August 2017

Boston authorities should not have blocked media from covering protest

[Commentary] While plenty of media commentators and politicians lauded the efforts of Boston politicians and the Boston Police Department to keep the peace Aug 19 during a extreme-right-wing rally and massive counter protests, they failed at protecting the media’s right to cover a newsworthy event. Reporters were not able to actually cover the program of the event because authorities enforced a barrier of up to 50 yards around the speakers’ platform, preventing reporters from entering. Journalists were blocked from witnessing and reporting on the very reason for the massive crowds. The precautions ostensibly were designed for public safety—to keep those participating in the protest and counter protests apart from one another—but statements from law enforcement suggest the nature of the rally played a role.

At minimum, the city should have provided for a limited number of reporters to access the event, which was held in a public place. Instead, police acted as a sort of private door guard for the protest organizers, blocking access to all but a handful of people supporters vouched for at the gates. A group of about 20 people, including white-nationalist and neo-Nazi speakers, took part in the so-called “Free Speech” rally.

[Sarah Betancourt is a Boston-based reporter who focuses on public policy writing.]

Trump ramping up for 2020 reelection, reportedly eyeing Zuckerberg as a threat

President Donald Trump is methodically building a 2020 reelection campaign machine, shunting aside doubts about his viability for a second term as controversy consumes the early months of his administration. President Trump is mapping out a fall fundraising tour that is expected to fill his campaign bank account with tens of millions of dollars. His team has tracked dozens of potential Democratic rivals, a list of names that ranges from Sen Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) to Facebook co-founder and CEO Mark Zuckerberg. And his administration has received political advice from a top campaign pollster from his 2016 campaign, who has urged the president to keep up his attacks on the mainstream media.

Remarks of FCC Commissioner Michael O'Rielly Before the Americans for Prosperity's 2017 Defending the American Dream Summit

Shortly before the inauguration, I outlined four general areas where actions could be taken to reinvigorate investment: one, undoing harmful policies; two, clearing regulatory underbrush; three, developing and executing a strong pro-innovation agenda; and, four, overhauling the Commission’s arcane processes and its organization. I’m pleased to say that we’ve seen significant progress on each front....The Internet is arguably the greatest man-made technology of my lifetime and a testament to free-market principles embodying the American Dream. The government must remain steadfast that this platform should be unfettered by regulation. Doing so is the way to ensure that the economic revolution and expansion of opportunity, unsurpassed in modern history, will continue for future generations and empower their American Dreams.

Can Anyone Stop Trump’s FCC From Approving a Conservative Local News Empire?

President Donald Trump’s Federal Communications Commission, under chairman Ajit Pai, has been clearing the way for a merger between Sinclair Broadcasting and Tribune Media, two television companies that together own hundreds of local news stations. However, the situation may soon become more complicated for Sinclair and its ally at the FCC. The company’s competitors, such as DishTV, are speaking out. Perhaps more important to the Trump administration are other conservative news outlets, who, recognizing the threat that Sinclair could pose to their business, are taking a stand. As this crony capitalist drama plays out, watchdog groups, meanwhile, are looking for holes in the Trump administration’s approach.

How Hate Groups Forced Online Platforms to Reveal Their True Nature

The recent rise of all-encompassing internet platforms promised something unprecedented and invigorating: venues that unite all manner of actors — politicians, media, lobbyists, citizens, experts, corporations — under one roof. These companies promised something that no previous vision of the public sphere could offer: real, billion-strong mass participation; a means for affinity groups to find one another and mobilize, gain visibility and influence. This felt and functioned like freedom, but it was always a commercial simulation. This contradiction is foundational to what these internet companies are. ]

These platforms draw arbitrary boundaries constantly and with much less controversy — against spammers, concerning profanity or in response to government demands. These fringe groups saw an opportunity in the gap between the platforms’ strained public dedication to discourse stewardship and their actual existence as profit-driven entities, free to do as they please. Despite their participatory rhetoric, social platforms are closer to authoritarian spaces than democratic ones. It makes some sense that people with authoritarian tendencies would have an intuitive understanding of how they work and how to take advantage of them.

Behind the Bluster of Steve Bannon’s War Cry

In a conversation with Peter J. Boyer of The Weekly Standard, Steve Bannon said, “I have my hands back on my weapons,” the most important being his conservative website, Breitbart News — a “machine” he promised to “rev up” for what the site’s editor-at-large Joel Pollak described in a hashtag on Twitter as “#War.” The reported target list included President Trump’s opponents “on Capitol Hill, in the media and in corporate America,” Bannon said. If Bannon does move forward with a rival to Fox News, he will face the herculean task required to get a new channel onto cable systems, especially as people increasingly give up cable for online streaming services. If he were to acquire an existing channel, he would still have to persuade cable operators to carry it as Breitbart TV. Bannon could team up with smaller competitors on cable, Newsmax or One America News Network. This much is certain: With Bannon out, expect more informational chaos, more sound and more fury, but signifying what?