Most Americans Not Confident Journalists Act In Public's Best Interest

 

The charts above are from the Pew Research Center in a survey they did between December 8th and 14th of a nationwide sample of 3,560 adults, with a 1.8 point margin of error.

Dan Rather Gives 6 Principles Journalists Should Respect

Veteran journalist Dan Rather says there are six principles today's journalists should remember and follow. They are:

1. 1. Enough with Both-sides-ism

   We are now living in an altered political universe. Some of the old rules no longer apply or at least need adjusting. Civil discourse is a thing of the past, as is allowing both sides their say, no matter what they say, without holding them accountable. When one side lies intentionally and repeatedly, they are no longer entitled to the benefit of the doubt. They should be held to account, right away. Do not simply repeat the narratives they spew. Make no mistake: They are exploiting the idea of equal coverage to their advantage. Don’t let them get away with it.

   2. Prioritize Live Fact-Checking

   Rigorous and robust fact-checking is the best defense against misinformation, intentional lies, and deflection. Verify sources, cross-reference assertions, and provide context. If Trump says the sky is green, the story isn’t that the sky is now green; the story is that the sky is still blue and Trump got it wrong. A journalist’s commitment to ferreting out the truth builds public trust. So does adding context and perspective. 

   1. 3. Ask Lawmakers Hard Questions

      Do not let them off the hook. If they are Trump supporters, make them defend his actions and his words. Ask about the fundamental principles of democracy. Push them to go on the record that Biden won the 2020 election. Ask if they support the Supreme Court’s decision to overturn Roe v. Wade. If they are Biden supporters, make sure tough questions get asked of them as well.

      1. 4. Support Investigative Journalism

         The Fourth Estate is essential to the existence of a healthy democracy. Daily coverage is necessary, but investigative journalism is critical to hold those in power accountable and to uncover corruption. It’s also expensive. We must recognize that its benefits outweigh its costs.  

         1. 5. Fight Media Consolidation

            For much of my 74-year career, journalism was considered a public service, not a revenue generator. At its inception, television news was rarely thought to be a big money maker. That changed in the 1980s when large corporations bought the networks. Newsrooms now had to turn a profit and were therefore beholden to advertisers. At about the same time, newspapers saw major declines in readership as the internet grew and news became “free.” Support your local paper, local TV station, and independent journalists.

            1. 6. Get the Story Out

               This is a corollary to the previous one. As much as we as journalists wish it weren’t true, corporate ownership and advertisers do have editorial influence in newsrooms around the country. If an important story doesn’t work for your owners, consider getting it out through another journalist at another outlet or start your own. 

Israeli Police Disrupt Funeral Of Palestinian-American Journalist (Shireen Abu Akleh)

Shireen Abu Akleh, was a Palestinian journalist (and a U.S. citizen). She was killed a few days ago in Israel, even though she was wearing clothing that identified her as a reporter. On the 13th, her funeral was held, and sadly, Israeli police tried to stop the funeral procession. It was a shameful incident.

Here is how Ayman Mohyeldin describes what happened at MSNBC.com:

Thousands of mourners gathered in East Jerusalem Friday to pay their final respects to Palestinian American and veteran Al Jazeera correspondent Shireen Abu Akleh. Abu Akleh, one of Palestinians’ most beloved icons, was killed Wednesday while reporting on an Israeli military raid in the occupied West Bank. Abu Akleh was reporting from Jenin when, according to eyewitnesses, other journalists, the Al Jazeera Network and the Palestinian government, she was shot and killed by Israeli troops operating in there.

After initially blaming Palestinian militants and denying responsibility, Israeli authorities said they'd investigate the possibility that the shot that killed the journalist was fired by an Israeli soldier.

Like any funeral, the procession was expected to be somber, a moment for this beloved national figure to be buried with peace and dignity and expected to be a chance for a grieving people to collectively close the chapter on yet another Palestinian life cut shortby senseless violence in an occupation that shows no mercy in life or as they saw Friday, even after death.

Mourners gathered at her family’s house to escort her body through the Old City to Church of Ascension for prayers and then to her final resting place in a cemetery on the Mount of Olives.

Israeli police, however, had other intentions. As I have been told by colleagues close to the family, those police had communicated to the family that they did not want a public procession out of fear it would be a public disturbance. They did not want mourners to wave Palestinian flags or partake in any Palestinian chants.

Let that sink in. A nuclear-armed power, with one of the world’s most powerful militaries feared a flag-draped coffin. Israeli police wanted to deny Abu Akleh’s family and the public from publicly grieving the national icon and journalistic hero because they didn’t want her funeral to serve as a reminder of the national cause for liberation, dignity and independence.

When mourners poured out of the house carrying the flag draped coffin and began to chant, the police moved in to block the procession from advancing. Video shows police attacking mourners and pallbearers, beating them with batons, and at one point, almost causing pallbearers to drop the coffin.

Video released by the police to justify the attack shows one Palestinian throwing what appears to be a bottle in the direction of the police who were attacking the mourners.

This is what a dehumanizing occupation looks like. It deprives Palestinians even of their right to mourn, their right to express grief in whatever way brings them comfort and closure. This is what it means to be oppressed, to have one’s cultural expressions subject to the state’s approval and to be subject to violence from the state for breaking those rules. This is what it means to be mastered, to be subjugated, to be silenced by a state that shows its force with bullets, batons, bulldozers and bombs.

But this is not new. Israel has, for years, unofficially prohibited the expression of Palestinian identity and culture in occupied East Jerusalem out of fear that such public expressions could undermine its attempt to control the society and derail its plan to demographically alter Jerusalem’s ethnic composition and skew it in favor of the Jewish state. Israel’s wishful thinking is that by prohibiting symbols and expression of Palestinian identity and nationality, it can cause Palestinian character to be permanently ripped out of the city’s ancient fabric.

Imagine that same country, the one that is denying Palestinians a right to express themselves freely, conducting an investigation and promising to deliver justice to the family of the journalist the country itself is accused of killing.

Time and time again we have seen the Israeli military operate with impunity in the occupied Palestinian territories. No officers are held accountable. No justice is served.

Also, time and time again, American officials condemn Israeli abuses and call for investigationsinto them, but there is rarely, if ever, any justice for the killing of Palestinians, whether they are American or not.

Israel’s track record of violence against journalists in particular is equally horrendous. Abu Akleh is perhaps the most high-profile journalist to be killed there, but she is by no means the first. The Committee to Protect Journalists says an estimated 19 journalists have been killed in Israel and the occupied Palestinian Territories since 1992. Many more have been attacked.

Reporters without Borders, which ranks Israel in the bottom half of its ranking for press freedom — 86 out of 180 countries — says: "Palestinian journalists are systematically subjected to violence as a result of their coverage of events in the West Bank."

A 2019 report by the United Nations Human Rights Council noted that “The commission found reasonable grounds to believe that Israeli snipers shot journalists intentionally despite seeing that they were clearly marked as such” during the 2018 protests along the border of the Gaza Strip and Israel. The reports list four particular individuals who were wearing helmets and flak jackets.

Israel’s Foreign Ministry spokesperson at the time said, “Israel utterly rejects the biased and distorted kangaroo court 'report'” and called the U.N. Human Rights Council a “de facto accomplice of Hamas”.

However, the incidents — and narratives — surrounding Abu Akleh’s death and the actions by Israeli security forces during her funeral highlight the nature of this depraved occupation.

For now, the family will have to deal not only with the killing of their daughter but the dehumanization of their moment of profound grief in front of the world.

As we watched the horrific scenes during her funeral today, we’re reminded that even when mourning their dead, Palestinians can’t be Palestinian.

Anonymous Sources Are Critical To Our Democracy

 The latest revelation about Donald Trump is his opinion of the brave men and women who serve in our military. He doesn't respect them -- calling those captured or killed "losers", and anyone joining the military "suckers". 

This should not come as a surprise to anyone who's been paying attention. Trump only cares about himself. He doesn't have the capacity to understand others doing something for their country and fellow citizens -- being selfless. He only understands doing things that help himself.

He has denied the accusation -- calling it a hoax because several anonymous sources were used to learn the truth. But the journalist reporting the story in The Atlantic is known to be credible, and other known sources also back up what was reported (like Mary Trump and Michael Cohen). 

But anonymous sources are necessary. They help us to understand what is happening in our democracy (and the knowledge they provide helps us to act to save that democracy). This is especially true during an administration as dishonest as the Trump administration.

The following is a discussion of using anonymous sources by Tom DeFrank in the National Journal:

The Atlantic’s blockbuster exposé of President Trump’s well-documented private antipathy towards the military culture is undoubtedly controversial. But it’s no hoax. Trump’s insistence the article is “totally made up” is, quite simply, bogus.

Being hammered for relying on anonymous sources is the price that reporters are often willing to pay to obtain vital information that otherwise would never be printed.

As Atlantic editor Jeffrey Goldberg, the author of the piece, has noted, “these are people who are not anonymous to me.” On the other side of the ledger, even some of the most ardent Trump defenders furiously insisting that Goldberg's anecdotes "never happened” frequently play the very same game when it suits their interests.

A personal example: In the spring of 1987, I interviewed Texas businessman George W. Bush in Dallas for Newsweek’s 1988 special election project, to be published only 36 hours after the presidential victor had been determined.

Our ground rules for the interview—the first of many over the next 18 months, and again in 1992—were that I could use everything he told me but couldn’t identify him as the source. In other words, we were on background, a staple of the journalistic trade.

The man formerly known as "Junior," who later became "Bush 43," was amazingly helpful, dishing the sort of inside-baseball detail and real-time dialogue that reporters dream about. He was totally fearless in analyzing the campaign; after all, he answered to only one official, his father, who’d recently introduced us at a White House reception and encouraged him to cooperate. And none of the anonymous reporting would be public until after the polls had closed.

After an unusually productive interview, I gratefully thanked him for his candor. “Now, let me ask YOU a question,” he said with a smirk. “When this thing comes out I’ll probably be asked about some of this stuff. I’ll have to say it’s total bullshit. Are you gonna have a problem with that?”

I assured him that wouldn’t be bothersome. Sources often deny inconvenient truths on the record that they’ve leaked on background.

In more than a half-century as a Washington correspondent, in fact, the very people who gave me my information often later tried to debunk my reporting publicly. Among them were presidents, vice presidents, Cabinet officers, high-ranking government officials, and four-star generals. I’ve sat in briefings, trying to suppress a smile, as my very source denounced my story.

That's the way it works. As a White House chief of staff once told me, "I’m not talking about this story, but if you run it on Monday you won't look stupid." But when asked about the article, he was able to tell associates he hadn’t commented.

Much as the president’s media-loathing base is encouraged to believe that Goldberg’s article is a whole-cloth fake, Goldberg is a highly-respected journalist, meticulous and careful in his newsgathering. The same is true for Fox News’s Jennifer Griffin, who has confirmed most of Goldberg’s reporting.

Furthermore, the days of one-source stories are fortunately pretty much over. The media is so under siege by a president who calls us “the enemy of the American people” that reporters and their editors are exceedingly careful to be certain that their scoops are as airtight as possible—and that readers are aware of how deeply they're sourced. Goldberg relied on four anonymous sources. A recent Washington Post story on Trump's "lost summer" spent trying to contain the coronavirus notes that it's based on "interviews with 41 senior administration officials and other people directly involved."

Finally, Trump has a way of unwittingly confirming such stories. His usual modus operandi is launching preemptive strikes against individuals he thinks are behind stories he doesn’t like. Last week, he trashed retired Marine Gen. John Kelly, saying he was in over his head as White House chief of staff. Discrediting one of the military’s most capable and honorable warriors doesn't exactly undercut the idea that Trump doesn't respect the military.

The truth is, leaks—by definition from anonymous sources—are the mother’s milk not only of journalism, but of politics, governance, and diplomacy. The White House response to this story has been so turbocharged not because of anonymous sources, but because it rings true, and they know it could damage a key component of his base.

Views On Ethics/Purpose Of News Differs By Party

The charts on this page are from the Pew Research Center. They questioned 12,256 adults between February 2018 and July 2019. The margin of error is about 2.1 points (2.9 for Democrats and 3.2 for Republicans).

Note in the charts above that the two parties differ markedly in how they view the ethics of journalists and the confidence they have in journalists.

The charts below show the opinions of different demographic groups about journalists.

A Foreign Reporter Looks At A Trump Press Conference

(Caricature of Donald Trump is by DonkeyHotey.)

The photo at left is of Australian journalist (Guardian Australia) Lenore Taylor. The post below is what she had to say after viewing one of Trump's press conferences.

As a regular news reader I thought I was across the eccentricities of the US president. Most mornings in Australia begin with news from America – the bid to buy Greenland, adjustments to a weather map hand-drawn with a Sharpie or another self-aggrandising tweet. Our headlines and news bulletins, like headlines and news bulletins everywhere, are full of Trump.

As a political reporter for most of the last 30 years I have also endured many long and rambling political press conferences with Australian prime ministers and world leaders.

But watching a full presidential Trump press conference while visiting the US this week I realised how much the reporting of Trump necessarily edits and parses his words, to force it into sequential paragraphs or impose meaning where it is difficult to detect.

The press conference I tuned into by chance from my New York hotel room was held in Otay Mesa, California, and concerned a renovated section of the wall on the Mexican border.

I joined as the president was explaining at length how powerful the concrete was. Very powerful, it turns out. It was unlike any wall ever built, incorporating the most advanced “concrete technology”. It was so exceptional that would-be wall-builders from three unnamed countries had visited to learn from it.

There were inner tubes in the wall that were also filled with concrete, poured in via funnels, and also “rebars” so the wall would withstand anyone attempting to cut through it with a blowtorch.

The wall went very deep and could not be burrowed under. Prototypes had been tested by 20 “world-class mountain climbers – That’s all they do, they love to climb mountains”, who had been unable to scale it.

It was also “wired, so that we will know if somebody is trying to break through”, although one of the attending officials declined a presidential invitation to discuss this wiring further, saying, “Sir, there could be some merit in not discussing it”, which the president said was a “very good answer”.

The wall was “amazing”, “world class”, “virtually impenetrable” and also “a good, strong rust colour” that could later be painted. It was designed to absorb heat, so it was “hot enough to fry an egg on”. There were no eggs to hand, but the president did sign his name on it and spoke for so long the TV feed eventually cut away, promising to return if news was ever made.

He did, at one point, concede that would-be immigrants, unable to scale, burrow, blow torch or risk being burned, could always walk around the incomplete structure, but that would require them walking a long way. This seemed to me to be an important point, but the monologue quickly returned to the concrete.

In writing about this not-especially-important or unusual press conference I’ve run into what US reporters must encounter every day. I’ve edited skittering, half-finished sentences to present them in some kind of consequential order and repeated remarks that made little sense.

In most circumstances, presenting information in as intelligible a form as possible is what we are trained for. But the shock I felt hearing half an hour of unfiltered meanderings from the president of the United States made me wonder whether the editing does our readers a disservice.

I’ve read so many stories about his bluster and boasting and ill-founded attacks, I’ve listened to speeches and hours of analysis, and yet I was still taken back by just how disjointed and meandering the unedited president could sound. Here he was trying to land the message that he had delivered at least something towards one of his biggest campaign promises and sounding like a construction manager with some long-winded and badly improvised sales lines.

I’d understood the dilemma of normalising Trump’s ideas and policies – the racism, misogyny and demonisation of the free press. But watching just one press conference from Otay Mesa helped me understand how the process of reporting about this president can mask and normalise his full and alarming incoherence.

It's Dangerous To Report The News (Even In The U.S.)

The charts below are from Reporters Without Borders report at the end of 2018. They show that it's still dangerous to be a reporter on this planet. And that doesn't just mean in war-torn countries. The U.S. joined the list of dangerous countries with 6 journalists killed in 2018. Journalists are also subject to being jailed and taken hostage.

It's always been a dangerous job, but sadly, the current resident of the White House seems determined to make it even worse. His war on journalists, calling them the ?enemies of the people", is reprehensible. As the leader of a democracy he should be supporting journalists -- not attacking them -- because democracy depends on the free flow of information provided by the press.

One More Reason To Vote Against Republicans

 (Images are from the inimitable DonkeyHotey. I added the names.)

Donald Trump has made it clear that he does not want to punish the Saudi government for murdering a Washington Post journalist (whose home was in the United States).

After all, Trump believes journalists are an "enemy of the people", and punishing Saudi Arabia might endanger the money Trump is making from the Saudi's (and money is more important to Trump than anything else -- including this country and its reputation in the world).

And what are the Republicans in Congress doing? A few are talking tough, but most are too meek to oppose Trump -- and none of them are going to do anything to really punish Saudi Arabia. They might pass some mild rebuke, but you can bet it will be something that the Saudi's can easily ignore.
It's just one more reason why we cannot allow the Republicans to stay in power after November.

Here's how Jennifer Rubin puts it in The Washington Post:

On Thursday, 11 Democratic senators (why 11? What’s wrong with the rest of them?) sent President Trump a letter demanding information about Trump’s and his company’s ties to the Saudis. They note that Trump’s refusal to reveal and to divest himself from his business interests “raise significant concerns about financial conflicts of interest.” They demand all documents and available information relating to “investments, payments, or other financial transfers” between Trump and the Saudis, and ask about any gifts or discussion of Saudi business deals since Trump became president. They also inquire whether Trump’s companies would sever ties with the Saudis if the latter are found to have committed gross human rights violations. That’s a not very subtle way of pointing out that Trump may have a direct financial stake in applying Magnitsky Act sanctions to the Saudis, given that it would put him and/or his company in violation of U.S. law if Trump kept doing business with the kingdom.

The letter encapsulates precisely why Republicans should not be in control of Congress. For starters, Trump never should have been permitted to retain business ventures, raising a potential violation of the Constitution’s emoluments clause and certainly the appearance of a conflict of interest. Neither the GOP House nor Senate has held a single hearing on the subject of emoluments nor made any demand for Trump’s financial records, let alone his tax returns. Since Republicans control the floors of both the House and Senate and the power of subpoena, Trump has been able to escape any inquiry into his finances and thereby avoid accountability. As a result, the American people — and the rest of the world — are left to ponder if Trump’s bizarrely muted reaction to the apparent grotesque murder of Post columnist Jamal Khashoggi is the result of stupid policy or financial self-interest (or both).

Needless to say, no Republican is demanding any transparency from Trump or from his son-in-law Jared Kushner. As they have been from day one of this presidency, they shield the president from inquiry, utterly failing to live up to their obligations to the Constitution and their constituents.

On Sunday, during an appearance on CBS’s “Face the Nation,” Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) was asked if Trump’s financial ties played a part in his reaction to Khashoggi’s disappearance. Rubio blithely declared that “I don’t have any reason to believe” this was the case. That is because he and other Republicans have never bothered to inquire, and never insisted that Trump disclose and then divest himself. Rubio’s response conveys a complete lack of concern for performing his constitutional oversight duties — even when a constitutional violation and human rights atrocity are at issue. Rubio is not alone; he’s symptomatic of the passivity of his fellow Republicans.

Trump told Fox Business Network on Wednesday: “We’re not going to walk away from Saudi Arabia. I don’t want to do that.” Is that because he foolishly built a Middle East policy based on a misreading of Saudi Arabia, or is it because he hates to walk away from Saudi money? In any event, he’s already signaling he doesn’t want to find out if Saudi leaders knew something. (“I hope that the king and the crown prince didn’t know about it. That’s a big factor in my eyes.”) Gosh, if he found out the unvarnished truth, he might have to react appropriately.

If voters want answers to whether Trump is making money from the Saudis and, more importantly, want to force him to sever financial ties, they better not leave Republicans in charge. They’ve already told us they don’t give a darn if he violates the Constitution or is influenced by his own financial considerations.

The Government Murder Of Khashoggi Is Not An Aberration

(Photo of Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman, who likely ordered the murder of a journalist, is by Luca Locatelli in Time Magazine.)

The world was shocked last week by the murder of a Washington Post journalist by the Saudi Arabian government -- in the most obvious way (in their own embassy). But they shouldn't have been shocked. While the murder may have been the most obvious one by a government, it is far from the only one.

Journalists across the world are being attacked (and many murdered), and those attacks are growing in number. Even in the United States (supposed bastion of democracy), journalists are being threatened with death -- because Donald Trump has labeled them an "enemy of the people". I have to believe Trump's attack on journalists have encouraged less democratic governments to go after journalists they don't like.

This is a horrible trend, because democracy cannot exist in any country without a free and unfettered press. When journalists are threatened, attacked, imprisoned, and killed, it is nothing less than an attack on democracy itself.

The following is part of an excellent op-ed by Joel Simon in The Washington Post:

A record 262 journalists were jailed around the world at the end of last year, according to research by the Committee to Protect Journalists, the organization I lead. As the war in Syria has ebbed, the total number of journalists killed annually has come down from the low-to-mid 70s, but the number of murdered journalists has risen dramatically this year, to 27; there were 19 such deaths in all of 2016, and 18 last year. The suspects in the killings include criminal groups, terrorist organizations and governments. In about 90 percent of these cases, the perpetrators went unpunished.

Powerful forces around the world recognize the threat posed by independent information and are determined to control it. In areas of Mexico dominated by drug cartels, critical reporting is all but impossible. The Islamic State systematically hunted down and killed anyone who defied its blanket censorship. Governments, including those in Egypt and China, fear popular demonstrations and so suppress reporting on corruption and malfeasance that could bring people into the streets.

The crackdown is part of a broader global trend as Russia, North Korea and other authoritarian regimes have carried out extraterritorial attacks on their critics and faced only modest rebuke from the international community.

Meanwhile, a legitimate concern with the spread of disinformation and misinformation online is empowering the censors, including governments putting pressure on Internet companies to remove critical content they don’t like.

The crisis in press freedom is a threat to the global order. We live in the information age, yet the people who bring us news and information are being jailed, killed and censored at an unprecedented level. A decent respect for press freedom must be viewed as a guiding principle in international relations, a principle that cannot be sublimated to strategic considerations. . . .

The United States, where respect for press freedom is enshrined in the First Amendment, has a key role to play. Support for press freedom has been a cornerstone of U.S. foreign policy with strong bipartisan support. . . .

But one voice was largely missing until Wednesday. President Trump, who has cultivated a close relationship with the Saudi royal family, was slow to go beyond initially expressing “concern” before finally saying, on Wednesday, that “we cannot let this happen to reporters” and “we’re going to get to the bottom of it.” Better still would be an unequivocal demand that the Saudis come clean about Khashoggi’s disappearance. If anything remotely like what is alleged actually happened to Khashoggi, the president should ensure that it has profound and lasting consequences for the U.S.-Saudi relationship.

Of course, Trump has had an antagonistic relationship with the media and has mocked and attacked critical reporters. His regular denunciations of “fake news” are increasingly echoedby authoritarian leaders around the world. But that is all the more reason why speaking directly and forcefully about the Khashoggi disappearance would send a message to the Saudis that certain principles are inviolable. It would also send a message to all those around the world who routinely violate the rights of journalists and think they can get away with it that maybe – just maybe – they will be held to account.

Trump Must Share The Blame For Saudi Journalist's Death

(Photo of Trump with the Saudi crown prince is from Young Herald.)

Most modern U.S. presidents (of both parties) have promoted democracy around the world -- and part of that was support for a free and unfettered press in every country. Donald Trump has done just the opposite. While criticizing our democratic allies, he has demonstrated a fawning respect for dictators around the world. And he has demonized the free press as an "enemy of the people".

Saudi Arabia (one of the world's most undemocratic countries) saw this, and it encouraged them to murder a journalist who exposed their shortcomings. They knew that could do this with no retaliation from the Trump administration. In my opinion, that means Trump has some of the blood from the slain journalist on his hands.

Here is how Brian Klaas describes it in an op-ed for The Washington Post:

On Oct. 2, Post contributor Jamal Khashoggi walked into the Saudi consulate in Istanbul. His Turkish fiancée waited outside for what should have been a routine appointment.

She’s still waiting. Khashoggi hasn’t been seen since.

The mystery lingers, but the mounting evidence points to a plot orchestrated by the Saudi government to silence one of its most prominent critics. The Turkish government claims to have evidence that a 15-member “assassination squad” arrived in Turkey to murder and dismember Khashoggi. The Turkish media has released images showing these 15 men, in what they say is clear evidence of the Saudi plot to ensure that Khashoggi would never write another Post column again. The Saudi government, as you’d expect, denies all allegations of wrongdoing.

This harrowing saga has two main dimensions: Saudi brutality, certainly, but it also underscores the ways in which President Trump’s fawning dictator worship, his pervasive conflicts of interest and his attacks on the media have emboldened authoritarian regimes to viciously silence their critics.

Let’s start with the obvious: Saudi Arabia is a pitiless and despotic regime. Homosexuality, atheism, adultery and “sorcery” are all still punishable by death. The authorities chop off the heads of dissidents who speak their minds. Many executions are carried out publicly, with heads bagged and hung alongside the corpse, which is nailed to a cross and displayed as a warning. The “lucky” ones are just abducted or arrested and left to rot in a jail cell. . . .

Since Trump took office, the Saudi regime has become more brazen. Khashoggi’s disappearance reflects a strategic calculation: They think they can abduct or murder a journalist working for an American news organization without facing serious consequences. So far, they’re right – Trump has only called on them to investigate the disappearance. That weak response comes despite new evidence that “before Khashoggi’s disappearance, U.S. intelligence intercepted communications of Saudi officials discussing a plan to capture him.”

Worse, it’s likely that Trump’s finances and his rhetoric contributed to Saudi Arabia’s decision to green-light their barefaced conspiracy to silence Khashoggi.

Trump’s despicable dictator worship sends an unequivocal signal that the man in the Oval Office doesn’t just tolerate dictators and authoritarian despots, but admires them. Two weeks ago, Trump said he “fell in love” with North Korean leader Kim Jong-un. Trump has praised Presidents Recep Tayyip Erdogan of Turkey, Xi Jinping of China, Rodrigo Duterte of the Philippines, Vladimir Putin of Russia and, of course, the current Saudi ruler, Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman. Since 1928, every U.S. president has made his first foreign trip to Mexico, Canada, France, Belgium, Britain or Germany. Trump’s first trip was to Saudi Arabia, where he did a sword dance alongside officials who behead dissidents with swords.

Furthermore, Trump’s foreign policy toward Saudi Arabia is compromised by deep financial conflicts of interest. His business interests — past, present, and future — make it impossible for him to contemplate the kind of consequences that the Saudis deserve. In 1991, when Trump was $900 million in debt, he was bailed out by a member of the Saudi royal family, who purchased his 281-foot yacht, Trump Princess. Trump’s other princess, Ivanka, is married to Jared Kushner, who has deep ties to the crown prince. In 2015, when asked about his relationship with the Saudis, Trump said: “I get along great with all of them. They buy apartments from me. They spend $40 million, $50 million. Am I supposed to dislike them? I like them very much.”

As recently as December 2016, Trump owned companies in Saudi Arabia, as he sought to build a hotel there. Three days after Trump’s inauguration, lobbyists working for the Saudi government funnelled $270,000 directly to the Trump Organization by booking rooms at his Washington hotel. More recently, Trump’s flagging Manhattan hotel got bailed outthanks to a lucrative visit from none other than the Saudi crown prince.

It raises the disturbing possibility that Saudi Arabia will get away with abduction or murder because the president is beholden to Saudi money.

Finally, Trump’s attacks on the media are endangering the lives not just of Khashoggi but of journalists globally.

A Lot Of Politicians And Journalists Can't Take A Joke

(This photo of Michelle Wolf, from USA Today, is by Tasos Katapodis / Getty Images.)

The White House Correspondents' Dinner was held on Saturday night. For the second year in a row, Donald Trump skipped it. Other presidents have attended, taken the barbs from speakers, and then gave some of their own. It's a yearly occasion where presidents, journalists, and politicians show they can take a joke.

Unfortunately, Trump's narcissistic personality won't allow him to take a joke (even when given the opportunity to shoot back). He can't stand to be criticized, even when everybody knows it is a joke.

But Trump doesn't seem to be the only one that can't take a joke. The comedian delivering the main routine this year was Michelle Wolf (pictured). She took shots at Trump, his family and members of his administration, Democrats and Republicans, and journalists. Some of her jokes (and language) were a bit raunchy, but I thought she was very funny.

However, listening to the cable news pundits after the affair, you would have thought she spent the hour killing babies. A lot of journalists and politicians seemed to believe her jokes were inappropriate and over the top. I've never seen so many think-skinned people!

These people need to learn how to take a joke (even a bad one they may not like). Frankly, I think if politicians and journalists get upset over a few jokes, then they're in the wrong business.

Here are some of the jokes they considered to be too harsh and offensive:

On Sarah Huckabee Sanders:

“I have to say I’m a little star-struck. I love you as Aunt Lydia in ‘The Handmaid’s Tale.‘ Mike Pence, if you haven’t seen it, you would love it.

“Every time Sarah steps up to the podium, I get excited, because I’m not really sure what we’re going to get. You know, a press briefing, a bunch of lies or divided into softball teams. ‘It’s shirts and skins, and this time don’t be such a little bitch, Jim Acosta!‘”

“I actually really like Sarah. I think she’s very resourceful. She burns facts and then she uses that ash to create a perfect smoky eye. Like maybe she’s born with it, maybe it’s lies. It’s probably lies.”

“And I’m never really sure what to call Sarah Huckabee Sanders, you know? Is it Sarah Sanders, is it Sarah Huckabee Sanders, is it Cousin Huckabee, is it Auntie Huckabee Sanders? What’s Uncle Tom but for white women who disappoint other white women? Oh, I know. Aunt Coulter.”

“She has the perfect last name for what she does, Conway ... You guys have got to stop putting Kellyanne on your shows. All she does is lie. If you don’t give her a platform, she has nowhere to lie. It’s like that old saying, if a tree falls in the woods, how do we get Kellyanne under that tree? I’m not suggesting she gets hurt. Just stuck. Stuck under a tree.”

On Ivanka Trump:

“There’s also, of course, Ivanka. She was supposed to be an advocate for women, but it turns out she’s about as helpful to women as an empty box of tampons. She’s done nothing to satisfy women. So, I guess like father, like daughter.”

On the White House correspondents’ dinner:

“This is long. This has been long.”

On being 32 years old:

“10 years too young to host this event and 20 years too old for Roy Moore.”

On being a woman:

“It’s 2018 and I’m a woman so you cannot shut me up. Unless you have Michael Cohen wire me $130,000.”

On the media:

“I know there’s a lot of people that want me to talk about Russia and Putin and collusion, but I’m not gonna do that, because there’s also a lot of liberal media here and I’ve never really wanted to know what any of you look like when you orgasm.”

On Trump missing the dinner:

“Of course, Trump isn’t here, if you haven’t noticed. He’s not here. And I know, I know, I would drag him here myself, but it turns out the president of the United States is the one pussy you’re not allowed to grab.”

On Trump’s wealth:

“People call Trump names all the time. And look, I could call Trump a racist or a misogynist or xenophobic or unstable or incompetent or impotent. But he’s heard all of those and he doesn’t care. So tonight, I’m going to try to make fun of the president in a new way, in a way that I think will really get him. Mr. President: I don’t think you’re very rich. Like I think you might be rich in Idaho, but in New York you’re doing fine.”

On euphemisms:

“(Trump) loves white nationalists, which is a weird term for a Nazi. Calling a Nazi a white nationalist is like calling a pedophile a ‘kid friend.‘ Or Harvey Weinstein a ‘ladies man.‘ Which isn’t really fair. He also likes plants.”

On the vice president:

“Mike Pence is what happens when Anderson Cooper isn’t gay.”

On Democrats:

“Democrats are harder to make fun of because you guys don’t do anything. People think you might flip the House and Senate this November, but you guys always find a way to mess it up. You’re somehow going to lose by 12 points to a guy named Jeff Pedophile Nazi Doctor.”

On the Trump administration:

“I did have a lot of jokes about cabinet members. But I had to scrap all of those because everyone has been fired. You guys are going through Cabinet members quicker than Starbucks throws out black people.”

On Mitch McConnell:

“Mitch McConnell isn’t here tonight. He had a prior engagement. He’s finally getting his neck circumcised. Mazel.”

On CNN:

“The most useful information on CNN is when Anthony Bourdain tells me where to eat noodles.”

On Fox News:

“Fox News is here. So you know what that means, ladies. Cover your drinks. Seriously. People want me to make fun of Sean Hannity tonight, but I cannot do that. This dinner is for journalists.”

On MSNBC:

“I watch ‘Morning Joe’ every morning. We now know Mika and Joe are engaged. Congratulations, you guys. It’s like when a #MeToo works out.”

On Megyn Kelly:

“What would I do without Megyn Kelly? Probably be more proud of women. Megyn Kelly got paid $23 million by NBC. Then NBC didn’t let Megyn go to the Winter Olympics. Why not? She’s so white, cold and expensive, she might as well be the Winter Olympics. And by the way, Megyn, Santa is black. The weird old guy going through your chimney was Bill O’Reilly.”

On newspapers:

“I’m not going to go after print media tonight because it’s illegal to attack an endangered species.”

On the media:

“You guys are obsessed with Trump. Did you use to date him? Because you pretend like you hate him, but I think you love him. I think what no one in this room wants to admit is that Trump has helped all of you. He couldn’t sell steaks or vodka or water or college or ties or Eric. But he has helped you. He’s helped you sell your papers and your books and your TV. You helped create this monster and now you’re profiting off of him. And if you’re going to profit off of Trump, you should at least give him some money because he doesn’t have any.”