Latest news with #EricThomas
Yahoo
7 days ago
- Politics
- Yahoo
The flimsy arguments Trump used to attack public media that serves Kansas
Public broadcasting in Kansas and across the United States faces threats from the Trump administration. (Eric Thomas illustration for Kansas Reflector) In one way, this is the easiest column I've written. It's simple to celebrate public media in Kansas: public radio, educational television, veteran journalists, original reporting, local focus, innovative podcasts and more. For all that, I'm a long-time sustaining member of my local public radio station. And I have written many glowing columns about NPR journalism. Public media in Kansas is awesome. In another way, this column is tricky. Defending anyone, let alone an institution, from fraudulent attacks is challenging. It's proving a negative, when the negative is certifiably bonkers. And coming from the White House. Here goes. On Tuesday, National Public Radio and three public radio stations sued the Trump administration in response to the May 1 executive order that sought to strip public media of its funding in the United States. The NPR lawsuit, filed in the District of Columbia, asserts that Trump's executive order 'violates the expressed will of Congress and the First Amendment's bedrock guarantees of freedom of speech, freedom of the press, and freedom of association, and also threatens the existence of a public radio system that millions of Americans across the country rely on for vital news and information.' The 43-page filing pokes holes in Trump's executive order: a brazen attempt to extinguish public media throughout the country — and harm its audience in Kansas — based on a partisan grudge. Under even brief inspection, Trump's May 1 executive order and the press statements that accompanied it look inept. They read like the half-baked political flailing of the first Trump administration when the rationale for his decisions was foolish and risible. Just like many of the actions of the first Trump administration, there is a more principled and legal argument to be made here: Persuade Congress to defund public broadcasting because taxpayer money simply doesn't belong in the media. The executive order only fleetingly expresses that viewpoint: 'Government funding of news media in this environment is not only outdated and unnecessary but corrosive to the appearance of journalistic independence.' More often, the White House falsely accuses public radio. It dishes out fake news about the real news. If not opposed by a lawsuit like the one filed Tuesday, Trump's executive order would wreck two valuable American institutions for petty and deceptive reasons: hot-button word choices, political innuendo and pet peeves. What's Trump's best response for NPR's regret at labeling someone as 'illegal' in their reporting? Defund NPR. What's Trump's best response to PBS's documentary about a transgender teen? Defund PBS. Forever a predatory real estate developer, Trump wants to tear down public media rather than putting money into improvements. This week's NPR lawsuit points us to documents that reveal Trump's pettiness toward public media. First, consider 'President Trump Finally Ends the Madness of NPR, PBS,' a press release published by the White House in conjunction with the executive order. We find 24 bullet point examples of 'trash that has passed for 'news' at NPR and PBS.' Many of the bullet points, stripped of context, completely misrepresent each instance of public media reporting. One bullet point links to an NPR audio chat from 2022, headlined: 'Which skin color emoji should you use? The answer can be more complex than you think.' During the discussion, the NPR host says, 'These are not particularly easy questions for people to wrestle with.' The guest replies, 'I completely agree with you that there is no clear-cut answer.' How did the White House boil down this nuanced discussion of race? The press release says, 'NPR assigned three reporters to investigate how the thumbs-up emoji is racist.' NPR never used the word racist. Summarizing the coverage in that way isn't a political distortion. It's a lie. Here's another White House claim from the same press release: 'NPR routinely promotes the chemical and surgical mutilation of children as so-called 'gender-affirming care' without mentioning the irreversible damage caused by these procedures.' This bullet point links to a 2023 story from Florida by Melissa Block. It's a mind-bending stretch to see NPR as 'promoting' medical care for trans kids in this journalism. The writer quotes experts — medical groups, plus an endocrinologist and a psychologist — as they each endorse the medical care. Dear White House media critics, covering an issue is not to promote one side. When the administration isn't misrepresenting the work of public media, it nitpicks political language. In the press release's final bullet point, the White House writes about the 'PBS show Sesame Street partnered with CNN on a one-sided narrative to 'address racism' amid the Black Lives Matter riots.' One-sided narrative? I wondered. Clicking the link takes you to a cheerful image of Sesame Street characters with the title, 'Coming Together: Standing Up to Racism.' What is the other side of racism that the White House wants represented here? Pro-racism? The White House should be pressured to explain the 'other side' of the debate that it is imagining, not Big Bird and PBS. (The most likely true objection to this program? Sesame Street partnered with CNN, a network Trump would defund if he could.) Taken as a whole, the list reads like a vendetta seeking a motive: Let's destroy public media, but first we need a reason. Given the White House's complaints about news coverage in their press release, it seems that the executive order is in fact retaliation. Or, consider how the NPR lawyers metaphorically put it: 'It is not always obvious when the government has acted with a retaliatory purpose in violation of the First Amendment. 'But this wolf comes as a wolf.' … The Order targets NPR and PBS expressly because, in the President's view, their news and other content is not 'fair, accurate, or unbiased.' ' And yet, there's more. Multiplying the unfairness of the lawsuit and executive order is the fundamental fairness of NPR's news coverage. As a journalism instructor at the University of Kansas, I use NPR resources in my classroom precisely because they are among the most trustworthy and unbiased. It's not just me who sees it this way. Say what you will of the charts that organize media organizations in terms of bias; NPR is one of the most centrist sources, regardless of which media critics you trust. 'Our people report straight down the line,' said NPR CEO Katherine Maher during an appearance on CBS. 'I think that not only do they do that, they do that with a mission that very few other broadcast organizations have, which is a requirement to serve the entire public. That is the point of public broadcasting. We bring people together in those conversations.' During the past few weeks, as public media has defended itself against these garbage attacks, Trump's order has been characterized as a disproportionate attack on people who live in rural areas, including large swaths of Kansas. The faces of this defense have been the CEOs of NPR and the Public Broadcasting System. Each has stressed how rural audiences will suffer. On Tuesday, Maher released a statement that repeatedly stressed the NPR's nationwide virtue of 'serving all 50 states and territories' as a source for 'tens of millions of Americans.' 'Without public dollars, NPR's investment in rural reporting initiatives, collaborative regional newsrooms, and award-winning international coverage would all be at risk,' Maher wrote. Lisa Rodriguez, interim director of content for KCUR, an affiliate station in Kansas City, appeared on the station's 'Up To Date' show to explain how small rural member stations rely on NPR. 'For KCUR, you depend on it for what you hear every day,' Rodriguez said. 'But also at these smaller stations, you don't have as rich a local journalism ecosystem. It is sometimes the only news that is reaching small communities.' To call the White House's arguments weak should not minimize their gravity. The consequences of the executive order would be catastrophic, especially to Kansans, if they hold up in court. Through the rhetoric of this executive order and its press release, Trump relishes in playing the schoolyard bully once again. This time he is not so much name calling or picking on the vulnerable. With public media, he threatens to take his ball, go home and leave Kansans stranded. Why? The bully doesn't like the way the game is being played. However, as the lawsuit makes clear, it is not his ball. And he has no right to take it. NPR and its fellow plaintiffs seek their continuing independence in their lawsuit. They quote a legal precedent that interpreted NPR's founding legislation as creating an 'elaborate structure … to insulate (broadcasters) from government interference.' Later, the suit continues, that while 'Congress is not obligated to support independent public radio with federal funds,' the government cannot remove funding in a way that unconstitutionally infringes on free speech. Unfortunately, our current Congress does not appear willing to reassert itself against Trump's hallucinatory rhetoric and orders. This week's lawsuit and its path through the courts may be the only remedy to save public broadcasting in Kansas. Eric Thomas teaches visual journalism and photojournalism at the William Allen White School of Journalism and Mass Communication at the University of Kansas in Lawrence. Through its opinion section, Kansas Reflector works to amplify the voices of people who are affected by public policies or excluded from public debate. Find information, including how to submit your own commentary, here.
Daily Mail
16-05-2025
- Daily Mail
Gable Tostee rants after news he's suing a major casino following another incident with a woman in a hotel
A man acquitted of murdering his Tinder date has gone on a social media rant following news reports claiming he had been released without charge following an incident involving a woman at a casino. Tinder playboy Gable Tostee was found not guilty of the murder of Warriena Wright after she fell from the balcony of his high-rise Gold Coast apartment in 2014. Tostee, who now goes by the name Eric Thomas, last month challenged Star Entertainment's decision to ban him from its casinos following an incident at its Broadbeach Grand Hotel in 2022. In a judgment published by the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal (QCAT), Mr Thomas was described as saying the ban was discriminatory in that it had been made on the basis of his sex. The operator instituted the ban after security staff were alerted to a disturbance in a hotel room on April 28, 2022. On Friday, he took to social media to blast 'disgusting and plainly false reporting' of the details published in the judgment described as 'shocking new claims'. 'In fact, the EXACT OPPOSITE of what this article suggests is true. These are not "fresh claims", they are objectively disproven lies,' he wrote on Facebook. He demanded the media outlets in question re-published the article, issue a formal apology and a retraction, before adding: 'I think they have a clear defamation case on their hands now.' The QCAT judgment, which was published on April 24, said security staff attending a hotel room found a female guest 'on her back with her dress up over her hips and with Mr Thomas "over the top of her" fighting'. According to the judgment, the female guest, referred to as 'Ms S', told officers she had been 'strangled' by Mr Thomas before he was detained by police and removed to the Southport watch house. Police processed a domestic violence order preventing Mr Thomas from coming within 100m of Ms S but ultimately did not pursue charges against him. The casino operator subsequently issued him with a withdrawal of licence, prohibiting him from entering its casinos in Brisbane, Sydney and the Gold Coast. Mr Thomas wrote to the operator in November, 2022, requesting his withdrawal of licence be revoked. He attached an affidavit from Ms S attesting she had suffered a 'dissociative episode' during the night in question. Based on that information, the casino operator approved a recommendation to rescind his withdrawal of licence before deciding to uphold the ban after learning Mr Thomas, under the name of Gable Tostee, had been the subject of 'adverse attention from the media'. 'This included recent coverage of a court hearing in which Mr Thomas had pleaded guilty to refusing to provide a blood or breath sample after he had been found naked in his vehicle after a collision and while he appeared intoxicated,' the judgment said. The operator decided to continue his withdrawal of licence and notified him in writing in January 2023 - a decision that was again approved at a subsequent meeting. In an interlocutory application, Mr Thomas alleged there was 'no difference between the two participants other than sex', and he received completely different treatment than the other. He said he had suffered 'tremendous psychological and social harm' as a result of the ban, adding he had never caused 'detriment' to the operator in the past. The Star alleged it had a common law right to exclude Mr Thomas as an occupier. The tribunal refused to lift the ban on an interlocutory basis ahead of a hearing later in the year, claiming Mr Thomas had failed to substantiate his gender discrimination claim. 'On the material before me, there is no evidence to suggest that the respondents acted the way that they did on the basis Mr Thomas was male,' QCAT senior member Samantha Traves said. She said there were 'good grounds' to exclude him, including the April 28 incident as well as Mr Thomas' alleged 'history of unlawful behaviour under the influence of alcohol'. 'Moreover, The Star would potentially be exposed to liability for any adverse incidents involving Mr Thomas and its patrons and could also suffer reputational damage through any related adverse publicity should Mr Thomas again engage in such behaviour,' she said. Ms Traves listed the matter for a two-day oral hearing in Brisbane on November 17 and 18, 2025. In the same Facebook post on Friday, Mr Thomas confirmed he was suing the casino operator for discrimination for refusing to lift the ban. 'In 2022 I was violently, unprovokedly attacked by a hIghly intoxicated woman at Star, who then lied to Star staff and police,' he said. 'Star's own staff had kicked the woman out of the Cherry Bar immediately prior and even witnessed her attack me. Despite this, Star banned me immediately. 'Police dropped action against me because I had audio footage and wounds proving I was the victim. Despite Star being aware of this, they have refused to lift the ban or take action against the woman involved, which is in fact why I am suing them for discrimination.'
The Age
16-05-2025
- The Age
Gable Tostee cries sexism following casino ban after alleged strangling
A Gold Coast man who was acquitted after being charged with murdering his Tinder date in 2014 has launched a case against The Star for banning him from the Gold Coast casino. Eric Thomas – who changed his name from Gable Tostee in 2015 while on trial following the death of Warriena Wright – claimed he was banned from the casino because he is a man. The banning followed an incident with a female guest in April 2022. Staff reported entering a woman's hotel room and finding Thomas standing over her, fighting her while she was 'on her back with her dress up over her hips'. The woman later told police Thomas had strangled her, and obtained a domestic violence order against him. Thomas suffered bruises and bite marks, and was taken to Southport Watchhouse while the order was processed. When applying to have the ban lifted in 2023, he told The Star that police had notified him they would not pursue charges over the alleged assault, and said the woman had suffered a 'dissociative event', which caused the incident. He now claims the casino ban is discriminatory and attacks him because he is a man, and is seeking to overturn the decision and have his membership at The Star reinstated. In a hearing on April 10, Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal senior member Samantha Traves refused to reinstate Thomas' membership before additional hearings later in the year, scheduled for September and November.
Sydney Morning Herald
16-05-2025
- Sydney Morning Herald
Gable Tostee cries sexism following casino ban after alleged strangling
A Gold Coast man who was acquitted after being charged with murdering his Tinder date in 2014 has launched a case against The Star for banning him from the Gold Coast casino. Eric Thomas – who changed his name from Gable Tostee in 2015 while on trial following the death of Warriena Wright – claimed he was banned from the casino because he is a man. The banning followed an incident with a female guest in April 2022. Staff reported entering a woman's hotel room and finding Thomas standing over her, fighting her while she was 'on her back with her dress up over her hips'. The woman later told police Thomas had strangled her, and obtained a domestic violence order against him. Thomas suffered bruises and bite marks, and was taken to Southport Watchhouse while the order was processed. When applying to have the ban lifted in 2023, he told The Star that police had notified him they would not pursue charges over the alleged assault, and said the woman had suffered a 'dissociative event', which caused the incident. He now claims the casino ban is discriminatory and attacks him because he is a man, and is seeking to overturn the decision and have his membership at The Star reinstated. In a hearing on April 10, Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal senior member Samantha Traves refused to reinstate Thomas' membership before additional hearings later in the year, scheduled for September and November.
Yahoo
09-05-2025
- Entertainment
- Yahoo
Why this Kansas Reflector columnist is muting all of those rambling, chatty podcasts
Eric Thomas writes that he is giving up banter podcasts, which "leave me bloated, foggy and listless." (Eric Thomas for Kansas Reflector) A confession: I'm trying to quit my podcast habit. My family and friends know I am the least likely person to write those words. If you were in a conversation with me over the past 20 years, there was an 87.3% chance that my first words would be: 'I was listening to this podcast and …' Baseball. Politics. Soccer. Comedy. Environmental issues. American culture. Entertainment. And science. This week, my son pondered the possibility of plugging a USB drive into his head to upload knowledge for an upcoming test. For me, that has been the intellectual equivalent of podcasts. In fact, my writing for Kansas Reflector began as 'Audio Astra,' a digest of podcasts about Kansas or related to Kansas. If you didn't know that, I forgive you. Those columns were even more torturous to read than they were to write — and that is saying something. For hours each week I would listen to niche-y podcasts about Kansas forests, Midwest farm wives or the history of the Riverside Zoo in Wichita. As I listened to many of them, the audio quality often buzzed and screeched in my AirPods, even more so when I was writing on deadline and had to listen at 2x speed. I considered sending a few different podcasters a new microphone, just to improve my personal listening experience. I was a scribe — perhaps the only one — in the Holy Church of the Modern Podcast. And yet, here I am today speaking heresy against them. (Plus, I am writing for a publication with its own podcast. And I just finished judging a podcast contest.) Even more absurd is the timing of my takedown. Americans are listening to more podcasts each year. While it's true that counting podcast listeners has been an imperfect task recently, most media watchers see podcasting as a promising and growing media format. Why my grumpiness toward podcasts then? Some of my malaise with podcasts is just that: my burned-out ears have been fatigued by thousands of hours of listening. My auditory claustrophobia is real. But there is something else — something about the podcasts themselves. It's their flabbiness. Here's one example. While folding laundry the other day, I turned on one of my favorite mindless podcasts, 'Conan O'Brien Needs a Friend,' a comedy podcast hosted by the former late-night host. The jovial and absurd interview episode has been a weekly staple of my listening for the last few years. And behold! Conan was interviewing Bill Hader, an actor who I admire so much that YouTube thrusts his content at me each time I log in. With all of that excitement, I clicked play. After 56 minutes and 44 seconds, the interview ended. The pre/post banter slid into silence. That was two days ago. Right now, I've been sitting at this keyboard for five minutes and I can't tell you a single thing that was said. That's an hour of stopping my ears up from hearing anything else. The squirrels chasing on the roof. The dishwasher sloshing. My son talking to friends on the phone in the next room. All of that was blocked for unscripted celebrity chatter that I have entirely forgotten. It's a specific kind of programming. Call them the banter podcasts. Movie stars sit down with other movie stars. Comedians sit down with other comedians. Joe Rogan sits down with anyone and everyone. Of course, banter podcasts these days are incredibly popular. The top five overall podcast chart, as ranked by Apple, includes Rogan at No. 4, along with actor Amy Poehler's new show, 'Good Hang.' Plus, the No. 1 show, 'The Mel Robbins Podcast.' Rogan is famous for making marathon episodes, like this week's interview with Cameron Hanes, which stretched for 3 hours and 18 minutes. What does Hanes do for a living? Well, he's got two podcasts of his own, among other things. Looks like a lot of banter on his channel too. Podcasts, it turns out, have simply become too easy to make. A quiet room, a microphone and a friend. That's the recipe for your first episode. With that rant out of my system, I'm not ready to delete my podcast app yet. Many news podcasts still deliver tight, focused and original reporting and rich, audio storytelling. Last week, NPR's 'Fresh Air' provided an emotional interview with Noad Wyle about his starring role in my household's new favorite show, 'The Pitt.' From the New York Times, 'The Daily' distilled decades of reporting on investment genius Warren Buffett into 28 minutes on Wednesday. So, if I corner you at a cocktail party, watch out, because I remember tons of stuff from each of those episodes. 'I was listening to this podcast and …' But the banter podcasts … they leave me bloated, foggy and listless. My recent peevishness with them was triggered by listening to more audiobooks. While podcasts and audiobooks might seem one and the same, I found audiobooks entirely different when I returned to them after months of endless podcast banter. Podcasts were often the casual and wandering Zoom call between two actors, each promoting recent movie releases on a Thursday morning. Audiobooks, on the other hand, pack a punch. Authors boil down years of expertise into singular chapters. Audiobooks, especially with the aid of a good book editor, also present the ideas with urgent, concise language rather than the podcast standard: a series of stuttered questions interrupted by leisurely sips of podcast coffee. My critique might smack of impatience as I strive to mainline terabytes of information into my brain as fast as possible. And perhaps that's true. However, my main concern about flabby banter podcasts is the possibility that they are replacing our conversations in real life. How can we give our kids, partners and friends any real attention if we are racing to keep up with Rogan's 12 hours of audio during a six-day period this week? No matter how extroverted you are, there is only so much conversation capacity there. Maybe we need to save our banter bandwidth for real people. This is my alert to whomever is tracking podcast analytics: You are about to see a dip. Not because my rhetorical wit and zeal here will sway millions of readers. Instead, with my throttling back on my daily podcast habit, you might notice a hiccup in worldwide podcast listening. And yes, I would be happy to come on your podcast to explain. I have three hours free after lunch. Eric Thomas teaches visual journalism and photojournalism at the William Allen White School of Journalism and Mass Communication at the University of Kansas in Lawrence. Through its opinion section, Kansas Reflector works to amplify the voices of people who are affected by public policies or excluded from public debate. Find information, including how to submit your own commentary, here.
