OUR CRUCIAL SPRING CAMPAIGN IS NOW UNDERWAY
Please donate now to keep the mission and independent journalism of Common Dreams strong.
To donate by check, phone, or other method, see our More Ways to Give page.
On May 10, CBS's 60 Minutes
presented a remarkably one-sided report on unmanned Air Force drones
firing missiles into Afghanistan and Iraq. Though the drones have been
criticized for killing civilians in both countries, CBS viewers heard from no critics of the weapons.
Instead, correspondent Lara Logan seemed awed by the drones from the
very start of the broadcast: "Every so often in the history of war, a
new weapon comes along that fundamentally rewrites the rules of battle.
This is a story about a revolution in unmanned aviation that is doing
just that." She described the drones as "hunting down insurgents, every
minute of every day," and as "one of the most important planes in the
United States Air Force."
Viewers were told that CBS was getting special access: "Many of the details of this weapons program are classified, but our 60 Minutes
team was given secret clearance and unprecedented access to bring you
this story." The report relied entirely on pilots and the Air Force
chief of staff.
The closest the segment came to airing any criticism at all was when
Logan asked one pilot, Lt. Col. Chris Gough, about his confidence in
the targeting of the missile attacks: "What if you get it wrong?" Logan
asked. "We don't," Gough replied, before finally admitting that it's "a
tough question.... We have the resources to make sure we're right."
Gough stressed the "clarity" of being removed from the battlefield--the
drones are piloted from a base in Nevada--which led Logan to say, "In
spite of that clarity, unmanned planes and Air Force jets are
criticized in Afghanistan for killing innocent civilians, including an
incident just this week that is under military investigation." Those
comments were accompanied primarily by footage of screaming Afghans
protesting in a street, with a brief shot of a hospitalized child.
Logan added that drone attacks in Pakistan are "blamed for even more deaths." She reported that the CIA "wouldn't talk to 60 Minutes
about their operations," so she gives the Air Force the last word on
the subject, noting that they argue the drones are "more precise than
piloted planes." Logan seemed to accept this argument: "We got a sense
of that when the Air Force let us sit with Predator pilots in Nevada
while they kept a close watch on U.S. soldiers along the
It would not have been difficult to find critics of the reliance on
drones in Afghanistan, Pakistan or Iraq--even among those close to the
military. As the Los Angeles Times reported a week before the CBS segment aired (5/3/09),
the House Armed Services Committee had recently heard testimony from
David Kilcullen--a former adviser to General David Petraeus--who
believes the drone attacks take too many civilian lives. Kilcullen
testified that while drone attacks are suspected to have killed 14
Al-Qaeda leaders since 2006 in Pakistan, at the same time the weapons
have killed about 700 civilians--a 50:1 ratio of innocent victims to
Such perspectives were missing from the CBS report, leaving 60 Minutes to air what amounted to little more than military propaganda about controversial--and deadly--weapons.
Tell CBS that its May 10 60 Minutes
report about drone attacks in Afghanistan and Iraq should have included
critics of these weapons. Excluding such criticisms, while relying so
heavily on military footage and sources, looks more like propaganda
524 West 57th St.
New York, NY 10019
Phone: (212) 975-3247
To view the CBS report, go to:
Please leave a copy of your messages to 60 Minutes in the comments thread of this FAIR Blogpost.
FAIR, the national media watch group, has been offering well-documented criticism of media bias and censorship since 1986. We work to invigorate the First Amendment by advocating for greater diversity in the press and by scrutinizing media practices that marginalize public interest, minority and dissenting viewpoints.
"These are some of the best protections of any city out there," said one trans rights advocate.
In a near-unanimous vote on Thursday, local Missouri officials approved a resolution declaring Kansas City a sanctuary for LGBTQ+ people after Republican state lawmakers passed legislation that would ban gender-affirming care for minors and some adults—part of a nationwide GOP assault on trans rights.
The resolution, approved in an 11-1 vote, states that "city personnel shall not criminally prosecute or impose administrative penalties on an individual or organization for providing, seeking, receiving, or assisting another individual who is seeking or receiving gender-affirming healthcare."
"In the event any law or regulation is passed in the state of Missouri which imposes criminal punishment, civil liability, administrative penalties, or professional sanctions on an individual or organization for providing, seeking, receiving, or assisting another individual who is seeking or receiving gender-affirming healthcare," the resolution continues, "city personnel shall make enforcement of said law or regulation their lowest priority."
Kansas City Councilmember Heather Hall cast the only no vote against the measure, the passage of which local trans rights advocates celebrated as "an important first step."
"I look forward to trans leaders and Kansas City working together to address the health disparities in our communities and ways we can have sustainable funding and programming reaching all trans people," Merrique Jenson, the founder of Transformations KC, said following Thursday's vote.
\u201cIncredible!\n\nKansas city, Missouri votes 11-1 to make the city a sanctuary city for gender affirming care.\n\nIt has looked at the anti-trans laws passed in the legislature, and said, "enforce it yourself."\n\nThese are some of the best protections of any city out there.\u201d— Erin Reed (@Erin Reed) 1683857819
As The Kansas City Beaconreported Thursday, trans Missourians and their families "have been shuttling back and forth to the capitol in Jefferson City to testify against legislation aimed at banning gender-affirming healthcare."
"But for the first time on Wednesday, trans Kansas Citians flocked to City Hall to support a measure that could protect these treatments from statewide bans," the outlet added. "The LGBTQ Commission brought the resolution to the City Council in April as a way to formally preserve access to gender-affirming care before the state passes restrictions on healthcare, instead of reacting afterward."
In the coming days, Republican Missouri Gov. Mike Parson is expected to sign into law the newly passed legislation banning gender-affirming care for minors, making the state one of more than a dozen that have approved laws or policies prohibiting the lifesaving healthcare.
The Associated Pressnoted Thursday that the Kansas City sanctuary resolution passed as a judge is considering "a proposed emergency rule from Republican state Attorney General Andrew Bailey that would require adults and children to undergo more than a year of therapy—and fulfill other requirements before they could receive gender-affirming treatment."
After state Republicans passed a pair of anti-trans bills earlier this week, the ACLU of Missouri pledged to "explore all options to fight these bans and to expand the rights of trans Missourians."
"Both bans attempt to erase transness from Missouri," the group warned, referring to the state GOP's attempt to ban gender-affirming care and prevent trans girls and women from playing on female sports teams.
"Every person in the state should be alarmed by this weaponization of the government to intimidate people through the denial of basic healthcare and exclusion from extracurricular activities," the group said.
President Joe Biden "should not give in to hostage-taking," said one economist.
After meeting with congressional leaders earlier this week as the U.S. barrels toward a catastrophic debt default, President Joe Biden said that "we should be cutting spending," a remark that fueled concerns among progressives that the White House is preparing to cede to at least some Republican demands in exchange for a deal to lift the debt ceiling.
President Joe Biden has said repeatedly that he will not negotiate over the debt ceiling, and that the arguably unconstitutional limit must be raised without any preconditions.
But the president has also expressed openness to budget negotiations with House Republicans, who are using the threat of default as leverage to push for steep cuts to federal nutrition assistance, Medicaid, and other key government programs.
Biden insists the debt limit and budget talks are separate, but as Vox's Andrew Prokop noted Wednesday, the president is "negotiating before the GOP has released" the debt ceiling hostage.
Speaking to reporters at the White House on Tuesday after meeting with House Speaker Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.), House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-N.Y.), Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.), and Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), Biden said that "he made clear... that default is not an option."
But the president added that he also "made it clear that we can cut spending and cut the deficit."
Biden offered several examples of what he would prefer to cut, such as "tax subsidies for Big Oil companies" and prescription drug costs in Medicare—budget reforms that progressives support.
House Republicans, though, are pushing for far steeper and broader cuts to government spending, specifically demanding a cap on federal spending at fiscal year 2022 levels. Such a cap would entail steep cuts to critical government agencies and programs, particularly if the Pentagon budget is shielded.
While Biden has publicly rejected that GOP demand, Reutersreported Thursday that "White House officials acknowledge that they must accept some spending cuts or strict caps on future spending if they are to strike a deal."
Lindsay Owens, executive director of the Groundwork Collaborative, wrote Thursday that Biden's remarks this week and growing talk of a deal on spending caps are "pretty troubling."
Owens suggested the current negotiations are beginning to look like "2011-light," a reference to the last time the GOP used the debt ceiling as leverage to enact painful spending cuts. Biden, who was then serving as vice president, was the White House's chief negotiator during that standoff, which culminated in austerity legislation that badly hampered the U.S. recovery from the Great Recession.
In a statement to The Washington Post on Thursday, Owens said that Biden "should not give in to hostage-taking."
Instead, Owens added, he should "follow the lead of the majority of Americans who vastly prefer bringing in revenue through tax increases on the rich rather than making harmful spending cuts."
\u201cHere\u2019s the full quote\n\nPossible it\u2019s a purely rhetorical shift and signals no change in policy, but as the WH pushes for a spending deal with Republicans demanding budget cuts it\u2019s worth keeping a close eye on\u201d— Jeff Stein (@Jeff Stein) 1683834247
The president was previously scheduled to sit down with congressional leaders again on Friday, but the meeting was postponed until early next week as staffers for the White House and lawmakers continue to exchange proposals to avoid a default, which would wipe out millions of jobs and potentially spark a global economic crisis.
The Treasury Department recently warned that the debt ceiling could be breached as soon as June 1.
It's far from clear whether Biden's recent comments and signals emerging from the White House indicate a substantive concession to the House GOP's crusade for spending cuts.
But as talks continue with little public evidence of progress, observers are increasingly voicing alarm over the possibility of a deal that includes victories for House Republicans who are eager to boot millions of people off of safety net programs.
"It increasingly seems like the White House has decided to cave and is trying to slowly acclimate people to it, so there's no abrupt blink followed by shock and outrage," Brian Beutler, editor-in-chief of Crooked Media, warned Thursday, pointing to the Reuters reporting. "Just slowly increasing resignation. Pretty pathetic."
Slate's Alex Sammon similarly called the White House's seeming hints at spending concessions to Republicans "a horrific development," particularly "after Republicans routinely raised the debt ceiling under Trump" and "after Democrats had a trifecta for two years and could've raised it any time."
"It's time to finally hold Norfolk Southern and the big rail companies accountable for the harm they have caused in East Palestine and Darlington Township, and the harm they continue to cause with this dangerous, reckless, and selfish behavior."
U.S. Sen. John Fetterman on Thursday demanded accountability for Norfolk Southern and other railroad companies following Wednesday night's freight train derailment in Lawrence County, Pennsylvania.
Local media report nine out of more than 200 cars on a Norfolk Southern train went off the track just before midnight in the town of New Castle, 50 miles north of Pittsburgh and about 10 miles east of the Ohio border.
"This has got to end."
Fire officials said that salt, soybeans, and paraffin wax—used to make candles—spilled from the derailed cars, none of which were carrying hazardous materials. A statement from Norfolk Southern said no one was injured in the accident.
New Castle is also located about 20 miles from East Palestine, Ohio, the site of the fiery Norfolk Southern derailment and chemical burn disaster that spilled cancer-causing dioxin and vinyl chloride into the air, soil, and waterways in the vicinity of the accident.
"It's the same shit, different day from Norfolk Southern," Fetterman (D-Pa.) said in a statement on Thursday afternoon.
\u201chttps://t.co/lliFDm9xzI\nAnother Norfolk Southern train has derailed, this one in New Castle Pennsylvania. This derailment is 30 minutes away from East Palestine. When is Norfolk Southern going to be held accountable for endangering public safety? #publicownership #norfolksouthern\u201d— Northeast PA DSA (@Northeast PA DSA) 1683826695
"It's time to finally hold Norfolk Southern and the big rail companies accountable for the harm they have caused in East Palestine and Darlington Township, and the harm they continue to cause with this dangerous, reckless, and selfish behavior," the freshman senator continued. Darlington Township, Pennsylvania is located about nine miles east of East Palestine.
"I'm thankful that no one was hurt and no toxic material was spilled in New Castle, but this derailment looks way too similar to the ones we've said can't happen again," Fetterman said. "This has got to end."
"I'm proud that my bipartisan bill, the Railway Safety Act, advanced out of committee yesterday," added Fetterman, who has also introduced the Railroad Accountability Act.
"This bill will finally enact commonsense rail safety procedures that would have prevented last night's derailment," the lawmaker asserted of the measure advanced Wednesday. "It's time to pass this bill on the floor and finally hold Norfolk Southern accountable."