and information center that monitors, analyzes, and rebuts conservative misinformation in the U.S. media. Launched in May 2004, Media Matters put in place the means to systematically monitor a cross section of print, broadcast, cable, radio, and Internet media outlets for conservative misinformation — news or commentary that is not accurate, reliable, or credible and that forwards the conservative agenda — every day, in real time.

Their pre-publication announcement gives a sneak preview of how Fox operates when they attack political foes—a process they’ve dubbed “The Fox Effect.” Here’s the authors’ summary of how it works:

STEP 1: Conservative activists introduce a lie.
STEP 2: Fox News devotes massive coverage to the story.
STEP 3: Fox attacks other outlets for ignoring the controversy.
STEP 4: Mainstream outlets begin reporting on the story.
STEP 5: Media critics, pundits praise Fox News coverage.
STEP 6: The story falls apart once the damage has been done.

Most attacks from Fox follow these six steps, say the authors. Their book illustrates this phenomenon with specific details:

This is not your standard media criticism book — it’s the definitive answer to every cousin, brother-in-law or neighbor who ever told you that Fox was their go-to place for news. From tracing the career of Fox News founder Roger Ailes as he learned to manipulate racial politics while working on the presidential campaigns of Richard Nixon and George H.W. Bush, to visiting a cruise ship in the middle of the Mediterranean where a senior Fox News executive admitted to telling Fox News viewers that Barack Obama was a socialist even though he did not believe the charge to be true, The Fox Effect dismantles once and for all the notion that there’s any genuine meaning behind the network’s “fair & balanced” slogan.

If it delivers on the pre-publication hype, The Fox Effect could be a fascinating, anger-inducing, blood-pressure-raising, frustrating, discouraging and worst-fear-confirming read. And you have to wonder: If it bothers to acknowledge the book at all, will Fox News use its six-step program to try to discredit it? That could be fun to watch.

The post The Fox Effect appeared first on Occasional Planet.

Who controls what you view on TV as you stair-climb, ellipiticize, pump, lift and stretch? In many gyms, the TV is permanently set on Fox News. Some of us object to this practice: It’s okay to watch Fox at home, but there’s something uncomfortable about businesses showing Fox in public places. It feels like an endorsement of the Fox viewpoint.  Indeed, it would not shock me to learn that, among right-wingers, there’s a tacit, unspoken understanding that like-minded folks should capitalize on every opportunity to make Fox the preferred channel where the public gathers. I’d like to see a study of what percentage of gyms, bars, electronics stores and other enterprises with tv’s are, at any given time, showing Fox.

So, here’s an idea. If you’re looking for a simple, everyday way to demonstrate your commitment to progressive ideas–and to perform a non-threatening act of protest, try talking to your gym manager, bartender or tv salesperson and asking that the channel be changed to CNN.

The post Workout TV. What’s on yours? appeared first on Occasional Planet.