

SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
To donate by check, phone, or other method, see our More Ways to Give page.


Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
The National Security Agency has been the source of major controversy, thanks to the journalists writing critical stories based on files shared by whistleblower Edward Snowden. But the agency got a very different media reception from CBS correspondent John Miller, whose lengthy December 15 60 Minutes report looked more like PR than journalism.
Miller explained at the top of the segment: "Full disclosure, I once worked in the office of the Director of National Intelligence, where I saw firsthand how secretly the NSA operates." (As with most "full disclosures," this is hardly full; Miller has spent much of his career inside government, with roles ranging from serving as a spokesperson for the NYPD to directing public relations for the FBI.)
The first part of the segment was based heavily on interviews with NSA director Keith Alexander--beginning with Alexander saying that the NSA is "not collecting everybody's email, we're not collecting everybody's phone things." This is at best questionable; the New York Times (8/8/13) reported that the NSA copies and sifts through most emails sent into or out of the country.
Miller followed up by noting that "there is a perception out there that the NSA is widely collecting the content of the phone calls of Americans." But that is not what anyone has been reporting about the NSA; what critics are actually criticizing is the collection of metadata on phone calls, information on who people called and when (Guardian, 6/5/13). As posed, Miller's question only gave Alexander a chance to look like he's debunking an important myth about the agency.
Miller reported that Alexander "agreed to talk to us because he believes the NSA has not told its story well." That feeling seemed to be shared by CBS as well--that the NSA's real problem is ineffective public relations. In a Web-only video interview with Miller and the show's producers, he says: "We've heard plenty from the critics. We've heard a lot from Edward Snowden." Miller explained there was a "distinctive shortage" in getting the NSA's side. So the need to hear the NSA director and to profile young NSA geniuses was more pressing than interviewing any of the agency's many critics on camera.
It's odd to suggest that the NSA hasn't been given opportunities to rebut its critics. In fact, current and former NSA officials have been interviewed widely in the press and have testified before Congress. In Alexander's case, he used to claim that NSA bulk phone records collection thwarted 50 terrorist plots; then he shifted that answer, and admitted that perhaps it was "one or possibly two" (FAIR Blog, 10/4/13).
That record of misleading the public means that Alexander should face tough questions. But on 60 Minutes, Alexander was given time to allege that other people have gotten things wrong. Some of the earliest reports (Guardian, 6/6/13; Washington Post, 6/6/13) based on the Snowden documents concerned PRISM, a program to tap into data centers of major private companies like Google and Facebook. On CBS, those reports were presented as false:
MILLER: One of the Snowden leaks involved the concept that NSA had tunneled into the foreign data centers of major US Internet providers. Did the leak describe it the right way?
ALEXANDER: No, that's not correct. We do target terrorist communications. And terrorists use communications from Google, from Yahoo, and from other service providers. So our objective is to collect those communications no matter where they are. But we're not going into a facility or targeting Google as an entity, or Yahoo as an entity. But we will collect those communications of terrorists that flow on that network.
What Alexander offered here was a classic non-denial denial, suggesting the stories are incorrect but, as reporter Barton Gellman noted on Twitter (12/15/13), essentially confirming them. (To say that the NSA is not "targeting Google as an entity" does not mean that the agency is not collecting information on Google users.)
It was clear throughout that the 60 Minutes segment was intended to bolster the image of the agency. Miller told viewers that one agency meeting "is called the stand-up because no one sits down, which is almost a metaphor for the pace of daily life in the NSA operations center." Miller went on to explain that "while Edward Snowden's leaks have been a disaster for the agency, the rest of the NSA's mission has not slowed down."
The agency was eager to share success stories--like a sketchy story about a supposedly devastating computer virus plot (likely from China) that the NSA claims to have thwarted before it wreaked havoc on the American economy. But computer security expert Robert Graham (Errata Security, 12/15/13) derided the CBS report as "gibberish."
If the CBS segment seemed like PR, maybe it's because that's how it started out. In that Web-only video, CBS explained that NSA chief Alexander "made the call to invite us in. He's fighting for his programs right now." And the video went on to note that a team of minders followed the CBS team throughout, and that Alexander asked to take "time outs" if he wasn't sure how to answer a given question.
In the video, Miller said that he wanted to give the agency "a chance to make their case." He has a habit of doing this; just weeks ago, he got exclusive access to outgoing CIA deputy director Mike Morell, and his report was more boosterism than journalism (FAIR Blog, 10/29/13). Perhaps unsurprisingly, Miller is reportedly planning on going back through the revolving door and resuming government work, being eyed for a top intelligence or counterterrorism job with the NYPD (Huffington Post, 12/12/13).
Of the NSA report, Miller said he didn't "want this to be a puff piece." But by conducting softball interviews with agency officials and excluding the responses of their critics, that is exactly what CBS gave its viewers.
ACTION: Please let 60 Minutes know that their December 15 report, based on exclusive access to National Security Agency officials and excluding critics of the agency, was more PR than journalism.
CONTACT:
CBS 60 Minutes
Email: 60m@cbsnews.com
Twitter: @60Minutes
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.
"Let’s be clear: You don’t need immunity unless you are in fact responsible for the damages claimed in these lawsuits," said one climate organizer.
Weeks after the largest oil and gas trade organization in the US unveiled its 2026 policy agenda featuring the goal of shielding companies from "abusive state climate lawsuits," a Republican congresswoman acknowledged at a hearing Wednesday that GOP lawmakers are actively working to stop legal complaints and legislation that aim to hold the industry accountable for mounting climate harms.
At the House Judiciary Committee hearing in which the panel conducted oversight of Attorney General Pam Bondi's Department of Justice, Rep. Harriet Hageman (R-Wy.) informed Bondi that she is currently "working with [her] colleagues in both the House and Senate to craft legislation tackling" superfund laws like ones passed in Vermont and New York, which require fossil fuel giants to contribute to paying for climate damage wrought by their oil and gas extraction.
The legislation Hageman is working on would also aim to kill state and local climate lawsuits like one filed last month by Michigan alleging antitrust violations by fossil fuel companies and another filed by Boulder, Colorado against ExxonMobil and Suncor Energy subsidiaries. The parties in the latter case are awaiting a US Supreme Court review.
At the hearing, Bondi agreed with Hageman's assertion that such lawsuits and state laws "require a federal response" and said the Department of Justice would consider taking action to "protect federal supremacy over interstate emissions and energy policy."
“Multiple climate lawsuits are now advancing toward trial,” Hageman said. “Clearly this is an area in which Congress has a role to play."
Recent reporting suggests that Hageman's efforts are a response to the fossil fuel industry's lobbying to avoid accountability for climate disasters that have increasingly been linked to planetary heating, which international scientists agree is being caused by fossil fuel extraction—despite the congresswoman's dismissal of "speculative future climate change harms."
The American Petroleum Institute (API) said last month in its policy agenda that it aims to "stop extreme climate liability policy" and end the "expansion of climate 'superfund' policies."
Last year, 16 GOP state attorneys general proposed the creation of a "liability shield" for fossil fuel giants, while state legislators in Oklahoma and Utah have introduced bills to bar most civil lawsuits against companies over the emissions or their role in the climate emergency.
Hageman and other opponents of scientists' and experts' demand for a transition away from fossil fuels have suggested such lawsuits are unserious attempts to increase "mismanaged state budgets by imposing fees on consumers and businesses," as the congresswoman claimed.
API president Mike Sommers said last month that the mounting legal challenges are “denying facts, delaying progress, and ignoring the realities of rising demand"—despite the fact that an analysis by climate think tank Ember last year found a growing expansion of renewable energy worldwide while the Trump administration insists on reviving coal production and killing solar and wind power projects.
"Congress should not close the courthouse doors to communities seeking redress. Big Oil is not entitled to special immunity from the consequences of its conduct.“
Vermont Law School professor Pat Parenteau told ExxonKnews in December that the efforts to shield companies from climate liability suggest that fossil fuel giants and proponents like Hageman know that lawsuits like Michigan's and Boulder's would likely stand up in court.
"If these cases are as frivolous as the oil companies’ briefs pretend, then why in the world are you busting your butt to get a declaration of immunity from Congress?” said Parenteau.
Cassidy DiPaola, communications director for the Make Polluters Pay campaign, emphasized that "a federal liability shield for fossil fuel companies would not lower energy prices or ease the cost of living. It would simply shift more of the financial burden onto working families and local governments while insulating one of the most profitable industries in history from accountability."
"Congress should not close the courthouse doors to communities seeking redress," said DiPaola. "Big Oil is not entitled to special immunity from the consequences of its conduct.“
Climate lawsuits have been filed against companies by 11 states including Maine, California, and Rhode Island, and in addition to the Boulder case, lawsuits filed in Honolulu and Washington, DC are advancing toward trial after courts denied the defendant's motions to dismiss them.
Hageman announced her effort to stop climate liability lawsuits and laws the same day that new research led by Oregon State University ecology professor William Ripple was published in the journal One Earth, showing that multiple critical Earth systems are closer to becoming unstable than previously thought, due to the climate emergency.
That pattern is putting the planet on a "hothouse" path, the scientists warn, with feedback loops amplifying the effects of planetary heating like extreme heatwaves and weather disasters.
“As communities across the US move closer to putting Big Oil companies on trial to make them pay for the damage their climate lies have caused, the fossil fuel industry is panicking and pleading with Congress for a get-out-of-jail-free card," said Richard Wiles, president of the Center for Climate Integrity.
“Let’s be clear: You don’t need immunity unless you are in fact responsible for the damages claimed in these lawsuits," he said. "A liability shield for Big Oil would bar the courthouse doors for communities across the country and stick US taxpayers with the massive and growing bill for climate damages, while bailing out corporate polluters from having to pay for the mess they made."
"We live in a strange time right now where we cannot trust our federal government," said Martinez's lawyer.
Newly released evidence shows that the Department of Homeland Security lied about the shooting of yet another US citizen.
In October, a Border Patrol agent shot Marimar Martinez, a 30-year-old school assistant, five times while she was in her vehicle in the Brighton Park neighborhood of Chicago. She had been tailing agents while warning the neighborhood that “la migra” was coming.
Immediately after the shooting, DHS leapt to defend the agent who shot Martinez, Charles Exum. The agency claimed in an incident report that Martinez was blocking agents and had "rammed" them with her car. The agency described her as a "domestic terrorist."
Martinez, who survived the shooting, was charged with assaulting officers and pleaded not guilty.
The government's case was fatally undermined in November when it was revealed during a hearing that Exum had bragged to friends about injuring Martinez over text message: “I fired five rounds, and she had seven holes. Put that in your book, boys," he said.
Martinez's lawyers also said body camera footage—kept under seal by a federal protective order—showed a different series of events from what the agency had portrayed.
In November, federal prosecutors dropped the case against Martinez without explanation. But even afterwards, federal officials have continued to label her as a terrorist.
"This is before there’s any investigation done," said her attorney Chris Parente, who has argued that the public should be able to view the evidence for itself.
On Wednesday, the US Attorney’s Office in Chicago released body camera footage from two other agents involved in the incident—Adam J. Perkins and Lorenzo Cordero—as well as dozens of Exum's other emails and text messages from the incident's aftermath.
Parente, who presented the evidence in a press conference on Wednesday alongside Martinez and her other lawyers, said that with the release, “People can actually see the real evidence as opposed to the false claims by our government.”
He said the release after several months of keeping the footage buried was a "misguided attempt to take the sting out of just how damaging it is for the government.”
Block Club Chicago, which reviewed the body cam footage, explained that it "counters the incident report’s narrative" that Martinez had been the aggressor. Rather, it shows that she was attempting to drive away and that agents chose to ram her.
It shows Cordero and Perkins with weapons drawn and pointing out the rear passenger window about one minute before the collision and shooting of Martinez.
The phrase “it’s time to get aggressive” and “we’re going to make contact, we’re boxed in,” can be heard by one of the three agents before Exum is seen yanking his steering wheel to the left and hitting Martinez’s car.
After the collision, Exum is seen getting out of the car and firing five shots within two seconds.
The body camera footage verifies claims made by Martinez's attorneys, who said that after drawing their weapons, one of the agents could be heard saying, "Do something, bitch."
It also provides support to attorneys’ claims about text messages sent by agents after the shooting. Exum is seen bragging about the shooting, calling it a “great new scenario to add to our training.” Other agents sent messages praising him: One called him “a legend among agents.” Another said, “Good job, brother, glad you’re unharmed.” A third said, “Beers on me.”
Exum replied with the phrase "Fuck around and find out," which has been an oft-used slogan within the Trump administration to justify killings by law enforcement and the military.
Exum also discussed the "big time" support he was getting from top Trump administration officials. He said "everyone" had been "supportive," including then-Border Patrol Commander at Large Gregory Bovino, Border Patrol Chief Mike Banks, Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem, and even "El Jefe himself," likely referring to President Donald Trump.
Less than four hours after the shooting, Exum received an email from Bovino, who offered to extend his retirement age beyond 57 and praised his "excellent service to Chicago."
On Wednesday, the same day the new evidence was released, a Customs and Border Protection spokesperson told the Chicago Sun-Times that Exum has now been placed on administrative leave. They did not clarify how long the leave would last or when it began.
Parente said the smearing of Martinez as a terrorist fits a pattern that the Trump administration has since used to justify other shootings by agents.
"We live in a strange time right now where we cannot trust our federal government," he said. “Within an hour of the actual incident, DHS branded [Martinez] a domestic terrorist. The same thing they did to Renee Good. The same thing they did to Mr. [Alex] Pretti,” referring to two other US citizens shot and killed last month by agents in Minneapolis.
Martinez has announced plans to sue the federal government and Exum for "tens of millions of dollars," citing physical injuries to her right leg, right forearm, and chest; reputational damage; and emotional harm.
During a hearing earlier this month on Capitol Hill about the violent use of force by DHS agents, she described the shooting as an attempted "execution."
"I looked down and noticed blood gushing out of my arms and legs, and I realized I'd been shot multiple times," she said. "What happened to me in a matter of seconds on October 4th will unfortunately be with me for a lifetime."
"We will keep holding Republicans accountable for raising prices on families and fighting to end Trump’s senseless trade war," said Rep. Suzan DelBene.
The House of Representatives on Wednesday passed a resolution to overturn President Donald Trump's tariffs on Canada, and Democratic lawmakers are vowing to keep the pressure on their Republican counterparts.
The House voted to roll back Trump's Canada tariffs by a margin of 219 in favor to 211 against, with six House Republicans crossing the aisle to back the measure. Among Democrats, only Rep. Jared Golden (D-Maine) voted in favor of keeping the tariffs in place.
According to Politico, the vote on ending Canadian tariffs was just the start of a number of votes House Democrats have planned aimed at rolling back the president's taxes on imported goods.
"Senior House Democrats plan to call up at least three more resolutions that will force many Republicans to choose between protecting their tariff-hit districts and pleasing their MAGA voter bases," Politico wrote, "not to mention their loyalties to a president who has, up until this week, not tolerated any House GOP dissent on the matter."
In an interview with Axios, Rep. Gregory Meeks (D-NY) said that he planned to push a resolution overturning Trump's tariffs on Mexican goods next.
Rep. Suzan DelBene (D-Wash.) released a statement celebrating the vote to repeal the Trump tariffs, while warning her Republican colleagues that there will be "no more hiding" on the issue.
"This is the first vote to restore congressional authority and repeal Trump’s tariffs," she said. "We will keep holding Republicans accountable for raising prices on families and fighting to end Trump’s senseless trade war. The Senate must now take up this measure."
In a video posted on social media, Rep. Don Beyer (D-Va.) outlined the damage that Trump's tariffs have caused both to US consumers and international relations with longtime allies.
"Canada has been our close friend and ally for more than 200 years," Beyer explained. "Donald Trump promised to lower the cost of living, but his tariff regime is doing the exact opposite. These tariffs have done nothing but hurt the American people."
Trump's tariffs crushed our economy, raised prices, and alienated our allies.
Republicans passed rules preventing the House from voting to stop him.
We defeated that 'gag rule' last night, and now we're voting on ending Trump's tariffs on Canada.
Here's why I'm voting YES: pic.twitter.com/cwbOT2apKQ
— Rep. Don Beyer (@RepDonBeyer) February 11, 2026
Ontario Premiere Doug Ford hailed the vote to end the tariffs and expressed hope that it was the start of better relations between the US and Canada.
"Thank you to every member from both parties who stood up in support of free trade and economic growth between our two great countries," he wrote. "Let’s end the tariffs and together build a more prosperous and secure future."
Trump, however, has shown no signs of backing down and vowed to support primary challengers against any Republicans who joined with Democrats to roll back his tariffs.
"Any Republican, in the House or the Senate, that votes against TARIFFS will seriously suffer the consequences come Election time, and that includes Primaries!" Trump wrote in a Wednesday Truth Social post.