The mission is vital to the future of our government andour nation.

Coral Ridge now asks us to reconsider the “actual malice”standard. As I have said previously, “we should.” Berishav. Lawson, 594 U. S. ___, ___ (2021) (opinion dissentingfrom denial of certiorari) (slip op., at 2). “New York Timesand the Court’s decisions extending it were policy-drivendecisions masquerading as constitutional law.” McKee, 586U. S., at ___ (opinion of THOMAS, J.) (slip op., at 2). Thosedecisions have “no relation to the text, history, or structureof the Constitution.” Tah v. Global Witness Publishing,Inc., 991 F. 3d 231, 251 (CADC 2021) (Silberman, J., dis-senting in part). This Court has never demonstrated other-wise. In fact, we have never even inquired whether “theFirst or Fourteenth Amendment, as originally understood,encompasses an actual-malice standard.” McKee, 586 U. S.,at ___ (opinion of THOMAS, J.) (slip op., at 10).I would grant certiorari in this case to revisit the “actualmalice” standard. This case is one of many showing howNew York Times and its progeny have allowed media organ-izations and interest groups “to cast false aspersions onpublic figures with near impunity.” Tah, 991 F. 3d, at 254(opinion of Silberman, J.). SPLC’s “hate group” designationlumped Coral Ridge’s Christian ministry with groups likethe Ku Klux Klan and Neo-Nazis. It placed Coral Ridge onan interactive, online “Hate Map” and caused Coral Ridgeconcrete financial injury by excluding it from the Ama-zonSmile donation program. Nonetheless, unable to satisfythe “almost impossible” actual-malice standard this Courthas imposed, Coral Ridge could not hold SPLC to accountfor what it maintains is a blatant falsehood. Dun & Brad-street, Inc. v. Greenmoss Builders, Inc., 472 U. S. 749, 771(1985) (White, J., concurring in judgment).Because the Court should not “insulate those who perpe-trate lies from traditional remedies like libel suits” unless“the First Amendment requires” us to do so, Berisha, 594U. S., at ___ (opinion of THOMAS, J.) (slip op., at 3), I re-spectfully dissent from the denial of certiorari.

The report said “the U.S. decision to withdraw military forces and contractors from Afghanistan,” despite the inability of Afghan forces to support themselves, was the most significant factor in the country’s collapse.“When the contractors pulled out, it was like we pulled all the sticks out of the Jenga pile and expected it to stay up,” former senior U.S. commander David Barno told researchers. “We built that army to run on contractor support. Without it, it can’t function. Game over.”

Former senior Afghan government and security officials have provided similar accounts to The Post suggesting Ghani feared his own security forces would ultimately turn on him.

U.S. watchdog details collapse of Afghan security forces

So, will these new voting laws swing elections?Maybe. Maybe not.

He did not mince words

But in his first year, he did not make voting rights a top priority. As his administration battled to pass infrastructure and economic-relief programs, voting rights groups have grown frustrated, calling for a more aggressive White House push on federal voting legislation.

The Supreme Court has greatly weakened the Voting Rights Act over the last decade

The Justice Department has filed lawsuits challenging Republican voting laws in Georgia and Texas, and has also doubled the size of its civil rights division, which oversees voting litigation.

How are Democrats pushing back?

likely to affect voters of color disproportionately, echoing the country’s long history of racial discrimination at the polls

They have fueled widespread doubts about the integrity of American elections and brought intense partisan gamesmanship to parts of the democratic process that once relied largely on orderly routine and good faith.

Why are these legislative efforts important?

What are Republicans trying to do?

Why are voting rights an issue now?

the Republican Party has made a concerted new effort to restrict voting and give itself more power over the mechanics of casting and counting ballots

a central partisan battlefield with enormous stakes for the future of American democracy

Republicans

Voting Rights and the Battle Over Elections: What to Know

Jay tweeted about that column

“Can the Press Prevent a Trump Restoration?”

I think there was a shift in how the media — and you could see it in the pages of our newspaper — how the media described things that he was saying and how willing the media was to say, this is a lie, or this is an untruth. And I think yeah, in certain ways, that accelerated with the post-election 2020 period.

I think journalists realized that this was an attack on the Democratic system, and they really had to try and reject it, and in ways that are much more frank and direct than they normally would use. They simply said, Trump was lying about the election, and they even expressed their outrage about it. And that, I took, to be a moment where journalistic practice changed.

a lot of highly exaggerated stories, where Trump’s real sordidness was blown out of proportion, a lot of cases where Trump did things, sometimes, that were reasonable policy that got covered as if they were the work of Hitler.

for my colleague Ross Douthat, a balanced treatment of an unbalanced phenomenon is just good journalism.

an article from The Atlantic

as the Trump administration has strayed from the advice of many of its scientists and public health experts, the White House has moved to sideline Fauci,

negative media coverage of his outstanding speech at Mount Rushmore

An interview with President Trump

By Marc A. Thiessen

The president discusses foreign policy and his response to Russian electoral interference.

“Maybe I’m a voice in the wilderness,” he said, “but most people agree with me. And many won’t say it, and they might not even say it in a poll, but I think they’ll say it in an election.”

I could say I’m against everything — ‘I’m against everything, I’m totally in favor of all of the hate.’

Trump would be in a stronger position to defend the Union if he renamed the bases — and forced his opponents to protest that naming military installations after Washington and Jefferson was inappropriate.

I mean he was a general, he was a tough general

they were named as a reconciliation to bring our country together

These Confederate generals were the Benedict Arnolds of their day.

It was my opponent.

they want racial justice. “I do too,” Trump interrupted.

Trump also contends that the Black Lives Matter movement preaches violence against the police.

The president’s critics in the media conflate his criticism of mobs tearing down statues with criticism of the broader racial justice movement.

I am adamant about defending the past

They’re going to get slaughtered if they don’t push back.”

what China did to us, is just unbelievable

the president remains confident

Trump 49, Biden 45

key swing states

Florida, up one

Pennsylvania tied

Wisconsin, up one

‘The real hate is the hate from the other side’

So I`d like to see boards, hold COEs accountable to actually make quantifiable objectives, and when those objectives aren`t met, folks don`t get their bonus.

a White House official involved in the communications effort who spoke on the condition of anonymity

Doug Band

Sayegh and Bondi have shied away from characterizing the president’s thinking, allowing them to avoid being contradicted by him, a regular occurrence for aides who try to speak to Trump’s state of mind.

griped that Trump was making their job defending him harder because of erratic moves such as his sudden withdrawal of troops from Syria and his decree — which was later rescinded — that he would host the Group of 7 at his Doral, Fla., golf resort.

That strategy has made the messaging effort all the more central to the president’s survival.

according to half a dozen current and former Trump administration officials who were interviewed for this story.

an anti-impeachment talking-point factory built for an impeachment battle playing out in a frenetic news cycle that burns through half a dozen fresh revelations a day. The environment favors Trump’s approach of repeating a single catchphrase endlessly until it sinks in.

had just observed Trump following a talking point.

Hill had labored in the White House for more than two years but said she didn’t fully grasp how the Trump administration actually operated until she watched Gordon Sondland, a Trump donor turned diplomat, testify before Congress last week.In the White House, Hill had seen Sondland as an impulsive neophyte overseeing an off-the-books campaign to pressure Ukraine to open investigations that would be politically beneficial to Trump.Sondland’s testimony showed something else. As Hill watched, it dawned on her that Sondland was running a different policy channel that didn’t include her and was working, at Trump’s behest, toward a very different goal.

full of wheeler dealers inside and outside the official ranks who exist to do his political bidding.

his statements repeatedly undercut the case Republican defenders in Congress have made on his behalf.

When Representative Andy Kim, who flipped his New Jersey district by less than two percentage points, faced voters in his district on Tuesday night, he got an earful on the issue, The Burlington County Times reported.“Why is it taking so long? I want him gone” one attendee interjected. “Do your job,” yelled another in reference to impeachment.

When Representative Kim Schrier of Washington, who narrowly flipped a Republican seat in 2018, announced her support this week for an inquiry, the House Republican Conference’s campaign arm denounced her as a “deranged socialist” who was “so blinded by her hatred of President Trump that she is perpetuating impeachment conspiracy theories instead of working for her constituents.”

Republicans are watching in wait for what they believe could be a suicidal decision for Democrats.

Impeachment was barely a whisper in two nights of Democratic presidential primary debate.

Mr. Quigley said individual members’ views are being shaped by a range of factors, including possible primary challenges, Mr. Mueller’s testimony last week, comments by Mr. Trump that are widely condemned as racist and the administration’s refusal to comply with certain investigative requests by Congress.

It appeared last week as if House leaders might have found a middle ground that could satisfy both proponents of an impeachment inquiry and queasy moderates still lined up against it.

But far from relieving pressure,

It was not necessarily supposed to go that way. The House’s departure last Friday was expected to lower the temperature around the prospect of a formal impeachment inquiry against President Trump. An unexpected declaration by the House Judiciary Committee in court papers on Friday that an impeachment investigation was effectively already underway might well have cooled matters further.

The trickle of Democrats coming out in favor of opening a full impeachment inquiry is threatening to turn into a flood

And so this is a difference with a lot of us on this debate stage. I believe that we in the United States Congress should start impeachment proceedings immediately. And I'll tell you this... (APPLAUSE) Debbie Stabenow now has joined my call for starting impeachment proceedings, because he is now stonewalling Congress, not allowing -- subjecting himself to the checks and balances. We swore an oath to uphold the Constitution. The politics of this be dammed. When we look back in history at what happened when a president of the United States started acting more like an authoritarian leader than the leader of the free world, the question is, is what will we have done? And I believe the Congress should do its job. LEMON: Senator Booker, thank you very much. Secretary Castro, what's your response? CASTRO: Well, I agree. I was the first of the candidates to call on Congress to begin impeachment proceedings. There are 10 different incidents that Robert Mueller has pointed out where this president either obstructed justice or attempted to obstruct justice. And I believe that they should go forward with impeachment proceedings. As to the question of what my Department of Justice would do, I agree with those who say that a president should not direct an attorney general specifically to prosecute or not prosecute. However, I believe that the evidence is plain and clear and that if it gets that far, that you're likely to see a prosecution of Donald Trump. LEMON: Thank you, Secretary. Mayor de Blasio, I'm going to bring you in. What's your response? DE BLASIO: I think it's obvious at this point in our history that the president has committed the crimes worthy of impeachment. But I want to caution my fellow Democrats. While we move in every way we can for impeachment, we have to remember at the same time the American people are out there looking for us to do something for them in their lives. And what they see when they turn on the TV or go online is just talk about impeachment. We need more talk about working people and their lives. For example, are we really ready -- and I ask people on this stage this question -- are we ready to make sure that the wealthy pay their fair share in taxes? That's something every American wants to know about. That's something they want answers to right now. So, yeah, move for impeachment, but don't forget to do the people's business and to stand up for working people, because that's how we're actually going to beat Donald Trump. The best impeachment is beating him in the election of 2020. (APPLAUSE) LEMON: Mayor, thank you very much. Senator Bennet, how do you respond to this conversation? BENNET: I think, look, as we go forward here, we need to recognize a very practical reality, which is that we are four months -- we've got the August recess. Then we are four months away from the Iowa Caucuses. And I just want to make sure whatever we do doesn't end up with an acquittal by Mitch McConnell in the Senate, which it surely would. And then President Trump would be running saying that he had been acquitted by the United States Congress. I believe we have a moral obligation to beat Donald Trump. (APPLAUSE) He has to be a single-term president. And we can't do anything that plays into our -- his hands. We were talking earlier about -- about climate up here. It's so important. Donald Trump should be the last climate denier that's ever in the White House. LEMON: Senator Bennet, thank you very much. Secretary Castro, please respond. BENNET: But we need to be smart about how we're running or we're going to give him a second term. We can't do it. LEMON: Secretary, please, your turn. CASTRO: Well, let me first say that I really do believe that we can walk and chew gum at the same time. All of us have a vision for the future of the country that we're articulating to the American people. We're going to continue to do that. We have an election coming up. At the same time, Senator, you know, I think that too many folks in the Senate and in the Congress have been spooked by 1998. I believe that the times are different. And in fact, I think that folks are making a mistake by not pursuing impeachment. The Mueller Report clearly details that he deserves it. And what's going to happen in the fall of next year, of 2020, if they don't impeach him, is he's going to say, "You see? You see? The Democrats didn't go after me on impeachment, and you know why? Because I didn't do anything wrong." (APPLAUSE) These folks that always investigate me, they're always trying to go after me. When it came down to it, they didn't go after me there because I didn't do anything wrong." Conversely, if Mitch McConnell is the one that lets him off the hook, we're going to be able to say... LEMON: Secretary... CASTRO: "Well, sure, they impeached him in the House, but his friend, Mitch McConnell, Moscow Mitch, let him off the hook."

Liberals who support opening impeachment proceedings against Mr. Trump had hoped that testimony by the former special counsel would finally electrify their efforts. The early verdict suggests that did not happen.

One mistake that was made by the media — and which is constantly being made — is living off Donald Trump’s tweets. I call it the kitty-litter box full of Trump’s tweets. The way it works is Donald Trump sends out a tweet. The cable news immediately repeats Trump’s tweet, instead of doing what I would have done if I were king of the world and editor. I would look and see the changes inside the bureaucracy and the system.  What is Trump doing? He is replacing good people everywhere with these extreme conservatives — they are not all necessarily fascists. These Trump government types do not want to give food to the poor. They don’t think that immigrants should be treated well. We’re seeing this strategy of Trump ruining the government all over the place.

Trump’s attacks often have come in response to efforts by Facebook, Google and Twitter to remove hate speech, threats of violence and other troubling content from their platforms. These tech giants have been under pressure to address a litany of online ills, including the rise of disinformation, three years after Russian agents spread falsehoods on social media during the 2016 election. But Trump and his close allies have decried some of social media’s content-moderation policies as censorship, putting those companies in a political bind.

The Southern Poverty Law Center charged that the president is “essentially conducting a hate summit at the White House,” said Heidi Beirich, the director of the group’s work to track online extremism.

In response, critics fretted that Trump had essentially endorsed such controversial tactics in the early days of the 2020 presidential race.

Democratic lawmakers and watchdog groups said they were most alarmed that Trump had invited supporters who have a history of targeting the president’s political opponents with inflammatory tweets, misleading videos and hard-to-debunk conspiracy theories.

a move that led some critics to express dismay that the president aimed to use the policy summit as a reelection push.

critics chastised for giving a prominent stage to some of the Internet’s most controversial, incendiary voices.

Trump accuses social media companies of ‘terrible bias’ at White House summit decried by critics

reporters should, at the same time, avoid overcompensatory framings that preclude them from making forceful truth claims. One staff writer at a large global news outlet highlighted this tension. On one hand, she noted, you need to indicate when false claims are false. However, in so doing, you risk injecting (or being accused of injecting) opinion into the reporting. She noted that one common workaround she’s used, and has seen many other reporters use, is to editorialize by proxy. This approach uses a euphemistic “critics say” or “others say” as a way to hint that something isn’t what it appears to be, without having to assert a clear position. While editorializing by proxy might feel more comfortable from a reporting perspective, this reporter conceded, not taking a clear position risks lending plausibility to objectively false and/or manipulative claims. Furthermore, couching fact as opinion does not lend greater objectivity to the reporting. It actually undermines that objectivity. The reporting of facts (and, conversely, debunking of untruths), this reporter maintained, must therefore not be conflated with editorial stances.

Not surprisingly, the whole concept of the event alarmed the president’s critics.

Other supporters who had made the journey from the internet’s backwaters to the White House included “Carpe Donktum,” who created a fake video of former Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr. that Mr. Trump shared on Twitter. There was also Bill Mitchell, who enjoys discussing QAnon, an online conspiracy theory that purports to share government secrets. And there was Ali Alexander, who shared a tweet questioning Kamala Harris’s racial background.

That’s really not what happened.

So on Thursday, the president went in search of outside-the-box campaign ideas from a group that also has little use for playing by the rules.

“The crap you think of,” Mr. Trump said as he surveyed his Twitter kingdom, “is unbelievable.”

White House Hosts Conservative Internet Activists at a ‘Social Media Summit’

White House Hosts Conservative Internet Activists at a ‘Social Media Summit’

That’s really not what happened.

So on Thursday, the president went in search of outside-the-box campaign ideas from a group that also has little use for playing by the rules.

“The crap you think of,” Mr. Trump said as he surveyed his Twitter kingdom, “is unbelievable.”

At the Pentagon, officials have quietly voiced concerns for months that the current trajectory might make military conflict a self-fulfilling prophecy.

a strategy that many legal and congressional experts fear could undermine the institutional power of Congress for years to come.

amounting to what many experts call the most expansive White House obstruction effort in decades

She noted that one common workaround she’s used, and has seen many other reporters use, is to editorialize by proxy. This approach uses a euphemistic “critics say” or “others say” as a way to hint that something isn’t what it appears to be, without having to assert a clear position. While editorializing by proxy might feel more comfortable from a reporting perspective, this reporter conceded, not taking a clear position risks lending plausibility to objectively false and/or manipulative claims.

The so-called Liberty City Seven case is indicative of how the U.S. government plays up the dangers of terrorism defendants when they are arrested but then never acknowledges that such purportedly dangerous individuals are routinely returned to their homes in the United States, in some cases just a few years after their arrests. As in other stings, the defendants in the Liberty City Seven case had no connection to terrorists. An undercover FBI informant, pretending to be an Al Qaeda agent, was the only alleged connection to terrorism.

the evidence available to us does not establish that the President directed or aided Cohen's false testimony.

Yet privately, Mr. Trump dismissed his own new strategy as pointless. In an off-the-record lunch with television anchors hours before the address, he made clear in blunt terms that he was not inclined to give the speech or go to Texas, but was talked into it by advisers, according to two people briefed on the discussion who asked not to be identified sharing details.Editors’ PicksThe Lives They Lived 2018A Struggling Desert Town Bets Its Future on Pot$3,700 Generators and $666 Sinks: FEMA Contractors Charged Steep Markups on Puerto Rico RepairsAdvertisement

Subsequently, Coalition air strikes must cease in all populated areas in Yemen.

And these are all false, to me. These are false accusations in certain cases

I won’t get into that game.

The ruling party in Poland, which came to power in 2015, five years after Orbán’s party came to power in Hungary, is “following the same template,” according to Stanford international studies professor Anna Grzymala-Busse: “First, target the highest courts and the judiciary, then restrict the independence of the media and civil society, and finally transform the constitutional framework and electoral laws in ways that enshrine their hold on power.”

Q What lesson do we take from what happened in Puerto Rico? How do we apply the lessons we took from Puerto Rico? THE PRESIDENT: Well, I think Puerto Rico was incredibly successful. Puerto Rico was, actually, our toughest one of all because it’s an island, so you just — you can’t truck things onto it. Everything is by boat. We moved a hospital into Puerto Rico — a tremendous military hospital in the form of a ship. You know that. And I actually think — and the Governor has been very nice. And if you ask the Governor, he’ll tell you what a great job. I think probably the hardest one we had, by far, was Puerto Rico because of the island nature. And I actually think it was one of the best jobs that’s ever been done with respect to what this is all about. Puerto Rico got hit not with one hurricane but with two. And the problem with Puerto Rico is their electric grid and their electric generating plant was dead before the storms ever hit. It was in very bad shape. It was in bankruptcy. It had no money. It was largely — you know, it was largely closed. And when the storm hit, they had no electricity — essentially before the storm. And when the storm hit, that took it out entirely. The job that FEMA and law enforcement and everybody did, working along with the Governor in Puerto Rico, I think was tremendous. I think that Puerto Rico was an incredible, unsung success. Texas, we had been given A-plusses for. Florida, we’ve been given A-plusses for. I think, in a certain way, the best job we did was Puerto Rico, but nobody would understand that. I mean, it’s harder to understand. It was very hard — a very hard thing to do because of the fact they had no electric. Before the storms hit, it was dead, as you probably know. So we’ve gotten a lot of receptivity, a lot of thanks for the job we’ve done in Puerto Rico. Puerto Rico was very important.

shamanistic incantation. As Klemperer noted, the fascist style depends upon “endless repetition,” designed to make the fictional plausible and the criminal desirable.

4) The investigation was extremely narrow in its focus. Committee staffers only looked at what the CIA did in its black sites; whether it misled other officials; and whether it complied with orders. That is somewhat like investigating whether a hit man did the job efficiently and cleaned up nicely.

in a recently unearthed 1999 roundtable discussion, Kavanaugh argued that one of the most important Supreme Court decisions limiting executive power was wrongly decided. In 1974, the court ruled 8-0 that then-president Richard Nixon's "executive privilege" did not make him immune to a subpoena from the Watergate special prosecutor. It ordered Nixon to hand over audio tapes of his conversations and calls. He did. And two weeks later, he was waving goodbye in a helicopter. But Kavanaugh lamented the decision, saying that "maybe Nixon was wrongly decided." His reasoning: "Nixon took away the power of the president to control information in the executive branch by holding that the courts had power and jurisdiction to order the president to disclose information in response to a subpoena sought by a subordinate executive branch official. That was a huge step with implications to this day that most people do not appreciate sufficiently."

Despite Strong Economy, Federal Deficit Soars

Like a family that's maxed out its credit cards, policymakers may have less room to maneuver the next time they're confronted with an actual crisis, as a result of the government's mounting debt load.

the government is still acting like a spendthrift family, piling up credit card bills even though times are good

aspiring traitors like Clapper, Hayden, Tapper, Acosta, Hillary Clinton, Comey, John Podesta, Maddow, McCabe, Brennan, Page, Strzok, Wray, the reporting staffs of the Washington Post and the New York Times, the Council on Foreign Relations, and most of all, by the foreign-born Obama.

The familiar advice, easy to state, hard to follow, but if there’s another way, it’s been kept a dark secret: honest, dedicated, courageous and persistent engagement, ranging from education and organization to direct activism, carefully honed for effectiveness under prevailing circumstances. Hard work, necessary work, the kind that has succeeded in the past and can again.

the most highly regarded moderates firmly uphold doctrines that are, quite literally, too outlandish to discuss. For example, Richard Haass, a respected scholar and diplomat and long-time president of the influential Council on Foreign Relations, instructs us with a straight face that “International order for 4 centuries has been based on non-interference in the internal affairs of others and respect for sovereignty. Russia has violated this norm by seizing Crimea and by interfering in the 2016 US election. We must deal [with] Putin’s Russia as the rogue state it is.” Words fail.

While Trump’s policies make no sense from a geostrategic perspective, they fall into place on the assumption that he is continuing to pursue his “Me First” agenda, damn the consequences for the world, matters we’ve discussed before. The agenda requires maintaining the loyalty of his base and ensuring that they will remain loyal if the Mueller investigation comes up with something that damages him. The centerpiece of his press conference with Putin, bitterly condemned by elite opinion, was his effort to discredit Mueller. The tactic is succeeding quite well. A large majority of Republicans approve of the way Trump dealt with Putin, and polls show that Mueller’s public image is at an all-time low. Meanwhile, the sharp escalation and threats satisfy the national security hawks.

In the case of Western democracies — Trump, Western Europe — what’s wrong with today’s democracy is its decline, with the attendant attack on prospects for a decent life as the political system falls even more than usual under the control of concentrated private power and hence becomes less responsive to human needs.

the major attack on the institutions and values of liberal democracy is by the powerful business classes, intensifying since Reagan as both political parties have drifted toward greater subordination to their interests

1. When the President acts pursuant to an express or implied authorization of Congress, his authority is at its maximum, for it includes all that he possesses in his own right plus all that Congress can delegate. 2 In these circumstances, [343 U.S. 579, 636]   and in these only, may he be said (for what it may be worth) to personify the federal sovereignty. If his act is held unconstitutional under these circumstances, it usually means that the Federal Government [343 U.S. 579, 637]   as an undivided whole lacks power. A seizure executed by the President pursuant to an Act of Congress would be supported by the strongest of presumptions and the widest latitude of judicial interpretation, and the burden of persuasion would rest heavily upon any who might attack it. 2. When the President acts in absence of either a congressional grant or denial of authority, he can only rely upon his own independent powers, but there is a zone of twilight in which he and Congress may have concurrent authority, or in which its distribution is uncertain. Therefore, congressional inertia, indifference or quiescence may sometimes, at least as a practical matter, enable, if not invite, measures on independent presidential responsibility. In this area, any actual test of power is likely to depend on the imperatives of events and contemporary imponderables rather than on abstract theories of law. 3   3. When the President takes measures incompatible with the expressed or implied will of Congress, his power is at its lowest ebb, for then he can rely only upon his own constitutional powers minus any constitutional powers of Congress over the matter. Courts can sustain exclusive presidential control in such a case only by disabling [343 U.S. 579, 638]   the Congress from acting upon the subject. 4 Presidential claim to a power at once so conclusive and preclusive must be scrutinized with caution, for what is at stake is the equilibrium established by our constitutional system.

which suggests traders are concerned about long-term growth — even as the economy shows plenty of vitality.

In a few instances, a staff member may have to move to a different department — from business and financial news, say, to the culture desk—to avoid the appearance of conflict.

A City Hall reporter who enjoys a weekly round of golf with a City Council member, for example, risks creating an appearance of coziness, even if they sometimes discuss business on the course.

In addition to the significant number of communications between FBI employees and journalists, we identified social interactions between FBI employees and journalists that were, at a minimum, inconsistent with FBI policy and Department ethics rules. For example, we identified instances where FBI employees received tickets to sporting events from journalists, went on golfing outings with media representatives, were treated to drinks and meals after work byreporters, and were the guests of journalists at nonpublic social events. We will separately report on those investigations as they are concluded, consistent with the Inspector General (IG) Act, other applicable federal statutes, and OIG policy.

Trump tests journalists and news consumers in a way they’ve never been tested before. Like would-be autocrats elsewhere, Trump is pursuing a strategy of disorienting the citizenry with a steady stream of provocations, untruths and diversions. We cannot afford to treat any of this as the usual spin or garden-variety politics.

A spokesman for the Justice Department said in an email that the new guidance policy would not affect the enforcement of science-based laws. “The Department of Justice continues to aggressively and successfully enforce the nation’s laws, including environmental and health laws,” the spokesman said, on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to speak on the record. “Assertions to the contrary are incorrect.”

Mr. Trump’s lawyers fear that if he answers questions, either voluntarily or in front of a grand jury, he risks exposing himself to accusations of lying to investigators, a potential crime or impeachable offense.

$102,000

Last Sale Date: Jan-25-2018 Last Sale Price: $66,500

Skok: I’m not saying that you are responsible — Gingras: No, I don’t say it with that intent. I have no problem with people criticizing us for what we do. I’m just saying let’s look at the questions on a larger scale and understand what’s really going on because it ain’t as simple as that.

So how do you understand the community’s needs? How do you address those needs? How do you rethink what the very nature and form of journalism is in this day and age? How do the contracts evolve in an environment where we’re all snacking off our cellphones? To what extent do narrative styles have to change? To what extent is it more immersive, or less immersive, or whatever? To what extent can data journalism become a stronger part of what we do, so that we’re not just covering news through stories and anecdotes but providing additional context to help people understand why something is important or not important to them? As we deal with these challenges, all of us as institutions — including Google, including the press — have to really rethink what our roles are in this very different world.

They don’t have marketers on staff, they have community organizers on staff and they go out and they arrange town halls and they’re trying to assess the needs and interests of their community, they’re trying to figure out how do they engage with their community.

Media literacy training is important, but can you design a new site that actually doesn’t need a user manual to tell you what you’re seeing, tell you what’s fact-based coverage versus opinion?

I was a founder of The Trust Project for pushing on the architecture of journalism.

My own personal favorite definition of journalism is to give citizens the tools they need to be good citizens: to give them the information they need to when they go to the polls to make smart decisions about what’s important for their communities and that’s not what’s happening today.

Can we create a weather report for our communities?

disproportionality. You’ve got the British Parliament attack in London and our cable news networks in the United States go wall to wall with it for three days. A sad event — four people died. [Five, plus the assailant. —Ed.] On those same three days, there were mass murders of four or more people that didn’t get covered. We have people going to the polls living in a farming community in Iowa concerned about terrorism, not understanding what the real needs and interests of their communities are.

So what does that say about the future? I’m increasingly encouraged by what I see, but I think it’s a very, very different approach. And that’s the kind of success we’re seeing. It’s a much more community-centric approach. Earlier, there was a conversation that you need to think more about marketing, which is true, but I also think that, in a different way, I think you need to be smarter about community organizing, to be smarter about understanding the natural interests of your community.

User behaviors changed in terms of what you use a news site for, and with it went the advertising dollars. I can assure you that if Google didn’t exist, this still would have happened.

What are the evolving forms and structures of journalism to better serve our communities in an environment where people are consuming information in so many different ways?

I think if we can look through the smoke of disruption, we’re beginning to see seedlings of success, of new approaches to journalism at the local level, at the national level, in terms of content and issues, that is extraordinarily exhilarating and inspiring.

We want to thank Kim Jong-un, who really was excellent to these three incredible people.

Journalists can begin to help audiences become more discriminating by building and presenting content differently, in a way that explicitly displays and answers key questions reader may have — through boxes, billboards, and other elements placed on top of or alongside traditional narratives.

Who is the writer and what are the writer’s credentials and background?

If we have anonymous sources, why?

What don’t we know? What are the questions we are trying to answer?

Why did we do this story? (Why does this story matter?) What’s new here? What questions did we set out to answer? What do we know now? What don’t we know? What’s the evidence? Who are the sources and why were they chosen? Why did we use unnamed sources? What might happen next? What could change? How and when will we cover it? How can you respond or get involved?

contextual manner.

Joy Mayer at Trusting News and Sally Lehrman at The Trust Project.

“What questions would this story raise in a skeptical consumer’s mind?”

a nutrition label for news,

Bill Kovach and Tom Rosenstiel

What facts don’t we know yet?

What sources did you talk to and why them?

imagine a format or presentation that, alongside the story, poses some key questions a discriminating or “fluent” news consumer might ask to decide what to make of the story. 

If journalists want their audiences to be able to differentiate solidly reported news content from work that is more speculative, thinly sourced, or backed by rumor or innuendo, then they must create their journalism in ways that make it easier for anyone to recognize those qualities.

Daily newspapers are notoriously non-transparent, an old habit that at least in part stems from our lack of space. We historically haven’t had the column inches to “waste” on an explanation of how we got a story, or what the problems were in reporting it, or to defend it once it’s attacked. We just “let the story speak for itself.” Space seems to have been at a particular premium in the corrections box. But the Internet both demands and facilitates transparency. We should be much more willing to admit errors and explain ourselves — with a guiding principle being that the more people understand how we operate, the more they will trust us.

Pants on fire is so tired. Could you ask your graphics department to use an icon of a steaming pile of feces instead?

We always define the claim we're checking. We always reach out to the speaker and ask for his/her data. We always ask ourselves two things: What evidence would show that this claim is accurate. What evidence would show that it is less than accurate.

I do talk regularly to press secretaries and spokespeople and hear them out if they don't like the outcome of a particular fact-check. Part of our regular process, too, is to talk to them extensively before we publish so we understand how they view the evidence.

I love how this response indirectly states that Republicans make more incorrect claims.

Jon here: Lie is a loaded word and we leave it to the columnists to use it. For reporters, it is best to say that something is inaccurate, because we take the stance that we can only judge accuracy, not intent. And lying involves the intent to deceive. permalinkembedsaveparentreportgive goldreply[–]andew0100 [score hidden] an hour ago (0 children)"Pants on fire" is the same as calling someone a liar. Jon here: Lie is a loaded word and we leave it to the columnists to use it. I hereby dub this statement "pants on fire".

the Pants on Fire rating is "the claim is not accurate and makes a ridiculous claim." Three editors vote on whether a claim should be False or Pants on Fire, and it's admittedly a judgment call.

Wouldn't it better you'd introduce new rulings? Like misleading or irrelevant?

You seem to be unnecessarily harsh on the side of literal facts over general facts.

we aim to let the hard numbers and facts do the talking. We try to pick claims that are susceptible to that approach and while there can be judgment calls, we aim to keep them to a minimum. From the very start of a fact-check, we ask ourselves two questions: What data would prove the statement correct, and what data would show that it is less than accurate.

Misogyny is both the input and output that keeps the fake news industry afloat.

It has become standard operating procedure for Trump and his aides to deceive the public with false statements and shifting accounts.

The clear takeaway from the Swift Boaters’ truth-mangling campaign remains the core cognitive and moral distemper at the root of our political press today—namely, the idea that the perceptions created by political actors matter more than the substantive facts that can be truthfully reported. And this has allowed the Swift Boaters’ libelous script to repeat itself again and again over the past grim fourteen years of our cultural and civic decline.

in a recent interview with Politico Magazine in his Times office.

But some of them are jackasses

equally polarizing

arguments are intended as instruments of illumination

helping to recreate an intellectual and moral center in American public life

That earnest and nuanced answer was in its own way a distillation of the central issue regarding his leadership

His tenure has been about standing strong on behalf of a style of discourse that requires making points with precision, insists on the distinction between honest argument and propaganda, and defaults to an assumption that the other side has a legitimate point of view and is deserving of respect

regarded with suspicion by some loud voices on the left

the transcript of which later leaked

all-staff memo

These and other moves by Bennet to enliven his pages

as he revamps and modernizes the Times opinion section

But he does give a damn.

During the election you had no strong advocate for [Sen.] Bernie Sanders [I-Vt.], or any of those positions. And so I guess, in the more recent months, in your attempts to find those voices, where have you been looking, what types of people have you been looking for, and how are you trying to get a more diverse group of people regularly writing in the op-ed section?

So we’re doubling down on our partnerships with academics, technology companies and other partners.

In the US, we recently announced a partnership with The Associated Press to use their reporters in all 50 states to identify and debunk false and misleading stories related to the federal, state and local US midterm elections.

We use the information from fact-checkers to train our machine learning model, so that we can catch more potentially false news stories and do so faster.

to predict potentially false stories for fact-checkers to review.

our partnership with third-party fact-checking organizations. We’re seeing progress in our ability to limit the spread of articles rated false by fact-checkers, and we’re scaling our efforts.

Tessa Lyons, Product Manager

every person of conviction makes a bargain by going to work for Trump: to wield the levers of power, to make changes you believe are for the better, you will have to make certain compromises

The conviction among his critics that Sessions is racist has sometimes led them to overreach. In February, a Democratic Senator and the American Civil Liberties Union blasted him for referring to the “Anglo-American heritage of law enforcement” in a speech. It was a factual description, one Obama had used on many occasions. But in explaining it to me, Sessions couldn’t resist a detour into cultural stereotypes. “I believe the American legal system, which clearly developed out of England, is a wonder of the world, and it’s based on the fact that lady justice is blindfolded,” he said. “When you go and travel like I have–to Kosovo, to Afghanistan, to Iraq–where we’ve invested huge amounts of money and effort to export our legal system to a culture that’s totally unfamiliar with it, it doesn’t work. It’s because it requires a degree of trust and respect, education and maybe even a cultural predisposition.”

Sessions seemed exasperated when I asked him to address the disproportionate impact of harsh policing and incarceration on black families and communities. He cited the work of Heather Mac Donald, the controversial conservative scholar who argues that racial bias in the criminal-justice system is a myth and that the real problem is a “war on cops.”

Sessions’ liberal critics agree that he’s been remarkably effective.

Is Winning

pulling back from police oversight and civil rights enforcement and pushing a hard-line approach to drugs, gangs and immigration violations

rescinded the Obama Administration’s Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program and reversed its stances on voting rights and transgender rights

a maximalist approach to prosecuting and jailing criminals

which information the possessor has reason to believe could be used to the injury of the United States or to the advantage of any foreign nation

more wars, and soon

“He ran on a campaign that said very nice things about me.

"He ran on a campaign that said very nice things about me.