Season 8 of “The Crown” Yesterday, the Chicago Tribune shared a story reported by Danica Kirka of AP News that was making some pretty big waves: Northwestern graduate moving closer to home after spending time abroad. Oh, you may also know it by the headline “Prince Harry, Meghan Markle ‘to step back’ as senior members of royal family, split time between U.K. and North America.” 
In its coverage, BBC News notes that the move reveals a “major rift” between Harry and Meghan and the rest of the Royal Family (117,000+ shares). According to BBC royal correspondent Jonny Dymond, the fact palace officials said they were “disappointed” is “pretty strong.” But Jerome Taylor thinks it’s “Thoughtful of Harry and Meghan to give us Season 8 of The Crown.” Meanwhile, Marcus Ryder observes, “My Twitter time-line (full of black journalists) talks about the importance of race in this story. The BBC’s main online story currently does not mention race once.” The Los Angeles Times’ Kim Janssen weighs in with this commentary: Renounce your titles, you cowards. Tweets Laura J. Nelson, “So it turns out @kimjnews was at the controls of the hot take machine today to pump this out.” As Janssen shares on Twitter, “My colleagues found my weak spot and convinced me to turn my deathless tweet about the teat-sucking royals into a deathless column about the teat-sucking royals.” Matt Pearce calls it “a glorious victory for republicanism in the pages of the El Lay Times.” Opinions on the Iran situation As Jordain Carney reports at The Hill, GOP senators Rand Paul and Mike Lee ripped the administration over its ‘insulting and demeaning’ Iran briefing yesterday, with Lee calling it “the worst briefing I’ve seen, at least on a military issue.” Responding to the criticism, Vice President Pence told Savannah Guthrie on NBC’s “TODAY” show that sharing the “most compelling” intelligence presented an “imminent” threat that “could compromise sources and methods,” Allan Smith reports. What do Americans think about the administration’s actions over the past week? Susan Page has the results of a new USA Today/Ipsos Poll, which shows that Americans think Soleimani’s killing made U.S. less safe, Trump ‘reckless’ on Iran. By 52%-8%, those polled said the attack made it more likely that Iran would develop nuclear weapons, and a majority surveyed, by 52%-34%, called Trump’s behavior “reckless.” Meanwhile, a Morning Consult/Politico survey found only 28% of registered voters could point out Iran on a zoomed-in map of the region. In that poll, 69% said the strike makes war with Iran more likely, and 50% said it makes the U.S. less safe. Morning Consult’s Joanna Piacenza has the details. 
But what about Trump’s favorite TV hosts? Rosie Gray and Miriam Elder of BuzzFeed News have the rundown on “Fox News and the march to war that wasn’t,” as Elder calls it, writing that Fox News Hosts Were Against A Ground War With Iran. Trump Listened. In fact, “according to a source with knowledge of the conversations, Trump told people that he had watched [Tucker] Carlson’s show and it had affected his view on the Iran situation.” The tick-tick from Tuesday Lara Jakes links to 3 Hours From Alert to Attacks: Inside the Race to Protect U.S. Forces From Iran Strikes, by Mark Mazzetti, Eric Schmitt, Lara Jakes and Thomas Gibbons-Neff of The New York Times. Amy Fiscus highlights the fact that “Gina Haspel told Trump that Suleimani was a bigger risk alive than whatever Iran would do to avenge his death, and she basically predicted their exact response.” The account is based on interviews with current and former American officials and military personnel in both Washington and Iraq, revealing the intelligence that foreshadowed the Iranian attack set off a tense, often confusing afternoon in the White House Situation Room. Also worth noting, “this morning’s bonkers speech was pulled together by an incredible brain trust,” tweets Maggie Serota. Meanwhile, breaking this morning, Naveed Jamali, James LaPorta and Tom O’Connor are reporting at Newsweek that sources say the Iranian Missile System Shot Down the Ukraine Flight, Probably by Mistake. Just...oooof to everything involved 
The internet sleuths were busy yesterday after an uncritical Teen Vogue story about Facebook caused bewilderment about whether it was sponsored content before the entire article vanished. Here’s how Rob Price of Business Insider summarizes his story: “Teen Vogue runs Facebook story people think is sponsored content - Adds note saying its sponcon - Then removes note - FB denies to me that it’s sponcon - Teen Vogue tweets ‘literally idk,’ then deletes tweet - Entire article suddenly disappears - ????” So there you have it. He later tweeted this “UPDATE: Teen Vogue said it made unspecified ‘errors’ in ‘labeling’ its story about Facebook, and decide to delete it to avoid ‘confusion.’” Rachel C. Abrams and Cecilia Kang of The New York Times also worked on unraveling The Mystery of Teen Vogue’s Disappearing Facebook Article, with Kang tweeting, “Facebook paid to sponsor a Summit for Teen Vogue which included a glowing Sponsored Article...And then everything fell apart.” As Josh Marshall says, “Sounds like there was a bit of a breakdown here.” Deborah B. Solomon says, “This $FB story by @ceciliakang @RachelAbramsNY sums up everything about the company and how it creates its own messes and then can’t even clean them up.” Adds Shira Ovide, “Just...oooof to everything involved in all of this, except the Teen Vogue person who tweeted this.” (She’s referring to that “literally idk” tweeter.) Because profit In other Facebook news, Mike Isaac of The New York Times reports that Facebook isn’t backing down from allowing lies in political ads. On this, Ovide says, “Something I don't understand about Facebook’s lengthy, tortured decision-making on its political ads policy: The point of founder control is the ability to act decisively. Just not on this.” Tony Romm, Isaac Stanley-Becker and Craig Timberg of The Washington Post also report on Facebook’s response to pressure to rethink its approach to political ads. They note that Facebook will let users opt out of political ads but won’t limit politicians’ use of the platform. John Voelcker offers this helpful “TL/DR: Facebook will continue ignoring blatant lies (‘falsehoods’) + misrepresentations by politicians. Because profit. To avoid being lied to by politicians, its users must raise their hands + opt out of receiving ‘certain types’ of political ads. FFS.” RIP, the ratio Meanwhile, “wow twitter actually had a good idea.” Jacob Kastrenakes links to Dieter Bohn’s reporting at The Verge that Twitter will soon let you restrict who can reply to your tweets. Adi Robertson thinks, “Twitter is on the road to becoming a blogging platform, which is nice because that’s how I use Twitter and it is literally in the name of the product category Twitter belongs to.” Adds Ahmed Al Omran, “This can change the Twitter experience in major ways but mostly positive ones.” But “RIP, the ratio,” tweets Romm. Bad comedy news day Megh Wright is referring to the news that Almost Everyone at CollegeHumor Lost Their Jobs Today, as she reports for Vulture. About 100 employees in New York and Los Angeles have lost their jobs, and “Well this sucks,” tweets Nick Wray. Adds Adam Conover, “For 20 years, CH paid some of the best young comedians, writers, and artists in the country to do nothing but come up with the funniest shit ever. Today, they all lost their jobs. That sucks. Let me tell you why.” Read that thread here. 
In another blow to comedy, we learned that Buck Henry has died: ‘The Graduate’ writer, ‘Get Smart’ co-creator and early ‘SNL’ favorite was 89. Erik Pedersen has the Deadline obit for Henry, who died last night of a heart attack at Cedars-Sinai Health Center in Los Angeles. Sam Rubin tweets, “An over used phrase that is not over used here. Buck Henry was a comedy legend. His writing and his wit will live on long, long after his passing. He will be deeply missed.” “Did anyone capture midcentury California excess quite so savagely??” adds Shelby Grad. In the obituary, Pederson quotes one of Henry’s best writing tips: “So the best secret is — and it’s not a secret — is just when [you] get stuck in a scene, write nonsense. But do something to keep your hand moving, doing something on the page. That’s all. There are no great insights.” A few more - Sam Jacobs links to “Terrific reporting from @mollyesque on Pelosi's impeachment strategy.” Time’s new cover story, by Molly Ball, looks at Why Nancy Pelosi Is Going All in Against Trump.
- Astead Herndon of The New York Times reports on Bernie Sanders’ Latest Endorsement: The Sunrise Movement, another sign that the big lefty organizations have picked their side.
- In an interview with CNN, Ruth Bader Ginsburg declared she’s cancer-free and revealed how she’s trying to check the conservative majority, writes Joan Biskupic. Dan Berman points out, “This story has everything: Felix Frankfurter, the Bob Richards rule, and a nuanced discussion of civil procedure.”
- Trump plans to change environmental regulations to speed up approvals for pipelines; highway and airport expansion. Juliet Eilperin and Brady Dennis have those details at The Washington Post, noting that the proposed rule “would mean that communities would have little say about what is built in their neighborhoods. Environmental groups, tribal activists and others have used the law to delay or block a slew of infrastructure, mining, logging and drilling projects since it was signed by President Richard Nixon in 1970.”
- Also at The Post, Carol Leonnig and David Fahrenthold report that Mnuchin is seeking a delay of the proposed disclosure of Secret Service spending on presidential travel until next year.
| 
Today’s featured journalist is 
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.