Author: jh staff

Goodbye to MSNBC

Media and technology conglomerate Comcast is spinning off cable news network MSNBC from its roster, along with a number of other cable networks.

The company announced it will create a new publicly traded entity, which will house MSNBC and NBCUniversal’s additional cable television networks.

Comcast is giving the new company an apt moniker, “SpinCo.”

Unveiling of the plans are shaking up the media landscape and sending shock waves through the network’s offices.

It all came to a head when MSNBC lost over half its viewers following the electoral triumph of President elect Donald Trump.

An additional ratings drop occurred after Joe Scarborough, host of the network’s program “Morning Joe,” revealed that he and wife/co-host Mika Brzezinski had recently met with President elect Trump at Mar-a-Lago, ostensibly to “restart communications.”

The ratings tank and spin-off talk had Scarborough questioning his own future employment with the channel.

“I could be completely wrong. We could all be fired a year from now. You never know what’s going to happen tomorrow,” he said on his show.

There are a number of reasons that the spin-off is happening. First up is the fact that streaming is clobbering cable. Execs are understandably concerned about the steady increase in cord cutting that has taken place, especially among the younger demographic. This segment of viewers is accustomed to having non-bundled options and is partial to streaming media.

Comcast has also let it be known that current chairman of NBCUniversal Media Group Mark Lazarus will be named SpinCo’s CEO. Sources have indicated to Variety that Lazarus spoke to an audience of concerned staffers and talent, which included MSNBC personalities Rachel Maddow, Chris Jansing, and Katy Tur.

MSNBC will evidently be joined by the business news network CNBC in being detached from NBC News.

Since the two networks will no longer be a part of NBC, attendees at the meeting with Lazarus reportedly expressed concerns about whether the use of familiar symbols, which have been used by MSNBC for decades, will be allowed to continue.

In a shocking admission, Lazarus said that because of the spin-off he wasn’t sure whether MSNBC would have to give up its current image, identity, or home.

“Everyone is in a panic because everything is up in the air,” one MSNBC source told The New York Post.

Journalists at the network CNBC are coming apart at the seams at the prospect of being separated from NBC’s news division. This is because MSNBC routinely shares reporting, and a significant part of the network’s daytime schedule uses correspondents from NBC News.

Andrea Mitchell, chief foreign affairs correspondent and chief Washington correspondent for NBC News, has anchored a daily MSNBC show since 2008. And MSNBC’s Katy Tur and José Díaz-Balart have dual roles as journalists for NBC News as well.

Lazarus was unable to answer questions about MSNBC’s newsgathering and whether the cable news outlet would have to develop its own capability for collecting and verifying news, which is a daunting task to say the least.

The idea of giving MSNBC a makeover has been tossed around for a long time. The network wasn’t always the far-left echo chamber that it is today.

Back in 1996 it originally launched as a joint venture of Microsoft and NBC (although Microsoft would later divest its stake in the TV network).

Like fellow cable networks had previously done, MSNBC would go on to broaden its horizons by doing political coverage as well as opinion-oriented programming. A variety of viewpoints were represented on its programs, ones that ranged across a spectrum from Phil Donahue on the left to Tucker Carlson on the right.

Oh the good ol’ days, when there was a fairly clear line of demarcation between hard news and editorial opinion. That line served a number of important purposes, including a commitment to truth and accuracy in the conveyance of national and international information as well as an adherence to a journalistic code of ethics.

It could be that the good ol’ news days are going back to the future. And the sport of intellectual sparring will make its own separate comeback.

Let’s all stay tuned in whatever new media way is preferred. And may the Truth win out.

Trump’s Free Speech Blueprint

So much has taken place over the last four years that Americans across the board have found objectionable.

One of the starkest examples may be what happened to our constitutional right to free speech.

Way too many individuals on social media found themselves in situations in which they were censored, persecuted, and punished over statements made on forums that were formerly thought to be free-wielding platforms.

Editorial pieces with “unapproved” content were shelved by newspapers and kept from public view.

Cable TV anchors heard whispers from producers, instructing them to change subjects should conversations happen to veer into “taboo” territory.

Public figures, which included political candidates, were vilified for bringing up “inconvenient” truths.

Labels, including “conspiracy theorist,” “extremist,” “wingnut,” and worse, were slapped on many who refused to wear the muzzle, thereby harming their reputations while simultaneously silencing them.

I could go on, but sadly the list seems endless.

Yes, free expression took a major hit, but hope is truly on the horizon, thanks to President elect Donald J. Trump, his close-knit circle, loyal supporters, and slew of newfound like-minded influential allies, including Elon Musk, Robert F. Kennedy Jr., Tucker Carlson, Tulsi Gabbard, and Joe Rogan, to name a few.

Uber entrepreneur and “Dark MAGA” creator Musk recently shared a video that had been posted a while back. It features President elect Trump setting forth his plan to safeguard and restore free speech if (and now when) he assumes office.

In the video, he elaborates on the indispensable nature of free speech to our nation’s constitutional values, stating, “If we don’t have free speech, then we just don’t have a free country.”

He offers the additional warning that if freedom of expression were to continue to erode, other indispensable rights would fall like “dominoes.”

President elect Trump’s plans to restore First Amendment freedoms involve a number of common sense steps, including the following:

-The issuing of an executive order banning any federal department or agency from colluding with outside organizations to censor the speech of Americans.

-A prohibition on government money being used to label any domestic speech as “misinformation” or “disinformation.”

-A review of the federal workforce to identify and replace those involved in censoring speech.

-An effort to seek the reform of Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, which currently provides immunity for tech platforms. Modification would include placing limits on the power of tech companies to arbitrarily restrict lawful speech.

-The stopping of funding organizations that contribute to censorship, including colleges and universities that promote or engage in inappropriate or unlawful censorship.

-The creation of a “Digital Bill of Rights” that would ensure citizens have due process, that users are informed when their content is removed, that individuals are given clear reasons for decisions made, and that the right to appeal is in place, making judicial review and approval a prerequisite for the removal of certain online content.

Such policies will go a long way toward restoring our constitutional right to free speech.

Interestingly, on the day before the 2024 presidential election, two powerful media figures sat down for a conversation about the issues at stake in the then-looming election.

Musk spoke with Rogan.

After praising Musk for his purchase of Twitter, Rogan said, “I’m not exaggerating when I say you changed the course of history.”

The preeminent podcaster was talking about free expression.

Rogan explained that censorship and de-platforming by social media had severely impeded free speech across the U.S. landscape.

“We were headed down a path of unprecedented censorship and narrative control,” Rogan said to Musk.

What he was referring to is the notion that for speech to be free and remain an existing fundamental right, it must be free from government interference and corporate censorship.

The American notion of freedom cannot exist without these guardrails.

In great part, the understanding of the value of free speech to liberty and the commitment to end censorship have led to the formation of a powerful coalition of superheroes from all sides of the political aisle.

This coalition greatly contributed to the electoral earthquake that just occurred in our country.

Get ready to once again be able to agree and/or disagree to our hearts’ content.

And in between discussions and debates, breathe in the sweet air of free speech.

Trump, McDonald’s, and the American Work Ethic

It was an amazing sight to see.

Former president and current GOP presidential candidate Donald J. Trump dressed up in a white shirt, red tie, and black and yellow apron. He was hard at work at a McDonald’s franchise cooking up some French fries.

A super-sized crowd was gathered nearby the fast food establishment, and they were lovin’ it. Footage of the former prez serving up fries at Mickey D’s almost broke the internet.

It was another unprecedented event for the surging Trump campaign. His handlers dubbed it the “October surp-fries.”

“I’m looking for a job. And I’ve always wanted to work at McDonald’s but I never did,” the former president said as he introduced himself to McDonald’s franchise owner Derek Giacomantonio.

“How much are you paying me?” he jokingly asked.

With reporters and aides gazing on and cameras rolling, an ace McDonald’s staffer coached him in the fine art of prepping the perfect fries and serving with distinction.

Those who witnessed the training session learned that there’s a whole lot more to frying up spuds than people think.

He learned with great precision and timing how to immerse baskets of fries into oil, how to properly salt the fries after cooking, how to meticulously scoop the fries into serving boxes, and how to deliver the fries to the waiting customer.

In addition to being a celebrity chef for a day, he also manned the front counter and even chatted it up with customers and reporters.

It is widely known that 45 is a longtime fan of the Golden Arches. During the 2019 government shutdown, he famously ordered hundreds of burgers, fries, and other menu items from McDonald’s as part of a celebration honoring the Clemson Tigers national college football championship win.

Sharing some of his thoughts on his on-the-job training, Trump noted, “It requires great expertise, actually, to do it right and to do it fast.”

He was truly impressed with the entire operation.

Personally, I have to believe that most of the country as well as onlookers from around the globe were equally impressed with the blue-collar billionaire, and the respect, admiration, and humbleness he displayed toward his “employer,” co-workers, and customers.

I don’t know if he meant to, but in those beautiful Sunday moments at a Feasterville-Trevose, Pennsylvania McDonald’s franchise, Trump single-handedly re-ignited one of our most important values – the American work ethic.

We haven’t given it a whole lot of deference of late, but the work ethic is in our cultural bones.

It’s that unspoken agreement within our society that we are free to choose our own work role, and that we consent to do our part and perform our job duties with excellence, acknowledging that we’re all working to serve one another.

The unmistakable sound of societal harmony: I help you and you help me.

What goes hand-in-hand with the work ethic is an undying respect for every individual’s chosen position and a heartfelt appreciation for one another’s efforts.

“These people work hard. They’re great,” Trump said to the press.

A man who has seen it all shared that he “just saw something… a process that’s beautiful.”

When the value of work is celebrated by our leaders, our people are inspired to become more productive, which paves the way to a more prosperous nation. And that’s good for everyone.

Here’s to those who pitch in every way they can, those who step in when others can’t, and those who never fail to keep the French fries coming.

Journalism Goes Hollywood

It’s the mainstay of the entertainment industry.

Take bits of creative fabrication, put them all together in celluloid form, and pass the whole thing off as reality.

Voila! A big-screen, little-screen, and/or digital-screen production is born.

Once upon a time entertainment fare didn’t infiltrate journalistic territory. Instead it was happily confined to its own terrain.

And there was a kind of unwritten truth-in-advertising code within the journalism profession as well, secured by an internal bond of trust in news media venues across the culture.

Those days are long gone. The dividing line between entertainment and news media has almost been completely obliterated, and nowhere is it more obvious than within the realm of politics.

So what happens when news journalism goes Hollywood?

Well, in the past professional journalists pretty much had a singular goal, which was actually outlined in the first draft of the Society of Professional Journalists’ Code of Ethics, dated 1926: “Seek truth and report it.”

It appears as though way too many journalists have chosen to ditch their reporter notepads and are now itching to get into the Hollywood production game.

Let’s take a look at how Hollywood has done things for decades.

Filmmakers select a story to tell. It can be an original idea, an extension of a previous artistic work, or myriad of other fanciful combinations.

Screenwriters create a script, which oftentimes undergoes multiple revisions in order to increase dramatic effect or enhance entertainment value.

Production designers and art directors create visuals and construct sets.

Locations are scouted and choice venues are selected.

Filming begins, with repeated scene shoots taking place so that the finest performances can be selected from the mix.

An extensive editing process occurs in which scenes are examined, and segments of footage can be re-arranged and/or cut out completely if so desired.

The movie is then assembled and delivered in its completed state.

And of course there is a whole industry built on marketing the final product.

If we apply the above-outlined entertainment template to the news business, it begins to become clear as to what has occurred within a once-noble profession.

Journalism has gone Hollywood.

Some may immediately say, “So what’s the problem?”

The answer is simple. The Fourth Estate is now on life support. However, The Fourth Estate has, and always will be an essential component in keeping a free society free. So if The Fourth Estate truly dies, so does our liberty.

Traditionally, journalists have had an ethical obligation to inform the public, taking particular care to report truthfully and accurately. They have also had an ethical obligation to clarify mistakes that are made and/or issue retractions.

The public hasn’t seen a whole lot of this of late. Instead the opposite has been occurring. Here’s a glaring example.

Vice president and Democratic presidential nominee Kamala Harris recently sat down for an interview with CBS. After a less than sterling outing, it was discovered that the network had used some filmmaking techniques to give the vice president’s performance an extreme Hollywood makeover.

Interviewer Bill Whitaker had asked some rudimentary questions, but the responses given were woefully insufficient. That’s when the network went to work on editing and rearranging her remarks, ultimately making her appear to say something that she didn’t and to be someone that she isn’t.

As a promotion for the segment, the network had released raw footage of her answer to a question about Israel and leader Benjamin Netanyahu. It was embarrassingly bad.

But when CBS later aired the same Q&A, viewers were presented with a new and improved version of her response.

The network had evidently gone to great lengths to produce an edited, i.e., quasi-fictional response, one that had been digitally cut from an earlier part of the interview and re-inserted in the “preferred” place.

Also present in the edited version was some dubbed-in narration, which served to cover up some of her less than perfect responses.

Those who actually still care about the future of journalism, including The New York Post editorial board, have demanded that CBS release the full transcript of the interview. And according to The Post, former CBS staffers are demanding an independent investigation into the matter.

CBS is not alone in jumping into the Hollywood editing game. Action News on 6 ABC (located in the key battleground state of Pennsylvania) aired two different answers from the vice president regarding her economic policies, and then went on to publish the edited version on its website.

Times sure have changed. So-called news outlets are routinely copying the fanciful storytelling and elaborate production of liberal Hollywood. And fiction and fabrication are now unapologetically presented as fact and truth.

Yes, time is running out.

But rest assured, there are still a lot of us out here who will never stop hoping for a Hollywood happy ending and a return to truth.

Diddy’s Legal Woes Spell Trouble for Some Major Hollywood Players

Sean Combs, widely known as Diddy, continues to be embroiled in a scandal that appears to be growing more serious each day, not only for him but for several of his Hollywood colleagues.

The influential music producer and three-time Grammy winner was recently refused bail, after having pleaded not guilty to multiple felony counts. His criminal trial is fast approaching.

After he was charged criminally, more allegations surfaced via a lawyer who is representing at least 120 plaintiffs that intend to file lawsuits against Diddy and others.

Speaking at a press conference, Texas attorney Tony Buzbee indicated that his clients will be alleging various sexual misconduct allegations against Diddy as well as additional defendants.

According to Buzbee, over 3,280 people have contacted his firm with allegations against the entertainment mogul. However, after vetting the claimants and their cases his law firm decided to represent a select 120 people. Additional potential cases are still under review.

The alleged abuses that will appear in the moving papers purportedly took place mainly at parties that were held in the states of New York, California and Florida, parties at which individuals were allegedly given drinks laced with drugs.

Some of the alleged conduct occurred at venues where individuals who were seeking to break into the entertainment industry were auditioning.

The allegations purportedly took place between the years 1991 and 2024.

According to Buzbee, the alleged victims that are planning to file suit consist of 60 males and 60 females. A shocking 25 of the plaintiffs were purportedly minors at the time of the alleged misconduct.

The purported young age of some of the alleged victims appears to be altering the nature and character of the allegations against Diddy.

Buzbee elaborated on the alleged circumstances of a nine-year-old boy who was taken to New York to audition for Diddy’s record label.

“This individual was sexually abused, allegedly by Sean Combs and several other people at the studio, in the promise to both his parents and to himself of getting a record deal,” the attorney said.

Buzbee provided details of another alleged incident involving a fifteen-year-old girl who was allegedly flown to New York City to attend a party, and who subsequently was allegedly drugged and raped in the presence of Diddy.

The attorney invoked the industry that is most likely to be impacted by Diddy’s case, that being Hollywood.

“The biggest secret in the entertainment industry, that really wasn’t a secret at all, has finally been revealed to the world,” Buzbee said to the press.

He then added the following words, which likely sent shivers across the Hollywood community:

“The day will come when we will name names other than Sean Combs, and there’s a lot of names…But the names that we’re going to name, assuming that our investigators confirm and corroborate what we’ve been told, are names that will shock you.”

Buzbee indicated that there are additional perpetrators, and said, “They already know who they are.”

Numerous household names have outward ties to Diddy. Some have been photographed with him. Many have attended his parties.

Hollywood is bracing itself for the day that A-listers in connection to the Diddy cases are named.

Anxiety is high over the very real possibility that careers and brands will be tarnished, whether by association with a Diddy allegation, or worse, by being named as a defendant in a criminal case or a civil one.

During a segment on “The Breakfast Club,” radio host Charlamagne Tha God opined that if Combs is convicted of racketeering and sex trafficking, others involved will likely be going to jail.

As for Diddy himself, he is completely denying the claims and allegations. His representatives have stated that he “cannot address every meritless allegation in what has become a reckless media circus.”

They added that Diddy “emphatically and categorically denies as false and defamatory any claim that he sexually abused anyone, including minors,” and stated that “he looks forward to proving his innocence and vindicating himself in court if and when claims are filed and served, where the truth will be established based on evidence, not speculation.”

Diddy is due back in court for a status conference on October 9, 2024, during which the court is expected to set a trial date. Prosecutors have also said that the investigation into alleged criminal activity is still ongoing.

In the meantime, Hollywood is holding its collective breath.

The Rise and Fall of Diddy’s Star

Sean “Diddy” Combs is a major figure in the world of hip-hop.

Also known as P. Diddy and Puff Daddy, Diddy is a rapper, music producer, and record executive.

He has been credited with the discovery and career guidance of many fellow artists, including Usher, Mary J. Blige, Faith Evans, and the Notorious B.I.G.

Diddy was arrested recently in New York City after being indicted by a federal grand jury.

The arrest and indictment came after a months-long sex trafficking investigation. Unfortunately for him, Diddy’s career had already been negatively impacted as the result of having been named a defendant in several lawsuits, which accused him of various forms of abuse.

According to the indictment, the charges that he now faces include racketeering, transportation to engage in prostitution, and sex trafficking.

The case has the capacity to garner an enormous amount of public attention, in part due to the disturbing subject of sex trafficking. It is also one that could cause irreparable harm to Hollywood’s image and reputation.

Although many in the media have routinely chosen to downplay the subject, the entertainment industry is a place where numerous allegations of similar activity have surfaced over the years.

While the mainstream press focuses on the hedonistic aspects described in the scenarios contained in the indictment, the case has much more profound implications, particularly when it comes to the serious abuses against real-life victims.

At the core of Diddy’s case is the charge of racketeering, which for the star means that he stands accused of leading an organized criminal enterprise, which involved a series of crimes being perpetrated.

The crime of racketeering was a key tool used in the past against the Mafia and the drug cartels. It is now being wielded against a well known Hollywood figure, which is difficult for a heretofore adoring public to process.

The indictment alleges that Diddy used his business entities, employees, and others to facilitate illegal activities that included kidnapping, arson, bribery, obstruction of justice, forced labor, coercion, narcotics offenses, prostitution-related transportation, and sex trafficking.

According to prosecutors, in order to conduct the criminal enterprise Diddy carried and exhibited firearms for the alleged purpose of threatening victims.

Law enforcement officials have stated that in the raids of his Los Angeles and Miami homes, guns and ammunition were found. In particular, officials allegedly discovered three AR-15 rifles with “defaced” serial numbers.

The prosecutors allege that those who surrounded the music mogul had used violent means to protect and sustain the star’s power over others, and they intend to present as evidence the infamous hotel-surveillance video, which shows Diddy engaged in what appears to be a particularly brutal assault of one of his victims.

Even though Diddy has not been charged with criminal assault in this indictment, his alleged penchant for violent acts is a key component of the racketeering charge.

An additional court document sets forth other acts of violence and intimidation allegedly committed by Diddy and his associates, including the brandishing of a gun to kidnap a victim and use of a Molotov cocktail to blow up a car. The same document indicates that fire department records, police reports, and witnesses are able to substantiate these claims.

Additionally, a prosecution memo states that “dozens” of witnesses are available to testify.

Many high-profile Hollywood celebrities, who in the past have had ties with Diddy, appear to have gone silent about his arrest and the multiple charges against him.

It is likely that professional handlers, agents, managers, publicists, and executives would have advised the celebrities within their charges to lay low. Entertainment figures who have carefully cultivated brands would be wise to fear being tainted with the alleged criminal activities.

Large swaths of select celebrities’ social media posts have been wiped clean in recent days.Some stars face the distinct possibility that they themselves may be held to account, if they have been involved in Diddy’s alleged illegal acts.

The lead prosecutor was asked a question about whether Diddy’s associates or employees are going to face charges. The prosecutor answered by saying that he “can’t take anything off the table.”

Diddy is being held without bail, as determined by a magistrate judge, who will not be handling the case. When a district court judge is assigned, Diddy’s lawyers are certainly likely to request that he be released on bail.

Why does this case matter?

It is because it places a glaring light on the dark issue of sex trafficking.

It is because it once again focuses attention on what can happen when power at the highest levels of an organization is misused and abused.

And most importantly, it has the potential to secure justice and to prayerfully bring a sense of closure to the innocent victims of what could be one of Hollywood’s most horrific stories.

TikTok Lawsuit May Forever Change Social Media

A lawsuit was recently brought against TikTok, which may end up altering the legal landscape for social media platforms operating in the U.S.

The lawsuit has its origins in the tragic death of a 10 year-old girl who, while engaging in a trendy but extremely dangerous activity on Tik Tok, sadly lost her life.

In 2021, young Nylah Anderson, was exposed to a viral meme in her TikTok feed. The video that presented itself was called “The Blackout Challenge.”

Social media platforms are loaded with supposedly cool game-like challenges, many of which are relatively harmless. But this particular challenge was anything but low risk.

Devastatingly for Nylah and her family, the specific activity that was advocated was to choke oneself until one lost consciousness. Nylah participated in the challenge and tragically passed away in the process.

Her family filed a lawsuit against TikTok, but the trial court threw out the case, based on the traditional statutory protections enjoyed by social media platforms.

However, a federal appellate court came to a different conclusion. The court held that the lawsuit could go forward because of the manner in which TikTok used its technology, finding that the platform’s algorithm may have promoted the harmful content that led to a fatal outcome for the young girl.

The court’s decision stated the following: “While no one person at TikTok curates content for anyone’s feed, it is fair to call the algorithm the arbiter, and the algorithm is programmed by TikTok…”

Social media platforms, such as TikTok, Facebook, Instagram, X (formerly Twitter), and others, have been protected by a 25 year-old law passed by Congress, which was intended to shield platforms that came into being during the internet’s infancy.

The early days of the internet featured platforms such as AOL, Compuserve, and Prodigy, which functioned as conduits that passively provided access to content, rather than actively influencing what would appear in users’ accounts.

Consequently, as part of the Communications Decency Act of 1996, protections were set up in order to shield these passive online services from liability for content that was posted by third parties.

For these early gateways to the web, revenue arrived in the form of subscription fees.

Today’s platforms have a completely different revenue model. Advertising as well as sharing user data comprise the primary sources of income.

The aim of modern social media companies is to acquire, and perhaps more importantly, to maintain its users.

The complex and sophisticated algorithm is the tool that enables a company to consistently maintain its users.

TikTok’s “For You” page, Facebook’s feed, Instagram’s recommendations, and X’s “For You” page are controlled by algorithms that learn what an individual likes to view, and subsequently, based on knowledge of a person’s interests, bring content from other users into the individual’s account. 

In essence, not only do modern social media platforms provide access to content, but they curate what users see via pre-programmed algorithms.

The TikTok lawsuit could have major implications for all of the major modern social media companies, since they all use algorithms to curate content.

If Nylah’s family prevails in its lawsuit, the resulting precedent could mean an effective end to the legal protections under which social media concerns have been operating.

TikTok, Facebook, Instagram, X, and other platforms would then face a significant shift from the protections they have enjoyed under Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act.

In order to avoid future liability, modern social media platforms would be legally responsible to re-design their algorithms in such a way as to prevent the delivery of harmful content.

It very well may be that loss of a precious life will spell the beginning of the end to the outdated legal protections that social media platforms have been enjoying at the expense of the innocent ones.