CBS Gave US ALL the Middle Finger…MEIDAS RESPONDS!! MeidasTouch Network and Ben Meiselas May 20 By Ben Meiselas I had a great birthday yesterday, but now I am taking the gloves off. I am pissed off!! It appears that CBS and its parent company Paramount are moving closer to settling a BS lawsuit filed by Donald Trump—to pay Trump directly as a quid pro quo for the U.S. government approving the merger between Paramount and a company called Skydance. The merger would put approximately $5 billion in cash into the hands of Paramount shareholders, including its controlling shareholder Shari Redstone. Shari Redstone inherited Paramount—once called Viacom—from her dad, Sumner Redstone. Shari wants to sell her shares to Skydance so she can make billions. The merger requires approval by various United States government agencies, like the FCC. Trump’s FCC has threatened to withhold approval of the merger. Trump personally sued Paramount and CBS (which owns 60 Minutes) in Texas federal court, forum-shopping to get a Trump-appointed judge. He claims he was injured under Texas consumer laws because 60 Minutes lightly edited its interview with former VP Kamala Harris in October 2024. Trump was too scared to sit for an interview with 60 Minutes in this election cycle. Yet he claims he was injured to the tune of $20 billion based on how CBS presented its interview with Kamala Harris. In my opinion, it’s the dumbest and most frivolous lawsuit imaginable. In normal times, a lawsuit like this would be met with massive sanctions for vexatious litigation. But in the age of Trump, it’s now a shakedown tool—to demand personal settlements to enrich himself and use the levers of government approval processes to effectuate the shakedown. Yesterday, Wendy McMahon, the president and head of CBS News, resigned in protest because CBS’s corporate owners at Paramount want to cave to Trump. This follows Bill Owens, the head producer of 60 Minutes, resigning in protest a few weeks back for the same reason. There was a mediation held a few weeks back between Trump and Paramount to settle Trump’s BS lawsuit. My sources tell me a mediator proposal was made to settle the case. I hear Paramount desperately wants to accept the proposal and settle with Trump to complete their merger with Skydance—but their big hurdle was people like Owens, and especially McMahon, who rightfully view any settlement with Trump as the death of CBS News. I’ve seen various reports over the past 24 hours that confirm what I’ve heard: that the settlement range is between $30–50 million that Paramount is willing to pay Trump directly to clear the path for their $5 billion merger. This is so utterly pathetic and fascistic! First, I want to say I applaud the decisions of Bill Owens and Wendy McMahon for resigning in protest. While I doubt I could offer the same salaries you got at CBS, we’d love to discuss roles for you at the MeidasTouch Network. We are a subscriber-funded network from this Substack, and we don’t get our orders from anyone—especially not right-wing oligarchs. Have your people call my people. In other words, Bill and Wendy, email me. We are the most viewed independent media network in the world, and far more people watch us than CBS on digital platforms anyway. Second, as I reflect on what CBS is doing, I guess they are just making more MeidasTouch viewers. Whether it’s CBS and Paramount caving and kissing the ring, or other corporate news doing defamatory and despicable coverage of Biden while covering up for Trump, corporate news’s decline is MeidasTouch Network’s gain. Our original, independent, fearless reporting is the future of news. These oligarch-funded Trump enablers are writing their own obituaries by chasing Trump down the depths of depravity and lies. Third, even if the MeidasTouch Network benefits from the failures of corporate news like CBS, it doesn’t mean I root for their failure. I loved 60 Minutes under the leadership of Bill Owens and Wendy McMahon. There are still some good newscasters who shouldn’t be lumped in with the capitulating class—people who are fighting for their editorial independence each day and still doing good work, albeit in hostile work environments. I respect the craft of good journalism. I don’t like seeing CBS cave to Trump. I don’t like seeing their corporate overlords destroy the legacy of newsrooms that once did good reporting. But fourth, and finally, I go back to the MeidasTouch Network’s vision. We are independent. We are not beholden to right-wing oligarchs. Our only stakeholders are you—the MeidasMighty, the subscribers to this Substack. That’s why your subscriptions to this Substack are so incredibly valuable. It not only gives you access to content—it empowers the MeidasTouch Network to exist, thrive, and build a newsroom that fights fascism fearlessly and without the slightest hesitation. It’s why I always say: we need you to subscribe now to this Substack if you can. So when CBS and Paramount give us the middle finger, we give them our data. And our data shows that we are kicking their ass in digital views and downloads—and it’s not even close. I want to be able to expand MeidasTouch to one day acquire a show like 60 Minutes. I know we can do it. I know that we have laid the foundation to truly revolutionize the media, and build something that will be a force for good. I’ll leave you with this anecdote: Our coverage of the Romanian election this weekend was a major story within Romania. A headline from a popular Romanian website described how America’s top podcast and news network (the MeidasTouch Network) devoted attention to the victory by pro-democracy forces in the Romanian election, as the Trump-aligned candidate got upset. Whether it’s here in the USA, or in Canada, Australia, Romania, Poland, India—wherever—the MeidasTouch Network is bringing people together to support democracy and normalcy, and fight back against fascism around the world. And this is all happening at the same time American corporate news is consolidating under a corrosive state regime banner. I am not afraid of being arrested by Trump. Not to get morbid, but I am not afraid of being killed by Trump or his minions. I don’t fear this regime. I know my mission and my purpose, and I am laser-focused on that. I am putting it all out there. I will not look back and say I could have done this or that. But I can’t do it alone. We need your help. It’s now or never. Now’s the moment. Share this network with everyone now. Tell them about the MeidasTouch Network. Send them our live podcast from last night. Let me know in the comments how many people you referred to the MeidasTouch Network. In fact, let’s make it a competition and see who told the most people to watch our show from last night. Let me know in the comments. And finally—subscribe now to this Substack or gift subscriptions to people you know. We can send a powerful message to CBS and other cable news by growing this Substack bigger than anyone expects. Hit subscribe now. Thanks for subscribing—and thanks for spreading the word. Meidas+ is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support our work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.

Slot Machines: The Big Gamble

 

 

Lesley Stahl reports on the proliferation of gambling to 38 states and its main attraction, the slot machine, newer versions of which some scientists believe may addict their players.

In a shocking interview on Sunday’s episode of 60 Minutes, Facebook whistleblower Frances Haugen revealed the extent to which Facebook’s actions fueled the January 6 insurrection at the Capitol: “As soon as the election was over, [Facebook turned safety systems to reduce misinformation] back off or they changed the settings back to what they were before, to prioritize growth over safety. And that really feels like a betrayal of democracy to me...Facebook, over and over again, has shown it chooses profit over safety.” Sign if you agree: We must hold social media companies accountable for spreading false information and amplifying violence. Haugen confirmed what we already knew: Facebook is prioritizing its bottom line over the security of American democracy. Until Congress acts to regulate Facebook and other social media companies that spread disinformation and amplify violence, the likelihood of a second violent insurrection increases every day. Free Speech For People has introduced the Digital Accountability Act, a model bill that would hold social media companies accountable for amplifying disinformation and violence via their online platforms. With the Digital Accountability Act, we can end the unchecked corporate power of social media giants that jeopardize our safety and our democracy. Sign our petition: Support the Digital Accountability Act. In solidarity, Free Speech For People

 

Whistleblower: Facebook is misleading the public on progress against hate speech, violence, misinformation

Frances Haugen says in her time with Facebook she saw, "conflicts of interest between what was good for the public and what was good for Facebook." Scott Pelley reports.

Her name is Frances Haugen. That is a fact that Facebook has been anxious to know since last month when an anonymous former employee filed complaints with federal law enforcement. The complaints say Facebook's own research shows that it amplifies hate, misinformation and political unrest—but the company hides what it knows. One complaint alleges that Facebook's Instagram harms teenage girls. What makes Haugen's complaints unprecedented is the trove of private Facebook research she took when she quit in May. The documents appeared first, last month, in the Wall Street Journal. But tonight, Frances Haugen is revealing her identity to explain why she became the Facebook whistleblower.

• Facebook's response to 60 Minutes' report, "The Facebook Whistleblower"
• Facebook whistleblower says company incentivizes "angry, polarizing, divisive content"
  
• Watch Live: Facebook whistleblower Frances Haugen testifies before Senate committee
  

Frances Haugen: The thing I saw at Facebook over and over again was there were conflicts of interest between what was good for the public and what was good for Facebook. And Facebook, over and over again, chose to optimize for its own interests, like making more money. 

Frances Haugen is 37, a data scientist from Iowa with a degree in computer engineering and a Harvard master's degree in business. For 15 years she's worked for companies including Google and Pinterest.

Frances Haugen: I've seen a bunch of social networks and it was substantially worse at Facebook than anything I'd seen before.

Scott Pelley: You know, someone else might have just quit and moved on. And I wonder why you take this stand.

Frances Haugen: Imagine you know what's going on inside of Facebook and you know no one on the outside knows. I knew what my future looked like if I continued to stay inside of Facebook, which is person after person after person has tackled this inside of Facebook and ground themselves to the ground.

Scott Pelley: When and how did it occur to you to take all of these documents out of the company?

Frances Haugen: At some point in 2021, I realized, "Okay, I'm gonna have to do this in a systemic way, and I have to get out enough that no one can question that this is real."

  Frances Haugen

She secretly copied tens of thousands of pages of Facebook internal research. She says evidence shows that the company is lying to the public about making significant progress against hate, violence and misinformation. One study she found, from this year, says, "we estimate that we may action as little as 3-5% of hate and about 6-tenths of 1% of V & I [violence and incitement] on Facebook despite being the best in the world at it." 

Scott Pelley: To quote from another one of the documents you brought out, "We have evidence from a variety of sources that hate speech, divisive political speech and misinformation on Facebook and the family of apps are affecting societies around the world."

Frances Haugen: When we live in an information environment that is full of angry, hateful, polarizing content it erodes our civic trust, it erodes our faith in each other, it erodes our ability to want to care for each other, the version of Facebook that exists today is tearing our societies apart and causing ethnic violence around the world.

'Ethnic violence' including Myanmar in 2018 when the military used Facebook to launch a genocide. 

Frances Haugen told us she was recruited by Facebook in 2019. She says she agreed to take the job only if she could work against misinformation because she had lost a friend to online conspiracy theories. 

Frances Haugen: I never wanted anyone to feel the pain that I had felt. And I had seen how high the stakes were in terms of making sure there was high quality information on Facebook. 

At headquarters, she was assigned to Civic Integrity which worked on risks to elections including misinformation. But after this past election, there was a turning point.

Frances Haugen: They told us, "We're dissolving Civic Integrity." Like, they basically said, "Oh good, we made it through the election. There wasn't riots. We can get rid of Civic Integrity now." Fast forward a couple months, we got the insurrection. And when they got rid of Civic Integrity, it was the moment where I was like, "I don't trust that they're willing to actually invest what needs to be invested to keep Facebook from being dangerous."

Facebook says the work of Civic Integrity was distributed to other units. Haugen told us the root of Facebook's problem is in a change that it made in 2018 to its algorithms—the programming that decides what you see on your Facebook news feed.

Frances Haugen: So, you know, you have your phone. You might see only 100 pieces of content if you sit and scroll on for, you know, five minutes. But Facebook has thousands of options it could show you.

The algorithm picks from those options based on the kind of content you've engaged with the most in the past. 

Frances Haugen: And one of the consequences of how Facebook is picking out that content today is it is -- optimizing for content that gets engagement, or reaction. But its own research is showing that content that is hateful, that is divisive, that is polarizing, it's easier to inspire people to anger than it is to other emotions. 

Scott Pelley: Misinformation, angry content-- is enticing to people and keep--

Frances Haugen: Very enticing.

Scott Pelley:--keeps them on the platform.

Frances Haugen: Yes. Facebook has realized that if they change the algorithm to be safer, people will spend less time on the site, they'll click on less ads, they'll make less money.

Haugen says Facebook understood the danger to the 2020 Election. So, it turned on safety systems to reduce misinformation—but many of those changes, she says, were temporary. 

Frances Haugen: And as soon as the election was over, they turned them back off or they changed the settings back to what they were before, to prioritize growth over safety.

And that really feels like a betrayal of democracy to me.

Facebook says some of the safety systems remained. But, after the election, Facebook was used by some to organize the January 6th insurrection. Prosecutors cite Facebook posts as evidence--photos of armed partisans and text including, "by bullet or ballot restoration of the republic is coming!" Extremists used many platforms, but Facebook is a recurring theme. 

After the attack, Facebook employees raged on an internal message board copied by Haugen. "…Haven't we had enough time to figure out how to manage discourse without enabling violence?" We looked for positive comments and found this, "I don't think our leadership team ignores data, ignores dissent, ignores truth…" but that drew this reply, "welcome to Facebook! I see you just joined in November 2020… we have been watching… wishy-washy actions of company leadership for years now." "…Colleagues… cannot conscience working for a company that does not do more to mitigate the negative effects of its platform." 

Scott Pelley: Facebook essentially amplifies the worst of human nature.

Frances Haugen: It's one of these unfortunate consequences, right? No one at Facebook is malevolent, but the incentives are misaligned, right? Like, Facebook makes more money when you consume more content. People enjoy engaging with things that elicit an emotional reaction. And the more anger that they get exposed to, the more they interact and the more they consume.

That dynamic led to a complaint to Facebook by major political parties across Europe. This 2019 internal report obtained by Haugen says that the parties, "…feel strongly that the change to the algorithm has forced them to skew negative in their communications on Facebook… leading them into more extreme policy positions." 

Scott Pelley: The European political parties were essentially saying to Facebook the way you've written your algorithm is changing the way we lead our countries.

Frances Haugen: Yes. You are forcing us to take positions that we don't like, that we know are bad for society. We know if we don't take those positions, we won't win in the marketplace of social media. 

Evidence of harm, she says, extends to Facebook's Instagram app.

Scott Pelley: One of the Facebook internal studies that you found talks about how Instagram harms teenage girls. One study says 13.5% of teen girls say Instagram makes thoughts of suicide worse; 17% of teen girls say Instagram makes eating disorders worse.

Frances Haugen: And what's super tragic is Facebook's own research says, as these young women begin to consume this-- this eating disorder content, they get more and more depressed. And it actually makes them use the app more. And so, they end up in this feedback cycle where they hate their bodies more and more. Facebook's own research says it is not just the Instagram is dangerous for teenagers, that it harms teenagers, it's that it is distinctly worse than other forms of social media. 

Facebook said, just last week, it would postpone plans to create an Instagram for younger children.

Last month, Haugen's lawyers filed at least 8 complaints with the Securities and Exchange Commission which enforces the law in financial markets. The complaints compare the internal research with the company's public face—often that of CEO Mark Zuckerberg—who testified remotely to Congress last March.

Mark Zuckerberg testimony on March 25:
We have removed content that could lead to imminent real-world harm. We have built an unprecedented third-party fact checking program. The system isn't perfect. But it is the best approach that we have found to address misinformation in line with our country's values.

One of Frances Haugen's lawyers, is John Tye. He's the founder of a Washington legal group, called "Whistleblower Aid."

Scott Pelley: What is the legal theory behind going to the SEC? What laws are you alleging have been broken?

John Tye: As a publicly-traded company, Facebook is required to not lie to its investors or even withhold material information. So, the SEC regularly brings enforcement actions, alleging that companies like Facebook and others are making material misstatements and omissions that affect investors adversely.

Scott Pelley: One of the things that Facebook might allege is that she stole company documents.

John Tye: The Dodd-Frank Act, passed over ten years ago at this point, created an Office of the Whistleblower inside the SEC. And one of the provisions of that law says that no company can prohibit its employees from communicating with the SEC and sharing internal corporate documents with the SEC.

Frances Haugen: I have a lot of empathy for Mark. and Mark has never set out to make a hateful platform. But he has allowed choices to be made where the side effects of those choices are that hateful, polarizing content gets more distribution and more reach.

Facebook declined an interview. But in a written statement to 60 Minutes it said, "every day our teams have to balance protecting the right of billions of people to express themselves openly with the need to keep our platform a safe and positive place. We continue to make significant improvements to tackle the spread of misinformation and harmful content. To suggest we encourage bad content and do nothing is just not true." 

"If any research had identified an exact solution to these complex challenges, the tech industry, governments, and society would have solved them a long time ago."

Facebook is a $1 trillion company. Just 17 years old, it has 2.8 billion users, which is 60% of all internet-connected people on Earth. Frances Haugen plans to testify before Congress this week. She believes the federal government should impose regulations. 

Frances Haugen: Facebook has demonstrated they cannot act independently Facebook, over and over again, has shown it chooses profit over safety. It is subsidizing, it is paying for its profits with our safety. I'm hoping that this will have had a big enough impact on the world that they get the fortitude and the motivation to actually go put those regulations into place. That's my hope.

Produced by Maria Gavrilovic and Alex Ortiz. Broadcast associate, Michelle Karim. Edited by Michael Mongulla.

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CHiicN0Kg10

Jack Abramoff: The lobbyist's playbook

Lesley Stahl of CBS News gets 'Jacked' on '60 Minutes' Abramoff turns anchor's stomach with extent of corruption in Washington

Jack Abramoff, onetime power broker for the elite of Washington, D.C., is holding no punches in exposing corruption on Capitol Hill and warning it may run deeper and wider than most Americans can even imagine. "People are under the impression that the corruption only involves somebody handing over a check and getting that favor, and that's not the case," Abramoff told CBS's Lesley Stahl. "The bribery, call it, because ultimately that's what it is, that's what the whole [lobbying] system is ... it is done every day, and it is still being done. "The truth is there are very few members [of Congress] who I could even name or could think of who didn't at some level participate in that," he said. Abramoff appeared on Stahl's "60 Minutes" interview to discuss his new book, "Capitol Punishment: The Hard Truth About Washington Corruption From America’s Most Notorious Lobbyist," which, upon its official release in just hours from now, is already causing a firestorm among Washington's powerful lobbying community. At one time, Abramoff told Stahl, his lobbying firm had an estimated 100 members of Congress in its back pocket. Watch the interview here  Abramoff influenced legislators by lavishing them with access to private jets and junkets to the world's greatest golf destinations, free meals and access to the best tickets to area sporting events. But the best way to peddle influence, Abramoff said, was to tell congressmen's staffers high-salaried jobs would be waiting after their stint on Capitol Hill. The moment the job was offered, Abramoff explained, "That was it. We owned them. And what does that mean? Every request from our office, every request from our clients, everything that we want, they're going to do." "It was effective," Abramoff said. "Most congressmen don't feel they're being 'bought.' Most congressmen I think, can in their own mind justify the system." Stahl was stunned and personally sickened by the revelations, summarizing, "I really think what you were doing was subverting the essence of our system." "Absolutely right," Abramoff affirmed. "But our system is flawed and has to be fixed. Human beings populate our sytem. Human beings are weak." "And you preyed on that," Stahl asserted. "I did." Click here to watch the interview. Abramoff went on to explain how lobbyists can game the legislative process to secure payoffs for clients, often without their targets' express knowledge. By convincing members of Congress to insert into bills backdoor language that is intentionally obscure and draped in legal code, lobbyists can open up sweetheart holes in regulations for their clients. "We crafted language that was so obscure, so confusing, so uninformative, but so precise, to change the U.S. code," Abramoff said. It worked so well, he explained, because, "Members don't read the bills." Former Rep. Bob Ney confirmed Abramoff's story: "I had no idea [what the obscure, coded phrases changed in the law]; I didn't care," Ney said. "It was a great big shell game. ... I was dumb enough to not say, 'What's this thing do?'" In the span of 10 years, Jack Abramoff became the most powerful lobbyist on Capitol Hill. Congressmen lined up to do his bidding, executives heeded his advice and heads of governments hung on his every word. But scandal brought him down, ultimately casting him into prison. As the Abramoff name became synonymous with government corruption, the drastic fall from grace was his wake-up call. He now admits he did wrong. He lost sight of the "line," and he had plenty of time to reflect during his 43-month prison sentence. He has paid the price, and now he is ready and willing to discuss details – as well as his unique insight into the systemic reforms needed to prevent others from falling into "disgrace." Now a free man, "Capitol Punishment: The Hard Truth about Washington Corruption from America's Most Notorious Lobbyist," is Jack Abramoff's autobiographical exposé unveiling the mysterious and corrupt world of federal politics. In his book, Abramoff "outs" senators and members of Congress and sets out the details of insider deals previously unknown to most. But he also sets forth a Capitol Hill reform plan that would rock the fraternal inside-the-Beltway culture. Lobbying firms have been huddling to coordinate an attack on Abramoff, while press secretaries of members of Congress named in the book are churning out counter attacks as quickly as they can. However, official Washington does not have the option of ignoring Hurricane Jack, since his appearance on "60 Minutes," followed by scheduled interviews on the Today Show and Sean Hannity (radio and TV) tomorrow, CNN's Piers Morgan on Tuesday, Fox & Friends Wednesday, Lawrence O'Donnell on Thursday and many more. Among other revelations that already have surfaced, and the reactions they have elicited: • At The Hill, Kevin Bogardus quotes Abramoff discussing his massive program to get tickets to special events, such as Washington Redskins' NFL games, and delivering them to those he wanted to influence: "Our seemingly unlimited ability to dispense sports and concert tickets to the [Capitol] left scores of representatives and staff thinking we were Ticketmaster. For their purposes, we were." Bogardus reports Abramoff "paints an ugly picture of the lobbying industry in 'Capitol Punishment,' arguing that everyone on Capitol Hill and K Street is complicit in a system of favors and influence-peddling." • Politico reports Abramoff's prison sentence for cheating clients of lobbying fees and bribing lawmakers and staffers with lavish gifts enlightened him as to how to eliminate the problem: ban lobbyists from making campaign donations or giving any gifts. "No finger food, no snacks, no hot dogs. Nothing," he writes. "If you choose public service, choose it to serve the public, not your bank account. When you're done serving, go home. Get a real job." • Politico's MJ Lee also reported that Abramoff recalled having "100 congressmen in his pocket." • The Huffington Post reported Abramoff "attacks the people he feels wronged him, particular the members of the Senate Indian Affairs committee, whose blistering 2006 report exposed the extent of Abramoff's corruption." The report says Abramoff calls the committee's chairman, Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., as "classic narcissist," while he said former Republican Sen. Ben Nighthorse Campbell, R-Colo., "hurled invectives" at him, even though he took "$25,000 in campaign checks" from him. The report said Campbell called the narrative a lie. • The Atlanta Journal-Constitution said Abramoff also suggests government workers should be banned – for life – from lobbying their former coworkers and others in government. • MediaBistro cites the description of Abramoff as "a perfect bundle of contraditions: an Orthodox Jew and upstanding family man with a staunch moral streak, caught in multiple scandals of bribery and corruption with an undercurrent of murder." • CBS' own promotion of today's interview said Abramoff's reaction to new ethics reform laws approved by Congress was one of disdain. The interview shows him saying lobbyists are arrogant and will always have the attitude that "We're smarter than they are and we'll overcome it." • At the Say Anything Blog, Rob Port cut to the chase with a disturbing comment: "The truth is that the key to limiting government corruption is to limit government power. The less influence politicians have to sell to people like Abramoff and/or their clients the less corruption it will be. Think of government as a sort of protection racket run by organized crime. Lobbyists facilitate tribute payments to the local bosses in exchange for favors. The more power the government has to sell, the bigger the tribute payments and the more need for lobbyists." • The TPMMuckraker related how Abramoff said he was the one who convinced the Redskins to turn their prime stadium seating being used for reporters into private boxes for the wealthy, relegating reporters to the stratosphere. The scandals triggered by Abramoff led to the convictions of 20 people for payoffs in exchange for political favors, including Republican Rep. Bob Ney of Ohio. Abramoff was released in June after nearly fours years in federal prison. Published by WND Books, "Capitol Punishment" also reveals that Abramoff is "a smart, funny, charming, clear-eyed narrator who confounds every expectation of the media's villainous portrait." Adds the publisher: "While he is the villain in the black fedora hat to most of the world, this narrative unearths Abramoff, the human being – tortured, troubled, guilt-ridden, broken, sorrowful, penitent. There are lessons in this book for all – a compelling and redemptive story." Be among the first to get Jack Abramoff's new book – direct from the publisher. Personally autographed copies are also available only from the WND Superstore.