vox--2020-01-18--7 questions about Harry and Meghan’s royal shake-up, answered

Prince Harry and Meghan Markle , the Duke and Duchess of Sussex , flew in the face of royal tradition on January 18 , announcing they will surrender their “ royal highness ” titles and repay the funds spent on renovating their home near Windsor Castle .
The announcement comes 10 days after the couple decided to formally step back from their roles as senior members of the royal family and work to become financially independent .
The decision , which people have started to call “ Megxit , ” has drawn both backlash and praise for the couple .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ family ’ s January 13 summit , which took place to discuss the Sussexes ’ s future , Buckingham Palace released a statement detailing the formal changes in Harry and Meghan ’ s new roles : “ As agreed in this new arrangement , [ the Sussexes ] understand that they are required to step back from Royal duties , including official military appointments .
They will no longer receive public funds for Royal duties.
” The couple expressed that they were grateful for the queen and the royal family ’ s support @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
According to estimates , Harry and Meghan plan to pay back about 2.4 million pounds ( $ 3.1 million ) , which was granted to them to refurbish Frogmore Cottage .
In the midst of Megxit , royal fanatics and casual onlookers alike have congregated online to analyze the couple ’ s decision and try to envision their life away from the throne .
However , this series of unprecedented events has led to a lot of questions .
What does relinquishing the “ senior royal ” title mean ?
Does financial @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to actually work ?
In that case , will Meghan restart her lifestyle blog the Tig and possibly advise on the next season of The Crown ?
Will Harry be , like , a trophy husband ?
In light of the queen ’ s statement , Harry and Meghan appear to have achieved what they set out to do : distance themselves from the responsibilities of the throne .
They seem adamant on carving out a more insulated life with baby Archie , which involves splitting time between the UK and North America @ @ @ @ @ @ @ royal ” mean , and why are Harry and Meghan relinquishing this titles ?
Harry and Meghan will still hold their titles as the Duke and Duchess of Sussex , but they will drop the formal “ His/Her Royal Highness ” that precedes it .
( Princess Diana and Sarah , the Duchess of York and former wife of Prince Andrew , lost their HRH titles when they divorced their royal husbands . )
In their first announcement , the Sussexes said they will step away from serving as senior working royals .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ work or attend public events to represent the Crown .
Most royal experts agree that the phrase “ senior royal ” is a nebulous term .
It generally refers to adult royals who are closest to the throne — children of the sovereign ( Queen Elizabeth ) or the heir ( Charles , Prince of Wales ) , Marlene Koenig , an expert on British royalty who runs the blog Royal Musings , wrote to me in an email .
Harry is sixth in line to the throne , behind his father Prince @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and William ’ s three children .
Royal Central , which calls itself an independent royal news site , defines a senior member of the royal family as anyone who is the monarch , a counselor of state , or a counselor ’ s spouse .
A counselor of state , according to the blog , is a high-ranking member of the royal family who carries out the duties of the queen in her absence .
Under this classification , Royal Central noted that there are nine senior members : the queen , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ their spouses ) , and her grandchildren ( and their spouses ) .
There are also junior members of the family , who have the title “ Royal Highness ” attached to their names but do not carry out public duties for the crown .
How did Harry and Meghan make money as senior royals ?
Harry and Meghan created a separate royal website ( which ends with a dot-com domain , not a dot-uk ) that details the changes in funding they ’ ll receive in their new positions as non-working royals @ @ @ @ @ @ @ finances work , it can sound pretty complicated .
As senior royals , Harry and Meghan disclosed that they have two streams of funding : 5 percent from something called the Sovereign Grant and 95 percent from Prince Charles ’ s ( Harry ’ s father ) private estate , the Duchy of Cornwall .
Currently , the couple is prohibited from earning any type of income , and they don ’ t benefit from their charitable work .
The couple said they will no longer receive the Sovereign Grant , which is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ royal family ’ s official residences and workspaces .
Money for the grant comes from the profits from the Crown Estate , which is basically a public real estate portfolio owned by the queen .
The queen annually receives 15 percent of the Crown Estate profits for her use ( for example , funding the Sovereign Grant ) , and the rest goes to the UK Treasury .
So what will “ financial independence ” mean for them ?
By opting out of the Sovereign Grant , the couple appears to be cutting @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Still , they have plenty of other revenue streams , including money from Charles ’ s estate portfolio .
The money that went into refurbishing Frogmore Cottage , their UK home , came from this Sovereign Grant .
“ Harry inherited half of the approximately £21 million from his mother , which included the divorce settlement [ from Prince Charles ] and the £5 million from [ Princess Diana ’ s ] father after his death , ” Koenig said , adding that the money is “ probably well-invested.
” Meghan , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ from her work as an actress and lifestyle blogger .
Royals expert Kristen Meinzer told me that she estimates Harry and Meghan have a net worth of about £29 million to £40 million .
“ As for how they ’ ll make money going forward , I like to look to the Obamas for inspiration , ” she said .
“ I ’ m guessing these will be charitable endeavors , media endeavors , and lots of book offers.
” How are Harry and Meghan changing their relationship with the British press ?
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ history with the British tabloids .
However , the relationship has always abided by a set of precedents established 40 years ago in the “ Royal Rota ” system to give British media exclusive access to members of the royal family .
Harry and Meghan will no longer participate in the Royal Rota system and instead elect to “ provide access to credible media outlets focused on objective news reporting ” to cover certain events .
According to the couple ’ s site , the system “ gives these British media representatives the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on the understanding that they will share factual material.
” The outlets currently part of this pool are the Daily Express , the Daily Mail , the Daily Mirror , the Evening Standard , the Telegraph , the Times , and the Sun .
( Interestingly , four out of seven of those outlets are tabloids . )
The Royal Rota also requires members of the family to give these publications their unreleased photos simultaneously or ahead of formal publication .
This decision is notable , especially since Harry and Meghan are pursuing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ publisher of the Daily Mail and Mail on Sunday , over alleged misuse of private information , and have accused the Sun and Daily Mirror of phone hacking .
The Royal Rota system typically dictates how official royal events are covered , Kristin Contino , chief reporter at Royal Central , wrote to me in an email .
“ This is more about trying to control the narrative , which is understandable when they ’ ve received so much vitriolic press .
But at the end of the day , unfortunately , no @ @ @ @ @ @ @ written about them.
” Michelle Stanistreet , secretary of the National Union of Journalists , told the Press Gazette that while the system is not perfect , it ’ s a necessary check on the royal family , an institution that is publicly funded : “ We can not have a situation where journalists writing about the Duke and Duchess of Sussex can only do so if they have the royal seal of approval.
” Now that Harry and Meghan have left this exclusive circle of communications , they ’ re likely to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ press team to make formal announcements .
It remains to be seen , however , whether harsh tabloid coverage , particularly directed toward Meghan , will abate .
Will the couple have private social media again ?
The couple already has their own Instagram account , @ sussexroyal , Koenig said .
Previously , Harry and Meghan shared the account @ kensingtonpalace with William and Kate but created their own after their official split in March .
( The two brothers and their spouses previously shared an office in Kensington Palace , but @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and Meghan decided to form their own household and hire new staffers . )
Meghan and Harry use the @ sussexroyal Instagram account to promote their formal arrangements .
It ’ s not a true private social media account , like Princess Eugenie ’ s Instagram or Princess Beatrice ’ s Twitter .
These princesses are junior royal members and hold jobs beyond working for the crown .
It ’ s possible the couple could develop a stronger online presence now that they ’ re no longer working royals and under the guidance @ @ @ @ @ @ @ from senior roles will give them more freedom in terms of social media , and I wouldn ’ t be surprised if we saw Meghan writing blog posts or them being much more open in their communication in a celebrity-style way , ” Contino said .
Did Harry and Meghan renounce their titles ?
The short answer is no .
Harry is still a prince and the Duke of Sussex , and Meghan is still the Duchess of Sussex .
While there have been enthusiastic , quasi-jesting calls for Harry and Meghan to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , simply “ stepping back ” from their royal duties isn ’ t the same thing .
The Duke and Duchess of Sussex aren ’ t the first high-profile royals to retreat from their roles .
In November , Prince Andrew , Queen Elizabeth ’ s second son , announced he would “ step back from public duties for the foreseeable future ” after a disastrous BBC interview that addressed his friendship with convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein , who died in August .
Andrew ’ s leave , however , seemed to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ he received .
Harry and Meghan ’ s future appears to be less extreme than the path Edward VIII took .
In 1936 , Edward abdicated his role as monarch to marry the American socialite Wallis Simpson ; Edward ’ s abdication paved the way for George VI , the reigning Queen Elizabeth ’ s father , to be king .
As the Washington Post reported , the stakes were much higher for Edward than they are for Harry and Meghan .
What will their last name be ?
When Harry served in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Harry Wales , in reference to his father , the Prince of Wales .
It ’ s uncertain whether he and Meghan will use this last name .
Archie could use Sussex as a last name ( William and Kate ’ s children use Cambridge as their last name in school ) , but Harry and Meghan have chosen another surname for Archie : Mountbatten-Windsor .
It ’ s unlikely that Harry and Meghan will ever distance themselves from their royal titles .
Contrary to what Lorde sings in “ Royals , ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ royals because , well , it runs in his blood .
This story has been updated ( and will continue to be ) with new information about the response from the royal family .
Sign up for The Goods newsletter .
Twice a week , we ’ ll send you the best Goods stories exploring what we buy , why we buy it , and why it matters .

Prince Harry and Meghan Markle, the Duke and Duchess of Sussex, flew in the face of royal tradition on January 18, announcing they will surrender their “royal highness” titles and repay the funds spent on renovating their home near Windsor Castle. The announcement comes 10 days after the couple decided to formally step back from their roles as senior members of the royal family and work to become financially independent.
The decision, which people have started to call “Megxit,” has drawn both backlash and praise for the couple. Less than a week after the royal family’s January 13 summit, which took place to discuss the Sussexes’s future, Buckingham Palace released a statement detailing the formal changes in Harry and Meghan’s new roles: “As agreed in this new arrangement, [the Sussexes] understand that they are required to step back from Royal duties, including official military appointments. They will no longer receive public funds for Royal duties.”
Official Buckingham Palace statement: pic.twitter.com/vlsWvDV6t8 — Omid Scobie (@scobie) January 18, 2020
The couple expressed that they were grateful for the queen and the royal family’s support as they transition into their new life. According to estimates, Harry and Meghan plan to pay back about 2.4 million pounds ($3.1 million), which was granted to them to refurbish Frogmore Cottage.
In the midst of Megxit, royal fanatics and casual onlookers alike have congregated online to analyze the couple’s decision and try to envision their life away from the throne. However, this series of unprecedented events has led to a lot of questions.
What does relinquishing the “senior royal” title mean? Does financial independence mean Harry and Meghan will have to actually work? In that case, will Meghan restart her lifestyle blog the Tig and possibly advise on the next season of The Crown? Will Harry be, like, a trophy husband?
First time I’ve ever seen someone quit their family, saying it’s to spend more time with their jobs. https://t.co/iFBZokRXhX — Eric Nelson (@literaryeric) January 8, 2020
In light of the queen’s statement, Harry and Meghan appear to have achieved what they set out to do: distance themselves from the responsibilities of the throne. They seem adamant on carving out a more insulated life with baby Archie, which involves splitting time between the UK and North America.
What does the term “senior royal” mean, and why are Harry and Meghan relinquishing this titles?
Harry and Meghan will still hold their titles as the Duke and Duchess of Sussex, but they will drop the formal “His/Her Royal Highness” that precedes it. (Princess Diana and Sarah, the Duchess of York and former wife of Prince Andrew, lost their HRH titles when they divorced their royal husbands.)
In their first announcement, the Sussexes said they will step away from serving as senior working royals. That basically meant they would no longer work or attend public events to represent the Crown.
Most royal experts agree that the phrase “senior royal” is a nebulous term. It generally refers to adult royals who are closest to the throne — children of the sovereign (Queen Elizabeth) or the heir (Charles, Prince of Wales), Marlene Koenig, an expert on British royalty who runs the blog Royal Musings, wrote to me in an email. Harry is sixth in line to the throne, behind his father Prince Charles, his brother Prince William, and William’s three children.
Royal Central, which calls itself an independent royal news site, defines a senior member of the royal family as anyone who is the monarch, a counselor of state, or a counselor’s spouse. A counselor of state, according to the blog, is a high-ranking member of the royal family who carries out the duties of the queen in her absence. Under this classification, Royal Central noted that there are nine senior members: the queen, her spouse, her sons (and their spouses), and her grandchildren (and their spouses).
There are also junior members of the family, who have the title “Royal Highness” attached to their names but do not carry out public duties for the crown.
How did Harry and Meghan make money as senior royals?
Harry and Meghan created a separate royal website (which ends with a dot-com domain, not a dot-uk) that details the changes in funding they’ll receive in their new positions as non-working royals. For those unfamiliar with how royal finances work, it can sound pretty complicated.
As senior royals, Harry and Meghan disclosed that they have two streams of funding: 5 percent from something called the Sovereign Grant and 95 percent from Prince Charles’s (Harry’s father) private estate, the Duchy of Cornwall. Currently, the couple is prohibited from earning any type of income, and they don’t benefit from their charitable work.
The couple said they will no longer receive the Sovereign Grant, which is a fund that supports members of the royal family’s official residences and workspaces. Money for the grant comes from the profits from the Crown Estate, which is basically a public real estate portfolio owned by the queen. The queen annually receives 15 percent of the Crown Estate profits for her use (for example, funding the Sovereign Grant), and the rest goes to the UK Treasury.
So what will “financial independence” mean for them?
By opting out of the Sovereign Grant, the couple appears to be cutting off direct financial ties to Buckingham Palace. Still, they have plenty of other revenue streams, including money from Charles’s estate portfolio. The money that went into refurbishing Frogmore Cottage, their UK home, came from this Sovereign Grant.
“Harry inherited half of the approximately £21 million from his mother, which included the divorce settlement [from Prince Charles] and the £5 million from [Princess Diana’s] father after his death,” Koenig said, adding that the money is “probably well-invested.” Meghan, too, likely has her own investments from her work as an actress and lifestyle blogger.
Royals expert Kristen Meinzer told me that she estimates Harry and Meghan have a net worth of about £29 million to £40 million. “As for how they’ll make money going forward, I like to look to the Obamas for inspiration,” she said. “I’m guessing these will be charitable endeavors, media endeavors, and lots of book offers.”
How are Harry and Meghan changing their relationship with the British press?
The royal family has had a tumultuous history with the British tabloids. However, the relationship has always abided by a set of precedents established 40 years ago in the “Royal Rota” system to give British media exclusive access to members of the royal family.
Harry and Meghan will no longer participate in the Royal Rota system and instead elect to “provide access to credible media outlets focused on objective news reporting” to cover certain events.
According to the couple’s site, the system “gives these British media representatives the opportunity to exclusively cover an event, on the understanding that they will share factual material.” The outlets currently part of this pool are the Daily Express, the Daily Mail, the Daily Mirror, the Evening Standard, the Telegraph, the Times, and the Sun. (Interestingly, four out of seven of those outlets are tabloids.) The Royal Rota also requires members of the family to give these publications their unreleased photos simultaneously or ahead of formal publication.
This decision is notable, especially since Harry and Meghan are pursuing legal action against Associated Newspapers, the publisher of the Daily Mail and Mail on Sunday, over alleged misuse of private information, and have accused the Sun and Daily Mirror of phone hacking.
The Royal Rota system typically dictates how official royal events are covered, Kristin Contino, chief reporter at Royal Central, wrote to me in an email. “This is more about trying to control the narrative, which is understandable when they’ve received so much vitriolic press. But at the end of the day, unfortunately, no one can totally control what’s written about them.”
Michelle Stanistreet, secretary of the National Union of Journalists, told the Press Gazette that while the system is not perfect, it’s a necessary check on the royal family, an institution that is publicly funded: “We cannot have a situation where journalists writing about the Duke and Duchess of Sussex can only do so if they have the royal seal of approval.”
Now that Harry and Meghan have left this exclusive circle of communications, they’re likely to rely on their social media and official press team to make formal announcements. It remains to be seen, however, whether harsh tabloid coverage, particularly directed toward Meghan, will abate.
Will the couple have private social media again?
The couple already has their own Instagram account, @sussexroyal, Koenig said. Previously, Harry and Meghan shared the account @kensingtonpalace with William and Kate but created their own after their official split in March. (The two brothers and their spouses previously shared an office in Kensington Palace, but before Archie’s birth, Harry and Meghan decided to form their own household and hire new staffers.)
Meghan and Harry use the @sussexroyal Instagram account to promote their formal arrangements. It’s not a true private social media account, like Princess Eugenie’s Instagram or Princess Beatrice’s Twitter. These princesses are junior royal members and hold jobs beyond working for the crown. It’s possible the couple could develop a stronger online presence now that they’re no longer working royals and under the guidance of Buckingham Palace.
“Stepping down from senior roles will give them more freedom in terms of social media, and I wouldn’t be surprised if we saw Meghan writing blog posts or them being much more open in their communication in a celebrity-style way,” Contino said.
Did Harry and Meghan renounce their titles?
The short answer is no. Harry is still a prince and the Duke of Sussex, and Meghan is still the Duchess of Sussex. While there have been enthusiastic, quasi-jesting calls for Harry and Meghan to renounce these titles and live as commoners, simply “stepping back” from their royal duties isn’t the same thing.
The Duke and Duchess of Sussex aren’t the first high-profile royals to retreat from their roles. In November, Prince Andrew, Queen Elizabeth’s second son, announced he would “step back from public duties for the foreseeable future” after a disastrous BBC interview that addressed his friendship with convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein, who died in August. Andrew’s leave, however, seemed to be an attempt to mitigate the backlash he received.
Harry and Meghan’s future appears to be less extreme than the path Edward VIII took. In 1936, Edward abdicated his role as monarch to marry the American socialite Wallis Simpson; Edward’s abdication paved the way for George VI, the reigning Queen Elizabeth’s father, to be king. As the Washington Post reported, the stakes were much higher for Edward than they are for Harry and Meghan.
What will their last name be?
When Harry served in the British army, he went by Harry Wales, in reference to his father, the Prince of Wales. It’s uncertain whether he and Meghan will use this last name. Archie could use Sussex as a last name (William and Kate’s children use Cambridge as their last name in school), but Harry and Meghan have chosen another surname for Archie: Mountbatten-Windsor.
It’s unlikely that Harry and Meghan will ever distance themselves from their royal titles. Contrary to what Lorde sings in “Royals,” Harry and his wife will always be royals because, well, it runs in his blood.
This story has been updated (and will continue to be) with new information about the response from the royal family.
Sign up for The Goods newsletter. Twice a week, we’ll send you the best Goods stories exploring what we buy, why we buy it, and why it matters.


vox--2020-01-18--The Trump administration wants to weaken Obama’s school lunch rules. Again.

Friday marked the Trump administration ’ s second attempt at loosening regulations governing school meals that were implemented under former President Barack Obama .
The administration ’ s latest target : fresh vegetables and fruit .
The current meal regulations were established under the Healthy Hunger-Free Kids Act of 2010 spearheaded by Michelle Obama .
That law set new standards for school meals for students in grades K-12 to ensure children were receiving more vegetables , fruits , whole-grain rich foods , and fat-free milk .
For example , the law required students to have fruit with every school breakfast @ @ @ @ @ @ @ amount of a variety of vegetables that include both leafy greens and starchy plants .
But the Department of Agriculture argues the Obama-era rules are leading to high costs and rampant food waste .
On Friday — Michelle Obama ’ s birthday — the department announced its proposal to change those rules .
“ Schools and school districts continue to tell us that there is still too much food waste and that more common-sense flexibility is needed to provide students nutritious and appetizing meals , ” Agriculture Secretary Sonny Perdue said in a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ We listened and now we ’ re getting to work.
” The Department of Agriculture ’ s own research on the effects of the Obama-era rules undercuts this claim , however .
In its 2019 “ School Nutrition and Meal Cost Study , ” the department found no dramatic changes in the amount of food waste , and also found compliance with the rules led to better participation rates in school meal programs .
Experts fear that should the rules be changed , schools will try to substitute fresh fruit and vegetables @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
For example , experts worry baked sweets like muffins could be substituted for servings of fruit , and that potato products such as french fries could replace green vegetables .
The department has admitted new foods might be introduced , but has framed that as a good thing .
It wants cafeterias to be allowed to serve a la carte items like hamburgers that students can choose instead of a full meal .
In the past Perdue has argued that the most important thing is making sure students eat — he said @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ ending up in the trash ” because they simply aren ’ t appetizing to students .
“ If kids aren ’ t eating the food , and it ’ s ending up in the trash , they aren ’ t getting any nutrition — thus undermining the intent of the program , ” he said .
But advocacy groups object to this sort of thinking .
The National Alliance for Nutrition and Activity argues the new rules could create a “ giant junk food loophole ” because “ side dishes like cookies @ @ @ @ @ @ @ once in a while as part of a balanced lunch , could be offered a la carte every day.
” This isn ’ t the first time the administration has rolled back parts of the Obama-era rules .
In 2018 , the Agriculture Department finalized a rule that allowed schools to abandon their commitment to lowering sodium and increasing whole-grain foods .
That decision is now being challenged in court by a coalition of six states and Washington DC , which claims the changes present health risks to children .
As with the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ regulation change is beginning to surface , primarily among Democrats .
Rep. Ayanna Pressley ( D-MA ) tweeted Friday , “ The Occupant is trying to play petty with the food our babies eat .
Add it to the list affirming that the cruelty is the point with this White House.
” With lawsuits against the first set of rollbacks to the lunch restrictions already in motion , if the new rules are successfully implemented , it may be merely a matter of time before they , too , are challenged in court @ @ @ @ @ @ @ most affected by the new rules For many low-income children , school is the only opportunity to access a nutritious meal .
As Vox ’ s Gaby Del Valle wrote when the Department of Agriculture first began relaxing the Obama-era rules : One of the consequences of the changes could be an increase in obesity rates , according to research from the Food Research and Action Center .
And as Dr. Rachel Borton , the director of the Family Nurse Practitioner online program at Bradley University , argued in an op-ed for The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ have lasting effects — particularly if habits are formed , or if students remain on a nutrition-poor diet over the course of a number of years .
“ If those students don ’ t have access to the nutritious options provided by the school , they may turn to low cost , processed foods that are high in calories but sparse in nutrients .
Immediate effects of this type of diet include weight gain and poor physical health , ” Borton wrote .
“ Long-term impacts range from increased risk of obesity , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ slew of other unfortunate health outcomes.
” The Healthy Hunger-Free Kids Act of 2010 was created to combat these health concerns — and there ’ s proof that it worked , according to the Department of Agriculture ’ s 2019 review of the program .
That study found scores for the Healthy Eating Index ( which measures the quality of the diet ) shot up drastically from 49.6 in 2009-2010 to 71.3 in 2014-2015 .
These scores , however , could go down following the Trump administration ’ s new rollbacks .
And @ @ @ @ @ @ @ students , it is students whose only meals come during the school day who will hit the hardest .

Friday marked the Trump administration’s second attempt at loosening regulations governing school meals that were implemented under former President Barack Obama. The administration’s latest target: fresh vegetables and fruit.
The current meal regulations were established under the Healthy Hunger-Free Kids Act of 2010 spearheaded by former first lady Michelle Obama. That law set new standards for school meals for students in grades K-12 to ensure children were receiving more vegetables, fruits, whole-grain rich foods, and fat-free milk. For example, the law required students to have fruit with every school breakfast, and mandated schools serve a set amount of a variety of vegetables that include both leafy greens and starchy plants.
But the Department of Agriculture argues the Obama-era rules are leading to high costs and rampant food waste. On Friday — Michelle Obama’s birthday — the department announced its proposal to change those rules.
“Schools and school districts continue to tell us that there is still too much food waste and that more common-sense flexibility is needed to provide students nutritious and appetizing meals,” Agriculture Secretary Sonny Perdue said in a statement to the New York Times. “We listened and now we’re getting to work.”
The Department of Agriculture’s own research on the effects of the Obama-era rules undercuts this claim, however. In its 2019 “School Nutrition and Meal Cost Study,” the department found no dramatic changes in the amount of food waste, and also found compliance with the rules led to better participation rates in school meal programs.
Experts fear that if the rules are changed, schools will try to substitute fresh fruit and vegetables with more cost-efficient foods that lack nutrition. They worry that baked sweets like muffins could be substituted for servings of fruit, and that potato products such as french fries could replace green vegetables.
The department has admitted new foods might be introduced, but has framed that as a good thing. It wants to lower financial barriers for schools serving à la carte items like hamburgers in the hopes that expanding access to these items will limit waste. Perdue has argued that the most important thing is making sure students eat — in 2017 he said he believes healthy meals are “ending up in the trash” because they simply aren’t appetizing to students.
“If kids aren’t eating the food, and it’s ending up in the trash, they aren’t getting any nutrition — thus undermining the intent of the program,” he said.
But advocacy groups object to this sort of thinking. The National Alliance for Nutrition and Activity argues the new rules could create a “giant junk food loophole” because “side dishes like cookies and fries, which could be offered once in a while as part of a balanced lunch, could be offered a la carte every day.”
This isn’t the first time the administration has rolled back parts of the Obama-era rules. In 2018, the Department of Agriculture finalized a rule that allowed schools to abandon their commitment to lowering sodium and increasing whole-grain foods.
That decision is now being challenged in court by a coalition of six states and Washington, DC, which claims the changes present health risks to children.
As with the 2018 rule, dissent around the newest regulation change is beginning to surface, primarily among Democrats. Rep. Ayanna Pressley (D-MA) tweeted Friday, “The Occupant is trying to play petty with the food our babies eat. Add it to the list affirming that the cruelty is the point with this White House.”
With lawsuits against the first set of rollbacks to the lunch restrictions already in motion, if the new rules are successfully implemented, it may be merely a matter of time before they, too, are challenged in court.
Children from low-income families would be most affected by the new rules
For many low-income children, school is the only opportunity to access a nutritious meal. As Vox’s Gaby Del Valle wrote when the Department of Agriculture first began relaxing the Obama-era rules:
For the 30 million students who depend on free and low-cost school lunches that are subsidized by the federal government, the relaxed nutrition standards could be hugely detrimental. The Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act was a game-changing way of providing low-income students with healthy meals — by relaxing these rules, the Trump administration is exacerbating a system where only those who can afford to eat healthy will be able to do so.
One of the consequences of the changes could be an increase in obesity rates, according to research from the Food Research and Action Center. And as Dr. Rachel Borton, the director of the Family Nurse Practitioner online program at Bradley University, argued in an op-ed for the Hill, poor eating in childhood can have lasting effects — particularly if habits are formed, or if students remain on a nutrition-poor diet over the course of a number of years.
“If those students don’t have access to the nutritious options provided by the school, they may turn to low cost, processed foods that are high in calories but sparse in nutrients. Immediate effects of this type of diet include weight gain and poor physical health,” Borton wrote. “Long-term impacts range from increased risk of obesity, heart disease, diabetes, and a slew of other unfortunate health outcomes.”
The Healthy Hunger-Free Kids Act of 2010 was created to combat these health concerns — and there’s proof that it worked, according to the Department of Agriculture’s 2019 review of the program. That study found scores for the Healthy Eating Index (which measures the quality of the diet) shot up drastically, from 49.6 in 2009-2010 to 71.3 in 2014-2015.
These scores, however, are likely to decrease following the Trump administration’s new rollbacks. And if schools fail to properly serve their students, it is students whose only meals come during the school day who will be hit the hardest.


vox--2020-01-18--The National Archives edited a Women’s March picture to be less critical of Trump

The National Archives is facing criticism for editing an image of the 2017 Women ’ s March in order to make it less “ political ” — and for making the photo less critical of President Donald Trump to do so .
The image — a 49-by-69-inch photograph depicting a sea of women flooding Pennsylvania Avenue on January 21 , 2017 to protest Trump ’ s inauguration — leads the National Archives ’ exhibit “ Rightfully Hers : American Women and the Vote.
” The show opened in May to celebrate the 100th anniversary of women ’ s suffrage ; @ @ @ @ @ @ @ March is juxtaposed with a 1913 black-and-white photo of a woman ’ s suffrage march in the exact same location .
The 2017 photo , however , has been altered , as The Washington Post ’ s Joe Heim reported Friday .
The Archives confirmed that it had blurred signs that were critical of Donald Trump , blotting out the name of the president at least four times .
In one instance , Heim found that Trump was blurred out a sign that read , “ God Hates Trump , ” causing it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” The Archives also blurred out words related to women ’ s anatomy such as vagina and pussy .
For instance , “ vagina ” was blotted out of a sign comparing laws around reproductive health and those governing firearms that read : “ If my vagina could shoot bullets , it ’ d be less REGULATED.
” Archives spokeswoman Miriam Kleiman told The Washington Post that the organization decided to alter the images to avoid controversy , considering the current political climate .
“ As a non-partisan , non-political federal agency , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s name on some posters , so as not to engage in current political controversy , ” Kleiman said .
“ Our mission is to safeguard and provide access to the nation ’ s most important federal records , and our exhibits are one way in which we connect the American people to those records .
Modifying the image was an attempt on our part to keep the focus on the records.
” Of course , as observers like historian Marama Whyte have pointed out , by censoring the image , the Archives @ @ @ @ @ @ @ accurate preservation of historical records and the appropriateness of a federal agency erasing criticism of a leader .
The Archives has claimed such controversies were not intentional , and that it censored words related to women ’ s anatomy due to concerns of being perceived as having created an exhibit inappropriate for a younger audience .
Kleiman told Post the Archives only alters images if they are used as “ graphic design components ” ( like in promotional materials ) and emphasized that artifacts are never changed .
In this case , the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a promotional display because it is used as the opening image that greets visitors at the beginning of the exhibit .
The decision to censor the photo was made by a group of people , including agency managers and staff members .
Heim reported that an archivist appointed by President Barack Obama in 2009 , David S. Ferriero , supported the decision to edit the photo after participating in decision-making talks .
These statements have done little to satisfy the Archives ’ critics , however .
On Twitter , Yale historian Joanne Freeman @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Trump administration has worked hard to undermine the public ’ s trust in institutions — the president has called the press the “ enemy of the people ” and described the FBI as “ badly broken , ” for example — and wrote , “ don ’ t get me started on the irony of women ’ s voices being erased ... from the Women ’ s March.
” Doctoring an image from the Women ’ s March silences women ’ s voices Freeman ’ s tweet speaks to two major problems @ @ @ @ @ @ @ It is an institution that is supposed to document history , and in altering a historic artifact without notifying its audience , the Archives undermines the trust it asks the public to have in its collection of primary sources .
“ Information integrity as we learn time & again is the coin of the realm for democracy ’ s minimal function , ” Karin Wulf , a historian and professor at William and Marry , wrote on Twitter .
“ If the [ National Archives ] was going to present an altered image @ @ @ @ @ @ @ & why .
That would have preserved our mutual need for info .
integrity.
” The choice also had the effect of silencing women ’ s voices in an exhibit that was meant to honor and celebrate them , as Purdue University history professor Wendy Kline told The Washington Post .
” Doctoring a commemorative photograph buys right into the notion that it ’ s okay to silence women ’ s voice and actions , ” Kline said .
“ It is literally erasing something that was accurately captured on camera .
That @ @ @ @ @ @ @ powerful message.
” The irony of the entire situation , as historian and Muhlenberg College professor Jacqueline Antonovich points out , shows “ how easily we can sanitize the suffrage movement itself , blurring out all of the inconvenient parts we don ’ t want to grapple with.
” And although the decision does not appear to have been motivated by any requests by the president — who has been openly critical of federal agencies he sees as questioning his behavior in any way , such as the FBI — there is also @ @ @ @ @ @ @ chief executive is something more commonly done in an authoritarian state than in a healthy democracy .
None of this is a good look for the National Archives , and all of it could have been easily avoided .
As Eileen Clancy , a media archivist and student at the City University of New York , points out , the curators could have picked a different image rather than misleading the public .
In response to its critics , the National Archives tweeted Saturday , “ We made a mistake.
” It has @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and said it “ will replace it as soon as possible with one that uses the unaltered image.
” And it said its staff had learned a valuable lesson from the furor , writing , “ We apologize , and will immediately start a thorough review of our exhibit policies and procedures so that this does not happen again .
”

The National Archives is facing criticism for editing an image of the 2017 Women’s March in order to make it less “political” — and for making the photo less critical of President Donald Trump to do so.
The image — a 49-by-69-inch photograph depicting a sea of women flooding Pennsylvania Avenue on January 21, 2017, to protest Trump’s inauguration — leads the National Archives’ exhibit “Rightfully Hers: American Women and the Vote.” The show opened in May to celebrate the 100th anniversary of women’s suffrage; the image of the Women’s March is juxtaposed with a 1913 black-and-white photo of a woman’s suffrage march in the same location.
The 2017 photo, however, has been altered, as the Washington Post’s Joe Heim reported Friday.
The Archives confirmed that it had blurred signs that were critical of Trump, blotting out the name of the president at least four times. In one instance, Heim found that Trump’s name was blurred out on a sign that read “God Hates Trump,” causing it to read “God Hates.”
The Archives also blurred out words related to women’s anatomy. For instance, “vagina” was blotted out of a sign comparing laws around reproductive health and those governing firearms that read: “If my vagina could shoot bullets, it’d be less REGULATED.”
Archives spokesperson Miriam Kleiman told the Washington Post that the organization decided to alter the images to avoid controversy, considering the current political climate.
“As a non-partisan, non-political federal agency, we blurred references to the President’s name on some posters, so as not to engage in current political controversy,” Kleiman said. “Our mission is to safeguard and provide access to the nation’s most important federal records, and our exhibits are one way in which we connect the American people to those records. Modifying the image was an attempt on our part to keep the focus on the records.”
Of course, as observers like historian Marama Whyte have pointed out, by censoring the image, the Archives has created a political controversy over the accurate preservation of historical records and the appropriateness of a federal agency erasing criticism of a leader.
The Archives has claimed such controversies were not intentional, and that it censored words related to women’s anatomy due to concerns of being perceived as having created an exhibit inappropriate for a younger audience.
Kleiman told Post the Archives only alters images if they are used as “graphic design components” (like in promotional materials) and emphasized that artifacts are never changed. In this case, the Women’s March image was deemed a promotional display because it is used as the opening image that greets visitors at the beginning of the exhibit.
The decision to censor the photo was made by a group of people, including agency managers and staff members. Heim reported that an archivist appointed by President Barack Obama in 2009, David S. Ferriero, supported the decision to edit the photo after participating in decision-making talks.
These statements have done little to satisfy the Archives’ critics, however. On Twitter, Yale historian Joanne Freeman called the decision “dangerous” given that the Trump administration has worked hard to undermine the public’s trust in institutions — the president has called the press the “enemy of the people” and described the FBI as “badly broken,” for example — and wrote, “don’t get me started on the irony of women’s voices being erased...from the Women’s March.”
Doctoring an image from the Women’s March silences women’s voices
Freeman’s tweet speaks to two major problems with the National Archives’ decision. It is an institution that is supposed to document history, and in altering a historic artifact without notifying its audience, the Archives undermines the trust it asks the public to have in its collection of primary sources.
“Information integrity as we learn time & again is the coin of the realm for democracy’s minimal function,” Karin Wulf, a historian and professor at William and Marry, tweeted “If the [National Archives] was going to present an altered image they should have indicated what they did & why. That would have preserved our mutual need for info. integrity.”
The choice also served to silence women’s voices in an exhibit that was meant to honor and celebrate them, as Purdue University history professor Wendy Kline told the Washington Post.
”Doctoring a commemorative photograph buys right into the notion that it’s okay to silence women’s voice and actions,” Kline said. “It is literally erasing something that was accurately captured on camera. That’s an attempt to erase a powerful message.”
The irony of the situation, as historian and Muhlenberg College professor Jacqueline Antonovich points out, shows “how easily we can sanitize the suffrage movement itself, blurring out all of the inconvenient parts we don’t want to grapple with.”
And although the decision does not appear to have been motivated by any requests from the president — who has openly criticized federal agencies he sees as questioning his behavior in any way, such as the FBI — there is also the issue that censoring criticism of a chief executive is something more commonly done in an authoritarian state than in a healthy democracy.
None of this is a good look for the National Archives, and all of it easily could have been avoided. As Eileen Clancy, a media archivist and student at the City University of New York, points out, the curators could have picked a different image rather than misleading the public.
In response to its critics, the National Archives tweeted Saturday, “We made a mistake.”
It has pledged to remove the altered photo, and said it “will replace it as soon as possible with one that uses the unaltered image.” And it said its staff had learned a valuable lesson from the furor, writing, “We apologize, and will immediately start a thorough review of our exhibit policies and procedures so that this does not happen again.”


vox--2020-01-18--New evidence shows a Nunes aide in close conversation with Parnas

The House Intelligence Committee released a new trove of evidence on Friday that appears to show extensive contact between the top aide for House Intelligence Committee Ranking Member Devin Nunes ( R-CA ) and Lev Parnas , a former Rudy Giuliani ally and a key figure in the Ukraine scandal .
Following his arrest on campaign finance violation charges , Parnas began providing the committee with a body of notes , photographs , and cellphone data as part of President Donald Trump ’ s impeachment proceedings .
These documents have been made public in tranches ; earlier releases further defined @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for a Ukrainian investigation into Joe Biden , and included messages that seemed to suggest a Republican congressional candidate had former US ambassador to Ukraine Marie Yovanovitch under surveillance .
In recent days , Parnas has mounted a concerted push to shed light on outstanding questions related to the president ’ s pressure campaign — which sought to trade first a White House meeting , and later critical military aid for an investigation into Biden , his son Hunter , and the Democratic Party .
Wednesday , he appeared on MSNBC to claim @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on ” with respect to Giuliani ’ s efforts to advance a Biden investigation , and claiming that Vice President Mike Pence and Attorney General William Barr were involved as well .
Parnas claimed last November that Nunes was also party to the pressure campaign , and that he ’ d worked with one of the lawmaker ’ s top aides , former White House official Derek Harvey , to keep the congressman in the loop about the progress of the quid pro quo scheme .
The messages released Friday would seem to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Nunes , who was a vocal defender of Trump throughout last year ’ s impeachment inquiry hearings , may have been more involved in the administration ’ s efforts in Ukraine than he ’ s admitted to — despite his consistent denials about having any real role in the scandal .
Messages between Harvey and Nunes show meetings at a Trump hotel , and coordination on witness interviews A string of messages between Parnas and Harvey from April 17 to 19 , 2019 show the two men trying to set up interviews with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Viktor Shokin , a Biden critic who was fired at the request of a number of Western governments , and Yuri Lutsenko , who asked for Yovanovitch to be fired in exchange for dirt on the Bidens , according to recent documents released by the House Intelligence Committee .
Harvey and Parnas worked closely on the logistics of the interviews : after informing Parnas about prepping a Nunes staff lawyer , Harvey asks for “ suggested lines of questions ” and the “ full names of who we will interview.
” Parnas responds @ @ @ @ @ @ @ After two days , however , Harvey puts a halt on the interview process and says they would be “ best served by sending the official letter and receiving documentation before any more interviews.
” A number of letters were eventually sent to Ukrainian officials , including a letter Giuliani sent to then President-elect Volodymyr Zelensky in May in which he requested a meeting .
By the time that letter was sent , Giuliani had begun to publicly state he planned to dig up dirt on Joe Biden in Ukraine .
In addition @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the messages also appear to show Harvey meeting Parnas at the Trump hotel in Washington , DC , and taking part in private meetings with Giuliani and conservative journalist John Solomon , whose work ( some of it based on recanted information ) helped convince Trump of the veracity of conspiracy theories featuring Ukraine , Democrats , and Joe Biden .
Parnas claimed last year that Harvey took part in these meetings , and the messages do seem to place him there .
Nunes ’ s aide also passed along the lawmaker ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 10 — two days before House records show that the two talked for eight minutes on the phone , according to NBC News .
All of this aligns with what Parnas has said so far : he told MSNBC ’ s Rachel Maddow on Wednesday night that he had met Nunes several times and that the congressman worked with Harvey to dig up dirt on Biden .
He also said he was surprised to see Nunes as a leader in the impeachment inquiry because “ he knew very well that he knew what @ @ @ @ @ @ @ had denied any knowledge about his phone call with Parnas , appeared on Fox News on Thursday to say that he now remembers having and “ odd ” and “ random ” phone call with Parnas , according to The Daily Beast .
He ’ d initially claimed he hadn ’ t spoken to Parnas , then that he ’ d actually talked with the fixer ’ s wife .
Overall , however , Nunes still denies working with Parnas for Trump ’ s political gain .
This , however , is a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ maintain for much longer , especially if Parnas becomes more vocal as the impeachment process approaches its conclusion .
The close associate of Giuliani was essential in connecting US officials with Ukrainian sources , and thus has a lot to tell .
It is true that Parnas ’ s credibility is somewhat in question , but he has been able to produce evidence that seems to support his version of events .
And given his indictment , he has reason to cooperate with officials in order to demonstrate that regardless of his guilt @ @ @ @ @ @ @ he is someone who now operates with the truth and public good in mind .
These new texts make it harder for Nunes to deny his involvement in the Ukraine scandal — but he ’ s still trying Despite increasing evidence to the contrary , Nunes , still denies having any contact with Ukrainian officials or working to dig up dirt on Trump ’ s political rivals .
To make his point clear , he even sued CNN for $ 435 million for publishing a story that he met with Shokin in search @ @ @ @ @ @ @ report he described as a “ demonstrably false hit piece.
” For his part , Parnas has claimed Nunes met with Shokin in Vienna in December 2018 .
Last December , Nunes threatened to sue fellow congressman Rep. Ted Lieu ( D-CA ) , who alleged that Nunes was working with Parnas on Ukrainian matters .
Nunes threatened the suit stating that he had an “ ‘ absolute ’ right to an unimpaired reputation.
” Lieu posted the threat from Nunes along with his own response dated Thursday : “ It is true @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Lev Parnas and conspired to undermine our own government.
” “ I welcome any lawsuit from your client and look forward to taking discovery of Congressman Nunes , ” Liu continued .
“ Or , you can take your letter and shove it.
” Lieu pointed to Parnas ’ s interview with Maddow as proof of Giuliani ’ s former associate ’ s relationship with Nunes .
Parnas told Maddow Wednesday night that he was shocked to see Nunes deny Trump ’ s efforts to dig up dirt on his political rivals in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ getting all this stuff on Biden , ” according to MSNBC .
“ [ I ] t ’ s hard to see them lie like that , ” Parnas said , speaking of Nunes ’ s work in the impeachment inquiry hearings .
“ It ’ s scary because , you know , he was sitting there and making all statements and all that when he knew very well that he knew what was going on .
He knew what ’ s happening .
He knows who I am.
” Nunes has already @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , and questions of his involvement in Trump ’ s Ukraine scheme could lead to another .
Some of his colleagues , including Democratic Rep. Adam Smith , have called for officials to take a closer look at Parnas ’ s allegations .
Whether an investigation is launched remains to be seen , but Parnas has signaled he has no plans to stop talking about his ties to Nunes — and the release of Friday ’ s evidence will only complicate Nunes ’ s efforts to distance himself from the affair .
Beyond @ @ @ @ @ @ @ also contain messages between Giuliani and Parnas that appear to affirm the closeness of their relationship — Parnas tells Giuliani in one exchange , “ Just need to talk to you before I go to sleep my brother ” — and that show Giuliani helping to connect Parnas to John Dowd , a former lawyer for the president .
Too , they contain a number of photos that attempt to link Parnas to both Giuliani and Trump ; they include pictures of Giuliani golfing and riding a boat , as well as photos @ @ @ @ @ @ @ his son , Donald Trump , Jr. President Trump has claimed in the past that he doesn ’ t know Parnas , and dismissed pictures of the two together as quick photo ops , saying on Thursday he poses with “ thousands of people including today that I didn ’ t meet.
” “ I don ’ t know who this man is , ” Trump said .
“ Oftentimes I ’ ll be taking a picture with somebody and say , I wonder what newspaper that one will appear in .
I @ @ @ @ @ @ @ he ’ s a fine man .
Perhaps he ’ s not .
I know nothing about him.
” Parnas has argued the sheer number of photos he has with Trump — including of pictures of them sitting together at events — tells a different story .
And he told CNN he has many pictures with the president he has yet to share , saying of Trump ’ s denials : “ I welcome him to say that even more .
Every time he says that I ’ ll show him another picture @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , the documents have raised new questions about Yovanovitch The first tranche of documents revealed a Republican congressional candidate named Robert Hyde was in contact with Parnas about former US ambassador to the Ukraine Marie Yovanovitch .
Hyde told Parnas he ’ d placed Yovanovitch — who was told she was recalled from Ukraine for her “ security ” — under surveillance .
Screenshots from WhatsApp conversations Hyde had with an individual with a Belgian phone number included in the latest release have shed a bit more light on those claims .
NBC @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Caluwe , based on the digits visible in their phone number , their WhatsApp profile picture , and conversations with Hyde .
Hyde has also claimed on Twitter the Belgian number belongs to de Caluwe .
De Caluwe told NBC Hyde contacted him , but that he refused to help him .
The screenshots show a conversation that mirrors messages released earlier in the week that suggest not only that Hyde had Yovanovitch under surveillance , but that those who were watching her had the capacity to do her bodily harm .
It @ @ @ @ @ @ @ some of the messages he received from the Belgian number in his conversation with Parnas , including two that read “ It ’ s confirmed we have a person inside ” and “ Hey broski tell me what we are doing what ’ s the next step.
” These would seem to suggest that Hyde — or his associate with the Belgian number — had some sort of asset within the US embassy , and that this surveillance was being guided by Parnas or Giuliani .
Parnas has said he did not direct @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the records released so far show that he did not respond to these messages .
He has also said he believed Hyde to be bluffing about the surveillance , calling him a “ a weird individual ” who is constantly drunk .
Hyde has pushed back against the messages as well , claiming he was “ absolutely not ” threatening Yovanovitch .
In a Twitter video Friday , Hyde called the messages “ just copy and paste bullshit from some intel guy — probably that was fucking with me.
” Nevertheless , Ukrainian @ @ @ @ @ @ @ matter , and Friday , Secretary of State Mike Pompeo said the US would also investigate the matter .

The House Intelligence Committee released a new trove of evidence Friday that appears to show extensive contact between the top aide for House Intelligence Committee Ranking Member Devin Nunes (R-CA) and Lev Parnas, a former Rudy Giuliani ally and a key figure in the Ukraine scandal.
Following his arrest on campaign finance violation charges, Parnas began providing the committee with a body of notes, photographs, and cellphone data as part of President Donald Trump’s impeachment proceedings. These documents have been made public in tranches; earlier releases further defined Giuliani’s role in the push for a Ukrainian investigation into former Vice President Joe Biden, and included messages that seemed to suggest a Republican congressional candidate had former US ambassador to Ukraine Marie Yovanovitch under surveillance.
In recent days, Parnas has mounted a concerted push to shed light on outstanding questions related to the president’s pressure campaign — which sought to first trade a White House meeting and later critical military aid, for an investigation into Biden, his son Hunter, and the Democratic Party. Wednesday, he appeared on MSNBC to claim Trump knew “exactly what was going on” with respect to Giuliani’s efforts to advance a Biden investigation, and claiming that Vice President Mike Pence and Attorney General William Barr were involved as well.
Parnas claimed last November that Nunes was also party to the pressure campaign, and that he’d worked with one of the lawmaker’s top aides, former White House official Derek Harvey, to keep the Congress member in the loop about the progress of the quid pro quo scheme.
The messages released Friday would seem to support these allegations, and to suggest that Nunes, who was a vocal defender of Trump throughout last year’s impeachment inquiry hearings, may have been more involved in the administration’s efforts in Ukraine than he’s admitted to — despite his consistent denials about having any role in the scandal.
Messages between Harvey and Nunes show meetings at a Trump hotel, and coordination on witness interviews
A string of messages between Parnas and Harvey from April 17 to 19, 2019 show the two men trying to set up interviews with Ukrainian officials such as disgraced former prosecutor Viktor Shokin, a Biden critic who was fired at the request of a number of Western governments, and Yuri Lutsenko, who asked for Yovanovitch to be fired in exchange for dirt on the Bidens, according to recent documents released by the House Intelligence Committee.
Harvey and Parnas worked closely on the logistics of the interviews: After informing Parnas about prepping a Nunes staff lawyer, Harvey asked for “suggested lines of questions” and the “full names of who we will interview.” Parnas responded that he will put both together.
After two days, however, Harvey put a halt on the interview process and said they would be “best served by sending the official letter and receiving documentation before any more interviews.”
A number of letters were eventually sent to Ukrainian officials, including a letter Giuliani sent to then President-elect Volodymyr Zelensky in May in which he requested a meeting. By the time that letter was sent, Giuliani had begun to publicly state he planned to dig up dirt on Joe Biden in Ukraine.
In addition to the coordination with the interviews, the messages also appear to show Harvey meeting Parnas at the Trump hotel in Washington, DC, and taking part in private meetings with Giuliani and conservative journalist John Solomon, whose work (some of it based on recanted information) helped convince Trump of the veracity of conspiracy theories involving Ukraine, Democrats, and Joe Biden. Parnas claimed last year that Harvey took part in these meetings, and the messages do seem to place him there.
Nunes’s aide also passed along the lawmaker’s contact information to Parnas on April 10 — two days before House records show that the two talked for eight minutes on the phone, according to NBC News.
All of this aligns with what Parnas has said so far: He told MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow on Wednesday night that he met with Nunes several times and that the Congress member worked with Harvey to dig up dirt on Biden. He also said he was surprised to see Nunes as a leader in the impeachment inquiry because “he knew very well that he knew what was going on.”
Nunes, who had denied any knowledge about his phone call with Parnas, appeared on Fox News Thursday to say that he now remembers having and “odd” and “random” phone call with Parnas, according to the Daily Beast. He’d initially claimed he hadn’t spoken to Parnas, then saying he’d actually talked with the fixer’s wife.
Overall, Nunes still denies working with Parnas for Trump’s political gain.
This, however, is a position he might not be able to maintain for much longer, especially if Parnas becomes more vocal as the impeachment process approaches its conclusion. The close associate of Giuliani was essential in connecting US officials with Ukrainian sources, and thus has a lot to tell.
It is true that Parnas’s credibility is somewhat in question, but he has been able to produce evidence that seems to support his version of events. And given his indictment, he has reason to cooperate with officials in order to demonstrate that regardless of his guilt or innocence in that case, that he is someone who now operates with the truth and public good in mind.
These new texts make it harder for Nunes to deny his involvement in the Ukraine scandal — but he’s still trying
Despite increasing evidence to the contrary, Nunes, still denies having any contact with Ukrainian officials or working to dig up dirt on Trump’s political rivals. To make his point clear, he even sued CNN for $435 million for publishing a story that he met with Shokin in search of damaging information on Biden — a report he described as a “demonstrably false hit piece.” For his part, Parnas has claimed Nunes met with Shokin in Vienna in December 2018.
Last December, Nunes threatened to sue fellow Congress member Rep. Ted Lieu (D-CA), who alleged that Nunes was working with Parnas on Ukrainian matters. Nunes threatened the suit stating that he had an “‘absolute’ right to an unimpaired reputation.”
Lieu posted the threat from Nunes along with his own response dated Thursday, “It is true that I stated Congressman Nunes worked with Lev Parnas and conspired to undermine our own government.”
Attached is the first page of a five page letter in which the lawyer for @DevinNunes threatens that Rep Nunes will sue me.
Attached is my response. pic.twitter.com/bWAqdRhq97 — Ted Lieu (@tedlieu) January 17, 2020
“I welcome any lawsuit from your client and look forward to taking discovery of Congressman Nunes,” Liu continued. “Or, you can take your letter and shove it.”
Lieu pointed to Parnas’s interview with Maddow as proof of Giuliani’s former associate’s relationship with Nunes. Parnas told Maddow Wednesday night that he was shocked to see Nunes deny Trump’s efforts to dig up dirt on his political rivals in Ukraine because he was “involved in getting all this stuff on Biden,” according to MSNBC.
“[I]t’s hard to see them lie like that,” Parnas said, speaking of Nunes’s work in the impeachment inquiry hearings. “It’s scary because, you know, he was sitting there and making all statements and all that when he knew very well that he knew what was going on. He knew what’s happening. He knows who I am.”
Nunes has already faced one ethics investigation in recent years, and questions of his involvement in Trump’s Ukraine scheme could lead to another. Some of his colleagues, including Democratic Rep. Adam Smith, have called for officials to take a closer look at Parnas’s allegations.
Whether an investigation is launched remains to be seen, but Parnas has signaled he has no plans to stop talking about his ties to Nunes — and the release of Friday’s evidence will only complicate Nunes’s efforts to distance himself from the affair.
Friday’s release further defines Giuliani and Parnas’s relationship
Beyond the Parnas-Harvey communications, the new documents also contain messages between Giuliani and Parnas that appear to affirm the closeness of their relationship — Parnas tells Giuliani in one exchange, “Just need to talk to you before I go to sleep my brother” — and that show Giuliani helping to connect Parnas to John Dowd, a former lawyer for the president.
Two, they contain a number of photos that attempt to link Parnas to both Giuliani and Trump; they include pictures of Giuliani golfing and riding a boat, as well as photos of Parnas with the president and with his son, Donald Trump, Jr.
President Trump has claimed in the past that he doesn’t know Parnas, and dismissed pictures of the two together as quick photo ops, saying on Thursday he poses with “thousands of people including today that I didn’t meet.”
“I don’t know who this man is,” Trump said. “Oftentimes I’ll be taking a picture with somebody and say, I wonder what newspaper that one will appear in. I don’t know him. Perhaps he’s a fine man. Perhaps he’s not. I know nothing about him.”
Parnas has argued the sheer number of photos he has with Trump — including of pictures of them sitting together at events — tells a different story. He told CNN he has many pictures with the president he has yet to share, saying of Trump’s denials: “I welcome him to say that even more. Every time he says that I’ll show him another picture. He’s lying.”
Finally, the documents have raised new questions about Yovanovitch
The first tranche of documents revealed a Republican congressional candidate named Robert Hyde was in contact with Parnas about former US ambassador to the Ukraine Marie Yovanovitch. Hyde told Parnas he’d placed Yovanovitch — who was told she was recalled from Ukraine for her “security” — under surveillance.
Screenshots from WhatsApp conversations between Hyde and an individual with a Belgian phone number included in the latest release have shed a bit more light on those claims.
NBC has identified that individual as Anthony de Caluwe, based on the digits visible in their phone number, their WhatsApp profile picture, and conversations with Hyde. Hyde has also claimed on Twitter the Belgian number belongs to de Caluwe. De Caluwe told NBC Hyde contacted him, but that he refused to help him.
The screenshots show a conversation that mirrors messages released earlier in the week that suggest not only that Hyde had Yovanovitch under surveillance, but that those who were watching her had the capacity to do her bodily harm. It would appear that Hyde copied and pasted some of the messages he received from the Belgian number in his conversation with Parnas, including two that read “It’s confirmed we have a person inside,” and “Hey broski tell me what we are doing what’s the next step.”
These would seem to suggest that Hyde — or his associate with the Belgian number — had some sort of asset within the US Embassy, and that this surveillance was being guided by Parnas or Giuliani.
Parnas said he did not direct any sort of surveillance operation — and the records released so far show that he did not respond to these messages. He also said he believed Hyde to be bluffing about the surveillance, calling him “a weird individual” who is constantly drunk.
Hyde has pushed back against the messages, claiming he was “absolutely not” threatening Yovanovitch. In a Twitter video Friday, Hyde called the messages “just copy and paste bullshit from some intel guy — probably that was fucking with me.”
Nevertheless, Ukrainian officials have opened an investigation into the matter, and Friday, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo said the US would also investigate the matter.


vox--2020-01-18--“Flood the zone with shit”: How misinformation overwhelmed our democracy

No matter how President Trump ’ s impeachment trial plays out in the Senate , one thing is certain : Despite the incontrovertible facts at the center of the story , the process will change very few minds .
Regardless of how clear a case Democrats make , it seems likely that a majority of voters will remain confused and unsure about the details of Trump ’ s transgressions .
No single version of the truth will be accepted .
This is a serious problem for our democratic culture .
No amount of evidence , on virtually any topic , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ way or the other .
We can attribute some of this to rank partisanship — some people simply refuse to acknowledge inconvenient facts about their own side .
But there ’ s another , equally vexing problem .
We live in a media ecosystem that overwhelms people with information .
Some of that information is accurate , some of it is bogus , and much of it is intentionally misleading .
The result is a polity that has increasingly given up on finding out the truth .
As Sabrina Tavernise and Aidan Gardiner @ @ @ @ @ @ @ piece , “ people are numb and disoriented , struggling to discern what is real in a sea of slant , fake , and fact.
” This is partly why an earth-shattering historical event like a president ’ s impeachment has done very little to move public opinion .
The core challenge we ’ re facing today is information saturation and a hackable media system .
If you follow politics at all , you know how exhausting the environment is .
The sheer volume of content , the dizzying number of narratives and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ news cycle are too much for anyone to process .
One response to this situation is to walk away and tune everything out .
After all , it takes real effort to comb through the bullshit , and most people have busy lives and limited bandwidth .
Another reaction is to retreat into tribal allegiances .
There ’ s Team Liberal and Team Conservative , and pretty much everyone knows which side they ’ re on .
So you stick to the places that feed you the information you most want to hear @ @ @ @ @ @ @ this an “ epistemic crisis.
” The foundation for shared truth , he argues , has collapsed .
I don ’ t disagree with that , but I ’ d frame the problem a little differently .
We ’ re in an age of manufactured nihilism .
The issue for many people isn ’ t exactly a denial of truth as such .
It ’ s more a growing weariness over the process of finding the truth at all .
And that weariness leads more and more people to abandon the idea that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ this “ manufactured ” because it ’ s the consequence of a deliberate strategy .
It was distilled almost perfectly by Steve Bannon , the former head of Breitbart News and chief strategist for Donald Trump .
“ The Democrats don ’ t matter , ” Bannon reportedly said in 2018 .
“ The real opposition is the media .
And the way to deal with them is to flood the zone with shit.
” This idea isn ’ t new , but Bannon articulated it about as well as anyone can .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ fiction and give the public the information it needs to make enlightened political choices .
If you short-circuit that process by saturating the ecosystem with misinformation and overwhelm the media ’ s ability to mediate , then you can disrupt the democratic process .
What we ’ re facing is a new form of propaganda that wasn ’ t really possible until the digital age .
And it works not by creating a consensus around any particular narrative but by muddying the waters so that consensus isn ’ t achievable .
Bannon ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ he explained in a 2017 Conservative Political Action Conference talk , he sees Trump as a stick of dynamite with which to blow up the status quo .
So “ flooding the zone ” is a means to that end .
But more generally , creating widespread cynicism about the truth and the institutions charged with unearthing it erodes the very foundation of liberal democracy .
And the strategy is working .
What flooding the zone actually means For most of recent history , the goal of propaganda was to reinforce a consistent @ @ @ @ @ @ @ approach : It seeks to disorient audiences with an avalanche of competing stories .
And it produces a certain nihilism in which people are so skeptical about the possibility of finding the truth that they give up the search .
The fact that 60 percent of Americans say they encounter conflicting reports about the same event is an example of what I mean .
In the face of such confusion , it ’ s not surprising that less than half the country trusts what they read in the press .
Bannon articulated the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ not invent it .
In our time , it was pioneered by Vladimir Putin in post-Soviet Russia .
Putin uses the media to engineer a fog of disinformation , producing just enough distrust to ensure that the public can never mobilize around a coherent narrative .
In October , I spoke to Peter Pomerantsev , a Soviet-born reality TV producer turned academic who wrote a book about Putin ’ s propaganda strategy .
The goal , he told me , wasn ’ t to sell an ideology or a vision of the future @ @ @ @ @ @ @ people that “ the truth is unknowable ” and that the only sensible choice is “ to follow a strong leader.
” One major reason for the strategy ’ s success , both in the US and Russia , is that it coincided with a moment when the technological and political conditions were in place for it to thrive .
Media fragmentation , the explosion of the internet , political polarization , curated timelines , and echo chambers — all of this allows a “ flood the zone with shit ” strategy to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” institutions has also changed significantly .
Before the internet and social media , most people got their news from a handful of newspapers and TV networks .
These institutions functioned like referees , calling out lies , fact-checking claims , and so on .
And they had the ability to control the flow of information and set the terms of the conversation .
Today , gatekeepers still matter in terms of setting a baseline for political knowledge , but there ’ s much more competition for clicks and audiences , and that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ declared newsworthy in the first place .
At the same time , traditional media outlets remain committed to a set of norms that are ill adapted to the modern environment .
The preference for objectivity in political coverage , in particular , is a problem .
As Joshua Green , who wrote a biography of Bannon , explained , Bannon ’ s lesson from the Clinton impeachment in the 1990s was that to shape the narrative , a story had to move beyond the right-wing echo chamber and into the mainstream media .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ the now-debunked Uranium One story that dogged Clinton from the beginning of her campaign — a story Bannon fed to the Times , knowing that the supposedly liberal paper would run with it because that ’ s what mainstream media news organizations do .
In this case , Bannon flooded the zone with a ridiculous story not necessarily to persuade the public that it was true ( although surely plenty of people bought into it ) but to create a cloud of corruption around Clinton .
And the mainstream press , merely by @ @ @ @ @ @ @ has , helped create that cloud .
You see this dynamic at work daily on cable news .
Trump White House adviser Kellyanne Conway lies .
She lies a lot .
Yet CNN and MSNBC have shown zero hesitation in giving her a platform to lie because they see their job as giving government officials — even ones who lie — a platform .
Even if CNN or MSNBC debunk Conway ’ s lies , the damage will be done .
Fox and right-wing media will amplify her and other falsehoods ; armies @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , will , too ( @ realDonaldTrump will no doubt chime in ) .
The mainstream press will be a step behind in debunking — and even the act of debunking will serve to amplify the lies .
UC Berkeley linguist George Lakoff calls this the “ framing effect.
” As Lakoff puts it , if you say “ don ’ t think of an elephant , ” you can ’ t help but think of an elephant .
In other words , even if you reject an argument , merely repeating it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ minds .
Debunking it is still useful , of course , but there ’ s a cost to dignifying it in the first place .
There is some research that points to the utility of fact-checking .
Political scientists Brendan Nyhan and Jason Reifler have shown that repeated exposure to fact-checking does tend to increase the accuracy of beliefs .
But the issue with zone-flooding is an overabundance of news , which diminishes the importance of any individual story , no matter how big or damning .
In this environment , there are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ; it ’ s a constant game of whack-a-mole for journalists .
And we know that false claims , if they ’ re repeated enough , become more plausible the more often they ’ re shared , something psychologists have called the “ illusory truth ” effect .
Our brains , it turns out , tend to associate repetition with truthfulness .
Some interesting new research , moreover , found that the more people encounter information the more likely they are to feel justified in spreading it , whether it ’ s true @ @ @ @ @ @ @ polarization , and why many people still don ’ t know what Trump did This all intersects with political polarization in troubling ways .
One consequence of pervasive confusion about what ’ s happening is that people feel more comfortable siding with their political tribe .
If everything ’ s up for grabs , and it ’ s hard to sift through the competing narratives to find the truth , then there ’ s nothing left but culture war politics .
There ’ s “ us ” and “ them , ” and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ table .
It ’ s worth noting that this polarization is asymmetric .
The left overwhelmingly receives its news from organizations like the New York Times , the Washington Post , or cable news networks like MSNBC or CNN .
Some of the reporting is surely biased , and probably biased in favor of liberals , but it ’ s still ( mostly ) anchored to basic journalistic ethics .
As a recent book by three Harvard researchers explains , this just isn ’ t true of the right .
American conservative media @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Fox News at the center .
Right-wing outlets are less tethered to conventional journalistic ethics and exist mostly to propagate the bullshit they produce .
All this has created an atmosphere that has helped Trump .
The Trump administration has been remarkably successful at muddying the waters on Ukraine and impeachment , and Republicans in Congress have helped by parroting the administration ’ s talking points .
The fact is , Trump did what Democrats have accused him of doing .
We know , with absolute certainty , that the president tried to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ family member of one of his political rivals .
And we know this because of the witnesses who testified before the House Intelligence Committee and because Trump ’ s own White House released a record of the call proving it .
Yet all the polling data we have suggests that public opinion on Trump and Ukraine has basically held steady .
Again , some of this is pure partisan recalcitrance .
But there ’ s good reason to believe that the right ’ s muddying of the waters — making the story about @ @ @ @ @ @ @ conspiracy theories , repeatedly trumpeting Trump ’ s own version of events , etc .
— has played a role .
The issue is that the coverage of the trials , in both the mainstream press and right-wing outlets , ensures that these counternarratives are part of the public conversation .
It adds to the general atmosphere of doubt and confusion .
And that ’ s why zone flooding presents a near-insoluble problem for the press .
The old model is broken The way impeachment has played out underscores just how the new @ @ @ @ @ @ @ democracy .
It helps to think of zone-flooding less as a strategy deployed by a person or group and more as a natural consequence of the way media works .
We don ’ t need a master puppeteer pulling the media ’ s strings .
The race for content , the need for clicks , is more than enough .
Bannon or Conway can shake things up by feeding nonsense into the system .
Trump can dictate an entire news cycle with a few unhinged tweets or an absurd press conference .
The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , innuendo , and outrageous content .
These are problems because of the norms that govern journalism and because the political economy of media makes it very hard to ignore or dispel bullshit stories .
This is at the root of our nihilism problem , and a solution is nowhere in sight .
The instinct of the mainstream press has always been to conquer lies by exposing them .
But it ’ s just not that simple anymore ( if it ever was ) .
There are too many claims to debunk and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ decision to cover something is a decision to amplify it and , in some cases , normalize it .
We probably need a paradigm shift in how the press covers politics .
Nearly all of the incentives driving media militate against this kind of rethinking , however .
And so we ’ re likely stuck with this problem for a very long time .
As is often the case , the diagnosis is much easier than the cure .
But liberal democracy can not function without a shared understanding of reality .
As @ @ @ @ @ @ @ shit , that shared understanding is impossible .

On Wednesday, the Senate voted to acquit President Trump of charges of abuse of power and obstruction of justice.
Despite all the incontrovertible facts at the center of this story, it was always inevitable that this process would change very few minds. No matter how clear a case the Democrats made, it was always highly likely that no single version of the truth was ever going to be accepted.
This fact underscores a serious problem for our democratic culture. No amount of evidence, on virtually any topic, is likely to move public opinion one way or the other. We can attribute some of this to rank partisanship — some people simply refuse to acknowledge inconvenient facts about their own side.
But there’s another, equally vexing problem. We live in a media ecosystem that overwhelms people with information. Some of that information is accurate, some of it is bogus, and much of it is intentionally misleading. The result is a polity that has increasingly given up on finding out the truth. As Sabrina Tavernise and Aidan Gardiner put it in a New York Times piece, “people are numb and disoriented, struggling to discern what is real in a sea of slant, fake, and fact.” This is partly why an earth-shattering historical event like a president’s impeachment did very little to move public opinion.
The core challenge we’re facing today is information saturation and a hackable media system. If you follow politics at all, you know how exhausting the environment is. The sheer volume of content, the dizzying number of narratives and counternarratives, and the pace of the news cycle are too much for anyone to process.
One response to this situation is to walk away and tune everything out. After all, it takes real effort to comb through the bullshit, and most people have busy lives and limited bandwidth. Another reaction is to retreat into tribal allegiances. There’s Team Liberal and Team Conservative, and pretty much everyone knows which side they’re on. So you stick to the places that feed you the information you most want to hear.
My Vox colleague Dave Roberts calls this an “epistemic crisis.” The foundation for shared truth, he argues, has collapsed. I don’t disagree with that, but I’d frame the problem a little differently.
We’re in an age of manufactured nihilism.
The issue for many people isn’t exactly a denial of truth as such. It’s more a growing weariness over the process of finding the truth at all. And that weariness leads more and more people to abandon the idea that the truth is knowable.
I call this “manufactured” because it’s the consequence of a deliberate strategy. It was distilled almost perfectly by Steve Bannon, the former head of Breitbart News and chief strategist for Donald Trump. “The Democrats don’t matter,” Bannon reportedly said in 2018. “The real opposition is the media. And the way to deal with them is to flood the zone with shit.”
This idea isn’t new, but Bannon articulated it about as well as anyone can. The press ideally should sift fact from fiction and give the public the information it needs to make enlightened political choices. If you short-circuit that process by saturating the ecosystem with misinformation and overwhelm the media’s ability to mediate, then you can disrupt the democratic process.
What we’re facing is a new form of propaganda that wasn’t really possible until the digital age. And it works not by creating a consensus around any particular narrative but by muddying the waters so that consensus isn’t achievable.
Bannon’s political objective is clear. As he explained in a 2017 Conservative Political Action Conference talk, he sees Trump as a stick of dynamite with which to blow up the status quo. So “flooding the zone” is a means to that end. But more generally, creating widespread cynicism about the truth and the institutions charged with unearthing it erodes the very foundation of liberal democracy. And the strategy is working.
What flooding the zone actually means
For most of recent history, the goal of propaganda was to reinforce a consistent narrative. But zone-flooding takes a different approach: It seeks to disorient audiences with an avalanche of competing stories.
And it produces a certain nihilism in which people are so skeptical about the possibility of finding the truth that they give up the search. The fact that 60 percent of Americans say they encounter conflicting reports about the same event is an example of what I mean. In the face of such confusion, it’s not surprising that less than half the country trusts what they read in the press.
Bannon articulated the zone-flooding philosophy well, but he did not invent it. In our time, it was pioneered by Vladimir Putin in post-Soviet Russia. Putin uses the media to engineer a fog of disinformation, producing just enough distrust to ensure that the public can never mobilize around a coherent narrative.
In October, I spoke to Peter Pomerantsev, a Soviet-born reality TV producer turned academic who wrote a book about Putin’s propaganda strategy. The goal, he told me, wasn’t to sell an ideology or a vision of the future; instead, it was to convince people that “the truth is unknowable” and that the only sensible choice is “to follow a strong leader.”
One major reason for the strategy’s success, both in the US and Russia, is that it coincided with a moment when the technological and political conditions were in place for it to thrive. Media fragmentation, the explosion of the internet, political polarization, curated timelines, and echo chambers — all of this allows a “flood the zone with shit” strategy to work.
The role of “gatekeeping” institutions has also changed significantly. Before the internet and social media, most people got their news from a handful of newspapers and TV networks. These institutions functioned like referees, calling out lies, fact-checking claims, and so on. And they had the ability to control the flow of information and set the terms of the conversation.
Today, gatekeepers still matter in terms of setting a baseline for political knowledge, but there’s much more competition for clicks and audiences, and that alters the incentives for what’s declared newsworthy in the first place. At the same time, traditional media outlets remain committed to a set of norms that are ill adapted to the modern environment. The preference for objectivity in political coverage, in particular, is a problem.
As Joshua Green, who wrote a biography of Bannon, explained, Bannon’s lesson from the Clinton impeachment in the 1990s was that to shape the narrative, a story had to move beyond the right-wing echo chamber and into the mainstream media. That’s exactly what happened with the now-debunked Uranium One story that dogged Clinton from the beginning of her campaign — a story Bannon fed to the Times, knowing that the supposedly liberal paper would run with it because that’s what mainstream media news organizations do.
In this case, Bannon flooded the zone with a ridiculous story not necessarily to persuade the public that it was true (although surely plenty of people bought into it) but to create a cloud of corruption around Clinton. And the mainstream press, merely by reporting a story the way it always has, helped create that cloud.
You see this dynamic at work daily on cable news. Trump White House adviser Kellyanne Conway lies. She lies a lot. Yet CNN and MSNBC have shown zero hesitation in giving her a platform to lie because they see their job as giving government officials — even ones who lie — a platform.
Even if CNN or MSNBC debunk Conway’s lies, the damage will be done. Fox and right-wing media will amplify her and other falsehoods; armies on social media, bot and real, will, too (@realDonaldTrump will no doubt chime in). The mainstream press will be a step behind in debunking — and even the act of debunking will serve to amplify the lies.
UC Berkeley linguist George Lakoff calls this the “framing effect.” As Lakoff puts it, if you say “don’t think of an elephant,” you can’t help but think of an elephant. In other words, even if you reject an argument, merely repeating it cements the frame in people’s minds. Debunking it is still useful, of course, but there’s a cost to dignifying it in the first place.
There is some research that points to the utility of fact-checking. Political scientists Brendan Nyhan and Jason Reifler have shown that repeated exposure to fact-checking does tend to increase the accuracy of beliefs. But the issue with zone-flooding is an overabundance of news, which diminishes the importance of any individual story, no matter how big or damning.
In this environment, there are often too many things happening at once; it’s a constant game of whack-a-mole for journalists. And we know that false claims, if they’re repeated enough, become more plausible the more often they’re shared, something psychologists have called the “illusory truth” effect. Our brains, it turns out, tend to associate repetition with truthfulness. Some interesting new research, moreover, found that the more people encounter information the more likely they are to feel justified in spreading it, whether it’s true or not.
Flooding the zone, polarization, and why many people still don’t know what Trump did
This all intersects with political polarization in troubling ways. One consequence of pervasive confusion about what’s happening is that people feel more comfortable siding with their political tribe. If everything’s up for grabs, and it’s hard to sift through the competing narratives to find the truth, then there’s nothing left but culture war politics. There’s “us” and “them,” and the possibility of persuasion is off the table.
It’s worth noting that this polarization is asymmetric. The left overwhelmingly receives its news from organizations like the New York Times, the Washington Post, or cable news networks like MSNBC or CNN. Some of the reporting is surely biased, and probably biased in favor of liberals, but it’s still (mostly) anchored to basic journalistic ethics.
As a recent book by three Harvard researchers explains, this just isn’t true of the right. American conservative media functions like a closed system, with Fox News at the center. Right-wing outlets are less tethered to conventional journalistic ethics and exist mostly to propagate the bullshit they produce.
All this has created an atmosphere that has helped Trump. The Trump administration was remarkably successful at muddying the waters on Ukraine and impeachment, and Republicans in Congress helped by parroting the administration’s talking points.
The fact is, Trump did what Democrats have accused him of doing. We know, with absolute certainty, that the president tried to get a foreign government to investigate a family member of one of his political rivals. And we know this because of the witnesses who testified before the House Intelligence Committee and because Trump’s own White House released a record of the call proving it.
Yet all the polling data we have suggests that public opinion on Trump and Ukraine basically held steady. Again, some of this is pure partisan recalcitrance. But there’s good reason to believe that the right’s muddying of the waters — making the story about Ukraine and Hunter Biden, pushing out conspiracy theories, repeatedly trumpeting Trump’s own version of events, etc. — played a role.
The issue is that the coverage of the trials, in both the mainstream press and right-wing outlets, ensured that these counternarratives are part of the public conversation. It added to the general atmosphere of doubt and confusion. And that’s why zone flooding presents a near-insoluble problem for the press.
The old model is broken
The way impeachment played out underscores just how the new media ecosystem is a problem for our democracy.
It helps to think of zone-flooding less as a strategy deployed by a person or group and more as a natural consequence of the way media works.
We don’t need a master puppeteer pulling the media’s strings. The race for content, the need for clicks, is more than enough. Bannon or Conway can shake things up by feeding nonsense into the system.
Trump can dictate an entire news cycle with a few unhinged tweets or an absurd press conference. The media cycle is easily commandeered by misinformation, innuendo, and outrageous content. These are problems because of the norms that govern journalism and because the political economy of media makes it very hard to ignore or dispel bullshit stories. This is at the root of our nihilism problem, and a solution is nowhere in sight.
The instinct of the mainstream press has always been to conquer lies by exposing them. But it’s just not that simple anymore (if it ever was). There are too many claims to debunk and too many conflicting narratives. And the decision to cover something is a decision to amplify it and, in some cases, normalize it.
We probably need a paradigm shift in how the press covers politics. Nearly all of the incentives driving media militate against this kind of rethinking, however. And so we’re likely stuck with this problem for a very long time.
As is often the case, the diagnosis is much easier than the cure. But liberal democracy cannot function without a shared understanding of reality. As long as the zone is flooded with shit, that shared understanding is impossible.