The federal regulators in charge of protecting the entire banking system have come across a recipe for reducing financial mayhem: increasing the number of cops on the street. In the last five years, according to the Wall Street Journal‘s Aaron Luchetti, the number of Federal Reserve “field examiners” — inspectors who literally work inside the bank they supervise — has increased by 40%. (The Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, another regulating agency, has another 500 embedded watchdogs.) The increased scrutiny means that top banks — J.P. Morgan, Goldman Sachs — could soon be dealing with 35, instead of 20, nagging feds at a time. [WSJ]
Start your day with National Memo Newsletter
Know first.
The opinions that matter. Delivered to your inbox every morning
Trump campaign press pass brandished on air by QAnon podcaster Brenden Dilley
Trump's Hour On CNN Was A Profile In Cowardice
Vanity Fair recently reported that several journalists from mainstream publications, including The Washington Post, NBC News, Axios, and Vanity Fair, were denied press access to Trump’s campaign events, seemingly in retaliation for their previous critical coverage. Meanwhile, Media Matters found that the campaign has granted press credentials to the QAnon-promoting MG Show and Brenden Dilley, a podcaster who has promoted the QAnon conspiracy theory and leads a “meme team” that creates pro-Trump content.
Washington Post reporter Isaac Arnsdorf has allegedly been barred from Trump’s campaign events since February, according to Vanity Fair, over his rejection of a campaign request to change the title of his book Finish What We Started: The MAGA Movement’s Ground War to End Democracy. Several other reporters also allegedly had press access revoked over critical coverage or public spats with campaign officials. Vanity Fair reported:
In recent weeks, the [Trump] campaign has taken similar punitive measures against other reporters, according to multiple sources familiar with the moves. An Axios reporter had their credentials approved for an event and then revoked the same day, following the publication of a story about the Trump-led Republican National Committee’s struggles in swing states. (An Axios spokesperson declined to comment.) At least one other Post reporter was temporarily denied press credentials to multiple events after accurately reporting on Trump’s public statements. Most recently, Brian Stelter, a special correspondent for Vanity Fair, was denied press access to Trump’s rally in Schnecksville, Pennsylvania.
While it has barred mainstream journalists, the campaign has granted press credentials to a QAnon-promoting show and a podcaster who creates pro-Trump content.
At least one host of the QAnon-promoting podcast MG Show was seemingly given a press pass for Trump’s December 17 campaign rally in Reno, Nevada. Days before the rally, co-host Shannon Townsend announced on the podcast that after seeking press passes for the rally, the show was granted the status of “accredited media with Donald Trump and the rally campaign.” Afterward, Townsend posted images from the rally, including one that appears to show him holding a press pass in a media area.
In response to reporter Brian Stelter posting on April 19, “I applied for press credentials for Trump's most recent rally in Schnecksville, Pennsylvania and was rejected,” Townsend shared an image of his credentials for the Nevada rally, and said, “I have mine.”
MG Show had previously received press credentials for a 2021 Trump rally in Sarasota, Florida, at which host Townsend wore a wristband with the QAnon slogan “where we go one, we go all” — or “WWG1WGA” for short — and led a crowd in chanting the slogan. The Trump campaign was forced to publicly distance itself from QAnon and MG Show after receiving backlash for credentialing the conspiracy theorists.
In January, Brenden Dilley, a podcaster who has previously promoted the QAnon conspiracy theory, bragged that he was given press credentials for the Trump campaign's Iowa caucus event.
Dilley has been the leader of a pro-Trump online “meme team” which calls itself “Trump’s Online War Machine,” and he has admitted that he “make[s] shit up” to further Trump’s agenda and hurt his political opponents. During an episode of his show, Dilley displayed the press pass, bragging that he got a “special” and “exclusive” press credential that got him into the “Trump War Room,” where he said “pretty much the entire Team Trump comes through.”
Barring mainstream journalists from campaign rallies and other events is hardly new for the Trump team. During his 2016 presidential campaign, Trump and his allies waged an all-out war on the press, including banning certain journalists from events, and attacking critical coverage and entire mainstream news outlets as “fake news.”
Trump's presidential term was also marked by repeated instances where mainstream journalists were barred from official events and press conferences over unflattering coverage and unwanted questions. And his reelection campaign also reportedly issued a blanket credential denial against Bloomberg News over the outlet’s perceived “bias” against him.
Reprinted with permission from Media Matters.
Keep reading...Show less
Judge Juan Merchan
Drawing by Jane Rosenberg/REUTERS
Monday was genuinely historic. For the first time since the nation was founded, a jury sat down to hear criminal charges against a man who once served as the nation’s highest executive. Despite months in which pundits had dismissed this case as the weakest of the criminal cases Donald Trump is facing, the prosecution got off to a powerful start, outlining for the jury Trump’s long history of scandal, cover-up, and playing fast and loose with legalities.
Judge Juan Merchan kept things moving quickly. Even though Monday was a half day to allow everyone to go home for the Passover holiday, the trial moved through opening statements from both sides and saw the first witness take the stand.
That first witness was David Pecker, the former publisher of the National Enquirer. Though Pecker was only on the stand for a few minutes on Monday before the shortened day was called to a halt, his testimony, along with the opening statement from prosecutor Matthew Colangelo, made clear that this case is not only going to be a challenge for Trump, it’s also going to be a challenge to journalism.
In his brief appearance Monday, Pecker was open about how the National Enquirer did business. As The Washington Post reports, Pecker described the process at the Enquirer using a term that makes many journalists at more reputable outlets sneer: “checkbook journalism.”
That is, to get the stories that decorated the paper’s lurid pages, Pecker and his colleagues at the National Enquirer simply took the very direct route of opening up the checkbook and paying for them. Compared to hiring investigative reporters and the associated resources of a solid newsroom, this can be a relatively inexpensive way to operate. And when it comes to juicy behind-the-scenes tales of globe-trotting celebrities, checkbook journalism may be the only way to get the stories otherwise hidden from the public.
As Pecker made clear, those checks were often cut to hotel workers, limo drivers, or other workers who stood around being socially invisible while celebrities were at play.
Paying for a story may seem morally questionable, and many schools of journalism would hold it unethical. But is it really that much more dubious than hiring Ronna McDaniel to provide news commentary, or populating your whole newsroom with former Trump staffers?
The stories served up by the National Enquirer are often designed to feed prurient interests, but there’s another form of journalism that may be far more destructive than writing a check to someone who very likely needs it. And a big hint at that kind of journalism also surfaced in the first morning of the trial.
Midway through Colangelo’s opening statement to the jury, New York Times crime reporter Jonah Bromwich was struck by a singular thought about the story of how Trump’s relationship with Stormy Daniels was kept out of the news.
For years, this story has been told by reporters with caveats and caution. So it’s really striking to hear Colangelo lay the hush money scheme directly at Trump’s feet, with perfect clarity. “It was election fraud, pure and simple,” Colangelo says bluntly.
That certainly is “striking.” And it absolutely begs the question of why reporters would have spent years tiptoeing around this story. Why did Colangelo’s statement seem so shocking when compared to other reporting on these same events?
Bromwich might want to ask that of the other New York Times reporter working from the courthouse on Monday, Maggie Haberman.
Haberman and her bosses at the Times might turn their noses up at the idea of breaking out a wallet for checkbook journalism, but they certainly seem to be open to even more damaging access journalism.
As The New Yorker reported in 2023, Haberman has long been Trump’s personal chronicler, regarded as a “safe” and “friendly” choice when Trump needed to add some faux dignity to some claim or event. Haberman could not only be counted on to edit events to prevent Trump from coming off too badly, but she saved up some of the juiciest events she witnessed, leaving them out of real-time reporting to later drop it in her book. That included withholding knowledge that Trump intended to stay in the White House after losing the 2020 election to President Joe Biden.
Haberman was far from alone when it came to withholding critical information from the public. For example, ABC News' chief Washington correspondent, Jonathan Karl, did not mention a memo from former White House chief of staff Mark Meadows describing the whole scheme to undo Biden’s victory until Karl had a chance to drop that memo in his book nearly a year later.
The New York Times’ coverage of Monday’s court action includes its disdain for the kind of journalism practiced at the National Enquirer. In describing the catch-and-kill scheme Pecker created to protect Trump, the Times wrote, "In the world of tabloid journalism, where ethical lines are blurry, deciding what to publish and why is often a calculus that covers favors doled out and chits called in."
But how does that “blurry” world differ from the kind of access journalism practiced at The New York Times and other major news outlets? When a journalist is more interested in maintaining a source than delivering the truth, questions get pulled and hard facts are omitted. AsEditor & Publisher reported in 2021, even when a source lies to a reporter, the source is rarely dropped because reporters may feel they could need that source again in the future.
Bromwich found the story of Trump’s crimes so “striking” because prosecutors were doing what the Times is supposed to do, delivering a naked, straightforward accounting of the events without pulling punches or dropping in a charming little diner for folksy insights.
As CNN reported earlier this month, The New York Times seems to be fixated on polls about President Joe Biden’s age, while giving scant attention to Trump’s borrowed Hitler quotes or his desire to be a dictator. Few major media outlets seem to be interested in critically reporting the violent rhetoric Trump uses at his campaign rallies or the way his speeches frequently dwindle into gibberish.
And as theSan Francisco Chronicle said about Haberman squirreling away vital information:
In this instance, if Trump was so unstoppered he had started to conjure a coup, that’s news with a half-life of right now. Whistles must be blown, play stopped, the 25th Amendment consulted, Mike Pence invited in to measure the Oval Office for new drapes. At once.
Maybe the truth wouldn’t be so striking if the New York Times would report it more often.
Reprinted with permission from Daily Kos.
Keep reading...Show less
