He alleges that Biden and Trump are colluding to exclude him from the June 27 debate — and that CNN is in on it. His argument is quite the stretch. Email not displaying correctly?
View it in your browser ([link removed]) .
[link removed]
[link removed]


** OPINION
------------------------------------------------------------


** Robert F. Kennedy Jr. files complaint about being left out of CNN presidential debate
------------------------------------------------------------
Robert Kennedy, Jr., shown here in November 2023. (AP Photo/Meg Kinnard)

You knew this was coming.

Robert F. Kennedy Jr. is all riled up that he’s not being included in the upcoming presidential debate on CNN, and now his camp is filing a complaint with the Federal Election Commission.

His grievance is pretty straightforward: He is alleging that President Joe Biden and former President Donald Trump are colluding to exclude him from the debate set for June 27 — and he’s claiming that CNN is in on it, too.

Kennedy’s lawyer, Lorenzo Holloway, wrote in a letter to the FEC, “CNN is making prohibited corporate contributions to both campaigns and the Biden committee and the Trump committee have accepted these prohibited corporate contributions.”

That’s quite the accusation, and quite the stretch — to suggest having Biden and Trump in a debate without Kennedy is essentially a political contribution.

As far as debate qualifications, CNN said in a statement, “The law in virtually every state provides that the nominee of a state-recognized political party will be allowed ballot access without petitioning. As the presumptive nominees of their parties both Biden and Trump will satisfy this requirement. As an independent candidate, under applicable laws RFK, Jr. does not. The mere application for ballot access does not guarantee that he will appear on the ballot in any state. In addition, RFK, Jr. does not currently meet our polling criteria, which, like the other objective criteria, were set before issuing invitations to the debate.”

This mess started when Biden and Trump decided to ignore the traditional bipartisan Commission on Presidential Debates and deal directly with one another and the TV networks. Biden’s camp seemed only interested in debating Trump one-on-one and deals were struck for Biden and Trump to debate twice: on CNN on June 27 and on ABC in September.

The Washington Post’s Amy B Wang and Meryl Kornfield wrote ([link removed]) , “Polls have shown Kennedy would not have qualified to appear on the debate stage if Biden and Trump had agreed to meetings organized by the bipartisan Commission on Presidential Debates. However, the networks’ proposed rules opened a path for Kennedy. To qualify for the CNN debate, candidates must by June 20 appear on enough state ballots that would give them a path to reach 270 electoral votes, as well as receive at least 15 percent in four national polls that meet the network’s standards. The ABC debate has similar qualification requirements.”

It’s important to note that the eligibility window hasn’t closed and therefore Kennedy, or anyone else who meets the eligibility requirements, could still qualify.

However, the Post wrote, “Kennedy’s campaign has acquired the signatures or expects to soon for states that would add up to 270 electoral votes, but is not sure if states will certify the results in time, according to a person familiar with the plans who spoke under the condition of anonymity to discuss private conversations. The campaign is also aware that their early submission of signatures could give Democrats and others the opening to file objections in states where it is seeking ballot access.”

Let’s be real. Biden doesn’t want Kennedy there, and neither does Trump. Kennedy certainly could play spoiler in the upcoming election, but oddly, it’s still not totally clear whose chances he might spoil. Therefore, both Biden and Trump would just as well see Kennedy left out.

But it’s difficult to believe CNN would be in cahoots with Biden and Trump.

Bottom line, it would be surprising to see Kennedy on the debate stage on June 27.


** Speaking up
------------------------------------------------------------

Uri Berliner is speaking up.

Berliner was a veteran business editor at NPR who went viral in April after writing a piece heavily criticizing ([link removed]) NPR for losing America’s trust with coverage that he called biased toward the left. Berliner, who wrote the piece for conservative Bari Weiss’ media company, was suspended without pay for five days, and ended up resigning from NPR.

In his first interview since then, Berliner told The Times of London’s Josie Ensor ([link removed]) , “I knew it would raise questions within NPR, but I had no idea it would become such a major national story.”

Ensor’s story said Berliner said he has heard from hundreds of current and former listeners in the past few weeks who felt NPR’s coverage had become “predictably progressive” and “not as interesting as it used to be.” Berliner said, “These are people all over the political map. They have lost large numbers of conservatives, moderates and, judging by the correspondence I’ve received, many traditional liberals as well.”

NPR has its defenders, as well, and there were some serious issues with Berliner’s original piece, which was criticized by many for not providing context, adding other details and not including reaction from those inside NPR.

Much of the Times story goes over already covered ground, so the one thing that ended up standing out was Berliner saying he was surprised his essay became a major story.

Someone who works at a well-known media outlet accuses that media outlet of having a liberal bias and he’s surprised it became a “major national story?”

That is the surprising part.

Ensor wrote, “The veteran journalist said he was taking a break and re-calibrating. At his age he could be forgiven for considering retirement, but that is not the plan. He is lining up new work — though he declines to offer specifics — and is considering a move to New York, home to his beloved basketball team, the Knicks.”


** No recuses
------------------------------------------------------------
Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito Jr., left, and his wife Martha-Ann Alito, in February 2018. (AP Photo/Pablo Martinez Monsivais)

Jodi Kantor is The New York Times reporter who broke the big story ([link removed]) a couple of weeks ago of an upside-down American flag flying outside the Alexandria, Virginia, home of Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito in the days following the Jan. 6 insurrection and days before Joe Biden was inaugurated as president. The upside-down flag was a symbol that many supporters of Donald Trump used to falsely claim the election was stolen from Trump. Such flags were seen at the Jan. 6 insurrection.

Alito told the Times that he had nothing to do with the flag. He told the Times, “It was briefly placed by Mrs. Alito in response to a neighbor’s use of objectionable and personally insulting language on yard signs.”

The Times followed that up with another story ([link removed]) about an “Appeal to Heaven” flag that flew outside Alito’s vacation home in New Jersey just last summer. The Times wrote that the flag is “now a symbol of support for former President Donald J. Trump, for a religious strand of the ‘Stop the Steal’ campaign and for a push to remake the American government in Christian terms.”

Now, Kantor has a new story ([link removed]) about the neighborhood dispute that supposedly led Alito’s wife, Martha-Ann Alito, to fly the upside-down flag.

As all this plays out, there have been calls from Democratic lawmakers for Alito to recuse himself from cases involving Jan. 6.

Well, Alito wrote letters to Democrats in Congress and his message was clear: He has no intention of recusing himself.

Alito wrote, “My wife is fond of flying flags. I am not. She was solely responsible for having flagpoles put up at our residence and our vacation home and has flown a wide variety of flags over the years.”

He wrote about the initial incident at the Virginia home in January 2021, saying, “I had nothing whatsoever to do with the flying of the flag. I was not even aware of the upside-down flag until it was called to my attention. As soon as I saw it, I asked my wife to take it down, but for several days, she refused.”

He added, “My wife and I own our Virginia home jointly. She therefore has the legal right to use the property as she sees fit, and there were no additional steps that I could have taken to have the flag taken down more promptly.”

Alito acknowledges that the upside-down flag is meant to support the “Stop the Steal” movement, but said the “Appeal to Heaven” flag was not meant to associate with any cause or movement involving Trump and the election.

Alito added, “As I said in reference to the other flag event, my wife is an independently minded private citizen. She makes her own decisions, and I honor her right to do so.”

Many on social media were quick to note the language Alito used about his wife making her own decisions and honoring that right juxtaposed uncomfortably with the fact that Alito wrote the majority decision that overturned Roe v. Wade.

As far as recusing himself from Jan. 6 cases, Alito wrote, “A reasonable person who is not motivated by political or ideological considerations or a desire to affect the outcome of Supreme Court cases would conclude this event does not meet the applicable standard for recusal.”


** Let’s make a deal
------------------------------------------------------------

Add The Atlantic and Vox to the media companies that have signed deals with OpenAI. They signed separate agreements announced Wednesday.

Axios’ Sara Fischer reports ([link removed]) , “Both agreements also allow OpenAI to tap into the respective publishers' current content to fuel responses to user queries in OpenAI products, including ChatGPT. OpenAI will include citations to their work when it's referenced in a response to a user query and will link out to the relevant article.”

Terms were not announced, but one would assume that The Atlantic and Vox are being compensated.

I wrote this ([link removed]) a week ago, right after the Murdoch family’s News Corp., which publishes The Wall Street Journal and New York Post, signed a deal with OpenAI: “Some media companies, such as The New York Times and several outlets owned by Alden Global Capital, have lodged lawsuits against OpenAI and Microsoft for copyright infringement. Meanwhile, other media companies, including The Associated Press, have reached limited partnership deals with OpenAI. And then there is The Washington Post, which has not struck a deal yet, but is in the market for AI partnerships.”

Fischer wrote for Axios, “More major news companies are opting to strike deals with OpenAI rather than pursue litigation, for different reasons ([link removed]) . In some cases, the deals themselves may end up delivering as much or more cash than a lawsuit settlement — a lot quicker. The deals also help publishers eager to put AI to work in their businesses.”

In a statement, The Atlantic’s CEO Nicholas Thompson said, "We believe that people searching with AI models will be one of the fundamental ways that people navigate the web in the future.”

And Jim Bankoff, co-founder, chair and CEO of Vox Media, said in a statement ([link removed]) , “We’re thrilled to partner with OpenAI. This agreement aligns with our goals of leveraging generative AI to innovate for our audiences and customers, protect and grow the value of our work and intellectual property, and boost productivity and discoverability to elevate the talent and creativity of our exceptional journalists and creators.”

However, not everyone is optimistic about these developments. The Vox Media Union put out a statement ([link removed]) saying they were not informed of the deal until it was announced and that, as “journalists and workers,” they had “serious concerns” about the partnership with OpenAI. They added, “… which we believe could adversely impact members of our union, not to mention the well-documented ethical and environmental concerns surrounding the use of generative AI.”


** Back at work
------------------------------------------------------------

Alex McCaskill used to work for Fox News. He was once a producer on Tucker Carlson’s show. In June 2023, after Carlson had been fired, McCaskill was still at Fox News and responsible for an on-screen chyron that called President Joe Biden a “wannabe dictator.” At the time, Fox News put out a statement that said, “The chyron was taken down immediately and was addressed.”

Within days, McCaskill left the network. Carlson said in a video on X, “First they scolded the producer who put the banner on the screen. Less than 24 hours after that, he resigned. He had been at Fox for more than a decade. He was considered one of the most capable people in the building. He offered to stay for the customary two weeks, but Fox told him to clear out his desk and leave immediately.”

But now McCaskill is apparently back on cable news. The Daily Beast’s Justin Baragona reports ([link removed]) that McCaskill is working at NewsNation. Baragona wrote that sources told him that McCaskill is a producer on the prime-time hour hosted by Dan Abrams.

NewsNation did not respond to Baragona's request for comment. I reached out to a NewsNation spokesperson on Wednesday and did not hear back.

Baragona wrote, “The hiring of McCaskill, who was also named in an explosive lawsuit ([link removed]) last year accusing him of workplace harassment and retaliation, seems to run counter to the ‘centrist’ image that both NewsNation and Abrams are trying to sell.”


** Media tidbits
------------------------------------------------------------
* Unionized staffers at the New York Daily News approved a vote of no confidence against the newspaper’s executive editor, Andrew Julien. The vote came as the Daily News is undergoing cost-cutting measures. TheWrap’s Natalie Korach has more ([link removed]) .
* Wired’s Paresh Dave with “A nonprofit tried to fix tech culture — but lost control of its own.” ([link removed])
* For Nieman Lab, Philip M. Napoli and Asa Royal with “What’s with the rise of ‘fact-based journalism’?” ([link removed])
* Pew Research Center’s Kirsten Eddy with “More than half of Americans are following election news closely, and many are already worn out.” ([link removed])


** Hot type
------------------------------------------------------------
* This is a tough read, even infuriating. But it's a powerful work in The Washington Post from Dana Hedgpeth and Sari Horwitz: “They Took The Children. The hidden legacy of Indian boarding schools in the United States.” ([link removed])
* And this piece, which is a part of the Post project, is deeply disturbing: Sari Horwitz, Dana Hedgpeth, Emmanuel Martinez, Scott Higham and Salwan Georges with: “‘In the name of God.’ For decades, Catholic priests, brothers and sisters raped or molested Native American children who were taken from their homes by the U.S. government and forced to live at remote boarding schools, a Post investigation found.” ([link removed])
* The Tampa Bay Times’ Christopher Spata and Dan Sullivan with a can’t-put-down, five-part series: “The Marked Man. An innocent man’s exoneration after 37 years in prison revealed a rash of serial killings in 1983 Tampa.” ([link removed])


** More resources for journalists
------------------------------------------------------------
* Reporting on the Rise of AI: A RAND-Poynter Masterclass ([link removed])
* Understand U.S. Immigration From the Border to the Heartland ([link removed]) — Start any time.
* Get an AI ethics framework for your newsroom. Start here. ([link removed])
* Hiring? Post jobs ([link removed]) on The Media Job Board — Powered by Poynter, Editor & Publisher and America’s Newspapers.

Have feedback or a tip? Email Poynter senior media writer Tom Jones at [email protected] (mailto:[email protected]) .
[link removed]
I want more analysis of the news media to help me understand my world. ([link removed])
GIVE NOW ([link removed])

ADVERTISE ([link removed]) // DONATE ([link removed]) // LEARN ([link removed]) // JOBS ([link removed])
Did someone forward you this email? Sign up here. ([link removed])
[link removed] [link removed] [link removed] [link removed] mailto:[email protected]?subject=Feedback%20for%20Poynter
[link removed]
[link removed]
[link removed]
[link removed]
[link removed]
© All rights reserved Poynter Institute 2024
801 Third Street South, St. Petersburg, FL 33701
If you don't want to receive email updates from Poynter, we understand.
You can change your subscription preferences ([link removed]) or unsubscribe from all Poynter emails ([link removed]) .