It was called ‘“the worst debate in American history” by more than one pundit and cable news anchor.
The graphic descriptions of Tuesday night’s presidential debate between incumbent Donald Trump and challenger Joe Biden began mounting on social media and spilling over into Wednesday’s headline stories. The most used: “train wreck” and “dumpster fire.” CNN’s Dana Bash figured it was the night to break protocol: “I’m just going to say it like it is. That was a shit show.”
The highly anticipated event devolved early into bickering and interruptions, with moderator, Fox News Sunday host Chris Wallace, having to reprimand the president several times to wait his turn, reminding him at one point that his campaign had agreed to the terms for letting his opponent speak for two minutes, uninterrupted, during responses. The evening rolled over the broad domestic issues that only emphasized today’s domestic divide: Trump’s Supreme Court nomination, the coronavirus pandemic, economic recession, racial strife. Rather than leading to a substantive discussion on the candidates’ records or plans, each question immediately gave way to squabbling and sharp personal attacks. Biden called Trump a “racist” and a “clown.” Trump repeatedly and aggressively demanded Biden talk about his son Hunter’s business in Ukraine; at one point he sneered that Hunter was “kicked out of the military” for “cocaine use.”To say the least, foreign policy, especially in any manner that Quincy Institute staff had hoped would be explored Tuesday night, was not on the menu. Aside from a rapid volley about Trump blaming China for COVID and his early response during the pandemic, there was no talk about the trade war or increasing tensions with Beijing. The words Iran or North Korea never passed their lips. The only mention of Russia was Trump insisting one could not trust their COVID numbers. The issue of climate change and alternative energy actually invoked China, for a minute. (Trump blamed them for lagging in pollution control; QI’s Rachel Odell was able to provide a speedy riposte).But given the way issues like health care became an excuse for launching ad hominem attacks or cast each other’s leadership in apocalyptic terms, it might be best they didn’t talk about foreign policy last night.
"For once we might be the big winners if this debate concludes without ever mentioning our issue area!" declared Eli Clifton, QI's investigative reporter.
But there was a more serious takeaway by members of the Quincy Institute staff: it was clear from the embarrassing spectacle that the United States needs to be taking care of its house first, before telling other countries what to do. In other words, that “shining light on the hill” needs a massive light bulb change.“The only right thing is to put a pause on our democracy promotion programs until we've fixed things at home,” noted QI Executive Vice President Trita Parsi. Earlier he had tweeted, “Imagine the number of countries panicking that we might decide to export democracy to them.”The idea that the world was watching — in horror, or laughing, possibly both -— was not lost.“The debate said all it needed to say about foreign policy. Who could watch it and think the United States is the indispensable nation that must dominate the world by force?” quipped Stephen Wertheim, Deputy Director of Programs and Research for QI.QI President Andrew Bacevich, blaming Trump for the mortifying display, noted how the debate was just a symptom of America’s civil degradation. He invoked the first televised presidential debate in 1960. “From Kennedy vs. Nixon to Trump vs. Biden: one expression of American decline.”
Kelley Beaucar Vlahos is Editorial Director of Responsible Statecraft and Senior Advisor at the Quincy Institute.
U.S. President Donald Trump and Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden participate in their first 2020 presidential campaign, September 29, 2020. REUTERS/Brian Snyder
“Journalism is printing what someone else does not want printed: everything else is public relations.”
— George Orwell
Election season in the U.S. exemplifies how far the mainstream media has strayed from its mandate to inform and educate.
Like him or not, Robert Kennedy Jr.’s exclusion from CNN’s recent presidential debate, despite the global importance of this election, highlights this issue. It is widely assumed CNN made this decision in collusion with the two main political parties. But CNN’s actions are not isolated and underscore how established media outlets fail to cover America’s real political, economic and social problems in a nuanced manner.
RFK Jr.’s rising poll numbers concern both Republicans and Democrats, as he appears to attract votes from both sides. While it’s understandable that they would try to block him, why is the mainstream media complicit?
One possible answer lies in RFK Jr.’s campaign platform. Often ridiculed for his views, he addresses important issues like the crippling federal debt, the corrupt merger of state and corporate power, the wealth gap, the chronic disease epidemic, and the broken health-care system — all of which affect Americans. He prioritizes these over divisive cultural issues.
He tackles the crisis of trust in institutions and leaders that is gripping America. Yes, he has expressed problematic views on vaccines and other topics that are not evidence based, but so have the other candidates whose voices are heard.
Mainstream media is often considered corporate-friendly due to its heavy reliance on advertising revenue. When your advertisers include pharmaceutical and food companies, defence contractors and financial institutions, addressing critical issues could be seen as corporate suicide. As Noam Chomsky put it, the media often serves as a tool for “manufacturing consent,” rather than fostering informed public discourse. He emphasized that certain topics are confined within allowable boundaries set by powerful institutions, limiting the range of acceptable discussion.
Given this reality, where can one find news, facts and opinions free from corporate influence? A potential answer is the shift in tone from former mainstream media personalities who have left networks like CNN, Fox and MSNBC. Many of these individuals are now reporting from independent online platforms, where they may have more freedom to express their views.
I spend significant time listening to podcasts from all political sides. Former cable TV personalities like Fox’s Tucker Carlson and Megyn Kelly, CNN’s Chris Cuomo, and MSNBC’s Mehdi Hasan are now expressing views they would never have aired under corporate influence. Freed from those constraints, they discuss sensitive topics such as American Israel Public Affairs Committee’s influence on American foreign policy, the media’s cosy relationship with big corporations, the role of media in fostering cultural animosity, and the reasons behind America’s seemingly endless wars.
These online platforms significantly impact mainstream media viewership. Consider Joe Rogan, the king of online podcasts. With an average of 11 million daily viewers, he surpasses the combined viewership of all mainstream news talk shows. While he delves into wacky topics and conspiracy theories, he also fearlessly addresses “no-go” subjects ignored by CNN and Fox.
While at Fox, Tucker Carlson averaged of 3.4 million daily viewers. Since his firing and move to X (formerly Twitter), his viewership has increased substantially, with his first three episodes averaging 19.3 million views. Carlson has noticeably transformed since leaving Fox. I have never been a fan of Carlson, but lately he comes across as more likeable and humbler and is now critical of the mainstream media, especially regarding American hawks and their endless warmongering. And it’s not just RFK Jr. or conservative-populists like Carlson whose voices are muted; even opinions from the likes of Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (AOC) and the democratic left in America are rarely heard on CNN or Fox.
If there is one platform that unsettles the establishment, it’s TikTok. With 127 million U.S. users and as the preferred news source for generation Z, it has captured the attention of politicians from both sides of the aisle. Despite the ACLU asserting that banning TikTok would violate the First Amendment, Congress shows broad bipartisan support to either force a sale or ban it entirely due to its China connections and national security issues. However, some argue that China isn’t the primary issue behind this potential ban. For instance, recent college protests calling for a ceasefire in Gaza gained traction through TikTok. Views on Israel-Gaza are significantly divided by age demographics, with 18–24-year-olds more in favour of a ceasefire than older groups.
Whether it’s Gaza or Ukraine, the mainstream media seems completely divorced from the nuance associated with these conflicts and most never talk about peaceful solutions in spite of the difficult compromises any solution would entail.
This trend has not gone unnoticed by the political class.
In a recent Sedona Forum conversation between Sen. Mitt Romney and U.S. secretary of state Antony Blinken on the narrative of Israel’s war in Gaza, Romney remarked: “Typically, the Israelis are good at PR — what’s happened here?” Blinken offered as one reason the “intravenous” feeds of perpetual news. “You have a social media ecosystem environment in which context, history, facts get lost and the emotion, the impact of images dominates … and it has a very challenging impact on the narrative.”
Romney added: “Some wonder why there was such overwhelming support for us to shut down potentially TikTok or other entities of that nature. If you look at the postings on TikTok and the number of mentions of Palestinians relative to other social media sites, it’s overwhelmingly so among TikTok broadcasts.”
Political opinions are a personal choice. I am not advocating for the left or the right. Nor am I a populist or prone to buying into the conspiracy theories of some of the above-mentioned candidates or media personalities. But whether or not you agree with the diagnosis of the nonmainstream voices regarding the current situation, and especially their prescription of what’s required to address America’s myriad problems, it’s crucial to hear these voices directly, without a biased filter.
Personally, I’m fortunate to have the time to explore various news platforms online, allowing me to sift through data and verify what appears closest to the truth. Unfortunately, many Americans lack this luxury and rely on mainstream echo chambers, leaving them misinformed, angry and beholden to prevailing dogmas.
Until a media platform emerges that thoroughly sifts through all the news to present facts that more accurately represent reality, consume your daily media menu with a grain of salt.
This piece, originally published on July 10, has been republished with permission from The Toronto Star.
keep readingShow less
Peter Thiel attends the annual Allen and Co. Sun Valley Media Conference in Sun Valley, Idaho, U.S., July 6, 2022. REUTERS/Brendan McDermid
The trouble with doing business with Israel — or any foreign government — is you can't really say anything when they do terrible things with technology that you may or may not have sold to them, or hope to sell to them, or hope to sell in your own country.
Such was the case with Peter Thiel, co-founder of Palantir Technologies, in this recently surfaced video, talking to the Cambridge Union back in May. See him stumble and stutter and buy time when asked what he thought about the use of Artificial Intelligence by the Israeli military in a targeting program called "Lavender" — which we now know has been responsible for the deaths of an untold number of innocent Palestinians since Oct 7. (See investigation here).
Starts at 1:07:18
Here's the text of his response through our translating tool (emphasis mine):
Look again....I'm not ....I'm not...you know, you know...with... without, without going into all the... you know I'm not on top of all the details of what's going on in Israel, because my bias is to defer to Israel. It's not for us to to second-guess every, everything. And I believe that broadly the IDF gets to decide what it wants to do, and that they're broadly in the right and that's, that's sort of the perspective I come back to. And if I, if I fall into the trap of arguing you on every detailed point, I'm actually going to, I would actually be conceding the broader issue that the Middle East should be micromanaged from Cambridge. And I think that's just simply absurd. And so I'm not, I'm not going to concede that point.
Sources from the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) told +972 Magazine back in April that military personnel ignored "Lavender" AI’s 10% false positive rate and, using the technology with little human input, intentionally targeted alleged militants in their homes with unguided “dumb bombs,” despite an increased likelihood of civilian harm.
According to the magazine, "Lavender" relied on sprawling surveillance networks and assigned a 1-100 score to every Gazan based on the likelihood the person was a Hamas militant. This is used by another software program called "Where's Daddy?" that warned when one of these "militants" were in residence. Voila! Aim and fire. More than 37,000 Palestinians were on this so-called "kill list" in the first months of the war, according to +972's reporting. From the magazine:
“We were not interested in killing [Hamas] operatives only when they were in a military building or engaged in a military activity,” A., an intelligence officer, told +972 and Local Call. “On the contrary, the IDF bombed them in homes without hesitation, as a first option. It’s much easier to bomb a family’s home. The system is built to look for them in these situations.”
Thiel is a billionaire investor, and Palantir serves as both a major investor and creator of AI technologies. For over a decade it has received major contracts across the U.S. government — including the Department of Defense, Department of Homeland Security, and the FBI. At the same time its business is international. Palantir is currently testing its new Artificial Intelligence Platform (AIP) in realtime, on the Ukrainian battlefield. It has been described as "an intelligence and decision-making system that can analyze enemy targets and propose battle plans." Other Palantir security technologies include AI for predictive policing and surveillance.
No doubt this is why the company has been called “the AI arms dealer of the 21st century." According to this glossy TIME magazine spread back in February, "more than half a dozen Ukrainian agencies, including its Ministries of Defense, Economy, and Education, are using the company’s products. Palantir’s software, which uses AI to analyze satellite imagery, open-source data, drone footage, and reports from the ground to present commanders with military options, is 'responsible for most of the targeting in Ukraine,' according to CEO Alex Karp."
But what about Israel, where more than 39,000 Palestinians (out of a population of only 2 million) have been killed since Oct. 7, the great majority of them, according to most accounts, even Israeli accounts, civilians? In January, Palantir held a board meeting in Tel Aviv for the first time in "solidarity" with Israel, and announced a new "strategic partnership with the Israeli Defense Ministry to supply technology to help the country’s war effort."
“Both parties have mutually agreed to harness Palantir’s advanced technology in support of war-related missions,” Palantir Executive VP Josh Harris told Bloomberg at the time. “This strategic partnership aims to significantly aid the Israeli Ministry of Defense in addressing the current situation in Israel.”
According to Bloomberg, "no further details on the arrangement were disclosed, including what technology would be provided." So it's not clear that Palantir's fingerprints were on any technology related to the IDF's AI kill-search-destroy program in the early part of the war. However, the company was already providing tools to Israel before the Oct. 7 Hamas attacks even happened. In comments during that January meeting, CEO Karp said, “our products have been in great demand...We have begun supplying different products than we supplied before (the war).” This came a year after Palantir introduced AIP and while its use on the Ukraine battlefield was already in full swing, so who knows.
Nevertheless, is it really a surprise that Thiel says his "bias is to defer to Israel"? It's a paying client, after all. Though it is a bit remarkable to hear someone who is sometimes lumped in with the "America First" foreign policy community — not to mention one of J.D. Vance's intellectual muses — say it, at least so bluntly. But Thiel also says the IDF is "in the right," echoing Karp's consistently muscular pro-Israel messaging, signaling that this is not all business but ideological, too.
For Palantir, overseas wars are clearly paying off, but not so much for Palestinians, or, for that matter, Americans who may find themselves subject to this prediction, surveillance, and targeting technology, soon enough. Thiel may be stuttering on stage, but there is a clear message here, if anyone is listening.
keep readingShow less
Relatives of American-Israeli hostages speak at roundtable on Tuesday. (Photo: C-SPAN)
The families of the eight American citizens still held hostage in Gaza blasted Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on Tuesday for not striking a ceasefire deal that would free their family members, and urged members of Congress to pressure the Israeli leader on this front while he was here in town.
The family members were speaking at a roundtable at the House Foreign Affairs Committee in advance of Netanyahu’s speech to Congress on Wednesday.
Some of the hostages’ relatives are based in Israel and traveled to Washington with Netanyahu earlier this week. The group also included the parents of Itay Chen, who was killed on October 7 and whose body is being held by Hamas; and Aviva Siegel, who was released during the hostage deal in November, and whose husband remains in captivity.
“It is time now to end this war, to end our suffering, and along the way, to end the suffering of millions in Gaza,” said Jonathan Dekel-Chen, the father of one of the hostages, who lives in Israel but refused to travel with Netanyahu . “I implore Democrats and Republicans to do all that you can to let our Prime Minister know that the U.S. knows that the time is now.”
While the Biden administration has said that Israel has agreed to an “enduring” ceasefire plan, the families present accused Netanyahu of keeping the war going for political purposes and said he was not devoting enough energy to securing the hostage release.
“Last night, we met Prime Minister Netanyahu again. I have to say the urgency of the matter did not seem to resonate with him,” said Daniel Neutra, whose brother is being held hostage by Hamas.
“We had hoped that he would come to Washington to announce that he had sealed the deal to bring our kids home,” said Adi Alexander, father of Edan Alexander. “Anything short of it will be a total failure for us.”
“There’s a myth out there that there is a better deal somewhere if Israel just delays a little longer, fights a little further,” added Dekel-Chen.
Netanyahu has said that there will be no durable ceasefire until Hamas’ military and governing capabilities are destroyed.
But Dekel-Chen countered that “All of the Israeli security apparatus and intelligence services have clearly stated that conditions are right today to complete the deal that’s on the table. Any true friend of Israel today must pressure our Prime Minister to finish the deal now.” President Joe Biden has also said that Hamas is no longer capable of carrying out a large-scale attack on Israel.
He went on to say that there was no reason to believe continuing the military operation could free their loved ones.
“There is no proof of concept,“ Dekel-Chen said. “There is no military force on earth that knows how to get hostages out from under ground. Whatever has been tried has not been successful, it's been ten months.”
The witnesses also blamed Netanyahu for using other external threats from Hezbollah or Iran as a pretense for keeping the war going, instead of focusing on the more immediate issue of ending the war in Gaza.
“I am sure that Mr. Netanyahu is going to speak to the joint session tomorrow about the credible, real threats to the state of Israel,” said Jon Polin, father of Hersh Goldberg-Polin . “Now is not the time to go up to the cancer ward and deal with the sick people who need treatment, when there are people dying right now on the floor of your hospital. (...) The single event that can happen right now that can be most influential in releasing pressure across all fronts in the Middle East region is bring home to hostages.”
Some of the family members also noted that the recent news of Biden’s withdrawal from the 2024 election meant that he could focus on doing the right thing in the Middle East, divorced from U.S. domestic politics.
“Part of your legacy, Mr. President, is that you get the credit for saving the lives of as many of these hostages as possible and doing the thing that releases the most pressure in the region,” by pushing Netanyahu to agree to a ceasefire agreement, said Polin.
A report from shortly after the roundtable said that Biden would invite the families to his meeting with Netanyahu on Thursday.
Subscribe now to our weekly round-up and don't miss a beat with your favorite RS contributors and reporters, as well as staff analysis, opinion, and news promoting a positive, non-partisan vision of U.S. foreign policy.