• Теги
    • избранные теги
    • Люди585
      • Показать ещё
      • Показать ещё
      Международные организации52
      • Показать ещё
      Страны / Регионы484
      • Показать ещё
      • Показать ещё
      • Показать ещё
      • Показать ещё
21 октября, 22:00

Wall Street Journal Seeks 'Substantial' Newsroom Buyouts

NEW YORK ― The Wall Street Journal is seeking a “substantial” number of employee buyouts as the newspaper grapples with industry-wide financial pressures.  Editor-in-chief Gerard Baker notified staff Friday that management was first looking for buyout-takers in hopes of limiting layoffs down the line. All Journal employees worldwide are eligible for the buyout by the end of October. However, management can elect not to accept some requests.  “We are seeking a substantial number of employees to elect this benefit, but we reserve the right to reject a volunteer based on business considerations,” Baker wrote.  Dow Jones, the Journal’s parent company, has already begun a broad review of its operations, dubbed WSJ2020, and Baker’s memo comes two days after the Journal announced plans to overhaul its print edition. This revamping may include combining sections and other cost-cutting measures, according to the Journal.  There will also be a few layoffs next week at Dow Jones-owned Barron’s, its editor, Ed Finn, confirmed to The Huffington Post. Finn had mentioned the upcoming cuts in a reply to Baker’s memo that was accidentally sent company-wide.  Media mogul Rupert Murdoch paid $5 billion for Journal-parent Dow Jones in 2007 and invested heavily in the paper early on. But significant declines in print advertising and circulation have caused newspapers across the industry to scale back over the past decade. Even major newspapers with robust paid subscriptions online, like the Journal and New York Times, are not immune. The Journal’s plan to scale back comes as The New York Times is also planning to reduce newsroom headcount through buyouts, and potentially, layoffs. The Times tasked an internal committee, the 2020 Group, to oversee its reorganization. -- This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.

Выбор редакции
21 октября, 15:08

UK's 'fake sheikh' undercover reporter jailed for 15 months

LONDON (Reuters) - British journalist Mazher Mahmood, renowned for his "fake sheikh" undercover sting operations for media mogul Rupert Murdoch's tabloids, was jailed for 15 months on Friday for tampering with evidence in a high-profile trial.

19 октября, 03:18

Fox News' Chris Wallace Aims To Be Debate Timekeeper -- Not Fact-Checker

NEW YORK ― Chris Wallace has spent decades trying to puncture holes in politicians’ false or misleading claims. But a presidential debate, he insists, isn’t a Sunday morning interview.  “An interview ― it’s you and the candidate, and you’re the person holding them to account,” Wallace said over the weekend on “Fox News Sunday,” the public affairs show he’s hosted for 13 years. “This is a debate. And, you know, they’re both going to be on the stage. If I think there’s a need for me to intervene, I will, but I would prefer not to.” Wallace, moderator of the third and final presidential debate Wednesday night in Las Vegas, hasn’t ruled out real-time fact-checking. But his stated preference for not doing so has ignited a journalistic debate over the debate moderator’s role.  On Sept. 4, Wallace said he didn’t intend to “truth squad” the nominees. Several journalists and media watchers took issue with that position, arguing it’s vital for the moderator to call out blatant lies. And Wallace’s plan could be more problematic than in past election cycles, given Republican nominee Donald Trump’s propensity for spouting falsehoods at an unprecedented rate. Three days after Wallace’s remark, NBC’s Matt Lauer failed to push back against Trump’s false claims at a candidate forum, leading to even more pressure on presidential debate moderators to hold the nominees accountable.  But Wallace said he saw the criticism of Lauer as misplaced, and indicated in a Fox News appearance the following day that he wasn’t going to change his plans. “I don’t know exactly what I’m going to do in the moment,” Wallace told anchor Brit Hume. “But my disposition is I would rather have the two candidates speaking to each other, than speaking to me.” “You make yourself too big a figure as moderator in the debate, it’s not a debate anymore,” Wallace added. “It’s like a couple of side-by-side news conferences and I don’t think that is your point.” At the first presidential debate on Sept. 26, NBC anchor and moderator Lester Holt fact-checked several of Trump’s false claims, including his recurring lie about being a staunch opponent of the Iraq war. Holt endured criticism for days from Trump and his surrogates. Trump’s persistent gripes about moderators treating him unfairly ― before, during, and after he’s hit the stage ― have only heightened the scrutiny.  Wallace acknowledged “there’s a lot of pressure” and “a lot of stress” that comes with the moderator’s high-profile gig. “We’ve seen [the] previous moderators get criticized, and at certain points I’ve had to remind myself, this may be a once-in-a-life opportunity, so have fun,” he said Sunday. “To the degree you can stop biting your nails, have fun with it.”  Wallace said he aimed to be a “timekeeper” in Las Vegas, rather than “a participant.”  It’s understandable Wallace doesn’t want to become the story ― every moderator says that. But like it or not, he’ll be an integral figure in a political event watched by 60 million to 80 million Americans. And while the moderator does keep the time, the bipartisan Commission on Presidential Debates gives journalists wide discretion over creating questions and wrangling the candidates. That includes the choice of fact-checking, or not. Wallace proved willing to challenge Trump during his stint co-moderating three Fox News Republican primary debates. He won praise in March for highlighting inconsistencies in Trump’s claims about reducing the deficit through a series of on-screen graphics. “Mr. Trump, your numbers don’t add up,” Wallace said, before calling for the numbers to appear on screen. (See video at 6:30).  A week after the March debate, Wallace said in a radio interview that Trump “throws around a lot of numbers,” so he “thought the only way you could catch him in real time, in effect, what the newspapers do the next day or the blogs do hours later, is fact-check him.” Washington Post “Fact Checker” columnist Glenn Kessler recently told HuffPost that he preferred moderators to incorporate fact-checking into how they framed questions, rather than adjudicating whether a response is true. He cited Wallace’s on-screen graphics as an example of this approach.  Progressive watchdog Media Matters on Monday cited Wallace’s March interview to suggest the journalist supported fact-checking when it was Trump against other Republicans, but no longer does now that Trump is head-to-head with Hillary Clinton. Though Wallace is unlikely to follow Holt’s lead in calling out false claims, he may preemptively fact-check in a way similar to the March debate.  Todd Graham, debate director at Southern Illinois University Carbondale, suggested Tuesday on CNN that Wallace follow his own example if he’s not going to fact-check the candidates.  “You can show a slide of Hillary Clinton saying something. And then you can say, ‘Now Secretary Clinton, since you’ve said that, what’s your position now?’” Graham said. “You can do the same thing with Donald Trump,” Graham continued. “Donald Trump is very good at saying, ‘I never said that. I don’t believe that.’ It looks bad to fact-check him afterwards, perhaps Chris Wallace is thinking. But if you simply put up his quotation before the question, or put up the slide before the question, then it puts him in a corner where he has to defend those words or say, ‘Yes, I did say that, but I changed my mind.’” Wallace, the son of the late “60 Minutes” legend Mike Wallace, enjoys a reputation for grilling candidates on both sides of the aisle. While Trump has largely abandoned most of the media for Fox in recent months, he’s notably turned to sympathetic hosts like Sean Hannity, Bill O’Reilly, Lou Dobbs, and the “Fox & Friends” crew. He’s avoided more adversarial Fox hosts like Wallace, Megyn Kelly, and Shepard Smith.  Still, Wallace ― the first presidential debate moderator from Fox News ― has faced scrutiny over the appearance of a conflict of interest involving over his former boss, Roger Ailes.  When Ailes stepped down in July amid widespread sexual harassment allegations, it was announced that the outgoing Fox News chairman would continue to advise Rupert Murdoch, who became the network’s interim CEO and remains co-executive chairman of parent company 21st Century Fox. Ailes, a veteran Republican operative who counseled three former presidents before Fox News’ launch, has also reportedly been advising Trump on his debate preparations. “Roger has zero influence on our news coverage as he’s no longer with the network,” a Fox News spokesperson told HuffPost.  Frank Fahrenkopf, the Republican co-chair of the Commission on Presidential Debates, also voiced his support for Wallace in an email to HuffPost.  “I have complete confidence in the integrity of Chris Wallace as I did with the other moderators in this cycle,” Fahrenkopf wrote.  Editor’s note: Donald Trump regularly incites political violence and is a serial liar, rampant xenophobe, racist, misogynist and birther who has repeatedly pledged to ban all Muslims — 1.6 billion members of an entire religion — from entering the U.S. -- This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.

18 октября, 15:30


THINK OF THEM AS DEMOCRATIC OPERATIVES WITH BYLINES AND YOU WON’T GO FAR WRONG: What media bias? Journalists overwhelmingly donated to Hillary Clinton. Late Sunday evening, Washington Post reporter Chris Cillizza tweeted: “Let me say for the billionth time: Reporters don’t root for a side. Period.” It was a hilariously ill-timed tweet, because Monday morning […]

17 октября, 20:11

Trump Son-In-Law Mulling Post-Election Launch Of Trump TV

It's no surprise that the Trump campaign has been very frustrated by the "corrupt" media coverage of the 2016 election cycle which he says overwhelmingly favors the Clinton campaign.  For evidence of that frustration, one has to look no further than daily tweet storms launched by the republican nominee for president.  Here is just a small recent sample: The election is absolutely being rigged by the dishonest and distorted media pushing Crooked Hillary - but also at many polling places - SAD — Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) October 16, 2016 Election is being rigged by the media, in a coordinated effort with the Clinton campaign, by putting stories that never happened into news! — Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) October 16, 2016   Now, according to the Financial Times, Trump's son-in-law, Jared Kushner, has initiated preliminary discussions with LionTree, a boutique media investment bank, about the possibility of establishing a Trump television network after the presidential election. Donald Trump’s son-in-law Jared Kushner has informally approached one of the media industry’s top dealmakers about the prospect of setting up a Trump television network after the presidential election in November.   Mr Kushner — an increasingly influential figure in the billionaire’s presidential campaign — contacted Aryeh Bourkoff, the founder and chief executive of LionTree, a boutique investment bank, within the past couple of months, according to three people with knowledge of the matter.   Their conversation was brief and has not progressed since, the people said. Mr Bourkoff and Mr Kushner both declined to comment. Rumors of a Trump TV network were first reported by Vanity Fair back in June.  According to an unnamed source, Vanity Fair alleged that Trump had become increasingly frustrated with biased media coverage and "irked by his ability to create revenue for other media organizations without being able to take a cut himself." Trump is indeed considering creating his own media business, built on the audience that has supported him thus far in his bid to become the next president of the United States. According to several people briefed on the discussions, the presumptive Republican nominee is examining the opportunity presented by the “audience” currently supporting him. He has also discussed the possibility of launching a “mini-media conglomerate” outside of his existing TV-production business, Trump Productions LLC. He has, according to one of these people, enlisted the consultation of his daughter Ivanka Trump and son-in-law, Jared Kushner, who owns the The New York Observer.   Trump, this person close to the matter suggests, has become irked by his ability to create revenue for other media organizations without being able to take a cut himself. Such a situation “brings him to the conclusion that he has the business acumen and the ratings for his own network.” Trump has “gotten the bug,” according to this person. “So now he wants to figure out if he can monetize it.” Rumors of a Trump TV launch have likely been assisted by his campaign's recent hiring of BreitBart Chairman Steve Bannon and the recent departure of Roger Ailes from Fox News that freed up supporter, Sean Hannity, to break his contract and pursue other opportunities. Roger Ailes, the former head of Rupert Murdoch’s Fox News Channel, is a friend of Mr Trump’s but would be prohibited from working on a Trump television venture by the terms of his exit agreement with the news network. He parted company with Fox this summer following an independent investigation into claims he sexually harassed Gretchen Carlson, a former Fox News presenter.   However, Sean Hannity, Mr Trump’s biggest cheerleader on Fox News, would be free to work for a prospective Trump network. Mr Hannity was among several Fox stars, including Bill O’Reilly, with clauses in their contracts allowing them to leave if Mr Ailes did. For his part, Trump has denied rumors of any interest in establishing a TV channel saying "I have no interest in a media company. False rumor."  Of course, we suspect that all bets are off if Trump ends up losing to Hillary in November and the recent Fox News disruption could make this an opportune time for a launch.

17 октября, 15:05

Зять Трампа задумался о запуске Trump TV после выборов в США

Зять бизнесмена Дональда Трампа Джаред Кушнер задумался о запуске телевизионной сети Trump после выборов президента США в ноябре 2016 года. Об этом The Financial Times сообщили три...

17 октября, 12:01

Is Shep Smith The Future Of Fox News?

function onPlayerReadyVidible(e){'undefined'!=typeof HPTrack&&HPTrack.Vid.Vidible_track(e)}!function(e,i){if(e.vdb_Player){if('object'==typeof commercial_video){var a='',o='m.fwsitesection='+commercial_video.site_and_category;if(a+=o,commercial_video['package']){var c='&m.fwkeyvalues=sponsorship%3D'+commercial_video['package'];a+=c}e.setAttribute('vdb_params',a)}i(e.vdb_Player)}else{var t=arguments.callee;setTimeout(function(){t(e,i)},0)}}(document.getElementById('vidible_1'),onPlayerReadyVidible); NEW YORK ― It’s 3:00 in the afternoon, and Shepard Smith is in the chair. Fox News viewers are about to be in for an hour of broadcasting that is at once deeply familiar ― Shep has been on the network’s air since it went live 20 years ago ― and also just as strange. Shep, 52, is not what you’re used to if you go to Fox News for its brand of hard-edged, Republican rabble-rousing or affirmations that your conservative world view is infallibly correct. Today on “Shepard Smith Reporting” will be no different. With nine producers and editors behind him in a futuristic-looking, state-of-the-art studio built only for Shep ― and let’s just call him Shep for this article, since that’s how he’s known ― he launches Thursday’s show by reporting on the five new sexual assault accusations against GOP presidential nominee Donald Trump. He notes that Trump is denying the charges, but then gives critical context: Trump has bragged about committing sexual assault. “Again, he said that,” Shep adds, in case any viewer wants to think he’s editorializing rather than just delivering the news. After giving some gory details about some of the alleged assaults, he pauses to underline just how far a departure from normal the news is that he’s reporting. “The GOP candidate for president,” he says. I asked Shep about that moment after the show ended, and he said it was important journalistically to take that extra step. “The juxtaposition of the two things is striking, noteworthy, and, I believe, news. I don’t add feelings about it,” he said, conjuring up this analogy: “This is something you should think about: It’s going to be 4 degrees tonight, and your cat lives outside. You should think about this.” He paused and added, “Not my cat.” Shep wants you to bring your cat indoors, but he wants you to do it because you realize, with the help of his reporting, that it’s the right thing to do. Not simply because it’s his strident opinion you should bring that furball in before it freezes to death. Shep’s approach represents one potential path forward for Fox News ― undeniably conservative, but grounded in reality, observant of American traditions and democratic norms, and partisan only when a standpoint fully aligns with conservative and American values.  Since the forced departure of Roger Ailes ― who has now gone on to advise the spawn of Fox News, the Trump campaign ― Rupert Murdoch’s two sons, James and Lachlan, have taken a bigger role inside the network. If they get their way, some of the knuckle-dragging, opinion-heavy approach to politics may be less welcome at headquarters, clearing the way for journalists like Smith, Chris Wallace, Bret Baier and Megyn Kelly. The brothers are reportedly working hard to woo Kelly, hoping she’ll stay at Fox past the election and help shape the network’s post-Ailes identity. In a more grounded Fox, Shep would take on a much greater role. In his most recent meeting with Rupert Murdoch, he asked where Murdoch felt the center of gravity was going to move post-Ailes, whether toward news or toward the opinion side. “He said, ‘I’m a newsman. I want to be the best news organization in America,’” Shep recalled. Murdoch, he said, has big plans. “He wants to hire a lot more journalists, he wants to build us a massive new newsroom, he wants to make more commitments to places like this [studio], to hire reporters to work on beats, just enlarge our news-gathering,” Shep said. “When the biggest boss, who controls everything, comes and says ‘That’s what I want to do,’ that’s the greatest news I’ve heard in years. And he didn’t mention one thing about our opinion side.” For Shep, the gulf between the news side and his more outspoken colleagues is immeasurable. “When the opinion people say things and then later we get facts that are different, and I report those, everybody would love for there to be a war going on here,” he said. “But it’s not like that. Everybody’s got a job to do. [Sean] Hannity is trying to get conservatives elected. And he wants you to listen to him and believe what he believes. And I’m disseminating facts. It’s really apples and teaspoons. What we do is so different. He’s an entertaining guy who has an audience that he serves, and I deliver the news. His is probably easier ― he knows what he thinks and just sticks with it. This stuff changes all the time.” The news side is on the rise. This Wednesday, Chris Wallace will host a presidential debate in Las Vegas, the network’s first in its 20-year history. Shep will be on hand to help anchor.  Post-Ailes, ratings have surged as the election has heated up, but it’s been bittersweet for many still there. “Obviously, the business side of this place is a roaring success and we’re more successful than we’ve ever been, but there are more important things,” Shep said. He didn’t shy away from talking about the Ailes crisis, but his emotions around it were still palpably raw. The pain was heightened by the depth of the trust he once had in Ailes. “It’s such a wonderful place, and it’s been home forever. He was very fatherly and mentorish,” he said. “And now I know that there were other things going on here.” Along with the rampant sexual harassment that brought Ailes down, there were also reports that he used homophobic slurs toward rivals. Though Shep rarely talks about his sexuality, he is regularly, for instance, included in Out Magazine’s Power 50 list.  I asked if Ailes had ever made homophobic remarks when he was around. “No, never. He treated me with respect, just respect,” Shep said. “I wasn’t new in the business when I came here ― I’d been doing reporting for 12 years ― but I wasn’t old in it either, and he gave me every opportunity in the world and he never asked anything of me but that we get it right, try to get it right every day. It was a very warm and loving and comfortable place.” He said that reports that Ailes had prevented him from coming out publicly several years ago were false. “That’s not true. He was as nice as he could be to me. I loved him like a father,” he said. “I trusted him with my career and with ― I trusted him and trusts were betrayed. People outside this company can’t know [how painful that betrayal was]. This place has its enemies, but inside, it was very personal, and very scarring and horrifying.”   Shep said he advocated strongly for leading the coverage of the crisis rather than shying away from it, and he was one of the few, if not the only, Fox anchors to report on it. “It’s not over,” he added. “This was a real shock to the system, and it upended a lot of things that we thought we knew. We were wounded and horrified and very emotional, and we realize that as leaders we need to come in and face up to what we’ve learned ... We have to make sure there aren’t young victims wandering around here who need us. We have to get appropriate counselors in here. We have to make sure legally everybody’s protected and have to make a commitment to be the most transparent, open and welcoming organization of our kind in the world, and I’m determined to be a part of the team that makes it happen.” As Fox works through its internal trauma, there have been a few outward stumbles. In early October, Fox News ambush specialist Jesse Watters aired a segment on New York’s Chinatown, a package widely panned as the most racist thing to be put up by a network in a long time ― at least since the last Trump rally. Watters later claimed his endless string of ethnic stereotypes was an attempt at humor, but the piece itself contained little evidence of that. Under pressure, he apologized ― if in Trumpian fashion ― tweeting, “I regret if anyone found offense.” The embarrassing few days highlighted Fox News’ dilemma going forward. It boasts a roster of serious journalists committed to the news, but also a lineup of loudmouths who pull in a different direction. (To be fair, I used to appear frequently on Hannity’s radio show, and find Fox’s opinion programs wildly entertaining, if often deeply offensive. But I understand why they rate.) The last time Watters had been in the news was for his part in a post-White House Correspondents’ Dinner fight with me. There has been a noticeable thawing of relations between Fox and the rest of the media in the post-Ailes era. That Fox invited HuffPost inside its headquarters at all is a sign that the thawing is real. That it invited the same reporter who tangled with Watters speaks to the dizzying possibility that Fox News has looked into the abyss it has helped create and recoiled. “Maybe you’ll see Jesse in the hallway,” Shep joked as we left his studio. For Murdoch, it was all fun and games until the GOP lost an eye. Partway through the Republican primary, Gabe Sherman has reported, Murdoch called Ailes with a simple directive: Enough. You’ve had your fun with The Donald, but it’s gone too far. It’s time to end it. Ailes gave it the college try, with Kelly and other Fox personalities throwing every conservative orthodoxy in Trump’s face at the next televised debate. Kelly also went hard at Trump over his treatment of women. Trump fired back at Kelly, launching a feud that left Fox bruised and Trump still surging. (A Fox News spokesperson said “Roger had zero involvement with the editorial and zero say, and no involvement with the debate questions.”) None of Trump’s many breaks with the party line ― on war, entitlement spending, eminent domain, even Planned Parenthood ― slowed his rise. Fox’s Frankenstein monster had escaped the lab. Shep said there have been a lot of conversations around Fox News headquarters to figure out what went wrong this election cycle, and what Fox’s role in it has been. “Mostly, those conversations are about this electorate that espouses these views, and curiosity about how that happened,” Shep said. “Not the run-of-the mill left and right stuff that we’re all accustomed to. We’re gonna ban a religion, we’re gonna kill an opponent, or jail an opponent, women and Muslims? Those thoughts are just very foreign to me, and as a journalist, I’m just very interested in when it was that this shift happened.” Part of the blame, he said, belongs on the shoulders of politicians and also commentators ― including those at Fox News ― who set expectations unreasonably high for grassroots Republicans. “There’s something else happening here, there’s an entire right-conservative electorate that feels like it’s been betrayed over time, that its candidates would say they’re going to do something and then wouldn’t do it,” he said. “But all the while, we were reporting that they knew better. Obamacare, they were gonna block it, they voted 55 times to stop it, and every time, we reported this is not going to happen. But they felt betrayed.” History, he said, won’t look kindly on any of us. “The long look of history is going to be necessary, and I don’t think it will reflect well on this time, on our work collectively as an industry, or on the voters’ ability to decipher what it is they’re hearing and seeing,” he said. “I don’t see evidence that [Trump] produced this. These feelings have been in the nation for a while, that’s clear. A lot of it seems to be tied to the election of the first black president, and I’m very interested to see where this is gonna go, and who’s gonna lead them going forward.” We’re gonna ban a religion, we’re gonna kill an opponent, or jail an opponent, women and Muslims? Those thoughts are just very foreign to me, and as a journalist, I’m just very interested in when it was that this shift happened. Shepard Smith A native of Holly Springs, Mississippi, Shep left the Ole Miss campus in 1987 two credits shy of graduating and began his television journalism career in Florida. He’s still a rabid football fan, and said he understands why Trump supporters have been frustrated with Fox News lately. “I’m a big Ole Miss fan and when we lose to LSU, I’m very mad at the commentators because they talk about how horrible my team is and how my team can’t win anything. And then when we beat LSU, [I] love the commentators. And that’s exactly what’s happening here. We’re reporting on what Trump has done and said and the accusations against him, and if that makes people who support him mad, I understand that.” That doesn’t mean he’s going to change his approach. “The minute we start worrying that one group of viewers or another group of viewers is upset by our facts, so maybe we should alter them to make them more palatable, that’s the moment we are derelict in duty,” he said. Shep worked his way through several local network affiliates in Florida before heading to Los Angeles. He said he was covering the O.J. Simpson trial for Fox affiliates when Ailes, who was in the process of setting up the new network, happened to be watching. That liveshot was pure Shep ― straight, simple and to the point in a way that manages to be unique. “I reported that there really wasn’t much going on in the trial that day, and so I just gave some background news and I told the producers I didn’t need much time. And when it was over, he called and said, ‘That was a great liveshot, you were honest about there was nothing going on. I want you to be part of my team, so my guys are gonna give you a call. I wanna get you out to New York so we can look you over.’” Shep joined Fox News prior to the network’s launch in October 1996. He was apprehensive. “I had lived in Miami and Los Angeles, but New York was a real mess then, and I was kind of scared to come here. But I moved out and fell in love with it,” he said. “I really became a New Yorker on 9/11 and lived in the Village for the past 15 years, and I’m in.” Since joining Fox, Shep has been a go-to anchor on major, unfolding news stories like President Bill Clinton’s impeachment, the Sept. 11 attacks and Hurricane Katrina ― for which he was lauded for passionate dispatches as the levees broke. “Smith opened some eyes with his work in the face of a powerful and blustery force,” AP television reporter David Bauder wrote at the time. Shep was the top-rated anchor during two hours, at 3 p.m. and 7 p.m., before Fox moved him off the evening newscast three years ago as part of a series of changes that brought Megyn Kelly to primetime. “Roger said that viewing patterns were changing, and we needed to be prepared for the next,” Shep said. “It’s just not how people get their news anymore, and he felt like that time slot needed to evolve.” For some of the heavyweights on the opinion side, serving a newscast at 7:00, rather than red meat, diluted the message.  There was some desire by some to keep the opinion going [throughout the evening] and I’m not sure the Fox Report fit into that very well,” he said diplomatically. He thinks Ailes may have been right. “Recent history tells us [primetime audiences] would like to hear people say what they think. They’re used to being in a bubble, they’re online during the day in social groups and they’re hearing their opinion being bolstered, and when it gets to facts that are in contrast with their views, they often don’t wanna hear that.” While continuing afternoon anchor duties, Shep was also tasked with creating and leading a new breaking news division. Softening the blow of the move, Fox built Shep his own gorgeous, news-oriented studio, which he said cost as much as $8 million. Over the years, Shep has continued to rankle the Fox News faithful by bucking some of the network’s top opinion-mongers and stating incontrovertible facts some others in conservative media refused to accept. He’s acknowledged that humans contribute to the planet’s warming, that President Barack Obama was born in the United States and that the LGBT community deserves an equal place in society. “How long do you think it’ll be until you catch up with the rest of the country and realize everybody’s okay?” Shep quizzed gay marriage opponent Rick Santorum. Days before the 2008 election, he grilled Samuel J. Wurzelbacher (aka “Joe the Plumber”) as the fleetingly famous political figure claimed electing Obama means “death to Israel.” The New York Times editorial page, an unlikely venue for praising Fox News personalities, did just that in its piece on Shep’s interview, titled “Shepard the Anchor.” “It is the reporting of this news organization that Barack Obama is a citizen and he is not a Muslim,” Shep said in 2009. And yet, Fox News hosts like Sean Hannity and Steve Doocy handed Trump airtime on their shows in 2011 to promote the birther lie as he flirted with running for president. Shep has long cultivated a reputation as a straight-shooter, which can put him crossways when the more outspoken anchors at the network have gone crooked. In 2009, in a moment that resonated across the political spectrum, he pounded the table and declared, “We! Are! America! I don’t give a rat’s ass if it helps, we do not fucking torture!” It was classic Shep: simple, straightforward and objectively in line with American values as they’d long been professed. But for all its simplicity, that message was deeply controversial because the Bush administration was, in fact, torturing people. He refused to allow it to pass without calling it by its name. Shep was explicit about that thesis during the 2012 campaign. “We’re journalists. We observe,” he said. “And that’s what I’m doing, I’m observing that Mitt Romney is wearing mom jeans.” No fact-checker could have disagreed. Now, with just weeks to go before the next presidential election, Trump sticks mostly to sympathetic Fox News hosts like Bill O’Reilly, Hannity and the “Fox & Friends” crew. He can be confident that he won’t be seriously challenged on those shows or face questions he’s not in the mood to answer. In the week after ending his birther crusade, Trump gave two hours of interviews on Fox News and Fox Business, and the topic never came up. Shep likely would’ve asked. He recently reminded viewers that Trump questioned the legitimacy of the first black president for years and called him out for a pseudo press conference in which no reporters were allowed to ask him about finally abandoning birtherism. But Trump’s not sitting down with Shep. “I would like to have some time with him,” Shep said of Trump. “For me, at least, it would be interesting to go through the things he’s said and the things he’s done and try to get an explanation. But you know, people more experienced than I have tried, and this is one of those cycles where in some cases, as hard as the facts are to get, once you get them, they don’t seem to matter.” Shep said he told Trump campaign spokeswoman Hope Hicks recently that the candidate was welcome on set, but not by phone. “We’ll get back to you,” he said he was told. He’s not holding his breath. Everyday we want be absolutely fair and absolutely balanced. That phrase has not been bastardized for me,” he said. “Fair and balanced means I have to provide two sides to the story of ‘we won’t allow a religion in the country.’ There’s no balance to that. That’s just against everything that the nation was founded on.” Last week, Shep dubbed Trump “almost fascist.” I asked Shep why he added the qualifier. “Eh, that takes the edge off it, because you don’t want to offend people. But it was Mussolini who jailed the opposition and that’s never happened in American history,” he said, adding that his team searched exhaustively through history for any other example of a candidate threatening to jail a major-party opponent and came up empty. “It sort of is almost fascism defined,” Shep said. “I don’t like putting labels on things, and sometimes it’s just so obvious that it just comes out. I hope he was joking about that. In America, we don’t torture, and we don’t jail our political opponents.” (Getting away from major-party candidates, President Woodrow Wilson did actually jail Socialist Party nominee Eugene Debs, who won 1 million votes from prison in 1920 and was pardoned by the winner, Warren G. Harding.) Shep said that he finds it “really weird” when his statements of basic facts go viral. “We don’t torture, this is America. We don’t torture. That that got traction is really weird. We have signed conventions all over the world, we don’t torture. And that you’re going to redefine torture for convenience sake is irrelevant,” he said. He then turned to another viral example. “And then, there is no Ebola spreading across America. We do not have an Ebola epidemic, and yet, that got traction because certain factions were trying to convince the world that we had widespread panic.” By hyping nonexistent epidemics for political purposes, Shep said, partisans are putting lives at risk, because people won’t trust the government when a true threat comes.  I hope [Trump] was joking about that. In America, we don’t torture, and we don’t jail our political opponents. Shepard Smith Shep is beloved by many for his improvisational style, which yields gem after gem ― particularly on slow news days. Take, for instance, the time he insisted the show stay with a helicopter that was filming two bears in a dumpster. The bears were eventually chased off by a neighborhood dog, and Shep dissolved into pure ecstasy. “They wouldn’t let us do bears anymore,” he said of the fallout. “Somebody thought that bear died on the trampoline fall and got mad, and so we weren’t able to do bears any more.” But in the post-Ailes era, changes are afoot. “The bears are back now,” he said. Even in high-intensity situations, Shep’s trademark delivery can break through. Ahead of Hurricane Matthew, he created another viral moment. Having covered Hurricane Katrina after growing up in the South, Shep’s fear for the public during a hurricane is understandable. That potential destruction must have been going through his mind when he paused, stared directly at the camera, and told viewers failing to heed the warnings, “And your kids die, too.” Over at The Drudge Report, site founder Matt Drudge was, at that very moment, suggesting the hurricane warnings were a government plot to drive up fear about climate change. Drudge sets the tone and agenda for many of the shows on Fox News (and, to some degree, elsewhere in the media), but Shep said he wasn’t aware of his Matthew denial campaign ― and was a bit embarrassed for me that I was. “You follow Matt Drudge, for the record,” he noted. For years, Fox News and Drudge have followed each other closely. But if Fox News banks toward its news division, and Drudge veers further into Alex Jones territory, the shape of conservative media could look much different by the 2020 election cycle. Asked if he could see himself somewhere other than Fox, Shep acknowledged the possibility. “It’s business. Over time, you make business decisions every few years when contracts come up,” he said. “I love it here. I know what happens here. I know that they’re gonna let us do the news every day, and this is a good place to be now. It obviously wasn’t always. But it’s a good place to be now.” Michael Calderone contributed reporting.  This story has been updated with comment from Fox News. Sign up here to get Ryan Grim’s newsletter, Bad News, in your inbox. HUFFPOST READERS: What’s happening in your state or district? The Huffington Post wants to know about all the campaign ads, mailers, robocalls, candidate appearances and other interesting campaign news happening by you. Email any tips, videos, audio files or photos [email protected] -- This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.

Выбор редакции
15 октября, 00:30

Anti-Catholics & Elitist Bigots

Submitted by Patrick Buchanan via Buchanan.org, Will Hillary Clinton clean out the nest of anti-Catholic bigots in her inner circle? Or is anti-Catholicism acceptable in her crowd? In a 2011 email on which Clinton campaign chief John Podesta was copied, John Halpin, a fellow at the Center for American Progress that Podesta founded, trashed Rupert Murdoch for raising his kids in a misogynist religion. The most “powerful elements” in the conservative movement are Catholic, railed Halpin: “It’s an amazing bastardization of the faith. They must be attracted to the systematic thought and severely backward gender relations…” Clinton spokesperson Jennifer Palmieri agreed: “I imagine they think it is the most socially acceptable politically conservative religion. Their rich friends wouldn’t understand if they become evangelical.” “Excellent point,” replied Halpin. “They can throw around ‘Thomistic’ thought and ‘subsidiarity’ and sound sophisticated because no one knows what the hell they are talking about.” What the pair is mocking here are both the faith decisions of the Murdoch family and traditional Catholic beliefs and social teaching. This is a pristine example of the anti-Catholicism that historian Arthur Schlesinger Sr., called “the deepest-held bias in the history of the American people.” In another email in this latest document dump from WikiLeaks, writes Ben Wolfgang of The Washington Times, Podesta and Neera Tanden, the president of the Center for American Progress, mocked the Miss America pageant, because so many finalists are Southern girls and young women. Said Podesta, “Do you think it’s weird that of the 15 finalists in the Miss America, 10 came from the 11 states of the CSA?” The CSA would be the Confederate States of America. “Not at all,” says Tanden, “I would imagine the only people who watch it are from the confederacy and by now they know that so they’ve rigged the thing in their honor.” In another email, Podesta himself uses the sort of language liberals once said disqualified Nixon from staying on as president — regarding former Governor Bill Richardson. Podesta refers to him and other Hispanics whom he is trying to court for Clinton as “needy Latinos.” What these emails reveal is the sneering contempt of liberal elites for Catholics, Evangelical Christians, Southerners, and even Hispanics loyal to them. And the contents of these emails correlate with the revealed bigotries of Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama. In September, Clinton told a gathering of rich contributors at a gay rights fundraiser in New York City: “[Y]ou could put half of Trump’s supporters into what I call the ‘basket of deplorables.’ Right? The racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamaphobic — you name it.” Responding to the cheers and laughter, Clinton went on, “Now, some of those folks — they are irredeemable, but thankfully they are not America.” What Clinton said to the LGBT partisans echoed what Obama told rich contributors in San Francisco in 2008, who wondered why he was not doing better in Pennsylvania. “You go into these small towns in Pennsylvania and … the jobs have been gone now for 25 years. … And it’s not surprising then they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy toward people who aren’t like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations.” Obama was saying that when small-town Pennsylvanians fall behind, they blame others and revert to their bibles, bigotries and guns. Yet Obama has never explained what caused him to sit content for 20 years — and be married and have his daughters baptized — in the church of a ranting racist like Rev. Jeremiah Wright, who, at the time of 9/11, roared from his pulpit “God Damn America!” What so attracted Barack Obama to Rev. Wright’s bigotry? These latest emails confirm what we already knew. Our elites, who are forever charging others with “racism, sexism, homophobia, xenophobia,” are steeped in their own bigotries — toward Southerners, conservatives, Middle Americans, Evangelical Christians, and traditionalist Catholics — the “irredeemables.” Though the election is still a month off, the campaign of 2016 has already done irreparable damage to the American establishment. Its roots in the nation it purports to lead have been attenuated if not severed. It has shown the world a portrait of American democracy at its apex that approaches the repellent. Through the savagery of its attacks on those who have risen up against it, the establishment has stripped itself of all claim to be the moral leader of American society. Its moral authority is gone. Even if Clinton wins, it can no longer credibly speak for America. As for the national press corps — the Fourth Estate — it has been compromised, its credibility crippled, as some of the greatest of the press institutions have nakedly shilled for the regime candidate, while others have been exposed as propagandists or corrupt collaborators posturing as objective reporters. What institution in America today, besides the military, enjoys national respect? And if people do not respect the regime, if they believe it acts in its own cold interest rather than the nation’s, why should they respect or follow its leadership? We have entered uncharted waters.

13 октября, 23:29

Donald Trump Is Always The Elephant In Paul Ryan’s Room

WASHINGTON ― One day after women started coming forward to accuse Donald Trump of sexual assault, and three days after Speaker Paul Ryan told House Republicans that he would no longer defend Trump ― though also wouldn’t withdraw his endorsement ― Ryan had lunch Thursday with Wisconsin business leaders and did his best impression of the “this is fine” dog. As Trump’s campaign burns to the ground, Ryan is doing everything he can to ignore the GOP presidential nominee and put on a happy face. “Not much going on these days,” Ryan said at the beginning of the luncheon address in Brookfield, Wisconsin. “Not much to talk about.”  Later on, he said, “forget about the buzz of the day, and forget what Twitter storm is going on, I don’t know, in the last 20 minutes.” This is the closest Ryan came to addressing Trump today at the business luncheon - which wasn't a political event: pic.twitter.com/yvKMFRAnBV— Ben Siegel (@benyc) October 13, 2016 Acknowledging that there’s “an elephant in the room” and then failing to substantively address that elephant ― as he literally did Saturday ― is fast becoming Ryan’s modus operandi. Yes, Ryan wants you to know, there is most definitely something bad happening. But what is that bad thing happening? ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ Ryan hasn’t taken questions from anyone since Trump’s 2005 remarks came out about inappropriately groping and kissing women. On Saturday, he attended the annual Fall Fest in Elkhorn, Wisconsin, sans Trump or his running mate, Indiana Gov. Mike Pence. (Trump was originally scheduled share the stage with Ryan, before the Access Hollywood comments came to light, and then was supposed to be replaced by Pence.) On Thursday, Ryan was supposed to take questions from the audience at his lunch round table ― though not the press ― but the speaker left immediately after concluding his remarks. He wouldn’t risk an audience member asking about that obvious elephant in the room. And that’s because Ryan’s position seems untenable. He is at once saying he is “sickened” by Trump’s words. “Women are to be championed and revered, not objectified,” Ryan said in his statement on Friday, responding to Trump’s 2005 remarks.  And yet he is still supporting Trump. Ryan hasn’t issued a statement about new allegations that Trump actually did the things he bragged about in that hot mic incident. And his office is referring all press inquiries about it to the Trump campaign. (Is the Trump campaign supposed to comment on what Paul Ryan thinks about these new allegations?) Get all the news that matters to you. Sign up here for HuffPost’s morning email. The speaker may be silent on Trump, but he’s still finding the time to go after Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton. Facing some backlash for his posturing against Trump, Ryan issued a 132-word statement Wednesday. But it wasn’t about the party’s presidential nominee. Ryan was responding to hacked emails, released by Wikileaks, in which Clinton’s communications director, Jennifer Palmieri, referenced the Catholic faith of 21st Century Fox Chairman Rupert Murdoch and NewsCorp Chairman Robert Thomson. “I imagine they think it is the most socially acceptable, politically conservative religion ― their rich friends wouldn’t understand if they became evangelical,” she wrote. Reacting to Palmieri, who is Catholic herself, Ryan said, “The Clinton campaign’s disdain for the Catholic faith and Christian evangelicals is staggering.” “All Americans of faith should take a long, hard look at this and decide if these are the values we want to be represented in our next president. If Hillary Clinton continues to employ people with biased and bigoted views, it’s clear where her priorities lie,” Ryan added in the statement, without a hint of irony. Meanwhile, allegations that Trump pushed himself on women, fondled and forcibly kissed them and barged in on naked contestants in his Miss Teen USA pageant are met with silence. Ryan told his House GOP colleagues that he would no longer be defending or campaigning with Trump ― a move that was seen by Trump and some House Republicans as an act of aggression against the nominee. But he’s also been clear that he won’t withdraw his endorsement, seemingly out of fear for the down-ballot implications. And so Ryan is stuck in this awkward position of trying to distance himself from Trump, but without unendorsing him. He can’t defend Trump’s actions or words, so he’ll just be quiet. As long as you go out and elect all the Republicans on the ballot on Nov. 8. Editor’s note: Donald Trump regularly incites political violence and is a serial liar, rampant xenophobe, racist, misogynist and birther who has repeatedly pledged to ban all Muslims — 1.6 billion members of an entire religion — from entering the U.S. -- This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.

13 октября, 13:33

The business of outrage

ONE of the gentler quips uttered by the writer and thinker H.L. Mencken was that nobody ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American public. By the same token, nobody ever went broke overestimating the anger of the American people. The country is in an unusually flammable mood. This being America, there are plenty of businesspeople around to monetise the fury—to foment it, manipulate it and spin it into profits. These are the entrepreneurs of outrage and barons of bigotry who have paved the way for Donald Trump’s rise. The very first of them was Rush Limbaugh who, back in the 1980s, transformed himself from a disc jockey into a radio commentator. Mr Limbaugh shook up the ossified talk-show format by dispensing with the tedious call-ins and adding anarchic humour. Soon an army of “ditto-head” followers hung on his every word. He has 13m regular listeners and hundreds of imitators, ranging from national stars such as Sean Hannity to local ranters. The second entrepreneur of outrage was Roger Ailes, a Republican operative who teamed up with Rupert Murdoch to build Fox News. Mr Ailes took talk radio and added TV...

Выбор редакции
11 октября, 13:00

Why For-Profit Education Fails

Moguls’ good intentions too often betray them.

09 октября, 20:55

Former Dow Jones CEO: 'The GOP have nominated a sociopath'

Former Dow Jones CEO Les Hinton dissed GOP nominee Donald Trump on Sunday afternoon, calling him a "sociopath.""US media is broadly guilty of liberal bias, but this is different. The GOP have nominated a sociopath," Hinton tweeted, along with a link to a New York Times article listing more than 150 Republican leaders that are not supporting Trump.Following the release of a 2005 tape in which Trump makes lewd comments about women, prominent Republicans have condemned Trump, with some going as far as asking Trump to step down as the nominee.Hinton, a 72-year-old British native, spent decades working for Rupert Murdoch's companies until stepping down in 2011 in the wake of a phone-tapping scandal.

07 октября, 03:42

Fox News tries to stay above Kelly-Hannity feud

Fox News is staying out of the way of this week’s feud between hosts Megyn Kelly and Sean Hannity, with a spokesperson saying Thursday afternoon that the network is not commenting on the matter.But that doesn’t mean that the feud — sparked on Wednesday night — is over. There’s no crisis, but there’s definitely tension, as everyone looks to Thursday night to see if either Kelly or Hannity will address the feud on their respective shows. Current and former staffers at Fox say they expect the feud between the two to continue, not casually blow over. Neither host has a word about the incident since Wednesday night, when Hannity lashed out at Kelly after she said Donald Trump only goes on Hannity’s show and won’t "venture out to the unsafe spaces these days."Hannity tweeted at Kelly soon afterwards, telling her to direct her ire at Hillary Clinton instead and adding: "Clearly you support her.” When berated by a tweet to “stand by your colleague” he wrote back "Sure. When they stand by me."Megyn Kelly — despite a few memorable moments like declaring that Santa Claus (a fictional character) and Jesus were White — has positioned herself at the channel as a journalist, earning praise across the board for her tough questioning at the Republican primary debates. Hannity, who appears right after Kelly in the Fox News line-up, claims he’s not a journalist and proudly flaunts his preferences, even appearing at one point in a Donald Trump campaign ad (which Fox News said was not pre-approved). Therein lies the conflict.“The key is she’s out for the headlines, he’s out to get Trump elected,” said one political operative who is very familiar with Fox News.It’s not the first time Fox personalities have gotten into scuffles that spilled out into the open. The high-stress, high-stakes world of television leads to intense competition, with Fox perhaps being one of the most competitive networks. But this particular feud exposes a real question for the network. Where does Fox go after the election, and after after the departure of founder and former head Roger Ailes who resigned in July amid sexual harassment allegations? Ailes biographer Gabriel Sherman mused on Twitter that "The Hannity vs Megyn Kelly twitter spat is a skirmish in the coming war to define what Fox News will be in the post-Ailes era."Rupert Murdoch, 21st Century Fox’s owner who also stepped into the Fox News CEO role after Ailes left, has indicated that nothing is changing for now. Public comments by Murdochs’ sons and the installation of Bill Shine and Jack Abernethy as co-presidents indicated that Fox doesn’t plan an immediate pivot toward a different tone. And indeed, since Ailes’ departure, the channel has continued on as normal. But that won’t always stay the same. The question of what happens to Fox News’ talent is the real test. Hannity has a contract that runs until 2020, whereas Kelly’s contract expires next year. The Murdochs have indicated an affinity for Kelly, with some pointing to her as the future of Fox News. The relationships behind the scenes are also complicated. Shine is a former producer for Hannity and the two remain very close. Hannity vigorously defended Ailes in the wake of his sexual harassment allegations, whereas Kelly reportedly told 21st Century Fox investigators that she was also a victim of Ailes’ overtures, and never publicly supported the former executive. Ailes is now advising Trump, whom Hannity has also given advice to and is openly supporting. Ailes was known for telling staff to not “shoot in the tent, from within the tent.” That lesson has clearly not continued after his departure. "Hannity is a team player and has been open that he wants Trump to win,” the operative said. “Megyn is unhappy Trump is on Fox every week but not with her. New leadership at Fox will have to get this under control, Rupert won't like it."Friday is Fox News' 20th anniversary, an event that would typically be met with celebrations and accolades. Instead, the channel finds itself having to deal with a public beef between two of its biggest stars.

06 октября, 11:10

Акции Twitter упали на 9% на фоне новых слухов

Акции Twitter на Нью-Йоркской фондовой бирже упали на 9% — до $22,58 за акцию на фоне сообщений в прессе о том, что Google и Disney вышли из гонки за покупку сервиса микроблогов.

06 октября, 11:10

Акции Twitter упали на 9% на фоне новых слухов

Акции Twitter на Нью-Йоркской фондовой бирже упали на 9% до $22,58 за акцию на фоне сообщений в прессе о том, что Google и Disney вышли из гонки за покупку сервиса микроблогов.

05 октября, 21:06

"Before The Flood", Vote

The following appeared first on Eye On Miami. "Before the Flood", a new documentary on the urgency of climate change action by Leonardo DiCaprio and Fisher Stevens aired last night on Miami Beach. The day before, "Before the Flood" premiered at the White House. If only American voters were required to view the film before voting in November. The film lays out the case that the planet is experiencing global warming impacts much more quickly than even the most conservative estimates by scientists. Three years in the making, and still the daily news of abnormal, extreme weather events seems to overtake even the film's latest edit. Inaction is the result of fossil fuel industries that primarily fund an intransigent Republican Congress and the right-wing echo chamber including Fox News, Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh. (What can you do? The filmmakers urge viewers to be part of an action movement on climate change, and to start by signing up on its website, here.) The message and timing of its release (by National Geographic, owned paradoxically by the family of Rupert Murdoch, who earned billions through Fox News' hate and fright media empire) is that American voters are squarely in the world spotlight this November. Among the luminaries interviewed by Leonardo DiCaprio, President Obama makes the case concisely: even if you aren't "a romantic" who believes the wonders of the world should be preserved for our children and grandchildren, the rapid change in climate -- unprecedented in human history -- is an immediate national security threat. Not tomorrow: today. In the film, climate change deniers in Florida -- Senator Marco Rubio and Governor Rick Scott, Donald Trump's national finance chair -- feature in the negative light they deserve, given the immense costs to Florida and the region. The film brilliantly uses computer graphics, data-driven animation, and visual imagery that tells the most important story in the history of mankind. Viewers unfamiliar with the subject terrain are likely to be impressed by the concise story through simple and memorable images. Among the compelling testimonies by world leaders: the energy minister of India who lays out the clear case why, absent immediate leadership by the United States and the industrialized west, the planet is likely to burn to a crisp -- denying economic security to everyone, not just the poor and dispossessed the way climate change impacts are happening today. The evil actors in "Before The Flood" are the international corporations funding the politics of climate change denial. They include Exxon, BP, Shell and the largest privately-held company, the Koch Brother enterprises. Fossil fuel interests are the key backers of Donald Trump and GOP leaders in Congress blocking the path to a carbon tax -- advocated in the film by George W. Bush's top economic advisor. (Eye On Miami regularly features the crimes against humanity embedded in climate change denialism. Check our archives.) Last night, at the conclusion of the film, actor and film-maker Mark Ruffalo introduced DiCaprio, Stevens, and a local panel including Miami Beach mayor Philip Levine. Ruffalo told the audience of Florida voters that they should vote NO on Amendment 1 in November. The state's electric utilities are spending $20 million to promote a constitutional amendment that would hold solar power hostage to its interests. Amendment 1 is designed to confuse voters into thinking it is a positive measure for climate change adaptation. In fact, what the amendment would do is to consolidate the power of solar energy in the hands of the state's electric utilities; the same large corporations like FPL that have obscured and lead the way in climate change denialism. Along this line, it is worth noting that a GOP member of Congress from Florida (8th District), Bill Posey, recently introduced federal legislation that would protect corporations from requirements to disclose risk from climate change. The New York Times reported: "... at a time when many Republicans dispute the very notion of climate change, the Posey measure has focused the debate over whether it is reasonable -- or even possible -- to expect companies to put a price tag on the environmental impact of climate change." This extraordinary measure, at face value, sounds like an effort by Florida's electric utilities to stop exactly what I proposed through a SEC-approved shareholder resolution to NextEra Energy earlier this year: that the corporation should be required to report annually to shareholders on the risk to markets and infrastructure through sea-level rise. In other words, US corporations that fund climate change denialism and elections, primarily through the Republican Party, are already laying out escape routes for their top executives who, one suspects, are planning armed fortresses high on mountain tops stocked with canned goods. These are just a few ideas of what is at stake in the November election for president, for Congress, and for the state legislature. The science is clear, as "Beyond The Flood" shows viewers. All our treasures, from the sacred to the profane, from law and order to shopping aisles filled with goods we take for granted, is on the line. Not tomorrow. Now. -- This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.

05 октября, 13:30

Twitter могут купить уже на этой неделе

Предложения о покупке Twitter могут быть озвучены уже на этой неделе. Вероятными претендентами выступают Salesforce, Google, Disney.

05 октября, 13:30

Twitter могут купить уже на этой неделе

Предложения о покупке Twitter могут быть озвучены уже на этой неделе. Вероятными претендентами выступают Salesforce, Google, Disney.

03 октября, 19:37

Hey, Is Matt Drudge OK?

Hey, happy October 2016, you guys! Is Matt Drudge doing OK today? LOL, what now?   Oh, yeah, this was on Glenn Beck’s site, like, months ago. Bill Clinton reportedly had an affair with a prostitute in Little Rock, Arkansas. Her name is Bobbie Ann Williams, and she – along with her family – have passed multiple lie-dictator tests when asked if Clinton is the father of her illegitimate son Danny. Buddy Young, a former Arkansas State Trooper, has admitted that in 1983, he drove Clinton and Bobbie to her mother’s home near Hot Springs for an extended, intimate visit while the mother was out-of-town. Both were paid $400 each, plus a $50 tip. What makes the story so compelling is, the Danny also looks like Bill! Or you may have seen this story getting the Rush & Molloy treatment in the New York Daily News of January 1999: The 13-year-old son of a former Arkansas prostitute has reportedly undergone DNA testing to see if his father is President Bill Clinton. Star Magazine reporter Richard Gooding tells us that Little Rock Teen Danny Williams is cooperating with the tabloid to find out if he was conceived during an alleged paid sex encounter between Clinton and Bobbie Ann Williams when she was a hooker. Gooding, who in 1996 broke the news of Clinton adviser Dick Morris’ relationship with a prostitute, says Danny Williams’ test results are expected next week. Gooding emphasizes that if the results don’t match Clinton’s, “there’s no story.” The funny thing about this whole story is that it was the Drudge Report that put it to bed back in 1999:  Fun fact: Back in 1999, @DRUDGE_REPORT broke the story that the paternity test proved he *WAS NOT* Bill Clinton's son pic.twitter.com/rZ23J4inCt— Justin Green (@JGreenDC) October 3, 2016 Earlier this year, The Daily Beast’s Olivia Nuzzi made an attempt to re-report this story, just to see if it could be done. It ended with a lot of people not returning a lot of promised calls. But along the way, Nuzzi had a conversation about this story with Clinton conspiracy hound Robert Morrow: In February, I sat down in Des Moines with Morrow, who admitted he had never met Danney, to talk about the story. “They made it up!” he said of Star magazine’s DNA test. “It’s Clinton-disinfo. It’s a planted story—a fake planted story. There was no DNA test. Prove it! Where? Danney don’t know about it. Star magazine didn’t know about. Stone talks to the current people who own those magazines [and] they say, ‘what are you talking about?’” That accounts for the incredulous “THERE WAS NO DNA TEST?” in Drudge’s headline. So, perhaps he is just now catching up with the May 2016 offerings at The Daily Beast. Or maybe this story of parental neglect is Drudge’s way of communicating with the Clinton campaign, which used to be more present in the newsman’s life. As the New York Times’ Jim Rutenberg reported back in October 2007, Clinton and Drudge used to have a bit of synergy going: Mrs. Clinton’s aides declined to discuss how the Drudge Report got access to her latest fund-raising figures nearly 20 minutes before the official announcement went to supporters. But it was a prime example of a development that has surprised much of the political world: Mrs. Clinton is learning to play nice with the Drudge Report and the powerful, elusive and conservative-leaning man behind it. [...] That people in Mrs. Clinton’s campaign orbit would tip off the Drudge Report to its fund-raising numbers is in part a reflection of her pragmatic approach to dealing with potential enemies, like Newt Gingrich or Rupert Murdoch. But it also speaks to the enduring power of the Drudge Report, which mixes original reporting with links to newspaper, Internet or television reports far and wide. Is this a way of Drudge telling Clinton, “You never call, you never write?” Perhaps someone from her team should just check in with him, and make sure he’s doing OK. In case you were wondering, Drudge “may be more powerful now than ever before,” according to Chris Cillizza, who every four years writes a column about how Drudge is really powerful. In the 2015 edition, Cillizza wrote: All of the Republican campaigns (and maybe even the Clinton campaign) will fear him — and have a strategy on how to deal with him. That, in my book, is real influence. And Drudge has it. Drudge has it!  I’ve been meaning to talk to Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker about this, but he’s been way too busy running for president as the GOP’s nominee. I’ll catch up with him once he’s in the White House. One thing’s for sure, you never know what the wily newsman is going to do next! I see that we've reached the racist Drudge conspiracy phase of the campaign already. https://t.co/DTp3aFCtRD pic.twitter.com/yKdzRUGpOO— Nate Silver (@NateSilver538) October 3, 2016 Then again, maybe we do.   ~~~~~ Jason Linkins edits “Eat The Press” for The Huffington Post and co-hosts the HuffPost Politics podcast “So, That Happened.” Subscribe here, and listen to the latest episode below.  -- This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.

27 ноября 2014, 09:05

ЕС vs США: Google предлагают разбить на куски

Европейский парламент готовится к обсуждению странного вопроса: "стоит ли разделить компанию Google на несколько отдельных сервисов?" У американских коллег сама идея вызывает все возможные негативные эмоции - от недоумения до негодования.  Показать "Кузькину мать" Европарламент не способен разрушить Google. В конце концов, штаб-квартира компании находится в США, и кроме американских властей структуру ее бизнеса никто не может изменить. Но в Европе продолжается антимонопольное расследование деятельности Google, в рамках которого политики и чиновники придумывают новые способы ограничения экспансии американцев на своей территории. На таком фоне действия Европарламента являются скорее намеком на продолжение преследования зарубежного интернет-гиганта. Законотворцы могут поддержать идею отделения поисковика Google от других фирменных сервисов. Если это произойдет, американцы должны получить четкий сигнал, отражающий позицию властей Евросоюза. До сих пор центральное место в расследовании занимали именно антимонопольщики из Еврокомиссии. В Америке на выпад со стороны европейцев уже отреагировали сразу два правительственных комитета. Их представители, сенаторы Рон Уайден и Оррин Хэтч заявили: "Это предложение и другие подобные ему идеи способствуют строительству стен, а не мостов. При этом не учитываются в полной мере те негативные эффекты, которые могут навредить торговым отношениям США и ЕС". В США считают, что Европа нарушает принцип открытых рынков. Говорится также о "политизации" процесса. Действующие лица Интересно, что против разделения Google выступает Гюнтер Эттингер. Да, тот самый Гюнтер Эттингер, который раньше отвечал за энергетику и присутствовал на переговорах между Украиной и Россией по газу. Теперь он еврокомиссар по вопросам цифровых технологий. Эттингер уверен, что бить Google на части никто не будет. Кто же тогда решил голосовать? Это Андреас Шваб, представитель консервативного крыла Европарламента и испанец Рамон Тремоза, представляющий интересы Каталонии. Эти политики утверждают, что усилия Еврокомиссии пока не оправдали себя, а поведение Google на рынке Старого Света напоминает монополизм. "До сих пор Google отказывалась придумать какие-либо идеи, способные изменить ситуацию и снять претензии со стороны Еврокомиссии. Вместо этого компания продолжала вести дела как ей заблагорассудится. Таким образом она давит на конкурентную среду, что вредит европейским потребителям и бизнесу", - считают Шваб и Тремоза.  Ссылки по теме Мердок: "Google – шайка пиратов" Европа забывает, Google хочет вспомнить все Google наконец договорилась с европейскими властями В самой Еврокомиссии произошли перестановки. Хоакин Альмуния отправился в отставку, и его место заняла Маргрете Вестегер. Интересно, какую позицию займет она и как далеко готова будет пойти ради обеспечения свободной конкуренции на интернет-рынке в том виде, в каком эту конкуренцию видят консерваторы из Европарламента. Битва за правду или зависть? В данный момент 90% поисковых запросов в Европе приходится на Google. В 2010г. конкуренты подали жалобу на американского игрока, объявив, что он мешает им развиваться. Речь идет в частности о рекламе и выгодном положении партнеров в поисковых результатах. Напомним, что ранее медиа-магнат Руперт Мердок сделал громкое заявление по поводу Google. С помощью исполнительного директора News Corp Роберта Томсона он попытался донести до антимонопольных органов мысль о том, что Google отдает предпочтение своим сайтам-партнерам. Если пользователь вбивает запрос в поисковик, то якобы получает именно те результаты, которые принесут Google максимальное количество денег. Подобные претензии озвучивались и раньше, но News Corp сформулировала их, пожалуй, максимально жестко. Отметим, что Google все-таки пытается найти мирное решение. Так в начале этого года компания согласилась выводить в результатах поиска рекламные объявления, предоставляемые конкурентами.

08 сентября 2014, 17:03

20 миллиардеров, которые управляют политикой США

Они добились успеха в бизнесе и инвестициях, и теперь пытаются протолкнуть свои и чужие политические идеи в политической системе США. В нашем списке самые влиятельные миллиардеры-политики Америки.  20.Элис Уолтон Элис Уолтон - наследница богатства крупнейшей в мире розничной сети Wal-Mart, пусть и не единственная. Уолтон вполне открыто поддерживает Хиллари Клинтон и вложилась в так называемый "PAC" (Комитет политических действий) под названием "Ready for Hillary".  19.Дональд Трамп Владелец конгломерата The Trump Organization и король американского сектора недвижимости Дональд Трамп, как и многие представители большого бизнеса, придерживается республиканских взглядов. Напомним, что Республиканская партия поддерживает наиболее мягкую налоговую политику в отношении богачей.  18.Марк Андрессен Инвестор-миллиардер Марк Андрессен уверен, что будущее за Республиканской партией США. Он поддерживал кандидата от республиканцев Митта Ромни на президентских выборах 2012г. В данный момент Андрессен инвестриует в широкий спектр активов, многие из которых будут влиять и на политический фон. Стоит вспомнить хотя бы о криптовалюте bitcoin.  17.Питер Дж. Питерсон Питерсон был министром торговли при Ричарде Никсоне, а теперь управляет мощным фондом. Миллиардер ратует за уменьшение государственного долга, и с помощью Peter G. Peterson Foundation основал такие организации, направленные на борьбу с долгами США как Fix the Debt и Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget.  16.Поль Зингер Поль Зингер - бизнесмен с партийным билетом. Он консервативный республиканец, но выступает за однополые браки. Именно эта идея стала для него центральной в политической деятельности. С помощью организации American Unity он вложил $2 млн в поддержку республиканцев, которые также выступают за однополые браки. Главный актив Зингера - Elliott Management Corporation.  15.Арт Поуп Бывший председатель бюджетного комитета Северной Каролины и преуспевающий бизнесмен Арт Поуп вложил миллионы долларов в продвижение своих политических идей. В первую очередь, речь идет о свободном рынке, который Поуп считает основной составляющей успешной экономики. Арт Поуп также республиканец.  14.Пьер и Памела Омидьяр Семья иранского происхождения, которая добилась успеха в США, вкладывает существенные средства в продвижение идеи прозрачности и открытости. Пьер и Памела интересуются также вопросами прав на собственность и экономического развития.  13.Джефф и Макинзи Безос Кто бы мог подумать, что руководство Amazon.com может интересоваться политикой. Однако Джефф Безос недавно приобрел издание Washington Post и вложил $2,5 млн в поддержку однополых браков. Напомним, что этот вопрос в США остается одним из наиболее острых в области внутренней политики.  12.Марк Цукерберг И снова миллиардер из высокотехнологического сектора, который интересуется политикой. Марк Цукерберг совместно с организацией FWD.us работает над иммиграционной реформой, а в Нью-Джерси проталкивает реформу начального образования. Напомним, что самому владельцу Facebook в настоящий момент всего 30 лет.  11.Питер Тиль Питерь Тиль, известный инвестор, владелец хэдж-фондов и сооснователь PayPal, вложил $2,6 млн в предвыборную кампанию в 2012г., деньги получил Рон Пол, который вылетел из гонки во время праймериз. В последнее время Тиль активно выступает в пользу увеличения минимального размера оплаты труда.  10.Уоррен Баффет Миллиардер Баффет, владелец знаменитого Berkshire Hathaway, сыграл важную роль в политике США после избрания Барака Обамы на пост президента. Уоррен Баффет выступает за ограничение власти богачей, увеличение налогов для них, и собирается расстаться с большей частью своего богатства в рамках The Giving Pledge ("Клятва дарения").  9.Пенни Прицкер Пенни Прицкер была министром торговли и одним из главных лоббистов идей Барака Обамы. Кроме того, Прицкер является сооснователем PSP Capital Partners, Pritzker Realty Group и еще ряда крупных фирм, что придает ее голосу значимость, когда речь заходит о внутренней политике.  8.Джон и Лора Арнольд Джон Арнольд управлял крупным хэдж-фондом, и фокусировался на инвестициях в газовые активы а потом стал филантропом. Правда, не каждый найдет желание помочь людям в его стремлении добиться сокращения пенсий и добиться роста финансовой нагрузки для работников предприятий.  7.Билл и Мелинда Гейтс The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation - один из самых авторитетных благотворительных фондов, инвестирующих в борьбу с болезнями и бедностью в развивающихся странах, в частности, в Африканских. Также основатель Microsoft и его супруга сражаются за реформирование американской системы образования и легализацию однополых браков.  6.Руперт Мердок Руперт Мердок контролирует Wall Street Journal и Fox News - это важнейшие поставщики политических и экономических новостей. Таким образом, Мердок сосредоточил в своих руках активы, способные задавать новостной тон и влиять на настроения в обществе. Кроме того, Руперт Мердок сотрудничает с Bloomberg по вопросу иммиграционной реформы.  5.Джордж Сорос Джордж Сорос открыто лоббирует идеи демократов. Он потратил $1 млн в 2012г. на поддержку Барака Обамы на выборах. Кроме того, Сорос в данный момент является сопредседателем комитета политических действий "Ready for Hillary".  4.Шелдон Эделсон Наша жизнь - игра, и один из королей игорного бизнеса Шелдон Эделсон активно вкладывает средства в политику. Он потратил $93 млн, чтобы "победить Барака Обаму". Речь, конечно, не о том, что бизнесмен надеялся участвовать в выборах, а о поддержке республиканцев, которые "выполняют свои обещания". На следующих выборах Эделсон инвестирует в кампанию вдвое больше.  3.Том Стейер Стейер - сооснователь и один из руководителей фонда Farallon Capital Management. Он также основал несколько банков. Помимо бизнеса Тома Стейера интересуют вопросы охраны окружающей среды, и он активно лоббирует соответствующие идеи в политической среде.  2.Майкл Блумберг Бывший мэр Нью-Йорка и основатель агентства Bloomberg Майкл Блумберг активно борется с бесконтрольным распространением оружия. Он инвестировал $50 млн в противодействие организации NRA, которая как раз пытается добиться свободной торговли оружием на всей территории США, делая отсылку ко Второй поправке к Конституции.  1.Чарльз и Дэвид Кох Братья Кох инвестировали $30 млн в программу, которая выявляет слабые стороны демократов. Это специальная рекламная кампания, навредившая тем политикам, которым есть что скрывать. К следующим выборам общий объем инвестиций в эту программу семья Кох собирается довести до $290 млн. Еще одной жертвой стала программа здравоохранения "Obamacare".