%20(1).jpg)
%20(1).jpg)
terça-feira, 28 de fevereiro de 2023
Roald Dahl publisher announces unaltered 16-book ‘classics collection’
Roald Dahl publisher announces unaltered 16-book
‘classics collection’
Series will be released alongside controversially
amended versions to leave readers ‘free to choose which version they prefer’
Sarah
Shaffi and Lucy Knight
Fri 24 Feb
2023 13.26 GMT
A
collection of Roald Dahl’s books with unaltered text is to be published after a
row over changes made to novels including Charlie and the Chocolate Factory and
The Witches.
Dahl’s
publisher Puffin, the children’s imprint of Penguin Random House, was
criticised this week after the Telegraph reported that it had hired sensitivity
readers to go over the beloved author’s books and language deemed to be
offensive would be removed from new editions. In response, Puffin has decided
to release Dahl’s works in their original versions with its new texts.
The Classic
Collection will “sit alongside the newly released Puffin Roald Dahl books for
young readers”, the publisher said in a statement, adding that the the latter
series of books “are designed for children who may be navigating written
content independently for the first time”.
On
Thursday, Camilla, the Queen Consort, appeared to weigh in on the debate. At a
Clarence House reception for her online book club, she told authors : “Please
remain true to your calling, unimpeded by those who may wish to curb the
freedom of your expression or impose limits on your imagination.”
Changes to
Dahl’s books in the 2022 editions include using “enormous” rather than “fat” to
describe the antagonist Augustus Gloop in Charlie and the Chocolate Factory and
“beastly” rather than “ugly and beastly” to describe Mrs Twit in The Twits.
In James
and the Giant Peach, a rhyme by the Centipede originally read: “Aunt Sponge was
terrifically fat / And tremendously flabby at that,” and, “Aunt Spiker was thin
as a wire / And dry as a bone, only drier.” Now it has been changed to say:
“Aunt Sponge was a nasty old brute / And deserved to be squashed by the fruit,”
and, “Aunt Spiker was much of the same / And deserves half of the blame.”
Salman
Rushdie, who is published by Penguin Random House, was among those to criticise
Puffin, writing on Twitter that “Roald Dahl was no angel but this is absurd
censorship. Puffin Books and the Dahl estate should be ashamed.”
Philip
Pullman – also published by Penguin Random House – said Dahl’s books should be
allowed to go out of print, while prime minister Rishi Sunak said the issue was
one of free speech.
The
singer-songwriter and activist Billy Bragg also weighed in on the discussion on
Twitter, expressing his support for the changes made to the 2022 editions.
“Suppose your mum wears a hairpiece due to chemotherapy and kids in your class
call her a witch because they read in Dahl’s book that witches all wear wigs”
he tweeted in response to a comment piece for the Telegraph by Suzanne Moore.
The Roald
Dahl Classic Collection will consist of 16 titles. In a letter to staff,
Penguin Random House UK CEO Tom Weldon said the publisher acknowledged “the
importance of keeping Dahl’s classic texts in print”.
The
collection will come out later this year. “Readers will be free to choose which
version of Dahl’s stories they prefer,” said Weldon.
He said the
publisher was used to “taking part in cultural discourse and debate”. He added:
“Sometimes that can be challenging and uncomfortable, and this has certainly
been one of those times.”
In a public
statement, Francesca Dow, managing director of Penguin Random House Children’s,
said the publisher had “listened to the debate over the past week” and it had
“reaffirmed the extraordinary power of Roald Dahl’s books and the very real
questions around how stories from another era can be kept relevant for each new
generation”.
The
Telegraph’s associate editor Christopher Hope described the announcement of the
new collection as an “extraordinary win” for the reporters who broke the
original story, but others were critical of the publisher’s move. Sam
Missingham, publishing commentator and founder of The Empowered Author book
marketing service, said the decision was “truly pitiful” and that the debate
has been a distraction from more important issues.
Others
pointed out that, with two sets of editions on sale, Puffin could make even
more money from Dahl’s books. Bookseller D Franklin tweeted: “Puffin and the
Dahl Estate really have worked out how to cash in here: first a sales spike
from the controversy seeing people buying up the previous printing, then a
spike in people ‘supporting’ the changes, and now TWO sets of books in print.”
Puffin’s
current 16-book Roald Dahl set is now at No 2 in the Amazon children’s books
bestsellers chart.
.webp)
3h ago
05.40 GMT
Summary and welcome
Hello and
welcome back to the Guardian’s live coverage of the war in Ukraine. I’m
Samantha Lock and this will be the last time I’ll be bringing you all the
latest developments as they unfold.
The
military situation around Bakhmut, the focal point of Russia’s advances in
eastern Ukraine, is becoming “increasingly difficult”, president Volodymyr
Zelenskiy has said.
Russian
forces appear to be making more strident attempts to close ring around the
eastern Ukrainian town as Ukraine’s eastern military command describes “vicious
battles” to stop Russian troops from advancing further through the territory.
US
officials say China has “very clearly” taken Russia’s side and has been
“anything but an honest broker” in efforts to bring peace to Ukraine.
US
department of state spokesperson Ned Price made the comments during a news
briefing on Monday, claiming China has provided Russia with “diplomatic
support, political support, with economic support, with rhetorical support”.
It’s 7.30am
in Kyiv. Here’s where we stand:
- The military situation is becoming increasingly difficult around the eastern Ukrainian town of Bakhmut, president Volodymyr Zelenskiy said on Monday as many of Ukraine’s battlefields turn to mud. “In the Bakhmut sector, the situation is constantly becoming more difficult,” Zelenskiy said in his nightly address. “The enemy is constantly destroying everything that can be used to protect our positions for fortification and defence.” Russia’s defence ministry claimed its forces destroyed a Ukrainian ammunition depot near the town – the focal point of Russia’s advances in eastern Ukraine – also shooting down four Himars missiles and five drones launched by Ukrainian forces.
- Belarusian anti-war partisans claim to have severely damaged a Russian military aircraft in what an opposition leader has called the “most successful diversion” since the beginning of the war. BYPOL, the Belarusian partisan organisation, said it had used drones to strike the Machulishchy airfield 12km from Minsk, severely damaging a Beriev A-50 airborne early warning and control aircraft (Awacs).
- China has “very clearly” taken Russia’s side and has been “anything but an honest broker” in efforts to bring peace to Ukraine, US department of state spokesperson Ned Price said at a news briefing on Monday. China has provided Russia with “diplomatic support, political support, with economic support, with rhetorical support,” he added.
- Russia has given a lukewarm response to a Chinese peace plan to end the war in Ukraine but said it was paying “a great deal of attention” to the detail. Kremlin spokesperson Dmitry Peskov said any initiatives that might bring peace closer were worthy of attention and Beijing’s voice should be heard, but the nuances of the proposal are important and, for now, he didn’t see any signs suggesting a peaceful resolution could be achieved. “Any attempt to formulate theses for reaching a peaceful settlement of the problem is welcome, but, of course, the nuances are important,” Peskov told the Izvestia daily.
- Russia will not resume participation in the Start nuclear arms reduction treaty with the US until Washington listens to Moscow’s position, Kremlin spokesperson Dmitry Peskov said in remarks published on Tuesday. Russian president Vladimir Putin last week announced Russia’s decision to suspend participation in the latest Start treaty, after accusing the west of being directly involved in attempts to strike its strategic airbases. Peskov told the daily Izvestia in an interview that the “attitude of the collective west”, led by the US needs to change towards Moscow. “The security of one country cannot be ensured at the expense of the security of another,” Peskov said.
- Alexander Lukashenko, the president of Belarus, is due to visit Beijing on Tuesday for a meeting with China’s president Xi Jinping, in a high-profile trip symbolising the widening gulf between the US and China over the war in Ukraine. Xi’s meeting with Lukashenko, a close ally of Putin, is seen internationally as a sign of where Beijing’s sympathies lie.
- The US Treasury secretary, Janet Yellen, met with Zelenskiy and other key Ukrainian government officials in a surprise visit to Ukraine to reaffirm Washington’s support for Kyiv on Monday. Following talks with prime minister Denys Shmyhal, Yellen said that the US has provided nearly $50bn in security, economic and humanitarian assistance, and announced another multibillion-dollar package to boost the country’s economy.
- Poland has announced a joint initiative with the European Commission to trace Ukrainian children who have been abducted and taken to Russia during the ongoing war in Ukraine. The aim of the scheme is to track down the missing children and to “ensure those responsible are brought to justice”, Poland’s EU affairs minister Szymon Szynkowski vel Sęk said. “We need to return the abducted children to Ukraine and punish Russia for its crimes,” Shmyhal said.
Lukashenko’s planned Xi meeting shows gulf between China and the US
.webp)
Lukashenko’s planned Xi meeting shows gulf
between China and the US
White House reiterates concerns Beijing considering
sending lethal weapons to Russia while claiming to be peacemaker
Amy Hawkins
Senior China correspondent
@amyhawk_
Mon 27 Feb
2023 14.14 GMT
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/feb/27/lukashenko-xi-meeting-china-us-russia
Alexander
Lukashenko, the president of Belarus and close ally of Russian leader Vladimir
Putin, is due to visit Beijing on Tuesday for a meeting with Xi Jinping, in a
high-profile trip symbolising the widening gulf between the US and China over
the war in Ukraine.
US
officials spent the weekend reiterating their concerns that Beijing is
considering sending lethal weapons to Russia, amid China’s attempts to position
itself as a peacemaker and deny that it would provide arms to Moscow.
Speaking to
ABC News on Sunday, Jake Sullivan, the White House’s national security adviser,
said the US was “watching closely” for any such shipment, which Beijing “hadn’t
taken off the table” as a possibility.
William
Burns, the director of the CIA, said in an interview with CBS News on Sunday that
the US was “seriously concerned should China provide lethal equipment to
Russia”.
“We don’t
have evidence of a final decision to do that … all we’re trying to emphasise is
the importance of not doing that,” Burns said.
On Friday,
China published a 12-point “position paper” on the war in Ukraine, calling for
peace and positioning itself as a neutral peacemaker in the conflict. However,
the paper reiterated Beijing talking points that criticised the use of
sanctions and “expanding military blocs”, an apparent reference to Nato. China
has echoed Russia’s claim that the war in Ukraine was provoked by Nato’s
expansion close to Russia’s borders.
The paper
also urged all parties to refrain from nuclear escalation, a position that
Beijing shares with the US and other western leaders.
China has
refused to condemn Russia’s invasion of Ukraine but has also tried to position
itself as a peacemaker. Jens Stoltenberg, Nato’s secretary general, has said
that China lacks credibility for such a role.
The US’s
increasingly vocal statements about China potentially sending weapons to Russia
came after Der Spiegel reported last week that the Russian military was in
negotiations with Xi’an Bingo Intelligent Aviation Technology, a Chinese drone
manufacturer, to produce kamikaze drones for Russia. The company denied having
any business dealings with Russia.
“China’s
policy to the war is the policy of declaring neutrality, supporting Putin, and
paying no price,” says Steve Tsang, the director of the Soas China Institute in
London. With the repeated public statements about sending weapons to Russia,
the US may be trying to make clear to the Chinese that providing dual-use
technology, which could have military applications, would be damaging to
Chinese interests. “It is never crystal clear to the Chinese what will trigger
sanctions,” said Tsang.
The US is
trying to remove any doubt. Military assistance to Russia “will come at real
costs to China”, Sullivan said on Sunday.
Western
sanctions would cause “colossal damage both economically and politically to
Xi’s leadership”, said Yu Jie, a senior research fellow on China at the Chatham
House thinktank.
US
politicians are increasingly unified in their opposition to Beijing, which will
be on show at a House of Representatives committee meeting on Tuesday on
dealing with the strategic threat posed by China.
Beijing is
keen to reset its ties with Europe, an important trading partner. Chinese
exports to the EU were worth €472bn (£416bn) in 2021. Last year China’s
economic growth was just 3%, the worst since 1976 and a figure that Xi is keen
to boost by opening up China’s borders and restoring economic relations with
important trading partners. Ursula von der Leyen, the president of the European
Commission, and Charles Michel, president of the European Council, are expected
to visit Beijing in the first half of this year.
President
Joe Biden has dismissed China’s peace plan as containing nothing “beneficial to
anyone other than Russia”. However, France’s president, Emmanuel Macron, said
that “the fact that China is engaging in peace efforts is a good thing”.
Bobo Lo, a
senior fellow at the Center for European Policy Analysis, said Washington’s
increasingly vocal warnings about China’s support for Russia is an attempt to
tell Europe that “Beijing may seem to be playing nice, but it hasn’t changed
its stripes”.
That much
was clear when China blocked the G20 from issuing a joint statement condemning
the war in Ukraine on Saturday.
Xi’s
meeting with Lukashenko, a close ally of Putin, is seen internationally as a
sign of where China’s sympathies lie. Last week China’s foreign minister, Qin
Gang, told his Belarusian counterpart that China would support Belarus in
opposing any “illegal” sanctions on Minsk. China has not responded to calls
from Ukraine’s president, Volodymyr Zelenskiy, to have a meeting with Xi to
discuss China’s proposals.
In the
coming months, Xi is expected to visit Putin in Moscow.
Murdoch Acknowledges Fox News Hosts Endorsed Election Fraud Falsehoods
Murdoch Acknowledges Fox News Hosts Endorsed
Election Fraud Falsehoods
Rupert Murdoch, the conservative media mogul, spoke
under oath last month in a $1.6 billion defamation lawsuit against Fox by
Dominion Voting Systems.
Jeremy W.
PetersKatie Robertson
By Jeremy
W. Peters and Katie Robertson
Feb. 27,
2023
https://www.nytimes.com/2023/02/27/business/media/fox-news-dominion-rupert-murdoch.html
Rupert
Murdoch, chairman of the conservative media empire that owns Fox News,
acknowledged in a deposition that several hosts for his networks promoted the
false narrative that the 2020 election was stolen from former President Donald
J. Trump, and that he could have stopped them but didn’t, court documents
released on Monday showed.
“They
endorsed,” Mr. Murdoch said under oath in response to direct questions about
the Fox hosts Sean Hannity, Jeanine Pirro, Lou Dobbs and Maria Bartiromo,
according to a legal filing by Dominion Voting Systems. “I would have liked us
to be stronger in denouncing it in hindsight,” he added, while also disclosing
that he was always dubious of Mr. Trump’s claims of widespread voter fraud.
Asked
whether he doubted Mr. Trump, Mr. Murdoch responded: “Yes. I mean, we thought
everything was on the up-and-up.” At the same time, he rejected the accusation
that Fox News as a whole had endorsed the stolen election narrative. “Not Fox,”
he said. “No. Not Fox.”
Mr. Murdoch’s
remarks, which he made last month as part of Dominion’s $1.6 billion defamation
lawsuit against Fox, added to the evidence that Dominion has accumulated as it
tries to prove its central allegation: The people running the country’s most
popular news network knew Mr. Trump’s claims of voter fraud in the 2020
election were false but broadcast them anyway in a reckless pursuit of ratings
and profit.
Proof to
that effect would help Dominion clear the high legal bar set by the Supreme
Court for defamation cases. To prevail, Dominion must show not only that Fox
broadcast false information, but that it did so knowingly. A judge in Delaware
state court has scheduled a monthlong trial beginning in April.
The new
documents and a similar batch released this month provide a dramatic account
from inside the network, depicting a frantic scramble as Fox tried to woo back
its large conservative audience after ratings collapsed in the wake of Mr. Trump’s
loss. Fox had been the first network to call Arizona for Joseph R. Biden on
election night — essentially declaring him the next president. When Mr. Trump
refused to concede and started attacking Fox as disloyal and dishonest, viewers
began to change the channel.
The filings
also revealed that top executives and on-air hosts had reacted with incredulity
bordering on contempt to various fictitious allegations about Dominion. These
included unsubstantiated rumors — repeatedly uttered by guests and hosts of Fox
programs — that its voting machines could run a secret algorithm that switched
votes from one candidate to another, and that the company was founded in
Venezuela to help that country’s longtime leader, Hugo Chávez, fix elections.
Despite
those misgivings, little changed about the content on shows like Mr. Dobbs’s
and Ms. Bartiromo’s. For weeks after the election, viewers of Fox News and Fox
Business heard a far different story from the one that Fox executives privately
conceded was real.
Lawyers for
Fox News, which filed a response to Dominion in court on Monday, argued that
its commentary and reporting after the election did not amount to defamation
because its hosts had not endorsed the falsehoods about Dominion, even if Mr.
Murdoch stated otherwise in his deposition. As such, the network’s lawyers
argued, Fox’s coverage was protected under the First Amendment.
“Far from
reporting the allegations as true, hosts informed their audiences at every turn
that the allegations were just allegations that would need to be proven in
court in short order if they were going to impact the outcome of the election,”
Fox lawyers said in their filing. “And to the extent some hosts commented on
the allegations, that commentary is independently protected opinion.”
A Fox News
spokeswoman said on Monday in response to the filing that Dominion’s case “has
always been more about what will generate headlines than what can withstand
legal scrutiny.” She added that the company had taken “an extreme, unsupported
view of defamation law that would prevent journalists from basic reporting.”
In certain
instances, Fox hosts did present the allegations as unproven and offered their
opinions. And Fox lawyers have pointed to exchanges on the air when hosts
challenged these claims and pressed Mr. Trump’s lawyers Sidney Powell and
Rudolph W. Giuliani to present evidence that never materialized.
But the
case is also likely to revolve around questions about what people with the
power to shape Fox’s on-air content knew about the validity of the fraud
allegations as they gave pro-Trump election deniers a platform — often in front
of hosts who mustered no pushback.
“There
appears to be a pretty good argument that Fox endorsed the accuracy of what was
being said,” said Lee Levine, a veteran First Amendment lawyer who has defended
major media organizations in defamation cases. He added that Fox’s arguments
were stronger against some of Dominion’s claims than others. But based on what
he has seen of the case so far, Mr. Levine said, “I’d much rather be in
Dominion’s shoes than Fox’s right now.”
Dominion’s
filing casts Mr. Murdoch as a chairman who was both deeply engaged with his
senior leadership about coverage of the election and operating at somewhat of a
remove, unwilling to interfere. Asked by Dominion’s lawyer, Justin Nelson,
whether he could have ordered Fox News to keep Trump lawyers like Ms. Powell
and Mr. Giuliani off the air, Mr. Murdoch responded: “I could have. But I
didn’t.”
The
document also described how Paul D. Ryan, a former Republican speaker of the
House and current member of the Fox Corporation board of directors, said in his
deposition that he had implored Mr. Murdoch and his son Lachlan, the chief
executive officer, “that Fox News should not be spreading conspiracy theories.”
Mr. Ryan suggested instead that the network pivot and “move on from Donald
Trump and stop spouting election lies.”
There was
some discussion at the highest levels of the company about how to make that
pivot, Dominion said.
On Jan. 5,
2021, the day before the attack at the Capitol, Mr. Murdoch and Suzanne Scott,
the chief executive of Fox News Media, talked about whether Mr. Hannity and his
fellow prime-time hosts, Tucker Carlson and Laura Ingraham, should make it
clear to viewers that Mr. Biden had won the election. Mr. Murdoch said in his
deposition that he had hoped such a statement “would go a long way to stop the
Trump myth that the election was stolen.”
According
to the filing, Ms. Scott said of the hosts, “Privately they are all there,” but
“we need to be careful about using the shows and pissing off the viewers.” No
statement of that kind was made on the air.
Dominion
details the close relationship that Fox hosts and executives enjoyed with
senior Republican Party officials and members of the Trump inner circle,
revealing how at times Fox was shaping the very story it was covering. It
describes how Mr. Murdoch placed a call to the Republican leader of the Senate,
Mitch McConnell, immediately after the election. In his deposition, Mr. Murdoch
testified that during that call he likely urged Mr. McConnell to “ask other
senior Republicans to refuse to endorse Mr. Trump’s conspiracy theories and
baseless claims of fraud.”
Dominion
also describes how Mr. Murdoch provided Mr. Trump’s son-in-law and senior
adviser, Jared Kushner, with confidential information about ads that the Biden
campaign would be running on Fox.
At one
point, Dominion’s lawyers accuse Ms. Pirro, who hosted a Saturday evening talk
show, of “laundering her own conspiracy theories through Powell.” The filing
goes on to say Ms. Pirro bragged to her friends “that she was the source for
Powell’s claims.” Dominion notes that this was “something she never shared with
her audience.”
The filing
on Monday included a deposition by Viet Dinh, Fox Corporation’s chief legal
officer, who was one of the many senior executive cautioning about the content
of Fox’s coverage. After Mr. Hannity told his audience on Nov. 5, 2020, that it
would be “impossible to ever know the true, fair, accurate election results,”
Mr. Dinh told a group of senior executives including Lachlan Murdoch and Ms.
Scott: “Hannity is getting awfully close to the line with his commentary and
guests tonight.”
When asked
in his deposition if Fox executives had an obligation to stop hosts of shows
from broadcasting lies, Mr. Dinh said: “Yes, to prevent and correct known
falsehoods.”
In their filing
on Monday, Fox’s lawyers accused Dominion of cherry-picking evidence that some
at Fox News knew the allegations against Dominion were not true and, therefore,
acted out of actual malice, the legal standard required to prove defamation.
“The vast
majority of Dominion’s evidence comes from individuals who had zero
responsibility for the statements Dominion challenges,” the lawyers said.
Jeremy W.
Peters covers media and its intersection with politics, law and culture. He is
the author of “Insurgency: How Republicans Lost Their Party and Got Everything
They Ever Wanted.” He is a contributor to MSNBC. @jwpetersnyt • Facebook
Katie
Robertson is a media reporter. She previously worked as an editor and reporter
at Bloomberg and News Corporation Australia. Email:
katie.robertson@nytimes.com
@katie_robertson
Rupert Murdoch testified that Fox News hosts ‘endorsed’ stolen election narrative
.webp)
Rupert Murdoch testified that Fox News hosts
‘endorsed’ stolen election narrative
Network owner also admitted in $1.6bn defamation
lawsuit deposition that Trump’s claims were ‘damaging to everybody’
Dani
Anguiano in Los Angeles
@dani_anguiano
Tue 28 Feb
2023 02.00 GMT
https://www.theguardian.com/media/2023/feb/27/rupert-murdoch-deposition-dominion-lawsuit-fox-news
Newly
released court documents reveal that Rupert Murdoch, the billionaire owner of
Fox News, acknowledged under oath that several Fox News hosts endorsed Donald
Trump’s lie that the 2020 election was stolen from him.
The mogul
made the admission during a deposition in the $1.6bn defamation lawsuit brought
against the network by the voting machine company Dominion Voting Systems,
which has accused Fox News and its parent company, Fox Corporation, of
maligning its reputation. In his deposition, Murdoch said that the hosts Maria
Bartiromo, Lou Dobbs, Sean Hannity and Jeanine Pirro “endorsed” the false
narrative promoted by Trump.
“I would
have liked us to be stronger in denouncing it in hindsight,” Murdoch said in
the deposition, the New York Times reported on Monday.
In previous
court filings, attorneys for Dominion have argued that Fox News hosts ridiculed
Trump’s false claims of a “stolen election” while promoting those lies on
television. While Sean Hannity pushed that narrative on his prime-time show, he
allegedly wrote that Trump was “acting like an insane person”.
Even
Murdoch himself dismissed Trump’s claims, describing the former president’s
obsession with proving the election was stolen as “terrible stuff damaging
everybody”.
Murdoch
acknowledged in his deposition that he could have ordered the network not to
platform Trump lawyers such as Sidney Powell and Rudy Giuliani on its programs:
“I could have. But I didn’t,” he said.
Dominion’s
defamation case is being described as a “landmark”. A Harvard law professor
recently told the Guardian he had “never seen a defamation case with such
overwhelming proof that the defendant admitted in writing that it was making up
fake information in order to increase its viewership and its revenues”.
The Fox
hosts were also privately critical of members of Trump’s team, including Sidney
Powell, an attorney who claimed that Dominion’s machines had changed votes cast
for Trump to Joe Biden. In a deposition, Hannity said: “That whole narrative
that Sidney was pushing, I did not believe it for one second”.
Still, the
network continued to give coverage to proponents of the election fraud
narrative as it feared upsetting its viewers. In a conversation about the
network’s coverage of the issue on 5 January 2020 – a day before rioters
stormed the US Capitol in an attempt to stop the election from being certified
- Suzanne Scott, the Fox News media chief executive, and Murdoch debated
whether Fox hosts should acknowledge Trump’s defeat and admit that Biden won.
“We need to be careful about using the shows and pissing off the viewers,”
Scott told Murdoch.
Dominion
sued Fox News and parent company Fox Corporation in March 2021 and November
2021 in Delaware superior court, alleging the cable TV network amplified false
claims that Dominion voting machines were used to rig the 2020 election against
Trump, a Republican who lost to Democratic rival Biden. Dominion’s motion for summary
judgment was replete with emails and statements in which Murdoch and other top
Fox executives say the claims made about Dominion on air were false – part of
the voting machine company’s effort to prove the network either knew the
statements it aired were false or recklessly disregarded their accuracy.
In its own
filing made public on Monday, Fox argued that its coverage of statements by
Trump and his lawyers were inherently newsworthy and that Dominion’s “extreme”
interpretation of defamation law would “stop the media in its tracks”.
Reuters
reported that a Fox spokesperson said that Dominion’s view of defamation law
“would prevent journalists from basic reporting”.
A trial is
scheduled to begin in mid-April.
Reuters contributed reporting
King Charles’ first political row is about Brexit because of course it is.
Steve Bell: EU’s Ursula von der Leyen meets King Charles – cartoon
THE GUARDIAN
King Charles’ first political row is about Brexit
because of course it is
Brexiteers take aim at Downing Street over British
monarch’s meeting with the EU chief.
BY MATT
HONEYCOMBE-FOSTER AND ANDREW MCDONALD
FEBRUARY
27, 2023 5:33 PM CET
https://www.politico.eu/article/king-charles-first-political-row-brexit/
LONDON —
Less than six months into his reign, King Charles is at the center of a Brexity
political storm.
The U.K.
monarch’s meeting Monday with European Commission President Ursula von der
Leyen — on the day a long-awaited deal to put months of wrangling over
post-Brexit trade was struck — sparked swift fury among Euroskeptic
politicians, who saw it as a crude attempt to bump them into backing an
agreement.
“I cannot
quite believe that No10 would ask HM the King to become involved in the
finalising of a deal as controversial as this one,” tweeted Northern Ireland’s
former First Minister Arlene Foster. The “crass” move would, she said, “go down
very badly” in Northern Ireland.
The U.K.
sovereign is, according to the unwritten British constitution, meant to
represent the whole country and steer well clear of politics (although as
prince of Wales, Charles was seen to have sailed close to the wind).
Both No. 10
Downing Street and the European Commission stressed that von der Leyen’s visit
was separate from talks on the Northern Ireland protocol. The BBC and the Daily
Mail both reported that the pair, who have met before, would discuss climate
change and the war in Ukraine. A European Commission spokesperson said von der
Leyen’s meeting with the king was “not part” of the Brexit protocol talks, and
instead on “separate tracks of discussion.”
But the
move came on a day of highly-choreographed political theater, including a joint
press conference between Prime Minister Rishi Sunak and von der Leyen in Windsor,
home to royal residence Windsor Palace. Brexiteers were quick to make what they
saw as a link, and trained their fire on No. 10.
“I think
the sovereign should only be involved when things have been completed and
accepted,” Jacob Rees-Mogg, a former Cabinet minister, told broadcaster GB News
on Monday morning.
He added:
“The king gives assent to acts of parliament when parliament has agreed; he
doesn’t express his view on acts of parliament when they are going through the
process. I think the same applies, that his majesty should not be involved
until there is full support for this agreement.”
Nigel
Farage, the former Brexit Party leader and ex-MEP, said it was “absolutely
disgraceful” to “even ask the king to get involved in something that is overtly
political in every way.”
Before an
official announcement came, Democratic Unionist Party MP Sammy Wilson branded
the idea — first reported by Sky News on Friday evening — a “cynical use, or
abuse of the king” that would only raise the temperature in Northern Ireland.
Conflicting
accounts about the genesis of the meeting were flying on Monday as the
face-to-face was confirmed.
A palace
spokesman said the king was “pleased to meet any world leader if they are
visiting Britain,” and stressed it is “the government’s advice that he should
do so.”
Downing
Street pointed to the palace. Sunak’s official spokesman said Monday that
meeting von der Leyen was “fundamentally” a decision for Buckingham Palace, but
declined to say who had requested the sit-down.
The prime
minister “firmly believes it’s for the king to make those decisions,” the
spokesman told reporters at the daily No. 10 press briefing.
“It’s not
uncommon for his majesty to accept invitations to meet certain leaders,” he
added, pointing to Charles’ recent audiences with the presidents of Poland and
Ukraine.
Former
Cabinet minister — and close ally of ex-Prime Minister Boris Johnson — Nadine
Dorries wasn’t buying it. “Either No10 is lying or Buckingham Palace,” she
tweeted. “I know which one my money is on.”
segunda-feira, 27 de fevereiro de 2023
Boris Johnson dangles threat of rebellion over Northern Ireland deal
Boris Johnson dangles threat of rebellion over
Northern Ireland deal
Most Tory MPs welcome breakthrough as hardline
Brexiters are mulling response
Aubrey
Allegretti Political correspondent
@breeallegretti
Mon 27 Feb
2023 23.36 GMT
Boris
Johnson is dangling the threat of a rebellion over Rishi Sunak after a new
post-Brexit deal was announced that will rip up the former prime minister’s
protocol on Northern Ireland and ditch his legislation to override it.
Although
most Conservative MPs warmly welcomed the breakthrough after two years of
negotiations, Johnson stayed away from the House of Commons chamber and is said
not to have made up his mind about whether to endorse or oppose the “Windsor
framework”.
A source
close to him said he was studying and reflecting on the government’s proposals.
They did
not deny that Johnson had urged the Democratic Unionist party (DUP), who
hardline Tory Brexiters on the European Research Group have said they are in
“lockstep” with, to think carefully before passing judgment on the deal.
The source
said they would not comment on private discussions, after PoliticsHome reported
that he urged the DUP to be cautious amid suggestions it was prepared to
endorse the agreement.
While no
Tory MPs have yet openly criticised the deal, the veteran Brexiter Bill Cash
warned Sunak he would scrutinise the text closely before deciding what to do.
“The devil, as ever, lies in the detail,” he said.
Mark
Francois, chair of the ERG, also said he hoped “we won’t find any nasty
surprises which would materially undermine the position of Northern Ireland”.
The ERG is
expected to hold a full meeting for members on Tuesday night to decide how to
respond to the Windsor framework, with a “star chamber” of lawyers assembled to
scrutinise the plans for a veto for Stormont on new EU laws in Northern Ireland.
Sunak vowed
that MPs would get a vote on his deal “at the appropriate time”, and added the
result “will be respected”.
Several
members of the ERG privately said they were broadly supportive of Sunak’s deal.
“Provided the details live up to the press conference, fundamentally, I think
this sounds like something they should be able to live with,” said one. Another
said they believed only 10 or so “headbangers” were “prepared to let the
perfect be the enemy of the good”.
Some of the
old Brexit “Spartans” who helped bring down Theresa May over her deal in 2019
are now part of the government, including Steve Baker. He welcomed the deal and
said other pragmatists should too.
However,
the former culture secretary Nadine Dorries hit out at Baker for “gushing about
the deal”, claiming he was a “key agitator” who helped to remove Johnson from
Downing Street last July. She said: “What shred of credibility he has left
would be destroyed if he came out against Sunak. He has nowhere else to go
other than to grin and support.”
Johnson has
urged Sunak not to drop his protocol bill, which drew a legal challenge from
the EU. But the prime minister is facing pressure to do so from senior European
leaders, including from the French president, Emmanuel Macron, with whom he is
expected to meet to discuss measures to tackle people being smuggled across the
Channel in small boats.
Any
rebellion may end up being small, Tory strategists believe. Hardline Brexiters,
including the UK’s former negotiator David Frost and ex-business secretary
Jacob Rees-Mogg, have so far refrained from making critical interventions about
the state of the deal from reports over the past week.
Rees-Mogg
told ITV’s Peston on Monday evening that the prime minister had achieved “more
than I thought was possible” with the deal. He insisted, however, that
Johnson’s original agreement was not at fault, as he said that the protocol
always contained “the means for its own amendment”.
But even a
dozen Conservative MPs opposing the deal could trigger bigger problems for
Sunak further down the line. Anand Menon, the director of the UK in a Changing
Europe thinktank, said: “The danger for the prime minister is that opposition
might be cumulative. A few rebels on the protocol, a few more on the budget –
this could all build into a real headache should the May local elections go
badly.”
No 10 bats away criticism after king’s meeting with Ursula von der Leyen
Analysis
No 10 bats away criticism after king’s meeting with Ursula von der Leyen
Jessica Elgot
Deputy
political editor
European Commission president, said to have a love of
British history, met Charles after Northern Ireland deal agreed
UK politics
live – latest news updates
Mon 27 Feb
2023 19.39 GMT
When King
Charles III ascended the throne, the new monarch is said to have accepted he
would have a changed role with less freedom to intervene in politics. But he
had reckoned without the Windsor framework.
It was a
moment with a distinctly royal flavour – sealed at the Windsor Guildhall, where
Charles married Camilla, under vast portraits of past monarchs.
As Ursula
von der Leyen took to the podium, a painting of the young Queen Elizabeth was
at her left shoulder. Above Rishi Sunak, the queen mother looked sternly on
from her golden portrait. Later, Von der Leyen sealed a historic moment by
taking tea with Charles, beaming as she was greeted by his equerry and private
secretary.
Outraged
Tory Brexiters and the Democratic Unionist party, including the former first
minister Arlene Foster, condemned Sunak’s judgment in involving the monarchy in
such a controversial political moment. Even Labour MPs questioned the
constitutional implications.
But among
those in the room, there were subtle hints this was not something entirely at
the instigation of the prime minister. Von der Leyen has always described
herself as passionate anglophile with a love for British history and – it was
hinted – a personal desire to meet Charles.
That might
have seemed a little too convenient, but reporters departing the press
conference happened upon Von der Leyen at the entrance to the Guildhall, keen
to go back into the historic room and look at the royal portraits.
No 10
insisted that the royal connections were entirely coincidental, not intended to
send a signal to royalist unionists or to suggest the deal had a seal of
approval from the king.
Buckingham
Palace’s own announcement – interpreted as placing the onus on Sunak – said
that the king was acting on “the government’s advice” and that their
discussions would feature a “range of topics”.
No 10’s
line was the opposite – that it was a decision for Buckingham Palace. “It’s not
uncommon for his majesty to accept invitations to meet certain leaders – he has
met President [Andrzej] Duda [of Poland] and President Zelenskiy recently. He
is meeting with the president of the EU today.”
Sunak’s
spokesperson batted away suggestions that the royal audience could be seen as
an endorsement by the palace of the Northern Ireland protocol deal. “We’d never
be seen to frame any action as an endorsement,” the spokesperson said.
Asked why
the final protocol talks were taking place in Windsor, he added: “There are a
number of occasions when these sorts of talks have been held in significant
places, this is no different.”
Foster, who
led the DUP during the negotiations for Theresa May and Boris Johnson’s Brexit
deals, tweeted: “I cannot quite believe that No 10 would ask HM the king to
become involved in the finalising of a deal as controversial as this one.
“It’s crass
and will go down very badly in NI. We must remember this is not the king’s
decision but the government, who it appears are tone-deaf.”
The Labour
MP Chris Bryant said it was a “terrible mistake from the government – we should
never bring the monarchy into political disputes”.
Sammy
Wilson, the DUP’s chief whip, was also deeply critical of the timing of the
meeting, saying it risked “dragging the king into a hugely controversial
political issue”.
The former
cabinet minister Jacob Rees-Mogg said the meeting called into question the
king’s role when he had a duty to approve parliament’s legislation. “I think
the sovereign should only be involved when things have been completed and
accepted,” he told GB News.
“The king
gives assent to acts of parliament when parliament has agreed, he doesn’t
express his view on acts of parliament when they are going through the process.
I think the same applies – that his majesty should not be involved until there
is full support for this agreement.”
But with
the deal done, with warm words from Von der Leyen for “dear Rishi” and a
promise of a fresh era of relations with the EU, the tea at Windsor Castle took
place despite the protestations. The topics on the agenda for the pair were
said to be the climate crisis and the war in Ukraine, with the protocol deal
complete.
No 10 will
hope the outrage over the cosy chat will fade as Westminster becomes distracted
by poring over the newly released details of the Windsor framework.
Tory Brexit hardliners mulling response to Sunak’s Northern Ireland deal
.webp)
Tory Brexit hardliners mulling response to
Sunak’s Northern Ireland deal
Nadine Dorries has criticised those ‘gushing’ over
Windsor framework, with ERG to meet on Tuesday
Aubrey
Allegretti Political correspondent
@breeallegretti
Mon 27 Feb
2023 17.51 GMT
Hardline
Brexiters who were threatening to rebel over Rishi Sunak’s new deal with the EU
will decide how to respond at a meeting on Tuesday night, while a key Boris
Johnson ally has hit out those already “gushing” at the agreement.
In a sign
he was willing to face down his critics, the prime minister said MPs would get
a vote “at the appropriate time” on the details of his agreement to overhaul
arrangements in Northern Ireland on customs and jurisdiction over EU law, known
as the Windsor framework.
There was
no rush by Conservative backbenchers or the Democratic Unionist party (DUP) to
embrace or denounce the deal, with both groups expected to take several days to
decide how to respond.
But the
threat of a critical intervention by Johnson remains, given Sunak was expected
to drop a controversial bill introduced under the former prime minister that would
have overridden the old protocol.
Some of the
old Brexit “Spartans” who helped bring down Theresa May over her deal in 2019
are now part of the government, including Steve Baker. He gave a thumbs up
after leaving Downing Street on Sunday night, which was taken as a sign of
approval of Sunak’s agreement, formally unveiled the following day.
The former
culture secretary Nadine Dorries hit out at Baker for “gushing about the deal”,
claiming he was a “key agitator” who helped to remove Johnson from Downing
Street last July. She said: “What shred of credibility he has left would be
destroyed if he came out against Sunak. He has nowhere else to go other than to
grin and support.”
Johnson has
urged Sunak not to drop his protocol bill, which drew a legal challenge from
the EU. But the prime minister is facing pressure to do so from senior European
leaders, including from the French president, Emmanuel Macron, with whom he is
expected to meet to discuss measures to tackle people being smuggled across the
Channel in small boats.
Any
rebellion may end up being small, Tory strategists believe. Hardline Brexiters,
including the UK’s former negotiator David Frost and ex-business secretary
Jacob Rees-Mogg, have so far refrained from making critical interventions about
the state of the deal from reports over the past week. But even a dozen
Conservative MPs opposing the deal could trigger bigger problems for Sunak
further down the line.
Anand
Menon, the director of the UK in a Changing Europe thinktank, said: “The danger
for the prime minister is that opposition might be cumulative. A few rebels on
the protocol, a few more on the budget – this could all build into a real
headache should the May local elections go badly.”
The
European Research Group of Eurosceptic Tory backbenchers will meet on Tuesday
night to discuss how to vote, with a “star chamber” of lawyers assembled to
scrutinise the plans for a veto for Stormont on new EU laws in Northern
Ireland.
Although
the ERG has vowed to remain “in lockstep” with the DUP, several members
privately told the Guardian they were broadly supportive of Sunak’s deal.
“Provided the details live up to the press conference, fundamentally, I think
this sounds like something they should be able to live with,” said one. Another
said they believed only 10 or so “headbangers” were “prepared to let the
perfect be the enemy of the good”.
Sunak
played down the significance of any rebellion. Speaking at a press conference
with Ursula von der Leyen, the European Commission president, on Monday, he
said: “Ultimately, this isn’t necessarily about me, it’s not about politicians.
It’s about the people of Northern Ireland. It’s about what’s best for them.”
Subscrever:
Mensagens (Atom)
