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
journalism
6 in 7 Journalist Murders Worldwide Go Unpunished as 'Press Freedom Predators' Run Rampant
UNESCO reports setbacks in the fight against impunity as Reporters Without Borders names 33 governments, organizations, and powerful figures—including Donald Trump—as "press freedom predators."
Nov 02, 2026
The vast majority of journalist killings around the world go unpunished, according to a United Nations analysis published Monday, the same day that the advocacy group Reporters Without Borders released a report naming dozens of powerful actors—including US President Donald Trump—as "press freedom predators" who are repressing independent journalism.
In a report published on International Day to End Impunity for Crimes Against Journalists, the United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) noted that 189 journalists were killed in 2024 and 2025, a 20% increase over the previous two-year period. In 6 out of every 7 of those killings, the perpetrators were not brought to justice.
"Journalists are increasingly paying with their lives for reporting from the frontlines of war, and far too often those responsible for their killings are not held accountable," UNESCO Director-General Khaled El-Enany said, calling on governments to respect a 2015 UN Security Council resolution affirming that journalists and other media workers must be protected as civilians during armed conflicts.
To mark the day, UN Secretary-General António Guterres acknowledged that "across the world, journalists continue to pay an outrageous price for telling the truth."
"Over the past year, at least 34 journalists paid the ultimate price," he continued, adding that in conflict zones, the impunity rate is "close to 100%."
"This is a heinous affront to the victims and their loved ones, as well as all of us who depend on journalists to remain informed and engaged," Guterres asserted. "This scandal must end."
As UNESCO noted:
Killings were recorded across all regions of the world during the 2024-25 biennium, representing “a global scourge," the report said.
The highest number of verified cases were in the Arab states (97), followed by Latin America and the Caribbean (37), Asia-Pacific (34), Central and Eastern Europe (14), Africa (6), and Western Europe and North America (1).
The state of Palestine had the highest number of killings in both years, at 30 and 32, respectively.
The journalists killed in Palestine were almost all slain by Israeli forces.
UNESCO's findings underscore concerns raised by the Committee to Protect Journalists (CPJ), which documented a record 129 journalists and media workers killed worldwide in 2025 alone. Israel was responsible for approximately two-thirds of those deaths, according to the organization, with the vast majority of those killed by Israeli forces being Palestinians in Gaza. Israel's genocidal assault on Gaza has become the deadliest conflict for journalists in CPJ's records.
Since 1992, more than 1 in 4 of all targeted killings with no justice were committed by a country’s government or military. That means no one was held accountable for these murders.cpj.org/issue/impuni... #EndImpunity #IDEI
[image or embed]
— Committee to Protect Journalists (@pressfreedom.bsky.social) November 2, 2026 at 11:04 AM
The Paris-based group Reporters Without Borders (RSF) observed International Day to End Impunity for Crimes Against Journalists by publishing its 2026 Press Freedom Predators List, an annual review of powerful actors it says are working to silence critical reporting.
RSF described methods ranging from assassination and imprisonment to employing internet trolls and bots, "to silence independent voices and trample on the right to information."
Trump made his first appearance on RSF's list after narrowly avoiding inclusion last year. The group cited what it called his "appalling record of attacks on the press" during his second term, accusing his administration of attempting to reduce journalism to political propaganda and physically restrict reporters.
The United States currently ranks 64th on RSF's World Press Freedom Index. It ranked 17th the first time the group published the index in 2002, but plummeted to 33rd the following year amid the George W. Bush administration's War on Terror crackdown, and 53rd in 2006. The country climbed to 20th during the early years of the Obama administration but fell back down to 49th in 2015 amid then-President Barack Obama's war on whistleblowers.
The US never ranked as poorly as it did under Obama during Trump's first term, and fell as low as 55th during the Biden administration's attempts to quash reporting on the Gaza genocide. But the country has never sunk as low in the rankings as it has during Trump's second tenure.
Other prominent press freedom predators, according to RSF, include Russian President Vladimir Putin, Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman, Egyptian President Abdel Fattah el-Sisi, Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, tech giants Alphabet and Meta, tech titan Elon Musk, the Israel Defense Forces, Chinese Communist Party, and Mexican drug cartels.
"The Press Freedom Predators List builds on RSF’s World Press Freedom Index—which highlights how press freedom has evolved in every country each year—and turns the spotlight around to identify the actors responsible for declining press freedom," RSF director-general Thibaut Bruttin said in a statement.
"Behind the statistics, the setbacks, and the obstacles lie clear lines of responsibility. Whether they resort to physical or verbal violence, legal abuses, intimidation, digital manipulation of the facts, or economic pressure, these predators share the same goal: to prevent journalists from doing their jobs and deprive citizens of information from independent sources," he continued.
"RSF makes nothing up—each predator has their own profile, presented as a sort of hall of shame, that shows their background, rhetoric, and weapon of choice," Bruttin added. "Identifying press freedom predators, exposing their methods, and documenting their abuses means refusing to let their attacks become normalized. In the face of those who seek to impose silence, RSF will continue to name those who kill journalism."
Keep ReadingShow Less
How to Stop Billionaires from Hijacking the Midterms
The bulk of political dark money flows directly back into media companies that the nation’s richest donors control. We can break the cycle.
Oct 30, 2026
There’s a drama playing out across American screens in 2026. But not the sort you might expect. There are villains and heroes, yes, high finance and political intrigue, too. There may even be a surprise ending—but we’ll have to wait until the Nov. 3 season finale to find out.
The actual plot, though, is not unfolding on television screens or streaming platforms but in corridors of political power and extreme wealth, far from public view. It’s a tale about the hijacking of US elections by the world’s richest people.
According to the Federal Election Commission, as of early October a record-setting $16 billion and counting had been plowed into the 2026 midterm-election cycle. Hundreds of millions more have been added to that tally in the weeks since. Much of this money comes from the world’s richest oligarchs, many who built their unlimited wealth from ownership stakes in massive tech and media conglomerates.
So much for the idea that our news-and-information systems should foster the public exchange of diverse ideas that are the lifeblood of civic society.
Elon Musk has contributed just shy of half-a-billion dollars to Republican-aligned political campaigns and Super PACs for the 2026 midterms. That’s more than his total political contributions during the 2024 presidential election. With no limit on how much he can spend, Musk made the biggest electoral donation in American history—$158 million—to help one candidate (senatorial hopeful Ken Paxton of Texas).
Lesser known are the contributions lower-ranking multibillionaires have made: Mike Bloomberg, Reid Hoffman, and George Soros have contributed a combined $227 million to Democratic-aligned campaigns; GOP election initiatives have received hundreds of millions of dollars from the likes of Marc Andreessen and Ben Horowitz ($92 million); Elizabeth and Richard Uihlein ($150 million); and Jeff and Janine Yass ($110 million) .
Hundreds of millions more have found their way into the accounts of shadowy Super PACs that are not required to disclose their donors.
Musk millions for media manipulation
Most of this whopping cash infusion pays for political ads: The media-tracking firm AdImpact projects a record-breaking $11.6 billion of that $16 billion total—or approximately 73 percent of all political contributions—will buy ads on broadcast and cable-TV stations, radio outlets, streaming services and social-media platforms.
Viewers are left with little to help them separate fact from fiction before they head to the polls. That’s because the media outlets that serve up campaign spots have zero legal obligation to reject ads that peddle lies. While nearly half of this money goes to air political ads on broadcast outlets, the Communications Act of 1934 prohibits television and radio stations from censoring or editing candidate-sponsored ads, even when they know the content is false.
And while the Federal Communications Commission does require a degree of transparency regarding who paid for a given broadcast ad, it does not monitor or regulate the accuracy of an ad’s claims.
Since 2024, the owners of social-media platforms like Facebook, X and YouTube—which account for a growing piece of the ad-spending pie—have largely abandoned efforts to fact check the political ads that course across their networks.
The money-and-media-election complex
That’s a lot of data points to digest. But the information on political-ad spending leads to one disturbing conclusion: The bulk of money spent to manipulate and even misinform viewers flows back to media companies that many of the nation’s richest donors control. This cycle of money and influence is turning people away from meaningful political engagement, put off by the deluge of dishonest attack ads that will have aired hundreds of thousands of times before viewers become voters on Nov. 3.
It’s a toxic combination of ingredients that Free Press co-founders Robert W. McChesney and John Nichols called the “money and media election complex,” in which wealthy donors, giant corporations, politicians, regulators and corporate media align their interests against a public seeking to legitimately engage in democracy.
“The complex has tremendous gravitational power,” McChesney and Nichols wrote more than a decade ago, “which increases the degree of difficulty for those wishing to participate in elections in a manner not conducive to wealthy funders, corporate media or preservation of the status quo.”
So much for the idea that our news-and-information systems should foster the public exchange of diverse ideas that are the lifeblood of civic society. Instead we have a political system that’s beholden to billionaire donors, and a hyper-commercial media that are getting rich off keeping voters in the dark.
Media outlets must take their obligations more seriously. In exchange for First Amendment freedoms, they need to cover the money that’s poisoning our politics, expose the groups and individuals funding political ads and address the falsehoods presented in many of these spots. With little time remaining before the midterms, the time to do this reporting is now.
Right-sizing Big Media
Public policy must also address the media’s systemic failings. And while communications regulation may look fuzzy when viewed from 30,000 feet, at the ground level the consequences of bad rules and regulations come into sharper focus. Nowhere is this more evident than during elections.
Instead of nurturing democracy and free speech, commercialized media today threaten to distort it.
The lack of adequate diversity and competition in media has encouraged industry owners to think of their outlets as profit-making machines with no obligation to disclose to viewers the political money and special interests that make them tick. And the lack of local reporters holding candidates to account—the consequence of runaway media consolidation in turn spurring newsroom cutbacks and closures—in many ways explains the rise of a class of politicians who spend more time wooing wealthy contributors than attending to the needs of voters back home.
This has created a dependency between those who control political power (and need access to the media to keep it) and those who control the media (and need access to political power to keep it). This cycle has gotten so toxic that instead of nurturing democracy and free speech, commercialized media today threaten to distort it.
These systemic remedies include making political ad-spending information easily available, including exposing the true funders bankrolling Super PACs. Such disclosure should happen in the body of the ads themselves. We must also get serious about strategies and policies that foster independent, local political journalism. Free Press Action has made a number of promising inroads here through state-level legislation to fund civic media.
And we need to right-size massive media conglomerates, using existing antitrust law and media-ownership limits while strengthening other rules that have been gutted at the urging of a powerful media lobby and far-too compliant lawmakers and regulators.
There’s a growing backlash against billionaire control of our political and media systems that could make these reforms possible.
The failures of corporate media have undercut the First Amendment goal of creating, in the words of the Supreme Court in 1969, an “informed public capable of conducting its own affairs.” True participatory democracy will have no chance at survival if we fail to insist on serious changes now.
Keep ReadingShow Less
US Journalist and Activist Detained After Israeli Settler Attack in West Bank
Jasper Nathaniel and Andrey Khrzhanovskiy recently came to the aid of Washington Post reporter Heidi Levine after she was beaten by Israeli settlers, and spoke out about the attack.
Oct 29, 2026
An American journalist and an activist who reportedly suffered a concussion from being beaten by armed Israeli settlers remained in detention Wednesday night, hours after Israeli police arrested them following the attack.
Adele Shoko, a Russian activist, reported that settlers had attacked her, Israeli-Russian activist Andrey Khrzhanovskiy, and US journalist Jasper Nathaniel late Wednesday in the Palestinian village of Umm al-Khair, in the Masafer Yatta area of the occupied West Bank.
"They beat us, threatened to shoot us, stole Andrey's phone and my glasses, and pepper-sprayed Jasper," Shoko said on the social media platform X.
According to Shoko, Khrzhanovskiy was denied medical treatment after losing consciousness "several times in front of police." He and Nathaniel were taken to a police station, where they remained hours later.
Nathaniel was heard yelling, "I just got beat up!" while being led away by police.
"Andrey was severely beaten and lost consciousness several times in front of police," said Shoko. "Despite this, he was denied hospital treatment. He was put in an ambulance—but instead of being taken to hospital, he was taken to a police station. He is still there, arrested and being denied medical care."
One video appeared to show Khrzhanovskiy losing consciousness.
Drop Site News cited Shoko as she reported that Nathaniel and Khrzhanovskiy eventually were able to speak with a lawyer, but remained at a police station. They were reportedly "physically okay."
"Israeli state terrorism knows no boundaries," said historian Zachary Foster of the footage of the attack.
The assault came less than two weeks after both Nathaniel and Khrzhanovskiy came to the aid of Heidi Levine, a Washington Post journalist, after she was brutally beaten and robbed by Israeli settlers while she was covering an attack by dozens of masked men on Palestinian olive groves in the West Bank.
State-backed settler attacks on Palestinians in the West Bank have ramped up significantly since October 2023, when the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) also began a military campaign against Gaza in retaliation for a Hamas-led attack on southern Israel. More than 74,000 Palestinians have been killed in Gaza in what leading human rights groups have called a genocide, and a United Nations commission said this week that at least 1,080 Palestinians have been killed in the West Bank in the last three years.
Top officials in Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's government have pushed to further annex the West Bank as the IDF has backed settler raids on villages and attacks on Palestinian communities as well as recent assaults on journalists, US lawmakers, and a group of European diplomats.
Nathaniel, who has spent years covering the Israeli occupation of the West Bank for outlets including Drop Site and Zeteo News, spoke recently to The New Yorker about the attack on Levine, emphasizing that Palestinians had thrown stones at her attackers to allow her colleagues to reach her.
"The IDF soldiers who have been there, who’ve been tear-gassing the Palestinians and providing cover for the settlers, stormed the village," Nathaniel said of the assault on Levine. "Rather than go after the settlers who have just nearly killed a woman, they stormed the village and started firing their weapons, and they shot a Palestinian man in the leg."
On Substack this week, Khrzhanovskiy wrote that "all the Palestinian villages in the West Bank are under siege," and that Netanyahu's government aimed to use a recent strike against Israeli soldiers "to start a war in the West Bank."
"The only way to stop this is pressure from all directions. We know it works," said Khrzhanovskiy. "Call your representative, hold a demonstration, organize direct action against the occupation’s assets abroad. Keep attention on the West Bank."
Keep ReadingShow Less
US Imperialism and the Language of Erasure in Palestine
The phrase “US imperialism” may sound antique, but the reality is current. It lives in supply chains, military aid, diplomatic vetoes, and the expectation that our media will avoid language that might complicate partnership.
Oct 27, 2026
I grew up believing that fidelity to language is fidelity to truth. Scripture taught me that truth is a form of prayer and that naming is part of justice. Then I learned how language is trained to look away. In the American conversation about the U.S.-backed genocide in Gaza and Palestine, words are rinsed until they shine with neutrality, while the bodies they describe grow dim. The result is a strange theology of news, where grief must pass an examination before it is shared, and where power writes the glossary.
In the weeks after October 7, anchors found an ease of speech they rarely grant Palestinians. Faces from southern Israel filled our screens—named and mourned. By mid-October, Israel had killed thousands in Gaza, many of them children. The camera kept its distance. The word that leapt to the teleprompter was caution. Images blurred and numbers hedged, context was treated as suspicion rather than care.
The grief of one people became a national ceremony; the grief of another, a footnote.
I want a common speech that lets readers feel that a child pulled from rubble requires no preface.
If language is a vessel for conscience, these choices matter. A hospital becomes a “compound,” bombardment becomes an “operation,” a family under rubble becomes “collateral.” Such phrasing allows atrocity to appear as policy, and policy to pass as inevitability. We are told this is balance, when in reality it scolds both the arsonist and the burning house.
As the psychiatrist Thomas Szasz once observed, “In the typical Western two men fight desperately for the possession of a gun that has been thrown to the ground: whoever reaches the weapon first shoots and lives; his adversary is shot and dies. In ordinary life, the struggle is not for guns but for words; whoever first defines the situation is the victor; his adversary, the victim.” The stakes of language decide whose grief is recognized and whose life is made expendable.
What we call balance often conceals allegiance. The United States supplies weapons, funding, diplomatic cover, and ideological shelter to Israel. Washington fast-tracks munitions while vetoing cease-fire resolutions at the United Nations, demanding the press describe the result as a “cycle.” Institutions obey through habits as much as manufactured consent because the script is already written.
Editors learn which nouns invite trouble. Reporters learn which verbs are preferred. Freelancers learn the cost of clarity.
The money is not incidental. Contracts enrich the usual firms as careers rise in their shadow. The casualties are an afterthought. The ledger sits backstage, while the performance onstage goes by the name of neutrality. The empire supplies language and weapons, while it is language that returns the favor by laundering intent.
Every culture keeps a book of sorrows. In ours, some sorrows earn public sympathy more readily than others. When a Palestinian journalist is killed, headlines bend into the passive voice, and the subject disappears. When a Palestinian American is beaten at a checkpoint or murdered, procedure replaces justice. Families who bury their children must clear a test of civility, then defend the right to weep without a preface.
To mourn openly is treated as a provocation. To ask for equal mourning is to be accused of provocation.
This is how imperial culture works. If Palestinian grief is marginalized, policy can proceed. The audience is soothed by the idea that tragedy has no author, that rubble is a natural event, and that history began yesterday. In such a world, the right dead receive sympathy, while the living must demonstrate moderation.
If the prophets have any lesson for journalism, it is this: Speak without fear where the truth is plain. Refuse to wrap cruelty in fine phrases. Follow conscience where it burns, even when it threatens comfort.
We were told that social media would democratize speech. Instead, many Palestinians and their allies discovered another border regime. Posts vanish without explanation and archives dissolve, as certain words trigger shadow bans. Meanwhile, coordinated networks flood platforms with talking points until the algorithm mistakes noise for truth.
People adapt. They speak in code. They smuggle testimony through poetry. They post with patience. The work continues because memory continues. Forgetting is the most dangerous technology.
Before my essays, I wrote sanctioned paragraphs inside large institutions. I learned how official speech is constructed, and how clarity is stripped from a sentence . . . One is encouraged to prefer symmetry over accuracy.
The effect is spiritual and does violence to one’s soul. Conscience is taught to whisper. The room obeys, when it should sound an alarm.
Our grief must first earn a hearing; our dead are assigned numbers rather than names. Empires hold territory and vocabulary alike. As such, recovering our speech is part of recovering our dignity.
The phrase “U.S. imperialism” may sound antique, but the reality is current. It lives in supply chains, military aid, diplomatic vetoes, and the expectation that our media will avoid language that might complicate partnership. It governs which deaths are described and which are rendered abstract. It shapes curriculum, philanthropy, and the scope of respectable debate. Above all, it trains the public to treat Palestinian life as a question, not a fact.
Imperial culture does not announce its arrival with banners. It moves through careful renaming. It borrows the aura of reason while pruning history. It requests deference in the name of complexity, and it rewards those who provide it with access.
Say occupation where there is an occupation. Say siege where there is a siege. If a journalist is killed, name the bullet and the chain of command. If a neighborhood is erased, name the policy that permits erasure. Then listen to survivors.
Such speech is an act of repair. It gives words back to the people who have lived under them. It restores trust between the public and the page.
There are journalists in the United States who begin from testimony rather than performance; who respect context over an alibi; who resist the symmetry that mistakes management for justice. Chris Hedges and Moustafa Bayoumi are among them. Their work does not flatter power. It honors the living by telling the truth about the dead. It remembers that language can also be occupied, and that freeing it is part of the same struggle.
To name is a civic and spiritual duty. Will you reflect? Will you testify? Will you remember the stranger? These are disciplines of attention. When we choose the word compound for a hospital, or incident for a massacre, we are answering those questions in the negative. When we choose accurate names, we widen the circle of humanity.
I do not write to police the language of others. I write to examine mine. I want a Western vocabulary that does not reduce Palestinians to a problem or political question in need of management. I want a common speech that lets readers feel that a child pulled from rubble requires no preface.
Empire teaches us to treat reality as talking points. Faith teaches the opposite. If the prophets have any lesson for journalism, it is this: Speak without fear where the truth is plain. Refuse to wrap cruelty in fine phrases. Follow conscience where it burns, even when it threatens comfort.
I offer these lines in the name of tenderness and law, memory and justice, which belong together when language is healthy. Violence is asymmetrical, just like truth. The world deserves words that admit as much.
Support journalists who center Palestinian testimony with patience and respect. Hold editors to their standards. Share stories that restore names and faces. Each act strengthens the possibility of a public language that does not betray the people who must live under it.
This is the work of citizens and of writers. It is the work of the heart.
Excerpted from If You Cannot Say GENOCIDE: Essays on Conscience and Witness by Yahia Lababidi. Copyright © 2026 by Yahia Lababidi. All Rights Reserved.
Keep ReadingShow Less
The Media Has a Critical Role in Safeguarding Our Democracy This Election Season
Even if Trump and his allies know they will lose in court if they try these illegal moves to subvert the election, they can still successfully control our elections if they cause enough noise to overwhelm voters and discourage turnout. The confusion is the point. Clarity is the cure.
Oct 27, 2026
We’re just days out from November 3, and already millions of Americans are heading to the polls or dropping off their mail-in ballots, while threats to their freedom to vote continue making front-page news.
Since returning to office, President Donald Trump and members of his administration have desperately tried to take over our elections—a move that is both unconstitutional and has, thus far, failed. But these realities haven’t stopped him from indicating a willingness to have federal officers show up at polling places, something that has been illegal since the Civil War. He has continually railed against vote-by-mail, despite the US Supreme Court blocking his most damaging plans. And where he has failed to pass federal legislation or successfully move executive orders, he has repeatedly attacked our elections. In fact, he spread false or misleading claims about our elections on 70% of the days of his second term.
And while Trump’s efforts continue to fail to pass legal muster, there are two intertwined threats built into his continued public flirtation with election interference: anti-voter actions themselves, and the confusion and chaos created by floating these plans in public.
The job of the media ecosystem—whether print journalists, TV pundits, or content creators on TikTok—is to make sure the American people know the truth.
The media ecosystem has a big role to play in mitigating that second threat.
Even if Trump and his allies know they will lose in court if they try these illegal moves to subvert the election, they can still successfully control our elections if they cause enough noise to overwhelm voters and discourage turnout.
The confusion is the point. Clarity is the cure.
Consider the rumors about the federal government deploying its agents in connection with voting.
Surely, the Trump administration knows that sending ICE to polling places is illegal and unpopular. And the administration is already backtracking on earlier statements. But as voting gets underway, the media and anyone with a platform must avoid sensationalizing, verify any reports before sharing, and make clear that the presence of ICE or other federal agents at voting sites would be straightforwardly illegal. That doesn’t mean dismissing the tangible fears Black and Brown voters may have. Instead, we can reassure voters by highlighting election workers' preparations, encouraging voters to cast their ballots with their neighbors (as millions of Americans have already done), and emphasizing the steps voting rights advocates are taking to protect access to the ballot.
While the fears of ICE feel unique to 2026, we have been down a similar road in the past. In 2022, there was extensive media coverage of a handful of armed people in tactical gear who showed up at voting drop boxes in Maricopa County, AZ. As courts later confirmed, this was undoubtedly an illegal situation that should never have happened. Although it was isolated to two drop boxes in a county larger than Connecticut, the incident received widespread coverage throughout Arizona and nationwide, and spread quickly on social media. Coverage of important incidents like this should include the key context that lets voters know they can still vote safely.
The media is powerful, and its job is so important. In 1965, the media coverage of Selma’s Bloody Sunday allowed the whole country to see the reality of voter suppression, generating outrage in communities beyond those directly affected by it. Eight days after images from Selma aired on live broadcasts and appeared on the front pages of newspapers, President Lyndon Johnson spoke to a joint session of Congress, urging them to pass the Voting Rights Act.
The job of the media ecosystem—whether print journalists, TV pundits, or content creators on TikTok—is to make sure the American people know the truth. As we approach Election Day, that includes the reality that threats of election interference are desperate moves doomed to fail.
We cannot treat threats to deploy federal officers at polling places, efforts to restrict mail-in voting, or refusals to certify lawful election results as ordinary legal debates. We must call them out as attempts to control our elections that we, the American people, will not tolerate. This is how we instill confidence in the election and in our democracy.
After all the rhetoric undermining elections from the White House, it’s understandable that voters may fear the worst-case scenarios. Those steering the public conversation should remember the power of their work to dispel those fears with the truth.
The framers of the Constitution considered the role of the press important enough to list it explicitly in the First Amendment. Two hundred and fifty years after our founding, the media is as critical as ever in safeguarding our democracy.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Israeli Settlers Brutally Beat Washington Post Journalist Heidi Levine While Attacking Palestinian Olive Farmers
“Unfortunately, I know very well that none of them will be prosecuted for what they have done and continue to do,” she said.
Oct 16, 2026
A gang of masked Israeli settlers brutalized a Washington Post journalist on Friday while they attacked Palestinian olive farmers and set fire to their grove in the occupied West Bank—the latest in an escalating series of state-backed terrorist attacks amid the Palestinian olive-growing season.
Roughly 80 masked men from a nearby hilltop settlement descended upon an olive grove near the village of Abu Falah, north of Ramallah. Video shows them hurling rocks and torching olive trees as Palestinian families fled downhill.
Gunfire could be heard, and at least two Palestinian men were reportedly wounded in the attack. Four more were reportedly hurt in separate attacks nearby.
Documenting the attack was 63-year-old Heidi Levine, an award-winning American photojournalist with the Post who has more than four decades of experience covering wars around the world.
Amid the rampage, Levine—clad in a helmet and a vest with a bright blue "PRESS" marker—was knocked to the dirt by a group of masked settlers, according to video posted by the American journalist Jasper Nathaniel, who was on the scene.
Another video shared by Israeli activist and journalist Andrey Khrzhanovskiy shows one of the settlers repeatedly beating Levine with a long stick while she lies on the ground defenseless. Levine later said she was kicked approximately 50 times and that the attackers took all of her recording equipment and other electronic devices.
Palestinian men reportedly threw stones to ward off the attackers, allowing other journalists to reach Levine.
A video shows Nathaniel, Khrzhanovskiy, and others rushing to a bloodied Levine and helping her to her feet. "They took everything," she said. "They took all my stuff." More Israeli settlers hurled rocks at them as they fled the scene.
Levine was taken to a hospital in Ramallah after Palestinian colleagues helped her get an ambulance. From her hospital bed, she spoke about the attack.
"My son Michael has always told me that his biggest fear would be that his mother would be killed by the settlers," Levine said, noting that she'd covered the Israel-Palestine conflict for more than three decades and also been attacked 15 years ago.
"I was attacked, pushed to the ground," she said. "Luckily I had my flak jacket and helmet; otherwise I probably wouldn’t even be here, because they just kept kicking me and kicking me."
Levine, who is Jewish by birth, described the attackers as "Jewish terrorists" who "are giving everyone in the country a horrible reputation."
"I don't know how a parent could raise such monsters," she said.
"While we are relieved that Heidi has received medical care and is safe," said Washington Post executive editor Matt Murray in a statement Friday morning, "we are outraged by this unwarranted attack on a journalist doing her job and urge a thorough investigation and follow-through from authorities.”
Levine, however, said she was confident that her attackers would never face justice. "Sadly, none of them will be prosecuted," she told reporters. "I am sure of it.”
Particularly in recent years, under a far-right government that has accelerated the expansion of illegal settlements, settlers almost never face legal consequences for violent attacks.
A Guardian investigation found that from 2020 to 2025, more than 96% of police investigations into settler violence concluded without indictments, and only 2% resulted in convictions. Since 2020, despite dozens of fatal attacks, only one Israeli has been charged with killing a Palestinian in the West Bank.
"This violence does not happen in a vacuum. Israel enables it."
Lt. Col. Ariella Mazor, chief international spokesperson for the Israel Defense Forces, told the Post that the incident is under investigation by the IDF and claimed the military had sent battalions to the West Bank to contain the outbreak of violence.
However, according to eyewitnesses, the Israeli military itself was reportedly involved in the attack on the village, firing tear gas at the Palestinians. Soldiers reportedly drove military jeeps through the olive groves and stood beside settlers rather than dispersing them.
Israeli activist Oren Ziv told the Post, “The army did nothing to stop the settlers."
This has been the case in many of the more than 1,600 documented attacks that have occurred over the first eight months of the year—during which at least 23 Palestinians were killed and over 1,100 injured, according to the United Nations.
Israeli army soldiers stand behind a masked man swinging a slingshot while hurling stones at Palestinians who had gathered for the annual olive harvest season, during an attack by Israeli settlers on the Palestinian village of Beita, south of Nablus in the occupied West Bank, on October 10, 2025. (Photo by Jaafar Ashtiyeh/AFP via Getty Images)
Investigations by Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch have documented soldiers standing by as settlers attack Palestinians and destroy their property, shielding settlers from Palestinians attempting to defend themselves, and sometimes directly participating in attacks. Israeli authorities have also armed thousands of settlers and incorporated many into military units.
Israel's Foreign Press Association, which independently provided video of settlers brutalizing Levine, said it had repeatedly warned Israeli authorities about threats to foreign journalists working in the West Bank. "Our repeated calls for action to confront this lawlessness have been ignored," the group said.
"You can see the settlers who attacked Heidi Levine," said Breaking the Silence, a human rights group led by Israeli veterans. "But what you can’t see is the state behind them: a state that funds them, arms them, and, above all, grants them near-total impunity for their actions. This violence does not happen in a vacuum. Israel enables it."
At least nine Americans have been killed by Israeli settlers or security forces in the West Bank since January 2022, while numerous others have been injured—including journalists, human rights activists, and Palestinian Americans visiting family.
Members of Congress have requested information from the State Department about Israeli settler attacks on Americans, but have found themselves stonewalled by Trump administration officials.
Neri Zilber, a journalist and adviser to the US-based Israel Policy Forum, noted the lack of response from American institutions to the surge of settler terrorism.
"This happens every day in the West Bank. Every single day," he wrote on social media. "Palestinians attacked, journalists attacked, Israeli and foreign observers attacked. When is the IDF going to start taking this seriously? And where is the US Embassy and Trump administration?"
Keep ReadingShow Less
Billionaire Trump Suck-Ups Owning More News Outlets Is an Existential Threat
This is critical stuff: no democracy can survive the assault of what Jefferson referred to as “an artificial aristocracy founded on wealth and birth, without either virtue or talents” when only one family or political perspective dominates the media.
Sep 24, 2026
A CNN insider told Variety magazine yesterday that the mood inside CNN right now is “like a funeral.” Nepo-baby David Ellison, bankrolled by his father who’s one of the richest men in the world and a major Trump suck-up and donor (and is in the Epstein Files), is on the verge of taking over the company that owns the news network.
The day-before-yesterday, California Attorney General Rob Bonta and a group of Democratic state attorneys general rolled over and agreed to stop trying to block the $111 billion takover of Warner Bros. Discovery, now to be almost 50% funded by rightwing dictatorships in the Middle East who’ve given billions in gifts, loans, and investments to Trump and his family.
California Governor and presidential hopeful Gavin Newsom hailed the agreement, saying it would both protect California jobs and preserve CNN’s “editorial independence.”
If you believe that, I’ve got a bridge for you in Brooklyn.
As The Lever reported yesterday, the fine print tells the entire story:
Going forward, CNN and CBS will be overseen by an “editorial independence board” composed of people hand-picked by the Ellisons and their agents. When Rupert Murdoch took over The Wall Street Journal from the Bancroft family back in 2007, he ran the same scam, as CBS News then reported:
“As part of the deal package that cemented Rupert Murdoch's longstanding effort to acquire Wall Street Journal publisher Dow Jones & Co., the two sides agreed to create an editorial board that would act as a buffer between the media mogul and the newspaper…”
That worked out real well, right?
There are also squishy promises for movies and jobs that are not backed up with any meaningful enforcement mechanism, and all of Ellison’s commitments can be set aside via a force majeure clause that lets Paramount off the hook in the event of “strikes, labor disruptions, [or] economic recessions.” So, all Trump has to do is extend the Iran war another few months to crash our economy and the oligarchs are free to do what they want!
And if that doesn’t happen, there’s still the sunset clause that ends all their commitments in five years. Lee Hepner of the American Economic Liberties Project called it “a countdown to a cliff.”
These are the same billionaires who handed Trump a check for $16 million to “settle” a frivolous lawsuit against 60 Minutes, then cancelled Stephen Colbert’s show days after he referenced that as a “big fat bribe,” then reportedly offered the Trump White House up to $20 million in free “public service announcements” and installed a Trump-humping “ombudsman” at CBS News to police “bias” at the network.
The simple reality is that in every country that’s slid from democracy into strongman rule over the past half-century, the first step was capture of the media by friends of the regime.
And the FCC, run by Trump’s favorite brown-noser Brendan Carr, has blessed Saudi Arabia, the UAE, and Qatar taking a 49.5 percent equity state in the new entity that will control two of the three most important news networks in America.
Don’t expect any future analysis of Saudi involvement in 9/11, critical exploration of what Trump gave up in exchange for a $400 million 747 jet, or the billions that have gone to Kushner and the Trump boys, Uday and Qusay.
Because of momentous decisions made by presidents Reagan and Clinton, freedom of the press in America is now as much an economic issue as a political one. As I laid out in The Hidden History of Monopolies (with a foreword by Ralph Nader), when Reagan came into office 90 percent of the American media landscape was scattered among over 50 companies; now a mere five conglomerates dominate that 90 percent of the media Americans consume.
Reagan stopped enforcing the Sherman Anti-Trust Act (and others) in 1983, leading to the “M&A Mania” of mergers and acquisitions that characterized the late 1980s and 1990s. As a result, there’s not a single major industry in America that’s not dominated by a handful of companies that generally behave like cartels, and the average American family pays an annual “monopoly tax” — in additional costs for pretty much everything — of around $5,000, according to economist Thomas Philippon.
Cell phone service that costs $15 a month in France or $12 a month in Australia bills out at an average of $61.85 per month in the United States. High-speed broadband that’s a bit over $31 a month in France or $36 in Germany (for higher speeds and better reliability than almost anywhere in the United States) averages nearly $70 per month in the US.
Similar metrics are found with pharmaceuticals, airfares, and medical costs, among dozens of other product and service categories.
But it’s most deadly to democracy when it comes to the media.
Since Bill Clinton signed the Telecommunications Act of 1996 — which eliminated most of the rules about how many outlets one family or company could own — oligarchic monopoly of the media has spread its cancerous tentacles into politics, as well, destroying the ability of government to make policy that allows free people to make their own decisions about their own lives.
As Teddy Roosevelt, the great trust buster, said:
“There can be no effective control of corporations while their political activity remains. To put an end to it will be neither a short nor an easy task...”
And as Adam Smith wrote, in Wealth of Nations,
“...the monopoly which our manufacturers have obtained...like an overgrown standing army, they have become formidable to the government, and upon many occasions intimidate the legislature.”
And this is no small project by billionaires who explicitly distrust democracy and want complete control over America and her people. I’ve seen how this works up-close and personal when a Republican billionaire came after a media business I helped start.
In 2003, Louise and I had sold our last business and were retired in Vermont; that Thanksgiving, we drove to Michigan to visit my family for the holidays and all the way there I kept tuning across the radio dial looking for an intelligent conversation to occupy my mind while driving. In city after city, all I could find was Sean Hannity.
The outcome of that trip was my writing the initial business plan for Air America Radio and starting the radio show I’m still hosting 23 years later as a “proof of concept.” We were leasing stations from Clear Channel and reached over 90 percent of America; many credited Obama’s 2008 victory to our being on the air.
So, of course, billionaire Mitt Romney — with an eye to running for president in 2012 — had his company Bain Capital buy up all of the Clear Channel radio stations and, one at a time, take us off the air until we didn’t have enough of a signal to make money selling advertising. The network died in 2010 (and Romney lost).
The people who own the media pipes, in other words, get to decide what flows through them.
Remember when Uber was offering rides for half the price of taxis, until they’d put so many of the taxi companies out of business? Or Walmart offering goods at little to no margin just to drive local competitors out of business? Monopolists and wannabe monopolists understand exactly how this works.
While Rupert Murdoch reportedly lost an average of $80 to $90 million a year for about five years before Fox News turned a profit, he never viewed that as a loss: it was an investment. Economists Stefano DellaVigna and Ethan Kaplan later did the math and found that Fox News succeeded in shifting 3 to 8 percent of its audience toward the Republican Party, which in Florida alone in the 2000 election was worth more than 10,000 votes for George W. Bush in a state he carried by fewer than 600.
Had there been no Fox “News,” in other words, there would have been no war in Iraq or Afghanistan, and thousands of Americans and millions of Iraqis and Afghans would still be alive. And there would have been no Bush tax cuts, so our national debt would be nowhere near so bad. And Al Gore would have done something about the environment.
This is critical stuff: no democracy can survive the assault of what Jefferson referred to as “an artificial aristocracy founded on wealth and birth, without either virtue or talents” when only one family or political perspective dominates the media.
Franklin D. Roosevelt — the Bernie Sanders of his day — saw all of this coming. On April 29, 1938, in his Message to Congress on the Concentration of Economic Power, he told the country what fascism actually is:
“The first truth is that the liberty of a democracy is not safe if the people tolerate the growth of private power to a point where it becomes stronger than their democratic state itself. That, in its essence, is fascism—ownership of government by an individual, by a group, or by any other controlling private power.”
FDR understood that when a monopolized industry gets big enough, its main rival then becomes the government itself because only the government has enough remaining power to break it up. Adam Smith made the same point in Wealth of Nations in 1776, writing that the East India Company and its allies had, “like an overgrown standing army,” become “formidable to the government” and could “intimidate the legislature.”
The simple reality is that in every country that’s slid from democracy into strongman rule over the past half-century, the first step was capture of the media by friends of the regime.
— Four days after Vladimir Putin was inaugurated in May, 2000, ICE-like masked agents raided the offices of Media-Most, the company that owned Russia’s largest independent national TV network (NTV). They threw its owner, Vladimir Gusinsky, in prison on fraud charges and confiscated his stake in Gazprom, then took over the network with the deal finalized in April of 2001. That same year Boris Berezovsky was forced to sell his share of the ORT network to Roman Abramovich, a fellow oligarch but one who’d pledged his total loyalty to Putin. Within a few years, every national channel in Russia was in the hands of the state or a Putin-friendly billionaire, and still are.
— Viktor Orbán’s people were slightly more sophisticated in 2018, having his oligarch buddies buy up media properties after he sued dissenters into bankruptcy by claiming libel. By the following year, the media monitor Mérték estimated that 77.8 percent of Hungary’s news media was directly or indirectly controlled by Orbán’s party, which is why when Péter Magyar successfully ran against Orbán he had to visit virtually every city and town in the country to get around the media blackout on his candidacy.
— In Egypt, el-Sisi was less elegant in his approach to the media. He had his version of the FBI — the General Intelligence Service — use a front company called Eagle Capital to buy up virtually every TV network, radio station, and newspaper in the country. Reporters Without Borders found that a dozen once-powerful media owners were pushed to sell to intelligence-linked companies, while the handful of businessmen who backed Sisi got to keep theirs. The spy agency’s media group now owns the ON, CBC, Al-Hayah, and DMC networks, and those Egyptian journalists who dared criticize the regime all went to prison.
— Rodrigo Duterte in the Philippines used regulatory power the same way Trump lickspittle Brendan Carr’s FCC does. The country’s largest newspaper, the Philippine Daily Inquirer, was forced to sell to a billionaire Duterte ally under threat of imprisonment for breaking “media rules.” Duterte’s rightwing buddies in Congress then refused to renew the broadcast franchise of ABS-CBN, the nation’s biggest network, which had made the mistake of exposing the extrajudicial killings of his so-called drug war. Eleven thousand people lost their jobs, and Nobel laureate Maria Ressa’s little opposition newspaper The Rappler was ordered shut.
Almost without exception, this is the process autocrats use to destroy democracies, as documented brilliantly by people like Timothy Snyder and Ruth Ben-Ghiat.
First the strongman’s friends acquire the newsrooms, then the coverage softens, then the elections start experiencing “anomalies,” and by the time most people notice, there’s nobody left on the air to expose the oligarchs and fascists.
As Thomas Jefferson wrote in 1786:
“Our liberty depends on the freedom of the press, and that cannot be limited without being lost.”
So, here we are. Bonta and Newsom have caved, and only the attorneys general of New York, Connecticut, Massachusetts, and Minnesota tried to hold out. You may want to call your own state attorney general and ask where they were on this case; you should be able to easily find their number with a quick internet search.
We should also contact our members of Congress (202-224-3121) and demand hearings on the FCC’s corrupt behavior, restoration of our anti-trust laws, and a return to the media ownership limits that Clinton blew up in 1996.
And please share this piece and hartmannreport.com with anyone who still thinks it can’t happen here. It has already happened everywhere else that’s seen their democracy disintegrate, and the first thing to go into oligarchic hands was always the news.
Keep ReadingShow Less
White House Claims in Court Filing That Press Coverage of Trump Is a 'Privilege,' Not a Right
"This is about the First Amendment, not White House access," said one legal expert.
Sep 23, 2026
At an emergency hearing scheduled for Wednesday afternoon, a federal judge appointed by President Donald Trump is set to hear three media outlets' request for a temporary restraining order blocking the administration's denial of press access to the White House—and is likely to hear from government lawyers the "dangerous" argument officials have made to defend the ban on news coverage.
"Access to the White House is a privilege—not a right," government lawyers wrote in a court filing on Tuesday evening, in response to a lawsuit filed by CNN, MS NOW, and Politico after journalists with the three outlets had their press passes confiscated by White House officials and were denied access to the government building.
The administration claimed in the filing that the decision to block reporters from covering the president at the White House was "lawful under the First Amendment" because Trump "has 'compelling interest[s]' in enforcing minimum standards for bona fide journalists and safeguarding national security information."
The president had concluded that CNN, MS NOW, and Politico had failed to "maintain basic minimum 'standards of professionalism and decorum expected of those given access to the White House Complex, including' by 'publishing sensitive or classified information," reads the filing.
Letters attached to the filing cite specific news stories in which the outlets were accused of endangering national security, including CNN's reporting on "‘top-secret’ construction details related to the East Wing bunker" that is part of Trump's $400 million ballroom. MS NOW was accused of endangering national security when it reported in June that “a source said that President Trump ‘underestimated the willingness of Iran to resume conflict.’”
The news outlet MeidasTouch said the arguments made in the filing were "deeply embarrassing and un-American."
"The Trump regime is afraid of the American people learning the realities of the failed war in Iran and Trump’s disastrous presidency," said MeidasTouch.
While claiming CNN, MS NOW, and Politico have threatened national security with their reporting, Trump also said last week when he first announced he was planning to ban the outlets that they “shouldn’t be able to constantly write or report FICTION and LIES.”
Legal expert and political commentator Harry Litman called on US District Judge Timothy Kelly, who was nominated in 2017 by Trump and who in 2018 rejected the president's attempt to bar then-CNN reporter Jim Acosta from the White House grounds, to grant the outlets the restraining order.
"When an administration punishes the outlets that scrutinize it, it is dismantling a safeguard," wrote Litman on Substack. "The state is perfectly free to express its own preferences (though limits come in—as we’ve found honored in the breach—with false speech by government). But it can’t use the machinery of the state to punish the people who hold the view it dislikes. It’s the difference between persuasion, which is fine, and coercion, which is a fundamental abuse of government power, the classic tactic of authoritarian government."
"In sum, viewpoint discrimination is forbidden because it betrays an illegitimate government motive and because it uses the coercive power of the state to suppress speech that a free society depends on to keep government honest," he wrote.
In the lawsuit the three news organizations filed on Monday, they argued that the ban “brazenly discriminates based on editorial viewpoint,” and violates their First Amendment rights as well as their right to due process, as they were not permitted to contest the ban when their reporters were blocked from entering the White House on Saturday.
"The idea that fundamental rights are a 'privilege' granted at the whim of the king is dangerous," said former US Attorney Joyce White Vance, who is now a law professor and MS NOW legal analyst. "This is about the First Amendment, not White House access."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Closing the Strait of No News
Together, media organizations have the ability to cut off the air supply that Trump routinely sucks out of every situation. If they translate this tactic into a much longer-term strategy, they could shift the relationship onto much healthier ground.
Sep 23, 2026
In his typical fashion, which many commentators characterize as act first, think never, President Donald Trump has handed the media, i.e., the enemy of the people, an extremely potent weapon if only they have the fortitude to use it. Much as his illegal and unwinnable war enabled the Iranians to translate their potential control over the Strait of Hormuz into an actual lever of economic, military, and geopolitical power, so too his “ban” on CNN, MSNOW, and Politico could initiate a shift in the power dynamics of Trump-press relations.
If the initial and much too rare show of solidarity among the news organizations can be sustained long enough to demonstrate their ability to deprive Trump of the constant attention he so desperately craves, this could become the basis for a much-needed recalibration of the bully-bullied interactions.
The constitutional aspects of the case are startlingly clear. It is almost (and in these fraught moments, the “almost” is necessary) impossible to imagine the circumstances that would sustain Trump’s ban. His own statements make clear that the exclusions (and those that might follow) are based on viewpoint, a basis specifically and repeatedly denied by the courts. Given that the lawsuit filed by the three banned organizations is being handled by the same judge that ruled against Trump when he barred CNN’s then-reporter Jim Acosta, the outcome appears predictable. If so, the three plaintiffs will be reinstated and confiscated credentials will be returned.
If and when that happens, what should these news outlets and the others who are now standing with them do? Should they return to the same abusive environment that saw them banned in the first place? An environment that degrades and demeans their work whenever Trump needs to feed his ego or his base? Or should they, with their new-found cudgel of silencing him, make a series of demands to shift the ground on which they might operate moving forward? The present actions have already demonstrated that, together, these media organizations have the ability to cut off the air supply that Trump routinely sucks out of every situation. If they translate this tactic into a much longer-term strategy (the threat of boycott) they could shift the relationship onto much healthier ground. Just as a bonus, Trump’s ranting and raving about his lack of coverage would, itself, be a ratings bonanza.
What kinds of demands should constitute the new order? First and foremost, should be an insistence that Trump treat the press in general with the respect that the First Amendment requires. No more “enemy of the people” and empty “fake news” epithets. Secondly, and equally importantly, should be a no-nonsense prohibition on attacks on individual journalists, particularly women journalists, and most especially female journalists of color. No more threatening lunges; no more “quiet piggy;” no more comments on appearance or (dis)ability or (too thinly veiled) race. Finally (although in cooler-head moments more demands might appear), the representatives of the press should insist on equal access for reporters and journalists from all viewpoints on the political spectrum. If Trump and his nearby psychophants are unwilling to negotiate these terms in good faith, and then abide by them, the press as a solidary group should be ready, able, and willing to close the Strait of No-News. After all, a spine is a terrible thing to waste!
Keep ReadingShow Less
'Elite Crime Spree': AI Execs Admit Scraping of News Outlets Was 'Largest Theft of Labor' in History
"If a foreign government or terrorist group did the kind of hacking and IP theft being done by AI giants, America would declare a national security emergency and start a war," said one journalist.
Sep 18, 2026
Publicly, billionaire artificial intelligence executives have denied that their product will ultimately replace people in jobs they've spent decades working at, with OpenAI CEO Sam Altman declaring that "AI won't replace humans, but humans who use AI will replace those who don't," in one effort to convince the public to embrace the deeply unpopular expansion of the technology.
But internal documents from OpenAI and Microsoft, unsealed as part of a lawsuit The New York Times and other news outlets filed against the two companies over their scraping of news content in order to train their AI models, tell a different story—one in which executives and workers at the tech giants were fully aware that the practice was meant to result in a "substitutive" product to replace journalists, after stealing millions of articles they'd written.
As the Times reported, employees at Microsoft wrote that by scraping the news content, they were committing the “largest theft of labor in human history.”
Nick Turley, the head of OpenAI's AI chatbot, ChatGPT, wrote that the technology posed an "existential threat" to news publishers and that the goal was for AI products to get "more and more substitutive"—although other employees said the stealing of news content could ultimately negatively impact the quality of the large language models (LLM) they were creating.
“It is highly unusual that an end-product threatens the economic foundations of its essential suppliers, but that is the situation we have created for our LLM business with respect to its ‘content supply chain,’” one document says.
Executives painted a picture of the companies gathering up news content from across the internet, ultimately leaving nothing behind.
Brent Hecht, Microsoft's director of applied science, wrote in an internal memo that eventually, an LLM is "a product that destroys its supply chain."
“Millions of people around the world will soon consider large models ‘hoovering up’ all their work to be an astonishing theft of unprecedented proportions,” Hecht wrote.
Although officials at the two companies expressed these views privately from 2020-24, in response to the lawsuit filed in late 2023 by the Times they have claimed that their use of news content is covered by "fair use" rules pertaining to copyrighted material, and that the articles were turned into new work and are therefore not substitutes for the original articles.
But the unsealed documents, said reporter Shawn Setaro of Complex, show that OpenAI and Microsoft "KNEW they were stealing, and KNEW they were destroying news outlets."
Hecht wrote in one memo that the companies' practice was making “a complete mockery of the idea of ‘fair use.’”
The internal memos were unsealed by Judge Sidney H. Stein of the District Court for the Southern District of New York, who is considering motions for a summary judgment in the lawsuit.
The Times and 11 other outlets that have joined the suit argue that OpenAI and Microsoft violated copyright laws.
One document showed that the companies even developed "a hack" to circumvent paywalls in order to collect paid content.
OpenAI President Greg Brockman replied, "Ah nice" to a note from a staffer telling him about the tool, but Microsoft DEO Satya Nadella said in a deposition that had he been aware that AI teams were scraping paywalled articles, he would have required that OpenAI retrain the models.
"If a foreign government or terrorist group did the kind of hacking and IP theft being done by AI giants, America would declare a national security emergency and start a war," said David Sirota of The Lever. "But because the crime is being done by Silicon Valley billionaires, we’re told by politicians and corporate media that it’s fine, that it should be accelerated, and that we should consider granting them new legal protections/exemptions, as well as new tax subsidies."
In 2020, then-OpenAI policy director Jack Clark wrote to Brockman and Altman that he was concerned the company's AI development practices would "increasingly lead to us creating systems that substitute for the labor of the people that define the ‘culture’ of society.”
While tech executives have spent recent years extolling the virtues of AI—and, recently, threatening that their technology has the capacity to wipe out humanity—Matt Stoller of the American Economic Liberties Project said the documents exposed AI as "an elite crime spree."
"From copyright violations to hacking to monopolization to sex trafficking, the companies behind AI violate the law," he said. "The problem isn't a lack of regulations, it's that the law doesn't apply to the powerful."
Keep ReadingShow Less
See More
Most Popular
To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good.
News & Opinion
Trending
Common Dreams, Inc. Founded 1997. Registered 501(c3) Non-Profit
Privacy Policy