For the better part of four years, those sounding the alarm about the dangers of fake news and the perils of a post-truth world struggled to make the case that this was a matter of life and death. Try as they might to argue that a secure foundation of facts was the very basis of a liberal, democratic societyâthat such a society could not function without a common, agreed-upon basis of evidenceâthe concern seemed somehow abstract, intellectual, even elitist. Their angst was easily dismissed by their populist foes as the self-interested whine of a snobbish establishment. And then came the coronavirus.
When a pandemic is raging, it becomes harder to deny that rigorous, truthful information is a mortal necessity. No one need explain the risks of false information when one can point to, say, the likely consequences of Americansâ coming to believe they can deflect the virus by injecting themselves with bleach. (The fact that that advice came from the podium of the president of the United States is one we shall return to.) In Britain, Conservative ministers who once cheerfully brushed aside Brexit naysayers by declaring that the country had âhad enough of expertsâ soon sought to reassure voters that they were âfollowing the science.â In the first phase of the crisis, they rarely dared appear in public unless flanked by those they now gratefully referred to as experts.
So perhaps the moment is ripe for a trio of new books on disinformation. All three were written before the virus struck, before we saw people refuse to take life-saving action because theyâd absorbed a baseless conspiracy theory linking Covid to, say, the towers that emit signals for 5G mobile phone coverage. But the pandemic might mean these books will now find a more receptive audience, one that has seen all too starkly that information is a resource essential for public health and well-beingâand that our information supply is being deliberately, constantly, and severely contaminated. (...)
In a tweet Friday, Sandmann said: "The fight isn't over. 2 down. 6 to go." CNN has settled with Sandmann in January. The details of that settlement were private. There are outstanding lawsuits against NBC, ABC News, CBS News, The New York Times, Rolling Stone and Gannett. The Enquirer is owned by Gannett. Between all the lawsuits, Sandmann sought $1.25 billion in damages. With the CNN and Washington Post lawsuits settled, he is still seeking $725 million.
Attorney General William P. Barr personally ordered law enforcement officials on the ground to clear the streets around Lafayette Square just before President Trump spoke Monday, a Justice Department official said, a directive that prompted a show of aggression against a crowd of largely peaceful protesters, drawing widespread condemnation.
Attorney General William P. Barr personally ordered law enforcement officials on the ground to clear the streets around Lafayette Square just before President Trump spoke Monday, a Justice Department official said, a directive that prompted a show of aggression against a crowd of largely peaceful protesters, drawing widespread condemnation.
...
On Tuesday, however, federal officials offered conflicting reasons for the forcible removal of the protesters, seeking to separate the move from Trumpâs visit to the church.
The White House asserted that the crowd was dispersed to help enforce the cityâs 7 p.m. curfew. Meanwhile, two federal law enforcement officials said the decision had been made late Sunday night or early Monday morning to extend the perimeter around Lafayette Square by one block.
The plan was to be executed, according to the Justice Department official, the following afternoon. Barr was a part of the decision-making process, the official said, was not authorized to speak ahead of Barr addressing the matter himself publicly and spoke on the condition of anonymity.
The Justice Department official said that in the afternoon, Barr went to survey the scene and found the perimeter had not been extended. The attorney general conferred with law enforcement officials on the ground.
âHe conferred with them to check on the status, and basically said, âThis needs to be done. Get it done,ââ the Justice Department official said.
Police soon moved on the protesters.
Throughout Tuesday, several federal agencies involved in the response declined to answer questions about who ordered the use of force and the clearing of the park, which occurred just before Trumpâs visit to the park.
A White House spokesman declined to comment on who gave the order, referring questions to law enforcement agencies. The Secret Service declined to comment. A spokesman for the U.S. Park Police said the agency would have a statement, but did not provide one as of Tuesday afternoon.
Defense officials on Tuesday said the National Guard did not participate in decision to clear Lafayette Square on Monday evening and did not take part in firing any rubber bullets or gas.
D.C. city officials said they were not involved in the decision to use force, which Mayor Muriel E. Bowser (D) called âshameful.â
âI didnât see any provocation that would warrant the deployment of munitions, and especially for the purpose of moving the president across the street,â the mayor said at a Tuesday news conference.
Trump had directed Barr to personally âleadâ the response to the unrest in D.C. Monday night, according to Justice Department spokeswoman. Less than an hour before police moved to clear the peaceful demonstrators from in front of Lafayette Park, Barr was spotted on video talking to officials at the scene.
Around the same time, White House deputy chief of operations Tony Ornato contacted the Secret Service to arrange for the president to make a brief, unplanned appearance outside St. Johnâs Church, according to two people familiar with the plans. Following protocol, the Secret Service alerted other law enforcement agencies it would need help clearing the area for the presidentâs safety, they said.
That scenario wouldn't surprise me but I'm not so sure I'd call that Fox News assertion "reality" just yet -at least not until there is an official statement from the Park Police. "...on Tuesday morning, Park Police sources told WTOP that this was not the case, arguing that the protesters were not all peaceful, that tear gas was not used, and that officers did not know of Trumpâs visit to the house of worship...The Park Police did not immediately respond to request for comment from Fox News." There is a later Tweet from Augenstein (well, quite a few later Tweets): :"Obviously, this is Park Police's side of the story. I'll be checking with @wtop reporters who were on the scene last night, to plug-in what they observed with what Park Police are telling me. Park Police will be releasing a statement later today."
It is inconceivable that the Secret Service would allow a president to be anywhere near the place if the people there had been attacking cops.
Exactly. Trump would not have made that walk unless the area had been secured.
Washington Post is reporting that AG Barr had ordered the law enforcement perimeter be extended by a block.
That scenario wouldn't surprise me but I'm not so sure I'd call that Fox News assertion "reality" just yet -at least not until there is an official statement from the Park Police. "...on Tuesday morning, Park Police sources told WTOP that this was not the case, arguing that the protesters were not all peaceful, that tear gas was not used, and that officers did not know of Trumpâs visit to the house of worship...The Park Police did not immediately respond to request for comment from Fox News." There is a later Tweet from Augenstein (well, quite a few later Tweets): :"Obviously, this is Park Police's side of the story. I'll be checking with @wtop reporters who were on the scene last night, to plug-in what they observed with what Park Police are telling me. Park Police will be releasing a statement later today."
It is inconceivable that the Secret Service would allow a president to be anywhere near the place if the people there had been attacking cops.
That scenario wouldn't surprise me but I'm not so sure I'd call that Fox News assertion "reality" just yet -at least not until there is an official statement from the Park Police. "...on Tuesday morning, Park Police sources told WTOP that this was not the case, arguing that the protesters were not all peaceful, that tear gas was not used, and that officers did not know of Trumpâs visit to the house of worship...The Park Police did not immediately respond to request for comment from Fox News." There is a later Tweet from Augenstein (well, quite a few later Tweets): :"Obviously, this is Park Police's side of the story. I'll be checking with @wtop reporters who were on the scene last night, to plug-in what they observed with what Park Police are telling me. Park Police will be releasing a statement later today."
Location: Perched on the precipice of the cauldron of truth
Posted:
Jun 2, 2020 - 10:39am
Hmmmm. I am pretty sure I saw a post here from KK citing a news article saying that Lafayette Park was cleared not because President Trump would momentarily be making his way on foot from the White House to St. Johnâs Episcopal Church but because the protesters in the park had attacked law enforcement officers. I guess he deleted it.
There is no way President Trump would have made that walk if the area had not been secured to reasonably assure his safety.
Location: Perched on the precipice of the cauldron of truth
Posted:
Jun 2, 2020 - 9:10am
sirdroseph wrote:
I am sure there is probably a little of that left in there for some......maybe, but sadly this motivation has drifted further and further down the list of media priorities.
I disagree with your opinion as to the motivations of journalists.
