Starmer's government has set the most dangerous of precedents: it can now outlaw any political group it chooses as a terrorist organisation – and thereby make it impossible to defend it
Wow. Thank you for this. Terrifying but I understand something I didn't before reading. I would postulate that the Palestine Action group is actually all staged and not organic in any way. They could be the manufactured problem to allow the totalitarian solution. Every image and story and about the individuals of PA feels off to me.
“When deaths resulting from imposed deprivation (indirect deaths) are factored into mortality data, the total figures will be higher than those from only violent deaths (direct deaths). Eminent epidemiologist Professor Devi Sridhar (chair of Global Health, University of Edinburgh) reported in an article in The Guardian a ‘conservative estimate of four indirect deaths per one direct death’. Assuming that deaths from deprivation were four times the violent deaths, then the 136,000 violent deaths after 15.5 months of killing (25 April 2025) would imply 544,000 Gaza deaths from imposed deprivation, and that the total Gazan death toll would accordingly be 136,000 violent deaths plus 544,000 from imposed deprivation, leading to a staggering total of 680,000 deaths by 25 April 2025. Most of these victims, as indicated in earlier counts by the Ministry of Health are women and children.”
Can we at least agree that if a fact were shoved up your ass you would not know it was there. No need for you to worry about getting into trouble for posting facts. You need to worry when you get into trouble for posting lies.
I don’t recommend it, but how about inverting it with satire: marching up and down with signs saying “I support Palestine INaction, I support Genocide”
"....saying truthful things about any of these matters – if they could lead a reader or listener to take a more favourable view of Palestine Action or the political wing of Hamas – are now a terrorist offence."
"Any effort to counter this government disinformation, by definition, violates Section 12 of the Terrorism Act and risks 14 years’ imprisonment."
I think these points are overstating it.
Section 12(1) states that a person commits an offence if he invites support for a proscribed organisation and the support is not restricted to the provision of money or property. In the 2018 Court of Appeal case of Choudary it was held that the following must be proven:
i) That the organisation is a proscribed organisation;
(ii) That the defendant used words (or conduct) which in fact invited support for that proscribed organisation; and
(iii) That the defendant knew at the time he or she did so that he or she was inviting support for that organisation.
Under this section, it is not an offence to hold opinions and beliefs supportive of a proscribed organisation. You must invite others to share them.
Natalie Strecker was recently acquitted under the Jersey equivalent of this provision on the basis that the requisite intent was not proven.
In 2019, the TA2000 was amended to introduce a section 12 1A. (Note that Natalie Strecker was prosecuted under Jersey law which did not contain an equivalent to 12 1A). 12 1A states:
"A person commits an offence if the person:
a) expresses and opinion or belief that is supportive of a proscribed organisation, and
b) in doing so is reckless as to whether a person to whom the expression is directed will be encouraged to support a proscribed organisation."
12 1A (a) means that the question of whether the opinion or belief is supportive of the group is to be determined objectively. 12 1A(b) deals with the required intent. It is looser than under 12(1). It means that the Crown does not have to prove that the person intended to encourage support. It is enough that they were reckless as to whether the expressed opinion or belief would do so, which means that they could reasonably have been expected to know that it would encourage others to support the group. Although a lower bar for intent, it is not a strict liability offence. It is not enough to make out the offence to show only that some people were encouraged to support the group. Journalists are not responsible for whatever goes on in the heads of readers, only for what they could reasonably expect would be the effect of their words which interpretation they didn't take reasonable and sufficient attempts to counter.
Looking at the general intent of the section and of the other restrictions in the Act, 12(1) as mentioned above, makes it an offence to "invite" support. 12(2) makes it an offence to organise meetings where people make an address in support of a proscribed group. Under 12(2), it is a defence for the defendant to prove that he had no reasonable cause to believe that the meeting would support a proscribed organisation or further its activities. The explanatory notes state this is is intended to avoid catching genuinely benign meetings. This is a good indicator of what the section as a whole intends to catch.
Section 13 makes it an offence to display clothing, an image or article that gives rise to reasonable suspicion that the person is a member or supporter of the group. Most of the other provisions relate to providing the group with money.
So in context, 12 1A appears aimed at people conducting journalistic type activity, producing articles, videos, leaflets and the giving of speeches, deliberately prosletyzing for the proscribed group or reckless as to the fact that they do so. The main point of the adding 12 1A seems to have been to lower the requirement for intent.
Even so, showing "definitively" that the government was lying in its allegation that PA were funded by Iran, is holding the government to account in a manner well recognised as legitimate. It is not inviting support for PA or expressing an opinion or belief in support of PA, nor could it reasonably be expected to encourage support for PA's practice of using criminal damage against military suppliers to Israel or to support the group more generally. There is no logical argumentative link between the two.
I agree that an extreme interpretation of the section would be that supporting the Palestinian cause at all could encourage support for PA. But some police forces have already been there and withdrawn and so far as I have read, this is not now the interpretation that the police are using. If it were it is very unlikely that a court would uphold it. Even the government formally supports an independent Palestinian state. Expressing support for the unification of Ireland had never been taken as support for the IRA. In practice, support for PA mainly means express or implied support for what it does (or did). Note though that support for PA is an offence even in respect of lawful actions it conducts.
I also agree that in practice it may be very difficult to report the Hamas view of the conflict without falling foul of these provisons, although Middle East Eye seems to have walked the tightrope pretty well by explaining the Palestinian cause rather than Hamas's advocacy for it. There is research which shows how the Israeli perspective on events has dominated media which inevitably minimises the extent of war crimes committed.
Legal advocacy for the civil and prison rights of PA defendants as individuals is not support for PA per se. For lawyers it is part of the legitimate aim of the effective administration of justice. For campaingners, depending on how it is expressed, it can be constructed as legitimate human rights advocacy - right to a fair trial, prisoners rights, to life, not to be subject to inhuman or degrading treatment. But one would have to be careful about what was expressed.
In articles etc, being clear about what legitimate purpose is being pursued and adding a disclaimer such as "Expressing support for PA is an offence and nothing written here should be taken as encouraging any such support" should go a long way to answering an allegation of recklessness, so long as the disclaimer is not objectively ineffective (and hence disingenuous) in comparison to the objective impact of the statement.
I realise that some journalists have been gravely affected by the use of these provisions, but I don't think it actually helps them if the view of the public is that they were in fact in breach of the law when merely pursuing truthful reporting.
In summary, I don't think people should be intimidated about countering falsities or disinformation or advocating on civil and human rights which arise out of the state's treatment of PA defendants or correcting false information which goes to the lawfulness of a government decision (otherwise the JR of that decision would itself be unlawful). Promoting the integrity of government processes through the pursuit of factual truth and legal rights in a democratic society is not an offence under these provisions. What you can't lawfully do is proselytise for PA as a means of pursuing the Palestinian cause, whether this be explicit or by reasonable implication.
Britain, mother of parliament, creator of common law, the basis of law across the world, Magna Carta and the right to trial by jury of good men and true, has been hijacked by an elected government.
A prospective government that misled and lied to the electorate in its own manifesto.
The British people have walked blindly, foolishly, naively into a trap. Locked in for another 4 years with the growing prospect of the General Election, mysteriously owing to “unfortunate events”, delayed or indefinitely postponed.
Sad days, for those that fought for democracy and freedom and for those that gave their lives only for a government to give it all away, not because of war or the threat of war, but because they can and for POWER.
That is where Socialism, Marxism ultimately after 100 plus years they have finally done it.
You are what is usually termed a 'useful idiot'. This is NOT Socialism. This is not even Marxism. This is Oligarchal Dictatorship. You REALLY think Starmer & Co. are socialists? Remember that among the first concentration/extermination camp victims of Germany's Nazis - National 'Socialists' - were ACTUAL socialists!
Thank you I was freely expressing an opinion regarding the Starmer Labour government. If you are suggesting they are no longer the left wing, socialist tribe we have lived with for 120 plus years, that’s fine, perhaps they morphed into a right wing, fascist one.
They are just names, either way we lose our freedom.
To consider that the Starmer government is anything other than fascist is idiocy. I am a socialist and proud of it. Socialism is a humane system. Capitalism is a system of barbarism, violence, war, and death. If we socialists are what you call a "tribe", we are a very large one and growing all the time. You are free to express your opinion, but I do not have to respect that opinion.
We’re already there, aren’t we? They already know where we are, what we’re reading, saying, thinking. I guess the next stage will be the prosecution of social media users? Ha maybe they’ll do it a lot to the likes of Stephen Yaxley Lennon first, to get all the guardian reading, bbc-news watchers to buy the idea.
Abandon social media, return to zines. Physical zines. Printed on a printer that isn’t connected to the internet.
I take your point about Farage, but, importantly, there are other profoundly disturbing issues to consider. May I suggest you read the substack of David McGrogan: he explains it all a lot better than I can.
It appears that Britain is no longer a law abiding country. Would compliance with international law ICJ directions - by supplying weapons to that other state be a problem?
Thank you for the explanation, in my black and white world, we have the good guys and the badies. The ones, like the hunger strikers and the brave who speak out, and the scared, indifferent, too busy to worry about what they can’t change. But, you’ve introduced a third party who care, but dare not risk 14 years in jail, with dependent families, big mortgages…..how to bring all together to stop the war machine? Overturn the corruption…how? Before it’s too late. BDSbarb
WELL EARNED EXPOSURE: This is on the CONSORTIUM NEWS (consortiumnews.com) home page right now...
'JONATHAN COOK: BRITAIN HAS OFFICIALLY CRIMINALIZED JOURNALISM
'December 22, 2025
'Reporting facts in Keir Starmer’s Britain can now land you in jail for 14 years as a terrorist. This is what authoritarian governments do.
'By Jonathan Cook
'The moment the British government began proscribing political movements as terrorist organisations, rather than just militant groups...'
THE FURTHER THIS ARTICLE IS SPREAD ON INDEPENDENT ONLINE NEWS OUTLETS THE BETTER.
And this is why...
'THREAT TO MEDIA AND DEMOCRACY: TRUMP ALLY LARRY ELLISON PUTS UP $40 BILLION TO HELP SON BUY CNN OWNER
' “Yesterday we saw the“Yesterday we saw the Ellison-owned CBS kill an important news story for being too critical of Trump,” wrote one journalist. “Now Ellison is making another move to try to win control of CNN.”
'...In a statement issued late Sunday, [CBS News Editor-in-Chief and ELLISON family sock-puppet] Weiss — whose brief tenure at the helm of CBS News has been embroiled in controversy — suggested she pulled the plug on the “Inside CECOT” segment because it lacked “sufficient context” and was “missing critical voices.” Unnamed people familiar with internal discussions at CBS News told the Times that Weiss pushed for the inclusion of a “fresh interview” with White House Deputy Chief of Staff Stephen Miller, an architect of President Donald Trump’s lawless mass deportation campaign.
'But [60 MINUTES reporter Sharyn] Alfonsi wrote in her email that “we requested responses to questions and/or interviews with [the Department of Homeland Security], the White House, and the State Department,” but the requests went unanswered.
' “Government silence is a statement, not a VETO,” Alfonsi wrote. “If the administration’s refusal to participate becomes a valid reason to spike a story, we have effectively handed them a ‘kill switch’ for any reporting they find inconvenient.”...'
FROM 'CBS Journalist Says Bari Weiss Spiked Segment on Notorious El Salvador Prison for ‘Political’ Reasons', also on COMMON DREAMS home page now.
THIS excellent article/wake-up call from JONATHAN COOK has now, today, been posted on the home page of SCHEER POST (scheerpost.com).
AND further news breaking today:
GRETA THUNBERG has been arrested for terrorism offences at a protest in London in support of Palestine Action hunger strikers.
BOB VYLAN, the punk-rap duo, will face no charges regarding their chants of 'Death to the IDF' at GLASTONBURY FESTIVAL...' "We have concluded, after reviewing all the evidence, that it does not meet the criminal threshold outlined by the CPS for any person to be prosecuted," the [Avon and Somerset Police] force said in a statement...'
REGINALD D HUNTER, Britain-based American stand-up comedian, has walked free from a London criminal court after the judge dismissed a private prosecution brought by Israel lobbyist/activist organisation CAMPAIGN AGAINST ANTI-SEMITISM, the judge ruling: "The CAA have demonstrated by the misleading and partial way in which it summarised its application and its wilful, repeated, failure to meet its disclosure obligations, that its true and sole motive in seeking to prosecute Reginald Hunter is to have him cancelled"..."I have no doubt that the prosecution is abusive,"
FULL TEXT OF E-MAIL TO CBS NEWS STAFF FROM '60 MINUTES' REPORTER SHARYN ALFONSI (see also my post here above):
News Team,
Thank you for the notes and texts. I apologize for not reaching out earlier.
I learned on Saturday that Bari Weiss spiked our story, INSIDE CECOT, which was supposed to air tonight. We (Ori and I) asked for a call to discuss her decision. She did not afford us that courtesy/opportunity.
Our story was screened five times and cleared by both CBS attorneys and Standards and Practices. It is factually correct. In my view, pulling it now-after every rigorous internal check has been met is not an editorial decision, it is a political one.
We requested responses to questions and/or interviews with DHS, the White House, and the State Department. Government silence is a statement, not a VETO. Their refusal to be interviewed is a tactical maneuver designed to kill the story.
If the administration’s refusal to participate becomes a valid reason to spike a story, we have effectively handed them a “kill switch” for any reporting they find inconvenient.
If the standard for airing a story becomes “the government must agree to be interviewed,” then the government effectively gains control over the 60 Minutes broadcast. We go from an investigative powerhouse to a stenographer for the state.
These men risked their lives to speak with us. We have a moral and professional obligation to the sources who entrusted us with their stories. Abandoning them now is a betrayal of the most basic tenet of journalism: giving voice to the voiceless.
CBS spiked the Jeffrey Wigand interview due to legal concerns, nearly destroying the credibility of this broadcast. It took years to recover from that “low point.” By pulling this story to shield an administration, we are repeating that history, but for political optics rather than legal ones.
We have been promoting this story on social media for days. Our viewers are expecting it. When it fails to air without a credible explanation, the public will correctly identify this as corporate censorship. We are trading 50 years of “Gold Standard” reputation for a single week of political quiet.
I care too much about this broadcast to watch it be dismantled without a fight.
Sharyn
FROM post on COMMON DREAMS (commondreams.org) by ROBERT REICH (dated December 23, 2025).
I've long been an admirer of yours - but I just updated to "Founding Member".
Wow. Thank you for this. Terrifying but I understand something I didn't before reading. I would postulate that the Palestine Action group is actually all staged and not organic in any way. They could be the manufactured problem to allow the totalitarian solution. Every image and story and about the individuals of PA feels off to me.
Bless you forever for this imperative truth-telling, Jonathan Cook.
Brilliant as usual. Translated in French here with two connected pieces (Biljana Vankovska and Binoy Kampmark) https://zanzibar.substack.com/p/loccident-kafkaien-de-letat-de-droit
Substack is now censored in UK. We have to identify age and provide ID to access many articles. Death knell for substack. Do something
“When deaths resulting from imposed deprivation (indirect deaths) are factored into mortality data, the total figures will be higher than those from only violent deaths (direct deaths). Eminent epidemiologist Professor Devi Sridhar (chair of Global Health, University of Edinburgh) reported in an article in The Guardian a ‘conservative estimate of four indirect deaths per one direct death’. Assuming that deaths from deprivation were four times the violent deaths, then the 136,000 violent deaths after 15.5 months of killing (25 April 2025) would imply 544,000 Gaza deaths from imposed deprivation, and that the total Gazan death toll would accordingly be 136,000 violent deaths plus 544,000 from imposed deprivation, leading to a staggering total of 680,000 deaths by 25 April 2025. Most of these victims, as indicated in earlier counts by the Ministry of Health are women and children.”
Can we at least agree that if a fact were shoved up your ass you would not know it was there. No need for you to worry about getting into trouble for posting facts. You need to worry when you get into trouble for posting lies.
I don’t recommend it, but how about inverting it with satire: marching up and down with signs saying “I support Palestine INaction, I support Genocide”
Good thinking. I can't get to attend any demonstrations, as makes me feel a bit sick.
But it strikes me that there are much more ascerbic slogans could be used.
"....saying truthful things about any of these matters – if they could lead a reader or listener to take a more favourable view of Palestine Action or the political wing of Hamas – are now a terrorist offence."
"Any effort to counter this government disinformation, by definition, violates Section 12 of the Terrorism Act and risks 14 years’ imprisonment."
I think these points are overstating it.
Section 12(1) states that a person commits an offence if he invites support for a proscribed organisation and the support is not restricted to the provision of money or property. In the 2018 Court of Appeal case of Choudary it was held that the following must be proven:
i) That the organisation is a proscribed organisation;
(ii) That the defendant used words (or conduct) which in fact invited support for that proscribed organisation; and
(iii) That the defendant knew at the time he or she did so that he or she was inviting support for that organisation.
Under this section, it is not an offence to hold opinions and beliefs supportive of a proscribed organisation. You must invite others to share them.
Natalie Strecker was recently acquitted under the Jersey equivalent of this provision on the basis that the requisite intent was not proven.
In 2019, the TA2000 was amended to introduce a section 12 1A. (Note that Natalie Strecker was prosecuted under Jersey law which did not contain an equivalent to 12 1A). 12 1A states:
"A person commits an offence if the person:
a) expresses and opinion or belief that is supportive of a proscribed organisation, and
b) in doing so is reckless as to whether a person to whom the expression is directed will be encouraged to support a proscribed organisation."
12 1A (a) means that the question of whether the opinion or belief is supportive of the group is to be determined objectively. 12 1A(b) deals with the required intent. It is looser than under 12(1). It means that the Crown does not have to prove that the person intended to encourage support. It is enough that they were reckless as to whether the expressed opinion or belief would do so, which means that they could reasonably have been expected to know that it would encourage others to support the group. Although a lower bar for intent, it is not a strict liability offence. It is not enough to make out the offence to show only that some people were encouraged to support the group. Journalists are not responsible for whatever goes on in the heads of readers, only for what they could reasonably expect would be the effect of their words which interpretation they didn't take reasonable and sufficient attempts to counter.
Looking at the general intent of the section and of the other restrictions in the Act, 12(1) as mentioned above, makes it an offence to "invite" support. 12(2) makes it an offence to organise meetings where people make an address in support of a proscribed group. Under 12(2), it is a defence for the defendant to prove that he had no reasonable cause to believe that the meeting would support a proscribed organisation or further its activities. The explanatory notes state this is is intended to avoid catching genuinely benign meetings. This is a good indicator of what the section as a whole intends to catch.
Section 13 makes it an offence to display clothing, an image or article that gives rise to reasonable suspicion that the person is a member or supporter of the group. Most of the other provisions relate to providing the group with money.
So in context, 12 1A appears aimed at people conducting journalistic type activity, producing articles, videos, leaflets and the giving of speeches, deliberately prosletyzing for the proscribed group or reckless as to the fact that they do so. The main point of the adding 12 1A seems to have been to lower the requirement for intent.
Even so, showing "definitively" that the government was lying in its allegation that PA were funded by Iran, is holding the government to account in a manner well recognised as legitimate. It is not inviting support for PA or expressing an opinion or belief in support of PA, nor could it reasonably be expected to encourage support for PA's practice of using criminal damage against military suppliers to Israel or to support the group more generally. There is no logical argumentative link between the two.
I agree that an extreme interpretation of the section would be that supporting the Palestinian cause at all could encourage support for PA. But some police forces have already been there and withdrawn and so far as I have read, this is not now the interpretation that the police are using. If it were it is very unlikely that a court would uphold it. Even the government formally supports an independent Palestinian state. Expressing support for the unification of Ireland had never been taken as support for the IRA. In practice, support for PA mainly means express or implied support for what it does (or did). Note though that support for PA is an offence even in respect of lawful actions it conducts.
I also agree that in practice it may be very difficult to report the Hamas view of the conflict without falling foul of these provisons, although Middle East Eye seems to have walked the tightrope pretty well by explaining the Palestinian cause rather than Hamas's advocacy for it. There is research which shows how the Israeli perspective on events has dominated media which inevitably minimises the extent of war crimes committed.
Legal advocacy for the civil and prison rights of PA defendants as individuals is not support for PA per se. For lawyers it is part of the legitimate aim of the effective administration of justice. For campaingners, depending on how it is expressed, it can be constructed as legitimate human rights advocacy - right to a fair trial, prisoners rights, to life, not to be subject to inhuman or degrading treatment. But one would have to be careful about what was expressed.
In articles etc, being clear about what legitimate purpose is being pursued and adding a disclaimer such as "Expressing support for PA is an offence and nothing written here should be taken as encouraging any such support" should go a long way to answering an allegation of recklessness, so long as the disclaimer is not objectively ineffective (and hence disingenuous) in comparison to the objective impact of the statement.
I realise that some journalists have been gravely affected by the use of these provisions, but I don't think it actually helps them if the view of the public is that they were in fact in breach of the law when merely pursuing truthful reporting.
In summary, I don't think people should be intimidated about countering falsities or disinformation or advocating on civil and human rights which arise out of the state's treatment of PA defendants or correcting false information which goes to the lawfulness of a government decision (otherwise the JR of that decision would itself be unlawful). Promoting the integrity of government processes through the pursuit of factual truth and legal rights in a democratic society is not an offence under these provisions. What you can't lawfully do is proselytise for PA as a means of pursuing the Palestinian cause, whether this be explicit or by reasonable implication.
Does that mean we can now name the British Labor Party .
'Labour' - with a 'u', and ALWAYS, these days, in quotes - because it is no true Labour Party as I have always understood it.
Britain, mother of parliament, creator of common law, the basis of law across the world, Magna Carta and the right to trial by jury of good men and true, has been hijacked by an elected government.
A prospective government that misled and lied to the electorate in its own manifesto.
The British people have walked blindly, foolishly, naively into a trap. Locked in for another 4 years with the growing prospect of the General Election, mysteriously owing to “unfortunate events”, delayed or indefinitely postponed.
Sad days, for those that fought for democracy and freedom and for those that gave their lives only for a government to give it all away, not because of war or the threat of war, but because they can and for POWER.
That is where Socialism, Marxism ultimately after 100 plus years they have finally done it.
You are what is usually termed a 'useful idiot'. This is NOT Socialism. This is not even Marxism. This is Oligarchal Dictatorship. You REALLY think Starmer & Co. are socialists? Remember that among the first concentration/extermination camp victims of Germany's Nazis - National 'Socialists' - were ACTUAL socialists!
Thank you I was freely expressing an opinion regarding the Starmer Labour government. If you are suggesting they are no longer the left wing, socialist tribe we have lived with for 120 plus years, that’s fine, perhaps they morphed into a right wing, fascist one.
They are just names, either way we lose our freedom.
To consider that the Starmer government is anything other than fascist is idiocy. I am a socialist and proud of it. Socialism is a humane system. Capitalism is a system of barbarism, violence, war, and death. If we socialists are what you call a "tribe", we are a very large one and growing all the time. You are free to express your opinion, but I do not have to respect that opinion.
Tell that to Poland, Yugoslavia. Hungary, Czechoslovakia et al
We’re already there, aren’t we? They already know where we are, what we’re reading, saying, thinking. I guess the next stage will be the prosecution of social media users? Ha maybe they’ll do it a lot to the likes of Stephen Yaxley Lennon first, to get all the guardian reading, bbc-news watchers to buy the idea.
Abandon social media, return to zines. Physical zines. Printed on a printer that isn’t connected to the internet.
Personally, I want them to know how much I despise them.
I take your point about Farage, but, importantly, there are other profoundly disturbing issues to consider. May I suggest you read the substack of David McGrogan: he explains it all a lot better than I can.
It appears that Britain is no longer a law abiding country. Would compliance with international law ICJ directions - by supplying weapons to that other state be a problem?
Thank you for the explanation, in my black and white world, we have the good guys and the badies. The ones, like the hunger strikers and the brave who speak out, and the scared, indifferent, too busy to worry about what they can’t change. But, you’ve introduced a third party who care, but dare not risk 14 years in jail, with dependent families, big mortgages…..how to bring all together to stop the war machine? Overturn the corruption…how? Before it’s too late. BDSbarb
WELL EARNED EXPOSURE: This is on the CONSORTIUM NEWS (consortiumnews.com) home page right now...
'JONATHAN COOK: BRITAIN HAS OFFICIALLY CRIMINALIZED JOURNALISM
'December 22, 2025
'Reporting facts in Keir Starmer’s Britain can now land you in jail for 14 years as a terrorist. This is what authoritarian governments do.
'By Jonathan Cook
'The moment the British government began proscribing political movements as terrorist organisations, rather than just militant groups...'
THE FURTHER THIS ARTICLE IS SPREAD ON INDEPENDENT ONLINE NEWS OUTLETS THE BETTER.
And this is why...
'THREAT TO MEDIA AND DEMOCRACY: TRUMP ALLY LARRY ELLISON PUTS UP $40 BILLION TO HELP SON BUY CNN OWNER
' “Yesterday we saw the“Yesterday we saw the Ellison-owned CBS kill an important news story for being too critical of Trump,” wrote one journalist. “Now Ellison is making another move to try to win control of CNN.”
'[By] Jake Johnson
Dec 22, 2025
ON COMMON DREAMS (commondreams.org) home page now.
'...In a statement issued late Sunday, [CBS News Editor-in-Chief and ELLISON family sock-puppet] Weiss — whose brief tenure at the helm of CBS News has been embroiled in controversy — suggested she pulled the plug on the “Inside CECOT” segment because it lacked “sufficient context” and was “missing critical voices.” Unnamed people familiar with internal discussions at CBS News told the Times that Weiss pushed for the inclusion of a “fresh interview” with White House Deputy Chief of Staff Stephen Miller, an architect of President Donald Trump’s lawless mass deportation campaign.
'But [60 MINUTES reporter Sharyn] Alfonsi wrote in her email that “we requested responses to questions and/or interviews with [the Department of Homeland Security], the White House, and the State Department,” but the requests went unanswered.
' “Government silence is a statement, not a VETO,” Alfonsi wrote. “If the administration’s refusal to participate becomes a valid reason to spike a story, we have effectively handed them a ‘kill switch’ for any reporting they find inconvenient.”...'
FROM 'CBS Journalist Says Bari Weiss Spiked Segment on Notorious El Salvador Prison for ‘Political’ Reasons', also on COMMON DREAMS home page now.
THIS excellent article/wake-up call from JONATHAN COOK has now, today, been posted on the home page of SCHEER POST (scheerpost.com).
AND further news breaking today:
GRETA THUNBERG has been arrested for terrorism offences at a protest in London in support of Palestine Action hunger strikers.
BOB VYLAN, the punk-rap duo, will face no charges regarding their chants of 'Death to the IDF' at GLASTONBURY FESTIVAL...' "We have concluded, after reviewing all the evidence, that it does not meet the criminal threshold outlined by the CPS for any person to be prosecuted," the [Avon and Somerset Police] force said in a statement...'
REGINALD D HUNTER, Britain-based American stand-up comedian, has walked free from a London criminal court after the judge dismissed a private prosecution brought by Israel lobbyist/activist organisation CAMPAIGN AGAINST ANTI-SEMITISM, the judge ruling: "The CAA have demonstrated by the misleading and partial way in which it summarised its application and its wilful, repeated, failure to meet its disclosure obligations, that its true and sole motive in seeking to prosecute Reginald Hunter is to have him cancelled"..."I have no doubt that the prosecution is abusive,"
FULL TEXT OF E-MAIL TO CBS NEWS STAFF FROM '60 MINUTES' REPORTER SHARYN ALFONSI (see also my post here above):
News Team,
Thank you for the notes and texts. I apologize for not reaching out earlier.
I learned on Saturday that Bari Weiss spiked our story, INSIDE CECOT, which was supposed to air tonight. We (Ori and I) asked for a call to discuss her decision. She did not afford us that courtesy/opportunity.
Our story was screened five times and cleared by both CBS attorneys and Standards and Practices. It is factually correct. In my view, pulling it now-after every rigorous internal check has been met is not an editorial decision, it is a political one.
We requested responses to questions and/or interviews with DHS, the White House, and the State Department. Government silence is a statement, not a VETO. Their refusal to be interviewed is a tactical maneuver designed to kill the story.
If the administration’s refusal to participate becomes a valid reason to spike a story, we have effectively handed them a “kill switch” for any reporting they find inconvenient.
If the standard for airing a story becomes “the government must agree to be interviewed,” then the government effectively gains control over the 60 Minutes broadcast. We go from an investigative powerhouse to a stenographer for the state.
These men risked their lives to speak with us. We have a moral and professional obligation to the sources who entrusted us with their stories. Abandoning them now is a betrayal of the most basic tenet of journalism: giving voice to the voiceless.
CBS spiked the Jeffrey Wigand interview due to legal concerns, nearly destroying the credibility of this broadcast. It took years to recover from that “low point.” By pulling this story to shield an administration, we are repeating that history, but for political optics rather than legal ones.
We have been promoting this story on social media for days. Our viewers are expecting it. When it fails to air without a credible explanation, the public will correctly identify this as corporate censorship. We are trading 50 years of “Gold Standard” reputation for a single week of political quiet.
I care too much about this broadcast to watch it be dismantled without a fight.
Sharyn
FROM post on COMMON DREAMS (commondreams.org) by ROBERT REICH (dated December 23, 2025).