US Press: pick of the papers

The ten must-read opinion pieces from today's US papers.

1. 7 billion thirsts, and not enough drinkable water (Detroit Free Press)

On this threshold day, our greatest global challenge is figuring out how to get more people greater access to the planet's most precious resource, writes this editorial.

2. The battle of military suicides (Boston Globe)

The Veterans Administration estimates that a veteran dies by suicide every 80 minutes, Juliette Kayyem reporst -- and the problem is growing.

3. Obama's spooky economy (Washington Times)

GDP may be up 2.5 per cent but consumer uncertainty casts a shadow over news of temporary growth, argues this WT editorial.

4. Flat Taxes and Angry Voters (New York Times)

This editorial reports that more Americans are questioning the Republicans' flat tax plans, which keep rewarding the rich.

5. 10 reasons why Russia still matters (Politico)

According to Graham Allison and Robert D. Blackwill, Russia is a player whose choices affect our vital interests in nuclear security and energy.

6. Uganda intervention a U.S. worthy cause (San Fransisco Chronicle)

Removing the Lord's Resistance Army seems an obtainable goal and has diplomatic dividends, argues this editorial.

7. Beyond Occupy (New York Times)

Bill Keller writes that in India, Anna Hazare and his team show what protest can accomplish.

8. GOP Not Giving Obama Enough Credit on Libya (Roll Call)

By any objective standard, the Obama approach to Libya has been a huge success, notes Norman Ornstein: not a single American life was lost, the United States worked in concert with the Arab League and in partnership with its NATO allies, and a hated and oppressive regime was toppled.

9. Wedding days are losing their way (USA Today)

Ceremonies should be about commitment and marriage, not mere romance, says Henry G. Brinton.

10. The zombies with six legs (Los Angeles Times)

The human undead have nothing on the creepiness of some insects, writes biologist Marlene Zuk. They routinely do things too grotesque even for horror movies.

Getty
Show Hide image

The toxic new right-wing media will outlast Trump even if he’s impeached

Fox News and a network of smaller outlets have created an alternative version of reality. That ecosystem might prove more durable than the US president. 

An early end to Donald Trump’s presidency looks more feasible than at any time in the 117 days since his inauguration.

The New York Times revealed on Tuesday that FBI director James Comey – who was fired by Trump a week ago – wrote a memo recording the President’s request he “let go” an investigation into links between Michael Flynn, Trump’s pick for national security advisor, and Russia.

Already there is talk of impeachment, not least because the crime Trump is accused of - obstructing justice - is the same one that ended Richard Nixon's presidency.

But with a Republican-controlled Congress the impeachment process would be long and fraught, and is only likely to succeed if public opinion, and particularly the opinion of the Republican voters, swings decisively against Trump.

In another era, the rolling coverage of the president's chaotic, incompetent and potentially corrupt administration might have pushed the needle far enough. But many of those Republican voters will make their decision about whether or not to stick with Trump based not on investigative reporting in the NYT or Washington Post, but based on reading a right-wing media ecosystem filled with distortions, distractions and fabrications.

That ecosystem – which spans new and (relatively) old media - will be going into overdrive to protect a president it helped elect, and who in turn has nourished it with praise and access.

On Monday, BuzzFeed’s Charlie Warzel took a forensic look at how a new breed of hyper-partisan right wing sites – what he calls the "Upside Down media" – tried to undermine and discredit claims that Trump disclosed sensitive security information to Russian officials.

The same tactics can already be seen just 24 hours later. Notorious conspiracist site Infowars talks of “saboteurs” and “turncoats” undermining the administration with leaks, mirroring an email from Trump’s campaign team sent late on Tuesday. Newsmax, another right-leaning sight with links to Trump, attacks the source of the story, asking in its web splash “Why did Comey wait so long?”. GatewayPundit, which published several false stories about Hillary Clinton during the election campaign, appears to have ignored the story altogether. 

As Warzel points out, these new sites work in concert with older media, in particular Rupert Murdoch’s ratings-topping cable news channel Fox News.

Fox initially underplayed the Comey memo’s significance, switching later to projecting the story as a media-led attack on Trump. At the time of publication, the Fox homepage led with a splash headlined: “THE SHOW MUST GO ON Lawmakers vow to focus on Trump agenda despite WH controversies.”

Fox acts as a source of validation for the newly established right-wing sites. Once Fox has covered a story, smaller sites can push further and faster, knowing that they aren't going too far from at least one outlet considered respectable and mainstream. If anything should make the UK value the impartiality rules, however imperfect, which govern its broadcast news, it’s Fox’s central role in enabling this toxic mix of misinformation.

These new media sites have another weapon, however. They understand and exploit the way internet platforms - in particular Facebook - are designed to maximise attention. They have found that playing on very human desires for stories that confirm our biases and trigger emotional responses is the best way to build audiences and win fans, and they have little compulsion abusing that knowledge.

This isn’t just a Trump or Fox-related phenomenon. It’s not even just a right-wing one. In both the US and the UK left-wing hyper-partisan sites with a tenuous relationship with the truth have sprung up. They have followed the same playbook, and in most cases the same advertising-based funding model, which has worked so well for the right. Emotive headlines, spun stories, outright fabrications and an insistence that “the corrupt mainstream media won’t report this” work just as well in generating clicks and shares for both ends of the political spectrum.

The main difference between the two political poles is that the right has benefited from an ideologically and temperamentally suited president, and a facilitator in Fox News. 

Of course the combined efforts of this new media and the Fox-led old may still fail. Trump’s recent transgressions appear so severe that they could break through to even his diehard supporters.

But if Trump does fall, the new right wing media ecosystem is unlikely to fall with him. 

0800 7318496