This reporter is giving us life!
During an on-air break, Fox 5 San Diego reporter Walter Morris delivered way more than news — he served up some fly dance moves to Silentó’s “Watch Me (Whip/Nae Nae).”
After seeing Morris do his thing on the monitors in between segments, the news anchors let the cameras roll.
“He’s so happy to be here that he dances like that,” the anchors said. “He loves his job.”
Yass, Walter Morris, get it!
Also on HuffPost:
– This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.
A British TV personality and columnist said she supports “euthanasia vans” because there are “too many old people.”
Katie Hopkins, who is currently a columnist for The Sun, made the comments during an interview with Radio Times magazine.
“We just have far too many old people,” she said. “It’s ridiculous to be living in a country where we can put dogs to sleep but not people.”
Her solution? Euthanasia vans that go to homes like ice cream trucks. “It would all be perfectly charming. They might even have a nice little tune they’d play. I mean this genuinely. I’m super-keen on euthanasia vans. We need to accept that just because medical advances mean we can live longer, it’s not necessarily the right thing to do.”
Hopkins defended her controversial stances in a video published Tuesday by the Guardian.
“I have to be fearless in my defense of my opinion, and that’s what I try to do,” she said. “I think, actually, I give a voice to … the regular, good, everyday British citizen who’s trying their best to do the right thing for their family. For me, that’s who I represent. That’s who I’m really keen to stand up for.”
Hopkins is gearing up for the debut of her panel show on TLC, “If Katie Hopkins Ruled The World,” set to premiere next month.
– This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.
HuffPost What’s Working Honor Roll: A New Program Helps Parents And Kids Learn Tech Skills Alongside Each Other
As journalists, we dutifully report on what’s going wrong, from scandals and corruption to natural disasters and social problems. But far too often the media fails to show the whole picture, neglecting to tell the stories of what is working. From scientific breakthroughs to successful crime-reduction initiatives, the What’s Working Honor Roll highlights some of the best reporting and analysis, from a range of media outlets, on all the ways people are working toward solutions to some of our greatest challenges.
A new educational program called Tech Goes Home is helping parents and their preschool-aged children learn tech skills alongside each other. The aim of the program is to create more productive shared screen time between parents and youngsters; while children develop cognitive skills through educational apps, parents improve their computer literacy. Local teachers and administrators, trained by TGH, facilitate the tech classes.
“The goal is to help the parent get comfortable with the technology, so they can get involved and engage with their child’s use of the computer, to see it as a learning tool, instead of a pacifier or a babysitter,” librarian Jamie Dunne-Duarte told Slate.
Currently, 175 young children are enrolled in the program, ranging in age from preschool to first grade. Many come from poor families in black and Hispanic communities that may not have access to high-speed broadband service in their homes.
Although the program isn’t free, it’s cheap for participants: a $50 registration fee allows parents to purchase an iPad for classroom use. TGH also aides parents in finding low-cost broadband Internet service providers.
Theodora Higginson, the co-director of TGH, envisions at least 100 more families enrolling in the early-childhood courses for the 2015–2016 school year.
“We’ll sit down and play with it together,” Eileen Pena said about going to the program with her daughter. “I ask her questions. And she’ll say, ‘OK, Mommy, this is what you do. You do this, you do this and you do this.’ I’m actually learning from her.”
If you know a story you think should be on our Honor Roll, please send an email to our editorial fellow via firstname.lastname@example.org with the subject line: “WHAT’S WORKING.”
Also on HuffPost :
– This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.
Oops, I Did It Again
Just last month the fashion world learned of yet another social media casualty as J.Crew’s Alejandro Rhett, the vice president of men’s merchandising, posed for Instagram photos after staff layoffs. Hashtagged #hungergames and #maytheoddsbeeverinyourfavor, the insensitive photos were quickly deleted, but screenshots can still be seen on the Web.
Just a week earlier, a fourth-grade teacher at Texas’ Bennett Elementary school posted an article to her Facebook page in response to the now-famous, “pool party” incident in nearby McKinney, Texas. “This makes me ANGRY!” reads the post from Fitzgibbons, referring to police officer Eric Casebolt’s resignation after being caught video throwing a black, bikini-clad teenage girl to the ground. “This officer should not have to resign. I’m going to just go ahead and say it…the blacks are the ones causing the problems and this ‘racial tension,’” she continued. “I guess that’s what happens when you flunk out of school and have no education.”
These types of social media missteps have Americans increasingly concerned about what they post online. According to a new YouGov Omnibus survey, Americans who admit to making mistakes on social media are less worried today about sounding foolish than they were two years ago, but much more worried about damaging their reputation at work. Twenty-one percent surveyed are concerned they might adversely affect their careers with a questionable social media post.
The same survey found 14 percent are afraid they may hurt relationships with family or partners by sharing misguided images or messages. As it turns out, 24 percent of women were much more likely to worry about possible damage to their close relationships than men, at 18 percent. Racially, while men appear are more worried about the effect of such blunders on their career, than women, at 20 percent versus 8 percent, respectively.
Taken as a whole, 57 percent of Americans who use social media have posted or texted something that they regret afterwards. One in six regret a post at least once a week, and these numbers vary depending on age, with 20 percent of Millennials (18 to 34) being the worst regular offenders.
When these mistakes occur, is an interesting aspect of the study. Social media blunders are happening at home, late at night when tired, or after drinking alcohol. And these habits vary widely depending on the age group, with statistical results below.
In the end, the moral of the social media story is: stay conscientious, my friends. You never know what may come of an impromptu share.
What has the right-wing Media Research Center’s “media research” been reduced to these days? Complaining that a story is accurately reported in the media.
As one might expect, the MRC has joined the rest of the right-wing media in being all over a video secretly recorded by anti-abortion activists at the “Center for Medical Progress” of a Planned Parenthood official allegedly talking about how it sell some fetal remains following an abortion for research with the permission of the woman — even though they are so far highlighting the deceptively edited, out-of-context claims and ignoring the full story.
You’ll find none of that deception mentioned at the MRC. Ken Shepherd, managing editor of the MRC’s NewsBusters blog, devoted a post to bashing the Associated Press for reporting the story accurately:
We’ve long known that the Associated Press is loathe to refer to unborn children as unborn children, preferring the clinical term “fetus.” But in covering a shocking new story about how Planned Parenthood sells fetal tissue from aborted babies for profit, the AP bent over backwards to use clinical euphemisms to soften the blow of the ghoulish practice.
Yes, Shepherd is attacking the AP for using a medically accurate term instead of the imprecise, emotionally charged one he would prefer. Strangely, Shepherd is mad about this but not the deceptively edited video first released by the anti-abortion activists who secretly taped the Planned Parenthood official.
Shepherd might want to look a little closer to home to vent his outrage over accurate reporting — say, across the hall at MRC headquarters. At MRC “news” division CNSNews.com, its lead article when the story broke was an AP article that references “fetuses” — in other words, a version of the one that Shepherd despised. But as in CNS tradition of putting biased headlines on AP articles, it rewrote the headline to refer to “baby body parts,” which is just as inaccurate as Shepherd’s insistence that the AP refer to “unborn children.”
A July 15 NewsBusters item by Curtis Houck complained that TV newscasts accurately identified the Center for Medical Progress, which released the dishonestly edited video, as “anti-abortion activists,” whining about “the media’s long-standing refusal to use the ‘pro-life’ label for conservatives.” But the CMP is unquestionably anti-abortion and they’re unquestionably activists — the organization and its board is stuffed with them, so it’s absolutely accurate to describe them as “anti-abortion activists.”
Shepherd followed up with more clueless anti-media ranting in the form of a July 16 post complaining that the Daily Beast accurately identified CMP leader David Daleiden as an “extremist,” asserting that the goal was to “character-assassinate the messenger.” At no point did Shepherd dispute the accuracy of anything the Daily Beast reported about Daleiden, including the “extremist” descriptor. One could say the real character assassin here is Daleiden himself with his deceptive videos — a deception Shepherd does not acknowledge.
Needless to say, Shepherd doesn’t mention that one of the anti-abortion groups behind Daleiden is Operation Rescue. As we documented last year when WorldNetDaily published a book by Operation Rescue leaders Troy Newman and Cheryl Sullenger, a phone number for Sullenger was found in the car of Scott Roeder upon his arrest for killing abortion doctor George Tiller in 2009. Roeder has also claimed he ate lunch with Newman and Sullenger several years before he murdered Tiller, where he claims Newman said that Tiller being murdered wouldn’t upset him. Sullenger, meanwhile, was sentenced to three years in prison in 1988 for conspiring to bomb a California abortion clinic.
Yet Shepherd apparently believes these people aren’t “extremists.” (Sullenger now claims she “regrets” plotting to “damage” the abortion clinic, and Newman denied any connection between Roeder and Operation Rescue after Roeder’s arrest.)
Numerous other MRC posts complain about coverage of the videos but won’t acknowledge the indisputable fact that they were dishonestly edited. And it wouldn’t be a full MRC party if the bigwigs didn’t weigh in, so Brent Bozell and Tim Graham did just that in a July 17 column full of accusatory bluster (“The video will chill you to the bone. It cannot be described as anything but what it is: evil”) and, like the writings of their subordinates, utterly devoid of any acknowledgment that the videos are dishonestly edited to tell a story that isn’t true.
That river of denial continued in the face of a New York Times editorial pointing out the anti-abortion campaign to destroy Planned Parenthood using the deceptively edited videos as a centerpiece — an editorial that so offended the MRC that three separate writers were dispatched to bash it.
Alan Moore took to the MRCTV blog, but not to address the facts outlined in the editorial. Instead, he declared it to be “hateful” and groused that “The article also paints the pro-life organization as ‘dishonest’ and guilty of ‘deception’ in their practices,” but he never responds to the claim of deception — perhaps because he knows it’s true. So he tried to distract from the dishonesty by going into rant mode, asserting that the editorial is “reminiscent of the ‘war on women’ mantra used by the Left in the last presidential election cycle.”
A July 22 NewsBusters post by Spencer Raley also attacking the Times editorial took exactly the same tack, raging over “the openly left-wing editors from the Times” and falsely claiming that the Times “failed to provide proof that the allegations made in the video are false” — which he followed by quoting from the Times providing that proof.
Katie Yoder’s July 23 NewsBusters post attacked the Times for pointing the dishonesty out, adding (italics in original): “Instead of addressing The Center for Medical Progress’ horrific claims that a taxpayer-funded organization is harvesting aborted baby parts, the board focused on ripping apart The Center for Medical Progress’ legitimacy.” Yoder apparently can’t even fathom the idea that the dishonest videos pose unavoidable questions about CMP’s legitimacy. Yoder then tried to distract from the issue by changing the subject, asserting that “In the past, the Times has supported undercover work.”
Just as the CMP’s dishonesty has undermined its by-any-means-necessary campaign to destroy Planned Parenthood, the MRC’s refusal to admit that dishonesty is undermining its argument that the “liberal media” is ignoring the story. The MRC is demanding that lies be presented as truth and that the truth must be buried — the exact opposite of how journalism is supposed to work.
At the end of Yoder’s post is a link to an MRC petition asking that readers “demand the media tell the truth about Planned Parenthood!” Actually, the media is telling the truth; it’s the MRC that won’t follow its own advice.
(An expanded version of this post is available at ConWebWatch.)
Every week, The WorldPost asks an expert to shed light on a topic driving headlines around the world. Today, we speak with author Fred Abrahams about politics and the past in Albania.
While it may be little known to many in the West, Albania is a country with a unique and tragic history. Under a brutal communist dictatorship for much of the 20th century, it was almost completely cut off from the world until the regime finally began to deteriorate when the Berlin Wall fell.
After thousands of Albanians stormed foreign embassies in 1990 to seek asylum during the breakup of the Soviet Union, the western Balkan nation’s government began to create a path to elections.
Albania’s transition to democracy is a case study in the successes and failures of a country emerging from years of isolation. Now, as a candidate for the European Union, the nation still faces immense challenges left over from a legacy of repression and hardship.
In his new book, Modern Albania, author and Human Rights Watch special advisor Fred Abrahams details the country’s struggle and drive for change. The WorldPost spoke with Abrahams about his research into a fascinating transition that is still continuing today.
How repressive was Albania’s government before it broke with communism?
Well, it’s difficult to imagine a country being more repressive. I think North Koreans would feel at home there; probably Russians in the darkest days of Stalin would feel familiarities with communist Albania, but almost no one else.
It was totally isolated from the outside world. Almost nobody got into Albania as a visitor. Almost no one except for the most trusted party elite got out of Albania, and [the Party of Labor of Albania] ruled with fierce discipline and control.
I think North Koreans would feel at home there; probably Russians in the darkest days of Stalin would feel familiarities with communist Albania, but almost no one else.
I say party, but actually what was unique about Albania was that it was really just one man. The dictator of Albania was a guy called Enver Hoxha, whose rule was unbroken from World War II until his death in 1985, and who tolerated no dissent.
The slightest indiscretion or divergence from his ideology would land you and your family in prison.
I believe you’ve mentioned that it could be things as minor as playing The Beatles?
Exactly, very minor acts could condemn you and your whole family to lifelong internal exile or prison.
Listening to forbidden music like The Beatles, for instance, or trying to watch television from neighboring Italy, Greece or Yugoslavia. As a result, there was a state of fear and a near total lack of dissidents.
Was there a Stalinist-style cult of personality around Hoxha?
The cult of personality around Enver Hoxha was intense, cultivated and craftily implemented. He was the guiding light, the Big Brother. They called him “Uncle Enver.”
People viewed him as this patriarchal figure, who, in his wisdom and benevolence, would guide Albania out of poverty and into modernity. His image was on every wall, his speeches were cited in every article and his name was literally engraved into mountainsides.
Following the fall of communism, how would you describe Albania’s transition from a fully closed society to a somewhat open democracy?
It’s been chaotic, ad hoc and at times violent — but also moving towards more openness. Albania is a far better place today than it was before. It’s a place now where people can more or less express their opinions, [and have] freedom of religion and freedom of speech.
You can’t compare the Albania of today to that of [the communist era], but after suffering almost five decades of dictatorship, democracy is not easily built.
One of the huge mistakes from Western policy was believing democracy comes with elections and free market reform, and Albania is a case study of that not being true. Democracy comes from democratic institutions and
democratic culture, and those are two things lacking in Albania today.
What role has U.S. policy played in Albania’s transition to democracy?
The U.S. played a huge role; it’s the most significant foreign power by far in Albania’s transition. After the Cold War, Albanians, in their rejection of communism, swung quickly in the other direction and embraced the United States. The most important thing for an Albanian leader is to visit the White House. It’s the biggest popularity boost you could ever get back home.
One of the huge mistakes from Western policy was believing democracy comes with elections and free market reform, and Albania is a case study of that not being true.
So the relationship is very strong, but the U.S. role in Albania has been mixed. One of the key criticisms throughout my book is how the U.S. fixated on individual leaders in Albania and not on the institutions.
Especially in the first years, U.S. policy supported the new so-called democratic leader, this guy named Sali Berisha. He spoke English, he said the right things in English, he was determined to destroy the legacy of communism, and the Americans supported him 110 percent.
But this was a nasty guy who tolerated no criticism, imprisoned journalists, beat up opposition members and kept a fierce control. The U.S. turned a blind eye to all of that in those days, because he was their guy.
I interviewed a lot of U.S. officials from that time, and they said, “What do you expect from a country that is emerging from dictatorship?”
I think that was a huge mistake, because U.S. leverage in Albania was very strong and they could have still supported Berisha, but drawn lines to constrain his power. The U.S. failed to do that, and Albania is still suffering from that mistake today.
What are some of the problems that still plague Albania?
Probably the biggest single problem is the lack of institutions — the pillars of a society that provide services, and check and balance each other.
It’s the judiciary, it’s the media, it’s the police and secret police that should all operate based on the law instead of serving a political power.
Albania today is also still terribly corrupt.
Albania today is also still terribly corrupt, both on a petty level and also on a larger level. The connections between business and politics are still very high, and that’s the big challenge for [the country] to move forward and join the EU.
Is there anything that you wish people knew about Albania in general?
The main thing would be how difficult the history of this country has been. The communist period is the most recent black mark, but prior to that, there was terrible suffering and a legacy of occupation. These are people who have had a rough go of it, and are trying to emerge from all of that tumultuous history.
They were in the icebox of history for five decades, and it’s still thawing.
The interview has been edited and condensed for clarity.
More from The WorldPost’s Weekly Interview Series:
- Is Al Qaeda In Decline?
- Anguish In Argentina After Prosecutor’s Mysterious Death
- Could The New Syriza Government Be Good For Greece’s Economy?
- Other Countries Change Their Gun Laws After Mass Shootings. Why Not America?
An explosive New York Times story detailing a potential probe of Hillary Clinton’s use of a private email account unravelled quickly on Friday morning, prompting questions about how inaccurate, politically sensitive information could end up in the paper of record.
At issue was a Times breaking news alert sent out in the late hours of Thursday evening, reporting that inspectors general were asking the Justice Department to open a criminal investigation into whether Clinton sent classified information from her private server. By the next day, the story had changed, slightly but significantly. The subject of the investigation wasn’t Clinton, per se, but whether she was on the receiving end of the information in question. Hours later, it changed again, this time more significantly. The Department of Justice said that the probe requested wasn’t criminal in nature, but rather investigative. And then, it grew even more complicated, with the State Department inspector general saying they didn’t even ask for an investigation at all.
As the different chapters of this in-the-weeds saga progressed, attention turned to the Times, which has been the tip of the spear in reporting on Clinton’s use of a private email account and server. Times reporter Michael Schmidt, who co-bylined Thursday’s story, also broke the news in March that Clinton had violated government protocol by exclusively using a private email account at the State Department.
In a correction appended to the Times article online, editors acknowledged having “misstated the nature of the referral” related to Clinton’s email use, which the paper had described as “criminal.” Though a Department of Justice official initially told reporters the referral was “criminal” in nature after the Times story was published, the agency reversed course and said it was not. Times editors also wrote that the referral from two inspectors general did not “specifically request an investigation” into Clinton.
By midday, the paper was under withering criticism from progressives online, who accused it of sparking a wave of outrage over ultimately faulty charges. Other nonpartisan sources were suggesting that Republicans on the Select Committee investigating the 2012 attacks on the compound in Benghazi were behind the inaccurate leak.
What leapt out when I saw NYT story was "provided by senior government official." Not "executive branch" or "Justice Dept" Meaning Congress!
— Norman Ornstein (@NormOrnstein) July 24, 2015
The Clinton campaign itself wasn’t shy about calling the story bunk, pushing back hard on the Times, demanding and receiving a revision in the piece and accusing congressional Republicans of going outside their jurisdictions to attack the former secretary of state.
The avalanche of pushback left the Times in an uncomfortable spot. The paper initially rejected calls to issue a correction. When it was later forced to do so, it seemed unwilling to completely abandon the story. By late Friday afternoon, the paper was still running a headline that labeled the investigation into Clinton’s email usage a “criminal inquiry.” Its lead sentence also still stated, “Two inspectors general have asked the Justice Department to open a criminal investigation.”
A Times spokeswoman did not immediately respond to questions about whether those two elements of the story would be changed.
But even if they are, it’s unlikely that the same audience will see the updated version unless the paper were to send out a second breaking news email with its latest revisions. The Clinton story also appeared the front page of Friday’s print edition.
For Clinton critics, the dispute over the paper’s handling of this news item still obscures the larger problem, which is that as secretary of state, she used a private email account that could have compromised sensitive government information. Indeed, lost in the back-and-forth Friday was a Wall Street Journal story that detailed how several emails containing classified information made it into her inbox. The information wasn’t classified at the time, but rather received the designation retroactively.
“None of the emails we reviewed had classification or dissemination markings, but some included IC-derived classified information and should have been handled as classified, appropriately marked, and transmitted via a secure network,” wrote Inspector General I. Charles McCullough in a letter to Congress.
The debate over the article also underscores just how delicate reporting on Clinton’s email setup has become in the early stages of the presidential campaign.
Each report drops amid a well-established narrative. Clinton is held to an unfair standard by the press and maligned by the right, supporters say. Her email use is indicative of Clintonian paranoia and a penchant for secrecy, critics counter.
And reporters, often relying on anonymous sources, are going to face questions about the motivations of those providing information. They’re also likely to encounter intense scrutiny from pro-Clinton organizations like Correct the Record and Media Matters for America. If a story isn’t completely airtight, the campaign and such media watchdogs are sure to pick apart discrepancies, whether minuscule, or in this case, significant. Even a correction doesn’t always end the complaints.
Correct the Record slammed the Times’ “bogus” story late Friday afternoon and suggested it fit a pattern of “thin sourcing, excess hype, and a tag-team rollout with the hyper-partisan, Republican-led House Benghazi circus.” Shortly thereafter, Media Matters Chairman David Brock wrote a letter to Times publisher Arthur Sulzberger Jr., urging him to appoint a commission to examine the reporting behind Thursday’s story and three previous Clinton reports the group has also criticized.
“David Brock is a partisan,” a Times spokeswoman responded in a statement. “It is not surprising that he is unhappy with some of our aggressive coverage of important political figures. We are proud of that coverage and obviously disagree with his opinion.”
The Bob & Chez Show Podcast: Conspiracy Theorist Alex Jones Attacks Bob Regarding the Planned Parenthood Gotcha Video, Plus Trump and Jeb Bush
Today’s topics include: Alex Jones Attacks Bob for his Planned Parenthood Article; Dan Bidondi Defends Trump’s John McCain Remarks; Ben Carson Thinks Planned Parenthood is Eliminating Black People; Trump Might Run as a Third Party Candidate; Jeb Bush’s Head Deflates, Says Medicare Should Be Phased Out; and much more.
The Bob & Chez Show is a funny, fast-paced political podcast that doesn’t take itself too seriously. The twice-weekly podcast is hosted by Bob Cesca (Salon.com, The Huffington Post, The Daily Banter, The Stephanie Miller Show), and CNN/MSNBC producer turned writer Chez Pazienza. Follow the show at www.bobcesca.com with special thanks to April Cockerham.
We’ve known for years that search engines like Google change how humans remember information – so what happens when we use online services to keep track of where we’ve been in life?
Google on Tuesday announced a new update to its Maps program which will allow people to visualize all of the places they’ve visited, so long as they were carrying smartphones at the time. It’s called “Your Timeline,” and it’s currently rolling out for Android devices and desktop browsers, meaning users should be able to access it over the next couple of days if they can’t already. A spokeswoman for Google told The Huffington Post that there are “no specific plans” for iOS.
Your Timeline displays the route you took to a given location, provided you had your location services turned on, as well as any pics you snapped that day, if you’re a Google Photos user. You can also look through your history to see where you were on a given day, month or year.
For example, say you’ve taken a June vacation to New York City. You’re staying at a Marriott in Manhattan. You wake up at 7 a.m., walk to a nearby Starbucks, happen to run into Susan Sarandon on the street, snap a selfie with her, take the subway to the Museum of Natural History, grab a burger at McDonald’s nearby (you can do better, but you’re starving) and taxi back to the hotel for a nap. If you’ve opted into the Your Timeline feature, you could, in theory, revisit that day years down the line, see exactly where you went, ?look at your smiling mug next to Sarandon’s and regret once more that you didn’t try a more adventurous lunch spot.
The feature is entirely opt-in right now, meaning you don’t have to use it, and Google says it’s “private and visible only to you.” If you want, you can delete certain days — maybe you have a bad break-up — or your entire history.
That last part might raise an interesting question. Remember “Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind,” the Michel Gondry flick where Jim Carrey and Kate Winslet get a weird sci-fi procedure to forget their relationship ever happened?
Memories disappear in “Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind.” (Source)
Well, deleting a “day” from your Google timeline isn’t the same as scrubbing your brain, of course, but consider how our gadgets have already started to meld with our brains in weird ways. As Clive Thompson explored in his book Smarter Than You Think, our phones, with their easy access to search engines, have already become a kind of memory partner for us. Much the same as you’d ask your human partner about the name of “that movie we saw a few months ago,” you “ask” your phone to quickly find information for you.
Research has shown that relying on search engines for information leads us to remember fewer facts for ourselves. In practice, that might mean that you no longer bother to memorize state capitals or how many cups are in a quart, but it begs the question: What happens when we rely on much the same technology from Google to track where we’ve been in our own lives via location data and automatically tagged photographs?
Of course, any freakouts about this particular software may not be totally warranted: iOS has offered similar, if shallower, tracking functionality for years, and many of us already manually catalogue our lives on the likes of Facebook, Twitter and Instagram.
Still, it’s an interesting look at what our increasingly connected future may hold.
Ever since Donald Trump claimed Saturday that Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) isn’t a war hero — or, maybe, is one only because he was captured in Vietnam — cable networks have covered those remarks without pause.
The national media are obsessed with Trump, who has ridden the feedback loop of press attention to the top of the Republican presidential primary polls. Trump’s comments last month about Mexican immigrants being “rapists” drew extensive coverage as well. But the McCain swipe seemed to send TV bookers into a unique frenzy.
Over four days, The Huffington Post found 162 people — rival presidential candidates, other politicians, strategists, analysts, journalists and former prisoners of war — have been asked to offer their take on Trump’s comment and/or how it will affect the 2016 primary.
Not included in the list is White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest, whose take on the fracas was broadcast when he delivered it during his daily briefing. Nor are MSNBC viewers, who were polled on Monday as to whether the McCain comments made Trump unpresidential.
All told, 20 current and former lawmakers were asked to address L’Affaire Trump. Trump himself called in to ABC’s “This Week” and “Fox & Friends” to respond, as well as commenting on camera on Fox News’ “The O’Reilly Factor.” McCain went on air too, as did two of his children.
Here is the complete list, compiled through a search of CNN, MSNBC, Fox News and the broadcast network Sunday shows from noon Saturday through noon Tuesday, using TVEyes. The list doesn’t include hosts, unless they weighed in as a guest on another program.
- Alan Colmes, radio host
- Amber Smith, Concerned Veterans for America
- Amy Holmes, MSNBC contributor
- Ana Navarro, CNN commentator
- Andrea Mitchell, NBC News
- Angela Rye, Impact Strategies
- Ann Coulter, conservative commentator
- Anthony Terrell, NBC News
- Barry McCaffrey, retired general
- Ben Domenech, The Federalist
- Ben Ferguson, host of “The Ben Ferguson Show”
- Ben Sasse, senator from Nebraska
- Benjy Sarlin, MSNBC
- Betsy Woodruff, The Daily Beast
- Bill Kristol, Weekly Standard
- Bill Richardson, former governor of New Mexico
- Bob Cusack, The Hill
- Bob Kerrey, former senator from Nebraska
- Bob Vander Plaats, CEO of The Family Leader
- Brad Woodhouse, Americans United for Change
- Bret Baier, anchor of Fox News’ “Special Report”
- Brianna Keilar, CNN
- Brit Hume, Fox News senior political analyst
- Caitlin Huey-Burns, Real Clear Politics
- Carl Cameron, Fox News
- Carl Higbie, former Navy SEAL
- Charles Blow, New York Times columnist
- Charlie Plumb, retired captain, former Navy pilot and POW with McCain
- Charlie Rangel, congressman from New York
- Chris Cillizza, The Washington Post
- Chris Dodd, former senator from Connecticut
- Chris Jansing, NBC News
- Corey Lewandowski, campaign manager for Donald Trump
- Cornell Belcher, Democratic strategist and analyst
- Damien Lemon, comedian
- Dan Caldwell, legislative director of Concerned Veterans for America
- Dana Bash, CNN
- Daniel Halper, Weekly Standard
- Danielle Pletka, Foreign and Defense Policy Studies, American Enterprise Institute
- David Chalian, CNN political director
- David Corn, Mother Jones
- Deneen Borelli, Conservative Review
- Donald Trump (on Bill O’Reilly’s show)
- Donna Brazile, CNN political commentator
- Ed O’Keefe, The Washington Post
- Ed Rendell, former governor of Pennsylvania
- Ed Rollins, Republican strategist
- EJ Dionne, Washington Post columnist
- Elahe Izadi, The Washington Post
- Ellis Henican, political strategist
- Errol Louis, New York 1 political anchor and CNN analyst
- Eugene Robinson, The Washington Post
- Everett Alvarez, retired commander and former POW
- Frank Luntz, pollster and Fox News contributor
- Geraldo Rivera, Fox News senior correspondent
- Gloria Borger, CNN chief political analyst
- Guy Benson, Townhall.com
- Gwen Ifill, PBS
- Harold Ford Jr., former congressman from Tennessee
- Howard Fineman, The Huffington Post
- Howard Kurtz, Mediabuzz host
- Jack Jacobs, retired colonel and NBC/MSNBC analyst
- Jack McCain, son of the senator and a former Navy helicopter pilot
- Jackie Kucinich, The Daily Beast
- James Rosen, Fox News chief Washington correspondent
- Jamie Weinsten, Daily Caller
- James Williams, retired major general, U.S. Marine Corps
- Jane Harman, former congresswoman from California
- Jane Timm, MSNBC reporter on the trail with Trump in South Carolina
- Jeffrey Lord, former political director for Ronald Reagan
- Jehmu Greene, former 2008 Clinton campaign adviser
- Jennifer Granholm, former governor of Michigan
- Jeremy Peters, The New York Times
- Jim Jordan, congressman from Ohio
- Jim Webb, former senator from Virginia and 2016 presidential candidate
- Joan Walsh, Salon
- John Heilemann, Bloomberg Politics
- John Kirby, State Department spokesman
- John Leboutillier, former congressman from New York
- John McCain, senator from Arizona
- John McCormack, Weekly Standard
- John Pedevillano, retired lieutenant and WWII veteran
- John Stanton, BuzzFeed
- Jon Karl, ABC News
- Jonathan Allen, VOX
- Jonathan Alter, columnist and MSNBC analyst
- Joy Reid, MSNBC
- Julie Pace, The Associated Press
- Kathleen Parker, Washington Post columnist
- Katty Kay, BBC
- Katy Tur, NBC reporter who recently interviewed Trump
- Kayleigh McEnany, Political Prospect
- Kevin Madden, Republican strategist and CNN commentator
- Kristen Welker, MSNBC
- Larry Sabato, director of the University of Virginia’s Center for Politics
- Laura Ingraham, radio host
- Lauren Fox, National Journal
- Lee Ellis, retired colonel and former Vietnam POW
- Leo K. Thorsness, retired colonel and McCain’s cellmate in Vietnam
- Lindsey Graham, senator from South Carolina and 2016 candidate
- Liz Mair, Republican strategist
- Luke Russert, NBC News
- LZ Granderson, ESPN
- Maggie Haberman, The New York Times and CNN analyst
- Marc Lamont Hill, HuffPostLive host and CNN commentator
- Marco Rubio, senator from Florida and 2016 candidate
- Margaret Hoover, CNN political analyst
- Mark Halperin, Bloomberg Politics
- Mark Leibovich, New York Times Magazine
- Mark Murray, NBC News
- Mark Preston, CNN
- Martha Pease, brand expert
- Matt Lewis, Daily Caller
- Matt Schlapp, chairman of the American Conservative Union
- Matt Welch, Reason Magazine
- McKay Coppins, BuzzFeed
- Megan McCain, radio host and the senator’s daughter
- Michael Cohen, executive vice president of the Trump Organization
- Michael Eric Dyson, Georgetown University
- Michael Needham, CEO of Heritage Action for America
- Michael Smerconish, radio and CNN host
- Michael Steele, former chairman of the Republican National Committee
- Mike Emanuel, Fox News
- MJ Lee, CNN
- Mollie Hemingway, The Federalist
- Molly Ball, The Atlantic
- Montel Williams, TV host
- Nia-Malika Henderson, CNN
- Nick Confessore, The New York Times
- Orson Swindle, retired lieutenant colonel and former POW
- Patrick Murphy, former congressman from Pennsylvania
- Patti Solis Doyle, former 2008 Clinton campaign manager and CNN commentator
- Peter Baker, The New York Times
- Peter King, congressman from New York
- Richard Haas, Council on Foreign Relations
- Rick Perry, former governor of Texas and 2016 candidate
- Rick Santorum, former senator from Pennsylvania and 2016 candidate
- Rick Wilson, GOP media consultant
- Robert Costa, The Washington Post
- Robert Kiger, Trump supporter
- Robert Tranum, Republican strategist
- Robert Zimmerman, Democratic strategist
- Ron Brownstein, National Journal
- Ron Christie, Republican strategist
- Ruth Marcus, The Washington Post
- Ryan Lizza, The New Yorker and CNN commentator
- S.E. Cupp, CNN commentator
- Sally Kohn, CNN commentator
- Scott Brown, former senator from Massachusetts
- Scott Walker, governor of Wisconsin and 2016 candidate
- Sharyl Attkisson, investigative journalist
- Stephen Dinan, The Washington Times
- Stephen Hayes, Weekly Standard
- Steve Deace, radio host
- Steve Rattner, former Obama car czar
- Tammy Bruce, radio host
- Tara Dowdell, Democratic commentator
- Tara Setmayer, Republican strategist
- Tom Cotton, senator from Arkansas
- Tom Friedman, New York Times columnist
- Tracy Potts, NBC
- Will Hurd, congressman from Texas