Connect with us

News

Election Year Critical Media Literacy and Civic Engagement

Published

on

Election Year Critical Media Literacy and Civic Engagement

The Progressive magazine teamed up with Project Censored for its June/July issue and took an in-depth look at media literacy in the context of the upcoming election. On this week’s program, Mickey speaks with Norman Stockwell, publisher of the venerable political journal about how and why the partnership came about; as well as Project Censored’s associate director, Andy Lee Roth, who wrote about corporate media’s news abuse and the coming election; and Mischa Geracoulis, who was guest editor for the special edition. They discuss the many ways critical media literacy can help create a more informed and meaningfully engaged electorate. Later in the program, Mickey and Eleanor discuss the relative utility of electoral politics in our current context while highlighting numerous ways people can be civically engaged in addition to showing up at the ballot box, making political and community activism a way of life, not just an every four-year endeavor.

Norman Stockwell is the Publisher of The Progressive. Andy Lee Roth is Associate Director of Project Censored, coordinator of the Project’s Campus Affiliates Program, and a contributor to the current issue of the Progressive. Mischa Geracoulis is Curriculum Development Coordinator at Project Censored, and the guest editor for the Progressive’s June/July media issue.

Mickey Huff: Welcome to the Project Censored Show on Pacifica Radio. I’m your host, Mickey Huff. Today on the program, we are featuring the Progressive Magazine special summer double issue that’s dedicated to media literacy. This is an information packed edition of the Progressive Magazine. It’s been around since 1909.

Of course, listeners to this program are probably no strangers to the Progressive. The publisher Norman Stockwell was on with me earlier this spring and we’re delighted to bring Norman Stockwell back on the program today He’s going to be a guest with us in this in this program in the first segments. We also are going to be joined by Andy Lee Roth the associate director of Project Censored who also contributed to this issue of the Progressive Magazine and also Mishca Geracoulis. And Mischa was the guest editor of this issue of the Progressive, which is a rarity historically, and I know Norman Stockwell maybe can talk about that.

Advertisement

Mischa is also the curriculum development coordinator with us at Project Censored. And so let’s just jump right in here because there’s so much to talk about around media literacy as it’s relating to an election year. And that’s what everything in this issue of the Progressive does. And I know for the folks that are looking on video, I just want to parade this in front momentarily because there’s a very brilliant cover here.

Absolutely amazing artwork too. And maybe Norman Stockwell can talk to us about that. So let’s just jump right in. This is the June, July 2024 issue of the Progressive Magazine, media literacy issue. Norman Stockwell, you are the publisher of the amazing Progressive Magazine. Let’s just talk about this.

A, you know, how did the collaboration come about? And, you know, let’s just talk about the, the main themes in, in this issue, Norman Stockwell, welcome.

Norman Stockwell: Well, thank you very much, Mickey. It’s great. Great to be here. And, I mean, how did this come about? I’ve known the work of Project Censored for, for decades.

Advertisement

I mean, I worked as, as, many people listening perhaps remember I worked in community radio for, for quite a while and, so came to know the work of Project Censored. We would feature, your, most censored news, reporting for years. And so it, it made a lot of sense when, when we were deciding to do something on this topic to invite Project Censored in.

And then, I came to know Mischa, I guess it was sometime, sometime last year, and when I heard that she had gone over to be working with, Project Censored on outreach stuff, I immediately got ahold of her and said, would you like to guest edit this issue of the Progressive? The Progressive has been around, as you mentioned, since 1909. So we’re in our 115th year, but we have not done that many special issues with guest editors. I will notably mention a couple of them. In 1954, we did a special issue that was basically taking apart Joe McCarthy. It came out at the same time as the Edward R. Murrow television program on McCarthy, and it was a very influential, distributed all around the country, bringing important issues to people in 1962.

We did a special issue on the 100th anniversary of the Emancipation Proclamation, and that featured amazing writers, including James Baldwin’s first ever printing of the “Letter to My Nephew,” which later became a part of The Fire Next Time. In 1970 for, the launch of Earth Day, we brought together a special crew and Dennis Hayes, was, took the lead on that and put together an amazing issue about the environment when nobody was really talking about that, you know, and now, here in, 2024 when media literacy is, I think, without a doubt, the key issue that that we need to be talking about in this lead up to the November 2024 presidential election, both in terms of things that are talked about in here, like AI, the role of artificial intelligence, fake news as we understand it, not as some people talk about it on the airwaves and just, you know, really taking a look at how we get our information and how we trust our information.

And that’s really what I think goes into this, this issue of the magazine. So it was amazing to be able to bring together so many skilled and talented writers from the world of Project Censored and from many other aspects of our alternative media universe to critique these issues to elucidate these issues and to present them in a way that they’re both easily digestible and, act, act-on-able, whatever, whatever the word for that is actionable,

Advertisement

Mickey Huff: actionable.

Yes. I see Fighting Bob in the background with his hand, the hand up in the air. It’s definitely, that’s right.

Norman Stockwell: That’s right. Our, our founder Fighting Bob La Follette who, who, who graces the pages of the Progressive and also the shelves and bookcases around the office here.

Mickey Huff: Well, Norman Stockwell, that it’s, again, it’s an amazing issue.

Advertisement

It’s an honor to collaborate with you, you know, just to give listeners sort of a teaser. You know, there’s pieces in here on on social media, sort of the battle between the digital sphere, the cable sphere, the attacks on social media and the differentiation that’s being made in Congress. We can talk about that a little maybe later in the program.

There’s a piece on dark money uncovered by Steve Macek, who also works with us at Project Censored. There’s a great piece by Kate Horgan, Reagan Haynie, and Shealeigh Voitl, “Navigating Digital Democracy.” All great. We’re gonna have those folks on for another show. Even a stellar piece on media literacy is a state issue about mandating media literacy education.

I mean, and look, that’s just getting started. I’m gonna, let’s turn it over to you, Mischa Geracoulis. You’re the guest editor here. What do you want? Let’s hear some opening thoughts from you. This is again a stellar issue of this, this historic magazine. Mischa, your thoughts.

Mischa Geracoulis: First and foremost, it was, it’s been a massive honor.

Advertisement

It’s been, it’s been such a great experience on every level. And just so fantastic to be able to bring together, as Norm just said, so many wonderful experts and supporters and to come together on these issues. It’s, it’s such an honor to be part of Project Censored and partnering with the Progressive to do this.

So, you know, we, we talked and we talked as everybody here knows, ultimately deciding on this overarching umbrella, media literacy. And I, I think one thing I’d like to say is the intention for that is multifold. We wanted to present perspectives not typically found in the corporate press. We wanted to present articles, essays, reviews, columns, that present a useful line of inquiry, offering examples of critical media literacy, something I know we’ll talk about later, skills that empower readers, that empower news consumers.

We also wanted to present all of these ideas against the backdrop of this super election year, obviously in the U. S. that means presidential elections, and then against something that we didn’t overtly state, but the backdrop of Reporters Without Borders’ World Press Freedom Assessment, which was released May 3rd, World Press Freedom Day, and found that the U.S. dropped from 45th position down to 55th. So that’s something we might take up later. But we, for this collaborative issue, ultimately, we also hope to perhaps help to renew trust and interest in the news and in voting as a civic duty.

Mickey Huff: Absolutely. I actually, I’m just, just reminded to Mischa that you just did a stellar dispatch for Project Censored on the very issue “Reporters Without Borders Finds Significant “Barriers to Press Freedom” in the United States,” and threats to the integrity of the press jeopardize not only the right to know but all other human rights and democracy too.

Advertisement

And that’s a theme here that comes in this issue of the Progressive and we’ll certainly circle back to this. You can look, you can find that article for free online at projectcensored.org. And I want to come now to the associate director of Project Censored, Dr. Andy Lee Roth. I had the, the, the great pleasure of co authoring a piece with, with Andy, none of the above exposing election year news abuse in this issue of the Progressive.

And Andy Lee Roth, let’s have your opening statements, about this, this special issue of the Progressive, Andy.

Andy Lee Roth: Thanks, Mickey, I would echo what Mischa just said, about what an honor it is to, be, to have, work of mine, ours included in the, this special issue of the Progressive, yeah, the subtitle of the article, that I, co authored is “Exposing Election Year News Abuse,” and news abuse is a form of formal concept, not just a slogan, but a formal concept, developed by Project Censored initiated by Peter Phillips, who coined the term back in about 2002 to try to get a kind of analytic handle on kind of a type of news story that we see frequently in the corporate media or a type of news coverage that we see frequently.

The idea of news abuse is, news abuse is coverage of stories that are important, but the coverage is such that the important points of the story are lost or buried or spun so far that the public won’t make good sense of them. And the analysis in our contribution to the Progressive article is that news abuse is rife in corporate media’s election coverage.

Advertisement

The kind of subhead of the article puts it about as succinctly as I know how, as framed by corporate news media, presidential elections have become as formulaic ss a Hallmark holiday movie, and, I’ll come back and maybe say more in a moment about that idea of framing. But, the, the core idea, I think, of of this particular article in the special issue of the Progressive is that a lot of the election coverage provided by corporate news outlets, don’t doesn’t really serve our interests as voters or as members of our communities and the public at large. And so, but the article is not simply critical. We’re also looking at some meaningful alternatives and some pathways forward that might result in a better informed electorate. So that’s, in a nutshell, none of the above the exposing election year news abuse article.

Mickey Huff: Yeah, indeed. And the none of the above is, again, an interesting sort of concept as we saw through the spring primaries. I mean, what was of the primaries, there were, you know, significant numbers of people in certain states in the democratic primaries voting uncommitted. And we discovered that that was connected to what was happening in Gaza and people’s reticence to support the Biden administration or the Biden reelection campaign.

We can certainly go into some more detail on that, if you’d like, but we, we can, let’s go back to Norm Stockwell momentarily. Norman, can you, you know, do you want to point out maybe a couple of pieces or do you want to riff on a couple of these themes here? Some things that stand out to you, particularly major ideas that came from this issue.

Norman Stockwell: Yeah. And before that, I want to say that the material that we’re talking about on the show today, people can see these articles at our website, progressive. org. Just click on the magazine tab. And, they’re, they’re free to read up there. So we, what we do is we get the print magazine out to our print subscribers, and then after that, we start to trickle the content out on the website.

Advertisement

So each day a new article appears. So, Mickey and Andy, your piece just went up. I think on Friday, maybe of last week, and, or maybe it was Monday. I forget it now, but, that’s one of the many pieces. There’s, The piece that you mentioned earlier about, the states that are initiating media literacy laws around the country.

Sharon Johnson, the longtime writer, has put together a list of what’s going on at the state level and places where State governments are saying we need to mandate media literacy in the educational system. There’s also a piece by John Nichols looking at the, the use of artificial intelligence to create these deep fakes, these imitation, political candidate recordings, robocalls and videos and so on. You know, another thing that we do in every issue of the magazine is we have book reviews. There are three very fine book reviews all touching on these issues. As well as a book excerpt, which, which you mentioned, I think, which is Anthony DiMaggio, who’s, who works with Project Censored and, a book on the, the right wing media, and critical race theory, the attack on critical race theory.

So those are all important pieces of this multi faceted issue of the magazine. I guess I’ll mention a couple of the other regular things that we do in every issue. We have a section we call blast from the past and we pull out something from our archives and we put it in the pages of the current magazine and this particular one, we looked at a study that was done in the Progressive.

It was at that time. It was called the Follett’s Weekly. It was a brand new magazine. It was only a few months old, and they did a five part series analyzing every single existing, media outlet in the country at the time. They talk about newspapers, they talk about the news bureaus, the newly formed Associated Press, for instance, and, and they look in this piece at the ways in which corporations were already trying to influence the media back in the, you know, the first decade of the 20th century.

Advertisement

So, that’s the kind of thing that we’ve done here at the magazine for 115 years and continue to do, and so we showcase that in our, in our issues every, every, every other month the Progressive comes out, of course, six times a year, bimonthly. It’s, 72 pages packed with information and resources.

Mickey Huff: That’s right. And you can learn more at progressive. org. And everything in this issue is relating to media literacy. How it pertains to the election. It gives us useful tools, things we can do about what’s happening. It helps us deconstruct and understand sort of the complicated media ecosystems in which we now try to survive.

Really drowning and oftentimes in in, in a sea of information and misinformation and other. And other, other types of assaults on our senses, I guess, for lack of a more general, more specific term. But this is, I think, the critical media literacy education is really an antidote to all of this kind of chaos.

It really helps us stop, slow down, and think critically about what’s happening, what’s being beamed at us. Why do the, why do certain platforms and why do the corporate media? Tell the stories they do. And what about the stories they don’t tell? We’ve certainly on this program been looking a lot in the past months about the way corporate media has been framing things around Gaza, human rights issues and so on.

Advertisement

So, Mischa Geracoulis, wanted to come back to you again, and incorporate you here. I know you do a lot of work on, on human rights and education and so on. Maybe you want to make a few comments, that, that you have about maybe that relate to some of the things in the magazine may also relate to some of your other work about that kind of media framing and, and about the way in which, you know, corporate media framing and, and a lot of the social media posting that goes on is really harmful, for, around human rights issues, not just in the U.S., but around the world, Mischa.

Mischa Geracoulis: Great questions, and I think I’ll start by just sort of following up on what Norm said, Norm mentioned, rather, John Nichols article, Stopping the Deepfake. One thing that he says in the article is that it’s time, if there was ever a time for a watchdog media, it’s now, and I would say watchdog education, and that speaks directly to yet another main point of this issue and, and to your question.

And so, I think just kind of jumping. Jumping off for a moment, you know, thinking about basic, basic media literacy. What is that? It’s a set of skills and competencies needed to interpret media, to use and interpret media, everything from how to use a digital device to, you know, basic fact checking. Well, that’s getting harder and harder with AI.

It’s getting extremely difficult to, to discern what’s fake and what’s, what’s real. Critical media literacy, Mickey, as you were just talking about employees as critical thinking skills and ask deeper questions, it sounds very, or it can sound perhaps very academic, very scholarly critical media literacy.

Advertisement

Well, I think one thing that we, if I may say we succeeded in doing with this issue is making that concept more accessible in a non academic way, meaning each article is addressing certain questions and more generally, those questions are things like you just mentioned, what stories are making the news, what stories are being told, whose stories are being told, who’s given the right to speak, who’s controlling the media narrative.

These articles also offer what I think we could call media literacy intervention. Those in the academic setting would be educational initiatives designed to help reduce the harmful effects of media. In a more civic or public setting for our readership, it’s ultimately helping readers to discern if the story or information that they’re consuming is serving the public welfare.

So, just thinking about a rather unique piece, a unique contribution. Well, they’re all unique. So let me rephrase that. A different article, was, was written by Jim Carrier on nuclear literacy. That he, he discussed how that topic has kind of fallen out of favor and not because it hasn’t gone away. And, and Mickey, you just recently addressed this on air a couple of weeks ago with Peter Kuznick.

We are closer now to midnight than than ever. I’m not sure. Is that a thing? Yes,

Advertisement

Mickey Huff: It’s yes. That’s that’s accurate.

Mischa Geracoulis: Right? So, I mean, his article is extremely timely and brings up brings up the educational piece by talking with students and pointing out students spotlighting students who are realizing, wait, this is something we need to pay attention to.

Mickey Huff: Yeah, I couldn’t agree more. Go ahead. I’m sorry. No, no, I couldn’t agree more with you. And again, how corporate media are able to not only frame each individual story, but how they frame even in, let’s say, it’s the election year in terms of the general election, the 2 corporate backed parties in the corporate media.

They basically determine well, what will we be talking about? Right? And then by definition, what will we not be talking about? Who will we not be hearing from? Right? And of course, a lot of the way in which the, the, the election coverage is framed back to you, Andy Lee Roth, it kind of looks at the candidates.

Advertisement

It doesn’t really look at the issues directly as they relate to the public interest or what the public or the electorate is concerned about. But it rather focuses on, you know, the, the drama of the horse race polls and, you know, which, which candidates ahead and, and, and so the frame is taking it away from the public and away from what the public wants to see in here.

And it focuses on getting people acting like this is some kind of sporting match, you know, make sure you get your bets in on team red and team blue and turn into your, you know, accordingly tune into your media siloed outlets to help bias your bets. And so on. Andy Lee Roth Roth, maybe, maybe you can bring up a point or two that, I know you, you addressed in the article we did for the Progressive Magazine.

Andy Lee Roth: Yeah. Thanks, Mickey. I’ll try to exemplify what Mischa was talking about a moment ago, that critical media literacy is practical and not necessarily, or not at all a kind of ivory tower academic exercise. But let me begin, perhaps at risk of that, to say that when we talk about news frames, we’re talking about the central idea that shapes the storyline of the news story that organizes the information that’s included in the story, right?

And so the way news frames work, and this is coming from a sociology of news perspective, the way news frames work to influence people is by defining help beginning to define how they think about an issue, whether they believe a problem is a problem in the first place, or whether they believe it’s a systemic problem or an individual one.

Advertisement

All these things are accomplished through framing. Which is this very powerful aspect of news. We hear a lot about fact checking when we talk about media literacy and how important it is for young people to learn how to fact check. We don’t hear a lot about framing. And that’s a gap in kind of the critical in kind of media literacy education that project censored addresses.

We talk about how frames can shape people’s beliefs without people necessarily being aware that the frame has had that influence on them. We can talk about, like, news frames as these things that shape news stories, but really what we’re talking about is news framing, which is an activity, and the activity is done by people.

It’s done by news workers. Right, editors, journalists, and the like. So shifting to kind of election coverage, one of the fundamental frames that almost everyone actually knows about if you pay attention to news as a kind of political thing is the idea of horse race coverage of elections. So who’s ahead and by how much is the margin expanding or is the margin of their lead shrinking and a lot of election coverage, especially a lot of corporate election coverage falls under the rubric of, of kind of the horse race frame. The thing about frames is they focus our attention, but they also leave things outside the frame that unless we have an alternative perspective, we’re not alert to what’s outside the frame, what’s been omitted or excluded. And so when we get horse race coverage, that fulfills certain basic news values that journalists and other news workers try to fulfill, right?

So this is news that’s recent, it’s news that’s exciting, etc, etc. But it’s not necessarily news that is substantive. Right. That’s what’s outside the frame when all we get is horse race coverage. And so, as you alluded to Mickey, a moment ago, when the focus is on the candidates and the age or the mental acuity of the candidates, or who’s who did well in this primary, or how many votes is Nikki Haley still getting, even though she withdrew her candidacy when the focus is on the individuals and the frame is a horse race winners and losers frame, substantive policy issues tend to be left at the margins of the frame. And I’ll say more about that in a minute, or they’re excluded from the frame altogether. And so when we talk about whether we have an informed electorate or not, The framing of these stories is so important.

Advertisement

I’ll step back and make one more kind of didactic point about why we should care about news frames as a critical media literacy organization. And it’s because the way stories, not just election stories now, but the way all news stories get framed often serves to deflect criticism from people in power, right?

When you look at a lot of corporate news coverage, there are certain kind of legitimate ways of critiquing people who are powerful, but there are certain sort of issues, they arise from framing that say beyond these limits. no critique of the existing order. It’s taken for granted in the corporate news media that capitalism or markets are the most efficient way to allocate scarce resources.

That’s a news frame that typically goes unnoticed, perhaps even by the people producing the framing, but it fundamentally impacts what we, what’s, what our focus of attention is and how we think about those issues. So when we get election coverage that again and again, promotes Gaza matters because it’s going to make Biden unelectable.

There’s an important issue that’s now been marginalized in the frame because the focus of the frame is, can Biden be reelected? And I don’t mean for a moment to say that whether Biden is reelected or not is a trivial issue. That’s not the point of news abuse analysis. The abuse quality comes from how is the public being led to think about these issues?

Advertisement

And, and there’s something wrong, I think, if all we care about Gaza is for whether it hurts Joe Biden’s chances to be reelected.

Mickey Huff: Absolutely. Norman Stockwell, please.

Norman Stockwell: Yeah, I mean, I think that really touches on something else that I wanted to mention, which is, the the frame, if you will, of this entire conversation about media literacy cannot exclude what’s happening in the world around us.

And in this particular issue, we have, a couple of pieces addressing the situation in Gaza. We have a photo essay that we do in every issue called on the line, which is usually one photographer and a series of images about a topic. But this time we crowdsourced a bunch of photographers to give us images about the campus protests around the country in response to the war in Gaza.

Advertisement

And so we have, I think it’s a half a dozen or so different, photographers that are presenting a single image from different campuses across the country, just to illustrate what’s going on all around the United States in response to this issue, which is not being discussed. For the most part in the mainstream media and certainly not in the horse race coverage of the election.

The other is a very fine interview by Dennis Bernstein of Pacifica Radio with Ramzi Baroud and that also looks at the issue of, you know, what’s going on in, in Gaza right now. So

Mickey Huff: absolutely. Norman Stockwell, let’s go to you, for our last round here in our discussion today. You wanted to talk a little bit about the importance of this election, but also how media are, well, back to Andy was talking about framing earlier, But how so much is just not being covered.

And I know you had a few other things to say. So Norman Stockwell, let’s start with you.

Advertisement

Norman Stockwell: Yeah, well, and, and Mickey, you and Andy and your piece talk about how in these elections, the media is giving us the odds, but not the stakes. And I think that at the Progressive, we’re trying to do just the opposite.

We’re focusing on the stakes in this election. And so for the last couple of issues, and certainly for the, I can promise for the next two issues to come, we are going to be looking exactly at that issue. What are the stakes? What does it mean if one candidate or the other prevails in, in November?

And what is getting lost? What is getting left out of the discussions about that? You know, what, just as one example in the last, I think it was the February issue. I wrote a piece where I talked about some of these infrastructures that are being built by the right to plan for what are they going to do on day one after the inauguration.

And that’s the kind of thing that’s not getting covered in most of the mainstream media. I will, I will note that, several publications have done some coverage on this. The Atlantic did a whole issue on this. There was of course the Time Magazine interview with Donald Trump and there was, the Washington Post has had several features on this, but in general, across the board and looking at the media that most people are consuming in their daily life, which, of course, we will note a lot of that comes from Facebook. In fact, one of these articles gives us the exact percentage of, how many people get all of their news from looking at their Facebook feed, but those larger and more corporate media outlets are not covering the stakes of this election.

Advertisement

And that’s exactly what we try to do in the Progressive.

Mickey Huff: Yeah, absolutely. Andy Lee Roth, let’s go to you. Let’s talk a little bit more about some of the some of the some of the other problems around the election that, of course, came up earlier. One of them was around disinformation. And, of course, there are a few other concepts that came out of the piece that that we wrote, but it’s time you can address any of those issues.

Andy Lee Roth: Yeah, I mean, I think disinformation is something that’s on everyone’s minds. As we think about this election cycle, certainly anyone who’s interested in kind of the intersection of media and politics, disinformation is, is on the menu as it were. But I think, you know, we don’t necessarily, this is one of those topics where if we don’t dig in a little, it’s easy to miss where there are important differences of perspective.

I mean, I think one of the things that critical media literacy does sort of underpinning critical media literacy is as Project Censored and people at the Progressive and other allies of ours talk about it is we’re talking about championing the values of plurality, the importance of multiple points of view.

Advertisement

Which is different than the kind of journalistic to traditional journalistic notion of balance. And we’re also talking about the values of plurality and the values of what you could call critical space. Right. The idea that there are, there are opportunities, there are spaces, literally, to express dissent or to express points of view that differ from the kind of status quo version that’s represented in the corporate news media.

So, if you’re thinking about those issues and thinking about disinformation, I mean, I think it’s important to think of disinformation in an election campaign as part of, you know, how power works more broadly in the society. So this ties back to something Norman was saying a moment ago before the break, right?

These media literacy issues are directly tied to the real world. And if we’re talking about kind of distorted understandings of the electoral process, we’re talking about the intersection of how the corporate media cover the election process and something like how the the debates we have debates upcoming, apparently, are basically controlled by the two parties by a nonprofit that the two parties established.

And if you don’t understand that, and you wonder, how come there are no third party candidates participating in these debates? Well, they’re excluded. Right? And that’s part of this kind of whole ball of wax of how critical media literacy links up issues of power in the broader society to what we can see kind of in a, you can hold it in your hands or read it on your screen kind of way from the media coverage of these events.

Advertisement

So I think this is a really important issue. I think it’s also I know we’re short on time here. There’s no doubt that the social and political impacts of disinformation are real. But another thing that I would say from a critical media literacy perspective is that disinformation isn’t exclusively arising from any one space on the political spectrum, right?

That I would be, you know, although it’s easy to hold up, say, Fox, CNN, as an example, I think some of what passes on MSNBC performs a kind of similar function for a different segment of the American population, probably to the disservice of the nation as a whole. So there’s a lot more to be said about that.

Maybe just for now, I’ll, just leave it at that with this idea that, like, what we need to do is try to cultivate. I think part of of what this whole issue of the Progressive is about is convincing people that these issues matter. And that as much as we’re critical of kind of the establishment press, the corporate news media, there are real viable substantive alternatives to those.

They just don’t have the giant spotlight and big glamorous platform that, that the MSNBCs and the Fox Newses and other, and other outlets do. And so part of it is cultivating and validating the idea And that’s not news to the people, attending to this program, that these independent news sources are valuable and trustworthy and deserving of, of people’s support.

Advertisement

Mickey Huff: Yeah, absolutely. Andy Lee Roth and Mischa Geracoulis that ties right into, you know, the, the independent media. It serves this, it serves the public in such a big way because it fills in all these gaps that are left by, you know, corporate media. And it really goes to another major concept that I know that’s near and dear to you.

And that’s on the public’s right to know, right? And the right, the right to have free flow of information. Of course, you know, at Project Censored, we’re, we’re, you know, part of the Banned Books Week Coalition. We’re part of the National Coalition Against Censorship, we, we, we see censorship as a, as a serious enemy of free thought, and the independent media really help us, as Andy was saying earlier, it’s the independent media that help us become more attuned to the things that are being left out, or if they’re not being left out, independent voices help us understand how they might be disputed.

Right in their corporate coverage and then understand what the real life impacts are on people. But Mischa, I know you want to talk a little bit about the public’s right to know and a couple of other things related to this, this issue, the Progressive Mischa.

Mischa Geracoulis: Yeah, to your point, to Andy’s point, in our mediated reality, the corporate press has the widest reach and public interest comes second to profits.

Advertisement

So the flip is, just as you said, the independent and investigative journalists, the free, the alternative presses who put the public goods first to center citizens concerns, not just during an election year, but every day of the year. And so the right to know, as we understand it, and it’s not just us here on this in this conversation, or, or just our listeners, but I would say even other media watchdog organizations, other First Amendment organizations, human rights organizations. We understand that the right to know, the right to information, underpins all other rights. The right to know is fundamental to a just society, to our civil liberties. To all other human rights into a functioning democracy.

To that end, the independent and investigative journalists and press are indispensable. And I’m so proud that we were able to showcase this. This important topic and so many articles speaking to this issue in this collaborative issue of the Progressive and I’ll just quickly, if I may highlight two other articles, I won’t get into them, but just to say them out loud so that people will tune in to Mike Irvin’s piece on disabilities. He addresses different issues each time and that certainly ties directly into civil liberties and human rights and something that is not covered widely in the corporate press. And then also Sarah Yaffe’s labor reporting, another, another topic that’s not widely talked about.

So, I guess just to wrap up, I am just really thrilled that we could come together to highlight these issues.

Mickey Huff: Yeah, indeed. And you know, when it comes to the right to know, we’re, we’re seeing an onslaught on journalists around, around the world and in the US. That’s a direct attack on the public’s right to know what like literal shooting and bombing of the messengers.

Advertisement

We have record numbers of journalists that have been killed in Gaza. I mean, it’s it’s it’s it’s it’s barely the statistic doesn’t even seem to slow anything down. It’s absolutely riveting that this is going on. Meanwhile, in the United States, we see the same kind of thing. People trying to cover the protests and encampments and so on.

Journalists being openly attacked. Professors being openly attacked, beaten. I’m talking dragged out, Gestapo style, beaten on campus and public campuses and so forth. I mean, this is off the rails. This is all under a democratic administration, one that wanted to curate social media, one that wants to also suppress certain narratives, wants to one ones that want to attack people criticizing what’s happening in Gaza as Putin stooges.

This is mind you, this is under the Democrats. Meanwhile, Trump has promised to be even more brazen in his assaults against the press, right? As if his enemy of the people, you know, invocation of the Lugan press, it wasn’t enough during his first term. Trump is promising an even worse future, in terms of attacks on the right to know and attacks on journalists.

So Norman Stockwell, jump in here.

Advertisement

Norman Stockwell: Yeah, well, I mean, those are certainly issues that we have covered, a number of times. In the ma- in the pages of the magazine and on our website, progressive.org. In our December, January issue, we, had an interview with the Committee to Protect Journalists talking about the number of journalists that had been killed up to that point in the, in the war in Gaza.

And of course it’s increased and, and so many of those are the, the people that are really you know, at the bottom of the barrel, journalistically, you’re not going to see the star of CBS getting attacked by the, by the IDF for reporting in Gaza, but you are going to see those producers and those assistant producers and those reporters on the ground that are being targeted.

And so that’s a very important concept as well. And the one last thing I wanted to make sure to mention, talking about columnists, Mike Irvin, Mischa mentioned has been, he’s been writing for the Progressive since the mid 1980s. And, he writes mostly on disability rights, but, you know, one of the pieces he did for us was an interview with Pete Seeger.

You know, he’s a disability rights columnist, but he covers all aspects of the, of the world that we live in. Similarly, Sarah Jaffe, who does a regular labor column, Dave Zirin reporting on sports from a left perspective, Jim Hightower is in every issue of the Progressive. So these regular commentators on our culture and our community and our world, are featured every single issue of the Progressive.

Advertisement

But in this particular issue, they also turned their lens on media literacy and the important questions of media coverage of both this election and, this modern world.

Mickey Huff: Thanks so much, Norman Stockwell, publisher at the Progressive. I want to turn things over here to Andy Lee Roth here for some final words in the segment here today.

Andy Lee Roth: Yeah, just thinking about critical media literacy in this election year, just really basic points that I think, can be a spur to action for people. There’s no aspect of media that, that isn’t a product of people working together to create certain specific meanings, but by the same token, there’s no aspect of media that we can’t understand better, more that we might be wanting to challenge by working together ourselves, right?

And I think that, that second aspect is on display in the June July issue of the Progressive, which provides a host of tools for people to start doing critical media literacy work themselves. And it’s, this isn’t something like you show up and clock in and spend hours, but you can pick up a tool here or there and begin looking in a new way at the news you’re consuming.

Advertisement

And noticing things that you might not have noticed before. There are a host of tools, you know, on the Project Censored website that also support that kind of critical engagement. And I recommend and encourage people to check out, the, the project censored dot org website for that purpose. And the idea is that that social process of of holding up the news that were presented.

And examining it critically and affirming it where it deserves affirmation and, and calling it out where we see B. S. right? That’s something that is, core to what the Progressive is about, core to what the project censored is about, and it’s something that, there’s a long history of, right? It’s going back all the way to Walter, Walter Lippman, coming out of World War 1, having worked for the Committee on Public Information for the U.S. government, basically creating pro government propaganda during World War 1, but working as a journalist and as a kind of a founding figure in what we know today as media studies, Walter Lippmann saying, the news about the news needs to be told. Right. And that’s especially true when we’re talking about what passes for most people as quote, the news, the corporate establishment version of it.

And we’re the ones and now the, we is not the 4 of us talking here now, but everyone listening, we’re the ones who can tell that story.

Mickey Huff: Yeah, absolutely. I want to thank all of the guests on this segment of the program today. I want to thank Andy Lee Roth, Associate Director of Project Censored, Mischa Geracoulis, who is the guest editor of this issue of the Progressive Magazine Curriculum Development Coordinator Project Censored, and of course, Norman Stockwell, publisher of the Progressive Magazine, the great historic magazine founded in 1909 by Fightin Bob La Follette. This is the June July 2024 issue, all about media literacy. Run to your newsstands, folks, if you still have one. That’s another big issue about media literacy, too, that we’ve discussed, right? Is just the, the, where do people get this information?

Advertisement

Where can they find it? Well, at least online, you can go to the You can go to progressive. org. You can learn more about our media literacy programs at projectcensored.org. Norm, Andy, Mischa, thank you so much for all the great work you’re doing, and thanks for joining us on the Project Censored Show today.

Mischa Geracoulis: Thank you so much.

Source link

Advertisement
Continue Reading
Advertisement
Click to comment

You must be logged in to post a comment Login

Leave a Reply

News

‘Doomsday’ Glacier Is Set to Melt Faster

Published

on

‘Doomsday’ Glacier Is Set to Melt Faster

Tidal action on the underside of the Thwaites Glacier in the Antarctic will “inexorably” accelerate melting this century, according to new research by British and American scientists. The researchers warn the faster melting could destabilize the entire West Antarctic ice sheet, leading to its eventual collapse.

The massive glacier—which is roughly the size of Florida—is of particular interest to scientists because of the rapid speed at which it is changing and the impact its loss would have on sea levels (the reason for its “Doomsday” moniker). It also acts as an anchor holding back the West Antarctic ice sheet.

Warmed ocean water melts doomsday glacier faster
Yasin Demirci—Anadolu/Getty Images

More than 2 kilometers (1.2 miles) thick in places, Thwaites has been likened to a cork in a bottle. Were it to collapse, sea levels would rise by 65 centimeters (26 inches). That’s already a significant amount, given oceans are currently rising 4.6 millimeters a year. But if it led to the eventual loss of the entire ice sheet, sea levels would rise 3.3 meters.

While some computer models suggest reductions in greenhouse gas emissions under the 2015 Paris Agreement may mitigate the glacier’s retreat, the outlook for the glacier remains “grim,” according to a report by the International Thwaites Glacier Collaboration (ITGC), a project that includes researchers from the British Antarctic Survey, the U.S. National Science Foundation and the U.K.’s Natural Environment Research Council.

Thwaites has been retreating for more than 80 years but that process has accelerated in the past 30, Rob Larter, a marine geophysicist who contributed to the research, said in a news release. “Our findings indicate it is set to retreat further and faster.” Other dynamics that aren’t currently incorporated into large-scale models could speed up its demise, the new research shows. 

Advertisement

Using a torpedo-shaped robot, scientists determined that the underside of Thwaites is insulated by a thin layer of cold water. However, in areas where the parts of the glacier lift off the seabed and the ice begins to float, tidal action is pumping warmer sea water, at high pressure, as far as 10 kilometers under the ice. The process is disrupting that insulating layer and will likely significantly speed up how fast the grounding zone—the area where the glacier sits on the seabed—retreats.

A similar process has been observed on glaciers in Greenland.

The group also flagged a worst-case scenario in which 100-meter-or-higher ice cliffs at the front of Thwaites are formed and then rapidly calve off icebergs, causing runaway glacial retreat that could raise sea levels by tens of centimeters in this century. However, the researchers said it’s too early to know if such scenarios are likely.

A key unanswered question is whether the loss of Thwaites Glacier is already irreversible. Heavy snowfalls, for example, regularly occur in the Antarctic and help replenish ice loss, Michelle Maclennan, a climate scientist with the University of Colorado at Boulder, explained during a news briefing. “The problem though is that we have this imbalance: There is more ice loss occurring than snowfall can compensate for,” she said. 

Advertisement

Increased moisture in the planet’s atmosphere, caused by global warming evaporating ocean waters, could result in more Antarctic snow—at least for a while. At a certain point, though, that’s expected to switch over to rain and surface melting on the ice, creating a situation where the glacier is melting from above and below. How fast that happens depends in part on nations’ progress to slow climate change.

Source link

Continue Reading

Business

David Lammy seeks emergency boost to aid cash to offset rising cost of migrant hotels

Published

on

Unlock the Editor’s Digest for free

Britain’s foreign secretary David Lammy is pushing for an emergency top-up to development spending as ballooning costs of supporting asylum seekers threaten to drain overseas aid to its lowest level since 2007.

The UK government spent £4.3bn hosting asylum seekers and refugees in Britain in the last financial year, more than a quarter of its £15.4bn overseas aid budget, according to official data. This more than consumed the £2.5bn increases in the aid budget scheduled between 2022 and 2024 by former Conservative chancellor Jeremy Hunt.

Advertisement

People familiar with Lammy’s thinking say he fears that if Rachel Reeves, the chancellor, resists calls to at least match Hunt’s offer, the aid budget will be further eviscerated, undermining the government’s ambitions on the global stage.

Currently, the housing of asylum seekers in hotels is controlled by the Home Office but largely paid for out of the aid budget, a set-up introduced in 2010 when spending on the programme was relatively modest.

In the longer term, development agencies and some Foreign Office officials want the costs capped or paid for by the Home Office itself.

However, such a move would be politically fraught, the people said, as it would require billions of pounds of extra funding for the Home Office at a time the government is preparing widespread cuts across departments.

Advertisement

Sir Keir Starmer, the prime minister, is due to attend a string of upcoming international events, starting with the UN general assembly this month, then a Commonwealth summit in Samoa, a G20 meeting in Brazil, and COP-29 climate talks in Azerbaijan later this autumn.

International partners will be looking at these meetings for signs that the change of government in the UK marks a change in direction on development.

Britain’s leading role was eroded by Rishi Sunak after he cut the previously ringfenced spending from 0.7 per cent of gross national income to 0.5 per cent when he was chancellor in 2020.

“When he turns up at the UN next week and the G20 and COP a few weeks later, the PM has a unique opportunity to reintroduce the UK under Labour as a trustworthy partner that sees the opportunity of rebooting and reinvesting in a reformed fairer international financial system,” said Jamie Drummond, co-founder of aid advocacy group One.

Advertisement

“But to be that trusted partner you need to be an intentional investor — not an accidental cutter.”

Speaking on Tuesday in a speech outlining UK ambitions to regain a leading role in the global response to climate change, Lammy said the government wanted to get back to spending 0.7 per cent of GNI on overseas aid but that it could not be done overnight.   

“Part of the reason the funding has not been there is because climate has driven a migration crisis,” he said. “We have ended up in this place where we made a choice to spend development aid on housing people across the country and having a huge accommodation and hotel bill as a consequence,” he said.

Under OECD rules, some money spent in-country on support for refugees and asylum seekers can be classified as aid because it constitutes a form of humanitarian assistance.

Advertisement

But the amount the UK has been spending on refugees from its aid budget has shot up from an average of £20mn a year between 2009-2013 to £4.3bn last year, far more than any other OECD donor country, according to Bond, the network of NGOs working in international development.

Spending per refugee from the aid budget has also risen from an average of £1,000 a year in 2009-2013 to around £21,500 in 2021, largely as a result of the use of hotels to accommodate asylum seekers.

The Independent Commission for Aid Impact watchdog argues that the Home Office has had little incentive to manage the funds carefully because they come from a different department’s budget.

In her July 29 speech outlining the dire fiscal straits that Labour inherited from the previous Conservative government, Reeves projected the cost of the asylum system would rise to £6.4bn this year.

Advertisement

Labour was hoping to cut this by at least £800mn, she said, by ending plans to deport migrants to Rwanda. A Home Office official said the government was also ensuring that asylum claims were dealt with faster and those ineligible deported quickly.

But the Foreign Office projects that on current trends, overseas aid as a proportion of UK income (when asylum costs are factored in) will drop to 0.35 per cent of national income by 2028.

Without emergency funding to plug the immediate cost of housing tens of thousands of migrants in hotels, that will happen as soon as this year, according to Bond, bringing overseas aid levels to their lowest as a proportion of national income, since 2007.

The Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office said: “The UK’s future [official development assistance] budget will be announced at the Budget. We would not comment on speculation.”

Advertisement

Source link

Continue Reading

News

AI translation now ‘good enough’ for Economist to deploy

Published

on

AI translation now 'good enough' for Economist to deploy

The Economist has deployed AI-translated content on its budget-friendly “snack-sized” app Espresso after deciding the technology had reached the “good enough” mark.

Ludwig Siegele, senior editor for AI initiatives at The Economist, told Press Gazette that AI translation will never be a “solved problem”, especially in journalism because it is difficult to translate well due to its cultural specificities.

However he said it has reached the point where it is good enough to have introduced AI-powered, in-app translations in French, German, Mandarin and Spanish on The Economist’s “bite-sized”, cut-price app Espresso (which has just over 20,000 subscribers).

Espresso has also just been made free to high school and university students aged 16 and older globally as part of a project by The Economist to make its journalism more accessible to audiences around the world.

Siegele said that amid “lots of hype” about AI, the questions to ask are: “What is it good for? Does it work? And does it work with what we’re trying to do?”

Advertisement


He added that the project to make The Economist’s content “more accessible to more people” via Espresso was a “good point to start”.

Content from our partners
Advertisement

“The big challenge of AI is the technology, at least for us, is not good enough,” he continued. “It’s interesting, but to really develop a product, I think in many cases, it’s not good enough yet. But in that case, it worked.

“I wouldn’t say that translation is a solved problem, it is never going to be a solved problem, especially in journalism, because journalism is really difficult to translate. But it’s good enough for that type of content.”

The Economist is using AI translation tool DeepL alongside its own tech on the backend.

“It’s quite complicated,” Siegele said. “The translation is the least of it at this point. The translation isn’t perfect. If you look at it closely it has its quirks, but it’s pretty good. And we’re working on a kind of second workflow which makes it even better.”

Advertisement

The AI-translated text is not edited by humans because, Siegele said, the “workflow is so tight” on Espresso which updates around 20 times a day.

“There is no natural thing where we can say ‘okay, now everything is done. Let’s translate, and let’s look at the translations and make sure they’re perfect’. That doesn’t work… The only thing we can do is, if it’s really embarrassing, we’ll take it down and the next version in 20 minutes will be better.”

One embarrassing example, Siegele admitted, is that the tool turned German Chancellor Olaf Scholz into a woman.

But Siegele said a French reader has already got in touch to say: “I don’t read English. This is great. Finally, I can read The Economist without having to put it into Google Translate and get bad translations.”

Advertisement

The Economist’s AI-translated social videos

The Economist simultaneously launched AI-translated videos on its social platforms in the same four languages.

The videos are all a maximum of 90 seconds meaning it is not too much work to check them – crucial as, unlike the Espresso article translations, they are edited by humans (native language speakers working for The Economist) taking about 15 minutes per video.

For the videos The Economist is using AI video tool Hey Gen. Siegele said: “The way that works is you give them the original video and they do a provisional translation and then you can proofread the translation. So whereas the translations for the app are basically automatic – I mean, we can take them down and we will be able to change them, but at this point, they’re completely automatic – videos are proofread, and so in this way we can make sure that the translations are really good.”

In addition they are using “voice clones” which means journalists who speak in a video have some snippets of themselves given to Hey Gen to build and that is used to create the finished product.

Advertisement

The voice clones are not essential, Siegele explained, as translations can be done automatically regardless. Journalists can opt out of having their voices used in this way, and any data stored will be deleted if the employee leaves The Economist. But the clones do mean the quality is “much better”.

They have a labelling system for the app articles and videos that can show they are “AI translated” or “AI transformed”. But, Siegele said, they are “not going to have a long list of AI things we may have used to build this article for brainstorming or fact checking or whatever, because in the end it’s like a tool, it’s like Google search. We are still responsible, and there’s almost always a human except for edge cases like the Espresso translations or with podcast transcripts…”

Economist ‘will be strategic’ when choosing how to roll out AI

Asked whether the text translation could be rolled out to more Economist products, Siegele said: “That’s of course a goal but it remains to be seen.”

He said that although translation for Espresso is automated, it would not be the goal to do the same throughout The Economist.

Advertisement

He also said they still have to find out if people are “actually interested” and if they can “develop a translation engine that is good enough”.

“But I don’t think we will become a multi-linguistic, multi-language publication anytime soon. We will be much more strategic with what we what we translate… But I think there is globally a lot of demand for good journalism, and if the technology makes it possible, why not expand the access to our content?

“If it’s not too expensive – and it was too expensive before. It’s no longer.”

Other ways The Economist is experimenting with AI, although they have not yet been implemented, include a style bot and fact-checking.

Advertisement

Expect to see “some kind of summarisation” of articles, Siegele continued, “which probably will go beyond the five bullet points or three bullet points you increasingly see, because that’s kind of table stakes. People expect that. But there are other ways of doing it”.

He also suggested some kind of chatbot but “not an Economist GPT – that’s difficult and people are not that interested in that. Perhaps more narrow chatbots”. And said versioning, or repurposing articles for different audiences or different languages, could also follow.

“The usual stuff,” Siegele said. “There’s only so many good ideas out there. We’re working on all of them.” But he said he wants colleagues to come up with solutions to their problems rather than him as “the AI guy” imposing things.

Advertisement

Email pged@pressgazette.co.uk to point out mistakes, provide story tips or send in a letter for publication on our “Letters Page” blog

Source link

Advertisement
Continue Reading

News

Kentucky sheriff held over fatal shooting of judge in court

Published

on

Kentucky sheriff held over fatal shooting of judge in court

A Kentucky sheriff has been arrested after fatally shooting a judge in his chambers, police say.

District Judge Kevin Mullins died at the scene after being shot multiple times in the Letcher County Courthouse, Kentucky State Police said.

Letcher County Sheriff Shawn Stines, 43, has been charged with one count of first-degree murder.

The shooting happened on Thursday after an argument inside the court, police said, but they have not yet revealed a motive.

Advertisement

Officials said Mullins, 54, was shot multiple times at around 14:00 local time on Thursday at the court in Whitesburg, Kentucky, a small rural town about 150 miles (240km) south-east of Lexington.

Sheriff Stines was arrested at the scene without incident, Kentucky State Police said. They did not reveal the nature of the argument before the shooting.

According to local newspaper the Mountain Eagle, Sheriff Stines walked into the judge’s outer office and told court employees that he needed to speak alone with Mullins.

The two entered the judge’s chambers, closing the door behind them. Those outside heard gun shots, the newspaper reported.

Advertisement

Sheriff Stines reportedly walked out with his hands up and surrendered to police. He was handcuffed in the courthouse foyer.

The state attorney general, Russell Coleman, said in a post on X, formerly Twitter, that his office “will fully investigate and pursue justice”.

Kentucky State Police spokesman Matt Gayheart told a news conference that the town was shocked by the incident

“This community is small in nature, and we’re all shook,” he said.

Advertisement

Mr Gayheart said that 50 employees were inside the court building when the shooting occurred.

No-one else was hurt. A school in the area was briefly placed on lockdown.

Kentucky Supreme Court Chief Justice Laurance B VanMeter said he was “shocked by this act of violence”.

Announcing Judge Mullins’ death on social media, Kentucky Governor Andy Beshear said: “There is far too much violence in this world, and I pray there is a path to a better tomorrow.”

Advertisement

Source link

Continue Reading

Business

Chinese EV makers boost Hong Kong stock index

Published

on

Electric-vehicle makers boosted Hong Kong stocks on Friday, as major indices rose across the board in the wake of the US Federal Reserve’s interest rate cut.

The Hang Seng index rose 1.8 per cent, with Chinese EV companies Xpeng and Geely Auto adding 9 per cent and 4.8 per cent, respectively.

Japan’s Topix rose 1.5 per cent, while South Korea’s Kospi added 1 per cent.

Australia’s S&P/ASX 200 rose 0.4 per cent, led by clinical trial groups Euren Pharmaceuticals and Telix Pharmaceuticals, which gained as much as 6.7 per cent and 4.9 per cent, respectively.

Advertisement

On Thursday, the S&P 500 gained 1.7 per cent, hitting a new record after the Fed’s half-point rate cut announcement on Wednesday.

Source link

Continue Reading

News

Starmer ‘in control’ and ‘Al Fayed rape scandal’

Published

on

Starmer 'in control' and 'Al Fayed rape scandal'
"I'm still in control, says Starmer as feud erupts" reads the Daily Telegraph headline

A picture of Scarlett Johansson features on the front of Daily Telegraph as she attends the London premiere of film Transformers One which she stars in. The paper leads on Sir Keir Starmer denying he has lost control of Downing Street “despite civil war breaking out at the centre of his government”. It adds tensions in No 10 and questions over chief of staff Sue Gray’s £170,000 salary threaten to overshadow the Labour Party conference.
The i headline reads "Middle East steps closer to regional war"

A funeral in Lebanon is the main picture on the front of the i newspaper. It reports the Middle East is “steps closer to regional war” as Israel bombs southern Lebanon. Armed group Hezbollah was targeted with pager and walkie-talkie attacks. Elsewhere, it says there is a frantic hunt for the mole who leaked Sue Gray’s salary to the BBC.
The Guardian headline reads "Hezbollah chief vows 'retribution' against Israel after wave of attacks"

The Guardian leads with Hezbollah’s leader Hassan Nasrallah threatening Israel with “tough retribution and just punishment” in a speech on Thursday. He also threatened to strike Israel “where it expects and where it does not”. Hot To Go! singer Chappel Roan also features on the page, telling the paper: “My whole life has changed”.
Reeves told to reverse cuts after £10bn boost, reads the lead story in the Times

Chancellor Rachel Reeves has been provided with a £10bn budget boost by the Bank of England which is increasing pressure on her to ease spending cuts and tax rises, the Times writes. The paper says Labour MPs are calling for the cash to be used to delay scrapping some pensioners’ winter fuel payments.
"Al Fayed 'a serial rapist'" headlines the Metro

“Al Fayed ‘a serial rapist’” headlines the Metro as it reports on the BBC investigation into late billionaire and Harrods owner Mohamed Al Fayed. The papers reports the BBC’s investigation found more than 20 female ex-employees say Mr Al Fayed sexually assaulted or raped them. The Metro writes the tycoon who was “portrayed as the gregarious father” of Diana’s lover Dodi in Netflix’s The Crown “was a monster”.
The Daily Mirror headline reads "shop of horrors"

“Shop of horrors” headlines the Mirror as it picks up the BBC’s story on Mr Al Fayed. The Mirror says at least 100 women are feared to have been sexually abused by the tycoon. It quotes Gemma, his former personal assistant. Speaking to the BBC about Mr Al Fayed, who she accuses of raping her, she said: “He felt like such a powerful man with so much money.”
"I survived atomic bomb tests and cancer but will I survive this winter?"

The Daily Express pictures RAF veteran Jack Barlow who says he survived atomic bomb tests but now asks if he will survive the winter due to his winter fuel payment being “snatched away”.
Financial Times headlines "consumer confidence takes tumble as households fear 'painful Budget'"

The Financial Times says consumer confidence in the UK fell sharply in September, wiping out progress made so far this year. The paper observes it comes despite consumers benefiting from cheaper loans, rising real wages and a decrease in inflation. Elsewhere, it pictures people in Lebanon watching the leader of Hezbollah give a speech in which he vowed revenge on Israel.
Daily Mail headlines "English identity is under threat warns Jenrick"

Tory leadership contender Robert Jenrick has written in the Daily Mail that mass immigration and woke culture have put England’s national identity at risk. He says the ties which bind the nation together are beginning to “fray”. Elsewhere, it reports Mr Starmer is “on the rack” over Ms Gray’s salary and freebies.
The Sun headlines reads: "Ronnie and Laila's 147 break"

The Sun reports Snooker player Ronnie O’Sullivan has split from fiancee actress Laila Rouass.
"What planet are they on" says the Daily Star

The Daily Star asks “what planet are they on?” It says minister defends “cadger PM’s £100k of freebies” as some pensioners lose the winter fuel payment.
News Daily banner
News Daily banner

Source link

Continue Reading

Trending

Copyright © 2017 Zox News Theme. Theme by MVP Themes, powered by WordPress.