TikTok disinformation is no more dangerous than this Fox News disinformation

Sabrina Haake
March 24, 2024

RAW STORY

Fox News Channel and radio talk show host Sean Hannity (L) interviews then-President Donald Trump before a campaign rally at the Las Vegas Convention Center on September 20, 2018 in Las Vegas, Nevada.

 (Photo by Ethan Miller/Getty Images


The U.S. House of Representatives has voted overwhelmingly to require TikTok to divest its Chinese ownership or be banned in the U.S. because of national security concerns.

The security risks identified by the bill’s sponsors include a Chinese law that gives Xi Jinping legal access to user data, along with China’s ability to meddle in U.S. elections.

The standard First Amendment debate asks: When does one person’s right to spew misinformation yield to another person’s right not to be harmed by it? In the context of elections, if Congress interferes with a foreign-owned media platform such as TikTok in the name of election security, why should a domestic corporation such as Fox News, also guilty of rampant election misinformation, be spared the same scrutiny?
Online disinformation campaigns

Over the past few years, the most aggressive online disinformation campaigns in the U.S. have targeted COVID vaccines, climate science and elections. Millions of Americans are influenced by manufactured information campaigns every day. Pew Research shows that the share of U.S. adults who want the federal government to restrict such false information has risen, from 39 percent in 2018 to 55 percent in 2023.

COVID and climate manipulation can be countered fairly easily since death rates, increasing wildfires and disappearing aquifers can’t lie.

Election misinformation is another story. Of all the disinformation campaigns online at any given hour, election lies are the most difficult to regulate because political speech is afforded the highest legal protection under the 1st Amendment.

Paradoxically, political disinformation presents the greatest threat to the 1st Amendment, as politicians in a position to curb it sometimes become top disinformation purveyors.

Consider that Donald Trump started claiming the 2020 election was rigged months before the first votes were cast. Since then, an initially resistant GOP has begun to see the political expediency in parroting his claims: Republicans have not won the popular vote in a presidential election in decades, and it’s easier to falsely decry “stolen election” than to adjust policies enough to widen their political appeal.

The GOP’s strained relationship with the truth is further complicated by deep-pocket political donors who demand outcomes different from what ordinary voters want — and are willing to finance massive public disinformation campaigns to achieve those outcomes.

As a direct result of widespread election disinformation, 40 percent of Americans still think Trump won the 2020 election, and 64 percent of election officials say their jobs are now more dangerous. Not only does election misinformation weaken domestic political processes, it has been weaponized by lawmakers on the right to justify new voter suppression laws in a self-serving, closed-loop information feed.
Why should Fox ‘News’ be spared?


TikTok may downplay its interest in U.S. domestic politics. But when it encouraged users to flood U.S. representatives’ offices with angry calls, TikTok parent company ByteDance demonstrated both its interest and its ability to influence American political outcomes when it wants to.

Its lobbying force in Washington, D.C., is formidable and growing, and even includes a former professional football player.


Shou Zi Chew, CEO of TikTok, departs from the Russell Senate Office Building after meeting with Sen. John Fetterman (D-PA) on March 14, 2024, in Washington, D.C. The House of Representatives voted to ban TikTok in the United States unless the Chinese-owned parent company ByteDance sells the popular video app within the next six months.

 (Photo by Anna Moneymaker/Getty Images)

It’s also evident that TikTok’s algorithms suppress themes that aggravate Chinese leaders. As reported by the New York Times, researchers compiled information about popular TikTok videos on topics commonly suppressed inside China, such as the fate of China’s Uyghur population and public protests in Hong Kong. They found that these topics were underrepresented on TikTok compared to other social networks, including Instagram. The research emerged from TikTok’s own “Creative Center,” and after the under-representation was reported, TikTok quietly reigned in its own research tool rather than address the subterfuge.

As Congress grapples with such foreign data manipulation, why should domestic manipulation by Fox News be treated differently? Fox News admitted to peddling massive voter disinformation during the last presidential election, and it appears they are at it again.

Fox News admitted lying about Trump’s 2020 loss

Dominion Voting Systems sued Fox for defamation following Fox News’ rampant election misinformation during the 2020 election. Dominion alleged, with strong evidence, that Fox News orchestrated and published stolen 2020 election claims after it knew them to be false, repeatedly scapegoating Dominion voting machines in the process.

Dominion introduced explosive documentary evidence that key Fox anchors and executives told each other that Trump’s buffoonish stolen election claims were a joke, but told their viewers something quite different.

Fox luminaries texted, emailed or commented to each other that Trump’s stolen election lies and the fraudsters supporting them were “Ludicrous” and “totally off the rails”(Tucker Carlson); “F—g lunatics” (Sean Hannity); “Nuts” (Dana Perino); “Complete BS” (Fox Producer John Fawcett); “Kooky” (anchor Maria Bartiromo); “Mind Blowingly Nuts” (Raj Shah, Fox Corporation VP); and, “There is NO evidence of fraud. None” (Bret Baier).

And yet, these same luminaries continued to promote Trump’s stolen election lies on-air, just to attract low-information viewers.

Carlson didn’t tell Fox viewers that Trump was “off the rails.” Instead, he donned his trademark injured puppy face, poured his hurt eyes into the camera, and cried, “The stolen election was the single greatest crime in American history with millions of votes stolen in a day. Democracy destroyed. The end of our centuries old system of government.”


Fox viewers, believing their votes and democracy itself were stolen, were understandably triggered.
Election threats within

Trump and Fox News continued to goad MAGA voters into believing their votes were “stolen” until they violently attacked the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021.

The insurrection, during which multiple people lost their lives, was the direct result of election misinformation, leaving Fox News with at least some culpability for the attack.

And yet, even as Congress expresses deep concern over TikTok’s potential for election interference, there has been no discussion about Fox News. The TikTok bill’s lead sponsor, Mike Gallagher (R-WI) told NPR that that the TikTok app had been used to interfere in elections.

ALSO READ: A criminologist explains why half of America does not care about Trump's crimes

Post-2020, there is no serious question about whether Fox also interferes in elections or plans to interfere with them again, as Trump and President Joe Biden speed toward a rematch in November.

TikTok has more reach than Fox, as nearly half of America’s population uses TikTok. Fox News, for its part, is the top-rated cable network, averaging 1.85 million viewers daily during primetime hours. Fox & Friends has been the most viewed cable-news morning show for 22 years.

As instruments of social and political manipulation, TikTok and Fox News target similar audiences. TikTok attracts hormonal teens with addictive, homegrown videos, while Fox targets their low-education parents and grandparents. Both outlets manipulate their audience by selling infotainment as news.



In this photo illustration, A man holds a smartphone iPhone screen showing various social media apps including YouTube, TikTok, Facebook, Threads, Instagram and X on March 13, 2024. (Photo by Anna Barclay/Getty Images)

If the TikTok bill makes it through the U.S. Senate, it will face a stiff legal challenge. Under long-established 1st Amendment precedent, the government will need to show a compelling government interest, and that forced divestment — or a ban — represents the least restrictive means of advancing that interest.

Under any legal analysis, there are few concerns more compelling to the U.S. federal government than preserving free elections and the democratic system. What’s glaringly missing from the debate about online disinformation, at least so far, is why election interference from TikTok is any more dangerous than election interference from Fox News.

Sabrina Haake is a columnist and 25 year litigator specializing in 1st and 14th Amendment defense. Follow her on Substack.

'Why are you yelling?' Fox News MAGA pundit loses it after he's called out by Dem

David Edwards
March 28, 2024

Fox News/screen grab

Fox News pundit Leo Terrell was enraged Thursday after left-leaning contributor Jessica Tarlov pointed out that she was the only Jewish American on the panel.

During a segment about President Joe Biden's fundraiser in New York City, Terrell ranted that there was a lack of support for Israel.

"He has abandoned Israel," Terrell said of Biden. "And you want to know, it's not just Israel. He abandoned Jewish Americans attending universities."

"Joe Biden will do anything to win Michigan," he continued. "Throwing our biggest ally under the bus? Throwing Jewish Americans under the bus at these universities? Shame on Joe Biden! This is ridiculous! It's outrageous."

Tarlov tried to weigh in "as the only Jewish American on the panel."

"Don't do that!" Terrell exclaimed. "That's not the point!"

"You said Jewish American," Tarlov pointed out. "I am a Jewish American."

"OK. You're a big-time Democrat, and you're going to defend Joe Biden, notwithstanding the numbers," Terrell griped. "And you know he's throwing Israel under the bus, and he's throwing Jewish American students under the bus at all these universities. It's sickening."

Tarlov noted that Biden "came out of the gate as the strongest supporter in the international community of Israel."

"And I think that what you're saying, Leo, is very dangerous, just like what President Trump was saying is very dangerous," she added.

"Dangerous?" Terrell screamed. "Dangerous?"


"Why are you yelling?" Tarlov asked.

"To throw Israel under the bus?" Terrell ranted.

"Why are you yelling?" Tarlov asked again.


"Give me a break," Terrell said sourly. "He threw Israel under the bus."

Watch the video below from Fox News or click the link.

Trump Bible could have blank pages and his supporters would never know: op-ed

Sky Palma

RAW STORY
March 28, 2024

Brooks Kraft/ Getty Images


Former President Donald Trump is on the receiving end of backlash after he announced his campaign is selling "God Bless the USA Bibles" for $59.99, but this columnist wants to take a hard look his readers.

Columnist Amanda Marcotte, in an op-ed published by Salon Thursday, said she believes the announcement was a "not-at-all subtle message" that Trump "doesn't believe any of this faith-in-God crap, but he definitely believes in using Christian identity as a weapon to make money and dominate his foes."

Marcotte argues that Trump supporters who identify as Christian will not find the Trump brand Bible offensive, since it signals that they can have the "Christian" identity without the parts they don't like.

"No boring church services or Bible study. No tedious talk about 'compassion' and 'grace,' which only gets in the way of the gay-bashing and racism," Marcotte wrote. "And definitely no need to worry about that Jesus guy, with all his notions about 'loving thy neighbor' and 'welcoming the stranger.'"

According to Marcotte, Trump-supporting Christians have replaced God with Trump himself — which she says is a lot more fun since Trump's message is "kick thy neighbor" and "build the wall."

Marcotte has such little faith in the Christian bonafides of Trump supporters that she argued the pages of the Trump Bible could be blank and they wouldn't even know it.

"In the right-wing publishing industry, books are not made to be read. They are to be displayed on your shelves, unopened, so you can glance at them and feel that somewhere, a liberal is 'owned.'" she writes.

"The point of a Trump-branded Bible is to use it like their Dear Leader does: As a photo prop, not something to turn to for guidance or wisdom."

What is the economic impact of the Baltimore bridge collapse?


By AFP

March 27, 2024

The collapse of the Francis Scott Key Bridge will bring an economic hit 

but analysts say it is unlikely to make a broad-based impact 

- Copyright GETTY IMAGES NORTH AMERICA/AFP/File Anna Moneymaker

Beiyi SEOW with Elodie MAZEIN in New York

Diverted cargo and supply chain disruptions — businesses are rushing to avoid an economic hit following the collapse of a major bridge in Baltimore as a cargo ship slammed into it this week.

With vessel traffic at the Port of Baltimore suspended until further notice since Tuesday’s accident, experts warn of knock-on effects but say these should be manageable in the near term.

Baltimore is the biggest vehicle-handling port in the country, including cars and heavy farm equipment, US Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg noted in a CBS interview.

“Right now you’ve got ocean shippers, the other ports and the cargo owners all working to figure out where to divert the ships that were headed that way,” he said.

Besides the hit to thousands of Baltimore port workers, Maryland Governor Wes Moore warned in a CNN interview that more than 140,000 people could be indirectly impacted by disruptions.

“The Port of Baltimore has such a significant economic impact, not just on my state,” he said, adding that the port handles over 50 million tons of foreign cargo last year.

“We’re talking about, you know, cars, heavy trucks, agricultural equipment,” Moore said.

“This is the impact it’s going to have on our country’s economy.”

– Diverted cargo –

Cargo bound for Baltimore will likely be partially diverted to the Port of New York and New Jersey, analysts say.

While this involves rerouting, the port “has the capacity to handle whatever will come their way,” a shipping industry source told AFP.

This is because the Port of New York and New Jersey is the second or third busiest in the country, and handles the equivalent of Baltimore’s year-long container volume in a much shorter period, the source said.

Bethann Rooney, port director at the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, added that it is “proactively working with our industry partners to respond as needed and ensure supply chain continuity along the East Coast.”

While there will be “noticeable headaches” in the next several months, economist Ryan Sweet at Oxford Economics expects businesses will be able to adapt.

There will be supply chain disruptions, but he said: “I don’t think it’s going to have a macroeconomic effect because there are so many large ports within close proximity.”

These ports can likely handle a rise in cargo volumes, Sweet noted.

He added that there will probably not be a “broad-based supply shock” that will impact US inflation for consumer goods or GDP.

– Autos –

Certain sectors will be more impacted than others, such as automobiles, noted logistics platform Container xChange.

According to official figures, the Baltimore port’s private and public terminals handled over 840,000 autos and light trucks in 2023, the most among US ports.

“The port is a crucial gateway for specialized cargo and bulk handling, serving as a key link in many supply chains,” said Container xChange.

It warned that delays in cargo movement “could lead to inventory shortages, affecting businesses that rely on timely deliveries, like the automotive industry.”

Companies seeking alternative routes could also face higher transportation costs.

Among key auto companies importing through Baltimore are carmaker Mazda, which told AFP that the Baltimore port is “a vital part of Mazda’s logistics chain in the United States.”

“Mazda is currently assessing the potential impacts of a prolonged closure of the Port of Baltimore to ensure minimal disruption to operations,” a spokesperson said.

“At this time, no alternative plans have been finalized,” Mazda added.

Another major automaker Stellantis said it is starting talks with transportation providers for “contingency plans to ensure an uninterrupted flow of vehicles” to customers.

But Sweet of Oxford Economics there will unlikely be broad-based shortages in the autos sector, with weaker demand for new vehicles and companies having higher inventories these days.

“The issues could be more isolated to certain companies that rely on the Port of Baltimore to bring in their inventory,” he said.

Quirk in U.S. maritime law may be key to liability in Baltimore bridge disaster

Agence France-Presse
March 28, 2024 

The Dali, a Singaporean-flagged cargo vessel almost three football fields long, remains stuck under debris from the Francis Scott Key Bridge on March 27, 2024 after crashing into it. © Roberto Schmidt, AFP

The investigation continues to determine why a container ship, the Dali, smashed into a pillar of the 2.6 km span of Baltimore’s Francis Scott Key bridge in early morning darkness on Tuesday, causing it to collapse and leaving six construction workers presumed dead.

However, establishing the precise cause of the accident will be just the first step in untangling the question of who will shoulder the financial cost of the disaster, which will be considerable.

John Neal, chief executive of the leading global insurer Lloyds of London, told British media on Thursday that the accident is "certainly going to be one of the largest marine losses in history”.

Mathilde Jakobsen, senior director of analytics at the credit rating agency AM Best, agreed, noting that “while the total cost of the bridge collapse and associated claims will not be clear for some time, it is likely to run into the billions of dollars”.

The tragedy could lead to up to $4 billion in insurance claims, Morningstar DBRS said.

Reinsurers – insurers that handle risks that are too large for insurance companies to handle alone – “will bear the bulk of the insured cost of the collapse of the Francis Scott Key Bridge in Baltimore”, according to Jakobsen.

The Dali’s insurer, Britannia P&I Club, is part of a global group of mutual insurance organisations that pool liability for the shipping industry.

Known as protection and indemnity (P&I) clubs, they provide “liability cover for most shipping vessels” and “collectively insure approximately 90% of the world’s ocean-going tonnage”, notes Jakobsen.

Insurance claims from the bridge collapse will take a long time to determine and involve the families of those who died, the injured, those suffering damage to property, cargo and the cost of the indefinite closure of the Port of Baltimore, one of the busiest on the US eastern seaboard.

Maritime law from the 19th century

But according to the maritime lawyer John Fulweiler, the Dali’s owners, Singapore-based Grace Ocean Private, will certainly try to limit their liability from lawsuits by using a 19th century US maritime law that he calls “a powerful tool that favours vessel owners”.

The law was originally meant to prevent shipping companies from having to pay overwhelming losses from accidents at sea.

The ship’s owners, Fulweiler told FRANCE by email, can petition federal court under the Limitation of Liability Act of 1851, and bring all potential claims against them “into a single courtroom before a single federal judge”.

“When the Act is triggered, the court issues an order halting all claims that might be pending in other forums,” notes Fulweiler.

“It's an old piece of legislation” that produces “a lot of injustices,” says Fulweiler, by capping the ship owner’s liability to a sum equal to the “post-incident value of the vessel” and the earnings it collected from carrying the freight on board.

The wreckage wrought by the Dali is estimated to far exceed its current value.

According to Fulweiler, “the murky waters of the marine world give amplified lobbying power to those representing marine insurers and vessel owners".

(FRANCE 24 with Reuters)

'Egregious violation': Bridge collapse company fired worker who raised safety concerns

Carl Gibson,

 AlterNet
March 28, 2024 

The cargo ship Dali sits in the water after running into and collapsing the Francis Scott Key Bridge on March 26, 2024 in Baltimore, Maryland. 

(Photo by Tasos Katopodis/Getty Images)

Maersk — the company that chartered the cargo ship involved in the collapse of the Francis Scott Key Bridge in Baltimore that killed six people and injured several others — was sanctioned by the Department of Labor last year, according to a new report.

Lever News reported that cargo giant Maersk was hit with a violation in July of 2023 when it illegally fired a worker who reported safety concerns to the U.S. Coast Guard. The employee reported numerous safety concerns aboard a Maersk vessel that included leaks in a starboard-side tunnel, alcohol use by crew members and leaving a trainee unsupervised aboard the ship Safmarine Mafadi.

The worker also blew the whistle about inoperable lifeboats on board the ship and faulty emergency fire suppression equipment. The employee — who was a chief mate on the ship and occasionally served as a relief captain — told federal officials that they believed their firing was "retaliation for reporting alcohol consumption on board the vessel." Maersk was ordered to reinstate the worker and pay $700,000 in back wages and damages.

READ MORE: Nancy Mace blames Biden's infrastructure law after ship strike collapses Baltimore bridge

The worker was fired for violating an internal Maersk policy that required employees "to first report their concerns to [Maersk] ... prior to reporting it to the [Coast Guard] or other authorities." The Occupational Safety and Heath Administration (OSHA) slammed the company over the policy, describing it as "repugnant," "reprehensible" and "an egregious violation of the rights of employees." OSHA added that the policy "chills [employees] from contacting the [Coast Guard] or other authorities without contacting the company first."

Lever reported that during the OSHA investigation, the Department of Labor accused Maersk of violating the Seaman's Protection Act. That legislation allows for workers in the maritime industry to blow the whistle on safety violations while protecting them from retaliatory actions by their employers. The Department of Labor ordered Maersk to revise its internal policy to allow workers to contact the US Coast Guard directly about any safety concerns.

In an official statement, Maersk stated that while it was "horrified" about the crash that collapsed the bridge and expressed sympathy for those who were killed and injured, the company made it clear that responsibility for the Key Bridge collapse fell to Synergy Group, which was piloting the ship.

"We can confirm that the container vessel ‘DALI’, operated by charter vessel company Synergy Group, is time chartered by Maersk and is carrying Maersk customers’ cargo. No Maersk crew and personnel were onboard the vessel," the company stated. "We are closely following the investigations conducted by authorities and Synergy, and we will do our utmost to keep our customers informed."

READ MORE: 'Disgusting': Maria Bartiromo ripped for linking Baltimore bridge collapse to Biden border policy

The Key Bridge collapsed after the DALI vessel experienced a power outage, prompting it to crash into one of the bridge's main trusses. While the ship's crew was able to issue a mayday call to first responders who then shut down the bridge to traffic, there were still several construction workers on the bridge repairing the road. Search and rescue teams were able to save several workers, but six were killed.

President Joe Biden has vowed that the federal government will foot the bill for the repair of the bridge and will work quickly to restore both bridge traffic and shipping lanes in and out of the Port of Baltimore. Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg warned that while those repairs are underway, there will be "major and protracted supply chain issues" due to the inability of cargo ships to access Baltimore's port.

The Biden administration has not yet said if it will pursue legal action against Maersk or Synergy Group to help pay for the cost of repairing the Key Bridge. If it was to issue any civil penalties, the decision could be litigated in federal courts for several years.

READ MORE: Buttigieg: 'Major and protracted supply chain issues' expected after bridge collapse

Cargo Giant in Baltimore Crash Silenced Whistleblowers

By David Sirota

March 27, 2024

The company that chartered the cargo ship that destroyed the Francis Scott Key Bridge in Baltimore was recently sanctioned by regulators for blocking its employees from directly reporting safety concerns to the US Coast Guard — in violation of a seaman whistleblower protection law, according to regulatory filings reviewed by the Lever.

Eight months before a Maersk Line Limited–chartered cargo ship crashed into the Baltimore bridge, likely killing six people and injuring others, the Labor Department sanctioned the shipping conglomerate for retaliating against an employee who reported unsafe working conditions aboard a Maersk-operated boat. In its order, the department found that Maersk had “a policy that requires employees to first report their concerns to [Maersk] . . . prior to reporting it to the [Coast Guard] or other authorities.”

Federal regulators at the Occupational Safety and Health Administration, which operates under the Labor Department, called the policy “repugnant” and a “reprehensible and an egregious violation of the rights of employees,” which “chills them from contacting the [Coast Guard] or other authorities without contacting the company first.”

Maersk’s reporting policy was approved by company executives, federal regulators found in their investigation into the incident.

“[Maersk’s] Vice President of Labor Relations, admits that this Reporting Policy requires seamen to report safety concerns to the company and allow it time to abate the conditions before reporting to the [Coast Guard] or other regulatory agencies,” Labor Department investigators said in their report.

During their investigation into Maersk, federal officials said there was “reasonable cause to believe” that the company’s policy violated the Seaman’s Protection Act, which protects maritime workers who speak out about unsafe working conditions. Officials ordered the company to reinstate the employee and pay over $700,000 in damages and back wages. They also demanded that Maersk revise its policy to allow seamen to contact the Coast Guard about safety concerns before notifying the company.

The fired employee was a chief mate on the Safmarine Mafadi, a Maersk-operated vessel, who also served as a relief captain when needed. The seaman reported unrepaired leaks, unpermitted alcohol consumption onboard, inoperable lifeboats, faulty emergency fire suppression equipment, and other issues.

Before he was fired, the employee was disciplined for not properly maintaining the logbook and failing to properly follow orders. The fired employee told federal regulators that he believed these disciplinary actions were “retaliation for reporting alcohol consumption on board the vessel.”

Maersk did not respond to Lever questions about the Labor Department’s findings and its previous policy on workplace safety reporting ahead of publication.

In a comment to other news outlets, Maersk stated: “We are horrified by what has happened in Baltimore, and our thoughts are with all of those affected. We can confirm that the container vessel ‘DALI’, operated by charter vessel company Synergy Group, is time chartered by Maersk and is carrying Maersk customers’ cargo. No Maersk crew and personnel were onboard the vessel. We are closely following the investigations conducted by authorities and Synergy, and we will do our utmost to keep our customers informed.”

Whistleblower Protection

The Seaman’s Protection Act was enacted in 1984 to protect maritime workers who reported statutory violations to the Coast Guard from company retaliation. These employees had been left out of other whistleblower laws at the time. In 2010, the legislation was amended to also safeguard employees who refused to perform certain duties due to fears of personal injury.

Enforced by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration, companies that violate the Seaman’s Protection Act can be subject to hundreds of thousands of dollars in fines. The Coast Guard also encourages employees to “report any hazardous condition before it results in a costly mishap.”

Despite the law explicitly protecting maritime employees from workplace abuses including whistleblower retaliation, experts say there have been relatively few whistleblower complaints. In 2017, a case involving the Seaman’s Protection Act made it to the Supreme Court seeking to protect a New York harbor worker, a “persistent safety advocate,” who had been fired after reporting dangerous conditions, though the court declined to hear the case.

Many maritime employers have a similar policy that prevents employees from directly contacting the Coast Guard or other regulatory agencies, according to Eric Rhine, a lawyer specializing in maritime injuries, aviation accident claims, and other issues at the Spagnoletti Law Firm.

In a blog post, Rhine highlighted a previous whistleblower retaliation case that found it was “‘standard business practice’ for employers to prohibit any direct contact by employees with government regulatory bodies.”

Rhine also highlighted that maritime employees, who face many work hazards, have a right to report unsafe conditions aboard their vessels to federal regulators.

“Sometimes accidents occur when they could have been avoided if proper and reasonable care was taken by those responsible for safe working conditions,” Rhine wrote. “These accidents can leave employees with lasting impairment that prevents them from ever working again. Of course, even worse, they can be deadly.”

Total Collapse

The vessel that crashed into the Baltimore bridge, Dali, was chartered by Maersk and operated by Synergy Marine Group, a ship management company based in Singapore. The ship had a crew of twenty-two foreign workers from India. The boat is owned by Grace Ocean Private and was headed to Sri Lanka.

Maersk, which is headquartered in Copenhagen, is one of the world’s largest shipping companies, reporting more than $51 billion in revenue in 2023. The company operates in 130 countries and employs one hundred thousand workers, according to its annual report. As of December 2023, Maersk owned 310 ships and was chartering 362, which they say is one of the world’s largest container shipping fleets.

Since 2021, Maersk has spent $2.7 million lobbying Congress and federal regulators on workers compensation, as well as port congestion and infrastructure issues, among other concerns, regulatory filings show.

Since last summer, Maersk has been battling the International Longshoremen’s Association — a labor union that represents sixty-five thousand maritime workers, including Maersk employees — over labor unrest at a port in Alabama.

In August 2023, APM Terminals, a division of Maersk, sued the union, claiming that workers at its Mobile, Alabama port were on strike illegally during an active contract. The court case is ongoing, and documents filed by the union in March allege that the company illegally suspended six workers for “raising a concern about a safety issue at the job site.”

As of publication time, rescuers have suspended the search for six missing construction workers who were working on the Baltimore bridge at the time of the collapse. The workers are presumed dead, officials said. One body was reportedly recovered from the river on Tuesday.

 

NTSB Releases "Black Box" Timeline of Baltimore Bridge Strike

 

PUBLISHED MAR 27, 2024 10:20 PM BY THE MARITIME EXECUTIVE

 

On Wednesday, the National Transportation Safety Board released an initial timeline of events in the tragic collapse of the Francis Scott Key Bridge, which was struck by a container ship and destroyed early Tuesday. The agency has received an initial tranche of voyage data recorder (VDR) information from the U.S. Coast Guard and can now sketch out a rough outline of what transpired aboard the vessel. 

At about 0039 hours on Tuesday morning, the boxship Dali got under way from Baltimore's Seagirt Terminal with 21 Indian crewmembers, two local pilots and 56 hazmat containers on board. The pilots released the docking tugs shortly after, and the vessel entered the ship channel. 

At 0124 hours, Dali was under way in the channel, making eight knots and steering 141 degrees. At about 0125, multiple alarms went off, and the VDR ceased recording the ship's electronic system data. Using backup power, the VDR kept recording bridge audio, and it captured the pilot's verbal rudder commands. 

One minute later, at 0126, the VDR was able to resume recording the ship's electronic data. Shortly after - at 0126:39 - the pilot made a general VHF call for tug assistance. This was the first distress call from the vessel. 

At about this time, a dispatcher at the pilot's association contacted the duty officer at the MDTA, the state authority that operates the Francis Scott Key Bridge.  This gave the MDTA enough early warning to begin shutting down the bridge to traffic, an action that officials have credited with saving many lives. 

At 0127:04, two minutes before contact with the bridge pier, the pilot gave the order to drop Dali's port anchor. He also gave additional steering commands.

At 0127:25, the pilot made a general radio call over VHF to warn that the Dali had lost all power and was approaching the Key Bridge. By this time, MDTA's duty officer had dispatched units to shut down all lanes of traffic.  

The ship was still making seven knots at 0129:00, the moment that the VDR began recording the audible sounds of the allision. The noise continued until 01:29:33, and the pilot made a VHF call to report the bridge's collapse a few moments later. 

NTSB began interviewing crewmembers today, agency chair Jennifer Homendy said at a press conference. The first interviews with the pilots are scheduled for tomorrow. For the immediate term, the agency's focus is on collecting any evidence that could be erased by activity at the site, preserving data before salvage operations begin in earnest.   

Homendy noted that some of the containers on the bow have been breached, including some hazmat containers, and that a sheen has been spotted on the water. The area is dangerous to access, and federal and local responders are aware of the damage. 

Though the composition of the sheen and release is not known, the ship's hazmat cargo was mostly corrosives and flammables, along with miscellaneous hazmat - a typical classification for lithium-ion batteries.

UK

Israeli arms company Elbit forced to sell Tamworth site

A victory for direct action and the Palestine solidarity movement

Palestine Action at the Elbit site in Tamworth (Picture: Palestine Action)

Direct action for Palestine secured a success on Friday as Elbit Systems, part of Israel’s arms trade, was forced to sell its Elite KL factory in Tamworth, near Birmingham.

Alongside mass marches and other forms of action, it’s a sign of the power of the Palestine solidarity movement.

The company had previously manufactured cooling and power management systems for military vehicles. But it faced falling profits and increased security costs resulting from repeated Palestine Action efforts.

After the sale was completed the site’s new owners, listed as Griffin Newco Ltd, told Palestine Action that they will have nothing to do with the previous owners, Elbit, and have discontinued any arms manufacturing.

Palestine Action said, “This victory is a direct result of sustained direct action which has sought to make it impossible for Elbit to afford to operate in Britain.

“Before they sold the enterprise to a private equity syndicate, Elbit had reported that Elite KL operating profits had been slashed by over three-quarters, with Palestine Action responsible. Elbit directly cited the increased expenditure on security they’d been forced to make, and higher supply chain costs they faced.

The first action at the site, in November 2020, saw activists smash into the building covered in blood-red paint.

Between March and July 2021, roof-top occupations put the site out of action three times. Despite increased security, another roof-top occupation in July saw the site closed.


Full coverage of the struggle in Palestine


In February 2022, activists decommissioned the site for weeks—closed off after an occupation that saw over £250,000 of damage.

After this, Elbit erected a security perimeter around the site. One month later, six people were arrested after occupying the roof and smashing through, preventing the production of parts for Israel’s military machine.

Elite KL is a “specialist thermal management business”. Since the sale, the company has focused on cooling systems for buses and trains, but it had, under Elbit, manufactured these systems for military vehicles.

Until December of last year, Elite KL’s website was advertising its military and defence products, and it was known to provide parts for Israel’s Merkava tanks. Its export licence records demonstrate its provision of ML6a components for military ground vehicles to Israel.

Elbit Systems itself provides 85 percent of the drones and land-based military equipment for the Israeli military, along with a wide range of the munitions and armaments currently being used against Gaza’s besieged population.

Its chief executive, Bazhalel Machlis, claims the Israeli military offered the company its thanks for their “crucial” services during the ongoing genocide in Gaza. Huge marches, local protests, workplace walkouts, pickets of arms firms, direct action, student occupations and many other methods are all important in fighting Israel’s assaults on Gaza.

Don’t buy West’s hypocrisy over Chinese cyber-spying

A Chinese cyber-attack has left the British and US governments raging. Thomas Foster explains why this is hypocritical—and how cyber-warfare is a ruling class tool

Thursday 28 March 2024 

SOCIALIST WORKER  Issue 2899

Both the West and China use cyber-espionage 

(Picture: Flickr/ Focal Foto)

The United States and British governments accused China of being behind a years-long cyber-attack campaign against politicians, journalists and businesses last week. Chinese cyber-espionage group APT-31 carried out the campaign, targeting critics of China with sophisticated hacks of work accounts, personal emails, online storage and telephone call records to steal information.

In response, the US and Britain sanctioned a handful of individuals and a company described as a front for the Chinese ministry of state security. The reality is that the attacks—and threat of them—are one group of elites trying to use its influence to bribe another group at the top. Cyber-attacks aren’t an attack on us all.

But, they can spill over to see elites competing over real things, like economic domination and military power. China is a class ridden society—and attacks and represses its own people. It spies on workers, tries to stop their organisation and crushes trade unions for the millions in its factories.

The Chinese state has also locked up to one million Uyghurs Muslims in internment camps and suppresses Uyghur culture and national self-determination claims. But there is hypocrisy in the US and British government’s grandstanding over cyber-warfare. Rulers in Britain and the US have their own empire of hacking, which they extensively use for their own interests.

When imperialist rivals compete against each other, they use whatever means they can to gain an advantage. British officials said the Chinese government is responsible for gaining access to information on millions of British voters by hacking the Electoral Commission. Chinese surveillance doesn’t influence and tamper with Western elections.

The US and Britain always rush to call out Chinese cyber-warfare that threatens their own power. But both have been carrying out cyber-attack campaigns against China and a whole array of countries.

Last year, the US National Security Agency (NSA) carried out a number of cyber-attacks against Chinese telecommunications company Huawei Technologies to monitor and steal critical data.

Don’t be pulled in by rulers’ Chinese spy claims

In 2022 the US hacked a government-funded Chinese university, Northwestern Polytechnical University, which conducts military research. After infiltrating the university’s network, NSA infiltrated wider telecommunications infrastructure to steal Chinese user data. The US and Britain don’t contain their cyber-espionage to China—they also carry out cyber-attacks on their allies.

In 2014 the British spy agency Government Communications Headquarters (GCHQ) hacked into Belgian telecommunications company Belgacom between 2010 and 2013. GCHQ hacked the company to steal data from mobile devices and carry out cyber-attacks, in a cyber-warfare campaign titled “Operation Socialist”.

This is just the tip of the iceberg. Britain’s yearly National Cyber Force report admits that the government carries out an array of cyber-warfare all the time, from “influencing behavior” to “gathering data on hostile actors”. And it’s likely that the US and Britain will use the latest revelations as an excuse to ramp up their own attacks even further.
Racism against China

There is a racist undercurrent to some of the language used in the United States and Europe when discussing China’s economic growth. The rhetoric at times falls into the trope of “Yellow Peril”. “Yellow Peril” is a form of racism that depicts “barbaric” Asian countries as an existential threat to Western “civilisation”.

Throughout history, racists have depicted Asian countries as “uncivilised”, “unclean”, or “filthy”, to look at just a few examples. Elements of these disgusting tropes remain today. In 2019 US state department director of policy planning Kiron Skinner described the US’s competition with the Soviet Union as “a fight within the Western family” but China as “a really different civilisation”.

Zhang Xiaoming, a professor at Peking university, writes that US and European ruling classes often describe China “either as an uncivilised outsider or as a less-civilised insider”. He adds that the racist “clash of civilisations” trope leads Chinese people to be seen as the “other”.
Imperialists locked into global competition

China threatens the United States’ domination of global capitalism. In response, the US and other Western countries are ramping up their rhetoric, sanctions and economic policies against Chinese state capitalism. The growth of China’s economic power has meant that Western ruling classes see it as a threat to its own.

After the news of the latest cyber-attack campaign, prime minister Rishi Sunak said that China is “the greatest state-based threat to our economic security”. In recent years, the ruling classes of the US and other Western countries have taken a harder line against China.

The reason why is found in the structural features of global capitalism. While the US remains the world’s most powerful country, its relative power has been declining since the turn of the 21st century.

Imperialism, competition and violence

In this time China has massively expanded its economic production. Chinese state capitalism transformed half a billion peasants into industrial workers—transforming the economy into the world’s second largest.

The US’s ruling class first saw China as just a place for cheap labour. But now China’s economic power means it is the US’s biggest challenge in a system of global competition and imperialist rivalry.

As its economic power has grown, China’s ruling class has become more assertive in fighting for its economic and political interests. Its Belt and Road Initiative—which commits over £800 billion to hundreds of infrastructure projects—is threatening US influence in the Global South.

But despite the increasing imperialist rivalry between US and Chinese ruling classes, there remains a mutual economic dependency. The support of US bosses is vital for China remaining a key base for global production.

And China is vulnerable around technology, depending on Western production of semiconductors and other microchips. And the US still depends on China’s low-cost production base, taking advantage of Chinese manufacturing.

The globalisation of capital has led to supply chains crossing borders and spanning the world. The result is the contradiction of both China’s and the US’s economy being reliant on each other while also competing against each other. But ruling classes can’t escape the logic of competition internally. As long as China rivals the US economically, it will be treated as a threat.

The mutual revelations of past and present

Ahead of a talk to the Socialist History Society tomorrow, Professor Paul Preston explores the impact of contemporary politics on historical investigation with reference to his writings on Spain.

There is a mantra recited by professional historians to the effect that all history is contemporary history.  Its origin is widely attributed to the Italian philosopher Benedetto Croce on the basis of an essay on historiography published in 1912 with the evocatively prophetic title Storia, cronaca e false storie which could reasonably be translated either as ‘History, News and False Stories’ or as ‘History, Chronicles of the Present and Made-up Stories’. 

The celebrated aphorism reflects the truism that all analysis and interpretation of the past is almost invariably passed through a filter of the individual historian’s ethical and political response to events of the day. I would certainly accept that this applies to most of my own work on Spanish history from the 1870s to the present day. 

In fact, Croce’s dictum applies not only to writing and research by historians irrespective of the period researched.  It is also valid when applied to works of theatre, fictional literature, opera, sculpture, visual arts or cinema.  

Examples abound right across the creative arts.  Commentators on Shakespeare’s eight English history plays about the period between 1396 and 1485 frequently note that they reflect an effort to legitimize the monarchy established in 1485 by the alleged usurper Henry Tudor.  English historical fiction, from that of Sir Walter Scott, via those of Benjamin Disraeli and Charles Dickens, right up to the more recent work of Hilary Mantel, interpret their subjects with the political and ethical values of the period in which they were actually written. 

This is even more true of operas with historical subjects from Russia – including those by Mussorgsky, Shostakovich and Prokofiev – from France – including those by Berlioz, Meyerbeer or Massenet. The most dramatic example comes from Italy. Giuseppe Verdi’s works written between 1840 and 1860, such as Nabucco, I Lombardi, Ernani, Attila or Un ballo in Maschera, reflected his commitment to the cause of Italian unification against Austrian tyranny. 

However, the cliché about the relationship between past and present, between historical writing and contemporary values, is not just valuable in assessing works of history. It works both ways, as is demonstrated frequently by the bitter polemics stimulated when once admired cultural icons are reassessed in terms of contemporary values as racist and/or misogynistic and then passionately defended. 

Barely a day goes by without our being reminded of the value of a knowledge of history in assessing contemporary politics.  That politicians tend not to welcome reminders of historical precedents was underlined almost exactly a year ago by Gary Lineker.  He drew widespread vitriol for his response on social media to claims by the Home Secretary, Suella Braverman, in justification of her plans to stop migrants crossing the Channel on small boats, that the UK is being “overwhelmed”.  He responded: “There is no huge influx. We take far fewer refugees than other major European counties.  This is just an immeasurably cruel policy directed at the most vulnerable people in language that is not dissimilar to that used by Germany in the 30s.” He was subject to waves of abuse and accused of breaching the BBC’s impartiality rules. 

Leaving aside the obvious absurdity that impartiality requires equal treatment of the rapist and the raped, the oppressor and the oppressed, the criticism directed at Lineker reflected the discomfort felt by most politicians on being reminded of how history can supply abundant evidence to expose errors of judgement or the hidden agenda underlying their rhetoric.  And it is not as if there were not plenty of famous aphorisms to warn them.  In 1852, Karl Marx stated: “History repeats itself, first as tragedy, second as farce.”  In 1905, the Spanish philosopher Jorge Santayana declared that “Aquellos que no pueden recordar el pasado están condenados a repetirlo”, a phrase that can be rendered as “nations that are ignorant of their history are doomed to repeat it.”

In my book, A People Betrayed: A History of Corruption, Political Incompetence and Social Division in Modern Spain 1874–2018 (London: William Collins, 2020), I make an explicit acknowledgement of the influence of contemporary politics on investigation of the past.  For instance, during the years that I was researching and writing the book, I lived, on a daily basis, under the shadow of the Brexit process in Britain. It was a painful experience to have to witness the combination of lies, governmental ineptitude and corruption that have undermined the welfare state, brought public services to their knees and bitterly divided a nation once regarded as a beacon of calm.  The book made no attempt to suggest that Spain is unique in terms of corruption or governmental incompetence.  There are other European nations for which, at various historical moments, similar interpretations might be valid. 

My next book, Architects of Terror: Paranoia, Conspiracy and Anti-Semitism in Franco’s Spain (London: William Collins, 2023), broadly speaking, was about how fake news contributed to the coming of a civil war.  Needless to say, a further element of contemporary relevance was the centrality of the theme of antisemitism.  Moreover, my most recent book, ‘Perfidious Albion’ – Britain and the Spanish Civil War (London: The Clapton Press, 2024) is not without evidence of the validity of Croce’s thesis. 

The book’s title reflects the three chapters that deal with the hypocrisy and prejudice of British foreign policy towards the Spanish Republic.  The insulting epithet dates back to the thirteenth century but was popularised in France as a result of British opposition to the French Revolution. 

It is a commonplace of thinking about the Spanish conflict that Franco’s victory was the result of the aid that he received from Hitler and Mussolini and the alleged betrayal of the Republic by Stalin.  My book tries to demonstrate that Franco also owed much to the way in which the British policy of Non-Intervention was far from neutral.  Denounced by Jawaharlal Nehru as “the supreme farce of our time”, it favoured Franco and the Axis Powers and severely weakened the capacity of the democratic Republic to defend itself. 

Proclaimed Non-Intervention did nothing to inhibit the continued supply of military aid from the Axis powers to Franco’s rebels, nor to prevent the crucial participation of the crack high-tech German Condor legion with the latest aircraft and artillery, as well as around 80,000 Italian troops, and high proportions of the Italian navy and air force.  

In fact, Conservative policy was deeply damaging to its proclaimed interests.  It was in sharp contrast to the realism and courage of those who could see that a failure to defend the Republic would ensure that the Fascist threat to Madrid would inevitably be unleashed next on Paris and London.  It was manifested in the humanitarian efforts of the Aid Spain Movement, in the participation of British volunteers in the International Brigades and in the invaluable contribution of many British doctors and nurses to the Republican medical services. 

It is not necessary to look far to find contemporary parallels with the damage done to the national interest by the adoption of policy based on high-sounding but partisan rhetoric.  Both the proclaimed economic benefits of Brexit and those of the anti-immigrant ‘hostile environment’ policy give renewed relevance to the axioms of Marx, Santayana and Croce.

Paul Preston is School Professor for the Department of International History, at the London School of Economics. He is one of the world’s foremost authorities on the Spanish Civil War and the author of numerous books on modern Spain, the Spanish Republic, the war and its aftermath.

On 28th March, at 6.30pm, Paul Preston will speak to the Socialist History Society about his latest book ‘Perfidious Albion’ – Britain and the Spanish Civil War. All welcome, register free here.