View this email in your browser

Received this email from a friend? Subscribe here.

The U.S. will mark the anniversary of the January 6 insurrection on Saturday, a milestone that will confer upon the reality-dwelling citizenry a grim reminder of the potency of propaganda and how quickly it can warp perception when introduced into the public square. 

Just three years ago, most of the country watched with dismay and horror as a violent MAGA mob beat back authorities and stormed the country's citadel of democracy. The Donald Trump-incited crush of disillusioned rioters, fueled by a stream of fantastical lies, believed that the 2020 election had been stolen by sinister forces working to undermine the democratic election.

Of course, not only was their belief flatly incorrect, but evidence later emerged indicating that it was Trump who, in fact, had tried to subvert democracy.

Facts, however, have little bearing on the sentiment inside the Republican Party, which has been fed a steady diet of lies and half truths by Fox News and the rest of the sprawling right-wing media machine. To wit, the false notion that Joe Biden nefariously stole the 2020 election is now widely shared inside the GOP. A CNN poll conducted over the summer found that nearly 70% of Republicans believe Biden's win was not legitimate, a number that has continued to tick up.

In other words, the Big Lie that led to the 2020 insurrection is now the dominant thinking among Republicans. 

At the same time, right-wing media forces have worked overtime to wash Trump's hands clean of the role he played in inciting the mob to storm the U.S. Capitol. MAGA extremists such as Tucker Carlson have repeatedly promoted the false and reprehensible fantasy that the attack the country witnessed live on national television was a so-called "false flag" event perpetrated by the "deep state."

And while that rightfully comes across as absurd to the share of the public that relies on credible news organizations for an understanding of current events, it has become commonplace in the Republican Party. A poll released on Thursday by The Washington Post and University of Maryland found that a staggering 39% of Americans who identified Fox News as their primary news source believed the FBI organized and encouraged the January 6 attack. The same poll found that 44% of Trump voters believed that falsehood.

It goes without saying that those are astonishing numbers, given the attack on the U.S. Capitol only occurred three years ago. What will those numbers look like on the 10-year anniversary of the violent assault?

Such data provides further evidence of how formidable an opponent propaganda is for the news media and those who care about living in an honest society and passing down an accurate historical record to future generations. 

The sad truth is that while these lies have fomented, the mainstream press has probably failed to match the energy necessary to effectively counter the poison, which promises to be at the center of this year's presidential election. That's not to say the news media has not done essential work fact-checking the lies that have circulated. But it is a case not dissimilar to how anti-vaccine activists overwhelm authoritative sources by flooding the zone with misinformation, a tactic that has proved successful in infecting countless minds with junk science.

The New York Times' Alan Feuer and Molly Cook Escobar published a story Wednesday about the sprawling DOJ investigation into the insurrection that began with a simple fact: "Every week, a few more people are arrested." How much of the public is aware of that alarming truth? As the duo later noted, "While some of the cases have attracted nationwide attention, particularly those involving far-right groups like the Proud Boys and the Oath Keepers militia, most of the prosecutions have flown beneath the radar, unfolding in quiet hearings often attended only by the defendants and their families."

Perhaps, that's part of the problem. Perhaps this moment requires the press to do even more to shine a light on the ugly events that transpired at the very heart of U.S. democracy three years ago. The stakes, after all, could not be higher. And given the polls indicating how twisted reality has become for significant swaths of the American populace, it is hard to say it's not warranted. 

———  BELOW THE FOLD  ———

A Muted Mickey: More than 48 hours have passed since ABC's Jimmy Kimmel was smeared by Aaron Rodgers on Disney's ESPN airwaves — and the Bob Iger-led juggernaut has yet to say anything in defense of its star comedian. I checked in again with representatives for Disney and ESPN on Thursday, to see if either had a comment on Rodgers falsely asserting to their handsomely paid sports host Pat McAfee that Kimmel would be named in the Jeffrey Epstein documents. McAfee did offer an apology for the segment on Wednesday, though only after it had prompted an apparent lawsuit threat from Kimmel. But in a situation like this, when Disney's high-wattage star is being dragged through the mud within the very walls of the Magic Kingdom, one would expect the company to say something — especially when junk conspiracy rhetoric is part of a well-established pattern from Rodgers and McAfee. Instead of taking a stand, Front Office Sports' Michael McCarthy and A.J. Perez reported that the "early word inside ESPN is that the strategy will be to try to ride out the Kimmel storm and hope it blows over." Apparently voicing support for basic civility and decency is a river that simply cannot be crossed.

Money for the Messenger: Jimmy Finkelstein is on a mission to raise money for his troubled news startup, The Messenger. Axios' Sara Fischer reported Thursday that Finkelstein has sought to raise $20 million amid its now very-public financial woes. As Fischer noted, executives initially did not plan to raise additional funds, hoping to instead rely on profits to support growth. But those profits have not materialized and this week The Messenger was forced to lay off about two-dozen staffers. The NYT's Ben Mullin reported Thursday that the news organization only generated $3 million in revenue last year. Even worse, Mullin reported that the outlet had told investors it only had $1.8 million cash on hand at the end of 2023 — and that it lost $38 million last year. 

Which is perhaps why Finkelstein is trying to raise money from right-wing forces at Mar-a-Lago. Fischer reported that Finkelstein held a meeting at Donald Trump's club with potential investors, including: "Omeed Malik, a financier who backed Tucker Carlson's new media venture; Garrett Ventry, a Republican political operative; Ryan Coyne, founder of digital media agency Starboard; and George Farmer, the former CEO of Parler who sits on the board of Britain's conservative news network, GB News." Per Fischer, the proposal on the table would offer $30 million in funding for a 51% stake in the company, valuing it at around $60 million. The deal, if it were to materialize, would mean that Finkelstein would have to cede control of the outlet less than a year after it was launched. And, of course, given the potential funders, the editorial direction could shift quite a bit.

► Of note: Officially, The Messenger is pushing back against the notion that it is on the verge of total collapse. Spokesperson Kimberly Bernhardt told Mullin that the company had raised more than $10 million in its latest funding round and that its "revenue will continue to increase and its expenses will continue to shrink over the course of the year."  

Fox's Selective Focus: There are few topics that Fox News likes to cover more than foreign money in politics — except, apparently, when it concerns Donald Trump. The right-wing network, which has run an untold number of segments assailing Joe Biden for the business dealings of his son, Hunter, was apparently not very interested in a report issued Thursday by House Democrats that found China had spent over $5.5 million at the GOP frontrunner's properties while he served in office. CNN's Zachary Cohen and Kara Scannell noted, "Those payments collectively included millions of dollars from China's Embassy in the United States, a state-owned Chinese bank accused by the U.S. Justice Department of helping North Korea evade sanctions and a state-owned Chinese air transit company." And that's not all. China was only one of 20 countries that made a total of $7.8 million in payments to Trump businesses during his time as president. But Fox News, which purports to harbor no political bias in its hard news coverage, didn't seem to care much. Outside a 39-second segment from anchor Bret Baier, we couldn't find any coverage of the story on the network's air. 🤔

The Bot Store: It's almost upon us. Sam Altman's OpenAI GPT Store is nearly ready to open its doors for business. The store, which will feature bots built using GPT-4, is set to launch next week, according to emails OpenAI sent to developers. The bot store had been announced last year, but was ultimately delayed amid the org's shocking C-suite drama. "Still unclear is whether the GPT Store will launch with a revenue-sharing scheme of any sort," TechCrunch's Kyle Wiggers pointed out. More from Wiggers here.

Speculating About Swift's Sexuality: Should news organizations run lengthy pieces speculating about Taylor Swift's sexuality? The NYT Opinion section did precisely that Thursday, running a 5,000-word piece by editor Anna Marks stringing together a long list of various easter eggs dropped by Swift in her songs and elsewhere. Marks argued in the lengthy essay that Swift has for years, perhaps, been trying to signal that she identifies with the queer community. "In isolation, a single dropped hairpin is perhaps meaningless or accidental, but considered together, they’re the unfurling of a ballerina bun after a long performance," Marks wrote. "Those dropped hairpins began to appear in Ms. Swift’s artistry long before queer identity was undeniably marketable to mainstream America. They suggest to queer people that she is one of us."

The piece prompted discussion about whether it was appropriate for The Gray Lady to be openly speculating about the cultural icon's sexuality. There was, of course, a contingent that contended it was absolutely not okay, criticizing The NYT for publishing the essay. Marks preemptively addressed critics in the piece, writing, "I know that discussing the potential of a star’s queerness before a formal declaration of identity feels, to some, too salacious and gossip-fueled to be worthy of discussion. ... I share many of these reservations. But the stories that dominate our collective imagination shape what our culture permits artists and their audiences to say and be. Every time an artist signals queerness and that transmission falls on deaf ears, that signal dies. Recognizing the possibility of queerness — while being conscious of the difference between possibility and certainty — keeps that signal alive." Others agreed. "Swift really makes constant and clear queer references and it’s obviously intentional, so why not discuss it given her stature," Kara Swisher wrote. Asked for comment, a spokesperson for The NYT pointed to what Marks wrote in her essay. A representative for Swift did not respond.

Thank you for reading! This newsletter was edited by Jon Passantino and produced with the assistance of Liam Reilly. Have feedback? Send us an email. You can follow us on Instagram, Threads, and LinkedIn. We will see you back in your inbox next week.