NASA hopes to have astronauts on Mars in the near future. It is not going to be an easy journey and being on another world will be extremely dangerous. The space agency wants to be there as prepared as possible. And part of that requires volunteers who want to take part in a 12-month-long simulation of living on Mars.The first CHAPEA (Crew Health and Performance Exploration Analog) mission started on June 25‚ 2023‚ and NASA is now looking for the next four simul-astronauts to take the place of Dr Kelly Haston‚ Ross Brockwell‚ Dr Nathan Jones‚ and Dr Anca Selariu. Their mission ends on July 6‚ 2024. The next CHAPEA mission is expected to start in the spring of 2025.“NASA is looking for healthy‚ motivated U.S. citizens or permanent residents who are non-smokers‚ 30-55 years old‚ and proficient in English for effective communication between crewmates and mission control. Applicants should have a strong desire for unique‚ rewarding adventures and interest in contributing to NASA’s work to prepare for the first human journey to Mars‚” NASA wrote in an announcement post.        Applications can now be submitted‚ with an April 2 deadline. The selection process will be similar to that of astronauts in terms of skills‚ although it is a shorter turnaround‚ as it is expected to last between 12 and 14 months.“Crew selection will follow additional standard NASA criteria for astronaut candidate applicants. A master’s degree in a STEM field such as engineering‚ mathematics‚ or biological‚ physical or computer science from an accredited institution with at least two years of professional STEM experience or a minimum of one thousand hours piloting an aircraft is required‚” NASA explained‚ although medical doctors‚ people currently working towards a STEM Ph.D.‚ and a few other groups might be considered.  The individual crew rooms for the astronauts in the simulated 3D-printed habitat.Image credit: NASA/Bill StaffordThe team will have to go on simulated spacewalks‚ perform robotic operations‚ keep up the habitat‚ maintain a regular exercise regime‚ and grow crops for subsistence. Communications with the outside world happen with at least a 20-minute delay; at its closest distance‚ Mars is just three light-minutes away but at its furthest‚ is about 22 and a half light-minutes away. And this simulation is all about hardships.        The crew will have to face resource limitations‚ equipment failures‚ and environmental stressors on top of communication delays. While many questions in the applications are about the ability to go through these challenges for over a year‚ NASA asks also if the candidates can go without speaking to their loved ones for periods of over two weeks.Participants will be paid for this mission‚ but how much has not been disclosed. This information will be provided to candidates during the screening process.

Three and a half billion years ago life had not only found a way‚ but diversified‚ so that all these years later we can observe differences in what was left behind.The Earth has undergone so many cycles of geologic uplift and destruction that there is very little left of the rocks from the time when life had just begun. Parts of Western Australia represent one of the few exceptions‚ holding traces of microorganisms 3.48 billion years old.Barite is a particularly promising material to study from this time‚ since it is stable under high temperature and pressure conditions‚ and does not dissolve easily in water.Black bedded barite samples analyzed by University of Göttingen PhD student Lena Weimann and colleagues come from calderas‚ hollows that form after volcanic eruptions and often fill with lakes. Hot fluids in the caldera provide both energy and nutrients to lifeforms today‚ and such environments are good candidates for the places where life first evolved. Trapped in the barite‚ the team found carbonaceous particles whose molecular size indicates they were left behind by early lifeforms.“As our findings show‚ original traces of the first organisms can still be found even from extremely old material‚” Weimann said in a statement. Barite (barium sulfate) from the Pilbara Craton in Western Australia shows three sorts of organic molecules‚ two of which were apparently living at the same time.Image credit: Gerhard HundertmarkNot a lot of information about these organisms has survived‚ although we know they must have been single-celled. That might suggest there is little we can learn. However‚ when Weimann’s team combined several high-resolution observation techniques they found three distinct sorts‚ which they call populations‚ of carbonaceous material.These indicate that the life forms of the day had evolved to fill separate niches even at this early point in time.The most common population is found at the edges of single growth bands of barite crystals. A second is found finely distributed within the barite matrix‚ while the third is found within quartz veins that crisscross the barite. The first two were apparently deposited as the barite crystallized‚ while the quartz apparently entered the system at least 200 million years later‚ accompanied by the third population.The team thinks population one arises from organic particles accumulating on crystal surfaces where the water and sediment met. When the flow of hydrothermal fluid dropped off or temperatures fell‚ biofilms and microbial mats‚ like those formed by single-celled organisms today‚ sometimes became incorporated into the rocks.When the flow picked up‚ particles that may have been from organisms living elsewhere were carried with it. Crystallization rates were higher at these times‚ and the particles got distributed within the growing crystals‚ creating population two.The study is published open access in Precambrian Research.

When animals are killed by predators on land in the wild‚ there's a good chance scavengers will descend upon the carcass pretty quickly‚ saving everybody the problem of burial.The same is true in the ocean. Essentially‚ if there are predators out there who do not finish the whole meal‚ you better believe something will come to fit the "I'll just take the scraps" niche. But some carcasses are more difficult to scavenge than others‚ which (along with mermaids) was the surprising subject of a viral X (Twitter) thread on Tuesday.         IFLScience is not responsible for content shared from external sites.After whales die‚ they begin to decompose. Gases during decomposition can sometimes float the animal to the surface‚ where birds and sharks will attempt to tear out chunks‚ over the course of weeks or even over a month. But it isn't easy for the animals. Despite using techniques such as vigorous head thrashing and shaking‚ and body rolling.Generally‚ as noted by Kairo‚ who runs a popular science-based Instagram account‚ the methods are ineffective are getting to the tastiest parts of whales.       IFLScience is not responsible for content shared from external sites.The thread suggests (for fun) that one mythical animal could perfectly fit this niche‚ and have itself an easy life opening up whales and scavenging on the gooey bits inside."MERMAIDS" They have hands! And teamwork! And tools!" Kairo suggests. "There is this unrealized potential to take on this deeply lucrative role of top scavenger that nobody else in the ocean seems to be able to fill."While a fun idea‚ whale carcasses are not going to waste as it is (other than the occasional time they are scattered for miles by overenthusiastic officials using way too much TNT). After weeks of bobbing around‚ they sink and can fall to the bottom of the ocean‚ where their decaying body will feed an ecosystem‚ known as a "whale fall".  Scavengers tend to consume the soft tissues of the animal within months‚ while fragments of flesh feed nearby critters for over a year."The whale skeleton can support rich communities for years to decades‚ both as a hard substrate (or surface) for invertebrate colonization and as a source of sulfides from the decay of organic compounds of whale bones. Microbes live off of the energy released from these chemical reactions and form the basis of ecosystems for as long as the food source lasts‚" the National Ocean Service explains. "At deep sea levels this forms a new food web and provides energy to support single- and multi-cell organisms and sponges‚ thus adding to the ocean's food chain."While scavengers at the surface may struggle to get a share of the carcass‚ scavengers down below sure finish the job.

Working in a zoo presents challenges of all kinds‚ from working to engage the public with conservation issues to making sure every animal has the highest standard of care and welfare. Over at Houston Zoo‚ the team is doing just that – down to some of the smallest residents.In the Bug House‚ a Peruvian jumping stick female was spotted to be in difficulty after shedding her exoskeleton and coming out of the molt. The entomology keepers noticed that the jumping stick had a weakened area in her thoracic region‚ the part of the insect that resembles the neck.“On Feb 5th we noticed her old molt was next to her. She was 'floppy' still – they are very soft and pliable and fragile‚ after molting – so we knew it was molting related. It was obvious that something didn't quite go right.” Julie LaTurner‚ one of the entomology keepers who first noticed the problem‚ told IFLScience. Peruvian jumping sticks spend almost all of their time climbing branches; having a weakened neck was causing the female's head to be affected as she climbed‚ the team wrote on their blog page. These insects are actually a type of grasshopper‚ not a stick insect (Stiphra spp). They live in the tropical rainforests of South America in the wild. The females are much bigger than the males and look quite different‚ a biological phenomenon known as sexual dimorphism. Julie stressed how unusual this sort of problem is among the animals. “Most of the time molting goes perfectly fine. These bugs molt several times before reaching adulthood. This is a fairly rare occurrence‚ and the first time I've seen something this extreme.”Fortunately for the insect‚ Julie was able to work with the vets at the zoo to create a bespoke neck brace for the jumping stick.Without the work from the team‚ the insect would most likely have had to be euthanized.Image Courtesy of Houston Zoo“Bug vet treatments are not really something that is established‚ for many reasons. They are surprisingly complex creatures! I wasn't really sure if our vet‚ Dr Melissa‚ would be able to create something that could work for the time we needed it to‚ or even if our grasshopper would tolerate it."The stick part of a cotton bud was used as it was the perfect flexible material to work for the animal. The situation was quite pressing‚ with the insect’s life hanging in the balance. “If we hadn't come up with a solution‚ she would have had to be euthanized‚ she would not be able to eat with her head in the unnatural position‚ and it was probably also physically uncomfortable. This was ultimately to give her a chance to live‚" explained Julie.The brace was a great success‚ with the jumping stick only needing to wear it for around four days to allow the exoskeleton to harden. She is now moving around her enclosure in a normal way and is able to hold her head in a natural position. This is not the first time zoos have gone above and beyond for the residents – San Diego Zoo created fancy orthopaedic boots for one of their penguins. “She has taught us a lot about invertebrate physiology and health care‚" concluded Julie. "We love our invertebrates‚ and we really want people to learn about them‚ and appreciate the wide variety of lifestyles‚ habits‚ and life histories they have. When you see the bugs in your neighborhood‚ take a moment to look them up and learn about them. You'll find them to be just as fascinating."

Last night‚ Chicago Med promoted the dangerous lie that women who miscarry might get arrested and be denied medical care in a pro-life state. This insidious falsehood has been pushed in liberal establishment media to deliberately create fear in women who do not know the truth about state pro-life laws‚ none of which ban treatment for miscarriage. In the episode‚ "I Make a Promise‚ I Will Never Leave You‚" a pregnant woman named Kaitlin (Katie Anne Moy) arrives at the hospital in a state of septic shock after a long trip from an unnamed rural area.  Her husband Eric (Rammel Chan) tells the OB/Gyn‚ Dr. Hannah Asher (Jessy Schram)‚ that Kaitlin's water broke at 15 weeks gestation‚ but doctors were "afraid" to treat her and "she didn't wanna get arrested."  Asher: Tell me what happened.  Eric: Kaitlin's water broke. Everybody said the fetus couldn't survive at 15 weeks‚ but it was still alive‚ so doctors were afraid to do the D&;E. She didn't wanna get arrested. Where we live‚ that could happen. They sent us home. Kaitlin got sicker and sicker. And I kept calling‚ and they kept telling me it wasn't a life-threatening emergency. Finally‚ I just gave up and started driving here. Kaitlin's from Chicago. When we got married‚ we moved to my family's farm‚ where I grew up. We were so excited when Kaitlin finally got pregnant. She's been so worried she's not gonna be able to again.  This plotline is the sort of fearmongering peddled by abortion activists to scare pregnant woman. Not a single abortion ban in the United States prevents treating a pregnant woman in this situation. Abortion activists and their media fluffers push this disinformation so often that it is they‚ not pro-lifers‚ who place women's lives in danger by creating false hysteria. The show lays the scare tactics on even thicker after Kaitlin's life is saved. Eric tells her they will move to a different place‚ presumably one where abortion is legal‚ so she can get pregnant again without worry. "If you decide you want us to try again‚ you don't have to be afraid‚" he says.  "Well‚ it's good to know there's some good guys in the world‚" Dr. Asher says outside their room. "Yeah‚" a nurse agrees.  In the delusional mind of abortion proponents‚ a woman should only want to become pregnant in a state that fails to protect children in the womb and men who live in states protecting such children are bad. Since the strategy of "shout your abortion" failed so spectacularly over the last decade‚ activists after Roe are now turning to panic-inducing takes like "if you miscarry‚ pro-lifers will arrest you or let you die!"  Sadly‚ there may be women who see this episode and falsely believe such a storyline could happen to them. It's cruel to mislead women this way‚ but Hollywood has been working hand in hand with the abortion movement for decades to deceive women. Last night's episode was just the latest manipulation.

On Thursday‚ ABC’s Good Morning America and NBC’s Today tried to have their cake and eat it too‚ as they praised President Biden for finally taking executive action to secure the U.S.’s southern border‚ while also whining that Republicans forced him to do it. It was a seminar executive action they condemned former President Trump for enacting. “President Biden is considering executive action on the border to stem the flow of migrants after congressional Republicans killed a bipartisan compromise on border security‚” co-anchor George Stephanopoulos announced‚ framing it as Republicans forcing his hand. Ignoring the fact that the White House and the liberal media had been claiming for years that Biden couldn’t do anything unilaterally to halt the flood of illegal immigrants‚ chief White House correspondent and chief Biden apple polisher Mary Bruce lauded Biden’s possible actions: Well‚ I'm told this morning President Biden is considering possibly taking executive action to impose tough new asylum restrictions‚ including possibly barring migrants from seeking asylum if they cross illegally between U.S. ports of entry. Bruce boasted that “President Biden is eager to show voters that he is taking this issue seriously” as “Republicans on the Hill‚ under pressure from Donald Trump‚ tanked a bipartisan border deal that contained significant new restrictions.”     She kvetched that “Republicans have seized on the chaos at the border‚ turning it into a political liability for the President‚ upping the pressure on Biden to act.” And she lamented that Biden’s executive order “would echo a 2018 effort by then-President Trump to bar and block migrants. It’s something Democrats staunchly opposed at the time‚ and it was blocked by the courts.” Despite noting that Biden’s executive order “would likely face legal challenges” of its own‚ Bruce still commended it as “an opportunity [for Biden] to show he is doing something to address this crisis while Republicans‚ mired in their own in-fighting‚ have failed to do anything through legislation.” The duality of bellyaching that Biden was pressured into taking action and touting the possible action to come was also present on NBC via correspondent Garrett Haake. “It speaks to both the scale of the crisis at the border and the political potency of the immigration issue that the White House is now considering taking actions they have long said only Congress could to stem the flow of migrants at the border‚” he proclaimed. “President would make the change without Congress after Republicans blocked a bipartisan border bill‚” Haake added. But on CBS Mornings‚ chief White House correspondent Nancy Cordes admitted that federal law already allowed the president to take unilateral action to crack down on illegal immigrants. “And so‚ now they're looking at a law known as 212(f) that's been on the books for more than 70 years‚” she said. “It allows the president to suspend the entry of foreigners when it's determined that their arrival is detrimental to the interests of the United States.” Cordes also admitted that the pressure Biden was under was not only coming from Republicans. “Well‚ he's gotten an earful from Democratic governors and mayors who say their cities are inundated by new migrants” and “he does not poll well on this issue‚” she reported. The transcript is below. Click "expand" to read: ABC’s Good Morning America February 22‚ 2024 7:03 a.m. Eastern GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS: We’re going to begin‚ Robin‚ at the White House where President Biden is considering executive action on the border to stem the flow of migrants‚ after congressional Republicans killed a bipartisan compromise on border security. Chief White House correspondent Mary Bruce starts us off. Good morning‚ Mary. MARY BRUCE: Good morning George. Well‚ I'm told this morning President Biden is considering possibly taking executive action to impose tough new asylum restrictions‚ including possibly barring migrants from seeking asylum if they cross illegally between U.S. ports of entry. Now‚ I’m told the President is considering a wide range of options‚ no final decisions have been made. But this does come‚ of course‚ after Republicans on the Hill‚ under pressure from Donald Trump‚ tanked a bipartisan border deal that contained significant new restrictions. And as President Biden is eager to show voters that he is taking this issue seriously. Look‚ Republicans have seized on the chaos at the border‚ turning it into a political liability for the President‚ upping the pressure on Biden to act. But if he does impose this executive order‚ it would echo a 2018 effort by then-President Trump to bar and block migrants. It’s something Democrats staunchly opposed at the time‚ and it was blocked by the courts. And if he does take this action‚ it too would likely face legal challenges. But even so‚ politically it would give the President an opportunity to show he is doing something to address this crisis while Republicans‚ mired in their own in-fighting‚ have failed to do anything through legislation.

If you expected ABC‚ CBS‚ NBC‚ PBS‚ and NPR would offer a sober and substantive story on James Biden testifying behind closed doors in the House impeachment inquiry on Wednesday night‚ you'd be deeply disappointed. These networks all aired a story‚ but the narrative was overwhelmingly focused on indicted FBI confidential informant Alexander Smirnov and his unproven claims that Joe and Hunter Biden were offered $5 million each in bribes. Overall‚ the networks offered 920 seconds of coverage focused on Smirnov‚ and 143 seconds on James Biden. So that's 86.5 percent for Smirnov‚ 13.5 percent for Uncle Jimmy.  -- ABC offered 44 seconds of James Biden‚ to 141 seconds on Smirnov. Anchor David Muir opened: “As our Pierre Thomas tonight asks Republicans in the House‚ how do you move forward if the main informant was lying?” PIERRE THOMAS: But Republicans‚ who have uncovered no evidence president Biden committed impeachable offenses‚ pressing anyway...Today‚ calling the president's brother James Biden to testify. No comment outside‚ but behind closed doors‚ James Biden telling lawmakers his brother has never had any involvement or any direct or indirect financial interest in his business dealings. Biden adding‚ I never asked my brother to take any official action on behalf of me‚ my business associates‚ or anyone else. -- CBS spent two minutes and five seconds on Smirnov and how he put the impeachment inquiry "in jeopardy‚" and just 18 seconds on James Biden‚ all preposterous denial: SCOTT MacFARLANE: The president`s younger brother James arrived ahead of his interview with congressional investigators as Republicans tried to salvage their impeachment inquiry into President Biden. REPORTER: You got any thoughts on this? REP. ANDY BIGGS (R-Arizona): No‚ no‚ because -- because there`s other corroborating evidence with other -- other links to -- to the president. MacFARLANE: James Biden told the panel the president had no role in his business ventures‚ saying: "I never asked my brother to take any official action on behalf of me or anyone else." -- NBC spent only 61 seconds on the House inquiry with reporter Ryan Nobles‚ who relayed James said "his brother did not have any direct or indirect involvement in any of his work‚ this despite Republicans making claims that James Biden was using his connections to his brother to drum up business.” 'NBC Nightly News' could only spend about a minute on the "Republican-controlled" House Oversight hearing‚ and in the 30 seconds on James Biden‚ Ryan Nobles just repeated the bunk that James said "his brother did not have any direct or indirect involvement in any of his work." pic.twitter.com/PdWzKZ6Jst — Tim Graham (@TimJGraham) February 22‚ 2024 -- PBS presented eight minutes and 22 seconds with a Democrat expert‚ but seven minutes was devoted to Smirnov‚ and the rest on Ukraine. The taxpayer-funded network story didn't even mention James Biden!    -- NPR interviewed their congressional reporter‚ and only 50 seconds was devoted to James Biden (mostly denials)‚ and the other 204 seconds focused on Smirnov. MARY LOUISE KELLY: Which brings us to President Biden's brother‚ James Biden. We said he was on Capitol Hill today - a closed-door deposition. Did we get any readout? RYAN LUCAS: Well‚ we know from a copy of his opening statement to lawmakers that James Biden told them that his brother‚ President Biden‚ has never had any involvement or financial interest in James' business dealings. He also said that he never asked his brother to take any official action on his behalf or anyone else's behalf. That said‚ we do not have a full picture‚ at this point‚ of everything that was said behind closed doors. PS CBS Mornings on Thursday spent two minutes and 18 seconds on an impeachment inquiry story‚ but James Biden was only mentioned for 17 seconds. ABC and NBC moved on.

The New York Times dared to publish an unflattering fact-check of President Joe Biden’s economic talking points on Wednesday and MSNBC contributor and former Democratic Senator Claire McCaskill was infuriated about it. Reacting on Thursday’s Morning Joe‚ McCaskill did not care to rebut the substance of the article‚ but demanded that no newspaper fact-check Biden unless they first fact-check Donald Trump every single day on the front page. Ironically‚ this came immediately after co-host Joe Scarborough repeated some fake news of his own. Scarborough believes that a lie is anything that differs from his rants. He previously stated that the U.S. military is in a better position today than at any other time since 1945 and anyone who disagrees hates the military. On Thursday‚ he repeated himself: You look at every rating from around the world‚ rating militaries. The United States military: stronger than it's ever been relative to the rest of the world since 1945. There's not a close second. In fact‚ in the latest ranking I saw‚ Russia was second and Russia's military is collapsing. Russia was second to the U.S. military and yet‚ Donald Trump lies about America's greatness. Donald Trump lies about America's men and women in uniform.     As Scarborough was ranting‚ the chyron asked‚ “Do MAGA Republicans hate America?” but contrary to Scarborough’s hyper-partisan ramblings and uncritical happy talk‚ the idea that the U.S. military is losing its comparative edge is not simply a MAGA talking point. The 1945 part is worse than state-run propaganda because even the state doesn’t believe it. Scarborough also claimed that “Donald Trump lies about what small business owners and entrepreneurs and the geniuses of Silicon Valley‚ the geniuses on Main Street USA‚ what they're all doing‚ what they've done to rebuild our economy after COVID.” Finally getting to McCaskill‚ he wondered‚ “The lies. I don't understand it‚ Claire. Why do they bash America so much?”  McCaskill naturally agreed‚ “Yeah‚ and you know‚ the irony is‚ if you travel around the world‚ which I'm fortunate enough to have a chance to do several times a year‚ you know what the rest of the world sees right now? They see America with the strongest economy. They see America with the most advanced technology. America's universities still the brightest light on the horizon in terms of academics and research.” After claiming the only bad thing about America and its reputation abroad is Donald Trump‚ McCaskill homed in on the Times‚ “Can I make a suggestion? I move that every newspaper in America quits doing any fact-checks on Joe Biden until they fact-check Donald Trump every morning on the front page. It is ridiculous that the New York Times fact-checked Joe Biden on something. I mean‚ he vomits lies‚ Trump vomits lies.” She continued‚ “Every day‚ over and over and over again and it’s just ridiculous that the New York Times is doing a fact-check on Biden while they let Trump -- while they're numb to the torrent of lies coming out of Trump's mouth.” Not only is it malpractice to only fact-check one side‚ but apparently the New York Times needs to start fact-checking Morning Joe as well.  Here is a transcript for the February 22 show: MSNBC Morning Joe 2/22/2024 7:14 AM ET JOE SCARBOROUGH: You look at every rating from around the world‚ rating militaries. The United States military: stronger than it's ever been relative to the rest of the world since 1945. There's not a close second. In fact‚ in the latest ranking I saw‚ Russia was second and Russia's military is collapsing. Russia was second to the U.S. military and yet‚ Donald Trump lies about America's greatness. Donald Trump lies about America's men and women in uniform. Donald Trump lies about what small business owners and entrepreneurs and the geniuses of Silicon Valley‚ the geniuses on Main Street USA‚ what they're all doing‚ what they've done to rebuild our economy after COVID. The lies. I don't understand it‚ Claire. Why do they bash America so much?  CLAIRE MCCASKILL: Yeah‚ and you know‚ the irony is‚ if you travel around the world‚ which I'm fortunate enough to have a chance to do several times a year‚ you know what the rest of the world sees right now? They see America with the strongest economy. They see America with the most advanced technology. America's universities still the brightest light on the horizon in terms of academics and research.  They see American companies still exceeding in terms of their global reach. But you know what they look down their nose at? They look down their nose at Donald Trump being a leader. I mean‚ what everyone says when you travel‚ “well‚ you wouldn't elect him again‚ would you? Hasn't the country learned? You wouldn't ever give this guy power again‚ would you? Tell us that he's not going to be re-elected. Please‚ tell us you've learned your lesson.” So the only blemish on the great country of America worldwide is‚ in fact‚ Donald Trump and can I make a suggestion? I move that every newspaper in America quits doing any fact-checks on Joe Biden until they fact-check Donald Trump every morning on the front page. It is ridiculous-- MIKA BRZEZINSKI: Yeah. MCCASKILL: --that the New York Times fact-checked Joe Biden on something. I mean‚ he vomits lies‚ Trump vomits lies. Every day— MIKA BRZEZINSKI: Literally. MCCASKILL: over and over and over again and it’s just ridiculous that the New York Times is doing a fact-check on Biden while they let Trump -- while they're numb to the torrent of lies coming out of Trump's mouth. 

Writing Thursday morning for The Hill‚ Fox News contributor and George Washington University Law School professor Jonathan Turley dropped a bombshell about this month’s layoffs at CBS News; that the network seized the files of Catherine Herridge‚ who was sadly one of the correspondents let go and one of the only actual reporters in network news. Turley noted that‚ while it was shocking enough that she no longer had a job‚ the questions surrounding the choice to let her go (as part of wider layoffs at parent company Paramount Global) have exacerbated “after CBS officials took the unusual step of seizing her files‚ computers and records‚ including information on privileged sources.” He further alleged CBS “informed her that it would decide what‚ if anything‚ would be turned over to her”‚ presumably including “confidential material from both her stints at Fox and CBS.” Our own Brent Bozell reacted in an X post to this crackdown on the free press: This cannot stand. If CBS wants to salvage a shred of its journalistic credibility‚ it will apologize to Ms. Herridge on-air today and return everything to her immediately. https://t.co/gb8xQexN5k — Brent Bozell (@BrentBozell) February 22‚ 2024 Calling this “shocking‚” Turley explained “[j]ournalists are generally allowed to leave with their files” as per “the standard contract‚ including the one at CBS” so long as they can be made “available to the network” in the event of “future litigation.” “When sources accept confidentiality assurances‚ it is an understanding that rests with the reporter. It is a matter of trust that can take a long time to establish on a personal level between a reporter and a source‚” he continued with it especially being the case with Herridge given her beats on intelligence and law enforcement. Thankfully‚ Turley said Herridge’s former colleagues haven’t scoffed at this move: “The position of CBS has alarmed many‚ including the union‚ as an attack on free press principles by one of the nation’s most esteemed press organizations. I have spoken confidentially with current and former CBS employees who have stated that they could not recall the company ever taking such a step before.” He cited “[o]ne former CBS journalist” as having heard “many employees are confused why” she was caught up in the layoffs since she “broke news regularly and did a lot of original reporting.” How cute. To anyone with a pulse and able to spot liberal media bias‚ it’s not at all surprising she got the ax given her decades of intrepid reporting that included staying on top of Biden family corruption twists and turns when it often felt like no one else at the “big three” of ABC‚ CBS‚ and NBC would. “She continued to pursue these stories despite reports of pushback from CBS executives‚ including CBS News President Ingrid Ciprian-Matthews‚” he added. Turley invoked another source who used to work at CBS to explain seizing her files (which would thus include stories she was working on at the time) wasn’t commonplace (click “expand”): A former CBS manager‚ who also spoke on condition of anonymity‚ said that he had “never heard of anything like this.” He attested to the fact that‚ in past departures‚ journalists took all of their files and office contents. Indeed‚ the company would box up everything from cups to post-its for departing reporters. He said the holding of the material was “outrageous” and clearly endangered confidential sources. (….) A source within the union‚ SAG-AFTRA‚ confirmed that it has raised this controversy with CBS and remains extremely concerned about the effect of this action on journalistic practices and source confidentiality. The union believes this is “very unusual” and goes far beyond this individual case. “It is a matter of principle‚” a union spokesperson added. “It is a matter of serious concern. We are considering all of our options.” Turley went on to lay out the implications of what seized files mean for the government’s ongoing court case against Herridge as well as CBS‚ Herridge herself‚ and journalists writ large (click “expand”): Reporters like Herridge have long served as the primary defenders of privileged sources. Indeed‚ Herridge is still in court defending confidentiality over a series of stories at Fox News in 2017‚ even at the risk of being held in contempt. CBS is suggesting that it will allow unnamed individuals to rifle through Herridge’s files to determine what will remain with the network and what will be returned to the reporter. That could fundamentally alter how reporters operate and how willing sources are to trust assurances that they will be protected. In criminal cases involving privileged information‚ the government has an elaborate “filter team” system to wall off access to information under review. In the court system‚ judges use in camera and ex parte reviews to protect such information. Ironically‚ the media itself seems to take a more ad hoc approach. Indeed‚ CBS seems to have adopted a “Trust us‚ we’re the media” approach. However‚ that could expose these files to the access of unnamed lawyers‚ tech staff and others who are conducting this inventory and analysis. (….) The union may have no choice but to go to court to force CBS to protect journalistic values‚ including a demand for an injunction to force the company to secure these files and bar review until a court has had a chance to consider these questions of confidential and proprietary claims to the files.

Soros Fund Management‚ an investment company controlled by left-wing billionaire George Soros‚ is reportedly on the verge of taking a controlling interest in Audacy‚ the second-largest radio broadcaster in America. Only iHeartMedia owns more radio stations. Audacy‚ which has amassed $1.9 billion in debt‚ filed for bankruptcy in January. Soros Management Fund has bought $400 million of that debt. SMF now controls about 40% of Audacy’s senior debt‚ which means Soros’ fund is now well positioned to be the radio giant’s largest shareholder once bankruptcy proceedings conclude. Why aren’t more conservative billionaires purchasing more high-profile media outlets? The move is a troubling sign that Soros is planning to exert substantial influence on important broadcast radio markets in the months before the 2024 election. Audacy owns more than 220 stations nationwide‚ including news and talk radio stations in major markets such as New York City‚ Chicago‚ and Los Angeles. Perhaps most importantly‚ Audacy owns talk radio stations in high-profile markets in election swing states‚ including KDWN-AM in Las Vegas‚ WPHT-AM in Philadelphia‚ and KDKA-AM in Pittsburgh. Many of America’s leading conservative voices currently have shows airing on Audacy-owned networks‚ including Mark Levin‚ Dana Loesch‚ Brian Kilmeade‚ and Sean Hannity. With Soros at the helm of Audacy‚ who knows how long that will last? For more than 30 years‚ Soros has had an immense impact on political and social causes in the United States. The Soros-funded Open Society Foundations has spent more than $21 billion over the past three decades. In 2022 alone‚ it spent $1.3 billion. Most of that cash went to left-wing causes and organizations‚ including Media Matters‚ Planned Parenthood‚ and the radical climate advocacy group Sunrise Movement. Through state-registered political action committees‚ Soros has helped radical‚ soft-on-crime district attorneys get elected in key local elections‚ contributing to rising urban crime rates. Now‚ the left-wing billionaire is turning his attention to radio markets‚ where conservatives and Christians have long had an outsized impact on politics and culture. The vast majority of the most-listened-to talk radio shows are still hosted by conservatives or right-leaning moderates‚ reaching tens of millions of people every week. If Soros manages to reduce the impact of conservative voices on radio‚ it could end up having a gigantic effect on the 2024 election‚ especially the presidential race and tightly contested congressional seats. Congressional and presidential races in numerous states were decided by fewer than 3 percentage points in 2020‚ including Michigan‚ Nevada‚ and Pennsylvania‚ all of which are the home to news or talk radio stations owned by Audacy. Had Biden lost in those three states alone‚ Trump would have won the 2020 election. The Soros Management Fund’s recent move to capture Audacy radio stations appears to be part of a long-term strategy. In 2022‚ the Latino Media Network‚ with the backing of Soros Fund Management‚ purchased 18 Spanish-language radio stations for $60 million. Among the stations included in the deal was Radio Mambi‚ a popular conservative‚ anti-communism talk radio station in Miami that has close ties to the Cuban exile community in South Florida. At this stage of the process‚ it seems unlikely anything will get in the way of Soros purchasing Audacy‚ especially with a left-wing president in control of federal regulatory agencies. But this vital situation raises serious questions about the conservative movement and the commitment of its biggest financiers. For decades‚ the left has taken increasingly more control of print‚ digital‚ and television media outlets. It managed to capture much of academia‚ Hollywood‚ and the music industry years earlier. Why aren’t more conservative billionaires purchasing more high-profile media outlets? I would think they are unaware of how important the media has become‚ if it weren’t also true that so many of the wealthiest conservatives complain endlessly about bias in journalism. Conservative policy solutions are better for all Americans and far more appealing‚ but it really doesn’t matter if most people never find out about them. If the wealthiest conservatives in America don’t care enough about their country to push back against the influences of people like George Soros‚ then it’s going to be incredibly difficult for conservatism to thrive in the coming decades. It’s well past time for conservative billionaires to put their money where their mouths are.