

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.

A new analysis of national and state endorsements from major editorial boards shows climate change has emerged this year as an often cited reason media outlets opted to endorse in the 2020 presidential election. The politics of climate change are driving voting behavior and influencing the political debate.
Across the country and in key battleground states, 51 editorial boards and outlets put climate change alongside COVID-19, the economy, and health care, as the most important issues facing the country.
A new analysis of national and state endorsements from major editorial boards shows climate change has emerged this year as an often cited reason media outlets opted to endorse in the 2020 presidential election. The politics of climate change are driving voting behavior and influencing the political debate.
Across the country and in key battleground states, 51 editorial boards and outlets put climate change alongside COVID-19, the economy, and health care, as the most important issues facing the country.
This increased focus on the climate crisis follows voters' changing attitude toward the issue -- as now a majority of voters, including Republican-leaning women, voters of color, and younger voters view climate change as a priority for both the next administration and Congress. An Economist/YouGov poll, also released last week, found that climate is the number three issue among all voters and is the number two issue for Democrats and young voters age 18-29.
This attention to the climate crisis comes as the country has been gripped with extreme weather that has cost our economy millions and put the lives and health of Americans at risk. This year alone, more than 8.5 million acres have burned on the West Coast and the Gulf Coast have been hit with back-to-back supercharged hurricanes -- including the recent Hurricane Zeta, which has left millions without power and three dead.
A clear underlying theme in these endorsements is the threat to our climate and how Trump and his anti-climate agenda can cause irreparable damage to our air, water, and public lands. The Trump administration has already rolled back more than 125 critical environmental protections -- all of which disproportionately affect Black and Latino communities.
Since mid-October, when Climate Power 2020 released its initial analysis, close to 30 media outlets, both nationally and in key battleground states, have cited clean energy, environmental racism, climate, and conservation issues as a major factor in their endorsement decision. In total, Climate Power 2020 identified 51 outlets that referenced climate change as a reason for their endorsements during the general election. The most recent endorsements are below:
National Endorsements
The Atlantic: "Trump has brought our country low; he has divided our people; he has pitted race against race; he has corrupted our democracy; he has shown contempt for American ideals; he has made cruelty a sacrament; he has provided comfort to propagators of hate; he has abandoned America's allies; he has aligned himself with dictators; he has encouraged terrorism and mob violence; he has undermined the agencies and departments of government; he has despoiled the environment; he has opposed free speech; he has lied frenetically and evangelized for conspiracism; he has stolen children from their parents."
The Guardian: "It's not just Americans for whom Mr. Biden is a better bet. The world could breathe easier with Mr. Trump gone...On climate change, Mr. Biden would return the United States to the Paris agreement and give the world a fighting chance to keep global temperatures in check. With a President Biden there would be a glimmer of hope that the US would return as a guarantor of a rules-based international order."
La Opinion: "A vote for Biden and against Trump is a vote to fight the coronavirus with the guidance of scientists and it is their most urgent task. It is a vote to respond urgently and without delay to the imminent disaster of climate change based on international cooperation. It is a vote to save health coverage from the damage caused by Trump by making a public insurance plan like Medicare, with subsidies for low- and moderate-income people, available to the uninsured."
Rolling Stone: "Biden, by contrast, believes in science, and names the "existential threat" we are facing in global warming. He has embraced the spirit of the Green New Deal, outlining a path to limit the catastrophic heating of the planet by achieving net-zero emissions by 2050. This would be realized through a $2 trillion investment in America -- including clean-energy plants, solarized and weatherized homes, and carbon-free transportation networks -- that would create millions of sustainable jobs. "When Donald Trump thinks about climate change, the only word he can muster is 'hoax,' " Biden has said. "When I think about climate change, the word I think of is 'jobs.'"
USA Today: "Beset by disease, economic suffering, a racial reckoning and natural disasters fueled by a changing climate, the nation is dangerously off course. We spoke to dozens of people in Michigan, Ohio and Wisconsin, battleground states that helped propel Trump into the White House in 2016. Many declined to comment, citing a general disgust with the election or fear of speaking out publicly."
Washington Jewish Week: "As a senator, Biden led from the center, across party lines, and was universally liked and respected. As vice president to the first African American president, he demonstrated an ability to lead effectively in an increasingly multicultural America. And as president, we believe he will bring integrity, civility and compassion to the White House. He will listen to scientists and other experts when it comes to fighting the coronavirus and climate change. He will use taxation and government spending to address serious domestic policy issues. And we hope that he will use his bully pulpit in today's times of uncertainty as a platform to unite our fractured country and reform and reconstruct our civic institutions."
NY Daily News: "Still, Biden has outlined bold plans to confront major American challenges. He would strengthen, not undermine, the health-care foundation that is the Affordable Care Act. He respects what immigrants contribute to the national fabric and wants to improve gun-safety laws. He would combat climate change and ramp up renewable energy production. He has urgent, coherent plans to beat back the coronavirus."
Endorsements in States
California
Indiana
Iowa
Massachusetts
Nebraska
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
Climate Power 2020 is putting the Trump administration on defense every single day for ignoring experts, refusing to believe in science, surrendering our government to big oil executives, and gutting public health protections, all at the expense of future generations. The 2020 presidential election is the defining moment for how our nation addresses the climate crisis--our leaders must be emboldened to take immediate action on climate change and to build a just and equitable economy. The time to act is now. Learn more: climatepower2020.org
"This is our God: Jesus, King of Peace, who rejects war, whom no one can use to justify war."
Pope Leo XIV used his Palm Sunday sermon to take what appears to be a shot at US Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth.
In his sermon, excerpts of which he published on social media, the pope emphasized Christian teachings against violence while criticizing anyone who would invoke Jesus Christ to justify a war.
"This is our God: Jesus, King of Peace, who rejects war, whom no one can use to justify war," Pope Leo said. "He does not listen to the prayers of those who wage war, but rejects them."
The pope also encouraged followers to "raise our prayers to the Prince of Peace so that he may support people wounded by war and open concrete paths of reconciliation and peace."
While speaking at the Pentagon last week, Hegseth directly invoked Jesus when discussing the Trump administration's unprovoked and unconstitutional war with Iran.
Specifically, Hegseth offered up a prayer in which he asked God to give US soldiers "wisdom in every decision, endurance for the trial ahead, unbreakable unity, and overwhelming violence of action against those who deserve no mercy," adding that "we ask these things with bold confidence in the mighty and powerful name of Jesus Christ."
Mother Jones contributing writer Alex Nguyen described the pope's sermon as a "rebuke" of Hegseth, whom he noted "has been open about his support for a Christian crusade" in the Middle East.
Pope Leo is not the only Catholic leader speaking against using Christian faith to justify wars of aggression. Two weeks ago, Cardinal Pierbattista Pizzaballa, the Latin patriarch of Jerusalem, said "the abuse and manipulation of God’s name to justify this and any other war is the gravest sin we can commit at this time."
“War is first and foremost political and has very material interests, like most wars," Cardinal Pizzaballa added.
"Trump’s problem is that whatever the claims he might make about the damage to Iran’s nuclear and military capacity, which is substantial, the regime survives, the international economy has been severely disrupted, and the bills keep on coming in."
President Donald Trump is reportedly preparing to launch some kind of ground assault on Iran in the coming weeks, but one prominent military strategy expert believes he's heading straight for defeat.
The Washington Post on Saturday reported that the Pentagon is preparing for "weeks" of ground operations in Iran, which for the last month has disrupted global energy markets by shutting down the Strait of Hormuz in response to aerial assaults by the US and Israel.
The Post's sources revealed that "any potential ground operation would fall short of a full-scale invasion and could instead involve raids by a mixture of Special Operations forces and conventional infantry troops" that could be used to seize Kharg Island, a key Iranian oil export hub, or to search out and destroy weapons systems that could be used by the Iranians to target ships along the strait.
Michael Eisenstadt, director of the Military and Security Studies Program at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, told the Post that taking over Kharg Island would be a highly risky operation for American troops, even if initially successful.
“I just wouldn’t want to be in that small place with Iran’s ability to rain down drones and maybe artillery,” said Eisenstadt.
Eisenstadt's analysis was echoed by Ret. Gen. Joseph Votel, former head of US Central Command, who told ABC News that seizing and occupying Kharg Island would put US troops in a state of constant danger, warning they could be "very, very vulnerable" to drones and missiles launched from the shore.
Lawrence Freedman, professor emeritus of war studies at King's College London, believes that the president has already checkmated himself regardless of what shape any ground operation takes.
In an analysis published Sunday, Freedman declared Trump had run "out of options" for victory, as there have been no signs of the Iranian regime crumbling due to US-Israeli attacks.
Freedman wrote that Trump now "appears to inhabit an alternative reality," noting that "his utterances have become increasingly incoherent, with contradictory statements following quickly one after the other, and frankly delusional claims."
Trump's loan real option at this point, Freedman continued, would to simply declare that he had achieved an unprecedented victory and just walk away. But even in that case, wrote Freedman, "this would mean leaving behind a mess in the Gulf" with no guarantee that Iran would re-open the Strait of Hormuz.
"Success in war is judged not by damage caused but by political objectives realized," Freedman wrote in his conclusion. "Here the objective was regime change, or at least the emergence of a new compliant leader... Trump’s problem is that whatever the claims he might make about the damage to Iran’s nuclear and military capacity, which is substantial, the regime survives, the international economy has been severely disrupted, and the bills keep on coming in."
"The NY Times saves its harshest skepticism for progressives," said one critic.
The New York Times is drawing criticism for publishing articles that downplayed the significance of Saturday's No Kings protests, which initial estimates suggest was the largest protest event in US history.
In a Times article that drew particular ire, reporter Jeremy Peters questioned whether nationwide events that drew an estimated 8 million people to the streets "would be enough to influence the course of the nation’s politics."
"Can the protests harness that energy and turn it into victories in the November midterm elections?" Peters asked rhetorically. "How can they avoid a primal scream that fades into a whimper?"
Journalist and author Mark Harris called Peters' take on the protests "predictable" and said it was framed so that the protests would appear insignificant no matter how many people turned out.
"There's a long, bad journalistic tradition," noted Harris. "All conservative grass-roots political movements are fascinating heartland phenomena, all progressive grass-roots political movements are ineffectual bleating. This one is written off as powered by white female college grads—the wine-moms slur, basically."
Media critic Dan Froomkin was event blunter in his criticism of the Peters piece.
"Putting anti-woke hack Jeremy Peters on this story is an act of war by the NYT against No Kings," he wrote.
Mark Jacob, former metro editor at the Chicago Tribune, also took a hatchet to Peters' analysis.
"The NY Times saves its harshest skepticism for progressives," he wrote. "Instead of being impressed by 3,000-plus coordinated protests, NYT dismisses the value of 'hitting a number' and asks if No Kings will be 'a primal scream that fades into a whimper.' F off, NY Times. We'll defeat fascism without you."
The Media and Democracy Project slammed the Times for putting Peters' analysis of the protests on its front page while burying straight news coverage of the events on page A18.
"NYT editors CHOSE that Jeremy Peters's opinions would frame the No Kings demonstrations and pro-democracy movement to millions of NYT readers," the group commented.
Joe Adalian, west coast editor for New York Mag's Vulture, criticized a Times report on the No Kings demonstrations that quoted a "skeptic" of the protests without noting that said skeptic was the chairman of the Ole Miss College Republicans.
"Of course, the Times doesn’t ID him as such," remarked Adalian. "He's just a Concerned Youth."
Jeff Jarvis, professor emeritus at the CUNY Graduate School of Journalism, took issue with a Times piece that offered five "takeaways" from the No Kings events that somehow managed to miss their broader significance.
"I despise the five-takeaways journalistic trope the Broken Times loves so," Jarvis wrote. "It is reductionist, hubristic in its claim to summarize any complex event. This one leaves out much, like the defense of democracy against fascism."
Journalist Miranda Spencer took stock of the Times' entire coverage of the No Kings demonstrations and declared it "clueless," while noting that USA Today did a far better job of communicating their significance to readers.
Harper's Magazine contributing editor Scott Horton similarly argued that international news organizations were giving the No Kings events more substantive coverage than the Times.
"In Le Monde and dozens of serious newspapers around the world, prominent coverage of No Kings 3, which brought millions of Americans on to the streets to protest Trump," Horton observed. "In NYT, an illiterate rant from Jeremy W Peters and no meaningful coverage of the protests. Something very strange going on here."