…within the next 8 hours, spot gold prices had dropped $115 from its intraday highs…
Source: Bloomberg
…that is the 6th biggest absolute $ intraday drop in the history of spot gold trading(9/23/11 & 9/26/11 (SNB intervention as gold soared near $2,000), 04/15/13 (taper tantrum), 3/16/20 (COVID lockdowns), 08/11/20 (vaccines))…
Source: Bloomberg
Despite the weak data, yields were higher today.
Bonds dumped most of Friday’s pump with yields up across the curve. The short-end underperformed on the day(2Y +11bps, 30Y +4bps)…
Source: Bloomberg
2Y yields are up around 14bps off Friday’s lows…
Source: Bloomberg
Huge divergences in equity-land as long-duration (tech) underperformed as yields rose but Small Caps soared (short-squeeze) with The Dow scarmbling to unch on the day and S&P weak…
Unprofitable Tech stocks continue to outperform the Magnificent 7, with the latter now back at support levels seen in the early summer relative to the unprofitable names…
Source: Bloomberg
Before today’s decline, 163 S&P 500 members were ‘overbought’ on an RSI basis, the most since June 2020…
Source: Bloomberg
Nasdaq underperformed Russell 2000 for the 4th day in a row, breaking below the uptrend channel…
Source: Bloomberg
Hedgies were hammered today again, extending Friday’s loss for the biggest 2 day loss this year as a short-squeeze hit their shorts and selling hit their biggest longs…
Source: Bloomberg
The dollar ripped higher today (no manipulation of gold of course) for its best day in almost two months…
Source: Bloomberg
Oil prices were lower on the day (as the dollar soared) with WTI finding support around $73 and chopping around there all day…
Finally, US cyclical stocks continue to charge higher, complteley decoupling from weaker and weaker economic data and falling oil prices… feels a little exuberant here…
Source: Bloomberg
And, after spending July thru Oct starting to recouple with liquidity’s reality, US equities exploded divergently in November…
Source: Bloomberg
What happens first – major central bank liquidity expansion… or a crash in stocks?
Regulators Hope You Don’t Notice The Massive Hidden Losses In The Banking System
Subitted by Paul Kupiec, Senior Fellow, American Enterprise Institute
The Secretary of the Treasury and the Financial Stability Oversight Council would like you to believe that climate-change and unregulated non-bank financial institutions are the biggest threats to financial stability. If financial regulators were actually safeguarding the integrity of banks and financial markets, they would recognize, and do something about, the largest immediate threat to financial stability: the nearly $1.3 trillion of unrealized interest rate related losses in the regulated banking system. This is the real systemic risk today.
The $1.3 trillion is my estimate of the banking system’s total unrealized interest rate related losses as of June 30, 2023. Using bank regulatory data, I estimate that the banking system has total unrealized losses of about $548 billion on bank-owned securities and about $726 billion in interest rate driven losses on bank loan and lease portfolios.
These losses are important because they are not recognized in the value of banks’ reported regulatory capital. Regulatory capital is the buffer that is supposed to keep banks from failing and imposing losses on the FDIC insurance fund. Banks’ need sufficient capital to keep their incentives properly aligned. When banks have little capital their shareholders keep gains generated by their risky investments but off load losses to the FDIC when their risky investments sour.
If unrealized interest rate losses were realized, they would consume more than half of the banking system’s $2.3 trillion in total equity capital. And the loss absorbing capacity of the system’s equity is already reduced by the almost $800 billion in intangible assets and goodwill counted as bank equity. These assets historically have had little loss absorbing capacity when a bank fails. Taking these factors into account, the banking system is not nearly as well capitalized as our regulatory leaders claim.
Coincidently, the banking systems’ unrealized interest rate driven losses are roughly equal to the $1.3 trillion unrealized mark-to-market interest rate losses on the securities owned by the Federal Reserve.1 Given the Fed’s own reported unrealized interest rate losses, we can be sure that the Fed and other FSOC banking regulators are well aware that the banking system has a similar problem.
How did this happen? Between the Fed and Congress, COVID19 stimulus injected trillions of dollars of new deposits into the banking system. Between 2019/Q4 and 2022/Q1, total banking system deposits grew by more than 37 percent. Banks had to put these deposits to work earning enough interest to cover deposit insurance premiums, examination and other regulatory costs, service depositor accounts, and earn a return on shareholders’ investment. Under the Fed’s COVID-era zero interest rate policy, banks were unable to cover costs if deposits were invested in in short-term Treasury securities and deposits at the Federal Reserve.
To earn a positive margin, banks invested deposits in longer-term securities and loans with low or no credit risk and favorable regulatory capital treatment. The yields on these investments, while low by historical standards, paid an interest rate premium over short-term instruments by virtue of their longer maturities.
The strategy of investing demandable deposits in long-maturity fixed rate instruments with low regulatory capital requirements was profitable as long as inflation remained low and deposit interest rates were close to zero. The onset of unexpected inflation eventually forced the Fed to change monetary policy. The Fed increased short-term interest rates and started draining bank deposits from the system causing interest rates at all maturities to increase, raising banks’ cost of retaining deposits, and creating market value losses on bank’s long-maturity fixed-rate investments.
For accounting statement and regulatory capital purposes, banks value their loans, leases and held-to-maturity securities at historical cost. The largest banks have to include market value losses on their securities designated “available for sale” when calculating their regulatory capital, but most smaller banks are allowed to ignore these losses. As a consequence, banks’ regulatory capital ratios claim that bank asset values are approximately $1.3 trillion larger than the current market value these assets would command if they were sold or pledged as collateral.
Regulators measure banks’ capital adequacy using several different ratios that involve some measure of bank regulatory capital divided by some measure of bank assets. I focus on bank regulatory Tier 1 leverage ratios, the ratio of bank total Tier 1 regulatory capital to a bank’s average quarterly assets. All banks are required to report this measure but nearly 1700 smaller banks do not report any of the risk-weighted capital ratios reported by larger banks.
As of June 30, 2023, only 8 banks had a regulatory Tier 1 leverage ratio below the 6 percent threshold that regulators use to designate a bank as “well capitalized”. No bank has a ratio below the 4 percent threshold that designates an “undercapitalized” institution. By this regulatory measure, the banking system appears to be well-capitalized, but this regulatory ratio ignores the actual market value of bank assets.
Adjusting bank Tier 1 regulatory capital ratios by the unrealized mark-to-market losses on bank securities reported by banks, and by a reasonable (likely low) estimate of the mark-value losses banks have suffered on their loan and lease portfolios, gives a radically different picture of the banking system’s capital adequacy. Out of the 4697 insured depository institutions, 2372 have market-value adjusted Tier 1 leverage ratios smaller than the 4 percent “undercapitalized” threshold requiring regulators to take “prompt corrective action”. This number includes 1790 banks with ratios below the 3 percent “significantly undercapitalized” threshold. Undercapitalized banks hold more than 54 percent of the total assets in the banking system including more than 46 percent held in significantly undercapitalized institutions.
The Treasury Secretary and FSOC members are well aware of the danger posed by unrealized interest rate related losses in the banking system, but you would not know it from their public statements. Regulators should be using prompt corrective action powers to restrict under-capitalized banks from paying dividends and require them to raise new capital. Instead they have allowed banks to pay out almost $96 billion in dividends in the first half of 2023 and focused their regulatory efforts on imposing new complex capital regulations for the largest banks that would not address this real systemic problem.
Federal bank regulators are hoping that if they ignore this problem, you will too, and the problem will go away when the inflation genie is back in the bottle and interest rates decline. But this may not happen soon. Core inflation is still running at nearly twice the Fed’s target rate, unemployment is low, economic growth remains stronger than many anticipated, and Congress remains on a massive deficit spending spree. Hoping for a speedy return to a near zero environment before there a run of costly bank failures is not a sound regulatory strategy.
Hunter Biden Sent ‘Direct Monthly Payments’ To Joe Via Account Paid From ‘China And Other Shady Corners Of The World’
Hunter Biden sent monthly payments to his father out of a bank account he used to receive money from Chinese business associates, according to newly released bank records revealed by House Oversight Committee Chairman James Comer, who shared a Monday video on X detailing redacted bank transfers to Joe Biden from Hunter’s Owasco P.C. bank account.
“Today, the House Oversight Committee is releasing subpoenaed bank records that show Hunter Biden’s business entity, Owasco PC, made direct monthly payments to Joe Biden. This wasn’t a payment from Hunter Biden’s personal account but an account for his corporation that received payments from China and other shady corners of the world,” Comer says in the video, adding that the payments began in September 2018 – six months before Biden announced his candidacy in the 2020 election.
“Payments from Hunter’s business entity to Joe Biden are now part of a pattern revealing Joe Biden knew about, participated in and benefited from his family’s influence peddling schemes.”
“Payments to Joe Biden from Hunter’s Owasco PC corporate account are part of a pattern revealing Joe Biden knew about, participated in, and benefited from his family’s influence peddling schemes. As the Bidens received millions from foreign nationals and companies in China, Russia, Ukraine, Romania, and Kazakhstan, Joe Biden dined with his family’s foreign associates, spoke to them by speakerphone, had coffee, attended meetings, and ultimately received payments that were funded by his family’s business dealings,” reads an accompanying release from the Oversight Committee.
See the records below via the Daily Caller;
Hunter and his uncle James’ personal business records were subpoenaed by Comer in September following the first impeachment hearing for President Biden.
A Chinese firm sent $5 million to Hunter Biden’s firm Hudson West III in August 2017, shortly after he established the business entity with a Chinese business associate. Hunter Biden proceeded to wire $400,000 to his Owasco P.C. account and over $130,000 to another one of his corporate accounts, according to the bank records.
Next, Hunter Biden provided $150,000 to the Lion Hall Group, James Biden and his wife Sara Biden’s business account. James Biden and Sara Biden put $50,000 into their personal account and then sent a $40,000 check to Joe Biden, the bank records show. -Daily Caller
And of course the big (rhetorical) question – what services were Hunter and pals providing for such exorbitant sums?
Hunter and James will appear later this month for closed-door depositions.
There is “no science” that says the world should phase out fossil fuels to curb global warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius, according to Sultan Al Jaber, the president of the COP28 climate summit, the Guardian and the Centre for Climate Reporting report.
“There is no science out there, or no scenario out there, that says that the phase-out of fossil fuel is what’s going to achieve 1.5C,” Al Jaber said in an online event last month, the remarks from which the Guardian reported on December 3, days after the COP28 summit in Dubai began on November 30.
Al Jaber made those comments in response to questions from Mary Robinson, the chair of the Elders group and a former UN special envoy for climate change.
[ZH: Additionally, The Guardian newspaper published video from the call on Sunday, which included al-Jaber off-camera sounding increasingly frustrated, at one point telling three leading women involved with climate change and gender: “I am telling you I am the man in charge.”
“You’re asking for a phase-out of fossil fuel,” al-Jaber said.
“Please, help me, show me for a phase-out of fossil fuel that will allow for sustainable socio-economic development, unless you want to take the world back into caves.”
Responding to the remark, U.N. Environment Program Executive Director Inger Andersen said she lives in Kenya with solar power and clean electricity from the local utility.
“I’m not living in a cave,” she added.
“That’s all I can say.”
The remarks from Al Jaber draw criticism from scientists and are in contrast with the view of Antonio Guterres, the Secretary-General of the United Nations, who said at the climate summit on Friday,
“The science is clear: The 1.5C limit is only possible if we ultimately stop burning all fossil fuels. Not reduce, not abate. Phase out, with a clear timeframe.”
Al Jaber’s presidency of COP28 has stirred controversy in recent months. He is the first CEO designated to be president of any climate summit so far. But he is also the chief executive of the national oil company of OPEC’s third-largest producer, the United Arab Emirates (UAE).
“The recent comments from COP28 President show how entrenched he is in fossil fuel fantasy and is clearly determined that this COP doesn’t do anything to harm the interests of the oil and gas industry,” said Mohamed Adow, the director of Power Shift Africa.
“These remarks are a wake-up call to the world and negotiators at COP28 that they are not going to get any help from the COP presidency in delivering a strong outcome on a fossil fuel phase-out and will need to work hard to ensure a few petro-state leaders don’t imperil the planet in their efforts to protect their oil profits.”
Last week, Al Jaber denied reports of plans to use the climate summit in Dubai to push oil deals.
Earlier last week, the BBC and many other news outlets reported that the UAE planned to use its role as the host of climate talks to forge new oil and gas deals. The BBC cited leaked briefing documents obtained by independent journalists at the Centre for Climate Reporting working alongside the BBC. Those documents were purportedly prepared by the UAE’s COP28 team for meetings with at least 27 foreign governments during the climate summit which Dubai will host from November 30 to December 12.
Nvidia Insiders File Paperwork To Dump 370,000 Shares
Although Nvidia reported ‘blowout‘ third-quarter earnings, an ominous sign that a peak in share price could be imminent is a report from Bloomberg that reveals corporate insiders are planning to sell the most stock in terms of dollar value in years.
The artificial intelligence bubble has fueled a 349% rally in Nvidia shares from $112 per share in October 2022 to over $500 by mid-November. As of Monday afternoon, Nvidia shares are down 10% off the peak, trading around $454. Insiders know better than anyone else about what the future holds for share prices.
New data from Washington Service shows insiders in November sold or filed paperwork to sell 370,000 shares worth about $180 million – the most in dollar amount terms in at least six years.
Meanwhile, in Nvidia’s earnings call, executives warned of a “significant” slowdown in China sales and gave fourth-quarter guidance that was also above consensus and, at best, matched the top end of the whisper range, which may have disappointed some investors as it shows that growth limits might have been hit.
With that being said, is the AI bubble about to follow the same fate as the Covid/crypto implosion?
Google web searches of “ChatGPT” continue to wane after peaking in late spring.
The number of times “ChatGPT” has been featured in news headlines also continues to slide.
The world equity markets ended November with their biggest monthly rally in three years. Optimism comes from:
better-than-expected inflation figures,
expectations of central bank rate cuts, and
general acceptance that earnings and economic growth will be weak but acceptable in 2024.
The main challenge for investors in 2024 is to confirm these hopes as trends.
The first problem is believing that inflation will drop magically without any significant impact on growth and ignoring monetary aggregates.
Inflation is falling due to the significant decline in money growth, and this means an abrupt slump in liquidity, a weaker economy, and financial conditions worsening.
Broad money (M3) growth is down 0.9% in the United States in the year to September, according to data compiled by the Institute of International Monetary Research. In the euro area, broad money growth was -1.0%, according to the ECB.
The United States will need to refinance $7 trillion of maturities in a declining broad money economy, and this means a massive vacuum effect.
A giant liquidity drain that hardly justifies multiple expansions and bullish sentiment.
Market participants cannot expect the Federal Reserve to implement massive rate cuts and even a quantitative easing program in the middle of an election year.
Furthermore, even if the Fed cuts rates, the impact is likely to be negligible compared to a seven- to ten-trillion-dollar liquidity drain, which is the equivalent of the refinancing required by the U.S. and other major governments in 2024.
Trusting in multiple expansions is concerning because, in order to achieve that, markets would need to count on rising liquidity, not a reduction.
The S&P 500 trades at a price-to-earnings ratio of 18.8 times if you believe the more than cheerful expectation of adjusted earnings growth for 2024 of 13.42% and a dividend yield of 1.61%. This implies an enterprise value to earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation, and amortization (EV/EBITDA) of 14.18 times, 2.4 x Price to Book, driven by Tech Megacaps. Europe looks cheap, but Europe always seems cheap for a reason. However, that is due to the difference in composition. The European stock market lacks the technology giants’ weight of the United States’, and its largest components are mature, low-growth stocks. Still at 12.8x Price to Earnings, 1.85 times Price to Book seems like a steep valuation to accept for utilities, banks, and mature industries, many of which have a poor track record of value destruction. Most stock markets are not cheap and need positive earnings’ surprise as well as rising liquidity to continue the bullish trend. None of those are likely.
In a scenario of liquidity drain, investors need to go back to fundamentals and pick the stocks that will keep margins and growth in a weak economy, but not bet on multiple expansion.
Market optimism is based on the idea that the unprecedented liquidity drains and declines in monetary aggregates will have no impact on earnings, margins, access to capital, or economic growth.
The only bullish argument that is often repeated is that central banks will act quickly if markets and economic figures deteriorate.
That may be the case, but not as quickly as market participants may desire and certainly not in the size required to offset the monetary aggregate slump.
The headlines keep getting worse in terms of Ukraine’s future prospects, with the latest featuring urgent White House warnings communicated to Congress over stalled Ukraine aid.
“We are out of money — and nearly out of time,” wrote the Office of Management and Budget Director Shalanda Young to Congressional leaders in a letter made public Monday. There are a mere few weeks left before the US must stop giving money to Ukraine. Young warned that the sudden end to aid will “kneecap” Ukraine on the battlefield.
President Biden has been seeking a whopping $106 billion aid package chiefly for Ukraine and Israel. But budget director Young says the proverbial writing is on the wall amid GOP resistance.
“Without congressional action, by the end of the year we will run out of resources to procure more weapons and equipment for Ukraine and to provide equipment from US military stocks,” Young wrote. “There is no magical pot of funding available to meet this moment. We are out of money — and nearly out of time,” she said.
At a moment of soaring food and cost of living prices, amid a continually weaking US dollar under the Biden administration, taxpaying Americans might not be too pleased with the White House referencing a “magical pot” of funding… as if tens of billions handed to Kiev thus far merely ‘magically’ materialized out of nowhere.
“Cutting off the flow of US weapons and equipment will kneecap Ukraine on the battlefield, not only putting at risk the gains Ukraine has made, but increasing the likelihood of Russian military victories,” Young continued.
“Already, our packages of security assistance have become smaller and the deliveries of aid have become more limited . . . while our allies around the world have stepped up to do more, US support is critical and cannot be replicated by others.”
Yet, we should point out that Ukraine forces have been unable to advance even after being handed America’s longer-range missiles, state of the art drones, anti-air defenses, and intelligence assistance to boot. Some US government entities and officials have already begun to redefine what ‘victory’ looks like as the goal posts continually change.
Congressional Republicans, responsible for having blocked and held up Biden’s Ukraine funding, have only grown more skeptical also as Israel takes the spotlight.
🇺🇦🇺🇸🇪🇺 – White House warns that US support to Ukraine could stop at end of month
• Presidential drawdowns of military aid are dropping, making Putin’s bet on Ukraine fatigue a winning one
• EU is now ahead of US in total commitments to Ukraine, crucially with multi-year support pic.twitter.com/w9kRU6uxud
A recent article in The Economist has summarized the recent compounding setbacks for Kiev as follows:
For more than 600 days of full-scale war, America has been Ukraine’s greatest savior as it marshalled arms, money and more to help repel Russia’s invasion. Now America has become one of Ukraine’s greatest worries. Its aid for Ukraine is fast running out, and dysfunction in Congress is blocking new assistance. Nobody is sure when—or whether—it will be restored.
The effect is being felt at the front as America tries to stretch its dwindling funds. “In the spring the flow of military supplies was a broad river. In the summer it was a stream. Now it is a few drops of tears,” says one informed Ukrainian source. Ukraine faces a bleak winter amid great uncertainty: its counter-offensive has failed to break through Russian lines; its enemy is increasing its arms production; and its vital ally is paralyzed by political turmoil and distracted by Israel’s war in Gaza.
One wonders what the status will be one year from now… will a negotiated settlement finally happen by then? There are already behind-the-scenes moves being made, according to reports stretching back several months.
Meanwhile, mainstream media continues its dramatic narrative shift…
Washington Post: “victory for Ukraine” is now “far less likely than years of war and destruction.”
Those of us who pointed this out from the start — not just after nearly two years of war and destruction — were called Kremlin apologists. pic.twitter.com/06cm37t2Oe
Hillary Clinton told the Cop28 conference that “extreme heat” has killed half a billion people, most of them women and girls, but failed to cite any actual source.
“We’re seeing and beginning to pay attention and to count and record the deaths that are related to climate and by far the biggest killer is “extreme heat.”
The two time failed presidential candidate went on to claim that “extreme heat” had killed 61,000 people in Europe last summer.
“We don’t have that kind of number yet from Africa, Asia, Latin America but we know and estimate that we probably could measure about 500,000 deaths and the majority of those are women and girls and particularly pregnant women,” she added.
NOW – Hillary Clinton: “We’re seeing and beginning to pay attention and to count and record the deaths that are related to climate.” pic.twitter.com/6hVv4qFB1T
Really, Hillary. Do you “know,” or is this a ‘probable’ “estimate”?
We don’t know because there’s absolutely no source for the claim.
[ZH: We were intrigued by the other speakers on her panel… particularly the ‘Global Chief Heat Officer’...]
As we previously highlighted, Cop28 is being held at a rather inconvenient time for climate change technocrats since Europe is experiencing a potentially record-breaking cold snap.
The 61,000 extreme heat deaths figure from Europe is taken from a study by the Barcelona Institute for Global Health, which is funded by groups like the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation which are heavily invested in pushing climate change hysteria.
I’m sure they’re not biased at all!
* * *
Your support is crucial in helping us defeat mass censorship. Please consider donating via Locals or check out our great merch.
UPS Inc. has raised its fuel surcharge on its U.S. ground parcel and SurePost delivery services by 50 basis points in what is believed to be the first time in more than 18 months that UPS has changed its formula to reflect applicable surcharges on those services.
Effective Monday, UPS will assess a 15.25% fuel levy on all shipments moving under those domestic services. The surcharge applies to the base rates and to any add-on charges known as accessorials.
The last time UPS changed its fuel surcharge table was in April 2022 during a cycle when weekly diesel prices set by the Department of Energy’s Energy Information Administration (EIA) frequently exceeded $5 a gallon. Fuel prices spiked along with the price of oil amid fears that Russia’s invasion of Ukraine would disrupt commodity supplies.
UPS’ most recent move, however, comes amid an ongoing downward move in diesel pump prices. The weekly on-highway diesel price set on Monday by the EIA stood at $4.14 a gallon. That is 15 cents a gallon below the price set two weeks prior and nearly $1 a gallon below the average pump price at this time a year ago. UPS and rival FedEx Corp. adjust their prices with a one-week lag from the most recent EIA price.
By contrast, surcharge levels will decline for U.S. domestic air, international import and export services. They will rise for the carrier’s international import and export ground services. Air shipment surcharges are set to the EIA’s jet fuel index.
UPS was unavailable for comment at press time.
UPS and FedEx index their diesel levies to a band of prices established by the EIA. UPS has in the past adjusted its ground-delivery surcharges 25 basis points for every 12 cents-a-gallon move in the EIA diesel price. FedEx Ground, FedEx’s ground delivery unit, adjusts its surcharges for every 9 cents-a-gallon move in the EIA diesel price.
For example, UPS’ upcoming 15.25% levy is based on an EIA-established price that is at least $4.10 a gallon but less than $4.22 a gallon. Currently, the levy is 14.75% for prices falling within that band.
UPS’ action will bring its levy on U.S. ground shipments in line with FedEx, which currently assesses a 15.25% surcharge within the same pricing band. Nate Skiver, founder of parcel consultancy LPF Spend Management LLC, said one of UPS’ goals is to achieve parity with FedEx’s surcharge pricing. The other is to boost revenue per package, which has taken a hit due to pricing pressure and changes in volume mix.
“It also helps to set a higher floor on the fuel table, which is now relevant with diesel prices moderating,” Skiver said in a LinkedIn message.
UPS, FedEx and other parcel delivery carriers have wide latitude as to when they adjust diesel and jet fuel surcharges. In recent years, surcharges have remained elevated despite world price fluctuations that have headed south. Analysts who follow the fuel surcharge market have said that surcharge levels stay higher long after prices have dropped, thus allowing the carriers to reap additional revenue on each transaction.
Historically, small to mid-size shipper s have found it difficult to reduce fuel surcharges through negotiations, while bigger shippers have to tender certain volume minimums for the carriers to consider reducing the levies. However, in what has turned into an all-out price war as carriers aggressively bid for business, the carriers have let it be known that fuel surcharge discounts are very much on the table.
Domestic ground parcels are UPS’ largest business. SurePost is the name for a service provided in conjunction with the U.S. Postal Service in which UPS picks up and aggregates low-value, nonurgent parcels and inducts them deep into the postal infrastructure for last-mile delivery to residences.
We have been discussing the latest Irish law to crackdown on free speech. Yet, even with the criminalization of speech, there is apparently still the danger of citizens reading or hearing facts from reporters that are best kept from them. Thus,Kitty Holland, a correspondent with the Irish Times, is defending the media’s decision to suppress stories that would “incite hatred” and undermine journalistic viewpoints.
The comments came in a BBC interview regarding the victim impact statement of the boyfriend of Ashling Murphy, who was murdered in 2022 by an immigrant.
Ryan Casey stated in part:
It just sickens me to the core that someone can come to this country, be fully supported in terms of social housing, social welfare, and free medical care for over 10 years… over 10 years… never hold down a legitimate job, and never once contribute to society in any way shape or form… can commit such a horrendous evil act of incomprehensible violence on such a beautiful, loving and talented person who in fact, worked for the state, educating the next generation and represented everything that is good about Irish society.
I feel like this country is no longer the country that Ashling and I grew up in, and Ireland has officially lost its innocence when a crime of this magnitude can be perpetrated in broad daylight. This country needs to wake up. This time, things have got to change, we have to once and for all start putting the safety of not only Irish people — but everybody in this country who works hard, pays taxes, raises families and overall contributes to society — first.
We don’t want to see any other family in this country go through what we have gone through and are continuing to go through. I myself have a little sister and honestly, just the thought of her walking the streets of any village, town or city in this country alone makes me physically sick and quite frankly absolutely terrifies me as this country is simply not safe anymore!
This time, if real change does not happen, if the safety of people living in this country is further ignored, I’m afraid our country is heading down a very dangerous path and you can be certain that we will not be the last family to be in this position.
The host asked:
“Those were very interesting comments, weren’t they?”
Holland disagreed and said that they had to be suppressed in the best interests of the public:
“I think elements of them were not good,. They were incitement to hatred, and I think that’s why the media left out aspects of them. I think they were right to not include [Casey’s full comments in news reports]. I don’t think that they were helpful, and this is the kind of thing that the far right latches on to.”
What was striking was the ease with which Holland moves directly into the suppression of a story as the guardian of the public good. Some news is simply “not helpful” so the media should not allow the public to be exposed to it.
Holland previously won the Journalist of the Year, News Reporter of the Year, and the Overall winner of the Justice Media Awards.
Holland’s view is consistent with many in the media in the United States today.
I have long been a critic of what I called “advocacy journalism” as it began to emerge in journalism schools. These schools encourage students to use their “lived expertise” and to “leave[] neutrality behind.” Instead, of neutrality, they are pushing “solidarity [as] ‘a commitment to social justice that translates into action.’”
For example, we previously discussed the release of the results of interviews with over 75 media leaders by former executive editor for The Washington Post Leonard Downie Jr. and former CBS News President Andrew Heyward. They concluded that objectivity is now considered reactionary and even harmful. Emilio Garcia-Ruiz, editor-in-chief at the San Francisco Chronicle said it plainly: “Objectivity has got to go.”
Saying that “Objectivity has got to go” is, of course, liberating. You can dispense with the necessities of neutrality and balance. You can cater to your “base” like columnists and opinion writers. Sharing the opposing view is now dismissed as “bothsidesism.” Done. No need to give credence to opposing views. It is a familiar reality for those of us in higher education, which has been increasingly intolerant of opposing or dissenting views.
Downie recounted how news leaders today
“believe that pursuing objectivity can lead to false balance or misleading “bothsidesism” in covering stories about race, the treatment of women, LGBTQ+ rights, income inequality, climate change and many other subjects. And, in today’s diversifying newsrooms, they feel it negates many of their own identities, life experiences and cultural contexts, keeping them from pursuing truth in their work.”
There was a time when all journalists shared a common “identity” as professionals who were able to separate their own bias and values from the reporting of the news.
Now, objectivity is virtually synonymous with prejudice. Kathleen Carroll, former executive editor at the Associated Press declared “It’s objective by whose standard? … That standard seems to be White, educated, and fairly wealthy.”
In an interview with The Stanford Daily, Stanford journalism professor, Ted Glasser, insisted that journalism needed to “free itself from this notion of objectivity to develop a sense of social justice.” He rejected the notion that journalism is based on objectivity and said that he views “journalists as activists because journalism at its best — and indeed history at its best — is all about morality.” Thus, “Journalists need to be overt and candid advocates for social justice, and it’s hard to do that under the constraints of objectivity.”
At the same time, outlets like National Public Radio have abandoned the rule that journalists should not engage in public protests.
NPR declared that it would allow employees to participate in political protests when the editors believe the causes advance the “freedom and dignity of human beings.” So it remained up to the editors if a reporter could join a pro-life protest (unlikely) or a pro-gun control protest (very likely).
The Holland interview shows how matter-of-fact the cause of censorship has become for reporters. The immediate question is not whether it was news to report (which it certainly was), but whether the news would further the cause or narrative of the media.
There has always been media bias, but it is now openly acknowledged and embraced by reporters. They view themselves now as the guardians protecting citizens from harmful information or news that they cannot put into the proper perspective. Information is treated like sugary drinks under the Big Gulp laws, you are better off having others decide what is healthy for you to consume . . . or to know.
