MightyScribe

Good!

InfoWars files for bankruptcy in the face of lawsuits over Sandy Hook shooting denial Founder Alex Jones, who's repeatedly called the 2012 shooting in a Connecticut elementary school a hoax, has been sued several times by the victims' families for defamation and emotional distress.

Yup.

Fascinating story from Axios. I wonder what Rupert will do going forward. Will he stick with Trump or stick it to Trump?

Newsmax is working to pull ahead of conservative rival Fox News, trying to lure away its vital booking agents with promises of higher salaries, two people who have been contacted by Newsmax tell me.

Why it matters: The battle to serve as the venue of choice for conservative viewers has intensified as President Trump has chastised Fox for declaring Joe Biden the election winner and Newsmax has pandered to his believers.

Newsmax is owned by Trump friend Chris Ruddy. The bookers — who try to land guests at a moment's notice — said they believe his network courted them because it wants to gain their contacts.

They said several other colleagues — mostly younger Fox employees with lower salaries — also have been approached.
A spokesperson for Newsmax did not respond to a request for comment. Fox News did not provide a comment.

FYI

9 Tips for Covering Election Misinformation - American Press Institute Experts warn that much of the discourse voters see this election will be laced with false information, misleading or out-of-context claims, and targeted disinformation. Most of that will be designed to suppress voter turnout and undermine confidence in our election system and election results. And i...

We wear masks because the person passing us in the store may have Covid and be asymptomatic. Or, it could be me. We won’t know until we can test freely. Wear masks. Be thoughtful.

Crisis communications 101:
Do not hide information; do not funnel everything through one office (which is run by someone incapable of this coronavirus job), or curtail relevant, thoughtful and honest speech on the topic. You will breed distrust and panic.

Gotta say no to some things!

Being obsessed with being productive ... is unproductive A wave of writers and researchers are redefining how we view useful work.

The majority of U.S. adults in a new poll by Edelman Intelligence would feel more favorably toward a company whose CEO backs tougher background checks for gun purchases.

Why it matters: CEOs traditionally were reluctant to wade into polarizing issues, but they face pressure from shareholders, employees and customers to show their values.

The global communications firm, which has conducted the Edelman Trust Barometer research for 19 years, gave Axios a first look at the poll.

The bottom line: Companies have "more to gain than they put at risk by taking a stand" on guns.

Just this week, Walmart halted ammo sales for handguns and assault-style weapons. Kroger joined Walmart in asking shoppers not to carry guns openly.
Edelman's advice to CEOs, based on the research:

"Executives have the public's permission to use their platforms to draw visibility to the issue and support gun safety laws."
"Businesses can choose from a variety of unifying initiatives — like background checks, red flag laws and educational program funding."
"Consumers are 3x more likely to respond positively than negatively to a CEO or company that takes action to address gun violence."

Poynter: Allies of President Donald Trump have started a campaign to discredit news organizations and journalists they consider to be anti-Trump. The “aggressive operation” aims to publicize damaging information about journalists to “undercut the influence of legitimate news reporting.”

This is all according to a story in Sunday’s New York Times by Kenneth P. Vogel and Jeremy W. Peters. According to the story, the group already has released information about journalists at CNN, The Washington Post and The New York Times. The information comes from closely examining more than a decade’s worth of public posts and statements by journalists. The story said, “Only a fraction of what the network claims to have uncovered has been made public … with more to be disclosed as the 2020 election heats up.”

The Times said it is impossible to independently assess the claims about how much damaging information this group has, but that material publicized so far has “proved authentic, and much of it has been professionally harmful to targets.”

The White House has denied knowing anything about the operation. The Times named Arthur Schwartz, a conservative consultant and “friend and informal adviser” to Donald Trump Jr., as a key figure in the force to take down journalists. (As CNN’s Oliver Darcy noted, The Daily Beast’s Maxwell Tani wrote about Schwartz and this topic in January.)

Last week, a New York Times political editor got into trouble for tweets nearly a decade old, when he was in college, that ridiculed Jews, Native Americans and the Amish. The story first appeared on Breitbart News then spread quickly when Donald Trump Jr. tweeted it to his 3.8 million followers.

Schwartz then tweeted:

“If the thinks this settles the matter we can expose a few of their other bigots. Lots more where this came from.”

The Times story goes on to say that the group not only is targeting high-profile journalists, but anyone who works for news outlets who are seen as being hostile toward the president to undermine the credibility of that outlet.

In a statement, New York Times publisher A.G. Sulzberger said, “They are seeking to harass and embarrass anyone affiliated with the leading news organizations that are asking tough questions and bringing uncomfortable truths to light. The goal of this campaign is clearly to intimidate journalists from doing their job, which includes serving as a check on power and exposing wrongdoing when it occurs. The Times will not be intimidated or silenced.”

Sulzberger also wrote a note to the staff, which the Times published online. In it, he showed support for the journalists at the Times, but added, “I also want to be clear: No organization is above scrutiny, including The Times. We have high standards, own our mistakes and always strive to do better. If anyone — even those acting in bad faith — brings legitimate problems to our attention, we’ll look into them and respond appropriately.”

So, you might say, if journalists never tweeted or said or did anything embarrassing then they have no need to worry, right? And if they have, shouldn’t it be exposed?

It’s not that simple.

According to this story, what this group is doing seems to be two-fold. One is to blackmail news organizations from questioning, criticizing and holding the president accountable. The other is to chip away at the media’s credibility so it cannot effectively keep the president in check.

In other words: stop the media from getting out information and, if they do get it out, make sure it’s not believed.

That’s incredibly damaging to our country because it’s an attempt to undercut one of the most essential parts of our democracy: a free and open press whose primary role is to hold the powerful accountable.

Yes, absolutely, the media should be held accountable, too. But stories published or aired by reputable news organizations stand up to scrutiny through the use of facts, sources and citations. Because this operation can’t discredit such stories, the next best thing to do is discredit the journalists and outlets by combing through tweets and Facebook and Instagram posts from years gone by.

Will this group find examples of stupid social media activity? Probably. Might it find journalists who had some legal or financial trouble in their distant past? Perhaps. Might there be some embarrassing text messages or emails uncovered? Possibly.

But ask yourself, what’s more important: What the president is doing right now or what some unknown copy editor who has nothing to do with a Trump story said on Twitter a decade ago? Which is more important to our democracy: holding the president accountable or seeing to it that a production assistant at CNN is punished for an Instagram post from a New Year’s Eve party five years ago?

This operation has no interest in making our country better or supporting an independent press. It only is interested in distracting the public with unimportant items to allow the president to rule ungoverned, unchecked and unhampered.

Tweet of the day

Not sure I actually believe this is what world leaders were asking, but here’s what President Trump tweeted on Sunday:

“The question I was asked most today by fellow World Leaders, who think the USA is doing so well and is stronger than ever before, happens to be, ‘Mr. President, why does the American media hate your Country so much? Why are they rooting for it to fail?’”