Ben Alpers

Moral rot in elite journalism is killing the whole field The Nuzzi/RFK Jr. mess and the revelation of Esptein's journo pals lay bare a profound moral absence at the heart of our free press.

New — I wrote about the myriad ways journalism’s moral rot manifests, and how our crumbling institutions have created the conditions for it to fester:

It suggests that there’s an obvious shortcut through the hard work that goes into reporting fairly and accurately, which is to just create a spectacle,” Miles Klee, culture writer at Rolling Stone, said of the ethically-dubious work that’s been presented as journalism. “It’s not a coincidence that Wolff and Nuzzi both made their names by printing what is essentially gossip. Sure, a lot of it may be true, but what you’re really selling there is the concept of yourself with total and intimate access to everyone who matters, which makes you just as important, a byline that magazines can always bank on.”

There is absolutely a shortcut, and it’s how we wound up with POTUS saying “Quiet, Piggy” to a reporter and the rest of the corps just ignoring it.

I don't know a bad enough word for this guy and I work in journalism

That's not a good argument, but a lot of Congressional Republicans may conclude that that's the politically safest play.

"I believe the files must be released, which is why I voted for the bill last week. But in light of the ongoing investigation and the President's desire to protect the rights of those involved during it, this is clearly not the right time to do so. I will not be voting to override the veto."

...and that defying Trump to vote on the losing side of an attempt to override his veto will be a less attractive proposition for Congressional GOPers than voting, over Trump's objection, with a majority in favor of passage would have been.

The gamble here will be both that a 2/3 majority, in such circumstances, will be much more difficult for proponents of releasing the files to achieve than a simple majority in violation of Trump would have been to achieve this week.

My guess is Trump will veto it, citing the "ongoing investigation" that he himself ordered just days ago. He'll then order Republicans to sustain the veto.

Undoubtedly he was under pressure. For the moment he seems to have relieved it, however.

Trump knows that every single Republican in Congress would prefer to please _both_ their constituents _and_ their Dear Leader. Telling them to vote "yes" made that possible again... for now, at least.

My best guess is: Trump told GOPers in Congress to vote for the bill. They do. Then he vetoes it, citing an "ongoing investigation" (that he ordered a couple days ago). Then he tells Republicans to sustain his veto. And they do that, too. Not 11-dimensional chess 'cause it doesn't have to be.

I'm certainly not claiming that this was necessarily a smart play in the medium or long run for any of the Republicans involved. But Trump has entirely avoided a loyalty test vote by effectively cancelling it in advance.

Trump told Republicans in Congress to vote for the Epstein files bill yesterday. Whatever meaning we want to attach to all but one House Republican voting for it (and its likely passage thru the Senate by unanimous consent), this is not Republicans defying Trump. They're literally following orders.

Except Trump managed to limit the damage by explicitly telling GOP Congresscritters to vote for the measure. Through the magic of authoritarianism, Trump went from having a significant chunk of the House Republican caucus defy him to having nobody defy him (unless you count the one no vote).

I had previously been unaware of her nascent career as a songwriter. Just wow.

They tend to be pro-choice, but also to be in favor of running anti-choice Dems for Senate in states like Ohio and Kansas that have passed reproductive freedom referenda since the overturning of Roe.

Here's the Anthropic settlement site:

www.anthropiccopyrightsettlement.com

Another good reason to go to the Anthropic settlement site, see if your book is named, and file a claim
if it is.

Here's the site:

www.anthropiccopyrightsettlement.com

Exactly. If the other person is consenting, you're obviously getting screwed (and not in the good sense).

I don't no which angers me more:

1) Reactionary centrists' refusal to argue for their political preferences on the merits, instead claiming that those preferences are a strategic necessity.

2) The complete lack of evidence that these positions would be strategically effective, let alone necessary.

An ADSBx map showing the New England Patriots team plane taking off out of Alexandria, LA, and heading west.

Uhhhhhhhh is the New England Patriots team plane doing an ICE flight right now?

It just took off out of ICE detention hub airport. Military charter flights go out of there occasionally too, but with a different callsign. Not certain but very weird! 🤔

Obviously, the Democrats who did endorse Mamdani did so too late or not enthusiastically enough. If they'd really meant it, they'd have resigned!

Give it up, Aaron! "Democrats will
never endorse Mamdani" is axiomatic for these folks. The mere fact that most Democrats did endorse Mamdani, including the particular Democrat they're currently dragging for not endorsing Mamdani, misses the point.

Am I the only one who finds it very troubling that the most prominent argument for AI has suddenly become "it would be really awful for the economy if the AI bubble bursts"?

"And 13, 14, 15, 16, and 17 year olds are really pretty much 18 year olds, so let's focus on 3 to 12 year olds."

Big Infrastructure Week energy from Sen. Scott.

Except it also turns out to be a terrible strategy for empty suits to stay in power. Maybe empty suits are, on the whole, not so bright.

In our hearts, we know you're right.

it is almost as if accommodating and conceding to far right ideas legitimizes them and signals to voters that the far right is a legitimate choice for governance

mr president sir theres a story coming about how you intervened to help a sex criminal. no sir, not that sex criminal you helped….no not that one either…sir, please stop guessing sex criminals that you helped. ill give you a hint sir, hes a trafficker. no sir, not that trafficker a different one