New York Times – Media Nation

The New York Times takes on Trump’s crusade against freedom of speech and of the press

The New York Times has published a comprehensive examination of Donald Trump’s attempts to stifle freedom of speech and of the press. Written by Jim Rutenberg and Maggie Haberman, it’s cast as a “news analysis” so they can offer some judgments. I’m guessing that it will be on the front page of the Sunday print edition.

There’s nothing in the story that hasn’t been previously reported, but it’s all here — from Trump’s bogus lawsuits against ABC and CBS to his Justice Department’s failed attempt to subpoena Times reporters; from an FBI raid on the home of a Washington Post reporter to FCC chair Brendan Carr’s threats against broadcast networks. Rutenberg and Haberman write:

Almost 20 months into Mr. Trump’s second term, his long-running media clashes have grown into a sweeping campaign to control speech in America that stands out for applying so many levers, so fast, all at once.

Although First Amendment protections remain reasonably strong, there are soft spots, and Trump is exploiting them. For instance, the right of journalists to protect confidential sources is extremely limited, especially in the federal courts, and hauling reporters into court sends a message. It’s nearly impossible to win a frivolous libel suit, but Trump has used such suits to extract settlements from media corporations that need favors. Broadcast may be in its death throes, but it remains the one part of the media that is subject to government regulation, thus opening it up to Carr’s depredations.

The Times roundup is a must-read for anyone who cares about the role of a free and independent press in a democratic society. And know this: If Democrats take back one or both branches of Congress this November, Trump’s behavior is only going to become more unhinged and authoritarian.

Public figures, private figures and why the difference matters in The New York Times libel defeat

The New York Times lost a libel case Thursday for the first time in more than 60 years. Ironically, both defeats played out in Alabama.

The earlier loss, in 1960, led to the landmark Times v. Sullivan ruling of 1964, in which the Supreme Court decided that it wasn’t enough for a public official to show that a offensive statement was false and defamatory. The official also had to show that it was published despite the knowledge that it was false, or made with reckless disregard for whether it was true or false.

Please support this free source of news and commentary by joining my Patreon for just $6 a month. Supporters receive a weekly newsletter with exclusive content.

The second loss seems unlikely to lead to a similarly favorable outcome for the Times. Kai Spears, a former University of Alabama basketball player, won a $9.25 million judgment after the Times falsely reported that he was at the scene of a fatal shooting. Ryan Phillips, who covered the U.S. District Court trial for Patch, observes that $7.5 million of that was for punitive damages, which the Times will almost certainly appeal.

Continue reading “Public figures, private figures and why the difference matters in The New York Times libel defeat”

No news for you: Why is it so hard to buy a paper to read on the plane?

We got back from Chicago on Saturday after a great vacation with Barbara’s sister, Mary, and her husband, Eric. I’ll have more to say, especially about our visit to the Obama Presidential Center. Today, though, I want to lament the demise of print newspapers and offer some suggestions on how both publishers and airports could make for a better flight.

We flew out on Tuesday. Before boarding at Logan, I visited several Hudson News stores looking for a Wall Street Journal. There were no papers at all — not even USA Today. We got on board, and I was able to connect to Southwest’s wifi service for $8. Given the price of a newspaper these days, that seemed like a reasonable tradeoff. It cut out briefly a couple of times, but I was able to make my way through most of the content on the iPhone app.

On Saturday, I got up early and hit a couple of 7-Elevens near our hotel. Nothing. Needless to say, at one time I’d have been able to grab a free paper at the hotel, but no such luck. Once again, Hudson News stores at Midway were bereft of papers, but I figured I could just pay for wifi. I could not — no service was available. I looked a photos on my phone, stared into space and dozed off briefly. Fortunately, it was a short flight.

Now, you could say I should have brought a book, and yes, I guess I should have. But I didn’t realize it would be impossible to get a paper. It seems to me that at least a few people in airports would like newspapers, especially given the spotty wifi on airplanes. Since Hudson News is occupying space by virtue of a contract with a governmental entity, you’d think it might be required that they carry, say, three national newspapers.

At one time in the not-too-distant past, an absence of print newspapers wouldn’t have been a problem, at least not if you had a Kindle. Amazon used to offer a wide range of papers, and you could buy a single copy for a few bucks. Since the entire edition was downloaded to your device, you didn’t need connectivity. It was a great benefit, and I don’t understand why Amazon ended it.

I do have a solution, though. Why can’t newspaper apps have an option to download that day’s paper? The Boston Globe does, so next time I’ll save it for the plane. But why not The New York Times or The Wall Street Journal? It seems like a natural benefit to offer to paid subscribers.

More: After I posted this, I learned from Bluesky user @nationalsliker.bsky.social that The Wall Street Journal offers a separate iPhone app for the print edition that lets you download that day’s paper, which I’m going to try on the train later this morning. (The Washington Post offers the downloadable print edition in its iPhone app if you click on the search tool.) And commenter John Caddel reports that the Journal sends him a daily email of the paper in PDF form.

Three for Friday: Trump and the Times, Mass. public records and journalism cuts at UMass Dartmouth

I’m heading out for a family wedding in a little while, but the media news keeps coming. Here are three stories you should be aware of.

📰 Trump backs down. “The federal government says it will drop its subpoenas compelling New York Times reporters to testify about anonymous sources in a case that involved President Donald Trump’s claims about a Qatari-gifted Air Force One jet” (CNN). My earlier coverage.

📰 Mass. Senate to boost public records. “Top Senate Democrats signaled Thursday they will seek a vote next week on legislation that would, like a bill passed last month in the House, subject both the governor’s office and the Legislature to some kind of public records framework, taking aim at the same topic already targeted by a question on the November ballot” (CommonWealth Beacon).

📰 Journalism cuts at UMass Dartmouth. “Student journalists at UMass Dartmouth are speaking out about what they say may be unfair treatment, or even retribution, after the university’s only journalism professor was let go — two months after a university dean wrote that the professor’s contract extension was already ‘approved’” (New Bedford Light).

On the new ‘Beat the Press,’ we take on Trump’s subpoenas of New York Times journalists

*Click here or on image to watch on Contrarian Boston.*

On the latest edition of “Beat the Press with Emily Rooney,” we take a look at the Trump regime’s decision to subpoena New York Times journalists in an attempt to find out who told the paper about security problems on the new Air Force One, a corrupt gift from the Qatari government.

As we note, the Constitution does not protect journalists from having to identify their confidential sources if they are ordered to do so by a court. But the White House is running roughshod over long-established standards regarding how such demands ought to be handled.

We also examine how news organizations decided whether or not to carry Trump’s lie-infested speech about election security, and his threat to challenge the broadcast licenses of outlets that took a pass; and how the World Cup turned out to be a huge success in Greater Boston despite predictions by many in the media that we were headed for a disastrous confluence of chaos and gridlock. Plus, our panel’s Rants & Raves.

Emily is in the moderator’s seat, joined by our host, Scott Van Voorhis of Contrarian Boston; Lylah Alphonse of The Boston Globe, and me. Our producer extraordinaire is Tonia Magras of Hull Bay Productions.

In 2024, Trump killed a federal shield law. Now he’s exploiting that to harass The New York Times.

*One of several planes that have been used as Air Force One. Photo (cc) 2015 by Gage Skidmore.*

In the waning days of the last Congress in December 2024, a Republican senator killed efforts to pass a federal shield law that would have protected journalists from being forced to identify their anonymous sources or turn over confidential documents.

If you value news and commentary like this, please sign up for free email delivery of new posts — and consider becoming a supporter for just $6 a month. Supporters receive a weekly email with exclusive content.

The so-called PRESS Act, which had passed the House unanimously, died when Sen. Tom Cotton of Arkansas — acting at the behest of Donald Trump, who’d just been re-elected — objected to an attempt to pass it by unanimous consent. Cotton said that passage would turn senators “into the active accomplice of deep-state leakers, traitors and criminals, along with the America-hating and fame-hungry journalists who help them out.”

Now we see the consequences of Cotton’s recklessness. Michael M. Grynbaum reports in The New York Times that three of the five Times journalists who exposed security problems on the new Air Force One — a corrupt gift to Trump from the Qatari government — received subpoenas ordering them to reveal their sources.

Continue reading “In 2024, Trump killed a federal shield law. Now he’s exploiting that to harass The New York Times.”

From the Trump regime to a rogue judge in New Jersey, the First Amendment is under assault

*New Jersey Superior Court Judge Thomas McCloskey. Official photo via the New Jersey Globe.*

It’s not a good day for the First Amendment, as four New York Times journalists have been subpoenaed in connection with their report (sub. req.) that Donald Trump’s new Air Force One plane — a gift that he corruptly accepted from the Qatari government — lacks important security features.

The journalists have been called to testify before a federal grand jury on Wednesday. Although the exact nature of the inquiry hasn’t been revealed, it’s probably an attempt by the Trump regime to determine who leaked the information to the Times.

This morning, though, I want to call your attention to a more blatant violation of the First Amendment: a judge’s demand that a New Jersey newspaper remove school security footage from its YouTube channel and refrain even from writing about it. On Thursday, the judge softened his order slightly but then extended it to all news outlets.

Continue reading “From the Trump regime to a rogue judge in New Jersey, the First Amendment is under assault”

The New York Times came thisclose to having the Graham Platner rape story. So what happened?

With the meltdown of Graham Platner’s U.S. Senate candidacy still playing out, I want to take a look at how The New York Times let it slip away.

The pieces are clearly visible, so you may already know where I’m going with this. But it’s worth tying them together and asking how the Times could come so close to breaking it wide open only to be relegated to the sidelines while Politico delivered the final blow.

Early Monday afternoon, rumors began spreading on social media that a big story was about to break. Platner, a Maine Democrat, was reportedly canceling campaign events. Then it dropped: Politico published an interview with Jenny Racicot, a 41-year-old Maine woman, who claimed that in 2021 Platner entered her home and drunkenly, violently raped her.

Continue reading “The New York Times came thisclose to having the Graham Platner rape story. So what happened?”

Why did Tulsi Gabbard resign? You can’t tell from the media’s dueling anonymous sources.

*Tulsi Gabbard. Photo (cc) 2022 by Gage Skidmore.*

I’m not one to break out the smelling salts when news outlets rely on anonymous sources. Important investigative stories are often based on unnamed insiders, as was the case with The Atlantic’s recent exposé of FBI Director Kash Patel’s drinking and erratic behavior. Reporter Sarah Fitzpatrick interviewed more than two dozen sources and sought comment from both the FBI and the White House.

Follow my Bluesky newsfeed for additional news and commentary. And please join my Patreon for just $6 a month. You’ll receive a supporters-only newsletter every Thursday.

But I thought some of the sourcing around Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard’s announcement that she would resign was just plain shoddy. Let’s start with Jonathan Landay and Erin Banco of Reuters, who wrote on Friday: “A source familiar with the matter said that Gabbard had been forced out by the White House.”

Thus on the basis of one anonymous source did Reuters assert that Gabbard was lying when she claimed she was leaving in order to take care of her husband, who, she said, has been diagnosed with bone cancer.

Interestingly, The New York Times account, by Dustin Volz and Julian E. Barnes, directly contradicts Reuters, saying: “Mr. Trump did not force Ms. Gabbard to resign on Friday, according to people familiar with the matter, but her standing and influence within the White House had continued to erode in recent months.”

Now, I don’t know how many sources are covered by “people,” but it’s more than one.

Finally, there’s this Associated Press report, by Meg Kinnard, Will Weissert and David Klepper: “There had been rumblings that Gabbard would split with Trump after the president’s decision to strike Iran, which caused some division within his administration.”

Rumblings? OK. Actually, maybe we can let that go, since we’ve all seen reports in recent months that Gabbard wasn’t on board with the Iran war. Still, the passive-tense construction doesn’t give any indication of where these “rumblings” have been coming from. The White House? The Pentagon? Who knows?

Decisions over when it’s acceptable to rely entirely on anonymous sources are always fuzzy, but the real reason that Gabbard is leaving isn’t important enough to try to report it on the basis of light sourcing in real time. A story based on multiple sources reporting on what really happened would be welcome — and there was no need to try to break that story in the immediate aftermath of her resignation.

‘Beat the Press’ takes on that explosive Nicholas Kristof column. Plus, Spencer Pratt, Matt Damon and Ben Affleck.

On the latest edition of “Beat the Press with Emily Rooney,” we examine the fallout over an explosive New York Times column by Nicholas Kristof alleging that Israeli prison guards sexually assaulted Palestinian prisoners. Was his sourcing shaky, as critics claim? Although the Times issued a statement supporting Kristof, why hasn’t the news side followed up?

We also take a look at former reality star Spencer Pratt’s gadfly campaign to become mayor of Los Angeles — fueled by an over-the-top AI-generated ad and by a distinct lack of interest by the news media about who Pratt is and whether he’s qualified.

Plus: Two Florida police officers sue the production company behind “The Rip,” a movie starring Matt Damon and Ben Affleck based on a true story. In the film, the officers help themselves to part of a $21 million jackpot they discovered inside a suspected drug dealer’s home — something they were not accused of doing in real life.

And stick around for our panel’s Rants and Raves. With Emilyl our host, Scott Van Voorhis of Contrarian Boston; Jon Keller of WBZ-TV, and me. Our producer extraordinaire is Tonia Magras of Hull Bay Productions.