SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
Bill Moyers Is Back: A Return to Public Broadcasting--But Not to PBS
WASHINGTON
According to a report in the New York Times (8/22/11), public television icon Bill Moyers will be back on the public airwaves next year--but not on PBS.
The new show, Moyers & Company, will be distributed to stations for free by American Public Television. The Times reports that "PBS told Moyers it couldn't find an appropriate timeslot."
The Times adds that the show "will focus on one-on-one interviews with people not often heard on television."
Showcasing viewpoints not often heard on commercial media is precisely the point of public broadcasting. But few of the shows distributed by PBS aspire to that goal, as FAIR's numerous studies of public broadcasting have shown (Extra!, 11/10).
Moyers' return is good news for viewers seeking diverse and dissenting viewpoints. PBS's failure to find a suitable timeslot for such a show demonstrates once more that the network's understanding of its mission is sharply at odds with the founding vision of an independent, critical public broadcasting system.
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.
LATEST NEWS
Trump FTC Lets Corporate Lobbyists Kill 'Massively Popular' Click-to-Cancel Rule in Court
Republicans on the Federal Trade Commission have "ensured that hardworking people will keep getting stuck with subscriptions they don't want or can't afford," said one consumer advocate.
Jul 09, 2025
Consumer advocates said Tuesday that the Trump administration is to blame for an appeals court decision that effectively killed the Federal Trade Commission's click-to-cancel rule, a Biden-era effort to stop companies from trapping consumers in subscriptions with onerous cancellation terms.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 8th Circuit vacated the rule entirely on procedural grounds on Tuesday, siding with the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and other corporate interests that claimed the FTC's process in crafting and finalizing the rule did not give industry sufficient "opportunity to assess" the agency's "cost-benefit analysis of alternatives."
After the rule was finalized last October, the FTC—then led by Lina Khan—said it had received more than 16,000 public comments on the proposal, which would have required companies to make it just as easy for consumers to cancel subscriptions as it was to enroll. The agency said the number of subscription-related public complaints rose to nearly 70 per day in 2024, indicating growing anger at companies' predatory tactics.
Khan wrote on social media Tuesday that public comments on the rule were "overwhelmingly" supportive and criticized the Trump FTC for giving industry groups time to block the effort. The rule was originally set to take effect on May 14, but the Trump FTC—now led by Republican Andrew Ferguson and two GOP commissioners—voted on May 9 to delay implementation, citing industry concerns that "it would take a substantial amount of time to come into compliance."
"The rule was set to go into effect in May but this FTC slow-walked it—and now a court has tossed it out, claiming industry didn't get enough of a say," Khan lamented.
Lee Hepner, senior legal counsel at the American Economic Liberties Project, said Tuesday that "the byzantine rulemaking process provides courts with infinite discretion to torpedo rules in service of deep-pocketed corporations and in spite of overwhelming public support."
"The commission received 16,000 public comments on its rule, yet the 8th Circuit has the temerity to suggest the commission failed to provide enough process to the Chamber of Commerce," Hepner added. "Congress gave the FTC the power to stop unfair and deceptive practices."
"If the FTC is serious about affordability for everyday Americans, it must reissue the rule immediately."
Mark Meador, one of just three commissioners left at the FTC following President Donald Trump's firing of the agency's two Democratic members earlier this year, declared following the appeals court decision that the click-to-cancel rule "isn't going into effect for one reason: The Biden FTC cut corners and didn't follow the law."
The American Prospect's David Dayen wrote in response that Meador, a commissioner "who has the ability to reissue the rule," is "more interested in cheering on judicial obstruction than simply saying he will reissue the rule."
Given that Ferguson and Republican FTC Commissioner Melissa Holyoak voted against finalizing the click-to-cancel rule last year, it is unlikely that they will support reviving the rule in the wake of the appeals court decision. Meador was not an FTC commissioner when the rule was finalized.
Nidhi Hegde, executive director of the American Economic Liberties Project, slammed the Trump FTC for delaying the rule's enforcement "long enough for big corporate lobbyists to win in court."
"It's bad enough that the Trump FTC has done nothing to bring down costs for the American people," Hegde said in a statement Tuesday. "Now, by slow-walking a simple, massively popular protection, they've ensured that hardworking people will keep getting stuck with subscriptions they don't want or can't afford from cable companies, gyms, and online services. If the FTC is serious about affordability for everyday Americans, it must reissue the rule immediately."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Sanders Slams 'War Criminal' Netanyahu Ahead of New Meeting With Trump to Plan Gaza Ethnic Cleansing
The progressive senator underscored that the Israeli leader has been indicted by the International Criminal Court "for overseeing the systematic killing and starvation of civilians in Gaza."
Jul 08, 2025
U.S. Sen. Bernie Sanders sharply criticized Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on Tuesday as the fugitive from the International Criminal Court met with lawmakers ahead of a second White House meeting with U.S. President Donald Trump to advance plans for the ethnic cleansing of Palestinians from the embattled Gaza Strip.
"As President Trump and members of Congress roll out the red carpet for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, let's remember that Netanyahu has been indicted as a war criminal by the International Criminal Court for overseeing the systematic killing and starvation of civilians in Gaza," Sanders (I-Vt.) said in a statement.
"This is the man Trump and Congress are welcoming this week: a war criminal who will be remembered as one of modern history's monsters," the senator continued. "His extremist government has killed more than 57,000 Palestinians and wounded almost 135,000, 60% of whom are women, children, or elderly people. The United Nations reports that at least 17,000 children have been killed and more than 25,000 wounded. More than 3,000 children in Gaza have had one or more limbs amputated."
"At this moment, hundreds of thousands of people are starving after Israel prevented any aid from entering Gaza for nearly three months," Sanders noted. "In the last six weeks, Israel has allowed a trickle of aid to get in, but has tried to replace the established United Nations distribution system with a private foundation backed by security contractors. This has been a catastrophe, with near-daily massacres at the new aid distribution sites. In its first five weeks in operation, 640 people have been killed and at least 4,488 injured while trying to access food through this mechanism."
Trump and Netanyahu—who said Monday that he nominated the U.S. president for the Nobel Peace Prize—are expected to discuss ongoing efforts to reach a new deal to secure the release of the 22 remaining Israeli and other hostages held by Hamas since the October 7, 2023 attack on Israel, as well as plans for giving Gazans what the prime minister described as a "better future" by finding third countries willing to accept forcibly displaced Palestinians.
Critics said such euphemistic language is an attempt to give cover to Israel's plan to ethnically cleanse and indefinitely occupy Gaza. Observers expressed alarm over Israeli Defense Minister Israel Katz' Tuesday affirmation of a plan to force all Palestinians in Gaza into a camp at the southern tip of the strip.
"There is no such thing as voluntary displacement amongst a population that has been under constant bombardment for nearly two years and has been cut off from essential aid," Jeremy Konyndyk, president of the advocacy group Refugees International and a former senior official at the U.S. Agency for International Development, told Reuters.
Most Palestinians are vehemently opposed to what they say would amount to a second Nakba, the forced displacement of more than 750,000 people from Palestine during and after the 1948 establishment of the modern state of Israel.
"This is our land," one Palestinian man, Mansour Abu Al-Khaier, told The Times of Israel on Tuesday. "Who would we leave it to, where would we go?"
Another Gazan, Abu Samir el-Fakaawi, told the newspaper: "I will not leave Gaza. This is my country. Our children who were martyred in the war are buried here. Our families. Our friends. Our cousins. We are all buried here. Whether Trump or Netanyahu or anyone else likes it or not, we are staying on this land."
Officials at the United Nations—whose judicial body, the International Court of Justice, is weighing a genocide case against Israel brought by South Africa and supported by around two dozen countries—condemned any forced displacement of Palestinians from Gaza.
"This raises concerns with regards to forcible transfer—the concept of voluntary transfers in the context that we are seeing in Gaza right now [is] very questionable," Ravina Shamdasani, a spokesperson for the U.N. Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, said Tuesday.
Keep ReadingShow Less
In 'Serious Blow to Our Democracy,' Supreme Court Allows Trump Mass Firing Order
The high court's decision to "release the president's wrecking ball at the outset of this litigation," said Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, "is not only truly unfortunate but also hubristic and senseless."
Jul 08, 2025
The U.S. Supreme Court on Tuesday lifted a block on U.S. President Donald Trump's February executive order directing federal agency leaders to "promptly undertake preparations to initiate large-scale reductions in force" and a related memorandum.
In response to a lawsuit filed by a coalition of labor unions, local governments, and nonprofits, Judge Susan Illston—appointed to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California by former President Bill Clinton—had issued a temporary restraining order and then a preliminary injunction, which was upheld by the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in May.
That legal battle led to the Supreme Court's shadow docket, where emergency decisions don't have to be signed. The Tuesday opinion from the high court's unidentified majority states that Illston's injunction was based on a view that Trump's order implementing his Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) "Workforce Optimization Initiative" and a joint memo from the Office of Management and Budget and the Office of Personnel Management "are unlawful."
"Because the government is likely to succeed on its argument that the executive order and memorandum are lawful—and because the other factors bearing on whether to grant a stay are satisfied—we grant the application," the Supreme Court continued, emphasizing that the justices did not weigh in on the legality of any related agency reduction in force (RIF) and reorganization plans.
BREAKING: The Supreme Court allows the Trump administration to resume agency mass-firing plans over the dissent of Justice Jackson, who criticized "this Court’s demonstrated enthusiasm for greenlighting this President’s legally dubious actions in an emergency posture." More to come at Law Dork:
[image or embed]
— Chris Geidner (@chrisgeidner.bsky.social) July 8, 2025 at 3:54 PM
Only Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson publicly dissented on Tuesday. Another liberal, Justice Sonia Sotomayor, wrote in a short concurrence that "the plans themselves are not before this court, at this stage, and we thus have no occasion to consider whether they can and will be carried out consistent with the constraints of law. I join the court's stay because it leaves the district court free to consider those questions in the first instance."
Meanwhile, Jackson argued that "given the fact-based nature of the issue in this case and the many serious harms that result from allowing the president to dramatically reconfigure the federal government, it was eminently reasonable for the district court to maintain the status quo while the courts evaluate the lawfulness of the president's executive action."
She continued:
At bottom, this case is about whether that action amounts to a structural overhaul that usurps Congress' policymaking prerogatives—and it is hard to imagine deciding that question in any meaningful way after those changes have happened. Yet, for some reason, this court sees fit to step in now and release the president's wrecking ball at the outset of this litigation.
In my view, this decision is not only truly unfortunate but also hubristic and senseless. Lower court judges have their fingers on the pulse of what is happening on the ground and are indisputably best positioned to determine the relevant facts—including those that underlie fair assessments of the merits, harms, and equities. I see no basis to conclude that the district court erred—let alone clearly so—in finding that the president is attempting to fundamentally restructure the federal government.
Mark Joseph Stern, who covers the courts for Slate, said on social media that "Justice Jackson's criticism is spot-on, of course. But as Justice Sotomayor's concurrence suggests, SCOTUS' order looks like a negotiated compromise that leaves the district court room to block future RIFs and agency 'restructuring.' So the damage is limited."
"The real test will be what happens once agencies start to develop and implement plans for mass firings—which will, by and large, be illegal," he warned. "District courts still have discretion, for now, to stop them. Will SCOTUS freeze their orders and let unlawful RIFs and restructurings proceed? I fear it will."
Trump’s firings at federal agencies have upended the lives of thousands of workers.These are the people who oversee air safety, food and drug safety, disaster response, public health, and much more.Replacing civil servants with Trump loyalists is right out of Project 2025.
[image or embed]
— Robert Reich (@rbreich.bsky.social) July 8, 2025 at 5:13 PM
The coalition that challenged the order and memo includes the American Federation of Government Employees and four AFGE locals; American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees (AFSCME); Service Employees International Union and three SEIU Locals; Alliance for Retired Americans; American Geophysical Union; American Public Health Association; Center for Taxpayer Rights; Coalition to Protect America's National Parks; Common Defense; Main Street Alliance; Natural Resources Defense Council; Northeast Organic Farming Association Inc.; VoteVets; and Western Watersheds Project.
It also includes the governments of Baltimore, Maryland; Chicago, Illinois; Harris County, Texas; King County, Washington; and both San Francisco and Santa Clara County in California.
"Today's decision has dealt a serious blow to our democracy and puts services that the American people rely on in grave jeopardy," the coalition said Tuesday. "This decision does not change the simple and clear fact that reorganizing government functions and laying off federal workers en masse haphazardly without any congressional approval is not allowed by our Constitution."
"While we are disappointed in this decision," the coalition added, "we will continue to fight on behalf of the communities we represent and argue this case to protect critical public services that we rely on to stay safe and healthy."
Congressman Robert Garcia (D-Calif.), ranking member of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, was similarly critical but determined on Tuesday.
"The Trump-appointed Supreme Court just surrendered to a dangerous vision for America, letting the administration gut federal agencies by firing expert civil servants," he said. " The damage from these mass firings will last for decades, and weaken the government’s ability to respond to disasters and provide essential benefits and services. Oversight Democrats will not sit back as Trump turns the court into a political weapon. We will keep fighting to protect the American people and prevent the destruction of our federal agencies."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular