New York Times

                                                                           

 LOTS OF POSTS IGNORED BY BLOGGER.....

OR REMOVED ON THEIR WHIM!

ALL POSTS ARE AVAILABLE ON

MIDDLEBORO REVIEW AND SO ON

BLOGGER DOESN'T LIKE TRUTH OR FACTS!

BLOGGER DOESN'T LIKE FUND RAISERS AND DELETES

POSTS THAT INCLUDE FUNDRAISING THAT 'VIOLATES THEIR

UNDEFINED COMMUNITY STANDARDS SO ALL 'FUND RAISING'

IS DELETED - CONTRIBUTE AS YOU ARE INCLINED TO SUPPORT

IMPORTANT ISSUES! THESE ARE NOT SOLICITATIONS

Elissa was featured in a recent article for the New York Times. It talks about the recent phenomenon of "prediction markets" and political insiders profiting off non-public information.

We've included the article below. Thank you for taking a few minutes to read up on this issue and what Elissa is doing about it.

---

NYT: Trump Says He Dislikes Prediction Markets.
His Family Invests in Them.

When a U.S. soldier was indicted on Thursday on charges of using classified information to place prediction market bets, it seemed to confirm President Trump’s lament just hours before that “the whole world unfortunately has become somewhat of a casino.”

“I was never much in favor of it,” Mr. Trump said from the Oval Office, when asked about concerns that federal employees might be leveraging insider information on the prediction markets. “I don’t like it conceptually. It is what it is. I’m not happy with any of that stuff.”

Yet Mr. Trump and his family stand to profit from the very same industry.

The president’s publicly traded media company unveiled its own prediction market product last year. And the president’s eldest son, Donald Trump Jr., has ties to two of the industry’s top firms, including Polymarket, the platform that prosecutors say was used by the soldier for well-timed bets.

The result, ethics experts say, is a jarring juxtaposition between Mr. Trump’s public comments and his family’s private business.

While the president’s criticism of the prediction markets raised the prospect of new regulation, the reality is that little is likely to change. Last year, Mr. Trump’s administration backed away from enforcement efforts against Polymarket, and it is unclear whether regulators will adopt any new oversight measures.

“Presidential statements used to be the gold standard, but this is not true for President Trump,” Jeffrey A. Engel, founding director of the Center for Presidential History at Southern Methodist University, said.

“What he does is more important than what he says,” Mr. Engel said, adding, “I don’t think his comments will bother the prediction markets in the least.

Prediction markets, a fast-growing industry, allow consumers to place wagers on the likelihood of a future event, from cricket match scores to the release date of an album by the Canadian rap star Drake. But bettors can also weigh in on military and national security matters around the world. Some of those outcomes could be known or affected by a small group of decision makers, including those in Mr. Trump’s inner circle.

Mr. Trump made his remarks on Thursday, just hours before federal prosecutors in Manhattan charged Master Sgt. Gannon Ken Van Dyke, an Army Special Forces soldier who had helped capture Nicolás Maduro of Venezuela. Sgt. Van Dyke, prosecutors said, made more than $400,000 by betting on different outcomes related to Venezuela after learning of the operation.

He is not the only government employee suspected of placing well-timed bets on Venezuela and the war in Iran. There was a surge of suspicious trading related to the war last month. In response, Congress is considering legislation to limit government officials’ use of prediction markets, while officials in some states are also considering new regulations.

Senator Elissa Slotkin of Michigan, the lead Democratic sponsor of legislation that would bar any public official from placing prediction-market bets using nonpublic information they learn in the course of their jobs, has warned about “operational risk” and threats to national security.

It remains unclear whether the Republican-led Congress will advance the bipartisan bill. Asked about the president’s son’s ties to Polymarket and Kalshi, Ms. Slotkin said in an interview last month that she feared the White House could throw up barriers to passing the bill by pressuring Republicans not to support it.

“It’s too politically dicey,” she said, adding: “There is not a single important issue of the day where I don’t feel the shadow of Trump and his sons.”

In a statement, Davis Ingle, a spokesman for the White House, said: “President Trump has been crystal clear: While he seeks a strong and profitable stock market for everyone, members of Congress and other government officials should be prohibited from using nonpublic information for financial benefit. The only special interest that will ever guide President Trump is the best interest of the American people.”

There is no blanket prohibition on government employees’ placing bets on prediction markets, though prosecutors can still file fraud charges, as they did against Sgt. Van Dyke. He was also charged with unlawful use of confidential government information.

The White House issued a warning to staff last month against insider trading, amid a surge of suspicious trading on prediction markets, oil futures and stocks hinging on crucial moments in the conflict.

And the president’s remarks on Thursday served as another warning.

But his own family’s business interests could undermine the effectiveness of that message.

Last year, the publicly traded company that operates his social media platform, Truth Social, unveiled a new product called Truth Predict. The company, Trump Media & Technology Group, said the product would allow Truth Social users to trade prediction contracts “related to major events and milestones, such as political elections, interest and inflation rate changes.”

Truth Predict is not yet operational, according to a company spokeswoman, who said that the product was being developed and tested before launch.

A spokesman for Donald Trump Jr., who is a Trump Media board member, said he was not involved in the decision to create Truth Predict. The spokesman, Andrew Surabian, said that it was not a board-level resolution and that Donald Trump Jr. was not a part of the company’s day-to-day operations.

The younger Mr. Trump, however, has ties to both of the biggest prediction markets, Polymarket and its rival, Kalshi.

He is a paid adviser to Kalshi. And 1789 Capital, a venture capital firm in which Donald Trump Jr. is a partner, has invested in Polymarket. Mr. Trump is also an unpaid adviser to the company.

Mr. Surabian said that Donald Trump Jr.’s only involvement with prediction markets was to advise Kalshi and Polymarket on marketing strategies and to back Polymarket financially. He said that the president’s son did not trade on their platforms and that he never interacted with the federal government on behalf of any company he had invested in or advised.

There is no indication that Donald Trump Jr. will now seek to influence his father’s position on prediction markets. And it is unclear how firm the president’s position is.

Even his complaint that the world was becoming “somewhat of a casino” was an odd remark, coming from him. Mr. Trump spent years owning casinos, though they all eventually closed or changed hands.

---

👋🏻 Wait, before you click away! 🇺🇸

As one of the few Senators who won a Senate race in the same state won by Trump, Elissa Slotkin is being asked to campaign for other Democrats in tough races across the country this election.

And while Elissa wishes we did not have to send another email asking you to contribute, that is what we have to do today.

The outcome of this election will determine whether we are able to put a check on President Trump during the final two years of his term. We have to take back the House and the Senate. And we need your help to get it done.

Can Elissa count on you to make a contribution of $10 or whatever you can afford before our April fundraising drive ends? It'd mean a lot to her as we fund her work traveling to help elect Democrats

If you've stored your info with ActBlue, we'll process your contribution instantly:

The New York Times is on the wrong side of history

NEW YORK TIMES FAILED TO CHALLENGE LIES ABOUT WMD IN IRAQ EVEN

AS THE TRUTH WAS REPORTED ELSEWHERE!  TESTIMONY WAS AVAILABLE ON

CSPAN ABOUT THE UN INSPECTOR'S REPORTS. 

COLIN POWELL REGURGITATED THOSE LIES TO HIS DISCREDIT!

Mark Jacob here — contributor at COURIER.

At COURIER, we believe good journalism is essential to a functioning democracy. And no media institution has more influence on that mission than The New York Times.

While the Times has improved since Trump’s inauguration, too often its coverage still “sane-washes” Trump — portraying him as just another political figure instead of warning the public about the threat of a MAGA dictatorship.

I wrote about this problem in a new piece you can read below. But before you do, I hope you’ll consider making a donation to COURIER.

Your support helps us call out legacy media when they fall short — and push them to treat this political moment with the urgency it demands.

Chip in now to support independent journalism that holds powerful institutions like the New York Times accountable to serving our democracy.

Donate now

Thanks for being in this fight,

Mark Jacob

COURIER Contributor

---

Over the weekend, the New York Times published a pompous editorial headlined, “The Democrats Are in Denial About 2024.” The editorial wasn’t wrong – much of the party’s leadership is indeed in denial – but the obvious, ignored fact is that the Times is in denial too.

Donate

During the 2024 campaign, the Times sane-washed Trump’s mental unfitness, downplayed MAGA fascism, and sometimes treated a political turning point for our country as a source of lighthearted amusement.

Vice presidential candidate JD Vance’s insult of “childless cat ladies” and his lie about immigrants eating house pets got peppy branding by the Times as “combative conservatism.” When Trump bizarrely swayed to music for 39 minutes at a campaign rally, the Times called it an “improvisational departure.” On MSNBC, a top Times editor noted how “entertaining” Trump was.

A headline in September, “Harris Heads to the Border, Trying to Project Toughness Against Trump,” was an ugly example of the Times’ failings. According to them, Kamala Harris wasn’t projecting toughness, she was just trying to. And the Times felt the need to stick Trump in the headline because he’s the star of their show – the “entertainment.”

There are many more counts in my indictment, but we’re short on time. My point is that the Times covered the 2024 campaign with dangerous unseriousness, normalizing a political movement that is trying to plunge our country into a dictatorship.

The Times has built its newsroom on Neutrality Island, clinging to its concept of objectivity so fiercely that its news coverage takes no clear position on democracy vs. fascism. A comparable scenario would be if the Times’ crime coverage decided to be objective on whether it was good or bad when people got mugged on the subway.

Support independent media

This weird distance from the consequences of news events was demonstrated by Publisher A.G. Sulzberger last year when he declared that journalists could be led astray if they worried about being ”on the right side of history.”

Sulzberger’s argument was especially odd considering that the Times’ coverage of the rise of MAGA has been written as if it were chronicling history rather than serving as a warning that could make a difference in present times.

It’s understandable, of course, that the Times would dismiss the goal of being on the right side of history, considering how often it’s been on the wrong side over the years.

Such as in 1903 when they wrote that the invention of an operative flying machine would take the “continuous efforts of mathematicians and mechanicians” over “1 million to 10 million years.” The Wright brothers made their famous flight 69 days later.

Or in 1922, when the Times assured its readers that Adolf Hitler’s “anti-Semitism was not so violent or genuine as it sounded.” Or in the 1930s when Times foreign correspondent Walter Duranty spread Soviet dictator Joseph Stalin’s propaganda, including downplaying a Soviet-induced famine that killed millions of Ukrainians.

All news outlets make mistakes, and some of the Times’ visits to the wrong side of history have been relatively benign.

Caitlin Clark and Stephen Curry might be amused to know that the Times panned the first known use of a three-point shot in basketball, writing in 1945 that the innovative rule “will be permitted to die a natural death.” The Times thought most of the Beatles’ “Abbey Road” album was “an unmitigated disaster.” In 2016, a Times critic reviewing Amazon’s “Goliath” criticized the “needlessly complicated structure of the initial episodes,” then later admitted he had mistakenly watched the first two episodes out of order.

But back to the serious stuff. Two of the New York Times’ major mistakes in modern times have had enormous implications.

One was shoddy reporting in 2003 that supported the Bush administration’s false claims about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. The U.S. invasion led to hundreds of thousands of deaths, and the Times later wrote a mea culpa.

The other egregious episode came in 2016, when the Times went way overboard in focusing on Hillary Clinton’s private email server. In the closing days of the campaign, the Times ran 10 front-page stories in six days about Clinton’s emails – an issue that pales in comparison to Trump security lapses since then.

Did the Times give us Trump in 2016? Quite possibly.

Did the Times give us Trump again in 2024? I won’t go that far, but it certainly didn’t do enough to warn the public about the danger of a dictatorship.

Contribute now to support more journalism like this

The Times has been somewhat better since Trump’s inauguration, closing the barn door after it helped let out the horse. It has recently published strong articles about Team Trump’s lawlessness and lies, saying explicitly that the Republicans show “a disregard for the rules” and “are using false claims to justify their policy changes.” Reporter David Fahrenthold and his colleagues have aggressively debunked bogus information from Elon Musk’s Department of Government Efficiency.

That said, many of the old bad habits remain. Threats to invade other countries are described euphemistically as desires "to expand America’s footprint.” Trump Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt, a professional liar, is called “steely and unflinching.” Trump’s address to Congress is credited with “game show flair.”

When I go off about the Times, people argue that it doesn’t matter – that the voters who gave us Trump don’t read it. But the Times influences how other media handle stories and what they consider important. For that reason, people who never read the Times are influenced by it.

With the Washington Post’s owner destroying his newspaper’s credibility in fealty to Trump, the Times has become even more important, which means its failures are more damaging.

The Times may not care about being on the right side of history, but if it doesn’t get on that side soon, it may become a relic of history itself.

Donate

---

Email us: info@couriernewsroom.com

Become a member! 

Bernie Sanders Drops Biden “Replacement” BOMBSHELL, Goes On ATTACK

 

Occupy Democrats

277K subscribers

Influential Independent Senator Bernie Sanders just dropped a bombshell about “replacement” for President Biden — and then perfectly called out the New York Times!

What must we expect of journalism in this crisis?

 POSTED HERE:

What must we expect of journalism in this crisis?

FAIR: Defining Steve Bannon Downward

 

View article on FAIR's website Defining Steve Bannon Downward DOROTHEE BENZ This is how the New York Times (8/20/20) first reported the news that Steve Bannon has been indicted for fraud—describing him as "President Trump's former campaign aide":   Bannon was not just a "campaign aide"—he was the CEO of the Trump campaign. The Times reported his appointment in August 2017 (8/17/16) under the headline, "Donald Trump Appoints Media Firebrand to Run Campaign." But perhaps more importantly, Bannon's role didn't end after Trump's election; he was named the White House's chief strategist, a role he held for the first seven months of the administration. The effort to legitimize power, in this case by pretending a leading white supremacist was less central to the regime than he was, is relentless at the Times. It's pretty much the "paper of record's" North Star. The Times (8/20/20) updated its story within minutes, with a new description of Bannon...which tells me they knew damned well that calling Bannon merely a former campaign aide (not even a campaign staffer, a mere "aide") was inexcusable. But even in the corrected blurb, Bannon is just a "former adviser." Let me repeat, he was the effing chief strategist of the White House. The corruption, malfeasance, fascist and racist and misogynist intent, and sheer greed of this regime is staggering. If only the New York Times spent less time trying to soothe us into thinking it was normal, we'd have the revolt we need for this moment.   Featured image: New York Times (8/20/20) depiction of Steve Bannon.

© 2020 Fairness & Accuracy in Reporting. All rights reserved. Fairness & Accuracy in Reporting Our mailing address is: FAIRNESS & ACCURACY IN REPORTING 124 W. 30th Street, Suite 201 New York, NY 10001 FAIR's Website FAIR counts on your support to do this work — please donate today.