Tag: broadcast
Former President Donald Trump

Normalizing Trump, Network News Shows Ignore His Dictatorial 'Immunity' Claim

Donald Trump on January 18 gave political reporters plenty to talk about: threats of “bedlam” if the Supreme Court doesn’t overrule state decisions and place his name on state ballots and a claim that “total immunity” gave him free rein to subvert the results of the 2020 election. All three major broadcast outlets’ evening news shows failed to cover these incendiary remarks.

In a legal brief filed to the U.S. Supreme Court on January 18, Trump attorneys implored justices to keep Trump’s name on state ballots for the 2024 presidential election, writing that disqualifying Trump “promise[s] to unleash chaos and bedlam.” The court is scheduled to hear oral arguments regarding Colorado’s removal of Trump from its primary and general election ballots beginning February 8. Trump himself echoed the language in the brief while speaking to reporters: “It’ll be bedlam in the country. … It’s the opening of a Pandora’s box."

Earlier that day, in an all-caps post on Truth Social, Trump railed against the federal prosecutions related to his role in inciting the January 6 insurrection. “A PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES MUST HAVE FULL IMMUNITY,” Trump wrote. “EVEN EVENTS THAT ‘CROSS THE LINE’ MUST FALL UNDER TOTAL IMMUNITY, OR IT WILL BE YEARS OF TRAUMA TRYING TO DETERMINE GOOD FROM BAD.”

Even Trump’s right-wing media sycophants have disputed his outlandish claims of “total immunity” in the past.

Instead of covering Trump’s unhinged social media rant or his threats of “bedlam,” evening network news broadcasts took a business-as-usual approach. Election segments framed the upcoming New Hampshire primary as a two-person horse race between Trump and former South Carolina Gov. Nikki Haley, with NBC Nightly Newsdiscussing “how the crisis at the border is impacting the race." NBC also chose to include a Truth Social post from Trump urging Republicans not to compromise on a border security deal but failed to mention his post arguing the law doesn’t apply to him as president. This editorial decision is particularly baffling since NBC News was the only broadcast outlet that covered Trump’s “total immunity” claim on its website.

Meanwhile, ABC World News Tonight aired a segment on the New Hampshire primary that mostly focused on Haley and Trump accusing each other of being bigger drags on the Republican ticket. The program also aired a report on Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis’ alleged misconduct regarding a relationship with a special prosecutor working on Trump’s election interference case, followed by a brief mention of Hunter Biden’s upcoming deposition. Indeed, all three networks favored mentioning Hunter Biden’s legal woes instead of Trump’s threatening and undemocratic claims.

CBS Evening News also had a banal segment on the New Hampshire primary, and rounded out its coverage with a two-minute story about the world’s largest cruise ship, effectively a commercial.

Failing to report on Trump’s threats and incendiary remarks – effectively sanitizing Trump for a mass audience – is exactly the sort of coverage decision that spurred Media Matters to name legacy media our Misinformer of the Year for 2023. If these major news outlets continue this trend, we’re in store for a repeat of 2016.

Reprinted with permission from Alternet.

Spikes Asia Announces Full Jury Line-Up for 2022

Spikes Asia Announces Full Jury Line-Up for 2022

The Juries will judge work in 24 awards categories to set the region's benchmark in creative excellence and marketing effectiveness Singapore, Dec 8, 2021 - (ACN Newswire) - Spikes Asia has today announced the full jury line-up of industry leaders set to judge the Spikes Asia Awards, Asia Pacific's most prestigious creative communications accolade. Now in its 35th edition, the Spikes Asia awards will bring 106 jurors together to judge work in 24 awards categories, including new awards developed in response to the region's shifting creative trends: The Creative Data Spike, the Social & Influenc...

Supreme Court Hears Arguments In Aereo Online TV Case

Supreme Court Hears Arguments In Aereo Online TV Case

By Vera Bergengruen, McClatchy Washington Bureau

WASHINGTON — Supreme Court justices seemed torn Tuesday as they listened to the arguments in a complex technological case involving copyright law, the rights of TV broadcasters and a video startup called Aereo that is upending how viewers access television.

While skeptical of Aereo’s service, which is based on a technological loophole to get around copyright laws, the justices worried that siding with broadcasters could endanger the same Internet cloud services that millions of people use to access and store all kinds of digital files.

Aereo lets users in 11 cities stream local broadcast TV to their computers, phones and tablets by renting them a tiny antenna and cloud storage for a small fee. Broadcasters including ABC, NBC, CBS and Fox claim that Aereo’s service illegally steals their copyrighted content. If the court rules in favor of the startup, it could threaten the lucrative fees the networks receive from cable companies to transmit their content. Broadcasters want Aereo to either pay similar fees or shut down.

“Your technological model is based solely on circumventing legal prohibitions that you don’t want to comply with,” Chief Justice John Roberts Jr. told Aereo’s lawyer, David Frederick.

“There’s no reason for you to have 10,000 dime-sized antennas except to get around the Copyright Act,” Roberts said.

The entire case hinges on whether Aereo is engaging in a “public” or “private” performance when it transmits content. Aereo has a data center in each city where it operate thousands of dime-size antennas. When a subscriber wants to watch a show live or record it, the company temporarily assigns the customer an antenna and transmits the programming to the subscriber’s tablet, phone or Internet TV.

Since the potential audience is only one person, it should be considered a private performance, not a public performance regulated by the Copyright Act, Aereo argued.

Lawyers on both sides used analogies ranging from valet parking to coat checks to clarify the complex technological issues at hand. The broadcasters’ counsel explained that Aereo’s users aren’t accessing the service to watch something online that they have already bought — they are using it to get that content in the first place.

“I show up at the car dealership without a car, I’m going to be able to get a car. If I show up at the valet parking service and I don’t own a car, it’s not going to end well for me,” the broadcasters’ counsel, Paul Clement, a former U.S. solicitor general, said to laughter in the packed courtroom.

Just as disturbing to some of the justices, however, are the unintended and far-reaching implications an Aereo loss could have on the cloud services industry.

“Are we somehow catching other things that really will change life but shouldn’t, such as the cloud?” asked Justice Stephen Breyer.

The “cloud” storage Aereo provides lets users record and store programs on a remote server instead of directly on their computer, where they can access their shows anytime, from anywhere.

Technology groups have expressed their concern that a ruling against Aereo would stifle innovation and endanger popular apps such as Google Drive, iCloud and Dropbox. Since those services are also used to remotely access copyrighted content, like legally purchased songs or movies, they could end up in murky legal territory if Aereo loses, some groups say. There isn’t any fresh copyright law regarding the new cloud services that are springing up.

“The cloud industry is freaked out about this case,” said Frederick, the lawyer for Aereo.

Clement insisted that the justices should not try to “solve the problem of the cloud once and for all” in this case, but instead focus on the plain violation of copyright law in front of them.

If Aereo’s service is really based on innovative technology it will survive anyway, argued Clement.

“If all they have is a gimmick, then they probably will go out of business and nobody should cry a tear over that,” he said.

The Supreme Court is expected to reach a decision by early summer.

AFP Photo/Saul Loeb