COVID Who? The UFC Sells Out VyStar Veterans Memorial Arena in Jacksonville Florida for UFC 261

     The Ultimate Fighting Championship (UFC) is the biggest and most famous mixed martial arts promotion in the world. It has grown since its founding in 1993 from a small almost cult-like following to selling out crowds of thousands of people as the biggest promotion in the sport. Dana White, the president of the company known for his straight talk and sometime brash behavior, has led the promotion to great success. Up until last year, the UFC seemed as though it was becoming unstoppable as it finally broke into the arena of mainstream sports when it signed a deal with ESPN to air UFC events on ESPN and ESPN+. However, as COVID-19 struck in the spring of 2020 and restrictions on large gatherings like sporting events were put in place across the nation, the future of the UFC was in doubt. However, by May of 2020, the UFC was able to establish COVID-19 safety standards, and began negotiating with states to start putting on UFC events again. The first of these events was held on May 9^th, 2020, in Jacksonville, Florida. One notable absence, however, was the packed crowd which typically brought so much excitement and energy to the fights. The UFC continued hosting crowd less events like this for nearly a year, until yesterday April 24^th, 2021, when the UFC held the first major indoor sporting event in the United States with no crowd size restrictions, selling out 15,000 seats in the VyStar Veterans Memorial Arena, in Jacksonville, Florida for UFC 261. Prior to the event, the Mayor of Jacksonville and Florida Governor Ron Desantis made an appearance at the event’s press conference where they spoke to resounding cheers and applause after which Dana White thanked them for hosting the UFC and finally allowing spectators to return.

     Whether you support the decision by Dana White and Florida to allow the return of full crowds to indoor events or not, it certainly seems to be marking a tipping point in the lifting of COVID-19 restrictions, and it may lead to there being more support for other states to open up to the UFC and other sporting events. Governor Ron Desantis seemed to be insinuating this in part of his speech when he says, “this event is good for Florida, we’re happy y’all are going to have a good time, but it’s going to be great for people that are watching on TV to see the fans back, to see all this stuff happening.” It will be interesting to see how this UFC event influences the discussion and perspectives surrounding COVID-19 restrictions across the country and if it perhaps even leads to real policy changes in other cities and states.

Follow my Twitter for weekly updates and alerts for new blog post. 

Lessons Learned?

 

     It is well known that the media played a major part in the rise of Donald Trump and his eventual winning of the 2016 election. Donald Trump started out as a new and relatively little-known figure in the political realm only to become a household name within a matter of weeks after the announcement of his campaign for president. All this also happened despite Trump spending a fraction of the money on advertising as other major republican candidates. Much of this was due to the incredible amount of “free” or “earned” media coverage he received which totaled to nearly $2 billion by May 2016 even while he spent a mere $10 million on advertising. Contrast this to Jeb Bush who spent eight times as much on advertising but only received $214 million in free advertising from the media. One might think though, wasn’t much of this coverage overtly negative for Trump? While yes, much of the coverage was negative, it still served Trump’s campaign by providing him with essential components to a successful political campaign such as increasing name recognition across the country and positioning himself to the public as a candidate with a decent chance of winning the election. Since then, there has been a significant amount of discussion and recognition by political pundits and the rest of the mainstream media about the role they played in Trump’s rise. Some in the media went as far as to prepose that the media restrain itself in its coverage of Trump as they were inadvertently giving him too much coverage. Given this, however, it is interesting that the media seem to be falling right back into the same habits with one of the new presumed GOP front runners and challengers to the Democrats in 2024: Florida Governor Ron DeSantis.

     Over the last year and especially in recent months, the mainstream media has started to cover stories involving Florida Governor Ron DeSantis. While many of these stories are either neutral or cast the governor and his actions in a negative light, they are still providing free media exposure for the governor. While DeSantis has not announced that he is running for the GOP nomination for president in the 2024 election, it is becoming clear that he is certainly positioning himself to do so, and the media are certainly covering him as though he is likely to. Coverage of DeSantis perhaps reached its greatest degree yet on April 10^th with the New York Times publishing a piece with a profile of DeSantis and a discussion of his potential as a GOP front runner. This begs the question. Is the media doing exactly what they did with Donald Trump? Is DeSantis, a popular political figure in Florida but previously little-known outside of the state, going to rise to nation-wide popularity through increasing media coverage over the next few years? He is certainly well on his way if the New York Times is any indication.

Follow my Twitter for weekly updates and alerts for new blog post. 

Florida Governor Ron DeSantis, A Potential Front Runner?

 

Florida Governor Ron DeSantis appears to be emerging as a potential front runner for the GOP in the upcoming 2024 presidential election. His rise to the governorship in Florida had gone mostly unnoticed by anyone outside of Florida who was not an astute political observer. However, over the course of the COVID-19 pandemic, DeSantis’ popularity, among both supporters and critics, has grown to become nation-wide. The governor’s handling of the COVID-19 pandemic in Florida, resisting the most stringent lockdown recommendations and rather focusing efforts on protecting the most vulnerable Florida residents, such as the elderly living in long-term care facilities, has drawn fire from critics and support from those opposed to stringent COVID-19 lockdowns. Critics cite his disregard for certain advice from public health officials, but supporters applaud him for his efforts to keep Florida as open as possible, allowing children to return to school sooner than most states and for preserving Florida’s businesses by permitting them to stay open. However, as DeSantis has grown in popularity, he has also caught the attention of the mainstream media who associate him with the divisive and brash former president, Donald Trump, who supported DeSantis’ campaign for governor. Just recently, perhaps in the most notable attack on DeSantis to date by the mainstream media, CBS’s 60 Minutes accused the governor of running a pay to play operation with popular Florida supermarket chain Publix. In a press conference, 60 Minutes reporter Sharyn Alfonsi accused DeSantis of favoring Publix for a contract to rollout the COVID-19 vaccine because Publix had donated to DeSantis’ campaign. 60 Minutes then cut out substantial and relevant portions of DeSantis’ answer, making it appear as though DeSantis had rudely and abruptly cut off the reporter and had avoided answering the question. In reality, the Governor provided a detailed answer of how and why Publix was chosen, only cutting the reporter off after she continued to accuse him of corruption. The obviously misleading cutting of DeSantis’ response by 60 Minutes was so egregious that even Democrat officials in Florida came to the governor’s defense. Democrat Mayor of Palm Beach, Dave Kerner, stated that “The reporting was not just based on bad information - it was intentionally false. I know this because I offered to provide my insight into Palm Beach County's vaccination efforts and 60 Minutes declined.” Another former Democrat state representative now serving as the director of Florida’s Division of Emergency Management, also criticized 60 Minutes’ accusation and depiction of the situation as “just absolute malarkey.”

          Obviously, the ire of the mainstream media has now turned to Governor DeSantis as he is rising in popularity and presents a threat to Democrat control of the White House is 2024. The 60 Minutes story will likely not be the last dishonest reporting targeted toward DeSantis as the election draws closer. DeSantis’ firm no-nonsense approach to the media is also likely not creating much warmth in his relationship with them. DeSantis’ brand is starting to be termed “competent Trumpism,” and if there is one thing we know the media will resist with all there power, it is a return of someone with the backbone of Trump but with intellect and self-control to boot.

Follow my Twitter for weekly updates and alerts for new blog post.

It’s Undeniable and Seriously Concerning

 

     

     For years during the Trump presidency, the media, politicians, and others questioned Trump’s mental fitness and, at times, even outright stated that Trump was suffering from a host of mental disorders from narcissistic personality disorder to dementia. In 2017, multiple mental health experts controversially published a book titled “The Dangerous Case of Donald Trump” which asserted that then President Trump was suffering from several mental health disorders, and that due to this, he posed a clear and present danger to the safety of the United States and the world. Vox even produced a mini-documentary in 2018 which discussed this book and further impugned then President Trump’s mental health. The video goes on to show nearly every mainstream media outlet doing the same. As recently as October, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi introduced a bill to establish a bipartisan commission on the 25^th Amendment on account of Trump’s behavior post treatment for his COVID-19 infection last fall. During the press conference announcing the bill the speaker went as far as to say that “there may be some impairment in judgment” and that Trump “was in an altered state.” However, with President Trump gone, this same type of scrutiny on the mental health of the president seems to have also evaporated despite the ever more obvious issues with the new president.

     It is becoming clearer that President Biden is suffering mental and physical decline. During the 2020 presidential race, Biden gaffed constantly and had more than a few occasions where he seemed confused such as when he asked a crowd in South Carolina to consider him for the Senate, when he mistook his wife for his sister, or when he responded to an interviewer asking about a cognitive test by asking if the interviewer had “take a test where your taking cocaine or not” and then repeatedly stumbling over the very words “physical and mental fitness.” As president, Biden has continued along this trend. On March 19^th, President Biden fell several times ascending the stairs to Air Force One, and in the first press conference of his presidency held nearly a week later on March 25^th, Biden had several occasions where he seemed visibly confused and could not finish sentences without verbally stumbling and viewing his binder full of notes. Just recently, while announcing the new director of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms (ATF) he had nominated, President Biden repeatedly misstated the acronym for the ATF, twice calling it the AFT instead. Considering the obviousness of his decline, the silence of the mainstream media, excluding Fox News and other conservative media, is deafening. Vox is not running mini documentaries lambasting President Biden for his mental fitness nor are mental health professionals running around publishing books about it and asserting that Biden poses a clear and present danger to the United States. Considering Biden’s recent remarks during an interview with ABC News’ George Stephanopoulos during which Biden called Vladimir Putin a killer and said that Putin would pay a price, it seems that if ever there was a clear and present danger, it would be the heightening of tensions between two major nuclear powers with an already long and rough history. Even when given a chance to clarify his response on what price Putin would pay, President Biden simply stated “well, you’ll see shortly.” The gaffs, confusion, and lack of clarity from President Biden may have been amusing to some during the campaign, but now as president, his declining health poses a serious problem. The consequences are no longer a few jokes and critical news articles from Fox News. Now the very safety and security of the United States is on the line; it's undeniable and seriously concerning.      

Follow my Twitter for weekly updates and alerts for new blog post.

The Free Exercise Thereof

 

     A Good Friday service at a Roman Catholic church in London was halted by police on account that it violated UK COVID-19 rules which limit the size of church congregations. The attendees were threatened with fines and arrest if they refused to disperse. In video of the incident, one of the officers can be heard addressing the crowd stating: “Ladies and Gentlemen, this gathering is unfortunately unlawful under the coronavirus regulations we have currently. You are not allowed to meet inside with this many people under law. At this moment in time, you need to go home. Failure to comply with this direction to leave and go to your home address ultimately could lead to you being fined £200, or if you fail to give your details, to you being arrested.” It is easy to brush this incident aside, whether in agreement with the actions taken by the police or if you believe that this is something that happens in a country where the free exercise of religion is not protected by a governing constitution. However, this type of incident will likely not be an isolated one and unfortunately will likely not be only seen in the UK. 

     Throughout the COVID-19 pandemic, there has been tension between U.S states attempting to enforce COVID-19 restrictions and the freedom of every American to exercise their religion. Back in February, the Supreme Court partially struck down some of the most stringent restrictions targeting churches in California. The court allowed churches to be exempt from the public health order which was attempting to ban indoor services in areas with widespread COVID-19 infections, but still allowed the ban on singing to go through (yes, you read that correctly, the California government is banning singing). This has led scholars and regular citizens alike to speculate on the interplay between religious freedom and governmental powers to ensure the safety of the community during this pandemic. However, I would like to posit that the government has no business putting any kind of restrictions on the freedom guaranteed by the U.S Constitution that Americans shall have the right to freely exercise their religion. Considering people attended their Good Friday services and will be attending their Easter services by their own decision, under their own agency, the government has no right to remove this agency and thus stomp on the freedom of every American to freely exercise their religion. The type of action seen in the video at the beginning of this article is part of the very reason the crafters of the Constitution included this freedom in the very first amendment. It is foundational to a free society. If individuals, with free will and reason, make the decision that they are willing to risk safety in favor of being able to practice their religion freely, then that should be a decision they make; the government should not be making it for them. Liberty comes with risk, but it is certainly preferable to the alternative. Ask the members the Christ the King Polish Catholic Church in Balham, south London.

Follow my Twitter for weekly updates and alerts for new blog post.

Finding a New Villain

 

     Tucker Carlson’s name has been on the tip of many tongues these past few weeks. His recent comments on President Biden’s announcement of more accommodations for female soldiers in the military, including newly designed maternity flight suites, his defense of Piers Morgan’s criticisms of Meghan Markle, and his attacks on Taylor Lorenz have thrust him to the forefront of political debate. This past week host of CNN’s Reliable Sources, Brian Stelter, took particular note of these recent controversies involving Tucker Carlson. On Stelter’s March 14^th show, he posited that Tucker is becoming the new Donald Trump of American politics. Stelter says “Tucker has taken Trump’s place as a right-wing leader, as an outrage generator, as a fire starter.” Stelter continued, likening Tucker’s growing prominence in right-wing media to the Trumps rise in the years before the 2016 election.

     This is quite a position for Stelter to take. His observation of Tucker’s growing popularity, among supporters and critics, is certainly not a revelation, but his comparing of Tucker to Trump is a quite a claim. It also begs the question of why Stelter would even want to speak that into existence. Considering Stelter has been one of the most prominent critics of Trump and his administration, why would he seem like he is almost seeking out a new Trump-like figure. One would think Stelter would be happy that Trump has finally been vanquished out of American politics and media. However, I argue the opposite; while Stelter and other Trump critics have spent the last five years lobbing criticisms and attacks against the former president, they actually miss his oversized presence in American politics. Trump provided the perfect target and constant generator of headline worthy news that pundits like Stelter constantly covered. Furthermore, the constant coverage of everything Trump was great for the most important part of television news media: ratings. Since Trump’s departure from the presidency, this has become very apparent as ratings fall across cable television news networks, especially for CNN. Perhaps Stelter, and other left of center pundits like him, yearn for a replacement of Donald Trump so the new controversies this figure generates can drive their ratings back up. Perhaps, they need a new villain.

Follow my Twitter for weekly updates and alerts for new blog post.

What Took so Long?

 

     As a corollary to my recent post, I wanted to address some questions that come to mind when considering the seeming collapse of a Governor Cuomo’s political career. Why do all these scandals seem to be coming to light now? What was holding them back during the second half of 2020? Perhaps the scandal involving the deliberate under reporting and obscuring of nursing home deaths in New York simply was simply taking time to develop and uncover. Extensive reports like the one issued back in January by New York Attorney General Laticia James take time to research and write. It is reasonable to conclude that the attorney general’s office simply wanted to make sure they had it right before they published such a damning report. However, what is perhaps more questionable is why the allegations of sexual harassment took so long to acquire media attention and attention from other political leaders in New York and around the country. Lindsey Boylan initially made allegations against Governor Cuomo back in December 2020. Her story did not get traction until recent weeks. Furthermore, the events that the other accusers allege took place also occurred in 2020. It is certainly fair to say that victims of sexual harassment and/or assault often have a very difficult time coming forward for a number of reasons, and this is certainly not to say that they should have conducted themselves differently; they are allowed to process their own trauma on their own timeline. However, it is interesting that the media is deciding now is the time to place focus on the sexual harassment scandal which, as mentioned earlier, was originally alleged by Ms. Boylan back in December.

     Brendan Nyhan, a professor at Dartmouth College, published an interesting study in The British Journal of Political Science which might shed some light on this. In the study, Nyhan looked at what makes a scandal against a U.S president more likely to develop and be covered by the media. Nyhan found support for the theories that scandals often develop when there more intense opposition from the opposing party and when there is there is less congestion in the news media. Nyhan suggested that these factors are also applicable to scandal development against other political leaders, especially state governors. Perhaps this is what is taking place with Governor Cuomo. Now that Donald Trump has left office and is no longer taking up a massive amount of media attention, the media has more time to focus on lesser issues and cover “smaller” stories. There was little room for anything outside of Trump for several years and especially in the final days of his presidency - January 6^th comes to mind. With that in the rear-view mirror, the media seems to be taking a more scrutinizing look at political leaders across the country, and unfortunately for Cuomo, he is one of them.

Follow my Twitter for weekly updates and alerts for new blog post.

Cuomo Under Fire as He Battles Two Unfolding Scandals

 

    

     Governor Andrew Cuomo is coming under intensifying scrutiny as two serious scandals involving him and his administration unfold. The first scandal, also covered in an earlier post, was blown into the open back in January when the New York Attorney General Letitia James released a report which detailed the significant under counting of nursing home deaths in the state of New York by the Cuomo administration by as much as 50 percent. That report sparked a flurry of calls for investigation and even Cuomo’s resignation. Further evidence has now emerged that not only was the administration under counting deaths, but top aids to the governor deliberately removed the number of people who died from COVID-19 in nursing homes before the state released its COVID-19 July 2020 report. Melissa DeRosa, one of the governor's top aids, has also now admitted to doing this during a private conference call with Democrat lawmakers. The top aid to Governor Cuomo stated that the administration was concerned that the real number of nursing homes deaths at the time, which was 9,250 and was well exceeding the second highest number of nursing home deaths in New Jersey by 3,100 people, would prompt a federal investigation from Trump’s Justice Department. The governor wanted to avoid this type of inquiry at all costs as he was trying to maintain his image as a strong and competent leader of his state during the COVID-19 crisis.

     On top of the nursing home deaths scandal, Governor Cuomo has also now been accused of sexual harassment and misconduct by two former state employees and another woman who the governor met at a wedding. Charlotte Bennett, former aide to the governor, accused him of inquiring about her sex and life in a one on one meeting in the governor's office last year. She state Cuomo asked her whether she had ever had romantic relationships with older men and whether she cared about large age differences in romantic relationships. Another former aid to the governor from 2015 to 2018, Lindsey Boylan, detailed several instances of inappropriate touching on her legs, back, and arms over several years by the governor. She also detailed an instance when the governor kissed her on the lips as she attempted to leave his office after a one on one meeting. A third woman, Anna Ruch, has also come out accusing the governor of sexual harassment at a 2020 wedding after he touched her low back without consent making her uncomfortable to the point she had to remove his hand with hers. She goes on to say that the governor seemed to take offense to her removal and stated that she was being “aggressive” after which he grabbed her cheeks with his hands and asked her to kiss him as he leaned closer. Ms. Ruch stated she has to pull away to avoid the governor’s advances. This interaction was captured on camera:

     Even with both of these scandals reaching fever pitch and bipartisan calls for Cuomo to resign his governorship, Cuomo seems to be trying to ride it out. He offered an official apology on Wednesday, March 3^rd , but has refused to resign. It will be interesting to see how and if is able to maintain his legitimacy as governor as these scandals continue to unfold and as New York Attorney General Letitia James opens an investigation into the claims of sexual harassment.

Follow my Twitter for weekly updates and alerts for new blog post.

The Golden EIB Microphone Falls Silent for the Last Time

 

     

     It was sometime in the middle of May about twelve years ago; a warm summer breeze blew in my open window as I sat leaning out of it on the second floor of the house, directly above my grandmother who sat in her rocking chair on the patio below. A cold class of sweet tea sweated slightly in my hands. The radio was tuned to AM 750 and Rush Limbaugh’s rich voice was filling the air. This is only one of many cherished memories I save of the famed talk-radio host Rush Limbaugh who passed away this past Wednesday, February 17^th after 33 years on the radio. Rush continued to do his show even up until the final days of his battle with lung cancer; if it were ever said someone had a calling, Rush was certainly following his. Rush had such a profound impact on my life and the lives of millions of people across the United States. His willingness to stand up for conservative principles, even in the face of massive opposition from establishment media and other opponents, is nothing short of inspiring. Rush spoke for the part of America belittled and forgotten by cultural and political elites. He single handedly shaped and influenced the political beliefs of multiple generations of Americans. To say that Rush’s career fits right into the definition of the intersection between media and politics would be an understatement; Rush’s show was the intersection of media and politics for something like 20 million weekly listeners across his syndicated radio show. So much so, for example, that the newly elected 1994 Republican controlled House of Representatives made Rush Limbaugh an honorary member of their caucus as they felt he had such a profound impact on the success of the Republican party in the election.

     Rush’s conviction to stand up for what he believed in all while entertaining millions with his humor and wit will forever establish him as the “greatest of all time” as his wife Kathryn put it in her remarks after his passing. Rush regularly said he was having “more fun than a human being should be allowed to have” during his introductions as his show returned from break; I can say that he certainly was. Rush taught me to be endlessly curious, and inspired me to stand up for the principles I believe in. I will miss his three hours of radio, his booming voice, his energy, his positivity, his humor, and his unique take on the state of American politics and culture.

     Rush always maintained he was gifted with “talent on loan from God.” I’m sure he is thrilled he finally gets to return that talent to the one who granted it to him.

Rest in Peace, Rush. You will be dearly missed.

Follow my Twitter for weekly updates and alerts for new blog post.

Gina Carano Fired by Disney, Joins Forces with the Daily Wire

 

   

     Ex mixed martial arts star turned actress, Gina Carano, was fired this week by Disney from the show The Mandalorian over her controversial political tweets. In November Gina posted several controversial tweets one of which joked about mask wearing and another which suggested there should be investigations into the voting processes in every state across the country and urged for stricter voting laws to ensure the integrity of elections. The last straw appears to have been Gina’s recent tweet which compared the early attacks on Jews in 1930’s Germany to the treatment of people who are right of center in the contemporary United States (This post has since been deleted). The post went viral and social media backlash ensued peaking as the hashtag “#FireGinaCarano” trended on Twitter on Wednesday February 10^th.

     Since Gina’s ousting, there has been an outpouring of support from the political right who decry the move as another example of the excesses of  “cancel culture” in the United States. One of the critics of this move by Disney, conservative pundit and co-owner of the Daily Wire, Ben Shapiro, appears willing the put his money where his mouth is in fighting back against the cancel culture. Only two days after her ousting, the Daily Wire and Gina announced that Gina would star and produce a film in partnership with the Daily Wire. Gina touted the new partnership on Friday saying “I have only just begun using my voice which is now freer than ever before, and I hope it inspires others to do the same. They can’t cancel us if we don’t let them.”

     Will this recent episode of cancelation then un-cancelation be the start of a new trend in American media and politics? The right side of the political isle has been decrying what it perceives as a bias against conservative viewpoints in the media for decades. It now appears that large uber-successful companies like the Daily Wire have finally built up enough infrastructure to stand against what was once a monolithic media entertainment machine run by Hollywood elites. Will the partisan divisions which seem to be dividing right from left in the America more than ever cause the creation of a whole separate media, news, and entertainment industry which accepts those that may be deemed too right-wing or conservative for traditional Hollywood? It is an interesting question to consider. If the recent success of the Daily Wire’s first major film “Run Hide Fight” is any indication of the potential for another film produced by the company staring Gina, then this may certainly be the beginning of a new force in the media industry.

Follow my Twitter for weekly updates and alerts for new blog post.

Do You Have a Right to be Wrong?

 

     What to do about disinformation spread on social media and other platforms is a pertinent issue as of late. Elected leaders, government officials, academics, journalist, big tech, and everyday media consumers alike all seem to be searching for possible solutions. One of the journalist at the forefront of this discussion, Kevin Roose, wrote an article for The New York Times addressing what the Biden administration and others like big tech could do to help pull media consumers away from disinformation, hoaxes, and harmful conspiracy theories. After speaking with several experts on these topics, Roose reports several possible solutions that these experts believe may help alleviate the issue with “information ecosystem” in the United States. Some of the most interesting suggestions include Harvard research director for the university’s Shorestein Center on Media, Politics, and Public Survey, Joan Donavan’s suggestion to set up a “truth commission” which would “investigate the planning and execution of the Capitol siege on Jan. 6.” Donavan also suggested creating more specific labels for different types of extremist movements in order to better differentiate between higher and lower risk individuals and communities online. Another suggestion offered to Roose was the Biden administration creating something similar to a Director of National Intelligence but for online platforms. This new positional would be dubbed a “reality czar” and would essentially act as central point in the government from which disinformation, conspiracy theories, extremist groups, and their adherents could be monitored. As Roose reports, the reality czar and their task force “could also meet regularly with tech platforms, and push for structural changes that could help those companies tackle their own extremism and misinformation problems. (For example, it could formulate “safe harbor” exemptions that would allow platforms to share data about QAnon and other conspiracy theory communities with researchers and government agencies without running afoul of privacy laws.)” Lastly, Roose reports the suggestion that the Biden administration should force big tech to allow the government to examine their algorithms and possibly create repercussions for ones that promote extreme content. Despite the rather Orwellian sounding nature of these proposals, they are not unreasonable things to suggest given that Roose and these experts seem to already accept the fundamental notion that disinformation, conspiracy theories, and the trafficking thereof is an evil which needs to be addressed through governmental action.

     This brings us back to our headline; do you have a right to be wrong? Is having an opinion that is not supported by evidence now considered to be a moral and even legal problem? Does free speech no longer include speech that is untrue or questionable? The speech that Roose and these experts are considering cracking down upon may be wrong, offensive, misguided, and even deliberately misleading. However, this does not mean that the government should be involved in solving the “problem” that is disinformation online. There are already laws that address things like libel and slander, and there is ample case law which address the freedoms of speech, expression, and assembly. It seems as though, in a likely sincere effort to create a more hospitable and fact-based online discourse and information ecosystem, Roose and others may be taking a step too far. When you are talking about creating a “reality czar” responsible for establishing what is “true,” it may be time to reflect on exactly what that means especially considering that the position of power you create to squelch speech and people who you deem to be problems will undoubtedly be used against you when the pendulum of power in American politics swings back the other way. It is hard to imagine a scenario in which some of the more outlandish suggestions reported and tangentially endorsed by Roose end the way one might hope. The best solution to this problem is not less speech, it is not the government deciding what is truth and fact, it is more, regular people, standing up for what they can best determine to be the truth. It is the responsibility of every American to push back against conspiracy theories, disinformation, and lies. In order to ensure that this can continue to happen however, we have to accept the idea that people have a right to be wrong, just like they have a right to speak the truth.

Follow my Twitter for weekly updates and alerts for new blog post.

Governor Cuomo Wins an Emmy as His Health Department Concealed the True Number of New York Nursing Home Residents Who Perished From COVID-19

 

    Governor Andrew Cuomo of New York has been lauded by many in the media for his handling of the COVID-19 crisis in his state. This perhaps best culminating in his winning of an International Emmy for “his masterful use of television to inform and calm people around the world.” However, this rise to the national spotlight has not been without its criticisms. Many of which stemmed from Governor Cuomo’s March 25^th directive to allow COVID-19 positive nursing home residents back into nursing homes after they had been hospitalized. The state Health Department reports “that approximately 6,326 COVID-positive residents were admitted to facilities between March 25, 2020 and May 8, 2020” after which the March 25^th directive was rescinded. The toll this potentially had on nursing home deaths had not been totally clear until recently, when the New York Attorney General, Letitia James, released a report detailing the drastic miss counting of nursing home deaths across the State of New York.

    According to James’s report, which surveyed about 10 percent of nursing homes across the State of New York, “COVID-19 resident deaths associated with nursing homes in New York state appear to be undercounted by DOH by approximately 50 percent.” The report details that this was a result of the New York Health Department failing to count nursing home residents who were transferred to a hospital before their death in the total count of nursing home deaths. While this re-categorizing of deaths does not alter the total death count in New York which is nearing 43,000, the most in the United States, it does add over 3,800 deaths to the total number of nursing home deaths making it now 12,743. The New York Health Department has disputed some of the conclusions drawn by James’s report highlighting the fact that the report fails to directly link the March 25^th policy to an increase in nursing home deaths, however, the report does state that “over 4,000 nursing home deaths occurred after the issuance of the March 25 guidance. While additional data and analysis would be required to ascertain the effect of such admissions in individual facilities, these admissions may have contributed to increased risk of nursing home resident infection, and subsequent fatalities.” Furthermore, the report notes that staffing issues and failures to adhere to protocols for controlling the spread of COVID-19 around the facilities possibly contributed to the high numbers of deaths in these facilities.

    Perhaps the media’s praise for Governor Cuomo was a touch premature considering the state-wide scandal that is now breaking into the daylight. Governor Cuomo may also be a victim of the fact that Donald Trump is no longer sucking all the proverbial air out of the room giving the media more time to cast a critical eye on political figures around the country. Nevertheless, it remains a tragic reality that Cuomo’s administration dropped the ball in its efforts to control the spread of COVID-19 and protect the most vulnerable populations. It remains to be seen whether or not this will spell the demise of Governor Cuomo’s once promising political career. There have already been calls for the resignation of New York’s health commissioner Dr. Howard Zucker. It will be interesting to see whether these are soon directed to Governor Cuomo as well.  

Follow my Twitter for weekly updates and alerts for new blog post.

Trust in Mainstream Media Slides into the Gutter as They Embrace the Biden Administration with Open Arms

 

    As the news media in the United States welcomes the new Biden administration, America’s trust in news media dops precipitously. According to the 2021 Edelman Trust Barometer survey, 59 percent of respondents agreed that journalist purposely say things that are false or misleading in order to deceive people. Furthermore, the survey found that trust in traditional media has fallen eight points to a low of 53 percent. To add insult to injury Edelman did a “Post-U.S Election Flash Poll” and found a massive gap in trust between Biden and Trump voters with 57 percent of Biden voters trusting the media versus a mere 18 percent of Trump voters. Even more concerning is that this shows a 15-point decline since the election among Trump voters. As this all this happens in the background, the news media gleefully welcomes the Biden administration. Perhaps somewhat too gleefully as writer Jack Shafer for Politico pointed out in his January 21^st article where he details some of the rather embarrassing and far too common displays of biased fawning by the mainstream media during Biden’s inauguration. It is difficult to see how the media’s treatment of Trump versus their treatment of Biden on January 20^th and for the past year is not exacerbating the issue. Examples like this are not difficult to make and illustrate this point well. Combining this with Trump’s anti mainstream media rhetoric since the election, it is no wonder trust in the news media seems to be hitting an all time low.

    Furthermore, the news media is not being shy about their intentions to continue their glowing reviews of the Biden administration. Margaret Sullivan, media columnist for The Washington Post, published an insightful article on January 21^st about this very topic. Sullivan cautions the media to not become too adversarial against the Biden administration. She elaborates that it is tempting to do in order to seem as though the news media is providing balanced news coverage, but giving platform to “reality-denying” voices like senator “Ted Cruz (R-Tex.) or Josh Hawley (R-Mo.)” is a bridge too far for Sullivan. Sullivan states there should be a distinction drawn between “holding power to account and grandstanding.” It is important to consider here that Sullivan considers the “the vast and shameful overplaying of the Hillary Clinton email scandal during the 2016 campaign” to be grandstanding. If the warning by Sullivan is heeded by the news media, which seems already to be the case, it is doubtful that the news media is going to be able to gain back much ground with the half of the country that voted for Donald Trump. There is no issue with holding power to account and scrutinizing every aspect of a presidential administration or any other source of power whether political or private. However, it is an issue when biased reporting and deliberately gentle coverage is encouraged to replace the massive media onslaught of the past four years. The further public trust of media slips into oblivion the harder it is going to become to bring the U.S back together and repair the deep divisions that persist.

Follow my Twitter for weekly updates and alerts for new blog post.