Podcast appearances and mentions of Erik Wemple

[This blog will always be free to read, but it's also how I pay my bills. If you have suggestions or feedback on how I can earn your paid subscription, shoot me an email: cmclymer@gmail.com.]Yesterday, just before noon, The Washington Post, through CEO William Lewis, announced it would not endorse a candidate in the 2024 presidential election, the first time the nation's third-largest daily newspaper by circulation hasn't done so in nearly four decades.The announcement was shocking for two immediate reasons.The most grave—and, frankly, terrifying—reason is that the United States is obviously at threat of sliding into a horrific dictatorship from which it's difficult to see how we'd ever recover. Donald Trump and J.D. Vance have made it abundantly clear that they aspire to devolve our nation into the world's most powerful authoritarian regime. One need look no further than the chilling plans outlined in Project 2025.But there are many other warning signs, too. A small sampling:There's Trump openly praising Hitler's generals, according to his former chief-of-staff John Kelly (himself a retired four-star Marine Corps general), just the latest marker of fascist narcissism in Trump's very long and documented history of being obsessed with dictators.There's Trump repeatedly pledging to carry out the largest deportation of undocumented migrants in American history, a sweat-lipped plan made in blustering tones that somehow manages to exceed its inherent cruelty with an inexplicable failure to understand basic economics.(Not only is it logistically impossible to deport our nation's 11 million undocumented migrants, not only would it cost taxpayers an estimated quarter trillion to do so, but the American economy would completely collapse from the loss in labor force.)There's Trump's flagrant disregard for the Constitution and the rule of law: an indictment that resulted in a guilty verdict on 34 felony counts (his sentencing for that is on Nov. 26th), three other pending indictments on 52 more felony counts, two impeachments, being found liable for defamation of a woman he raped, etc.Oh, and, of course, there's Trump's frequent statements to serve past the constitutional limit of two terms as president (I'm sure he's just kidding), and the extremist conservative majority of the Supreme Court ruling last year that Trump is essentially a king beyond accountability for official acts in office.That's all an abbreviated version of why Donald Trump is obviously unfit.The second reason is The Washington Post's abdication of journalistic integrity under the ownership of Jeff Bezos, a development that is especially chilling for a publication that has long prided itself on being the vanguard for American democracy and free speech.The storied newspaper has won 76 Pulitzer Prizes over its history—second only to The New York Times—one of which was for the investigative reporting by Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein that eventually led to the resignation of Richard Nixon. Another was for the reporting on the Jan. 6th attack on the U.S. Capitol.The Washington Post has long been synonymous with the essential role of the free press in a healthy, functioning democracy in the same manner we associate Babe Ruth with baseball or July Fourth with fireworks or Dolly Parton with a clean soul.And so, it was with great confusion and incredulity that I read Mr. Lewis' painfully shameless attempt to justify the decision. He sure did try to put on a powdered wig and insist that the bowl of s**t he wanted to feed to the American public was actually chicken soup for the American soul.Most curiously, in writing about The Washington Post's history of largely declining to endorse presidential candidates prior to 1976, he stated that year's endorsement for then-Gov. Jimmy Carter was made “for understandable reasons at the time…”Did you catch that? He's obliquely referencing Watergate, the scandal that brought down Nixon with reporting by the paper — Nixon, who, by any measurable standard, comes across like Lincoln when compared to Trump.Mr. Lewis, for some odd reason, thought it persuasive to essentially say: “Look, we don't regret endorsing Carter because Nixon was terrible, but also: Trump is not nearly terrible enough to justify continuing this dangerous practice of presidential endorsements.”Furthermore, aside from the dollar store cheap imitation of logic, he failed to mention in his desperate, sorry excuse for rationalizing that The Washington Post, for the past several weeks, had been drafting an approved endorsement for Vice President Harris.He failed to mention that the endorsement was still on track a week ago, and there was no indication that it would be halted for any reason, let alone on the rather cringe-inducing reasoning he put forward in his announcement.He failed to mention that Trump met today with corporate leaders of aerospace company Blue Origin—also owned by Bezos—which is, at best, godawful timing or a pretty clear signal of Bezos' reasoning in killing the endorsement. Maybe both.Probably both.If none of this makes sense, you're far from alone. It completely failed to persuade the staff and alums of The Washington Post. Conservative columnist and editor-at-large Robert Kagan immediately resigned in protest. Sixteen other Washington Post columnists—Perry Bacon Jr., Matt Bai, Max Boot, E.J. Dionne Jr., Lee Hockstader, David Ignatius, Heather Long, Ruth Marcus, Dana Milbank, Alexandra Petri, Catherine Rampell, Eugene Robinson, Jennifer Rubin, Karen Tumulty, and Erik Wemple—published this statement on the paper's website:The Washington Post's decision not to make an endorsement in the presidential campaign is a terrible mistake. It represents an abandonment of the fundamental editorial convictions of the newspaper that we love. This is a moment for the institution to be making clear its commitment to democratic values, the rule of law and international alliances, and the threat that Donald Trump poses to them — the precise points The Post made in endorsing Trump's opponents in 2016 and 2020. There is no contradiction between The Post's important role as an independent newspaper and its practice of making political endorsements, both as a matter of guidance to readers and as a statement of core beliefs. That has never been more true than in the current campaign. An independent newspaper might someday choose to back away from making presidential endorsements. But this isn't the right moment, when one candidate is advocating positions that directly threaten freedom of the press and the values of the Constitution.Mr. Woodward and Mr. Bernstein issued this statement:We respect the traditional independence of the editorial page, but this decision 12 days out from the 2024 presidential election ignores the Washington Post's own overwhelming reportorial evidence on the threat Donald Trump poses to democracy. Under Jeff Bezos's ownership, the Washington Post's news operation has used its abundant resources to rigorously investigate the danger and damage a second Trump presidency could cause to the future of American democracy and that makes this decision even more surprising and disappointing, especially this late in the electoral process.Retired WaPo executive editor Martin Baron, who led the paper from 2012 thru 2021, including the tumultuous years of Trump's presidency, responded with a scathing statement: “This is cowardice, with democracy as its casualty. Donald Trump will see this as invitation to further intimidate owner Jeff Bezos (and others). Disturbing spinelessness at an institution famed for courage.”The Washington Post Guild—the paper's employee union—had this to say:We are deeply concerned that The Washington Post—an American news institution in the nation's capital—would make the decision to no longer endorse presidential candidates, especially a mere 11 days ahead of an immensely consequential election. The role of an Editorial Board is to do just this: to share opinion on the news impacting our society and culture and endorse candidates to help guide readers.The message from our chief executive, Will Lewis—not from the Editorial Board itself—makes us concerned that management interfered with the work of our members in Editorial. According to our own reporters and Guild members, an endorsement for Harris was already drafted, and the decision to not publish was made by The Post's owner, Jeff Bezos. We are already seeing cancellations from once loyal readers. This decision undercuts the work of our members at a time when we should be building our readers' trust, not losing it.Washington Post editorial cartoonist Ann Telnaes published this jarring work on the paper's website, titling it “Democracy Dies in Darkness,” referencing WaPo's official slogan that was introduced in 2017, just a month after Trump took office.As of 7:30pm yesterday, Semafor's Max Tani reported that at least 2,000 subscriptions to the paper had been canceled in the previous 24 hours, the overwhelming bulk of those likely being in the seven-and-a-half hours following the announcement from Mr. Lewis. Numerous public figures—including Stephen King, Mark Hamill, Jon Cryer, and former Congresswoman Marie Newman—publicly announced they were cancelling their own subscriptions.Last night, I made the same decision. I had heard rumblings early in the morning from friends in media that WaPo was about to announce a non-endorsement, credible enough that I mentioned it during a 10am meeting with colleagues and they were understandably shocked.I spent most of yesterday morning and afternoon, in the midst of a very busy schedule, privately agonizing over what I would do as a subscriber.Over the years, I've published a number of op-eds in The Washington Post, pieces of which I'm quite proud in a paper I've put on a pedestal since I was a kid, and I've worked with numerous editors and reporters at the outlet whom I admire for their professionalism and public service.It is not lost on me that cancelling a newspaper subscription will not hurt Jeff Bezos but will hurt those employed at the paper.And yet, as much as my heart breaks for the staff of The Washington Post, who haven't done anything to deserve this, I am still left with the simple truth that if Bezos is willing to kill an endorsement 11 days out, whether out of fear or ambition, what else is he willing to do with the paper?There are numerous journalists at the outlet doing critical work, but how we do know anymore when Jeff Bezos is putting his thumb on the scale, backed up by a complicit CEO who blatantly lies about the paper's direction?There have to be consequences for an action this brazen and irresponsible and dangerous for our democracy. Something's gotta give. I respect the decisions of other subscribers, but I simply cannot stomach giving another dime in reward to a publication with such great influence that can be used to do such great harm moving forward.It is my hope that there will be a time, after Vice President Harris is elected, after Trump is held accountable, after the craven capitalists of media have learned there's not much to be made in the long run from these corrupt and shameless tactics, that The Washington Post will be restored to its former glory.In the meantime, I will pay for my news elsewhere.Charlotte's Web Thoughts is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber. Get full access to Charlotte's Web Thoughts at charlotteclymer.substack.com/subscribe

Erik Wemple, media critic for the Washington Post, joins Chuck to talk about the scandal unfolding at his newspaper over the conduct of the Post's publisher and CEO. Plus, they analyze the downsizing of media outlets, as big tech, disinformation and a deeply divisive election put additional strain on those who report the news.

Washington Post media blogger Erik Wemple reported the New York Times is demanding an interview with President Biden, insisting his extreme reluctance is setting a dangerous precedent. Biden responding by mocking the Times as less important than Howard Stern's show at the White House Correspondents Dinner.

Could a street musician have driven D.C.'s hockey and basketball teams out of town? That's the takeaway from a wild Washington Post piece by Erik Wemple. Erik is here to tell us all about the feud. Want some more DC news? Then make sure to sign up for our morning newsletter Hey DC. Interested in advertising with City Cast? Find more info HERE And we'd love to feature you on the show! Share your DC-related thoughts, hopes, and frustrations with us in a voicemail by calling 202-642-2654. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Fox News desperately wants you to watch tonight's Republican presidential debate. The Washington Post's Erik Wemple explains why, and Vox's Christian Paz has a primer. This episode was produced by Avishay Artsy, edited by Amina Al-Sadi, fact-checked by Amanda Lewellyn and Serena Solin, engineered by David Herman, and hosted by Sean Rameswaram. Transcript at vox.com/todayexplained Support Today, Explained by making a financial contribution to Vox! bit.ly/givepodcasts Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

It's been a wild ride for the media these last few weeks. First Fox settles its Dominion lawsuit by paying nearly $800 million. But they escaped an apology. Then a few days later they fired Tucker Carlson, the highest rated host in prime-time cable news. Then that same day CNN fires Don Lemon. And as a backdrop to all this high-profile news, is the undercurrent of heavy layoffs in the media field, at NPR, at Vice News, at BuzzFeed News and the Gannett newspapers. Who better to break this all down and explain its impact on us than Erik Wemple, the Media Critic for the Washington Post, focusing on cable news. Today's Bill Press Pod is supported by the American Federation of Teachers. Along with President Randy Weingarten, fighting the good fight for teachers' salaries and rights. And for their students. More information at AFT.orgSee Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

$787.5 million. (To Dominion Voting Systems, averting a defamation trial that could have been disastrous for the network. The Washington Post's Erik Wemple explains.) This episode was produced by Amanda Lewellyn and Victoria Chamberlin, edited by Matt Collette, fact-checked by Laura Bullard and Miles Bryan, engineered by Paul Robert Mounsey and Michael Raphael, and hosted by Noel King. Transcript at vox.com/todayexplained   Support Today, Explained by making a financial contribution to Vox! bit.ly/givepodcasts Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

The Daily Telegraph has got hold of thousands of WhatsApp messages sent by Matt Hancock when he was Health secretary during the pandemic. Meanwhile, the FBI has said it believes the most likely explanation for the origin of the pandemic is a lab leak in China. Both stories provide big questions for the business of journalism; what are the ethics of working with leaked private correspondence, and were some journalists too quick to dismiss the 'lab leak theory' when it first emerged? Guests: Heather Brooke, freedom of information campaigner; Vivian Schiller, executive director of Aspen Digital; Paul Nuki, senior editor, Global Health Security and Campaigns at The Telegraph; Tim Caulfield, professor of health law and science policy at the University of Alberta; Pippa Allen-Kinros, Full Fact, and Erik Wemple, Washington Post columnist Presenter: Ros Atkins Producer: Helen Fitzhenry

In a $1.6 billion defamation lawsuit, Dominion Voting Systems is taking aim at Fox News — and its chair Rupert Murdoch — for what they say are Fox News hosts "endorsing" claims that the 2020 presidential election was stolen from former President Trump. Erik Wemple, media critic for the Washington Post, joins Chuck to break down what Fox News's legal woes could mean for the future of cable news as a whole.

In this episode, Neil, Natalia, and Niki discuss ChatGPT. Support Past Present on Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/pastpresentpodcast Here are some links and references mentioned during this week's show:   ·         The suddenly ubiquitous artificial intelligence tool ChatGPT is making many people nervous. Niki referred to this New Yorker article and this City Journal essay. Neil and Natalia drew on this New York Times article by technology columnist Kevin Roose. We all referenced this Discourse magazine essay about science fiction dystopianism.     In our regular closing feature, What's Making History: ·         Natalia recommended Dani Blum's New York Times article, “How the Language of Therapy Took Over Dating.” ·         Neil discussed Jake Traylor's NBC News article, “A Nonstop Kentucky Prayer ‘Revival' is Going Viral on TikTok, and People are Traveling Thousands of Miles to Take Part.” ·         Niki shared journalist Erik Wemple's Twitter thread on the disconnect between the reporting of supposed election fraud and the beliefs of Fox News anchors involved.

Megyn Kelly takes on CNN's smug sanctimony under Jeff Zucker, plus Erik Wemple, media critic for The Washington Post, Daniel Cameron, Kentucky Attorney General, and Todd Rose, author of "Collective Illusions," to talk about Zucker's involvement in the infamous Cuomo interviews, the truth about the relationship between Zucker and Allison Gollust and the implications of when that began, Biden's misguided violence in America focus, the consequences of defund the police rhetoric, the far left's absurd comments about the police, the identity politics of the left today, the need to speak our mind in our culture today, why we make bad decisions, cancel culture and the outrage mob, how we can avoid the dangers of interacting with bots online, free speech and the danger of silencing voices, the need to grow your "identity complexity," and more.Follow The Megyn Kelly Show on all social platforms: YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/MegynKellyTwitter: http://Twitter.com/MegynKellyShowInstagram: http://Instagram.com/MegynKellyShowFacebook: http://Facebook.com/MegynKellyShow Find out more information at: https://www.devilmaycaremedia.com/megynkellyshow

On Steve Bannon's Podcast, War Room Pandemic, there's a common theme that the deep state is coming after you. The believe in the "big lie" is also common fodder and remains as powerful as ever. And just this week, DOJ brought new charges against leaders of the Proud Boys for seditious conspiracies are only seen as further proof of the dastardly leftist plot to target patriotic Trump supporters and tighten its control over America. Tim Milleer of The Bulwark joins to discuss the bizzare-o world of Bannon's podcast and what impact it's having on the Republican Party. Then Erik Wemple, media columnist for The Washington Post, joins to talk about how the media should be covering this strange moment in American politics.GUESTS:Tim Miller (@Timodc), Writer-At-Large @bulwarkonlineErik Wemple (@ErikWemple), Washington Post media criticHOSTS:Michael Isikoff (@Isikoff), Chief Investigative Correspondent, Yahoo NewsDaniel Klaidman (@dklaidman), Editor in Chief, Yahoo NewsVictoria Bassetti (@VBass), fellow, Brennan Center for Justice (contributing co-host) RESOURCES:Tim Miller's latest piece about spending a week listening to Steve Bannon - Here.Erik Wemple's latest stories for The Washington Post - Here. Follow us on Twitter: @SkullduggeryPodListen and subscribe to "Skullduggery" on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, Google Podcasts or wherever you get your podcasts.Email us with feedback, questions or tips: SkullduggeryPod@yahoo.com. See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

Chris Cuomo demonstrates once again that he is unfit for primetime, or anytime, the media botches crime and Omicron coverage, and Chris's Dispatch colleagues hit the exits from Fox News Times 03:26 - Segment: Front Page 03:34 - The return of The Brothers Cuomo 11:38 - The Daily Beast reports on drama at Politico 13:27 - Chris's colleagues Jonah Goldberg and Stephen Hayes leave Fox News 22:53 - The New York Times can't explain the nationwide spike in violent crimes 29:07 - Crisis coverage of climate change and the Smithsonian, via the New York Times 31:28 - The Yale Daily News publishes the greatest story ever written 35:08 - Segment: Obsessions 35:18 - New York Magazine piece on Dave Portnoy of Barstool Sports (Chris) 40:09 - The media coverage of the Omicron coronavirus variant (Eliana) 46:26 - Segment: Favorite Item of the Week 46:50 - Chris's favorite headline (Chris) 47:21 - Erik Wemple's Washington Post article on Chris Cuomo and CNN boss Jeff Zucker Links Daily Beast article on drama at Politico The New York Times article on climate change and the Smithsonian The best article ever, à la the Yale Daily News Chris's favorite headline ever Erik Wemple's article on CNN

On this week's Kicker, Marcy Wheeler, an independent journalist, and Erik Wemple, a media critic at the Washington Post, speak with Kyle Pope, editor and publisher of CJR, about media accountability and where press discussion of the Steele dossier fell short.

Megyn Kelly is joined by Kash Patel, former Pentagon Chief of Staff in the Trump administration, Erik Wemple, media critic for The Washington Post, and Julio Rosas, senior writer for TownHall, to talk about the truth about the media's disastrous Steele Dossier coverage, particularly from MSNBC and CNN and McClatchy, whether the media will correct the record about its faulty Steele Dossier reporting, what Durham's investigation has shown so far and where it may go next, Rep. Adam Schiff's culpability in spreading the Russiagate and Steele Dossier conspiracy theories, Steve Bannon and Patel's own January 6 committee "vendetta subpoena," the latest in the Kyle Rittenhouse trial, what may happen after the Rittenhouse verdict, and more.Follow The Megyn Kelly Show on all social platforms: YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/MegynKellyTwitter: http://Twitter.com/MegynKellyShowInstagram: http://Instagram.com/MegynKellyShowFacebook: http://Facebook.com/MegynKellyShow Find out more information at: https://www.devilmaycaremedia.com/megynkellyshow

Dan Lazare, investigative journalist and author of "America's Undeclared War," joins us to discuss Russia-gate. Washington Post media critic Erik Wemple argues that media outlets must review their coverage of the Steele dossier and be ready to retract stories that they find to be unverifiable or false. Also, the firm "New Knowledge" was creating false "Russian" accounts online to mislead voters in Louisiana, but was still used by the US Senate to write an extensive document regarding alleged Russian interference in the 2016 elections. Jim Kavanagh, writer at thepolemicist.net and CounterPunch, joins us to discuss Julian Assange. The British High Court has heard the arguments in the US appeal of the Court's decision regarding the extradition of Julian Assange. Joe Lauria's latest piece dissects the case and evaluates the potential outcomes.Jonathan Kuttab, human rights lawyer, joins us to discuss US foreign policy. The US currently has special operations teams drilling with military personnel in 33 of the 44 nations in Europe. Also, a new CBO report has outlined measures that would allow Congress to cut one trillion dollars from the military budget over the next decade.Ajamu Baraka, 2016 US vice presidential candidate for the Green Party, joins us to discuss Nicaragua. President Daniel Ortega and his Sandinista party won the Nicaraguan elections with over 70% of the votes. The Biden administration and the Organization of American States (OAS) are making outrageous claims to discredit the overwhelming statement by the Nicaraguan people.Laith Marouf, broadcaster and journalist based in Beirut, joins us to discuss the Middle East. Israel continues their sabre rattling with claims of how they will wage war against the Islamic Republic. Also, the recent sale of US weapons to Saudi Arabia assuredly guarantees more death and carnage in the impoverished nation of Yemen.Marjorie Cohn, professor of law at the Thomas Jefferson School of Law in San Diego, joins us to discuss the Supreme Court's upcoming ruling regarding the Texas abortion ban case. Professor Marjorie Cohn has penned an article in which she argues that the SCOTUS will likely allow a challenge to the Texas legislation, but may still overturn Roe v. Wade.Obi Egbuna, activist and US rep for The Zimbabwean Newspapers, joins us to discuss the leadership of Black politicians in America. Recent revelations that the Congressional Black Caucus helped Speaker Nancy Pelosi overcome the objections of House progressives regarding important fiscal legislation have renewed the discussion about the effectiveness of Black politicians and powerbrokers in the struggle for a fair and just society.Arial Gold, national co-director of Code-Pink, joins us to discuss Israel. Palestinian activists are complaining about the recent revelations that Israeli intelligence agencies used the Pegasus spyware platform to tap their phones. Also, we examine the West's role in the ever-increasing number of Israeli settlements in the occupied territories.

Mahdi is joined by Washington Post media critic Erik Wemple, as they discuss Democrats' efforts to pass President Biden's agenda, the Virginia governor's race, the coup in Sudan, and the results from a new poll that show how people's attitudes towards the media have shifted. Guest: Erik Wemple (@ErikWemple) If you enjoy the show, please consider hitting the follow button.

Highlights:     “The Cuomo fallout continues to sink CNN and it's causing the network to go into a full-blown crisis mode and that's because the Cuomo fallout is causing CNN to basically become estranged from the wider mainstream Marxist media.”“The latest is that the New York Legislators are indeed drafting articles of impeachment against Cuomo and most pundits are predicting that Cuomo's days in office are numbered. He's going down one way or another either by resignation or impeachment.”“And this is all while both Chris and Andrew claimed that they were all for women's rights and champions of the MeToo Movement. This is why the mainstream media isn't trusted anymore, they are all seen as a bunch of liars and deceivers.”“This is not a conundrum; Cuomo is not a conundrum for CNN. This is corruption. This is blatant journalistic corruption that Brian Stelter actively and deliberately tried to gaslight.”“In the end, this is not about maintaining the integrity of journalistic standards. As far as the wider MSM is concerned, it's all about distancing themselves from CNN so that they don't get taken down as well.”Timestamps:       [02:22] CNN becoming estranged from the wider MSM[03:25] New York lawmakers to proceed with Cuomo's impeachment and how Chris Cuomo advised his brother [08:06] Erik Wemple calls for CNN to investigate Chris Cuomo and how Brian Stelter defends CNN and Chris Cuomo[11:50] How Chris Cuomo is still advising his brother Andrew Cuomo while on vacation[12:58] What is the real reason why the wider MSM is isolating Chris Cuomo and CNNResources: Ep. 591 The Colossal COLLAPSE of Cuomo!!!Ep. 595 Megan Rapinoe Subway Ads BACKFIRE!!!Join our ARMY!! Our Virtual gathering of New Conservative Patriots on September 3rd and 4th needs YOU! Register today at https://conferences.turleytalks.com/Get your FREE copy of Scott's Ebook, Bigger IS Better: 7 Reasons Why Commercial Beats Single-Family Investing here: Commercial Academy & Turley TalksJoin Commercial Academy 3-Day LIVE Training Experience here: Commercial Academy Live Event Get Your Brand-New PATRIOT T-Shirts and Merch Here:https://store.turleytalks.com/Become a Turley Talks Insiders Club Member: https://insidersclub.turleytalks.com/welcomeThank you for taking the time to listen to this episode.  If you enjoyed this episode, please subscribe and/or leave a review.Do you want to be a part of the podcast and be our sponsor? Click here to partner with us and defy liberal culture!If you would like to get lots of articles on conservative trends make sure to sign-up for the 'New Conservative Age Rising' Email Alerts. 

Highlights:  “We're learning that Chris Cuomo didn't give us the full reason why he was barred by CNN from covering his brother's scandals. It is not just a matter of Chris being Andrew's brother it's also because Chris Cuomo actually served as an advisor to his Governor brother over his scandals.”“How ironic, given that Chris Cuomo markets himself as the purveyor of uncomfortable truths on his show Cuomo Primetime, he presents himself as all about speaking truth to power and we now know that’s all BS.”"It gets even worse when you realize that Chris Cuomo was the champion of women, the champion of the Me Too movement. He actively pushed back against that movement and deliberately defended his brother against the onslaught of sexual misconduct allegations.""CNN has blatantly crossed the line between covering politicians and carousing with them and as long as Chris Cuomo is the face of CNN they will be without a doubt the most distrusted name in fake news."Timestamps:       [03:03] How Chris Cuomo blurred the lines of journalism ethics[05:42] Washington Post’s report on how Chris is advising his brother on his scandals[06:45] How Andrew Cuomo rose to prominence because of his appearances to Chris’ show[07:42] How Chris's colleagues are distancing themselves from him and Erik Wemple’s response to CNN’s statement[09:40] Why this full-blown scandal may end Chris Cuomo's careerResources: Join us for our NEW PATRIOT ENTREPRENEUR LIVE Benefit Conference June 4-5 from the comfort of your OWN HOME! Seating is LIMITED! Get your EARLY BIRD Registration Special here: https://conferences.turleytalks.com/june-patriot-liveGet Your Brand-New PATRIOT T-Shirts and Merch Here: https://store.turleytalks.com/Become a Turley Talks Insiders Club Member: https://insidersclub.turleytalks.com/welcomeThank you for taking the time to listen to this episode.  If you enjoyed this episode, please subscribe and/or leave a review.Do you want to be a part of the podcast and be our sponsor? Click here to partner with us and defy liberal culture!If you would like to get lots of articles on conservative trends make sure to sign-up for the 'New Conservative Age Rising' Email Alerts.  

Plus... Media coverage of Gov. Andrew Cuomo; President Biden's press strategy; and Alec MacGillis on his new book 'Fulfillment,' exploring America, Amazon and extreme inequality. S.E. Cupp, David Zurawik, April Ryan, Erik Wemple, Jennifer Morrell, Jessica Huseman, Alec MacGillis and Trisha Goddard join Brian Stelter. To learn more about how CNN protects listener privacy, visit cnn.com/privacy

How are China and Russia getting ahead in the great game of vaccine diplomacy? (00:50) Has the US press lost its way? (11:30) Why is Anglo-Saxon history making a comeback? (27:20)With The Spectator's broadcast editor Cindy Yu; journalist Owen Matthews; Harper's publisher Rick MacArthur; The Washington Post's media critic Erik Wemple; journalist Dan Hitchens; and Sutton Hoo archaeologist Professor Martin Craver. Presented by Lara Prendergast. Produced by Max Jeffery and Matt Taylor.

How are China and Russia getting ahead in the great game of vaccine diplomacy? (00:50) Has the US press lost its way? (11:30) Why is Anglo-Saxon history making a comeback? (27:20) With The Spectator's broadcast editor Cindy Yu; journalist Owen Matthews; Harper's publisher Rick MacArthur; The Washington Post's media critic Erik Wemple; journalist Dan Hitchens; and Sutton Hoo archaeologist Professor Martin Craver. Presented by Lara Prendergast. Produced by Max Jeffery and Matt Taylor.

Plus... Politico's editor reacts to White House aide's resignation; BBC World Service boss reacts to China's ban of the BBC; what went wrong with The New York Times' Caliphate podcast; and more. Carrie Budoff Brown, Rep. Sara Jacobs, Tina Nguyen, Erik Wemple, Lorraine Ali, Noah Shachtman and Jamie Angus join Brian Stelter. To learn more about how CNN protects listener privacy, visit cnn.com/privacy

The New York Times’ wildly popular podcast Caliphate came into question after its central character, a Canadian man who claimed he’d joined ISIS and committed executions, was charged with perpetrating a terrorist hoax. A re-investigation of the podcast by The Times concluded that, according to an editor’s note attached to the podcast, “episodes of Caliphate that presented Mr. Chaudhry’s claims did not meet our standards for accuracy.”  The debacle caused Rukmini Callimachi, the reporter and voice of Caliphate, to be reassigned to a new beat. And it has resurfaced allegations of workplace misconduct by Caliphate producer Andy Mills, provoked concerns about The Daily host Michael Barbaro’s efforts to shape coverage of the fallout, and set off a wider conversation about who gets to tell stories in podcasting. In this episode, Washington Post media critic Erik Wemple discusses where Caliphate went wrong. Laila Al-Arian, executive producer of Al Jazeera’s Fault Lines, critiques the reporting biases she believes contributed to the error.  Then, podcast host Jolenta Greenberg weighs in on what this episode tells us about the rise of the podcast industry.When asked for comment by Canadaland, The New York Times pointed us to this letter from assistant managing editor Sam Dolnick, written in response to a letter of complaint by members of the Public Radio Program Directors Association. In it, Dolnick writes: “We believe we’ve handled what was a significant journalistic lapse with accountability.” This episode is brought to you by Dispatch Coffee, SquareSpace, and Article. Additional music by Audio Network. Support CANADALAND: http://canadalandshow.com/join See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Schon vor der Veröffentlichung von “Caliphate” gab es Bedenken wegen der Arbeitsweise von Rukmini Callimachi. Dann fällt die Journalistin noch auf einen Betrüger rein. Alleine Schuld ist sie dennoch nicht, meint Erik Wemple. Erik Wemple im Gespräch mit Katja Bigalke und Martin Böttcher www.deutschlandfunkkultur.de, Breitband Hören bis: 19.01.2038 04:14 Direkter Link zur Audiodatei

After a fraught Election Week, cable news is finally cutting away from President Trump’s falsehoods. Erik Wemple, media critic for the Washington Post, explains why it might not last. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Excerpts from Bob Woodward’s new book, Rage, have raised harrowing questions about President Donald Trump’s prevarication to the public about the lethality of the COVID-19 virus, and his lack of action to control the pandemic. As the book reveals in great detail, Mr. Trump knew as early as late January just how serious and how transmissible the virus is, even as he downplayed the virus' threat in his public statements. That shocking revelation -- coming as the US death toll from COVID-19 nears 200,000 -- also raises questions about Woodward’s decision to withhold the information he had about the virus, and important national security matters, until now. Others have done the same thing. Is it the right thing to do? Erik Wemple, the media critic for the Washington Post, joins Tom on Zoom to discuss the issues surrounding Woodward's controversial new exposé of the Trump presidency.

Washington Post media critic Erik Wemple joins John Williams to comment on President Trump’s knowing of the dangers of COVID as early as February but leaving the country out of the information. And he shares what Bob Woodward said when he asked him why he didn’t publish that interview earlier.

Washington Post media critic Erik Wemple joins John Williams to comment on President Trump’s knowing of the dangers of COVID as early as February but leaving the country out of the information. And he shares what Bob Woodward said when he asked him why he didn’t publish that interview earlier.

The most popular host in the history of cable news returned from a week-long vacation after his head writer was exposed as a raging bigot. The Washington Post’s Erik Wemple explains why the scandal won’t stick. Transcript at vox.com/todayexplained.  Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

October 20, 2019: Daniel Dale, Erik Wemple, Olivia Nuzzi, Elaina Plott, Matt Lewis, Katie Rogers, Krystal Ball, Ronan Farrow, Dipayan Ghosh and Mo Elleithee join Brian Stelter.

Media critic for The Washington Post, Erik Wemple, talks with John Howell about the Fox news town hall and the strategy behind it.

Jacob Weisberg talks to Erik Wemple of The Washington Post about Sinclair Broadcasting, Trump's recent attacks on the press, and the decline of local news. Don't forget to vote for Trumpcast to win a Webby! And come check out Slow Burn Live in NYC! Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Jacob Weisberg talks to Erik Wemple of The Washington Post about Sinclair Broadcasting, Trump's recent attacks on the press, and the decline of local news. Don't forget to vote for Trumpcast to win a Webby! And come check out Slow Burn Live in NYC! Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

On August 2nd, President Trump signed a new law that passed Congress with the overwhelming support of both political parties, which imposes sanctions on three countries: Russia, North Korea, and Iran. In this episode, we examine the new sanctions and the big-picture motivations behind them. In the process, we jump down the rabbit hole of the U.S. involvement in the 2014 regime change in Ukraine. Please support Congressional Dish: Click here to contribute using credit card, debit card, PayPal, or Bitcoin Click here to support Congressional Dish for each episode via Patreon Mail Contributions to: 5753 Hwy 85 North #4576 Crestview, FL 32536 Thank you for supporting truly independent media! Recommended Congressional Dish Episodes CD041: Why Attack Syria? CD067: What Do We Want In Ukraine? CD068: Ukraine Aid Bill CD108: Regime Change CD150: Pivot to North Korea Episode Outline H.R. 3364: Countering America's Adversaries Through Sanctions Act Title I: Iran Sanctions Gives the Executive Branch additional power to block property or exclude from the United States both companies and people who materially contribute to Iran's ballistic missile program. Orders the President to enact sanctions that block property and financial transactions for the Iranian Revolutionary Guard-Corps Quds Force and it's affiliates starting 90 days after enactment, which is November 1, 2017. Orders the President to block property and prohibit from the United States any person or company that materially contributes to the transfer to Iran any battle tanks, armored combat vehicles, artillery systems, combat planes, attack helicopters, warships, missiles, or parts of those items. Sanctions prohibiting travel to the United States and financial transactions are exempted for humanitarian purposes. The President can waive the sanctions for two 180-day periods by notifying Congress. Title II: Russia Sanctions Subtitle A: Sanction related to terrorism and illicit financing Sense of Congress "It is the sense of Congress that the President should continue to uphold and seek unity with European and other key partners on sanctions implemented against the Russian Federation, which have been effective and instrumental in countering Russian aggression in Ukraine" Part 1: Trump Report Orders the President to submit reports outlining his reasons to Congress before terminating or waiving sanctions relating to Russia, Ukraine, and Syria The President can not terminate or waive the sanctions on Russia, Ukraine, and Syria within 30 days of submitting his report unless a branch of Congress passes a resolution to allow it. Part 2: Sanctions on Russia Makes state-owned companies in the rail, metals, and mining sectors subject to sanctions. Limits financial loans to Russian industries. Prohibits the transfer of goods & services (except banking) that support new Russian deepwater oil drilling, Arctic offshore drilling, or shale projects. Russians need to be have a 33% share or more in the company for the sanctions to apply. Forces the President to enact sanctions in situations when it was previously optional. Gives the President the option to enact sanctions on companies and individuals who provide materials to Russia for energy export pipelines valued at $1 million or more. Forces the President to block property and deny visas to anyone who provides the government of Syria financial, material, or technical support for getting almost any kind of weapon. The sanctions do not apply to products for Russia that are for space launches. Subtitle B: Countering Russian Influence in Europe and Eurasia Appropriates $250 million for a "Countering Russian Influence Fund" which will be used for "protecting critical infrastructure and electoral mechanisms" for members of NATO, the European Union, and "countries that are participating in the enlargement process of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization or the European Union, including Albania, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Georgia, Macedonia, Moldova, Kosovo, Serbia, and Ukraine." The money can also be used to information distribution. There is a list of nongovernmental & international organizations eligible to receive the money. The Secretary of State will work with the Ukrainian government to increase the amount of energy produced in Ukraine. This will "include strategies for market liberalization" including survey work need to "help attract qualified investment into exploration and development of areas with untapped resources in Ukraine." The plan will also support the implementation of a new gas law "including pricing, tariff structure, and legal regulatory implementation." and "privatization of government owned energy companies." American tax money is contributing $50 million for this effort from the 2014 Ukraine aid law and $30 million more from this law. The money will be available until August 2022. Title III: North Korea Sanctions Subtitle A: Sanctions to enforce and implement United Nations Security Council sanctions against North Korea Expands existing mandatory sanctions to include anyone who provides North Korea with any weapons or war service, aviation fuel, or insurance or registration for aircraft or vessels. Also expands sanctions to include anyone who gets minerals, including gold, titanium ore, vanadium ore, copper, silver, nickel, zinc, or rare earth minerals from North Korea. Expand optional sanctions to include anyone who purchases above-the-U.N.-limited amounts of coal, iron, textiles, money, metals, gems, oil, gas, food, or fishing rights from North Korea. Also sanctions anyone who hires North Korean workers, conducts transactions for the North Korean transportation, mining, energy, or banking industries, or participates in online commerce, including online gambling, provided by the government of North Korea. Prohibits North Korean ships from entering US waters. Additional Reading Article: Iran could quit nuclear deal in 'hours' if new U.S. sanctions imposed: Rouhani, Reuters, August 15, 2017. Article: The Nation is reviewing a story casting doubt on Russian hack of DNC by Erik Wemple, The Washington Post, August 15, 2017. Article: Iranian Parliament, Facing U.S. Sanctions, Votes to Raise Military Spending by Thomas Erdbrink, The New York Times, August 13, 2017. Article: A New Report Raises Big Questions About Last Year's DNC Hack by Patrick Lawrence, The Nation, August 9, 2017. Article: North Korea's missile tests by Joshua Berlinger, CNN, August 7, 2017. Article: Iran Says New U.S. Sanctions Violate Nuclear Deal by Rick Gladstone, The New York Times, August 1, 2017. Article: Iran Reports Successful Launch of Missile as U.S. Considers New Sanctions by Thomas Erdbrink, The New York Times, July 27, 2017. Article: Trump Ends Covert Aid to Syrian Rebels Trying to Topple Assad by David E. Sanger, Eric Schmitt and Ben Hubbard, The New York Times, July 19, 2017. Article: Trump Recertifies Iran Nuclear Deal, but Only Reluctantly by Peter Baker, The New York Times, July 17, 2017. Article: Russians targeted election systems in 21 states, but didn't change any results, officials say by Joseph Tanfani, Los Angeles Times, June 21, 2017. Article: Top-Secret NSA Report Details Russian Hacking Effort Days Before 2016 Election by Matthew Cole, Richard Esposito, Sam Biddle and Ryan Grim, The Intercept, June 5, 2017. Article: The $110 billion arms deal to Saudi Arabia is fake news by Bruce Riedel, Brookings, June 5, 2017. Article: Iran Nuclear Deal Will Remain for Now, White House Signals by Gardiner Harris and David E. Sanger, The New York Times, May 17, 2017. Report: Assessing Russian Activities and Intentions in Recent US Elections, National Intelligence Council, January 6, 2017. Article: Obama Strikes Back at Russia for Election Hacking by David E. Sanger, The New York Times, December 29, 2016. Article: Murphy leads CT delegation in official overseas travel by Ana Radelat, The CT Mirror, March 13, 2015. Article: Major Study Finds The US Is An Oligarchy by Zachary Davies Boren, Business Insider, April 16, 2014. Article: Ukraine wins IMF lifeline as Russia faces growth slump by Natalia Zinets and Elizabeth Piper, Reuters, March 27, 2014. Article: Ukraine orders Crimea troop withdrawal as Russia seizes naval base by Marie-Louise Gumuchian and Victoria Butenko, CNN, March 25, 2014. Article: Defense Ministry: 50% Of Ukrainian Troops in Crimea Defect to Russia, Ukrainian News Agency, March 24, 2014. Article: European Union signs landmark association agreement with Ukraine by Adrian Croft, Reuters, March 21, 2014. Article: Crimea applies to be part of Russian Federation after vote to leave Ukraine by Luke Harding and Shaun Walker, The Guardian, March 17, 2014. Article: The February Revolution, The Economist, February 27, 2014. Article: Ukrainian MPs vote to oust President Yanukovych, BBC News, February 22, 2014. Article: Ukraine: Yulila Tymoshenko released as country lurches towards split by Conal Urquhart, The Guardian, February 22, 2014. Transcript: Ukraine Crisis: Transcript of leaked Nuland-Pyatt call, BBC, February 7, 2014. Article: Putin: Russia to buy $15 billion in Ukraine bonds by Vladimir Isachenkov and Maria Danilova, USA Today, December 17, 2013. Article: EU suspends trade talks with Ukraine, crowds rally against govt, Reuters, December 15, 2013. Article: Senators McCain, Murphy join massive Ukraine anti-government protest, threaten sanctions, Fox News, December 15, 2013. Article: Ukraine parliament rejects proposed laws to release Tymoshenko by Richard Balmforth and Pavel Polityuk, Reuters, November 21, 2013. Article: Ukraine suspends talks on EU trade pact as Putin wins tug of war by Ian Traynor and Oksana Grytsenko, The Guardian, November 21, 2013. Article: Ukraine signs $10 billion shale gas deal with Chevron by Pavel Polityuk and Richard Balmforth, Reuters, November 5, 2013. Article: Exclusive - EU, IMF coordinate on Ukraine as Russia threat looms by Luke Baker and Justyna Pawlak, Reuters, October 31, 2013. Press Release: Statement by IMF Mission to Ukraine, International Monetary Fund, October 31, 2013. Article: Ukraine's EU trade deal will be catastrophic, says Russia by Shaun Walker, The Guardian, September 22, 2013. Article: U.S. Repeals Propaganda Ban, Spreads Government-Made News to Americans by John Hudson, ForeignPolicy.com, July 14, 2013. Article: Ukrainian tycoon Firtash takes over bank Nadra, Reuters, May 4, 2011. References GovTrack: H.R. 3364: Countering America's Adversaries Through Sanctions Act Overview House Vote Senate Vote GovTrack: H.R. 4152: Support for the Sovereignty, Integrity, Democracy, and Economic Stability of Ukraine Act of 2014 Overview GovTrack: H.R. 5859: Ukraine Freedom Support Act of 2014 IMF Report: Ukraine 2012 Article IV Consultation CSPAN Video: Iran's Response to U.S. Sanctions, July 18, 2017. CSPAN Video: British Prime Minister Camerson Question Time, December 18, 2013. CSPAN: Victoria Nuland Profile CSPAN: Anne W. Patterson Profile Executive Orders Executive Order 13757: Taking Additional Steps to Address the National Emergency With Respect to Significant Malicious Cyber-Enabled Activities, December 28, 2016 Annex to Executive Order 13757 Executive Order 13694: Blocking the Property of Certain Persons Engaging in Significant Malicious Cyber-Enabled Activities, April 1, 2015 Executive Order 13685: Blocking Property of Certain Persons and Prohibiting Certain Transactions With Respect to the Crimea Region in Ukraine, December 19, 2014 Executive Order 13662: Blocking Property of Additional Persons Contributing to the Situation in Ukraine, March 20, 2014 Executive Order 13661: Blocking Property of Additional Persons Contributing to the Situation in Ukraine, March 16, 2014 Executive Order 13660: Blocking Property of Certain Persons Contributing to the Situation in Ukraine, March 6, 2014 Visual References Image source Sound Clip Sources House Debate: House Debate on Russia, Iran and North Korea Sanctions, July 25, 2017. Timestamps & Transcripts 1500 Rep. Pete Sessions (TX): The bill that was passed by the Senate risked giving Russian energy firms a competitive advantage across the globe by inadvertently denying American companies access to neutral third-party energy markets where there would simply be a small or diminished Russian presence. The bill before us today prevents Russia from being able to weaponize these sanctions against U.S. energy firms. And I want to thank Chairman Royce for his hard work on this issue. I also want to ensure that we have an understanding of the definition of the word controlling in Section 223(d) of H.R. 3364. For purposes of clarification and legislative intent, the term controlling means the power to direct, determine, or resolve fundamental, operational, and financial decisions of an oil project through the ownership of a majority of the voting interests of the oil project. 1515 Rep. Tim Ryan (OH): What’s happening with these sanctions here in the targeting of Russian gas pipelines—their number one export—I think is entirely appropriate. The Nord Stream 2, which carries gas from Russia through the Baltics to Germany—and I know Germany isn’t happy about it, but this is something that we have to do. And the point I want to make is we have to address this issue in a comprehensive way. We must continue to focus on how we get our gas here in the United States, our natural gas, to Europe, to our allies, so they’re not so dependent on Russia. We’ve got to have the sanctions, but we’ve also got to be shipping liquid natural gas to some of these allies of ours so they’re not so dependent on the Russians, which is part and parcel of this entire approach. Senate Session: "Skinny Repeal" vote down, July 27, 2017. Transcript Sen. Chuck Schumer (NY): Mr. President, and last year we know the United States was victim of an attack by a foreign power on the very foundation of this dear democracy: the right of the people to a free and fair election. The consensus view of 17 agencies is that Mr. Putin interfered in the 2016 election. Hearing: North Korea Policy, Senate Foreign Relations Subcommittee on East Asia, the Pacific and International Cyber Security, July 25, 2017. Witnesses Bruce Klingner: Senior Research Fellow of the Heritage Foundation Leon Sigal: Director of Northeast Asia Cooperative Security Project at the Social Science Research Council (SSRSC) Susan Thornton: Acting Assistant Secretary of State for East Asian and Pacific Affairs Screenshot: No other Senators in the room Timestamps & Transcripts 3:48 Sen. Cory Gardner (CO): Last Congress, I lead the North Korea Sanctions and Policy Enhancement Act, which passed the Senate by a vote of 96 to nothing. This legislation was the first stand-alone legislation in Congress regarding North Korea to impose mandatory sanctions on the regime’s proliferation activities, human-rights violations, and malicious cyber behavior. According to recent analysis from the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies, North Korea’s sanctions have more than doubled since that legislation came into effect on February 18, 2016. Prior to that date, North Korea ranked 8th behind Ukraine, Russia, Iran, Iraq, the Balkans, Syria, Sudan, and Zimbabwe. Even with the 130% sanctions increase after the legislation passed this Congress, North Korea is today still only the 5th most sanctioned country by the United States. 21:22 Sen. Cory Gardner: Could you talk a little bit about the timing of the travel ban? Susan Thornton: Yeah. So, we believe that within the coming week we will publish a notice in the Federal Register, outlining the period of consultation and what we’re proposing, which is a general travel restriction, that will be in the Federal Register for a 30-day comment period. And the proposal is to, I think as you know, make U.S. passports not valid for travel into North Korea unless you get—an application is made for a one-time trip, and you get a license or sort of a permission to make that trip. And so that’ll be in the Federal Register for 30 days. Gardner: Is that trip allowable under a humanitarian exemption? Is that the purpose of that allow— Thornton: Right, right. For the subsequent appl— you’d have to make an in-person application for a trip to— Gardner: And are we encouraging other nations to do the same, and have others made the same decision? Thornton: We have encouraged other people to make decisions about restricting travel and other—because tourism is obviously also a resource for the regime that we would like to see diminished. I don’t think so far there are other people that have pursued this but this will be sort of the initial one, and we will keep talking to others about that. 1:12:32 Leon Sigal: A policy of maximum pressure and engagement can only succeed if nuclear diplomacy is soon resumed and the North’s security concerns are addressed. We must not lose sight of the fact that it’s North Korea that we need to persuade, not China, and that means taking account of North Korea’s strategy. During the Cold War, Kim Il Sung played China off against the Soviet Union to maintain his freedom of maneuver. In 1988, anticipating the collapse of the Soviet Union, he reached out to improve relations with the United States, South Korea, and Japan in order to avoid overdependence on China. That has been the Kims’ objective ever since. From Pyongyang’s vantage point, that aim was the basis of the 1994 Agreed Framework and the September 2005 six-party joint statement. For Washington, obviously, suspension of Pyongyang’s nuclear and missile programs was the point of those agreements, which succeeded for a time in shuttering the North’s production of fissile material and stopping the test launches of medium- and longer-range missiles. Both agreements collapsed, however, when Washington did little to implement its commitment to improve relations, and, of course, Pyongyang reneged on denuclearization. That past is prologue. Now there are indications that a suspension of North Korean missile and nuclear testing and fissile material production may again prove negotiable. In return for a suspension of its production of plutonium and enriched uranium, the Trading with the Enemy Act sanctions imposed before the nuclear issue arose could be relaxed for yet a third time, and energy assistance unilaterally halted by South Korea in 2008 could be resumed. An agreement will require addressing Pyongyang’s security needs, including adjusting our joint exercises with South Korea, for instance by suspending flights of nuclear-capable B-52 bombers into Korean airspace. Those flights were only resumed, I want to remind you, to reassure our allies in the aftermath of the North’s nuclear tests. If those tests are suspended, B-52 flights can be, too, without any sacrifice of deterrence. North Korea’s well aware of the reach of U.S. ICBMs and SLBMs, which, by the way, were recently test launched to remind them. The U.S. can also continue to bolster, rotate, and exercise forces in the region so conventional deterrence will remain robust. The chances of persuading North Korea to go beyond another temporary suspension to dismantle its nuclear missile programs, however, are slim without firm commitments from Washington and Seoul to move toward political and economic normalization; engage in a peace process to end the Korean War; and negotiate security arrangements, among them a nuclear-weapons-free zone that would provide a multilateral legal framework for denuclearization. In that context, President Trump’s willingness to hold out the prospect of a summit with Kim Jong-un would also be a significant inducement. 1:23:06 Sen. Ed Markey (MA): We “convinced” Qaddafi to give up his nuclear-weapon program, we “convinced” Saddam Hussein to give up his nuclear-weapon program, and then subsequently we participated in a process that led to their deaths. Emergency Meeting: U.N. Security Council Meeting on North Korea Sanctions, August 5, 2017. Timestamps & Transcripts 3:47 Nikki Haley (US Ambassador): This resolution is the single largest economic sanctions package ever leveled against the North Korean regime. The price the North Korean leadership will pay for its continued nuclear and missile development will be the loss of 1/3 of its exports and hard currency. This is the most stringent set of sanctions on any country in a generation. 6:30 Matthew John Rycroft (British Ambassador to the U.N.): Make no mistake: as North Korea’s missile capabilities advance, so too does their contempt and disregard for this security council. We must meet this belligerence with clear, unequivocal condemnation and with clear, unequivocal consequences. Today, Mr. President, we have banned North Korean exports of coal, iron ore, lead, and seafood. These are the lifeline exports that sustain Kim Jong-un’s deadly aspirations. In simple terms, should the North Korean regime continue its reckless pursuit of an illegal missile program and a deadly nuclear program, they will have vastly less [unclear]. We’ve also capped the number of foreign workers from North Korea. Every year, DPRK sends thousands of ordinary workers overseas. They often endure poor conditions and long hours, and their toil serves to provide critical foreign currency for North Korean government coffers. This is undoubtedly a form of modern slavery, and today we have taken the first step to ending it. The world will now monitor and curtail work authorizations for these desperate ex-patriots. 28:11 Vasily Nebenzya (Russian Ambassador): We share the feeling of neighboring states in the region. The ballistic missiles, which were launched without warning from North Korea, pose a major risk to marine and air transit in the region as well as to the lives of ordinary civilians. We call upon the North Korean government to end the banned programs and to return to the NPT, nonproliferation regime, and the IAEA oversights as well as to join the Chemical Weapons Convention. All must understand that progress towards denuclearization of the Korean peninsula will be difficult so long as the DPRK perceives a direct threat to its own security, for that is how the North Koreans view the military buildup in the region, which takes on the forms of frequent, wide-ranging exercises in maneuvers of the U.S. and allies as they deploy strategic bombers, naval forces, and aircraft carriers to the region. Another destabilizing factor in the region is the scaling up in North Korea of the THAAD, the U.S. antimissile defense elements. We repeatedly noted not only this constitutes an irritant, but this also undermines the overall military balance in the region and calls into question the security of neighboring states. We would like to hope that the U.S. secretary of state’s assurances were sincere, that the U.S. is not seeking to dismantle the existing DPRK situation or to forcibly unite the peninsula or militarily intervene in the country. However, we are concerned that our proposed, our paragraph in the draft resolution was not supported. The possible military misadventures by any side are liable to cause a disaster for regional and global stability. Discussion: Senator John McCain on Ukraine, December 19, 2013. Witness Frederick Kempe: President & CEO of the Atlantic Council Transcripts Frederick Kempe: Russian president, Vladimir Putin, on Tuesday said he had agreed to loan Ukraine $15 billion and cut the price of critical natural gas supplies. Ukraine’s Prime Minister Azarov called the deal historic. In Brussels a draft EU document, reported this morning by the Wall Street Journal, indicated Ukraine could have gained even more from the West, though with different conditions and perhaps not as plainly put. Had it signed the EU pact, it might have had $26 billion of loans and grants from the EU over the next seven years, and if it had also agreed to the IMF package. While the Ukraine pivots economically eastward, hundreds of thousands of Ukrainians continue to pivot westward, standing together in protest for their continued desire to be part of a Europe, whole and free. And it’s in that context that we welcome back a great friend of the Atlantic Council, Senator John McCain, who visited these protestors over the weekend with Senator Chris Murphy, and continues to play a consistent and leading and principled role in supporting democratic change both in Eastern Europe and around the world and thinking through what role the United States should be playing in these challenging times. Sen. John McCain (AZ): If Ukraine’s political crisis persists or deepens, which is a real possibility, we must support creative Ukrainian efforts to resolve it. Senator Murphy and I heard a few such ideas last weekend. From holding early elections, as the opposition is now demanding, to the institution of a technocratic government, with a mandate to make the difficult reforms required for Ukraine’s long-term economic health and sustainable development. Sen. John McCain (AZ): And eventually, a Ukrainian president, either this one or a future one, will be prepared to accept the fundamental choices facing the country, which is this: while there are real short-term costs to the political and economic reforms required for IMF assistance and EU integration, and while President Putin will likely add to these costs by retaliating against Ukraine’s economy, the long-term benefits for Ukraine in taking these tough steps are far greater and almost limitless. This decision cannot be born by one person alone in Ukraine, nor should it be. It must be shared, both the risks and the rewards, by all Ukrainians, especially the opposition and business elite. It must also be shared by the EU, the IMF, and the United States. YouTube: Victoria Nuland call with the US Ambassador to Ukraine, Geoffrey Pyatt, February 7, 2017. Click here to see the full transcript Transcripts Victoria Nuland: What do you think? Geoffrey Pyatt: I think we’re in play. The Klitschko piece is obviously the complicated electron here, especially the announcement of him as deputy prime minister. And you’ve seen some of my notes on the troubles in the marriage right now, so we’re trying to get a read really fast on where he is on this stuff. But I think your argument to him, which you’ll need to make, I think that’s the next phone call you’ll want to set up, is exactly the one you made to Yats. And I’m glad you sort of put him on the spot on where he fits in this scenario, and I’m very glad he said what he said in response. Nuland: Good. So, I don’t think Klitsch should go into the government. I don’t think it’s necessary, I don’t think it’s a good idea. Pyatt: Yeah, I mean, I guess. In terms of him not going into the government, just let him sort of stay out and do his political homework and stuff. I’m just thinking in terms of sort of the process moving ahead, we want to keep the moderate Democrats together. The problem is going to be Tyahnybok and his guys, and I’m sure that’s part of what Yanukovych is calculating on all of this. I kind of— Nuland: I think Yats is the guy who’s got the economic experience, the governing experience. What he needs is Klitsch and Tyahnybok on the outside. He needs to be talking to them four times a week, you know? I just think Klitsch going in—he’s going to be at that level working for Yatsenyuk; it’s just not going to work. Victoria Nuland: Can’t remember if I told you this or if I only told Washington this, that when I talked to Jeff Feltman this morning, he had a new name for the U.N. guy, Robert Serry. Did I write you that this morning? Geoffrey Pyatt: Yeah. Yeah, I saw that. Nuland: Okay. He’s not gotten both Serry and Ban Ki-moon to agree that Serry could come in Monday or Tuesday. Pyatt: Okay. Nuland: So that would be great, I think, to help glue this thing and have the U.N. help glue it, and, you know, fuck the EU. Pyatt: No, exactly. And I think we’ve got to do something to make it stick together because you can be pretty sure that if it does start to gain altitude, the Russians will be working behind the scenes to try to torpedo it. Geoffrey Pyatt: I think we want to try to get somebody with an international personality to come out here and help to midwife this thing. And then the other issue is some kind of out reach to Yanukovych, but we probably regroup on that tomorrow as we see how things start to fall into place. Victoria Nuland: So, on that piece, Geoff, when I wrote the note, Sullivan’s come back to me VFR, saying, you need Biden, and I said, probably tomorrow for an “atta-boy” and to get the deets to stick. Pyatt: Okay. Nuland: So, Biden’s willing. Pyatt: Okay, great. Thanks. Briefing: State Department Daily Briefing, February 6, 2014 Witness Jen Psaki: State Department Spokesperson Timestamps & Transcripts 0:19 Male Reporter: Can you say whether you—if this call is a recording of an authentic conversation between Assistant Secretary Nuland and Ambassador Pyatt? Jen Psaki: Well, I’m not going to confirm or outline details. I understand there are a lot of reports out there, and there’s a recording out there, but I’m not going to confirm a private diplomatic conversation. Reporter: So you are not saying that you believe this is a—you think this is not authentic? You think this is a— Psaki: It’s not an accusation I’m making. I’m just not going to confirm the specifics of it. Reporter: Well, you can’t even say whether there was a—that this call—you believe that this call, you believe that this recording is a recording of a real telephone call? Psaki: I didn’t say it was inauthentic. I think we can leave it at that. Reporter: Okay, so, you’re allowing the fact that it is authentic. Psaki: Yes. Reporter: “Yes,” okay. Psaki: Do you have a question about it? 7:40 Female Reporter: This was two top U.S. officials that are on the ground, discussing a plan that they have to broker a future government and bringing officials from the U.N. to kind of seal the deal. This is more than the U.S. trying to make suggestions; this is the U.S. midwifing the process Hearing: Ukraine Anti-Government Protests, Senate Foreign Relations Committee, January 15, 2014. Witnesses Zbigniew Brzezinski Carter’s National Security Advisor 77-81 Center for Strategic & International Studies, counselor & Trustee Thomas Melia: Deputy Assistant Secretary for Human Rights & Labor at the Department of State Victoria Nuland: Assistant Secretary of State for European and Eurasian Affairs Timestamps & Transcripts 32:27 Thomas Melia: Our approach to Ukraine complements that of our EU partners and what they sought in their association agreement, a Ukraine that is more responsive to its citizens, that offers its people opportunities that a growing free-market economy would provide based on the rule of law. 34:19 Victoria Nuland: The point that we have made repeatedly to Russia, and that I certainly made on my trip to Russia between two trips to Ukraine in December, was that a Ukraine that is economically stable and prosperous should be no threat to Russia, that this is not a zero-sum game that we are playing here, and that, in fact, the same benefits that the EU was offering to Ukraine—benefits of association and economic integration—are also available to a Russia that wants to take the same market opening and democratic reform steps that Ukraine has already taken, 18 pieces of legislation having already been completed. 58:43 Senator John McCain (AZ): This is a country that wants to be European. They don’t want to be Russian. That’s what this is all about. 59:52 Senator John McCain (AZ): I’m somewhat taken aback by your, “well, it’s sort of up to the Ukrainian people.” We ought to be assisting morally the Ukrainian people for seeking what we want everybody on this earth to have, and so it’s not just up to the Ukrainian people. They cry out for our assistance. Panel: Internet and Democracy, Aspen Ideas Festival, June 26, 2017. Witnesses Ory Rinat: White House Interim Chief Digital Officer Farhad Majoo: New York Times Correspondent Transcripts Ory Rinat: What drives social engagement? What drives Internet engagement? It’s shares. And that’s not a social-media thing; that’s back to forwarding chain emails. It’s when people share, that’s the source of engagement. And what drives people to share? It’s anger. It’s sadness. It’s inspiration. It’s really rare; it happens, but it’s rare that somebody says, wow, I just read an objective, fascinating piece that represents both sides; let me share it on Facebook. That’s not what people share. And so what happens is we’ve incentivized, as a society, sensationalism in journalism. I was giving an example earlier: during the transition, there was an article in a publication that should not be named that said something along the lines of, Trump transition website lifts passages from nonprofit group. Okay. Doesn’t sound that great. Couple of paragraphs in, they mention that the website actually sourced and cited the nonprofit. Couple of paragraphs later, they quote the CO of the nonprofit saying it was okay. Couple of paragraphs later, they quote a lawyer saying even if it wasn’t okay, even if they didn’t have permission, and even if they didn’t cite it, it was probably still legal. But that headline was so sensationalized, and people want to click on something that makes them angry, and so everybody just needs to take a breath, and it’s not the Internet’s fault. Farhad Manjoo: Well, it’s the Internet ad model’s fault, right? It’s the fact that those sites—Facebook, every news site you can think of—is getting paid based on clicks. So is sort of the fundamental fix here some other business model for online news and everything else? Ory Rinat: Sure, I just can’t think of one. Farhad Manjoo: Right. Panel: U.S. Global Leadership, The Aspen Institute, August 4, 2017. Witnesses Nick Burns: Former Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs (Bush) Condoleezza Rice: Former National Security Advisor (Bush) Tom Donilon: Former National Security Advisor (Obama) Stephen Hadley: Former National Security Advisor (Bush) Susan Rice: National Security Advisor Timestamps & Transcripts 9:00 Condoleezza Rice: The liberal order was born, it was an idea, designed after World War II, when people looked out at the world that they had inherited after World War I and said, let’s not do that again. And it had two important elements, and it had one important fact. One element was they really believed that the international economy did not have to be a zero-sum game. It could be competitive, but it could be a growing economy and a positive-sum game, so my gains were not your losses, and that’s why they wanted to have free trade, and they wanted to have a comparative advantage among countries. And as you said, they set up institutions to do it, an International Monetary Fund and exchange rates, a World Bank eventually starting as a European Bank of Reconstruction and Development, which would rebuild economies and actually would become a source of capital for countries coming out of colonialism. And in some ways the most remarkable one, the general agreement on tariffs and trade, which was not a set of trade agreements but rules of the road to level the playing field so that the international economy could grow. So it was by its very nature supposed to get us away from conflict in the international system. They hated the fact that there’d been beggar-thy-neighbor trading policies and competition over resources. It was violent. So they weren’t going to do that again. Then, the important fact: they were going to try to create the democratic peace where they could, so they rebuilt Germany as a democracy, Japan as a democracy, and it was all going to be protected by American military power. And so that was the liberal order. 12:00 Condoleezza Rice: It is being challenged by Russia because Russia unfortunately doesn’t really have a foot in the economic side and, therefore, uses its military power for its respect. But it’s also being challenged by the four horsemen of the Apocalypse—populism, nativism, isolationism, and protectionism—and they tend to run together. And so one of the questions that we ought to be asking is not just the challenge to the liberal order from transnational terrorism or cyber warfare or from big powers like Russia and China but how do we deal with the fact that it does seem that there are those who believe that they were left behind by the global order, and they’re fighting back. They found people who will give them an answer as to why they didn’t succeed. Populists always have an answer: it’s the other—the Chinese; the illegal immigrants; if you’re from the Left, the big banks. And, oh, by the way, the other this time around is not just taking your jobs; the other is dangerous—so refugees and immigrants—and so I think the challenge is this time not just one that we foreign-policy people can understand but one that has to go internally to these societies and see what’s happening. That’s why I’m glad for the Aspen Strategy Group, that we are having this wonderful session that _____(01:30) will help to lead, because this is a really big challenge from the inside and from the out. And, yes, I’m worried that the liberal order might not survive it. 31:00 Condoleezza Rice: Leading differently obviously means finding a role for others—that’s very important—but it also means—and I know we can’t retire from this role, but there is a weariness among the American people, and we can’t ignore it. We can’t as foreign-policy people simply say, look, we’ve had to get back there and lead. We have to say, we’re going to lead because it’s in our interests, it’s with our values, and our allies have to appreciate it, right? And they have to be a part of it. That’s my point. I think we really haven’t gotten from the allies. What we get mostly from the allies is criticism for not leading, because the only thing the world hates more than unilateral American leadership is no American leadership, but we do need our allies to step up, and some of them have. On Minsk, for instance, the Germans stepped up to try and settle the Ukrainian circumstances. But let’s not underestimate outside of foreign-policy leads, the degree to which the American people are asking questions about how much more we can do. Unknown Speaker: Well, this is a good transition point to Russia. Let me just frame it this way: since Putin’s invasion and annexation of Crimea, 20 of the 28 allies have raised their defense spending, and they feel the threat. And I would even say right now, Merkel is leading NATO, not so much the United States; she’s leading NATO on this. So, Condi, you studied the Russians and the Soviets your life; we’ve got a dilemma here. Putin attacked our election and tried to discredit our democracy. We know he did that. Putin annexed Crimea. He still has troops in the Donbass and Eastern Ukraine, dividing that country. He has been a malevolent force in Syria. So, what’s the strategy for President Trump here? How does he respond to this? And we saw this extraordinary situation where the president was essentially repudiated by the Republicans in Congress on this big vote in the Senate and House to sanction Russia. If you were to give advice to him, what would it be? Not to put you on the spot too much. Rice: Well, thanks. Well, the first advice I would give is, be sure you know who Vladimir Putin is, right? And Vladimir Putin is someone who likes to humiliate, someone who likes to dominate, and someone who essentially understands power. And so don’t go into a room with Vladimir Putin unless you are in a pretty powerful position, and that means when you go to talk to Vladimir Putin, first let’s continue the policy that the Obama administration began, maybe even accelerate the policy of putting forces, at least on a rotating basis but possibly on a permanent basis, in places like Poland and the Baltic states so that you say to him, this far and no further. Secondly, I like raising the defense budget as a signal to the Russians. Third, I think you have to say to the Russians, we know you did it on the electoral process; we will, at a time of our choosing, by means of our choosing, we will deal with it, but we have confidence in our electoral system, so don’t think that you’re undermining American confidence by what you’re doing, because he feeds on the sense that he’s succeeding in undermining our confidence. And the final thing I’d say to him is, stop flying your planes so close to our ships and aircraft; somebody’s going to get shot down, because once you’ve established the kind of ground rules with Vladimir Putin, now you can talk about possible areas of cooperation. By the way, there’s one other thing I’d do: I’d arm the Ukrainians. I think that you have got to raise the cost to the Russians of what they’re doing in Ukraine, and it’s not on the front pages anymore, but in Eastern Ukraine, people are dying every day because of those little Russian green men, the Russian separatists, who, with Russian military training and Russian military intelligence and Russian military capability, are making a mess of Eastern Ukraine and making it impossible for Kiev to govern the country. And so I think it’s time to arm them. 33:30 Nick Burns: I think President Obama actually put in place a lot of what Condi’s saying. Is there bipartisan agreement on this tough policy? Susan Rice: I think there’s certainly bipartisan agreement on the steps that Condi described that we characterized as the European Response Initiative, where we got NATO with our leadership to put in those four countries, the three Baltics, plus Poland, a continuous, rotating, augmented presence and _____(00:26) deployed not only personnel but equipment, and we have reversed the trend of the downsizing of our presence in Europe, and that’s vitally important. 36:00 Tom Donilon: It’s important to recognize some of the fundamentals here, right, which is that we are in an actively hostile posture with the Russians right now. And it’s not just in Europe; it’s in Syria, it’s in Afghanistan, it’s in Syria, and it was in our own elections, and it’ll be in the European elections going through the next year as well, and it’ll probably be in our elections 2018 and 2020 unless we act to prevent it. So, we’re in, I think, in an actively hostile posture with the Russians, coming from their side. 40:00 Stephen Hadley: We’re putting battalions—we, NATO—putting battalions in the three Baltic states and in Poland and in Bucharest. Battalions are 1200 people, 1500 people. Russia is going to have an exercise in Belarus that newspaper reports suggest maybe up to 100,000 people and 8,000 tanks—I think I’ve got that number right— Unknown Speaker: This month. Hadley: —more tanks than Germany, France, and U.K. have combined. And we have to be careful that we don’t get in this very confrontational, rhetorical position with Russia and not have the resources to back it up. 58:00 Condoleezza Rice: Democracy promotion—democracy support, I like to call it—is not just the morally right thing to do, but, actually, democracies don’t fight each other. They don’t send their 10-year-olds as child soldiers. They don’t traffic their women into the sex trade. They don’t attack their neighbors. They don’t harbor terrorists. And so democracies are kind of good for the world, and so when you talk about American interests and you say you’re not sure that we ought to promote democracy, I’m not sure you’ve got a clear concept, or a clear grasp, on what constitutes American interests. Speech: Presidential Candidate Hillary Clinton National Security Address, Council of Foreign Relations, November 19, 2015. Transcript Hillary Clinton: So we need to move simultaneously toward a political solution to the civil war that paves the way for a new government with new leadership and to encourage more Syrians to take on ISIS as well. To support them, we should immediately deploy the special operations force President Obama has already authorized and be prepared to deploy more as more Syrians get into the fight, and we should retool and ramp up our efforts to support and equip viable Syrian opposition units. Our increased support should go hand in hand with increased support from our Arab and European partners, including Special Forces who can contribute to the fight on the ground. We should also work with the coalition and the neighbors to impose no-fly zones that will stop Assad from slaughtering civilians and the opposition from the air. Hearing: U.S. Policy and Russian Involvement in Syria, House Foreign Affairs Committee, November 4, 2015. Witnesses Anne W. Patterson: Assistant Secretary Department of State, Near Eastern Affairs Transcript Rep. David Cicilline (RI): Who are we talking about when we’re speaking about moderate opposition, and do they, in fact, include elements of al-Qaeda and al-Nusra and other more extremist groups? Anne Patterson: Well, let me take the civilian moderate opposition, too, and that’s the assistance figure that you’re referring to, and that is groups within Syria and groups that live in Turkey and Lebanon and other places; and what that project is designed to do is to keep these people, not only alive physically, but also keep them viable for a future Syria, because we have managed to, even areas under control of ISIL—I won’t mention them—but we have managed to provide money to city councils, to health clinics, to teachers and policemen so these people can still provide public services and form the basis for a new Syria. So that’s—a good portion of that money goes into efforts like that. There’s also the opposition on the ground, and I think they’ve sort of gotten a bum rap in this hearing because I think they are more extensive than it’s generally recognized, particularly in the south, and they, yes, of course, in the north, some of these individuals have affiliated with Nusra because there was nowhere else to go. Anne Patterson: Moscow has cynically tried to claim that its strikes are focused on terrorists, but so far eighty-five to ninety percent of Syrian strikes have hit the moderate Syrian opposition, and they have killed civilians in the process. Despite our urging, Moscow has yet to stop the Assad regime’s horrific practice of barrel bombing the Syrian people, so we know that Russia’s primary intent is to preserve the regime. Music Presented in This Episode Intro & Exit: Tired of Being Lied To by David Ippolito (found on Music Alley by mevio) Cover Art Design by Only Child Imaginations

Two of WaPo's media columnists, Margaret Sullivan and Erik Wemple face off in a competition of quotes about the media, politics at the Oscars and ... Jelly Bellys?

8 AM - 1 - Erik Wemple from the Washington Post talks about his piece: "Another massacre, another media quandary: Should we publish the killer's name and photo?". 2 - Orlando. 3 - The News with Marshall Phillips. 4 - Does Google manipulate Search in Hillary's favor?.