Connect with us

News

‘Lunatic Sliding Into Senility’: Fox News Lawyers Feared Rupert Murdoch Would Be ‘Disgraced on the Stand’ – Report

Published

on

Gabriel Sherman, who literally wrote the book on Fox News, reports one of the reasons the right-wing media conglomerate settled with Dominion Voting Systems for $787.5 million instead of going to trial in the $1.6 billion defamation case is the company’s attorneys feared putting Fox Corporation Chairman Rupert Murdoch on the stand.

Sherman’s Tuesday article at Vanity Fair focuses on what he calls a “new theory” of why Tucker Carlson was fired from Fox, but he includes damning news about the company’s 92-year old leader.

Noting that “multiple theories about why Fox fired Carlson” have “circulated in the media,” Sherman points to “fallout from the $787.5 million Dominion settlement; punishment for vulgar text messages published in Dominion court filings; or a consequence of former Fox producer Abby Grossberg’s lawsuit, which alleged Carlson oversaw a hostile work environment. (Fox News has vowed to ‘vigorously defend’ the company against ‘Grossberg’s unmeritorious legal claims.’)”

“But none of these potential reasons fully add up,” Sherman writes – offering his new theory: “According to the source, Fox Corp. chair Rupert Murdoch removed Carlson over remarks Carlson made during a speech at the Heritage Foundation’s 50th Anniversary gala on Friday night.”

READ MORE: Trump a No Show at His Rape and Defamation Trial, Says He Will Be a No Show at the GOP Debates

“Carlson laced his speech with religious overtones that even Murdoch found too extreme,” his source says. “Carlson told the Heritage audience that national politics has become a manichean battle between ‘good’ and ‘evil.’ Carlson said that people advocating for transgender rights and DEI programs want to destroy America and they could not be persuaded with facts. ”

“The answer, Carlson suggested, was prayer.”

“’I have concluded it might be worth taking just 10 minutes out of your busy schedule to say a prayer for the future, and I hope you will,’ he said. ‘That stuff freaks Rupert out. He doesn’t like all the spiritual talk,’ the source said.”

Sherman then focuses on Murdoch’s hastily-voided engagement.

“Rupert Murdoch was perhaps unnerved by Carlson’s messianism because it echoed the end-times worldview of Murdoch’s ex-fiancée Ann Lesley Smith, the source said.”

READ MORE: Far Right Anti-LGBTQ Christian Nationalist Mark Robinson Launches Bid for Governor

“In my May cover story,” Sherman notes, “I reported that Murdoch and Smith called off their two-week engagement because Smith had told people Carlson was ‘a messenger from God.'”

“In late March, Carlson had dinner at Murdoch’s Bel Air vineyard with Murdoch and Smith, according to the source. During dinner, Smith pulled out a bible and started reading passages from the Book of Exodus, the source said. ‘Rupert just sat there and stared,’ the source said. A few days after the dinner, Murdoch and Smith called off the wedding. By taking Carlson off the air, Murdoch was also taking away his ex’s favorite show.”

He calls the broken engagement “part of a string of erratic decisions” Murdoch has made “that raises questions about Murdoch’s leadership of his media empire.”

Sherman reports his sources say there is concern about Murdoch’s leadership.

“’It’s like the King is senile but no one wants to say anything,’ the source said.”

“Once the [Dominion] trial began, the lawyers told Fox execs that Murdoch would be ‘disgraced on the stand, run out of the boardroom, and his testimony will expose him as a lunatic sliding into senility.’ (The person close to Murdoch disputed this. ‘Rupert was very well prepared to testify.’)”

 

Image via Shutterstock

Continue Reading
Click to comment
 
 

Enjoy this piece?

… then let us make a small request. The New Civil Rights Movement depends on readers like you to meet our ongoing expenses and continue producing quality progressive journalism. Three Silicon Valley giants consume 70 percent of all online advertising dollars, so we need your help to continue doing what we do.

NCRM is independent. You won’t find mainstream media bias here. From unflinching coverage of religious extremism, to spotlighting efforts to roll back our rights, NCRM continues to speak truth to power. America needs independent voices like NCRM to be sure no one is forgotten.

Every reader contribution, whatever the amount, makes a tremendous difference. Help ensure NCRM remains independent long into the future. Support progressive journalism with a one-time contribution to NCRM, or click here to become a subscriber. Thank you. Click here to donate by check.

NCRM

Two-Thirds of Americans Say Economy is Keeping Them From Having Babies

Published

on

Nearly two-thirds of Americans aren’t having babies due to the economy, according to a new poll.

According to a Harris-Guardian poll, many Americans are deciding against having children, with 65% saying that they’ve decided against having children because they’re worried about the economy and doubt they could afford it.

The poll also asked about other regular life milestones. Americans are also holding off on getting married (60%), buying a house (75%) or pursuing higher education (61%). It’s not just major events, either—65% said the cost of living had only gotten higher since January, and half said they were having difficulty paying for regular living expenses.

READ MORE: Nikki Haley: Frozen Embryos Are ‘Babies’

A majority of adults, 52%, blamed either tariffs (29%) or other government policies (23%) for causing their household economic woes. Only 4% blamed themselves, with another 6% blaming employers; 16% blamed something altogether different. The only group that largely felt the economy was getting better was Republicans; 33% said it was getting worse, compared to 73% of Democrats and 64% of independents.

The survey of 2,102 adult Americans was conducted between April 24-26. The margin of error is 2.5%.

America’s birth rate has been declining since the 1950s, barring a small bump between 1978 and 1988, according to Macrotrends. In the last 40 years, the number of live births has fallen from a peak of 15.5 live births per 1,000 people in 1988 to 12.01 births in 2024.

The Trump administration has urged Americans to have more children. In April, President Donald Trump floated the idea of giving out a “baby bonus” of $5,000 to new parents, according to CBS News.

While not as generous, the House GOP’s first draft of the budget includes $1,000 to be placed in “MAGA accounts” for new babies, according to Raw Story. The $1,000 could come in handy for new parents—but a May 9 report from CBS estimates Trump’s tariffs have added $1,000 to the cost of raising a child. (This does not take into account Monday’s announcement of reduced tariffs on Chinese goods.)

Declining birth rates could lead to an imbalance of demographics. As Americans get older, there are fewer young people to fill their shoes in the workplace. Fewer workers means lower tax revenue, and aging typically means an increase in health care costs, as Mike Walden, Reynolds Distinguished Professor Emeritus at North Carolina State University, points out.

It’s not all downsides, however. Walden says lower birth rates could also lessen competition for good housing. It could also lead to less traffic congestion, less waste and more land for food production.

Image via Shutterstock

Continue Reading

NCRM

Trump Promises to Lower Drug Costs as House GOP Tries to Cut $880B From Medicaid

Published

on

President Donald Trump signed an executive order on Monday aimed at cutting drug costs. Meanwhile, his fellow Republicans in the House are trying to gut Medicaid.

Trump’s executive order, “Delivering Most-Favored-Nation Prescription Drug Pricing to American Patients,” is an attempt to “equalize evident price discrimination,” allowing Americans to pay the same price as other “comparably developed nations.”

“This abuse of Americans’ generosity, who deserve low-cost pharmaceuticals on the same terms as other developed nations, must end.  Americans will no longer be forced to pay almost three times more for the exact same medicines, often made in the exact same factories.  As the largest purchaser of pharmaceuticals, Americans should get the best deal,” the EO reads in part.

READ MORE: ‘Pushed Up to the Edge of the Cliff’: GOP Proposals Would Kick Millions Off Health Care

Prior to the announcement, Trump posted to Truth Social that “DRUG PRICES TO BE CUT BY 59%,” but did not provide details on where that figure came from. It is also unclear if the White House has the authority to enforce this order, according to NPR.

PhRMA President and CEO Steve Ubl dismissed the executive order, saying that it was other countries paying such low prices that drives up costs for Americans. Ubl implied that the executive order may require those countries to pay more.

“The Administration is right to use trade negotiations to force foreign governments to pay their fair share for medicines. U.S. patients should not foot the bill for global innovation,” Ubl said. “Importing foreign prices from socialist countries would be a bad deal for American patients and workers. It would mean less treatments and cures and would jeopardize the hundreds of billions our member companies are planning to invest in America – threatening jobs, hurting our economy and making us more reliant on China for innovative medicines.”

While Trump was promising to help American health care consumers on Monday, the night before, his colleagues in the House revealed legislation that would cut over $880 billion in Medicaid funding. Republicans say that the cuts will result in savings to the average American, but Rep. Frank Pallone (D-NJ) said “millions of Americans will lose their health care coverage,” according to the AP.

“Hospitals will close, seniors will not be able to access the care they need, and premiums will rise for millions of people if this bill passes,” Pallone continued.

Not all Republicans are on board with this bill. Sen. Josh Hawley of Missouri wrote a guest essay for The New York Times condemning the legislation. He called the bill “both morally wrong and politically suicidal.”

“If Republicans want to be a working-class party — if we want to be a majority party — we must ignore calls to cut Medicaid and start delivering on America’s promise for America’s working people,” Hawley wrote.

Image via Reuters

Continue Reading

NCRM

US Lifts Ban on Afghan Deportations, Despite UN Warning of ‘Escalating Crisis’

Published

on

Department of Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem announced Monday that the ban on deporting Afghans had been lifted due to improvements in their home country. The United Nations has warned this isn’t the case, and deportees could be in danger.

The about-face is yet another example of the Trump administration reversing a Biden-era policy. Beginning in 2022, Afghan refugees were granted Temporary Protected Status (TPS), according to NPR. In addition to stopping deportation, TPS also gives refugees authorization to work in the United States.

Noem said the decision to rescind TPS was due to improving conditions in Afghanistan, citing an “improved security situation” and “stabilizing economy,” according to The Hill. The TPS designation expires on May 20, and becomes effective July 12, 60 days after the announcement is scheduled to be officially published in the Federal Register.

READ MORE: Trump Team Pushing ‘Utter Propaganda’ on Deportations to Create ‘Climate of Fear’: Experts

Despite Noem saying Afghanistan is safe for refugees, the State Department still gives the country a “Do Not Travel” designation. The State Department warns “travel to all areas of Afghanistan is unsafe,” according to NPR.

The United Nations also disputes Noem’s claims. A report published by the U.N. last month refers to an “escalating humanitarian crisis” in the country, and say increase deportations could further destabilize things. Iran and Pakistan have forcibly deported 96,000 Afghan refugees in April alone, the U.N. reported.

Afghan refugees in America—even those with green cards—say they’re afraid to return.

“It doesn’t matter just how you got here,” Muhammad Amiri, a Afghan refugee with legal permanent residency, told NPR. “We don’t feel safe, and we don’t feel good because now, we feel threatened, if they send us back to our country, it will be the same story. [We] feel threatened to be tortured, maybe be killed by [the] Taliban.”

Though Amiri has a green card, the Trump administration’s crackdown on immigration has many worried. Amiri’s fiancée is in Afghanistan, and he told NPR he was afraid to visit her, due to fears he may not be allowed back into the country. Amiri’s fears are not unfounded; Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers at airports have already turned away or detained those who come to the United States legally, according to The Verge.

The Taliban,a militant Islamic fundamentalist group, is still in control of Afghanistan. The Taliban bans women from working or being educated. This week, it also banned chess, according to the Telegraph. The Taliban has been in control since the 2021 withdrawal of U.S. forces from the country, ending the longest war in which America has been involved.

Image via Reuters

Continue Reading

Trending

Copyright © 2020 AlterNet Media.