A man was seriously injured after being attacked by two dogs while jogging through a popular park in Australia, prompting a massive police search and raising new concerns following the discovery of another man’s body nearby.
The attack happened around 6:15 p.m. Friday, October 16, at 7th Brigade Park in Chermside, a suburb of Brisbane, Queensland.
The victim, identified by Australian media as real estate agent Ajay Malik, was running along a park pathway when two large dogs suddenly attacked him.
Emergency responders found Malik suffering from severe injuries to his arms, face and legs. He was rushed to Royal Brisbane and Women’s Hospital, where he was initially listed in critical condition.
Police later confirmed that his condition had stabilized, although he remained hospitalized with significant injuries.
Officers responding to the attack encountered the two dogs and discharged their firearms after determining the animals posed an immediate threat. Both dogs fled, triggering an extensive search involving police helicopters and officers on foot.
One dog was located in the front yard of a nearby home later Friday night. The second was discovered the following morning on the back deck of a house in Wavell Heights, a neighboring suburb.
Both animals survived and were taken into custody by Brisbane City Council.
Authorities described the dogs as an American Staffordshire Terrier-Bulldog mix and a Bulldog-Boxer mix. They were registered with the council and had not previously been classified as dangerous.
Their owner, Layla Evans, told Australian news outlet 9News that the animals, named Louis and Ruby, had escaped from the tent where she had been living.
Evans said she had gone out for dinner with a friend and returned to discover the dogs missing.
According to her account, the animals apparently escaped through a damaged section of the tent.
She expressed devastation over the attack, insisting that her dogs had generally been affectionate and protective rather than aggressive.
However, authorities moved to have both dogs euthanized following the incident.
Brisbane City Council issued destruction orders for the animals, although Evans has the right to challenge the decision within 14 days.
The owner was also arrested shortly after speaking with reporters, but Queensland police emphasized that her arrest concerned an unrelated matter.
The case took another troubling turn Sunday when officers discovered the body of a 48-year-old man in bushland near Kittyhawk Drive, not far from where Malik had been attacked.
Investigators said the deceased man was known to sleep in makeshift camps around the park.
Initially, police treated the discovery as a separate investigation. However, on Monday, October 19, Detective Superintendent Andrew Massingham confirmed that investigators could not rule out whether the dogs had been involved.
Because of the condition of the man’s body, detectives have been unable to determine whether the animals had any involvement in his death or came into contact with him afterward.
The cause of death remains under investigation, and authorities have not established a connection between the two incidents.
Police are reviewing forensic evidence and have appealed for anyone who witnessed unusual activity in the park between 4 p.m. and 6 p.m. Friday to come forward.
The incidents have shaken residents who regularly use 7th Brigade Park for jogging, walking and family activities.
Brisbane officials have emphasized the importance of responsible dog ownership, particularly ensuring that large animals are securely contained and cannot escape into public areas.
Meanwhile, Malik’s family faces a difficult recovery following the attack, while investigators continue examining the circumstances surrounding the second man’s death.
Both dogs remain in council custody as the legal process surrounding their proposed euthanasia continues.
Mike Rogers Spent $100K on Private Jets and Luxury Travel Last Quarter
Astronomical fuel prices driven ever-higher by the U.S.–Israel war in Iran might be hitting Mike Rogers, too.
The Republican candidate for Senate in Michigan spent more than $40,000 to cover a single private jet bill last month, according to campaign finance records reviewed by The Intercept. The five-figure ticket was part of over $100,000 worth of campaign cash Rogers spent on luxury travel last quarter, most of it on private jet trips.
As economic woes shape the Michigan Senate race, Roger’s opponent, Democratic candidate and former public health official Abdul El-Sayed, has attacked the Republican repeatedly for his ties to corporations and billionaire donors. Rogers, who represented Michigan’s 8th District in the House from 2001 to 2015, regularly advocated in Congress to let lawmakers receive gifts and other benefits from restricted nonprofit groups. He helped defeat a 2006 bill that would have cracked down on former congressional members’ lobbying activities and banned certain privately funded trips.
For Jeffrey Hauser, a critic of corporate political influence, Rogers’s newly revealed campaign spending on luxury services might spell a warning to Michigan voters feeling the crunch of a struggling economy.
“It seems like Mike Rogers has developed a real taste for the finer things,” said Hauser, director of the Revolving Door Project, which is not backing any candidate in the Michigan race. “That means he is likely to want to continue to court, and be courted by, the economic elite, which portends badly for working class Michiganders who prefer their Senator have some understanding of their lives and identification with their interests.”
In September, the Rogers campaign paid $93,152 to JL Jets for at least five separate private charter flights, including the $40,000 transaction. Around the same time, the campaign also dropped another $500 on the luxury chauffeur company Blacklane. From July to September, Rogers’s campaign paid an additional $4,527 to Blacklane for luxury car services, including a $2,078 chauffeur expense on August 17. The campaign spent $683 on a pair of limo rides in August and September.
Campaigning requires a lot of travel, and El-Sayed’s campaign finance records show higher total travel costs — roughly $330,000 last quarter, according to public filings. But those funds went toward commercial flights on Delta and American airlines, Hertz car rentals, gas, Uber and Lyft rides, and hotel accommodations.
El-Sayed had a busier campaign calendar with a competitive Democratic primary against Rep. Haley Stevens, while Rogers was the presumed Republican nominee since the early days of the race. El-Sayed’s campaign said he did more than 500 events ahead of the August primary, and Rogers has carried a more relaxed schedule into the general election cycle.
In a statement to The Intercept, a spokesperson for Rogers pointed to El-Sayed’s spending on meals and travel on the campaign trail as well as a series of high-dollar contributions his father-in-law made to a super PAC backing the campaign.
“Abdul El-Sayed reimbursed himself $90K, and his father-in-law, a senior advisor of CAIR, gave his SuperPAC $300K,” said Rogers campaign spokesperson Abby Ronson. “If the Intercept is looking for an FEC story, I’d take a long hard look at Abdul.” The El-Sayed campaign did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
If elected, Rogers wouldn’t be the only U.S. senator to spend big on private jets. He would appear to compete with top spenders. As public scrutiny has driven politicians away from chartered flights, only Sens. Mike Rounds, R-S.D., and Kirsten Gillibrand, D-N.Y., spent more on private flights than Rogers did last quarter, Axios reported — and they spent it over the course of a year and a half.
The Rogers campaign did book some flights with airlines like Frontier and Southwest, spending about $29,000 on 10 flights, but luxury transportation accounted for the vast majority of the campaign’s travel expenses last quarter.
Among Rogers’s hotel spending was a $2,000 stay at The Breakers, a luxury oceanfront hotel in Palm Beach, Florida; another $1,295 at the Grand Traverse Resort and Spa in Michigan; and $200 at the five-star Palazzo at The Venetian Resort in Las Vegas. In addition to travel costs, the campaign paid $2,165 to its deputy campaign manager Tyler Henningsen in late September for car repairs at a BMW dealership in Bloomfield Hills, one of Michigan’s most affluent areas. Henningsen did not immediately respond to The Intercept’s request for comment, but the Rogers spokesperson said the car was used for campaign purposes.
Luxury transportation accounted for the vast majority of the Rogers campaign’s travel expenses last quarter.
Campaign finance rules state that spending on travel and vehicle costs is allowed, as long it’s strictly for campaign purposes. It is generally illegal to use campaign funds for personal travel; if a person uses campaign funds for mixed personal and campaign travel, they have to reimburse the campaign within 30 days. If the campaign pays for a car, that car can only be used for campaigning.
Rogers holds significant personal investments in the real estate, artificial intelligence, and cybersecurity industries. His Senate campaign has received significant backing from corporate figureheads such as billionaires, Apollo Global Management CEO Marc Rowan, the DeVos family, and Elon Musk, who through his super PAC, America PAC, has poured into the race more than $6 million since Rogers promised to “shield” the world’s richest man from congressional oversight.
On the debate stage, El-Sayed has targeted Rogers’s home in Florida and his two “yachts,” attempting to paint the former congressman as out-of-touch from everyday, working Michiganders. Public records show Rogers owned two boats measuring 32 and 39 feet in Maryland, though he reportedly sold one of them. Rogers is attempting to sell his Florida home and is living full-time in Michigan, according to news outlet Bridge Michigan.
While Rogers was in Congress, he chaired the House Intelligence Committee and was a key supporter of the Patriot Act, pushing to expand domestic spying powers. Toward the end of his time in Congress, in 2013 and 2014, he and his wife Kristi attended a pair of weekend retreats at a five-star resort, The Cloister in Sea Island, Georgia, on the dime of the right-wing think tank American Enterprise Institute. At the 2014 forum, described in 2022 by CBS News as “a private, off-the-record gathering of conservative leaders and wealthy donors,” Rogers spoke as a panelist in his capacity as House Intelligence Committee chair on “cybersecurity and national security issues,” disclosureforms said.
Alongside Rogers, the 2014 event featured prominent conservative figures as speakers, such as then-House majority leader Rep. Eric Cantor, R-Va.; Iraq War architect Karl Rove; then-Sen. Marco Rubio, R-Fla.; New York Times columnist David Brooks; then-president of the National Economic Council Gene Sperling; and Keith Alexander, director of the National Security Agency under presidents George W. Bush and Barack Obama. Also in attendance were Betsy and Dick DeVos, Donald Trump’s first-term education secretary and former Amway CEO, respectively, who have since funded Rogers’s current run and several past campaigns.
A few weeks after the conservative retreat, Alexander stepped down as NSA director under the cloud of the Edward Snowden leaks revealing the U.S. government’s role in a global spying network. That year Alexander founded cybersecurity firm IronNet, which hired Rogers in 2015 after he decided not to run for reelection. He was later elevated to a board role at IronNet — which has since gone bankrupt — and received more than $700,000 in payments and held stock with the company worth $250,000 to $500,000, according to financial disclosure forms.
“Politicians spend enormous amounts of time with the super rich, either because they are seeking to raise money from them, consulting with them about the economy, or both,” Hauser said. “As a result, they start to develop expensive tastes.”
OPINION – Israel Is Stuck With a Bad Electoral System
As Israel heads toward the October 27 election, shrinking major parties, deepening divisions, and the growing power of smaller factions threaten political stability, while the country’s diverse society makes electoral reform difficult
Elections present two tests in a democracy: electing a new government and uniting the people behind it.
Democracies in the 21st century consistently fail the second test. Election losers start plotting their revenge even before all the votes are counted, while the winners look for ways to retaliate against their opponents. Even the terminology has changed. Opponents used to be called “rivals.” Today they’re “enemies of the state.”
Israel’s chaotic electoral system, in which voters choose among dozens of parties in a single nationwide constituency, is part of the problem. But efforts to change it have failed, partly because of the unique makeup of Israeli society.
In a few days, Israelis will go to the polls to try to elect a new government. This time, they’re likely to fail both tests. Not only are the two main blocs demonizing each other, but they’re also resorting to racist insults and incendiary rhetoric. For example, pro-Netanyahu television commentator Yinon Magal likened Yashar party leader Gadi Eisenkot, the son of Moroccan Jewish immigrants, to a monkey and claimed that Ashkenazi elites were controlling him, while the opposing camp has run ads labeling its rivals “traitors.”
It’s unlikely, then, that the two sides would agree to work together in what’s known as a “national unity government.” The divisions over the critical issues facing Israel are too wide, too visceral:
Dealing with the consequences of three years of war on Israel’s borders
Investigating the failures that allowed the Hamas massacre of October 7, 2023, to happen
Reversing the calamitous decline in Israel’s standing in the world
Addressing military manpower shortages caused in part by sweeping draft exemptions for ultra-Orthodox men
Confronting the economic and social consequences of huge subsidies to ultra-Orthodox communities, where workforce participation is relatively low
The divisive malady facing many democracies is usually called polarization. What we’re seeing in Israel today goes further. It’s “splinterization.”
In the last century—and that’s less than 30 short years ago—ruling parties would usually win at least 40 seats in Israel’s 120-seat parliament. A majority government needs 61 seats, so the leading party would bring in smaller ones to form a coalition.
That basic requirement hasn’t changed, but the political arithmetic has. According to recent polls, the two leading parties are each expected to win only about 20 to 23 seats.
This is a good place to point out that Israeli polls are often imprecise. Small shifts in voter support from week to week frequently fall within the margin of error, but that doesn’t stop the meaningless horse-race news coverage of who’s ahead and who’s behind.
Splinterization means that the party forming a government will probably command only a minority of the seats within its own coalition. The math is simple: If a coalition has 61 seats, its largest party needs 31 to hold a majority within that coalition. With only about 20 seats, it depends heavily on its smaller partners. Without that internal majority, and sometimes even with it, chaos ensues. Every little party can, and often does, hold the coalition hostage to force through its demands, no matter how extreme.
Over the space of a generation, the Israeli body politic has splintered so badly that no single party can control a government. Many voters who once supported one of the two main parties, Likud or Labor, have gravitated toward smaller parties, often with more hard-line positions.
Labor isn’t even on the ballot. The party of Israel’s founders that ruled the country unchallenged in its formative years is gone, doomed by poor policies, arrogance, and regional realities.
Likewise, the Likud of Menachem Begin, which took power for the first time in 1977 with 43 seats, is now polling at roughly half that number. Some of its former supporters have gravitated toward Jewish religious parties and other right-wing offshoots that favor harsher measures toward Arabs in general and Palestinians in particular.
Then there are the parties appealing to Israel’s Arab citizens, who make up about 20% of the population. Polls show these parties winning around 14 seats, but it’s not as if they occupy the political middle ground. Some Likud supporters call Arab Knesset members “terrorists,” and following the Hamas pogrom in southern Israel three years ago, even politically moderate parties opposed to Likud are reluctant to declare that they would seek support from an Arab party. That’s despite the fact that Israel’s Arab citizens were not responsible for the Hamas atrocities.
All this limits the post-election possibilities. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, Israel’s most skillful politician, could cobble together a majority by signing up the Orthodox Jewish parties (the price of that would be extending the highly unpopular draft exemptions for tens of thousands of permanent yeshiva students) and enticing one of the moderate parties to join in exchange for promises of top cabinet positions and maybe even a shot at the premiership—a promise Netanyahu has made before and broken before.
On the other side, the moderates might try to form a minority government, counting on the Arab parties to abstain in crucial votes in parliament. Or they might try to lure some Likud members who have had enough of Netanyahu’s one-man party rule, stretching back, as it does, to 1996.
A recent poll found that 55% of Israelis would prefer a national unity government to another election if the October 27 vote produces no clear winner. But when the two sides call each other “traitors” and “enemies of the state,” they mean it. It’s not just politics.
So dealing with the issues listed above is likely to be beyond the scope of any government that emerges from this election. Most of the issues do not lend themselves to easy compromises, and few here are in the mood to compromise, anyway.
It’s a dark projection. Initiatives to reform the government and the voting system, from direct election of the prime minister to breaking up the nation into election districts instead of voting at-large, have all failed. They have failed because the current system, messy as it is, is the only one that fits.
Unlike most other Western-oriented nations, Israel is made up of multiple ethnicities, each with its own traditions and leaders. Add to that the natural feistiness and clannishness of the average Israeli, and you can understand why reforms like cutting down the number of parties would disenfranchise many voters, with regrettable results.
A keen observer of the political scene (my father) noted decades ago, “In a democracy, the form of government tends to reflect the society.”
And so, he concluded, “The people get what they deserve.”
In a court filing Sunday, US attorney Craig Missakian argued that Abdulrahman Alfozan must continue to be detained while the US makes its case that Alfozan brazenly spied on OpenAI, either for his own personal business gain or to benefit the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia.
Evidence showed that Alfozan had been chatting with a member of the KSA royal family on WhatsApp, while pursuing opportunities to permanently move back to Saudi Arabia during the country’s biggest AI push yet, the government argued. Shortly before his arrest, the FBI found he accessed a folder called “Saudi Gov Docs” on his iPhone, where he also allegedly stored photos of a second bug he planted in the offices.
With so much evidence against him, Alfozan—a Saudi national and US permanent legal resident—is a flight risk with seemingly endless support from the Saudi government, Missakian alleged.
The FBI arrested Alfozan days before he could hop a plane, Missakian said. The US attorney noted that Alfozan had already booked a one-way ticket for him, his wife, and their baby to Riyadh, Saudi Arabia’s capital. That ticket was allegedly “paid for by the Saudi government.” Following his arrest, his wife and son booked a sooner flight and immediately left the US without him. Once again, the US found “a member of the Saudi military booked and paid for yet another one-way ticket for the defendant’s wife and son, this one business class to Doha, Qatar.”
After receiving “significant compensation from a decade of high-tech employment in the Bay Area,” Alfozan has “ample resources” to run away to Saudi Arabia, the US government alleged. He also has “at least two bank accounts in Saudi Arabia,” the government said.
To support their request to detain Alfozan, the government pointed to a case where former Twitter employees were charged with spying for the Saudi government. Charges are still pending against one of the ex-Twitter staffers, Ali Alzabarah, the US said, partly because “a Saudi foreign official” helped “coordinate a next-day flight to Saudi Arabia” shortly after Twitter confronted him.
Because Alfozan would presumably have “little incentive to remain in the United States to see this case through,” Missakian asked the court to order his detention pending trial.
“Although FBI agents seized the defendant’s Saudi passport when they arrested him, there is nothing to stop the defendant, if he is released, from obtaining any necessary travel documents and fleeing the United States—with or without the help of a foreign government that has previously assisted its citizens depart the United States under similar circumstances,” Missakian’s filing argued.
On Monday, Magistrate Judge Alex G. Tse agreed at a hearing that Alfozan should remain detained while mounting his defense, Business Insider reported.
Alfozan’s alleged escape plan
When Alfozan was arrested, he was living at home with his family in California. Since moving to the US in 2009, he’d received technical degrees from MIT and UC Berkeley. After more than a decade working in Silicon Valley, OpenAI eventually hired him “as an engineer in or around July 2025 with an annual base salary of $325,000,” the government’s court filing said. He also got “a new hire equity grant of $2,200,000 in profit participation units.”
Allegedly, Alfozan’s scheming against OpenAI started in the months after his hiring. Without detecting anything was amiss, OpenAI was preparing to grant Alfozan parental leave. His wife’s student visa had expired, and he planned to use his two months of paid time off to help her permanently move back to Saudi Arabia with their baby, the US filing said.
But he didn’t make the flight. About two weeks prior to the booking, OpenAI found a recording device hidden in a conference room. That device, the US court filing confirmed, was there for “at least multiple days” and had been in place during a top-secret meeting with US government officials.
“In the days surrounding the time period that the device was installed, OpenAI executives met with government officials in that very room,” the filing said. “Defendant’s conduct could pose a danger to the national security of the United States.”
In their complaint, the US alleged that Alfozan used an OpenAI productivity agent to research which conference rooms might be best exploited for his spying. Logs suggested that he also used his wife’s personal ChatGPT account to research ways to modify his covert recording devices so they would auto-record when detecting speech and allow remote access controls.
After his arrest, Alfozan refused to speak to the FBI, requesting his attorney. However, his wife confirmed that she had seen her ChatGPT account open on his laptop when asked about her plan to move back to Saudi Arabia, the government’s filing said.
FBI uncovers “Saudi Gov Docs” folder
The government’s motion for Alfozan’s detention included more details than previously reported from the search of Alfozan’s house.
In addition to finding recording devices similar to the ones planted in OpenAI offices, the FBI allegedly found evidence that Alfozan had planted at least one other bug. Photos on Alfozan’s iPhone depicted “at least one additional concealed recording device as well as what appear to be the input/output panels on televisions and other electronic devices in various locations in OpenAI buildings, including another conference room where sensitive meetings frequently occurred,” the filing said.
OpenAI and the US government are both aware that Saudi Arabia has dedicated this entire year to advancing its AI through an effort called “Vision 2030.” Sam Altman himself joined Donald Trump at a summit where the Saudi government’s AI push was celebrated.
However, the US is very guarded about American frontier labs. The FBI therefore found it particularly concerning that Alfozan’s phone showed WhatsApp logs where “a member of the Saudi Royal Family” seemed to be recruiting Alfozan. Those logs date back to 2025, the same year he started at OpenAI, and continued up until October 5. They included an exchange where Alfozan responded “100” to a message urging that “Saudi needs you more then [sic] the US!”
His iPhone browser activity was similarly revealing, the US alleged. On October 4, Alfozan accessed a folder called “Saudi Gov Docs,” the FBI found. The US did not make public what was in the folder, but they did explain what Alfozan did after accessing the folder, which suggests he may have been aiding the Saudi government. Logs showed that Alfozan used OpenAI’s productivity agent to find out “who from OpenAI could be suitable to attend a high level informal meeting with ministers in Saudi Arabia? List 10 people and why each. Ideally high levels.”
“Every incentive to flee”
Although Alfozan only faces a maximum sentence of five years for illegally recording OpenAI’s meetings, the government said that it expects it may raise more serious charges as evidence mounts.
“Here, the nature and circumstances of the offense are indisputably serious,” the filing said. “The defendant went to significant lengths to create customized, encrypted recording devices to secretly record highly sensitive meetings involving senior OpenAI personnel and executives, high-level business counterparts, and government officials, all while communicating with individuals of significance in Saudi Arabia and pursuing opportunities in—and making plans to travel to—Saudi Arabia.”
The US said it’s possible that Alfozan was acting on his own but suggested that it didn’t matter if the government could prove he planted the bugs while working for the Saudi government.
“Whether the defendant wanted to record OpenAI meetings to enrich himself by enhancing his own business prospects, or to provide aid [to] a foreign government, or both, his conduct is criminal and it presents a danger to innovation in the Silicon Valley and a concern for the national security of the United States,” the US argued.
Asking the court to deem Alfozan a flight risk, the US argued that Alfozan “has every incentive to flee” and use the information he allegedly stole at OpenAI to possibly emerge as a talent advancing Saudi Arabia’s AI goals.
“He faces prison time in the United States,” the filing said. “His wife and son are now in Saudi Arabia and have no plans to return. He has the resources to flee. He has the connections needed not only to flee, but to build a new life in Saudi Arabia.”
How to Sell a Genocide: The Media’s Complicity in the Destruction of Gaza
The dispute over whether Israel’s assault on Gaza amounts to genocide has largely been settled. Amnesty International, a UN commission of inquiry and the International Association of Genocide Scholars have all reached that conclusion, as have many leading scholars of genocide. The question that remains is how the greatest political crime of our time was allowed to happen. Adam H. Johnson’s How to Sell a Genocide goes a long way to explaining it.
Published by Pluto Press with a foreword by the Palestinian American human rights lawyer Noura Erakat, the book covers the crucial period from October 2023 to October 2024, when Western audiences were primed for genocide. Johnson shows that the mainstream American media did much of the priming. These outlets dehumanised Palestinians, treated the life of an Israeli as having more worth than the life of a Palestinian and supplied ready-made justifications for violence against the population of Gaza. Together, he argues, they formed a media ecosystem that was essential to Israel’s campaign to destroy the Palestinians of Gaza, in whole or in part.
None of this, in Johnson’s view, was inevitable. It took “deliberate choices by deliberate moral actors” – the editors, reporters, bookers, producers and TV presenters who decided in the first weeks that protecting the powerful mattered more than the truth. Rather than report honestly on Israel’s US-backed assault on Gaza, they spun a comforting fiction for Western liberal audiences to justify the horror.
The Complicit Lens: US Media Coverage of Israel’s Genocide in Gaza
Setting out to prove, “beyond a reasonable doubt, that the genocide in Gaza was enabled, facilitated, and cheerled by establishment US media providing cover for months of a nihilistic campaign of starvation, bombing, arbitrary detention, shooting, and sexual violence,” Johnson cites hard data rather than relying on polemic or cherry-picked examples. The author draws on more than 12,000 articles and 5,000 TV clips from nine major outlets, testimony from journalists inside those newsrooms and comparisons with coverage of other recent conflicts.
Why leave out Fox News and the right-wing media? Because, says Johnson, outlets such as Fox, the Daily Wire and the Wall Street Journal are openly genocidal towards Palestinians and make no pretence otherwise; a book exposing them would be met by their own reporters and columnists with an “Okay, and?”
Instead, the author focuses on the outlets that Democrats read and watch. A Democratic president was in office when the genocide began, and support from Democrats in Congress, think tanks and the press was decisive in keeping it going. He concentrates on the first year, and above all the first few months, because that, he argues, is when the logic of the “war on Hamas” took hold, Americans grew used to mass death in Gaza and the genocide became a fait accompli.
With the destruction in Gaza too brutal and too visible to ignore, the media supplied excuses to ease the public conscience. Johnson calls these “Moats of Rationalization”: a scaffolding of deflection, double standards and orientalist tropes that allowed viewers and journalists alike to excuse the war crimes their own government was funding. The real job of the centre-left press, he argues, was not to convey reality but to “make their readers and viewers feel better” about their country, their leaders and themselves.
The first chapter shows how this worked by tracing how Israel weaponised the false claim that Hamas had beheaded 40 babies. The claim, which originated with Israeli military personnel and ZAKA, an organisation Johnson describes as far-right, spread from Israeli officials through CNN and other outlets to President Joe Biden within a day. It was part of an early push by media executives and pro-Israel groups to “ISIS-ify” Palestinian militants. Israel promoted the hashtag #HamasisISIS, and US Defence Secretary Lloyd Austin called the attack “worse than ISIS”. Johnson’s analysis found that in the first month, seven major print and online outlets equated Hamas with ISIS 149 times. On air, CNN did so 350 times and MSNBC 369 times.
The media also abandoned one of its most basic duties: explaining why the attack happened. Providing context for 7 October was actively discouraged. When MSNBC’s Ali Velshi and Ayman Mohyeldin explained the history behind it on the day, Johnson’s sources say Comcast, the network’s owner, intervened; one summed up the editorial line as “We don’t want context.”
Strict gatekeeping of what can and cannot be reported also helped to sell the genocide. CNN ordered that all its reporting on Israel and Palestine be “approved in advance by the Jerusalem bureau”, which operates under Israel’s military censor. A source told The Intercept that lines were routinely edited to favour Israeli narratives. Yet lurid, unsourced claims about Palestinians were aired unchallenged, while allegations against Israelis, Johnson argues, had to be “triple vetted”.
The same double standard shaped coverage of sexual violence. Within days of 7 October, the Israeli claim that systematic rape was part of Hamas’s “terror strategy” was being repeated by liberal media outlets before Israel had offered any evidence for it. Like the “beheaded babies” story, Johnson argues, it cast Hamas as an organisation “for which any political settlement or ceasefire is not only impossible but morally objectionable”.
The flawed sourcing of the New York Times report “Screams Without Words”, Johnson says, pointed to “an ideological motivation at work” and to lower standards for stories that served Israel’s agenda. Israel’s sexual abuse of Palestinian detainees, meanwhile, barely registered. In the first three months of the genocide and three months in late summer 2024, CNN and MSNBC made 502 on-air mentions of Palestinians committing mass rape and just two of Israelis raping Palestinians. The New York Times, Washington Post, Politico and Axios did the same in print: 128 mentions against nine.
An important part of selling the genocide relied on creating a two-tier moral system. In the chapter “Who is allowed to be human?”, Johnson shows how, within hours of 7 October, pundits and reporters began ranking violence and its victims on what he calls a “moral tier system”. Palestinian violence was treated as uniquely evil, driven by hatred, while Israeli violence was treated as regrettable but necessary.
Illustrating the impact of such framing, Johnson’s figures show that in the first 100 days, seven print and online outlets used “massacre” 344 times in their own reporting to describe Palestinians killing Israelis, and not once for Israelis killing Palestinians. Over the first year, the claim that Palestinians used “human shields” was aired 888 times on CNN and MSNBC, although Human Rights Watch has long rejected such a broad use of the term. Documented cases of Israeli forces using Palestinians as human shields went unmentioned. Israel’s “right to defend itself” was asserted 755 times on the two networks; Palestinians were granted the same right eight times.
Later chapters examine how US media helped the Biden administration “distance itself from the horrors of Gaza”; how it narrowed the debate to “how many Palestinians should die”; and how it covered “war crimes like earthquakes”, reporting the carnage as if it were a natural disaster and obscuring or leaving out Israel’s role entirely.
Read: Israel’s fake news factory implodes over 7 October rape story
The chapter on campus protests, which Johnson calls “‘Antisemitism’ show trials”, contains the starkest comparison in the book. In the month after Harvard president Claudine Gay testified to Congress on campus antisemitism, six major print and online outlets ran 207 stories about her. In the month after six-year-old Hind Rajab was killed by Israeli forces in Gaza, along with six relatives and the two paramedics sent to rescue her, the same outlets ran five. On air, the gap was wider still: CNN mentioned Gay 409 times and Hind 29; MSNBC mentioned Gay 210 times and Hind not once.
Johnson sees his job as that of a “prosecutor”, and the book reads like a case for the prosecution. It is packed with figures, which some readers may find heavy going, but the sheer weight of them makes the pattern of bias very hard to deny.
A book such as this asks us to consider what history has already taught us about the role of propaganda in mass atrocity. At Nuremberg, the Allies put on trial not only those who carried out mass murder but also the propagandists who primed the public to accept it. The lesson was that genocide does not begin with killing; it begins with words that teach people to see others as less than human. Johnson shows how US media treated Palestinian lives as worth less than Israeli ones, stripped Palestinians of their history and presented violence against them as necessary.
American newsrooms have yet to answer the questions this book raises about their coverage of Gaza. They reported the deaths, but they also offered endless excuses for them. Johnson has documented the choices that shaped that coverage. It is now for editors and journalists to explain why they so often showed more understanding for those doing the killing than for those being killed.
Talking with China, say what you’re told you can’t say
<
article id=”post-951441″>
For years, the idea of speaking forthrightly to China would evoke an admonition from the US State Department and most of the American policymaking class: “We can’t do that. They won’t like it.”
They’d often add, “China has red lines, don’t you know?”
There are things you are told you just can’t say – questioning China’s political system, Taiwan, democracy, human rights and China’s ‘development rights’ (challenging China’s right to do anything it wants – legal or illegal – to develop its economy and industry). In short, you can’t mention any of the things that make communist China such a threat to peace and prosperity.
That sort of advice from the “experts” was rampant during the communist Soviet Union era as well.
Remember President Ronald Reagan’s speech at the Berlin Wall’s Brandenburger Gate in 1987 when he slipped in a line: “Mr. Gorbachev,” he said, “tear down this wall.”
Many of Reagan’s advisors and staff told him: “You can’t say that.”
Even his respected Secretary of State George Schulz was opposed.
But Reagan followed his instincts and was proven right.
The Trump-Xi summit in Washington last month suggests the restraining habits of the foreign policy class die hard.
The DC visit included only two fairly short public speeches.
It is, of course, possible that President Trump was more direct in his private meetings with Chairman Xi. But, assuming decades of experience are anything to go by, if the idea is that when you show restraint Beijing will reciprocate, and even change its behavior, you will always be disappointed.
When it comes to the Chinese Communists, if you won’t say it in public – as Reagan did with the Soviets – it’s a win for the communists.
So what should be said in public? A good starting point is not giving an unchallenged platform to Xi’s cognitive warfare, designed to distort history, claim unearned legitimacy, and fracture American alliances.
Correct distortions
First, tell the truth about history. Xi mentioned the Flying Tigers implying the Chinese communists fought together with the U.S. against Japan during World War Two. That is not true. The Flying Tigers fought alongside the Nationalist Kuomintang (KMT), which bore the brunt of the fighting, rather than Mao’s Communists, who fought relatively little.
Unfortunately, the White House’s official visit read-out reinforced Xi’s self-serving distortion of history.
President Xi also pointedly criticized Japan, warning of resurging Japanese ‘militarism.’ That should have been countered by noting that Japan, once a fierce enemy, has become a true friend, a consensual, humane democracy that has done much good in the region and worldwide.
It should also have been stated that Japan is America’s strongest ally and that the US will not let it be bullied.
Highlight what the CCP has done to Americans
Apart from correcting distortions, what would help America’s position in the region, and show Americans at home that their government puts them first, is bringing up areas where communist China has caused direct harm to Americans.
One example is fentanyl and precursors from China killing upwards of 800,000 Americans since 2013 – as the death toll rises. Xi could stop it in an afternoon. Such is the nature of China’s “beyond Orwellian” surveillance state.
However, the White House’s official readout stated the US and China are in fact cooperating to end the fentanyl assault. That is delusional.
And there is the murderous Covid that China unleashed on the United States and the world in 2019 and did nothing to help solve, much less take responsibility. This should not be allowed to fade into the memory void – long Covid is still killing Americans. And millions have not recovered from the economic destruction that destroyed business dreams and likely cost Trump the 2020 election.
Show why our way is better
Xi liberally talks nonsense about how communist China is good for the world. Why not accurately talk about the benefits of our own system? Especially in this 250th year since the Declaration of Independence, talk about human rights, consensual government, freedom of speech, expression, movement, and religion – all the things Xi describes as bad.
Speak up for the freedom of expression that Americans enjoy – and simultaneously have US marshals, Secret Service, FBI, and local police crack down on Chinese thugs illegally threatening and attacking the democratic rights of anti-CCP protesters in Washington and elsewhere. Collar them, arrest them, imprison them, and deport them. And kick out of the country any Chinese embassy and consulate officials involved. And even close a consulate, as happened in Houston during the first Trump administration, to show the president is serious.
Instead, the administration did nothing. Talk about letting someone walk over you.
Finally, Taiwan deserved a mention as a friend of America and an example of what the Chinese people can be, without the yoke of communism.
Trump does have his own style – especially when dealing with leaders such as Xi Jinping, who rule by force rather than popular consent.
But he can fairly assess whether the standard policy-community approach has yielded useful results.
During his first term in office, his administration spoke clearly about China – with Secretary of State Mike Pompeo’s speech at the Nixon Library in 2020 that followed successive speeches on China by National Security Advisor Robert O’Brien, Attorney General William Barr and FBI Director Christopher Wray, as well as twospeeches in Mandarin by Deputy National Security Advisor Matt Pottinger suggesting the Chinese people could do better than a dictatorship.
It rattled Chinese communists and – had Covid not come along and had Trump been reelected in 2020, the world might be very different.
The lesson here: An American president gains nothing by being too afraid to speak up for the nation’s principles, especially when it’s a fight over liberty and between a system that embodies freedom and one that enslaves.
Trump will be meeting Xi twice more this year. He might stop taking counsel from the foreign policy blob and get back to the Trump of the first term, or even the Trump of the 2016 campaign who said: “We can’t continue to allow China to rape our country… we’re going to turn it around, don’t forget it. We’re like the piggy bank that’s being robbed. We have the cards. We have a lot of power with China.”
But maybe Xi would refuse to meet that Trump?
Maybe. And that’s fine.
Grant Newsham is a retired US Marine officer and former US diplomat. He was the first Marine liaison officer to the Japan Self Defense Force. He is the author of the book When China Attacks: A Warning To America.
Pennsylvania issues alert on congenital measles—something US hasn’t seen for decades
Pennsylvania’s health department issued a health alert Monday as cases of measles in pregnancy and, in turn, cases of congenital measles have continued to increase. Before the current outbreak—which continues to rage across the state—congenital measles cases hadn’t been seen in decades, the department noted in its advisory.
The alert included detailed clinical guidance for managing measles exposures and cases during pregnancy as well as cases in newborns. Many doctors have never seen such cases in their careers given the decades of successful use of the measles, mumps, and rubella (MMR) vaccine. But now, with vaccination rates slipping nationwide, the highly infectious virus is better able to get footholds in communities and spread rapidly through under-vaccinated pockets, as is happening in Pennsylvania.
As of October 19, Pennsylvania had reported 1,286 measles cases this year across 42 counties. Of those, 247 have been hospitalized, and six people have reportedly died (though the latest reported death is still pending an investigation by the state health department before it is added to the state tally).
The Pennsylvania health department did not immediately respond to a request for information from Ars Technica. But reporting from The 19th earlier this month put the number of measles cases during pregnancy at 53. At least one case of congenital measles led to a death; the first death reported in the current outbreak was in a newborn baby boy, who died immediately after birth while his mother was severely ill with measles.
Risky infection
Pregnant people who have not been vaccinated against measles nor previously had the infection are susceptible. A case of measles during pregnancy increases the risk of hospitalization, pneumonia, the need for oxygen support or mechanical ventilation, and death. It also increases the risk of miscarriage, stillbirth, low birth weight, and preterm labor. The MMR vaccine is not recommended during pregnancy because it is a live attenuated vaccine and poses a theoretical risk of causing an infection in a fetus. If a pregnant person is exposed to the virus, they’re recommended to receive intravenous immunoglobulin to help protect against infection—but only if it is given within six days of exposure.
If there’s a measles infection during pregnancy, the measles virus can pass to a fetus in utero or can transmit during or just after birth, leading to a congenital case. These cases can vary widely in symptoms and severity. Some babies will remain asymptomatic while others develop severe, multisystem disease and death. Some common symptoms of congenital measles include fever and jaundice. They can also develop the telltale measles rash, but it is sometimes delayed or atypical given a newborn’s underdeveloped immune system. Other symptoms can include low platelet counts, pneumonia, and neurologic complications.
Even if a newborn survives the acute infection, they are at risk of long-term complications. These include immune amnesia, a type of immunosuppression in which the measles virus destroys immune cells and adaptive responses. They are also at risk of subacute sclerosing panencephalitis (SSPE), a progressive, fatal neurological disorder that can strike years after an infection.
The alert warns that babies with congenital measles need long-term clinical follow-up and monitoring for these neurologic and immunologic complications, and parents need counseling on how to spot early signs of SSPE, which include seizures, regression in milestones, and academic difficulties in older children.
Macron rebukes French authorities over handling of protest violence
France’s President Emmanuel Macron has condemned the “failures in anticipation and intelligence” by French authorities, the Elysee Palace said Monday, after nationwide cost-of-living protests were marred by violence.
Despite the failures, Macron has refused the resignation of Interior Minister Laurent Nunez, the presidential palace added.
Macron and his government are under pressure from opposition politicians, who have called for Nunez to be removed, after mass rallies on Saturday over the rising cost of living and high fuel costs turned violent.
In some of the worst urban violence France has seen in years, nearly 2,400 people were arrested, while almost 1,000 police and gendarmes (French armed police) were injured, the Interior Ministry said Sunday.
Interior minister: Police ‘lost control’ of situation
Nunez on Monday admitted that police across the country had “lost control” of the situation over the weekend.
As tens of thousands of people took to streets across the country to protest rising costs and social inequality, crowds of mostly masked and mostly male youths clashed with police, looting shops and torching public and private property, including the historic Limoges city hall.
Nunez agreed with Macron over what he called authorities’ “lack of anticipation,” saying he tendered his resignation “because I felt responsible for everything that happened.”
Macron has instructed Nunez to “take all necessary steps to ensure transparency over the failures in planning and intelligence that led to the violence,” according to a statement from his office.
The president also ordered Nunez to “put in place new operational methods for security forces” to handle the crisis — and how to deal with violent looters — moving forward.
Organizers, hoping to revive the momentum of the 2018-2019 “Yellow Vest” movement that challenged Macron during his first term, called the protests just six months before the country is set to elect his replacement.
This weekend’s mobilization called on students, workers, retirees, farmers, climate activists and anti-fascists to take to the streets and voice their dissatisfaction with the country’s economic and social outlook.
France’s CGT union put nationwide turnout at 500,000.
Initially it was reported that only 10,000 police and gendarmes had been deployed nationwide. But the Interior Ministry quickly corrected that tally, saying that 60,000 had been mobilized ahead of the protests, including 5,000 in Paris.
Paris deployed 14,000 police and gendarmes in Paris alone during a recent high-profile visit by Pope Leo XIV, when as many as 700,000 people gathered in the center of the capital to hear the pontiff deliver Mass.
Macron’s opponents looking to assign blame
Jean-Luc Melenchon, leader of the far-left France Unbowed (“La France Insoumise”, or LFI) party and a perennial presidential candidate, attended the rally in Paris on Saturday.
Melenchon has criticized media coverage of the unrest, stressing that most demonstrations had been peaceful.
His rival Marine Le Pen of the far-right National Rally (RN) accused him of “legitimizing violence” and seeking to “plunge the country into chaos.”
Le Pen’s political ally and successor as RN leader, Jordan Bardella, described those responsible for the violence as “professionals of chaos” and accused the far left of discrediting legitimate social demands.
Benoit Payan, the left-wing mayor of Marseille, slammed violent protesters using the event as an excuse to destroy property and attack police in remarks to French outlet BFMTV, saying, “It is unacceptable to use this type of claim to enter, break and destroy the foundations that unite us as a nation.”
Payan described violent protesters as “useful idiots of the far right.”
Citing ProPublica, Lawmakers Introduce Bill to Help U.S. Citizens Sue ICE for Wrongful Detentions
What Happened: A New Mexico Democrat in the House introduced a bill last week that would make it easier for U.S. citizens to sue immigration agents and the federal government over wrongful detentions and arrests.
Rep. Teresa Leger Fernández credited ProPublica’s reporting as the catalyst for the bill, the Justice for Citizens Wrongfully Detained by ICE Act. Earlier this month, we revealed that more than 500 U.S. citizens have been detained in warrantless arrests during the second Trump administration.
Leger Fernández said the legislation would roll back the protections from lawsuits that agents and the federal government currently have. It would also establish a minimum level of compensation for people who win their suits, and extend the statute of limitations for such cases.
The legislation would also take back any unspent Immigration and Customs Enforcement funding from President Donald Trump’s so-called One Big Beautiful Bill Act.
Leger Fernández’s bill was introduced with co-sponsor Rep. Bonnie Watson Coleman, a New Jersey Democrat.
Why It Matters: It can be difficult to sue federal officers for wrongful arrests or excessive force, or for local prosecutors to bring charges. Federal agents can claim immunity in response to civil lawsuits or to state charges and can move their cases to federal court.
What They Said: In an interview with ProPublica, Leger Fernández emphasized that accountability could not only address past wrongs, it may also help head them off in the future. “We know that when there are consequences, bad actors start behaving better because they don’t want to face those consequences,” she said.
Without legislation, Leger Fernández said, agents “will continue to violate the law, to violate their own policy, and to violate the Constitution without any consequences.”
Asked about the legislation, the Department of Homeland Security, ICE’s parent agency, repeated claims that it is not arresting U.S. citizens and defended its immigration operations as “highly targeted.”
Background: The federal government denies that there is any pattern of immigration agents detaining U.S. citizens, but according to ProPublica’s count, more than 100 citizens were held after agents questioned their citizenship. At least 70 children and teens were also detained.
As a nonprofit newsroom, we rely on donations from individuals like you to fuel our work. Your support today will directly fund investigations that shine a light on urgent issues: corporations prioritizing profits over public safety, health insurers denying coverage to patients, unintended consequences of new laws and more.
As the November midterm elections approach, many people in the US are feeling rather pessimistic about their futures. An Economist/YouGov survey in the US completed on October 12 asked how respondents felt about about their futures compared with ten years ago. Altogether, 23% said they were more optimistic, with 48% saying they were more pessimistic.
Another question in the survey, conducted from October 10-12, just over three weeks out from the November 3 election, asked: “Do you feel that things in this country these days are under control or out of control?” Only 19% thought they were under control, while 70% thought the opposite. A third asked about the direction the country is taking. Altogether 27% thought that it is “generally heading in the right direction” while 66% thought it is “off on the wrong track”.
Explaining the pessimism
There are numerous factors which can explain the pessimism but two stand out: attitudes to the US president, Donald Trump, and the state of the economy under his administration. Respondents were asked if they agreed or disagreed with various of descriptors of the president. The chart below shows the percentages who agreed with each of them.
Percentage of Americans agreeing with descriptors of Donald Trump
It is readily apparent that large numbers of Americans really dislike the president – corruption being the most prominent descriptor followed by perceptions that he is dangerous. Only 28% thought he is effective and 23% that he is honest.
A second explanation for the pessimism is the state of the US economy, particularly the impact of inflation on the day-to-day lives of citizens. Altogether 34% of respondents thought that the economy and inflation were the most important issues facing the country. When asked about the president’s handling of inflation, 28% of respondents approved while 67% disapproved.
It is important to note that Americans were very much focused on domestic issues when responding to questions about the most important issues facing the country. Only 6% of them thought that foreign policy was the most important issue.
Voting intentions for the midterms
Typically, the incumbent president’s party loses seats in Congress in the midterm elections. In the 2018 midterm elections in Trump’s first term, the Republicans had a net loss of 39 seats in the House of Representatives – but they actually gained two seats in the Senate. So, on the face of things, we would expect the Democrats to gain in the House given Trump’s current unpopularity, while the Senate race remains uncertain.
But the federal structure of American politics means that while presidential popularity influences the way people vote in Congressional elections, it is not the only thing that matters.
Tip O’Neal, the Democrat speaker of the House of Representatives from 1977 to 1987 used to say: “All politics is local.” State politics and issues are important in these elections, allowing members of Congress to distance themselves from the president and focus on local issues. That said, there is evidence that national political issues are growing in importance in Congressional elections over time.
Voting intentions for Democrats vs. Republicans in the house elections 2026 **
The second chart shows voting intentions of respondents in the House of Representative elections classified by sex, ethnicity, age and education. The Democrats were ahead by seven percentage points overall, registering 46% in voting intentions compared with 39% for the Republicans.
Looking at different demographic groups, the Democrats were ahead or level with the Republicans in all groups except white voters. Also, there were some striking differences between support for the parties. Women, black and Latino voters, the young and voters with college degrees all strongly support the Democrats. In general, this means that the likelihood of the Democrats winning control of the House is very high in these elections.
The third chart shows voting intentions in the Senate elections. The demographics of support are quite similar to the House elections except that the gap between the Democrats and Republicans is narrower. Some 45% of respondents intend to vote Democrat, with 40% supporting the Republicans. The Republicans were ahead among whites, in the 45-65 age group, and respondents with no college degrees.
Support for Democrats vs. Republicans in the senate elections 2026
Democrat Senators and their independent allies Bernie Sanders from Vermont and Angus King from Maine, currently have 47 seats in the Senate. Therefore, the party needs to win in at least four states to take control of the chamber. If, for example, they won three seats this would give them 50% but their votes could be overridden by the vice-president, J.D. Vance. He is the speaker of the Senate and has a casting vote in the event of a tie.
Key senate contests
NBC news has suggested likely Democrat wins in North Carolina and in Maine, both of which are currently held by the Republicans. In addition, it classifies Alaska, Iowa, Ohio and Texas, all currently held by Republicans, as “toss-ups” as far as Democrat wins are concerned.
We can look at the winning margins in the previous Senate elections in these states to provide a rough guide to how easy it will be for the Democrats to take them. In the 2020 Senate elections, when Joe Biden beat Donald Trump for the presidency, the Republicans took Iowa with a margin of 6.5 percentage? points over the Democrats. In Texas the margin of victory was 9.5 points and in Alaska 13 points. In the 2022 midterm elections the Republicans beat the Democrats by 6 points in Ohio.
Clearly if the Democrats win North Carolina, Maine, Iowa and Ohio they would take control of the Senate. In addition, according to the Forbes newsletter, recent polling shows the Democrats lead by 50% to 43% in Alaska and 51% to 49% in Texas.
Depending on the turnout one or both of these traditionally Republican states could be a win for the Democrats. Ultimately control of the Senate will depend on the extent to which Trump’s unpopularity influences these Congressional races.
