The Federal Communications Commission has adopted “woke” new rules to control internet services that will increase consumer costs‚ slow investment in new technologies‚ and raise the prospect of yet more government intrusion and censorship. Commissioner Brendan Carr—one of two Republicans on the five-member FCC—called the plan “an unlawful power grab that gives the government a roving mandate to micromanage nearly every aspect of how the internet functions.” Former FCC adviser Adam Candeub added: “The FCC is dishonestly claiming that it is promoting equity and fairness. However‚ the FCC is just seizing control over business decisions‚ funneling resources to politically preferred constituencies.” The timing is particularly suspect‚ given entrepreneur Elon Musk’s effort to provide uncensored internet access via Starlink to go with the uncensored speech he already has delivered on his social media site X (formerly Twitter). The FCC adopted the package of regulations Nov. 15. The new rules would empower the commission to prosecute internet service providers for alleged discrimination based on race‚ ethnicity‚ and other protected classes‚ as well as income. The rules empower the FCC to “crack down on digital inequities‚” as The Associated Press put it. By which the commission might mean‚ for example‚ punishing companies for building infrastructure in neighborhoods where the agency expects people actually will buy it. The newly Democrat-dominated FCC allegedly imposed the new rules to “eliminate discrimination” in access to internet services. By which the commission means the uneven rollout of 5G service‚ itself stymied by regulatory red tape. Congress‚ in the 2021 bipartisan infrastructure bill‚ delegated to the FCC the task to “ensure that all people of the United States benefit from equal access to broadband internet access.” In fact‚ the agency found no evidence of intentional discrimination‚ but the leftists on the FCC used Congress’ delegation as an excuse to force equity and diversity mandates ranging from controls over discounts‚ language options‚ and credit checks to marketing and advertising. What’s the goal? Essentially to reinstate so-called “net neutrality” rules that dictate how internet service providers treat traffic and use those rules to ram through a federal takeover of Americans’ access to the internet. Beyond risking a dramatic expansion of federal control of the internet‚ the rules are likely to raise costs and slow service—the exact opposite of the stated intent. And the rules could radically expand government intrusion in the economy by characterizing a business that pursues more affluent customers as engaging in a form of discrimination. As for costs‚ the rules will push companies to waste money building services that customers don’t want‚ to avoid charges of discrimination. This effectively would pass the costs on to actual paying customers‚ who would have to foot the bill for building potentially billions of dollars in broadband to nowhere. The likely result will be higher costs for internet service for all customers‚ along with higher cable or streaming services—even phone bills—if the FCC uses these restrictions as a template for  other services. After all‚ companies already have plenty of incentive to build infrastructure where they think customers will pay for it. This rule is intended to make companies build even where customers won’t pay. We know how that turns out from then-President Donald Trump’s repeal of similar “net neutrality” rules: The repeal actually lowered prices and raised speeds. This new rule puts all that at risk‚ piling more costs on families who already are suffering under inflation. Indeed‚ given that companies themselves have limited capital budgets they now will have to spread over nonbuying customers‚ companies are likely to degrade service across the network. This will force not only higher costs but slower speeds. The second effect is even more ominous: The risk of a radical increase in the federal government’s interference across the economy by expanding diversity mandates to include income and wealth. This is because any product with a price automatically discriminates by income. The carmaker Ferrari‚ for example‚ disproportionately sells to rich people not because it doesn’t like poor people‚ but because poor people can’t afford its cars. Are we to regard the very concept of price as implicit discrimination that requires a government solution? If so‚ we would need a Ministry of Prices and a Ministry of Incomes to ensure the proletariat are all equally chained. As incompetent as the Biden administration has proven to be from inflation to the southern border to foreign policy‚ the one thing the president’s men and women put on their thinking caps for is capturing power. The collateral damage‚ to both the economy and free speech‚ could be catastrophic. Have an opinion about this article? To sound off‚ please email letters@DailySignal.com‚ and we’ll consider publishing your edited remarks in our regular “We Hear You” feature. Remember to include the URL or headline of the article plus your name and town and/or state.  Have an opinion about this article? To sound off‚ please email letters@DailySignal.com‚ and we’ll consider publishing your edited remarks in our regular “We Hear You” feature. Remember to include the URL or headline of the article plus your name and town and/or state. The post Biden’s Ministry of Diversity Comes for the Internet appeared first on The Daily Signal.

Beginning in January‚ federal civilian employees will see their salaries increase by the largest percentage since the Carter administration. President Joe Biden signed an executive order in December giving federal employees an average of a 5.2% increase in pay‚ the largest increase since former President Jimmy Carter raised federal salaries by 9.1% in 1980. Meanwhile‚ Americans are dealing with inflation and a generally poor economy‚ with some blaming high government spending‚ according to recent polling. Seventy-six percent of Americans reported that their income is not keeping up with inflation‚ according to a poll conducted by CBS News and YouGov this month. Fifty-six percent of Americans polled felt government spending‚ like the pay increases Biden is giving to federal bureaucrats‚ is causing high inflation. Federal employees will see a 4.7% pay increase across the board as well as an additional bump‚ averaging 0.5%‚ depending on where they are based. Federal workers in the San Francisco area‚ for instance‚ will get an additional 0.9% raise‚ according to the United States Office of Personnel Management (OPM). Members of the armed forces will also receive an average pay bump of 5.2% in the coming year‚ per the National Defense Authorization Act. Their pay increase‚ however‚ was approved by Congress through the  while the pay increase for civilian bureaucrats was implemented unilaterally by Biden. “The Federal government is the nation’s largest employer and must ensure it has the talent to meet the needs of the American people‚” a spokesperson for the Office of Management and Budget told the Daily Caller News Foundation. “Executing on the President’s 5.2 percent pay increase for both military and civilian workers recognizes the Federal workforce’s dedication and service to the American people and positions the Federal Government to better compete in the labor market to attract and retain a well-qualified workforce.” All American employees working in private industry saw a 4.5% salary increase between Sept. 2022 and Sept. 2023‚ according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS). Inflation grew at 3.1% between Nov. 2022 and Nov. 2023‚ according to the BLS. Federal employees received a pay bump of 4.6% in 2023‚ according to Government Executive. Federal employees already make significantly more money than those working outside the federal government. The average pay for federal employees was $98‚943 in 2023‚ according to data collected by OPM. Pay in some locales is even higher‚ with federal employees in Washington‚ D.C.‚ bringing in an average of $135‚078 per year and feds in Maryland taking home an average of $128‚663. The median salary in the United States was $1‚118 per week as of October‚ which works out to about $58‚000 a year‚ according to the BLS. That figure includes federal employees. Federal employees can use their salaries to contribute to political campaigns. When federal employees donate‚ they heavily favor the Democratic Party. Of the $2 million that federal workers at 14 agencies donated to presidential campaigns as of the month before the 2016 election‚ approximately $1.9 million went to Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton‚ according to The Hill. Only about 5% of federal employee donations went to Donald Trump during the 2016 cycle. Even when Trump was in charge of the executive branch during the 2020 election cycle‚ federal employees still heavily favored Biden‚ the Democratic presidential nominee. Biden raised $1.06 million from federal employees between 2019 and October 2020 while Trump raised just $743‚000‚ according to Government Executive. Public sector unions also heavily favor the Democratic Party. The top 20 recipients of public union funds were Democrats during the 2020 election cycle‚ with Biden leading the pack with more than $420‚000 in donations‚ according to OpenSecrets. Originally published by The Daily Caller News Foundation. Have an opinion about this article? To sound off‚ please email letters@DailySignal.com‚ and we’ll consider publishing your edited remarks in our regular “We Hear You” feature. Remember to include the URL or headline of the article plus your name and town and/or state.  The post Biden Gives Bureaucrats Biggest Pay Bump Since Carter appeared first on The Daily Signal.

When TV producer Norman Lear died‚ The New York Times‘ obituary said there were “critics” who insisted the date “All in the Family” premiered on CBS in January 1971 represented a “day of infamy” in American broadcasting. By contrast‚ for conservative television‚ 30 years ago this month‚ Dec. 6‚ 1993‚ was a welcomed day and one well worth remembering. Now‚ conservatives had their own TV channel. That’s when National Empowerment Television started broadcasting live out of studios converted from office space on 2nd Street NE in Washington‚ D.C. Before there was the Fox News Channel‚ OAN or Newsmax TV‚ there was NET. Little remembered now‚ NET started broadcasting when Roger Ailes was president of CNBC and a couple of years before Fox News debuted under his guidance. Newsweek called NET “the first of its kind … an unabashedly ideological TV channel.” NET was the brainchild of Paul Weyrich‚ at the time president of the Free Congress Foundation‚ a political leader with an entrepreneurial mindset who became a familiar face to a small but politically significant segment of cable-TV viewers in the mid-1990s. A Racine‚ Wisconsin‚ native‚ who held only a high school diploma‚ Weyrich used his background as a radio news reporter and posts as press secretary to two U.S. senators to help launch The Heritage Foundation and played important roles in helping to create other conservative organizations. (The Daily Signal is the news outlet of The Heritage Foundation.) Leadership Institute President Morton Blackwell wrote in a 2015 blog post: “If there had been no Paul Weyrich‚ there would‚ in all likelihood‚ have been no Heritage Foundation.” But NET represented Weyrich’s biggest gamble‚ offering programming billed as “brash” and “bold.” As early as the late 1950s‚ even with publications such as Human Events and National Review‚ many Republicans and conservatives still desired more alternatives to the traditional media’s preference for liberal and centrist viewpoints. After the GOP’s disastrous performance in the 1958 elections‚ The Des Moines Register in Iowa reported on Jan. 22‚ 1959‚ that the Republican National Committee proposed sponsorship of a TV and radio program to counterbalance the “slanted” views of the “mainstream” media. In the mid-1970s‚ brewing executive Joseph Coors funded Television News Inc.‚ whose aim was to deliver an alternative to the “Big Three” networks using satellite television to relay news reports to local TV stations. Weyrich and Ailes were involved with that effort‚ but it failed to take off. Then‚ by the 1990s‚ the growth of cable and satellite TV made alternatives to network news and communicating electronically with activists feasible. Weyrich‚ along with then-Rep. Newt Gingrich and former Secretary of Education Lamar Alexander‚ realized the opportunity. Each conducted his own experiments with satellite broadcasts. Weyrich’s experiments led to launching NET on Dec. 6‚ 1993‚ promising viewers a “C-SPAN with attitude” experience. True to form‚ Weyrich insisted NET was not reflexively Republican‚ but rather “anti-establishment”— against Big Government‚ but often against Big Business and Big Labor‚ as well.  “We are skeptical of all people that are in power‚” he told Terry Gross on WHYY public radio’s “Fresh Air” program in 1995. Viewers calling in‚ not hosts‚ grilled the steady stream of movers and shakers appearing on NET as Brian Jones‚ NET’s general manager and later president of Fox Business Network‚ told C-SPAN. One frequent caller was a “Walter from Ruston” in Louisiana. People could watch Weyrich on Monday through Friday on his own “Direct Line” call-in program. Another daily mainstay was “Mitchells in the Morning‚” hosted by conservative-leaning economic experts Dan and Nancy Mitchell (now Nancy Pfotenhauer). “Youngbloods‚” which The Washington Post called “the conservative answer to MTV’s ‘The Real World‚’”  showcased Genevieve Wood‚ now with The Heritage Foundation‚ and Tom Fitton‚ the president of Judicial Watch. “Freedom’s Challenge” and “Worldwise‚” weekly programs examining international affairs‚ introduced viewers to experts such as National Security Adviser-to-be John Bolton and future Undersecretary of State for Global Affairs Paula Dobriansky. Political analyst Stu Rothenberg‚ Arianna Huffington (pre-Huffington Post)‚ and syndicated columnist Robert Novak had their own programs. “Ways &; Means‚” a monthly program initially hosted by Weyrich and Americans for Tax Reform’s Grover Norquist (later Bob Siegrist)‚ urged NET viewers to advocate for conservative policies. With Republican hopes rising for a takeover of Congress‚ NET encapsulated the conservative movement’s optimistic zeitgeist. Indeed‚ Gingrich’s Progress and Freedom Foundation aired “The Progress Report” on NET. Ultimately‚ Fox News Channel launched in 1996. Continued expansion of NET’s audience became more difficult‚ given the greater resources of Fox News. Plus‚ changes in the management team led to internal struggles and a name change to “America’s Voice.” By November 1997‚ the experiment under the now-deceased Weyrich’s auspices came to an end. The new management’s watered-down version of NET filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy in January 2000‚ and although it continued for a while‚ its new managers left by that fall. Weyrich’s son‚ Peter‚ recalled‚ “We helped show there really was an audience for conservative TV‚” which represented “the seminal goal” of NET. In a 2022 email‚ political historian Nicole Hemmer‚ author of “Partisans: the Conservative Revolutionaries Who Remade American Politics in the 1990s‚” called NET “important‚ ideologically and technologically‚ for the rise of Fox News.” Certainly‚ there were skeptics before and even after NET’s launch—and plenty of critics once NET started airing. But for nearly four years‚ NET was‚ as producer Ferman Patterson called it‚ “a little TV engine that could.” Working at a network broadcasting live with big ambitions—but limited resources—produced its share of obstacles and conflicts to overcome. Usually‚ perseverance‚ compromise‚ sacrifice and teamwork overcame them. Weyrich was the driving force behind NET’s vision‚ and his unceasing energy and connections made NET possible. The hard work and dedication by the set and control-room crews‚ the camera operators and film editors‚ the directors and graphics experts ensured that vision got seen. For at least some of us who worked at NET‚ the “off” button may have been pushed‚ but its memory remains vivid. The Daily Signal publishes a variety of perspectives. Nothing written here is to be construed as representing the views of The Heritage Foundation. Have an opinion about this article? To sound off‚ please email letters@DailySignal.com‚ and we’ll consider publishing your edited remarks in our regular “We Hear You” feature. Remember to include the URL or headline of the article plus your name and town and/or state. The post Remembering National Empowerment Television appeared first on The Daily Signal.

Criticism continues to mount against so-called diversity‚ equity‚ and inclusion offices on college campuses. And the list of state policymakers calling for defunding the offices and eliminating their discriminatory practices is also growing—just in time for state legislators to work on the issue in the new year. The latest lawmaker to prohibit the use of taxpayer spending on DEI programs that “grant preferential treatment” based on race‚ ethnicity‚ or national origin is Oklahoma Gov. Kevin Stitt‚ a Republican. Stitt issued an executive order prohibiting any executive agency‚ including public colleges‚ from requiring job applicants to complete a DEI statement or “loyalty oath” to diversity as a condition of applying. Such requirements have been found in job applications at schools around the country‚ including in Arizona and California. Stitt also called for a review of DEI offices across Oklahoma’s state government to make sure the DEI practices do not violate state civil rights laws. College presidents should take note. Federal courts have specifically condemned some DEI offices’ practices‚ such as bias response teams. Under these bias teams‚ individuals on campus can make anonymous reports to campus administrators about something that they heard or saw (such as a poster)‚ and school officials will investigate. Courts have said these teams have “vague” guidelines and “chill” speech. Both the University of Oklahoma and Oklahoma State University have bias response teams. Stitt’s executive order follows a state legislative hearing that lawmakers held in October to learn more about DEI practices. Oklahoma state Sen. Rob Standridge‚ a Republican‚ was among those voicing opposition to the discriminatory “ideology being crammed down the throats of our young kids.” Standridge has introduced proposals that would prohibit the operation of DEI offices on Oklahoma’s public college campuses. In November‚ the Iowa Board of Regents‚ which governs the state’s public colleges‚ approved a policy eliminating DEI offices “that are not necessary for [colleges’] compliance or accreditation.” The board specified that all DEI services must be “broadly available to all students and/or employees.” It also called for removing DEI positions. DEI offices routinely support programs that favor individuals based on skin color‚ racial preferences in college admissions being one. DEI offices at schools nationwide were part of briefs in support of racial preferences before the Supreme Court ruled against racial preferences in admissions. It is not helping DEI’s “vague” cause that high-profile college leaders closely associated with their schools’ DEI offices badly failed to answer questions about free speech and genocide at a recent congressional hearing. Harvard President Claudine Gay is the latest Ivy League president facing accusations that she couldn’t adequately explain her school’s position on speech and genocide at a hearing before the House of Representatives. A significant Harvard donor says Gay was hired in no small part due to support from the school’s DEI office. The University of Pennsylvania’s president‚ Liz Magill‚ and the school’s board chairman already have resigned after Magill’s mediocre performance at the congressional hearing. Free expression and calls for genocide and harm against students sound like topics on which DEI offices would be able to advise college presidents. Harvard’s DEI office says it “promotes an inclusive culture” and wants to establish “a profound sense of belonging for each member of our community.” But given college administrators’ failure to protect free expression on campuses nationwide over the past 15 years (or more)‚ including those at Harvard‚ it is not clear what DEI offices support. In fact‚ the Iowa regents’ report says DEI doesn’t have a “standardized definition” and notes the “broad” terminology used by DEI offices‚ reinforcing what federal courts have said about DEI. Policymakers in Oklahoma and Iowa now have joined lawmakers in Florida and Texas in pointing out DEI’s discriminatory activities and calling for an end to the offices’ racism. State legislators across the country should seek to protect civil rights and shut down DEI offices when many return to session in January. Oklahoma’s executive order expands the list of states where lawmakers have done so already to four. More should be on the way. This commentary originall was published by the Washington Examiner Have an opinion about this article? To sound off‚ please email letters@DailySignal.com‚ and we’ll consider publishing your edited remarks in our regular “We Hear You” feature. Remember to include the URL or headline of the article plus your name and town and/or state.  The post Oklahoma Becomes Latest State to Condemn DEI on Campus appeared first on The Daily Signal.

30% of Young Americans Think Osama bin Laden Was 'a Force for Good'

I Saw the New Indiana Jones Film and I Have Mixed Feelings

John Cleese Falls Face First Into the 'Context' Pit As Backlash to Comparing Trump to Hitler Goes Viral

While most of the liberal ladies of ABC’s The View are up there in age (a fact they’re lash out at you for noticing)‚ that doesn’t mean they’re not limber enough to tie themselves up into back-breaking contortions to help defend Democrats and push their policies. Reality and sense were casualties as The View did their best to write off President Biden’s advanced age and mental slips ahead of an election year‚ downplay Hunter Biden’s crimes‚ and obfuscate the failure of liberal policies. Presented here‚ are The View’s 10 worst back-breaking contortions of 2023. We recommend you stretch before proceeding. ‘What Bribery Scheme?!’ The View Plays Dumb Then Defends Biden Corruption The first few on the list are the knots the cast tied themselves in order to defend Biden’s reelection chances at all costs. In July‚ amid the drip drip drip from the House Oversight Committee‚ moderator Whoopi Goldberg played dumb. “What bribery scheme?!” she huffed. Staunchly racist and anti-Semitic co-host Sunny Hostin suggested it was all a smokescreen from Republicans because they “don't have a real program as to how you'll help the American people.” Hypocrites in Heels: The View Defends Biden's Mental Slips‚ Jump on Trump Gaffes While The View previously suggested there were no signs of Biden’s deteriorating mental condition‚ by late November they resorted to arguing that former President Trump’s condition was worse. “But what is remarkable to me is this‚ our country is so polarized that Trump supporters see that and they don't think a thing about it. It doesn't really affect them. He's my tough guy. He's my fighter. But see any gaffe of Joe Biden and Joe Biden is aging‚ he's too old. And it’s this sort of Rorschach test of where the country is‚” whined faux-conservative Alyssa Farah Griffin. Behar: Better for America If Biden Gets Reelected and ‘Dies in Office’ As Biden continued to drop in the polls and voters’ concern about his advanced age continued to rise‚ Joy Behar was getting desperate to keep the President from hemorrhaging support. It got to the point where she was arguing it was better for him to eventually die in office than have Trump elected again. “The question is this: Let's say Joe Biden – God forbid – dies in office‚ isn't that still okay for the country? The country will survive it but if Trump wins‚ the country will not survive it. That's a fact‚” she proclaimed. A runner-up in the same vein was Behar declaring: A Braindead ‘Drooling’ Biden Better ‘Than Any Republican.’      ‘Classified Classified’? The View Defends Biden Stealing Documents To warm up for their year of bending over backwards‚ Goldberg insisted that the classified documents found in Biden’s garage were no big deal and that everyone was blowing it out of proportion and that their classified nature could be a lie. “We're being told they're classified. We don't know if it's like classified classified or just classified. We don't know‚” she mocked. The View Grasps at Straws to Defend ‘Weak Case’ Against Trump While they were doing what they could to defend President Biden from accusations of impropriety‚ they were also trying to emphasize those against Trump. And when it came to the case brought by New York D.A. Alvin Bragg‚ Goldberg admitted “Some people on both sides of the aisle say the case is weak.” Co-host Sara Haines played word games‚ suggesting “it wasn't a weak case” but rather “a grey-area case” and “what they were saying is the law is unclear here.” The View Denies Nashville Shooter Hated Christians and Was Mentally Ill Arguably the most grotesque contortion they tied themselves into‚ was when Hostin denied the fact that the Nashville Covenant School shooter didn’t target the school because of their hatred for Christians and wasn’t mentally ill. “I heard one guy say‚ ‘Well‚ this is against the Christians.’ No‚ it's not against the Christians‚” she screeched. “I am sick of people conveniently saying ‘this is a mental health issue’ or ‘you can't look at this issue without mental health.’ This is an AR-15-style weapon‚ issue.”     The View: Mental Health of Mass Shooters Doesn’t Matter‚ Denies Crisis Denying the fact that mass shooters were generally mentally ill people was a common theme for Hostin throughout the year. “I mention this over and over again. People that have mental health issues are much more likely to be the victims of crime than commit crime‚” she whined. When pressed‚ she refused to answer if mass shooters were mentally stable. The View Decries Hunter Gun Charges: All Addicts 'Lie‚’ 'Commit Crime' The View denies the reality of mass shootings in order to take away the rights of law-abiding gun owners and demand more gun control laws. But when it came to enforcing the gun laws already on the books‚ they would contort themselves to protect Democrats who break them‚ like Hunter Biden. After Hunter lied on a federal background check about his drug addiction‚ faux conservative Ana Navarro didn’t want him prosecuted. Her defense? All addicts “lie” and “commit crime‚” and it’s something many relate to. The View Defends Biden Shunning Young Grandkid‚ DEMANDS You Ignore It Cruelty was the point in July when the cast supported Biden in shunning his four-year-old granddaughter‚ fathered by Hunter‚ and wanted people to ignore the story. Hostin attacked the mother and accused her of trying to “wedge herself into the [Biden] family.” She defended the President by arguing he was “just following what his son has set in motion. And how do you fault any of that?”   The View: CA’s Homelessness Crisis Is Fine‚ They Have Climate Policies Hostin has proven to be the most limber and she really flaunted it when she defended California’s homelessness crisis by praising their climate change policies; all because she has the hots for Democratic Governor Gavin Newsom: BEHAR: Yeah‚ but California is in trouble all the time with a lot of homeless and a lot of problems they’re having. HOSTIN: But they have a lot of good programs when it comes to climate change.  

Shocker! Isaac Schorr at Mediaite reported a new study from Syracuse University’s Newhouse School of Public Communications found that just 3.4 percent of American journalists are Republicans. In the last ten years‚ the proportion of Democrats has increased to 36.4% and proportion of Independents has ticked upwards to 51.7%‚ while the already low Republican share has been cut in half.  The last study in 2013 pegged the proportion of Republican journalists in America at 7.1%‚ Democrats at 28.1%‚ and  Independents at 50.2%. It's fair to guess that journalists who choose "independent" are attempting to look nonpartisan‚ but we can safely guess a large share of them are Biden-Harris voters. The study is based “on an online survey with 1‚600 U.S. journalists conducted in early 2022” and is the latest in a series of studies stretching back to 1971 that take the temperature of the fourth estate’s partisan lean‚ job satisfaction‚ and professional attitudes. When the first iteration of the study came out over 50 years ago‚ 35.5% of respondents said they were Democrats‚ 25.7% said they were Republicans‚ and 32.5% said they were Independents. The percentage that call themselves Democrats or independents have bounced around over the years‚ with the proportion of Democrats reaching a high of 44.1% in 1992. Surveys of journalists across the country in local newsrooms used to provide a more bipartisan picture‚ but the national media has been severely liberal since Robert and Linda Richter and Stanley Morgan published The Media Elite studies in 1981. They found over 90 percent of national journalists picked Lyndon Johnson over Barry Goldwater in 1964 and over 80 percent picked Hubert Humphrey over Richard Nixon in 1968.  In 2022‚ just 3.4% of journalists were Republicans. That figure was 18% in 2002 and 25.7% in 1971. As with most professions‚ conservatives have been increasingly excluded or purged from the ranks of journalists. If you wonder why the media is the way it is today‚ this is why. pic.twitter.com/AuZ8iCMiwQ — Kevin Bass PhD MS (@kevinnbass) December 27‚ 2023 According to a Gallup poll from November‚ today's newsrooms are wildly out of step with the general public. Independents do make up the largest proportion of the population at 40%‚ but the same proportion of Americans (29%) are Republicans as Democrats.  In another Gallup poll in October‚ the 32% of Americans who say they trust the mass media “a great deal” or “a fair amount” to report the news in a full‚ fair and accurate way ties Gallup’s lowest historical reading‚ previously recorded in 2016. While 58% of Democrats and 29% of Independents have a “great deal” or “fair amount” of confidence in the media‚ just 11% of Republicans feel the same way. Given all the tilted reporting we expose at NewsBusters‚ that's also not a shocker. 

A severely overweight former student has sued a Detroit university after he was unable to complete its student-teaching requirement to become a certified gym teacher.David Lopez‚ a 44-year-old man who weighs more than 400 pounds‚ has filed a discrimination lawsuit against Wayne State University. Lopez told the Detroit News that he fulfilled all the requirements for WSU's physical education kinesiology program except for student teaching because the school would not provide him the necessary accommodations.Lopez was initially placed to complete a student-teaching assignment at a school district in Dearborn‚ a city that borders Detroit. Before the student-teaching term began in winter 2022‚ a doctor indicated that Lopez would require accommodations on account of his health conditions‚ which include asthma‚ hypertension‚ and diabetes. He also cannot stand or walk for long periods of time‚ the doctor claimed."All I’d asked for was accommodations‚ virtual or through physical accommodations inside a classroom‚" Lopez told the News. "All I asked for was a reasonable accommodation."Dearborn Public Schools were willing to let Lopez complete student teaching virtually‚ the lawsuit claimed‚ but Wayne State would not. Lopez believes the university based its decision entirely on his weight."There’s no doubt that was the reason why‚" Lopez told the Detroit News."They don’t think I fit the description of what a P.E. teacher was because I’m very overweight‚" he also said. "There was no other reason. I passed everything."The lawsuit claimed that Lopez unofficially completed half of his student teaching at a Dearborn elementary school but that WSU directed him not to show up for the second half. It also claimed that a WSU professor encouraged Lopez to complete his degree without earning a teaching certificate‚ but Lopez insisted to the News that he has a passion for teaching and that his inability to participate in sports and other activities would not prevent him from becoming a successful teacher. As evidence‚ he pointed to his experience coaching a sports team shortly after he graduated high school‚ which likely occurred more than 20 years ago. Lopez indicated to the News that he did not want to sue the school but felt that WSU left him "no other choice." "I’m doing it because I have nothing‚ and I have no way to earn a living now because they took away my opportunity to get a degree‚" he said.In the lawsuit‚ Lopez is seeking to be reinstated in the teaching program. Outlets including the News have indicated that Lopez has since changed his major to one more focused on health‚ even as they also refer to him as a "former Wayne State University student." It is not believed that Lopez transferred to another school.In a countersuit‚ Wayne State called Lopez's lawsuit "frivolous" and asked that it be dismissed. The school also argued that an educational institution cannot legally be sued for weight discrimination‚ the Daily Mail reported. The school did not respond to requests for comment from the Daily Mail or the Detroit News.Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors‚ sign up for our newsletters‚ and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!