hotair--2020-12-18--Expert to NYT: We could "level the playing field" by vaccinating essential workers before seniors si

Expert to NYT: We could "level the playing field" by vaccinating essential workers before seniors since seniors are "whiter"

I remember writing in July about the debate among experts over how much race should count when prioritizing groups to receive the vaccine once it arrived .
Some wanted to make it one of many factors in measuring a recipient ’ s priority , mindful of the fact that minorities have died of COVID at a higher rate than whites .
Others wanted to prioritize by race itself , a morally — and legally — dubious approach .
“ If you liked woke epidemiologists when they were carving out massive exceptions to social-distancing rules for BLM protests , ” I @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ re going to love them when they ’ re sending black and Latino Americans to the front of the line for the miracle drug amid a winter second wave of COVID that ’ s cutting a swath through the American populace.
” We ’ re in that wave now and the swath is being cut , but the debate goes on .
No one ’ s talking about prioritizing by race at this point — not overtly , anyway .
But race is creeping into the calculations over whether to make senior @ @ @ @ @ @ @ once medical workers and nursing-home residents are vaccinated .
There are logical racially neutral arguments for each .
Seniors are at the greatest risk of dying , of course , but essential workers who are face to face with the public every day are probably the biggest risk to spread the virus in the community .
Immunize them and you might get more bang for your vaccination buck by closing off an outsized number of transmission vectors , slowing the contagion .
Percentage-wise , there are more minorities working front-line jobs as essential @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Which is why , for certain wokesters , the “ seniors or essential workers ?
” conundrum remains a vehicle with which to pursue a sort of very rough racial justice .
This NYT piece , now almost two weeks old , made the rounds last night after a producer on Samantha Bee ’ s talk show of all places found himself aghast at some of the quotes gathered from racially conscious experts .
Even liberals are choking on the logic of deprioritizing senior citizens *because* they ’ re whiter as a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s what some are proposing .
If you ’ re 75 years old and white with comorbidities , take heart in the fact that you helped “ level the playing field ” when they ’ re sliding that ventilator tube down your throat .
The quote above is the most repulsive in the Times piece because the racial logic in prioritizing is so explicit , but race factored into other experts ’ calculations too .
For instance : Again , the logic of vaccinating essential workers early is *supposed* to be that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ many people during the day that they risk becoming superhighways of transmission for the virus once infected .
Immunize them and you close down those superhighways .
The question in vaccinating teachers soon should be , plainly and simply , will we get extra “ bang for our buck ” in doing so ?
To which the answer is no , I think .
Schools are actually safer than the community at large based on the data we have .
There ’ s a stronger argument for prioritizing waiters , economically and epidemiologically @ @ @ @ @ @ @ hold back on teachers , not because they ’ re “ very often white.
” We ’ re still not done with racial arguments from the Times piece .
Another expert , economist Elise Gould , argued that teachers *should* be given vaccine priority — because minorities suffer more from having their kids out of school during the day : Two points stand out in all this as especially obnoxious .
First , what most of these people are concerned about , or should be concerned about , are class disparities rather than @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s point ultimately in worrying about disproportionate burdens in child care .
And it ’ s probably why African-Americans and Latinos have had worse outcomes than whites .
There ’ s no genetic explanation for why COVID should hit them harder as far as I ’ m aware ; they ’ re hit harder because they ’ re more likely to be exposed by working front-line jobs and they earn less on average than whites so they ’ re more apt to have lower standards of living with the attendant worse health @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of these experts focused on prioritizing by class , which would include poorer whites as well , instead of race ?
Second , Matt Yglesias is right that deprioritizing senior citizens will backfire on race-minded wokesters by delaying the vaccine for a group that needs it urgently : If you believe that Black Lives Matter , logically you should worry about the black lives that are most at risk .
Those are indeed black senior citizens , as Yglesias says .
It ’ s idiotic to want a 35-year-old white cashier to get @ @ @ @ @ @ @ because there ’ s a higher percentage of African-Americans in the “ essential worker ” group than there is among senior citizens .
Get the vaccine to the people who need it most urgently .
Contorted racialized arguments for doing otherwise reeks of virtue-signaling .

I remember writing in July about the debate among experts over how much race should count when prioritizing groups to receive the vaccine once it arrived. Some wanted to make it one of many factors in measuring a recipient’s priority, mindful of the fact that minorities have died of COVID at a higher rate than whites. Others wanted to prioritize by race itself, a morally — and legally — dubious approach. “If you liked woke epidemiologists when they were carving out massive exceptions to social-distancing rules for BLM protests,” I wrote at the time, “you’re going to love them when they’re sending black and Latino Americans to the front of the line for the miracle drug amid a winter second wave of COVID that’s cutting a swath through the American populace.”
We’re in that wave now and the swath is being cut, but the debate goes on. No one’s talking about prioritizing by race at this point — not overtly, anyway. But race is creeping into the calculations over whether to make senior citizens or essential workers the next priority once medical workers and nursing-home residents are vaccinated. There are logical racially neutral arguments for each. Seniors are at the greatest risk of dying, of course, but essential workers who are face to face with the public every day are probably the biggest risk to spread the virus in the community. Immunize them and you might get more bang for your vaccination buck by closing off an outsized number of transmission vectors, slowing the contagion.
Percentage-wise, there are more minorities working front-line jobs as essential workers than there are among senior citizens. Which is why, for certain wokesters, the “seniors or essential workers?” conundrum remains a vehicle with which to pursue a sort of very rough racial justice. This NYT piece, now almost two weeks old, made the rounds last night after a producer on Samantha Bee’s talk show of all places found himself aghast at some of the quotes gathered from racially conscious experts. Even liberals are choking on the logic of deprioritizing senior citizens *because* they’re whiter as a group than essential workers.
But that’s what some are proposing.
Harald Schmidt, an expert in ethics and health policy at the University of Pennsylvania, said that it is reasonable to put essential workers ahead of older adults, given their risks, and that they are disproportionately minorities. “Older populations are whiter, ” Dr. Schmidt said. “Society is structured in a way that enables them to live longer. Instead of giving additional health benefits to those who already had more of them, we can start to level the playing field a bit.”
An “expert in ethics,” huh?
If you’re 75 years old and white with comorbidities, take heart in the fact that you helped “level the playing field” when they’re sliding that ventilator tube down your throat. The quote above is the most repulsive in the Times piece because the racial logic in prioritizing is so explicit, but race factored into other experts’ calculations too. For instance:
Marc Lipsitch, an infectious-disease epidemiologist at Harvard’s T.H. Chan School of Public Health, argued that teachers should not be included as essential workers, if a central goal of the committee is to reduce health inequities. “Teachers have middle-class salaries, are very often white, and they have college degrees,” he said. “Of course they should be treated better, but they are not among the most mistreated of workers.”
Again, the logic of vaccinating essential workers early is *supposed* to be that they’re in contact with so many people during the day that they risk becoming superhighways of transmission for the virus once infected. Immunize them and you close down those superhighways. The question in vaccinating teachers soon should be, plainly and simply, will we get extra “bang for our buck” in doing so? To which the answer is no, I think. Schools are actually safer than the community at large based on the data we have. There’s a stronger argument for prioritizing waiters, economically and epidemiologically.
That’s why we should hold back on teachers, not because they’re “very often white.”
We’re still not done with racial arguments from the Times piece. Another expert, economist Elise Gould, argued that teachers *should* be given vaccine priority — because minorities suffer more from having their kids out of school during the day:
“When you talk about disproportionate impact and you’re concerned about people getting back into the labor force, many are mothers, and they will have a harder time if their children don’t have a reliable place to go,” she said. “And if you think generally about people who have jobs where they can’t telework, they are disproportionately Black and brown. They’ll have more of a challenge when child care is an issue.”
Two points stand out in all this as especially obnoxious. First, what most of these people are concerned about, or should be concerned about, are class disparities rather than racial ones. That’s Gould’s point ultimately in worrying about disproportionate burdens in child care. And it’s probably why African-Americans and Latinos have had worse outcomes than whites. There’s no genetic explanation for why COVID should hit them harder as far as I’m aware; they’re hit harder because they’re more likely to be exposed by working front-line jobs and they earn less on average than whites so they’re more apt to have lower standards of living with the attendant worse health effects. Why aren’t any of these experts focused on prioritizing by class, which would include poorer whites as well, instead of race?
Second, Matt Yglesias is right that deprioritizing senior citizens will backfire on race-minded wokesters by delaying the vaccine for a group that needs it urgently:
If you believe that Black Lives Matter, logically you should worry about the black lives that are most at risk. Those are indeed black senior citizens, as Yglesias says. It’s idiotic to want a 35-year-old white cashier to get the vaccine before a 75-year-old African-American grandmother because there’s a higher percentage of African-Americans in the “essential worker” group than there is among senior citizens. Get the vaccine to the people who need it most urgently. Contorted racialized arguments for doing otherwise reeks of virtue-signaling.


hotair--2020-12-18--NYT: Yeah, sure looks like we got duped on our big enterprise-reporting project

Give the Gray Lady credit for stepping up and acknowledging its failure .
Their award-winning enterprise effort fell apart on them , and the New York Times admirably accepted responsibility for not scrutinizing it more closely : Dean Baquet , the executive editor of The Times , said the blame fell on the newsroom ’ s leaders , including himself .
“ When The New York Times does deep , big , ambitious journalism in any format , we put it to a tremendous amount of scrutiny at the upper levels of the newsroom , ” he said in a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ posted by The Times on Friday .
“ We did not do that in this case , ” he continued .
“ And I think that I or somebody else should have provided that same kind of scrutiny , because it was a big , ambitious piece of journalism .
And I did not provide that kind of scrutiny , nor did my top deputies with deep experience in examining investigative reporting.
” Yeah , that 1619 Project turned out to be a real shoddy exercise , didn ’ t it ?
The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , work with recognized experts in the field , and tried to cover its tracks once it got called out .
At least now they ’ re — Wait … what ?
This isn ’ t about the 1619 Project ?
Actually , Dean Baquet ’ s mea culpa applies to another enterprise effort in narrative journalism that fell apart on the Paper of Record .
The NYT has withdrawn its Peabody Award-winning podcast series Caliphate after its source turned out to be a con man : Shehroze Chaudhry , the central figure @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” by The New York Times , was a fabulist who spun jihadist tales about killing for the Islamic State in Syria , Canadian and American intelligence and law enforcement officials contend .
Mr. Chaudhry , they say , was not a terrorist , almost certainly never went to Syria and concocted gruesome stories about being an Islamic State executioner as part of a Walter Mitty-like escape from his more mundane life in a Toronto suburb and in Lahore , Pakistan , where he spent years living with his grandparents .
Mr. Chaudhry @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The Times and other news outlets , caused a political uproar in Canada .
The award-winning “ Caliphate ” series broadcast his claims of killing for the Islamic State to millions of listeners , fueling outrage that Prime Minister Justin Trudeau ’ s government had allowed a terrorist to live freely in suburban Toronto despite the crimes Mr. Chaudhry had so openly confessed to committing in Syria .
Now , Mr. Chaudhry ’ s public declarations have put him in legal jeopardy .
In September , the Canadian authorities charged Mr. Chaudhry with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ charge that could bring up to five years in prison if he is convicted .
After Canadian and American authorities raised questions about Chaudhry ’ s claims and purported exploits , the NYT then decided to conduct a “ review ” of Caliphate and the reporting of Rukmini Callimachi .
If the post-publication and post-award seems like an odd time to perform due diligence at a mainstream-media institution like the Gray Lady , just recall that they still have largely avoided it on the 1619 Project .
Normally , media consumers would assume @ @ @ @ @ @ @ these claims for themselves , especially since they brag about their “ layers of fact checkers and editors , ” and accuse skeptics of undermining democracy by challenging their claims .
The NYT had to get pushed into fact-checking their source only after other media outlets started calling out the contradictions : The Canadian media and a handful of critics in the U.S. , notably Erik Wemple of The Washington Post and Hassan Hassan of Newlines magazine , raised significant questions about Callimachi ’ s judgment and the accuracy of her reporting .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ story until his arrest this fall , when Canadian officials charged him with lying about participating in terrorist activities .
It then published the findings into Chaudhry ’ s activities by its distinguished national security reporter , Mark Mazzetti , who cast significant doubt on the Canadian ’ s claims .
Until then , however , Baquet and the rest of the NYT was more than happy to bask in the glow of Caliphate .
They didn ’ t fact-check Chaudhry to see if he was a fabulist because his story served their @ @ @ @ @ @ @ con .
Just as in the 1619 Project , their narrative got all the right attention from all the right people , although one bit of self-promotion would prove uncomfortably prophetic : “ ‘ Caliphate ’ represents the modern New York Times , ” Sam Dolnick , an assistant managing editor , said in unveiling the project .
“ It ’ s ambitious , rigorous , hard-nosed reporting combined with first-rate digital storytelling .
We ’ re taking our audience to dangerous places they have never been , and we ’ re doing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ have before.
” Caliphate made a huge splash for The Times , winning awards , acclaim , new listeners for its podcasts and new paying subscribers .
And it further propelled Callimachi into the journalistic stratosphere .
In vivid and visceral detail , Chaudhry , speaking under the pseudonym Abu Huzayfah , told Callimachi and her colleagues of the atrocities he witnessed in Syria and of his involvement in execution-style killings .
Indeed !
Caliphate does represent the “ modern New York Times , ” as does its 1619 Project .
The “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ more interest in narrative than news .
And judging from their peers in awards organizations , they ’ re hardly alone .

Give the Gray Lady credit for stepping up and acknowledging its failure. Their award-winning enterprise effort fell apart on them, and the New York Times admirably accepted responsibility for not scrutinizing it more closely:
Dean Baquet, the executive editor of The Times, said the blame fell on the newsroom’s leaders, including himself. “When The New York Times does deep, big, ambitious journalism in any format, we put it to a tremendous amount of scrutiny at the upper levels of the newsroom,” he said in a podcast interview that was scheduled to be posted by The Times on Friday. “We did not do that in this case,” he continued. “And I think that I or somebody else should have provided that same kind of scrutiny, because it was a big, ambitious piece of journalism. And I did not provide that kind of scrutiny, nor did my top deputies with deep experience in examining investigative reporting.”
Yeah, that 1619 Project turned out to be a real shoddy exercise, didn’t it? The NYT never bothered to check its assumptions, work with recognized experts in the field, and tried to cover its tracks once it got called out. At least now they’re —
Wait … what? This isn’t about the 1619 Project? Actually, Dean Baquet’s mea culpa applies to another enterprise effort in narrative journalism that fell apart on the Paper of Record. The NYT has withdrawn its Peabody Award-winning podcast series Caliphate after its source turned out to be a con man:
Shehroze Chaudhry, the central figure in the 2018 podcast “Caliphate,” by The New York Times, was a fabulist who spun jihadist tales about killing for the Islamic State in Syria, Canadian and American intelligence and law enforcement officials contend. Mr. Chaudhry, they say, was not a terrorist, almost certainly never went to Syria and concocted gruesome stories about being an Islamic State executioner as part of a Walter Mitty-like escape from his more mundane life in a Toronto suburb and in Lahore, Pakistan, where he spent years living with his grandparents. Mr. Chaudhry’s elaborate accounts, told to The Times and other news outlets, caused a political uproar in Canada. The award-winning “Caliphate” series broadcast his claims of killing for the Islamic State to millions of listeners, fueling outrage that Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s government had allowed a terrorist to live freely in suburban Toronto despite the crimes Mr. Chaudhry had so openly confessed to committing in Syria. Now, Mr. Chaudhry’s public declarations have put him in legal jeopardy. In September, the Canadian authorities charged Mr. Chaudhry with perpetrating a terrorist hoax, a criminal charge that could bring up to five years in prison if he is convicted.
After Canadian and American authorities raised questions about Chaudhry’s claims and purported exploits, the NYT then decided to conduct a “review” of Caliphate and the reporting of Rukmini Callimachi. If the post-publication and post-award seems like an odd time to perform due diligence at a mainstream-media institution like the Gray Lady, just recall that they still have largely avoided it on the 1619 Project. Normally, media consumers would assume that newspapers would think to check out these claims for themselves, especially since they brag about their “layers of fact checkers and editors,” and accuse skeptics of undermining democracy by challenging their claims.
The NYT had to get pushed into fact-checking their source only after other media outlets started calling out the contradictions:
The Canadian media and a handful of critics in the U.S., notably Erik Wemple of The Washington Post and Hassan Hassan of Newlines magazine, raised significant questions about Callimachi’s judgment and the accuracy of her reporting. The Times resisted revisiting Chaudhry’s story until his arrest this fall, when Canadian officials charged him with lying about participating in terrorist activities. It then published the findings into Chaudhry’s activities by its distinguished national security reporter, Mark Mazzetti, who cast significant doubt on the Canadian’s claims.
Until then, however, Baquet and the rest of the NYT was more than happy to bask in the glow of Caliphate. They didn’t fact-check Chaudhry to see if he was a fabulist because his story served their purposes whether it was true or a con. Just as in the 1619 Project, their narrative got all the right attention from all the right people, although one bit of self-promotion would prove uncomfortably prophetic:
“‘Caliphate’ represents the modern New York Times,” Sam Dolnick, an assistant managing editor, said in unveiling the project. “It’s ambitious, rigorous, hard-nosed reporting combined with first-rate digital storytelling. We’re taking our audience to dangerous places they have never been, and we’re doing it with more transparency than we ever have before.” Caliphate made a huge splash for The Times, winning awards, acclaim, new listeners for its podcasts and new paying subscribers. And it further propelled Callimachi into the journalistic stratosphere. In vivid and visceral detail, Chaudhry, speaking under the pseudonym Abu Huzayfah, told Callimachi and her colleagues of the atrocities he witnessed in Syria and of his involvement in execution-style killings.
Indeed! Caliphate does represent the “modern New York Times,” as does its 1619 Project. The “modern” New York Times has much more interest in narrative than news. And judging from their peers in awards organizations, they’re hardly alone.


hotair--2020-12-18--<span class='red'>Breaking: SCOTUS punts 6-3 on Trump effort to exclude illegals from apportionment<

Second look at John Roberts ?
Naah , but the Chief Justice wound up on the conservatives ’ side in punting this challenge to Donald Trump ’ s efforts to exclude illegal immigrants from reapportionment calculations .
Roberts agreed that the complaint doesn ’ t demonstrate any particularized injury and may not be justiciable in the future either , while the court ’ s liberal wing wanted to swat this policy down immediately : The U.S. Supreme Court dodged a ruling on whether President Trump can exclude undocumented immigrants from a key census count .
The opinion said the case @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that impede judicial review.
” “ At the end of the day , the standing and ripeness inquiries both lead to the conclusion that judicial resolution of this ” case is “ premature , ” the justices wrote .
The decision leaves open the possibility for Trump to try to remove some undocumented immigrants from the key census count , but immigrant rights advocates warned Friday that they would sue .
“ If the Administration actually tries to implement this policy , we ’ ll sue .
Again .
And we ’ ll @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the ACLU ’ s voting rights project , said on Twitter .
The per curiam decision relied on the tried and true punting material — standing and ripeness .
And they have a point , considering that no one has actually implemented any policy yet from the Trump administration ’ s declared effort .
In fact , as the decision notes , it ’ s still an open question whether it can be implemented at all , emphases in the original : While the plaintiffs agree that the dispute will take a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ his report under §141 ( b ) , Tr .
of Oral Arg .
64 , 75 , they insist that the record already establishes a “ substantial risk ” of reduced representation and federal resources , Clapper v. Amnesty Int ’ l USA , 568 U. S. 398 , 414 , n. 5 ( 2013 ) .
That conclusion , however , involves a significant degree of guesswork .
Unlike other pre-apportionment challenges , the Secretary has not altered census operations in a concrete manner that will predictably change the count .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ v. New York , 588 U. S. , at ___ ( slip op.
, at 10 ) ; Department of Commerce v. United States House of Representatives , 525 U. S. 316 , 331–332 ( 1999 ) .
The count here is complete ; the present dispute involves the apportionment process , which remains at a preliminary stage .
The Government ’ s eventual action will reflect both legal and practical constraints , making any prediction about future injury just that—a prediction .
Everyone agrees by now that the Government can not feasibly @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 10.5 million aliens without lawful status .
Tr .
of Oral Arg .
20 , 63–64 .
Yet the only evidence speaking to the predicted change in apportionment unrealistically assumes that the President will exclude the entire undocumented population .
App .
344 , Decl .
of Christopher Warshaw ¶11 .
Nothing in the record addresses the consequences of a partial implementation of the memorandum , much less supports the dissent ’ s speculation that excluding aliens in ICE detention will impact interstate apportionment .
The impact on funding is no more certain @ @ @ @ @ @ @ funds are tied to data derived from the census , but not necessarily to the apportionment counts addressed by the memorandum .
Brief for Appellants 19– 20 .
Under that view , changes to the Secretary ’ s §141 ( b ) report or to the President ’ s §2a ( a ) statement will not inexorably have the direct effect on downstream access to funds or other resources predicted by the dissent .
Post , at 6–7 .
How that question will be addressed by the Secretary and the President is yet @ @ @ @ @ @ @ at this time .
The remedy crafted by the District Court underscores the contingent nature of the plaintiffs ’ injuries .
Its injunction prohibits the Secretary from informing the President in his §141 ( b ) report of the number of aliens without lawful status .
In addition to implicating the President ’ s authority under the Opinions Clause , U.
S .
Const.
, Art .
II , §2 , cl .
1 , the injunction reveals that the source of any injury to the plaintiffs is the action that the Secretary @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to exclude unspecified individuals from the apportionment base—not the policy itself “ in the abstract , ” Summers v. Earth Island Institute , 555 U. S. 488 , 494 ( 2009 ) .
Letting the Executive Branch ’ s decision-making process run its course not only brings “ more manageable proportions ” to the scope of the parties ’ dispute , Lujan v. National Wildlife Federation , 497 U. S. 871 , 891 ( 1990 ) , but also “ ensures that we act as judges , and do not engage in policymaking @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Hollingsworth v. Perry , 570 U. S. 693 , 700 ( 2013 ) .
And in the meantime the plaintiffs suffer no concrete harm from the challenged policy itself , which does not require them “ to do anything or to refrain from doing anything.
” Ohio Forestry Assn.
, Inc. v. Sierra Club , 523 U. S. 726 , 733 ( 1998 ) .
There ’ s an air of unreality to this now , of course .
When this lawsuit first got filed , it looked like Donald Trump had a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in office , which would have given him the opportunity to see this policy all the way through to its conclusion .
Even at the time briefs were submitted in early October , those stakes were very much in play .
Now , however , the issue will be more or less moot .
Trump will only have five more weeks in office , not nearly long enough to lock in this policy .
Joe Biden will reverse it as soon as his Secretary of Commerce gets confirmed by the US Senate .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ the 2020 Census , unless states with fewer illegal aliens sue the Biden administration over any policy of inclusion .
Clearly , the six members of the court aren ’ t interested in beating a dead horse here with a substantive ruling , and one can very easily see why , even apart from the pretty clear and convincing arguments on standing and ripeness .

Second look at John Roberts? Naah, but the Chief Justice wound up on the conservatives’ side in punting this challenge to Donald Trump’s efforts to exclude illegal immigrants from reapportionment calculations. Roberts agreed that the complaint doesn’t demonstrate any particularized injury and may not be justiciable in the future either, while the court’s liberal wing wanted to swat this policy down immediately:
The U.S. Supreme Court dodged a ruling on whether President Trump can exclude undocumented immigrants from a key census count. The opinion said the case was “riddled with contingencies and speculation that impede judicial review.” “At the end of the day, the standing and ripeness inquiries both lead to the conclusion that judicial resolution of this” case is “premature,” the justices wrote. The decision leaves open the possibility for Trump to try to remove some undocumented immigrants from the key census count, but immigrant rights advocates warned Friday that they would sue. “If the Administration actually tries to implement this policy, we’ll sue. Again. And we’ll win,” Dale Ho, director of the ACLU’s voting rights project, said on Twitter.
The per curiam decision relied on the tried and true punting material — standing and ripeness. And they have a point, considering that no one has actually implemented any policy yet from the Trump administration’s declared effort. In fact, as the decision notes, it’s still an open question whether it can be implemented at all, emphases in the original:
While the plaintiffs agree that the dispute will take a more concrete shape once the Secretary delivers his report under §141(b), Tr. of Oral Arg. 64, 75, they insist that the record already establishes a “substantial risk” of reduced representation and federal resources, Clapper v. Amnesty Int’l USA, 568 U. S. 398, 414, n. 5 (2013). That conclusion, however, involves a significant degree of guesswork. Unlike other pre-apportionment challenges, the Secretary has not altered census operations in a concrete manner that will predictably change the count. See, e.g., Department of Commerce v. New York, 588 U. S., at ___ (slip op., at 10); Department of Commerce v. United States House of Representatives, 525 U. S. 316, 331–332 (1999). The count here is complete; the present dispute involves the apportionment process, which remains at a preliminary stage. The Government’s eventual action will reflect both legal and practical constraints, making any prediction about future injury just that—a prediction. Everyone agrees by now that the Government cannot feasibly implement the memorandum by excluding the estimated 10.5 million aliens without lawful status. Tr. of Oral Arg. 20, 63–64. Yet the only evidence speaking to the predicted change in apportionment unrealistically assumes that the President will exclude the entire undocumented population. App. 344, Decl. of Christopher Warshaw ¶11. Nothing in the record addresses the consequences of a partial implementation of the memorandum, much less supports the dissent’s speculation that excluding aliens in ICE detention will impact interstate apportionment. The impact on funding is no more certain. According to the Government, federal funds are tied to data derived from the census, but not necessarily to the apportionment counts addressed by the memorandum. Brief for Appellants 19– 20. Under that view, changes to the Secretary’s §141(b) report or to the President’s §2a(a) statement will not inexorably have the direct effect on downstream access to funds or other resources predicted by the dissent. Post, at 6–7. How that question will be addressed by the Secretary and the President is yet another fundamental uncertainty impeding proper judicial consideration at this time. The remedy crafted by the District Court underscores the contingent nature of the plaintiffs’ injuries. Its injunction prohibits the Secretary from informing the President in his §141(b) report of the number of aliens without lawful status. In addition to implicating the President’s authority under the Opinions Clause, U. S. Const., Art. II, §2, cl. 1, the injunction reveals that the source of any injury to the plaintiffs is the action that the Secretary or President might take in the future to exclude unspecified individuals from the apportionment base—not the policy itself “in the abstract,” Summers v. Earth Island Institute, 555 U. S. 488, 494 (2009). Letting the Executive Branch’s decision-making process run its course not only brings “more manageable proportions” to the scope of the parties’ dispute, Lujan v. National Wildlife Federation, 497 U. S. 871, 891 (1990), but also “ensures that we act as judges, and do not engage in policymaking properly left to elected representatives,” Hollingsworth v. Perry, 570 U. S. 693, 700 (2013). And in the meantime the plaintiffs suffer no concrete harm from the challenged policy itself, which does not require them “to do anything or to refrain from doing anything.” Ohio Forestry Assn., Inc. v. Sierra Club, 523 U. S. 726, 733 (1998).
There’s an air of unreality to this now, of course. When this lawsuit first got filed, it looked like Donald Trump had a good chance of winning a second term in office, which would have given him the opportunity to see this policy all the way through to its conclusion. Even at the time briefs were submitted in early October, those stakes were very much in play.
Now, however, the issue will be more or less moot. Trump will only have five more weeks in office, not nearly long enough to lock in this policy. Joe Biden will reverse it as soon as his Secretary of Commerce gets confirmed by the US Senate. This will be an academic footnote to the 2020 Census, unless states with fewer illegal aliens sue the Biden administration over any policy of inclusion. Clearly, the six members of the court aren’t interested in beating a dead horse here with a substantive ruling, and one can very easily see why, even apart from the pretty clear and convincing arguments on standing and ripeness.


hotair--2020-12-18--Biden: Let's face it, attacking Hunter is "foul play"

No it ’ s not , but also this clip isn ’ t exactly as reported either .
Contrary to claims made in this very expertly excised piece of Joe and Jill Biden ’ s interview with Stephen Colbert , Biden didn ’ t direct his use of “ foul play ” at the US attorney investigating his son Hunter .
Instead , Biden tells Colbert that he still plans to pursue relationships with Republican leadership , even though they participated in attacks on Hunter as a way to “ get to me.
” That ’ s what Biden calls @ @ @ @ @ @ @ still … not really true : Biden spox Andrew Bates tried to nip the “ Biden attacks US Attorney ” narrative in the bud when CBS reporter Bo Erickson floated it on Twitter .
Bates provided the full context of Colbert ’ s question , in which the Late Night host explicitly framed the issue of those who “ use your adult son as a cudgel against you ” : Even with that context , though , pointing out all of the questions and troublesome connections that Hunter Biden , and for that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Frank , have cultivated over the years is not “ foul play ” at all .
Hunter ’ s no adolescent or grammar-school child ; he ’ s older than some of the Democrats who ran against his father .
Given that these Bidens keep seeming to make money off of their connections to Joe Biden , including Joe ’ s policy areas and interests , the whiff of corruption is real .
And now that Biden ’ s president , those family connections will bear even more scrutiny .
Biden wants to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for an end to questions about the business operations of the other Bidens .
Republicans in Congress shouldn ’ t take that deal .
In truth , Biden needs the GOP a lot more than they need Biden , who will be under tremendous pressure to produce some success on his agenda , whatever that turns out to be .
They shouldn ’ t get intimidated from their responsibility to check the executive branch on the basis of claims that such scrutiny is “ foul play , ” either .
But they should @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Here ’ s a last question , though : just how much do Republicans want to dig up on Hunter , James , and Frank now that the election is over ?
If they dig up a smoking gun , the result may well be … President Kamala Harris .
In this case , maybe it ’ s best to let sleeping dogs lie .

No it’s not, but also this clip isn’t exactly as reported either. Contrary to claims made in this very expertly excised piece of Joe and Jill Biden’s interview with Stephen Colbert, Biden didn’t direct his use of “foul play” at the US attorney investigating his son Hunter. Instead, Biden tells Colbert that he still plans to pursue relationships with Republican leadership, even though they participated in attacks on Hunter as a way to “get to me.”
That’s what Biden calls “foul play,” which is still … not really true:
Biden spox Andrew Bates tried to nip the “Biden attacks US Attorney” narrative in the bud when CBS reporter Bo Erickson floated it on Twitter. Bates provided the full context of Colbert’s question, in which the Late Night host explicitly framed the issue of those who “use your adult son as a cudgel against you”:
False. Colbert's question, which Evening News omitted from their clip, was about people who "use your adult son as a cudgel against you" – not the investigation. And there has indisputably been "foul play" of that exact kind: Trump got himself impeached engaging in it. https://t.co/UByTZEWi78 pic.twitter.com/jTDRYIU0xE — Andrew Bates (@AndrewBatesNC) December 18, 2020
Even with that context, though, pointing out all of the questions and troublesome connections that Hunter Biden, and for that matter Joe’s brothers James and Frank, have cultivated over the years is not “foul play” at all. Hunter’s no adolescent or grammar-school child; he’s older than some of the Democrats who ran against his father. Given that these Bidens keep seeming to make money off of their connections to Joe Biden, including Joe’s policy areas and interests, the whiff of corruption is real. And now that Biden’s president, those family connections will bear even more scrutiny.
Biden wants to preclude that by promising bipartisanship in exchange for an end to questions about the business operations of the other Bidens. Republicans in Congress shouldn’t take that deal. In truth, Biden needs the GOP a lot more than they need Biden, who will be under tremendous pressure to produce some success on his agenda, whatever that turns out to be. They shouldn’t get intimidated from their responsibility to check the executive branch on the basis of claims that such scrutiny is “foul play,” either. But they should define the conflict accurately as well.
Here’s a last question, though: just how much do Republicans want to dig up on Hunter, James, and Frank now that the election is over? If they dig up a smoking gun, the result may well be … President Kamala Harris. In this case, maybe it’s best to let sleeping dogs lie.


hotair--2020-12-18--Tuberville: Liberal activist took me "out of context" to say I would challenge electors in the Senat

Tuberville: Liberal activist took me "out of context" to say I would challenge electors in the Senate

Did Tommy Tuberville really pledge to challenge Joe Biden ’ s electors at the start of the next Congress ?
Or is this a dirty trick started by liberal activists ?
Tuberville himself told Yellowhammer News in an exclusive interview that he has never pledged to take any action in regard to electors , saying that the video from Wednesday confused his answers to other questions with that of the issue of electors .
On that , Tuberville says , he ’ s still doing “ due diligence ” : Sharing a video recorded via a hidden camera from a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ liberal activist in a misleading tweet claimed that Tuberville pledged to back the congressional challenge to the Electoral College in January .
Underlining her bias , that activist has also captioned the video , “ Cheat Home Alabama , ” in reference to Brooks and Tuberville .
Speaking to Yellowhammer News , Tuberville emphasized that he has not made up his mind on whether he will support the congressional challenge ; he outlined that he will be doing his “ due diligence , ” studying the issue and soliciting feedback from his constituents @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Listen , people take stuff out of context , ” he lamented .
Tuberville also explained that the video clip in question was recorded in a crowd when several people were talking to him at once .
“ I will make a decision pretty soon , but I ’ m going to get all of the information before doing so , ” he reiterated .
“ I haven ’ t done any background work yet .
I want to know all about it first .
… Mine will be an answer for the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ not for any media people out there .
We ’ re going to do what ’ s right.
” Here ’ s the video in question .
The chaos in which the question is asked does step on Tuberville ’ s answer a bit , and it may not be clear what question he ’ s answering .
What is clear , though , is that Tuberville is talking up the “ stolen election ” narrative and promising that it ’ s not over : Suggests is probably not a bad word to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Tuberville ’ s other remarks in the clip .
Tuberville claims that it ’ s “ impossible ” that Trump lost the election in Georgia , and he ’ s clearly referring to Mo Brooks ’ House effort to challenge electors when asked what he plans to do about it .
“ You see what ’ s coming , ” Tuberville replies when asked .
“ You ’ ve been reading about it in the House , and we ’ re gon na have to do it in the Senate.
” Granted , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ committal , but it ’ s not exactly taking Tuberville out of context either .
On Wednesday night , Tuberville all but endorsed Brooks ’ electoral challenge strategy .
So why walk this back 24 hours later with a complaint about “ liberal activists ” taking him out of context ?
I suspect that a number of Tuberville ’ s soon-to-be Republican colleagues reached out with some additional “ context ” for him to consider .
Namely this : the US Senate is not going to overturn election results certified by the states @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that have been tossed out of courts from Nevada to Georgia .
Suddenly , Tuberville now says he hasn ’ t even studied the issue , wants to perform “ due diligence , ” and only do what ’ s “ beneficial ” for the country .
Tuberville pledged to prepare like he did as a head coach at Auburn .
This is what ’ s known as dropping back ten and punting , a strategic maneuver that Tuberville certainly knows well .
That won ’ t make Trump happy , who was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ this morning still claiming he won the election “ by a lot.
” But Tuberville might be getting the sense that there ’ s not much there there to Trump ’ s claims , and maybe he ’ d be better off doing that due diligence before making commitments again .

Did Tommy Tuberville really pledge to challenge Joe Biden’s electors at the start of the next Congress? Or is this a dirty trick started by liberal activists? Tuberville himself told Yellowhammer News in an exclusive interview that he has never pledged to take any action in regard to electors, saying that the video from Wednesday confused his answers to other questions with that of the issue of electors.
On that, Tuberville says, he’s still doing “due diligence”:
Sharing a video recorded via a hidden camera from a Wednesday tour stop in Buckhead, a liberal activist in a misleading tweet claimed that Tuberville pledged to back the congressional challenge to the Electoral College in January. Underlining her bias, that activist has also captioned the video, “Cheat Home Alabama,” in reference to Brooks and Tuberville. Speaking to Yellowhammer News, Tuberville emphasized that he has not made up his mind on whether he will support the congressional challenge; he outlined that he will be doing his “due diligence,” studying the issue and soliciting feedback from his constituents before taking a stance. … “Listen, people take stuff out of context,” he lamented. Tuberville also explained that the video clip in question was recorded in a crowd when several people were talking to him at once. “I will make a decision pretty soon, but I’m going to get all of the information before doing so,” he reiterated. “I haven’t done any background work yet. I want to know all about it first. … Mine will be an answer for the people of our state and country, not for any media people out there. We’re going to do what’s right.”
Here’s the video in question. The chaos in which the question is asked does step on Tuberville’s answer a bit, and it may not be clear what question he’s answering. What is clear, though, is that Tuberville is talking up the “stolen election” narrative and promising that it’s not over:
BREAKING: Defying McConnell, Sen-elect Tuberville suggests he will challenge Electoral College, while stumping in Georgia pic.twitter.com/1z5wJ2ajVP — Lauren Windsor (@lawindsor) December 17, 2020
Suggests is probably not a bad word to use here, given the context of Tuberville’s other remarks in the clip. Tuberville claims that it’s “impossible” that Trump lost the election in Georgia, and he’s clearly referring to Mo Brooks’ House effort to challenge electors when asked what he plans to do about it. “You see what’s coming,” Tuberville replies when asked. “You’ve been reading about it in the House, and we’re gonna have to do it in the Senate.”
Granted, that might not be the most explicit committal, but it’s not exactly taking Tuberville out of context either. On Wednesday night, Tuberville all but endorsed Brooks’ electoral challenge strategy.
So why walk this back 24 hours later with a complaint about “liberal activists” taking him out of context? I suspect that a number of Tuberville’s soon-to-be Republican colleagues reached out with some additional “context” for him to consider. Namely this: the US Senate is not going to overturn election results certified by the states, especially not on theories and conjecture that have been tossed out of courts from Nevada to Georgia.
Suddenly, Tuberville now says he hasn’t even studied the issue, wants to perform “due diligence,” and only do what’s “beneficial” for the country. Tuberville pledged to prepare like he did as a head coach at Auburn. This is what’s known as dropping back ten and punting, a strategic maneuver that Tuberville certainly knows well.
That won’t make Trump happy, who was busy yesterday praising Tuberville and is busy this morning still claiming he won the election “by a lot.” But Tuberville might be getting the sense that there’s not much there there to Trump’s claims, and maybe he’d be better off doing that due diligence before making commitments again.


hotair--2020-12-18--Success: Pence, Surgeon General get Pfizer COVID-19 vaccinations on live TV

Smart , effective , and perhaps even a bit gutsy — or at least that ’ s how it will play .
The Pfizer vaccine has proven both safe and effective , but plenty of people still worry over its effects .
That ’ s why Vice President Mike Pence , his wife Karen , and Surgeon General Jerome Adams rolled up their arms to get vaccinated on live TV just a few minutes ago , after all .
They ’ re selling confidence in the best way possible — by putting their own arms where their mouths are , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ not a point they intended to make subtly , as the signage behind them — “ SAFE and EFFECTIVE ” — makes obvious .
Note how well it frames Pence for his shot , in both senses of the word : Vice President Mike Pence received a coronavirus vaccine on live television Friday morning at the White House , a measure that the Trump administration said was intended to to “ promote the safety and efficacy of the vaccine and build confidence among the American people.
” “ I didn ’ t feel @ @ @ @ @ @ @ after receiving the shot .
“ Well done.
” His wife , Karen Pence , and Jerome Adams , the surgeon general , also received the vaccine .
Anthony Fauci , the nation ’ s top infectious disease expert ; Robert Redfield , the director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention ; and Seema Verma , the administrator of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services , also attended .
The event was held in the Eisenhower Executive Office Building , where doctors from Walter Reed National Military Medical Center administered @ @ @ @ @ @ @ up the success of Operation Warp Speed , and also prodded the FDA on the Moderna vaccine .
He noted that the advisory panel unanimously approved that vaccine and said he expected the FDA to act “ later today ” to issue its emergency use authorization .
That ’ s a bit more gentle than the messaging a week ago from the White House to FDA commissioner Stephen Hahn , but the signal is no less clear .
Pence wants the extra 5.9 million doses moving tonight .
Adams had perhaps the best @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that skepticism over the vaccine is highest among communities of color and validated their concerns , given the history of the horrific Tuskegee syphilis experiment .
His decision to vaccinate in the first round on national television , Adams declared , was a message of safety and confidence in the vaccine and in the process that produced it .
That ’ s a valuable message , one that hopefully won ’ t get overshadowed by the event itself .
Adams has already garnered some support , too .
One family of a Tuskegee @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the vaccine yesterday : Thornton said that to rebuild this trust , there needs to be more people of color in the medical field .
Her mother said that while there are more people of color in these positions now , and that “ things have changed , things have gotten better , ” they could still improve more .
“ I am committed to spending my life in public health and in working in the way that I do because we need that representation , ” Thornton said .
“ That ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ happened to begin with because there wasn ’ t that representation .
There wasn ’ t those voices around the table .
And so , we really do need to have that representation engaged in science , engaged in research and engaged in respectful health care.
” When asked if they ’ d take the COVID-19 vaccine themselves , they both said yes .
“ Without hesitation , ” Head said .
“ As soon as the vaccine is available for me , I ’ m taking it.
” That ’ s a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s keep this momentum rolling .

Smart, effective, and perhaps even a bit gutsy — or at least that’s how it will play. The Pfizer vaccine has proven both safe and effective, but plenty of people still worry over its effects. That’s why Vice President Mike Pence, his wife Karen, and Surgeon General Jerome Adams rolled up their arms to get vaccinated on live TV just a few minutes ago, after all. They’re selling confidence in the best way possible — by putting their own arms where their mouths are, so to speak.
It’s not a point they intended to make subtly, as the signage behind them — “SAFE and EFFECTIVE” — makes obvious. Note how well it frames Pence for his shot, in both senses of the word:
Vice President Mike Pence, second lady Karen Pence and Surgeon General Jerome Adams just received their first doses of the Pfizer coronavirus vaccine. https://t.co/GonWFGXbAr pic.twitter.com/DS4U8MYwLs — CNN (@CNN) December 18, 2020
Vice President Mike Pence received a coronavirus vaccine on live television Friday morning at the White House, a measure that the Trump administration said was intended to to “promote the safety and efficacy of the vaccine and build confidence among the American people.” “I didn’t feel a thing,” he said shortly after receiving the shot. “Well done.” His wife, Karen Pence, and Jerome Adams, the surgeon general, also received the vaccine. Anthony Fauci, the nation’s top infectious disease expert; Robert Redfield, the director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention; and Seema Verma, the administrator of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, also attended. The event was held in the Eisenhower Executive Office Building, where doctors from Walter Reed National Military Medical Center administered the vaccine.
Afterward, Pence talked up the success of Operation Warp Speed, and also prodded the FDA on the Moderna vaccine. He noted that the advisory panel unanimously approved that vaccine and said he expected the FDA to act “later today” to issue its emergency use authorization. That’s a bit more gentle than the messaging a week ago from the White House to FDA commissioner Stephen Hahn, but the signal is no less clear. Pence wants the extra 5.9 million doses moving tonight.
Adams had perhaps the best pitch after the vaccinations. He remarked that skepticism over the vaccine is highest among communities of color and validated their concerns, given the history of the horrific Tuskegee syphilis experiment. His decision to vaccinate in the first round on national television, Adams declared, was a message of safety and confidence in the vaccine and in the process that produced it. That’s a valuable message, one that hopefully won’t get overshadowed by the event itself.
Adams has already garnered some support, too. One family of a Tuskegee experiment subject declared their intention to get the vaccine yesterday:
Thornton said that to rebuild this trust, there needs to be more people of color in the medical field. Her mother said that while there are more people of color in these positions now, and that “things have changed, things have gotten better,” they could still improve more. “I am committed to spending my life in public health and in working in the way that I do because we need that representation,” Thornton said. “That’s the reason why the syphilis study happened to begin with because there wasn’t that representation. There wasn’t those voices around the table. And so, we really do need to have that representation engaged in science, engaged in research and engaged in respectful health care.” When asked if they’d take the COVID-19 vaccine themselves, they both said yes. “Without hesitation,” Head said. “As soon as the vaccine is available for me, I’m taking it.”
That’s a hopeful sign of broad participation. Let’s keep this momentum rolling.


hotair--2020-12-19--China's crackdown on coronavirus news shows the danger of state control of media

While people in America continue to whine about Facebook as a doomsday machine that is likely to kill us all with fake news , the other end of the media-centered threat to humanity has been on full display this year in China .
Today the NY Times published a piece looking at China ’ s early crackdown on coronavirus related news using documents from the Cyberspace Administration of China .
The CAC runs all of China ’ s media , including social media , as if it were one big outlet designed to praise the Communist Party .
Through a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ heavy promotion of the proper pro-state narrative using paid commenters , the CAC helps the party manage its image both internally and externally .
“ China has a politically weaponized system of censorship ; it is refined , organized , coordinated and supported by the state ’ s resources , ” said Xiao Qiang , a research scientist at the School of Information at the University of California , Berkeley , and the founder of China Digital Times .
“ It ’ s not just for deleting something .
They also have a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ aim it at any target with huge scale.
” “ This is a huge thing , ” he added .
“ No other country has that.
” In early February , the word went out from Xi Jinping to control digital media not only to prevent panic but to “ actively influence international opinion.
” Agency workers began receiving links to virus-related articles that they were to promote on local news aggregators and social media .
Directives specified which links should be featured on news sites ’ home screens , how many hours @ @ @ @ @ @ @ headlines should appear in boldface .
Online reports should play up the heroic efforts by local medical workers dispatched to Wuhan , the Chinese city where the virus was first reported , as well as the vital contributions of Communist Party members , the agency ’ s orders said .
Headlines should steer clear of the words “ incurable ” and “ fatal , ” one directive said , “ to avoid causing societal panic.
” When covering restrictions on movement and travel , the word “ lockdown ” should not be used @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that “ negative ” news about the virus was not to be promoted .
The Times story contains screenshots of some of the actual CAC directives .
One reads , “ We must recognize with clear mind the butterfly effect , broken windows effect and snowball effect triggered by this event , and the unprecedented challenge that it has posed to our online opinion management and control work .
All Cyberspace Administration bureaus must pay heightened attention to online opinion , and resolutely control anything that seriously damages party and government credibility and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ while they were busy promoting this cheerful propaganda , the CAC also continued to remove any information that presented a contrary view .
But it appears the censors almost lost control when word spread that Dr. Li Wenliang had died from the virus .
Dr. Li was one of the first people to spread news of the virus on social media .
For his trouble he was threatened and forced to sign a document promising not to spread any more “ rumors.
” His death caused a mass outpouring of grief and fury @ @ @ @ @ @ @ continued to manage the content , removing anything that made the Party look bad .
The day after Dr. Li ’ s death , a directive included a sample of material that was deemed to be “ taking advantage of this incident to stir up public opinion ” : It was a video interview in which Dr. Li ’ s mother reminisces tearfully about her son… In Hangzhou , propaganda workers on round-the-clock shifts wrote up reports describing how they were ensuring people saw nothing that contradicted the soothing message from the Communist @ @ @ @ @ @ @ firmly under control .
The control of information became so systematic that the CAC set up a point system for media outlets : The Times reports that some estimates suggest there are several hundred thousand people who do media narrative work for the Chinese government part time .
That ’ s a lot of fake commenters using special tools that allow them to quickly guide every conversation in every part of the country .
It ’ s hard to say if these efforts genuinely work or only succeed in convincing people they are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ clearly doesn ’ t want said .
The fear of repercussions is a real threat in China .
Whatever the case , the system seems to succeed in limiting criticism of the CCP , including from foreign journalists .
Control of the media is the most significant power a tyrant can have .
Instead of worrying about the excessive freedom on Facebook , we should worry more about the lack of freedom experienced by people in the world ’ s most populous country .

While people in America continue to whine about Facebook as a doomsday machine that is likely to kill us all with fake news, the other end of the media-centered threat to humanity has been on full display this year in China. Today the NY Times published a piece looking at China’s early crackdown on coronavirus related news using documents from the Cyberspace Administration of China. The CAC runs all of China’s media, including social media, as if it were one big outlet designed to praise the Communist Party. Through a combination of crackdowns on dissident voices and heavy promotion of the proper pro-state narrative using paid commenters, the CAC helps the party manage its image both internally and externally.
“China has a politically weaponized system of censorship; it is refined, organized, coordinated and supported by the state’s resources,” said Xiao Qiang, a research scientist at the School of Information at the University of California, Berkeley, and the founder of China Digital Times. “It’s not just for deleting something. They also have a powerful apparatus to construct a narrative and aim it at any target with huge scale.” “This is a huge thing,” he added. “No other country has that.”
In early February, the word went out from Xi Jinping to control digital media not only to prevent panic but to “actively influence international opinion.”
Agency workers began receiving links to virus-related articles that they were to promote on local news aggregators and social media. Directives specified which links should be featured on news sites’ home screens, how many hours they should remain online and even which headlines should appear in boldface. Online reports should play up the heroic efforts by local medical workers dispatched to Wuhan, the Chinese city where the virus was first reported, as well as the vital contributions of Communist Party members, the agency’s orders said. Headlines should steer clear of the words “incurable” and “fatal,” one directive said, “to avoid causing societal panic.” When covering restrictions on movement and travel, the word “lockdown” should not be used, said another. Multiple directives emphasized that “negative” news about the virus was not to be promoted.
The Times story contains screenshots of some of the actual CAC directives. One reads, “We must recognize with clear mind the butterfly effect, broken windows effect and snowball effect triggered by this event, and the unprecedented challenge that it has posed to our online opinion management and control work. All Cyberspace Administration bureaus must pay heightened attention to online opinion, and resolutely control anything that seriously damages party and government credibility and attacks the political system …”
And while they were busy promoting this cheerful propaganda, the CAC also continued to remove any information that presented a contrary view. But it appears the censors almost lost control when word spread that Dr. Li Wenliang had died from the virus. Dr. Li was one of the first people to spread news of the virus on social media. For his trouble he was threatened and forced to sign a document promising not to spread any more “rumors.” His death caused a mass outpouring of grief and fury. The CAC just doubled down and continued to manage the content, removing anything that made the Party look bad.
The day after Dr. Li’s death, a directive included a sample of material that was deemed to be “taking advantage of this incident to stir up public opinion”: It was a video interview in which Dr. Li’s mother reminisces tearfully about her son… In Hangzhou, propaganda workers on round-the-clock shifts wrote up reports describing how they were ensuring people saw nothing that contradicted the soothing message from the Communist Party: that it had the virus firmly under control.
The control of information became so systematic that the CAC set up a point system for media outlets:
The Hangzhou C.A.C. had already been keeping a quarterly scorecard for evaluating how well local platforms were managing their content. Each site started the quarter with 100 points. Points were deducted for failing to adequately police posts or comments. Points might also be added for standout performances.
The Times reports that some estimates suggest there are several hundred thousand people who do media narrative work for the Chinese government part time. That’s a lot of fake commenters using special tools that allow them to quickly guide every conversation in every part of the country.
It’s hard to say if these efforts genuinely work or only succeed in convincing people they are better off not saying things the government clearly doesn’t want said. The fear of repercussions is a real threat in China. Whatever the case, the system seems to succeed in limiting criticism of the CCP, including from foreign journalists.
Control of the media is the most significant power a tyrant can have. Instead of worrying about the excessive freedom on Facebook, we should worry more about the lack of freedom experienced by people in the world’s most populous country.


hotair--2020-12-19--Denver Mayor promises not to travel for Christmas after Thanksgiving debacle

You probably heard the story about Denver Mayor Michael Hancock and his Thanksgiving disaster last month .
With the holiday fast approaching , Hancock locked down his city again and told everyone that they should stay home for Thanksgiving for the good of the community .
He then promptly left for the airport and flew to Mississippi to spend the holiday with his daughter .
People noticed .
They noticed in a big way .
It might not have been quite as bad as having to say “ As God is my witness , I thought turkeys could fly , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Now , with Christmas almost upon us , Hancock held his first press conference since the Turkey Day Debacle and you can probably guess what one of the first questions was about .
( CBS Denver ) The news conference primarily was focused on this week ’ s arrival of the coronavirus vaccine at Denver Health and the city ’ s current case numbers , but Hancock said he wanted to take a moment to discuss the situation .
“ Elected officials are no different ( from anyone else ) … we tend @ @ @ @ @ @ @ we make not very good decisions , our judgement can fail us at times .
That ’ s what happened to me over Thanksgiving , ” he said… Hancock on Thursday also stated again that he will not travel over the upcoming Christmas holiday period .
“ No and no , ” when asked by a reporter if he would be leaving the region in the next two weeks .
Not just “ no , ” but “ no and no.
” You can bet that the local press will have someone following @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ to ensure he makes good on his word .
If he spaces out and heads out of town again , he should probably just go ahead and resign before the locals start showing up at his house with torches and pitchforks .
On the one hand , Hancock really does seem as if he ’ s been sincere in his multiple apologies .
He didn ’ t attempt to pawn off any sort of mealymouthed excuse for why he shouldn ’ t have to follow his own rules .
In that regard @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Chicago Mayor Lori Lightfoot did when she had to explain why going to the hairdresser ( who was supposed to be closed ) was prioritized over doing without as the rest of her citizens had to do .
Following the rules is for the little people , you see .
Lightfoot was hardly the only one .
Elected officials around the country have been spotted at wine tastings and all manner of events after sending the police to issue fines or lock up businesses who weren ’ t following the same executive orders @ @ @ @ @ @ @ hypocrisy on display has been staggering and I ’ m frankly amazed that any of these people still have viable political futures .
Some don ’ t , of course .
The Mayor of Seattle , Washington clearly saw the writing on the wall after she helped turn her city into an even worse hellscape and announced that she won ’ t be running for another term .
Hancock , on the other hand , has repeatedly said that he was 100 % wrong to fly out for Thanksgiving and taken full responsibility @ @ @ @ @ @ @ under the same restrictions as the denizens of his city .
That might just be enough to save his bacon in political terms , but you can be sure that both the press and the public will be watching him with a jaundiced eye .

You probably heard the story about Denver Mayor Michael Hancock and his Thanksgiving disaster last month. With the holiday fast approaching, Hancock locked down his city again and told everyone that they should stay home for Thanksgiving for the good of the community. He then promptly left for the airport and flew to Mississippi to spend the holiday with his daughter. People noticed. They noticed in a big way. It might not have been quite as bad as having to say “As God is my witness, I thought turkeys could fly,” but it was pretty close. Now, with Christmas almost upon us, Hancock held his first press conference since the Turkey Day Debacle and you can probably guess what one of the first questions was about. (CBS Denver)
The news conference primarily was focused on this week’s arrival of the coronavirus vaccine at Denver Health and the city’s current case numbers, but Hancock said he wanted to take a moment to discuss the situation. “Elected officials are no different (from anyone else) … we tend to have moments where we disappoint and we make not very good decisions, our judgement can fail us at times. That’s what happened to me over Thanksgiving,” he said… Hancock on Thursday also stated again that he will not travel over the upcoming Christmas holiday period. “No and no,” when asked by a reporter if he would be leaving the region in the next two weeks.
Not just “no,” but “no and no.” You can bet that the local press will have someone following him around from now until New Years’ to ensure he makes good on his word. If he spaces out and heads out of town again, he should probably just go ahead and resign before the locals start showing up at his house with torches and pitchforks.
On the one hand, Hancock really does seem as if he’s been sincere in his multiple apologies. He didn’t attempt to pawn off any sort of mealymouthed excuse for why he shouldn’t have to follow his own rules. In that regard, he clearly did much better than Chicago Mayor Lori Lightfoot did when she had to explain why going to the hairdresser (who was supposed to be closed) was prioritized over doing without as the rest of her citizens had to do. Following the rules is for the little people, you see.
Lightfoot was hardly the only one. Elected officials around the country have been spotted at wine tastings and all manner of events after sending the police to issue fines or lock up businesses who weren’t following the same executive orders that they themselves were violating. The hypocrisy on display has been staggering and I’m frankly amazed that any of these people still have viable political futures. Some don’t, of course. The Mayor of Seattle, Washington clearly saw the writing on the wall after she helped turn her city into an even worse hellscape and announced that she won’t be running for another term.
Hancock, on the other hand, has repeatedly said that he was 100% wrong to fly out for Thanksgiving and taken full responsibility. He now appears ready to suffer under the same restrictions as the denizens of his city. That might just be enough to save his bacon in political terms, but you can be sure that both the press and the public will be watching him with a jaundiced eye.


hotair--2020-12-19--PA restaurant owner opens in defiance of shutdown orders

Pennsylvania Governor Tom Wolf has continued to shut down or severely limit the operations of restaurants and bars around his state as part of his COVID response plan .
While this isn ’ t unique in terms of what other states have done , the constant cycle of closing and opening has put a lot of owners on the brink of extinction and kept tens of thousands of workers in the food service industry on the unemployment lines .
But out in Washington County , Pennsylvania , just south of Pittsburgh , one owner of a popular eatery decided this @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Passalacqua , the owner of Angelo ’ s Restaurant , announced earlier this week that his restaurant would be reopening on Friday with the usual social distancing protocols in place and the public was invited to come down for a meal .
And what will he do when Governor Wolf sends in the troops to bring him to heel ?
He says he ’ ll deal with it .
( CBS Pittsburgh ) The phones are ringing , cooks are prepping and one local restaurant is opening for indoor dining in defiance of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ If I thought we were doing anything that was going to make anyone sick we would not do it , ” said Michael Passalacqua , the owner of Angelo ’ s Restaurant .
Employees Thursday were preparing for a day booked with reservations .
It was empty in the evening , but come Friday , the owner says he ’ ll be serving up his favorite dishes to customers inside .
He made the decision to rebel and posted what he calls an “ explainer video ” on YouTube .
Michael Passalacqua @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for 81 years .
Michael was a police officer earlier in his life before returning home to run the family business .
He has 53 employees who rely on him for their livelihood and he told CBS News that he can ’ t make that sort of payroll on just takeout orders .
Rather than just sending his people back to the unemployment line yet again , he ’ s decided to make a stand .
Passalacqua is fully aware that the Governor may be sending out law enforcement to fine him and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ He says he ’ ll “ take the lumps ” as they come , pay the fines and fight it out in court later .
But for now , his business has to remain open for the Christmas season .
If not , he ’ s going to go under and none of those jobs will be coming back .
While working on this article , I went online to check the status of Angelo ’ s .
The eatery has a 4.5 star average on Google and they were open again on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 9 pm .
They note that masks are required for customers when not eating or drinking and the wait staff must disinfect all tables and other surfaces after each customer or group of customers are finished .
They still aren ’ t able to go to their former maximum capacity because the tables are spaced far enough apart to comply with previous state mandates .
It doesn ’ t sound as if there ’ s much more that Angelo ’ s could do to keep people safe short of simply locking the doors @ @ @ @ @ @ @ And it sounds like Michael Passalacqua has no intention of doing that .
So is Michael a hero or a villain ?
If the case winds up in court , a jury may wind up having to answer that question .
And Tom Wolf may not be very happy with their decision .

Pennsylvania Governor Tom Wolf has continued to shut down or severely limit the operations of restaurants and bars around his state as part of his COVID response plan. While this isn’t unique in terms of what other states have done, the constant cycle of closing and opening has put a lot of owners on the brink of extinction and kept tens of thousands of workers in the food service industry on the unemployment lines. But out in Washington County, Pennsylvania, just south of Pittsburgh, one owner of a popular eatery decided this week that enough was enough. Michael Passalacqua, the owner of Angelo’s Restaurant, announced earlier this week that his restaurant would be reopening on Friday with the usual social distancing protocols in place and the public was invited to come down for a meal. And what will he do when Governor Wolf sends in the troops to bring him to heel? He says he’ll deal with it. (CBS Pittsburgh)
The phones are ringing, cooks are prepping and one local restaurant is opening for indoor dining in defiance of Gov. Wolf’s orders. “If I thought we were doing anything that was going to make anyone sick we would not do it,” said Michael Passalacqua, the owner of Angelo’s Restaurant. Employees Thursday were preparing for a day booked with reservations. It was empty in the evening, but come Friday, the owner says he’ll be serving up his favorite dishes to customers inside. He made the decision to rebel and posted what he calls an “explainer video” on YouTube.
Michael Passalacqua’s family has owned this restaurant for 81 years. Michael was a police officer earlier in his life before returning home to run the family business. He has 53 employees who rely on him for their livelihood and he told CBS News that he can’t make that sort of payroll on just takeout orders. Rather than just sending his people back to the unemployment line yet again, he’s decided to make a stand.
Passalacqua is fully aware that the Governor may be sending out law enforcement to fine him and eventually shut him down by force. He says he’ll “take the lumps” as they come, pay the fines and fight it out in court later. But for now, his business has to remain open for the Christmas season. If not, he’s going to go under and none of those jobs will be coming back.
While working on this article, I went online to check the status of Angelo’s. The eatery has a 4.5 star average on Google and they were open again on Saturday morning with plans to close at 9 pm. They note that masks are required for customers when not eating or drinking and the wait staff must disinfect all tables and other surfaces after each customer or group of customers are finished. They still aren’t able to go to their former maximum capacity because the tables are spaced far enough apart to comply with previous state mandates.
It doesn’t sound as if there’s much more that Angelo’s could do to keep people safe short of simply locking the doors and turning out the lights again. And it sounds like Michael Passalacqua has no intention of doing that. So is Michael a hero or a villain? If the case winds up in court, a jury may wind up having to answer that question. And Tom Wolf may not be very happy with their decision.


hotair--2020-12-19--FDA investigates allergic reactions to Pzifer coronavirus vaccine

It was bound to happen .
Every vaccine brings with it the possibility of side effects and the new coronavirus vaccines are not an exception to that rule .
As it turns out , some reports of side effects are already being reported after the initial rollout this week .
Reports of side effects are being reported in Alaska and in Illinois .
The Food and Drug Administration ( FDA ) is investigating cases in multiple states .
The head nurse of a hospital in Tennessee fainted after taking the vaccine on live television as she took questions from the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ was not from ingredients in the vaccine but that it is a common reaction to pain for her .
She has a condition that causes her to faint when she experiences pain .
“ It ’ s common for me.
” I ’ ll take her at her word .
In Juneau , Alaska two health care workers experienced reactions to the vaccine .
In Fairbanks , a clinician came down with anaphylactic symptoms 10 minutes after receiving Pfizer ’ s shot .
The clinician was treated with epinephrine and released from the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ health care workers in Juneau suffered adverse reactions to the medication earlier this week .
One was briefly hospitalized in that city for anaphylaxis after she was vaccinated on Tuesday .
The second had a milder reaction on Wednesday and was treated at the hospital emergency room and released .
The Fairbanks clinician issued her own statement that was included in the Foundation Health Partners release .
‘ I would get the vaccine and recommend it to anyone , despite my reaction , to help our country get immunized which is needed for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the economy , get families hugging again , for getting children back to schools , and to get the country on the other side of this pandemic , ’ the health worker said .
Four employees of a hospital north of Chicago suffered from tingling and elevated heart rates after taking the vaccine .
Three are now at home and one remains in the hospital for additional medical treatment .
The hospital has temporarily halted vaccinating its workers .
Advocate Condell Medical Center in Libertyville , Ill. – about 39 miles north of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Pfizer vaccine out of an abundance of caution , officials said in a statement .
But the organization ’ s other sites , including eight more in Illinois and three in Wisconsin , were continuing vaccinations without disruption , officials told FOX 32 .
The medical center noted that the four affected employees represent only a small fraction of the organization ’ s 3,000 employees who have been vaccinated since the Pfizer and BioNTech vaccine became available earlier this week .
The FDA is investigating allergic reactions to Pfizer ’ s coronavirus vaccine @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the things the agency does best is getting to the bottom of adverse reactions to vaccines .
“ We are working hand in hand with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention ( CDC ) , and we ’ ve actually been working closely with our United Kingdom colleagues , who of course reported the allergic reaction .
I think we ’ ll be looking at all the data we can from each of these reactions to sort out exactly what happened , and we ’ ll also be looking to try @ @ @ @ @ @ @ might be helping to produce them , ” Marks said .
“ I think we have at this point the right … mitigation strategy with the availability of treatment for a severe allergic reaction being at the ready , and we ’ ll continue to monitor it very closely , ” he added .
Marks said the FDA was not certain what caused the reactions but indicated a chemical called polyethylene glycol , which is present in the vaccines produced by Pfizer and BioNTech as well as by Moderna “ could be the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ some people have experienced could be more common than once thought .
“ We ’ ll obviously be monitoring very closely what ’ s going on .
We ’ re working very closely with the CDC on these , and there have been meetings between the CDC and FDA pretty much every day this week making sure we ’ re keeping very close track of what ’ s going on , ” he said .
Jazz wrote about some Southern California nurses who are taking a pass on being vaccinated .
At the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ protest was held on Friday by medical residents and nurses .
They accuse the hospital of vaccinating some staff members who don ’ t interact with coronavirus patients over other frontline workers .
They want the vaccine .
Nancy Pelosi ’ s daughter weighed in on the subject .
Several departments of the hospital have aired their support for the front line workers .
“ The Department of Urology faculty find the algorithm that led to the exclusion of residents ( from all services ) in the first wave of vaccinations at Stanford @ @ @ @ @ @ @ appointments go [ to ] trainees on the front lines to make this right , ” The Stanford Medical Center Department of Urology tweeted on Friday .
Dr Joy Wu , a physician-scientist in endocrinology at Stanford , also tweeted her support of the protest .
“ The Stanford vaccine algorithm failed to prioritize housestaff , ” she wrote .
“ We @ StanfordDeptMed faculty stand with @ StanfordMedRes.
” Stanford ’ s Department of Medicine faculty , division chiefs , and other doctors have all volunteered “ to wait until all house @ @ @ @ @ @ @ are “ high-risk ” , Dr Wu said .
Stanford Medical Center is now revising its vaccine distribution plan .
It ’ s confusing enough for non-medical workers to make a decision about the vaccine without the medical professionals sending mixed messages .
With the potential of more stories like these about adverse reactions coming out , look for more people to take a wait and see approach until at least the FDA investigation is completed .

It was bound to happen. Every vaccine brings with it the possibility of side effects and the new coronavirus vaccines are not an exception to that rule. As it turns out, some reports of side effects are already being reported after the initial rollout this week. Reports of side effects are being reported in Alaska and in Illinois. The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is investigating cases in multiple states.
The head nurse of a hospital in Tennessee fainted after taking the vaccine on live television as she took questions from the press. She later said her reaction was not from ingredients in the vaccine but that it is a common reaction to pain for her. She has a condition that causes her to faint when she experiences pain. “It’s common for me.” I’ll take her at her word.
https://twitter.com/Breaking911/status/1339779233372123137
In Juneau, Alaska two health care workers experienced reactions to the vaccine. In Fairbanks, a clinician came down with anaphylactic symptoms 10 minutes after receiving Pfizer’s shot. The clinician was treated with epinephrine and released from the hospital about six hours later.
Two health care workers in Juneau suffered adverse reactions to the medication earlier this week. One was briefly hospitalized in that city for anaphylaxis after she was vaccinated on Tuesday. The second had a milder reaction on Wednesday and was treated at the hospital emergency room and released. The Fairbanks clinician issued her own statement that was included in the Foundation Health Partners release. ‘I would get the vaccine and recommend it to anyone, despite my reaction, to help our country get immunized which is needed for the health of all Americans, for the economy, get families hugging again, for getting children back to schools, and to get the country on the other side of this pandemic,’ the health worker said.
Four employees of a hospital north of Chicago suffered from tingling and elevated heart rates after taking the vaccine. Three are now at home and one remains in the hospital for additional medical treatment. The hospital has temporarily halted vaccinating its workers.
Advocate Condell Medical Center in Libertyville, Ill. – about 39 miles north of Chicago – temporarily paused injections of the Pfizer vaccine out of an abundance of caution, officials said in a statement. But the organization’s other sites, including eight more in Illinois and three in Wisconsin, were continuing vaccinations without disruption, officials told FOX 32. The medical center noted that the four affected employees represent only a small fraction of the organization’s 3,000 employees who have been vaccinated since the Pfizer and BioNTech vaccine became available earlier this week.
The FDA is investigating allergic reactions to Pfizer’s coronavirus vaccine. FDA Commissioner Stephen Hahn said one of the things the agency does best is getting to the bottom of adverse reactions to vaccines.
“We are working hand in hand with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), and we’ve actually been working closely with our United Kingdom colleagues, who of course reported the allergic reaction. I think we’ll be looking at all the data we can from each of these reactions to sort out exactly what happened, and we’ll also be looking to try to understand which component of the vaccine might be helping to produce them,” Marks said. “I think we have at this point the right … mitigation strategy with the availability of treatment for a severe allergic reaction being at the ready, and we’ll continue to monitor it very closely,” he added. Marks said the FDA was not certain what caused the reactions but indicated a chemical called polyethylene glycol, which is present in the vaccines produced by Pfizer and BioNTech as well as by Moderna “could be the culprit.” He added that the reaction some people have experienced could be more common than once thought. “We’ll obviously be monitoring very closely what’s going on. We’re working very closely with the CDC on these, and there have been meetings between the CDC and FDA pretty much every day this week making sure we’re keeping very close track of what’s going on,” he said.
Jazz wrote about some Southern California nurses who are taking a pass on being vaccinated. At the Stanford Medical Center, however, a protest was held on Friday by medical residents and nurses. They accuse the hospital of vaccinating some staff members who don’t interact with coronavirus patients over other frontline workers. They want the vaccine.
“How many residents? Seven,” the workers chanted through the hospital. Seven represented the number of medical residents who have so far received a coronavirus vaccine in the hospital out of the 1,349 employed. “This is not just about the residents … we stand here to represent our nurses … we are here to back them … our respiratory therapists, our environmental services workers, food staff, everyone,” one medical resident is heard saying to the crowd.
Nancy Pelosi’s daughter weighed in on the subject.
For example @Stanford you really need to fix this! Why are you delaying #COVID vaccine doses to your front-facing health care workers who are risking their lives to save others? #Priorities pic.twitter.com/GzfIzrR5T0 — Christine Pelosi (@sfpelosi) December 18, 2020
.@Stanford medical residents and nurses protest the unfair distribution of #COVID vaccines. Better fix this quick! 🎥 via @sfchronicle pic.twitter.com/SzKma9903t — Christine Pelosi (@sfpelosi) December 18, 2020
Several departments of the hospital have aired their support for the front line workers.
“The Department of Urology faculty find the algorithm that led to the exclusion of residents (from all services) in the first wave of vaccinations at Stanford appalling. Our faculty have volunteered their appointments go [to] trainees on the front lines to make this right,” The Stanford Medical Center Department of Urology tweeted on Friday. Dr Joy Wu, a physician-scientist in endocrinology at Stanford, also tweeted her support of the protest. “The Stanford vaccine algorithm failed to prioritize housestaff,” she wrote. “We @StanfordDeptMed faculty stand with @StanfordMedRes.” Stanford’s Department of Medicine faculty, division chiefs, and other doctors have all volunteered “to wait until all house staff have been vaccinated” unless they are “high-risk”, Dr Wu said.
Stanford Medical Center is now revising its vaccine distribution plan.
“We take complete responsibility for the errors in the execution of our vaccine distribution plan. Our intent was to develop an ethical and equitable process for distribution of the vaccine. We apologize to our entire community, including our residents, fellows, and other frontline care providers, who have performed heroically during our pandemic response. We are immediately revising our plan to better sequence the distribution of the vaccine.”
It’s confusing enough for non-medical workers to make a decision about the vaccine without the medical professionals sending mixed messages. With the potential of more stories like these about adverse reactions coming out, look for more people to take a wait and see approach until at least the FDA investigation is completed.


hotair--2020-12-19--Hoo boy: Lou Dobbs airs debunking of election conspiracy theories after Smartmatic defamation lawsui

Hoo boy: Lou Dobbs airs debunking of election conspiracy theories after Smartmatic defamation lawsuit threat

You would think News Corp might have had its hosts on a tighter leash after the election with respect to flinging around reputation-destroying accusations considering it *just* reached a settlement with Seth Rich ’ s parents a few weeks ago .
But I suppose there ’ s a certain icy-cold logic to letting Dobbs and Maria Bartiromo and Jeanine Pirro and others run wild .
In all likelihood , Fox will end up making more money in ad revenue by driving up ratings with election conspiracy theories than it ’ ll end up paying out to Smartmatic or Dominion or @ @ @ @ @ @ @ about defamation .
If you can make $ 250 million from falsely suggesting that the vote was rigged and expect to pay out no more than , say , $ 100 million if you ’ re sued , that ’ s a deal worth doing .
If you don ’ t have a conscience , I mean .
They might not need to pay out anything .
The clip below , which is completely out of character for Dobbs ’ s show , is very clearly a response to the demand for a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
U.S. defamation law entitles a public figure ( which Smartmatic presumably is ) to recover damages only if it can show “ actual malice , ” i.e .
that the defendant either knowingly lied about them or passed along bad information with reckless disregard for whether it was true or false .
That last part is what Fox was worried about so they put together the little package you ’ re about to see .
“ Reckless ?
Us ?
Why , just watch this !
” Reportedly the segment will also @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s shows this weekend .
I defer to legal eagles on whether that ’ ll suffice to defeat a defamation claim by Smartmatic but no doubt the company will find it pitifully inadequate : It ran near the end of the hour , practically an afterthought , and Dobbs himself had no role in it apart from introducing it .
He could have conducted the interview with Eddie Perez himself or issued a frank apology and retraction for some of the claims pushed either by him or guests like Sidney Powell .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ and let the network put together a generic Q & A with an expert that seems more designed to *avoid* issuing a retraction than to make things right with Smartmatic .
That is , I ’ m sure most of Dobbs ’ s viewers watched this and thought , “ Who is this guy ?
Why should I care about his opinion ?
” Whereas if Dobbs himself had taken responsibility by reciting the facts cited by Perez , that would have had more of an impact .
I ’ m surprised they @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and do a debunking of myths about Dominion too , as that lawsuit threat is destined to happen .
Or maybe they did ask Perez about Dominion and they ’ re just holding that part of the footage back , ready to air it if/when they get a cease-and-desist letter from Dominion ’ s lawyers .
Dominion is focused on Sidney Powell right now but News Corp ’ s pockets are much deeper than Powell ’ s are .
The most important consequence of this segment going forward , I assume , is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be much stricter with hosts about what sort of election-related crankishness they ’ re allowed to endorse .
You can ’ t check the box with a segment like this and then go right back tomorrow to speculating that Smartmatic was part of a Venezuelan plot to rig the election .
That ’ d be the definition of recklessness , continuing to push bad information when you have every reason to know the truth .
That leash will be tightened after all , however belatedly .

You would think News Corp might have had its hosts on a tighter leash after the election with respect to flinging around reputation-destroying accusations considering it *just* reached a settlement with Seth Rich’s parents a few weeks ago.
But I suppose there’s a certain icy-cold logic to letting Dobbs and Maria Bartiromo and Jeanine Pirro and others run wild. In all likelihood, Fox will end up making more money in ad revenue by driving up ratings with election conspiracy theories than it’ll end up paying out to Smartmatic or Dominion or whoever else comes banging on their door about defamation. If you can make $250 million from falsely suggesting that the vote was rigged and expect to pay out no more than, say, $100 million if you’re sued, that’s a deal worth doing. If you don’t have a conscience, I mean.
They might not need to pay out anything. The clip below, which is completely out of character for Dobbs’s show, is very clearly a response to the demand for a retraction made by Smartmatic earlier this week. U.S. defamation law entitles a public figure (which Smartmatic presumably is) to recover damages only if it can show “actual malice,” i.e. that the defendant either knowingly lied about them or passed along bad information with reckless disregard for whether it was true or false. That last part is what Fox was worried about so they put together the little package you’re about to see. “Reckless? Us? Why, just watch this!”
Reportedly the segment will also air on Bartiromo’s and Pirro’s shows this weekend. I defer to legal eagles on whether that’ll suffice to defeat a defamation claim by Smartmatic but no doubt the company will find it pitifully inadequate: It ran near the end of the hour, practically an afterthought, and Dobbs himself had no role in it apart from introducing it. He could have conducted the interview with Eddie Perez himself or issued a frank apology and retraction for some of the claims pushed either by him or guests like Sidney Powell. Instead he washed his hands of it and let the network put together a generic Q&A with an expert that seems more designed to *avoid* issuing a retraction than to make things right with Smartmatic. That is, I’m sure most of Dobbs’s viewers watched this and thought, “Who is this guy? Why should I care about his opinion?” Whereas if Dobbs himself had taken responsibility by reciting the facts cited by Perez, that would have had more of an impact.
I’m surprised they didn’t build this segment out and do a debunking of myths about Dominion too, as that lawsuit threat is destined to happen. Or maybe they did ask Perez about Dominion and they’re just holding that part of the footage back, ready to air it if/when they get a cease-and-desist letter from Dominion’s lawyers. Dominion is focused on Sidney Powell right now but News Corp’s pockets are much deeper than Powell’s are.
The most important consequence of this segment going forward, I assume, is that Fox Business and Fox News will be much stricter with hosts about what sort of election-related crankishness they’re allowed to endorse. You can’t check the box with a segment like this and then go right back tomorrow to speculating that Smartmatic was part of a Venezuelan plot to rig the election. That’d be the definition of recklessness, continuing to push bad information when you have every reason to know the truth. That leash will be tightened after all, however belatedly.