CANNES — CNN boss Jeff Zucker says despite Donald Trump’s war on the network and what the president says is “fake news,” he is certain that CNN maintains the trust of its viewers, as it extends into digital brands to attract a younger audience.Speaking at Cannes Lions, he said, “CNN has been around for 37 years, our trustworthiness today is the same as it was a year ago, before people in high offices started questioning it. We know that through our own brand research. Just because somebody says you are not trustworthy, that doesn’t mean it is so … CNN’s brand equity is built over 37 years doing hard work in very dangerous places … those who rely on CNN trust CNN more than ever.”He appeared on a panel with YouTube star Casey Neistat, who attracts nearly 6 million viewers a day and who just signed a deal to produce an original video brand and a daily news show for CNN. The network, which acquired Neistat’s mobile video sharing app Beme for a reported $25 million earlier this year, is banking on Neistat’s appeal to entice millennials to tune in.Zucker said, “The world has changed — we can all get news 24/7 from any device, any outlet … but we want to tell different stories in different ways, and add to the news. We are not going to attract new viewers by just feeding CNN onto different platforms.“Everybody has an iPhone, everyone can be a reporter now. Everybody can tell a story from every part of the world. Why places like CNN matter is that it is still important to bring them together, put context around it and explain it.”He added that CNN and other media organizations need personalities like Neistat: “The way that CNN would traditionally tell a story is so different from the way Casey and Beme would tell a story, both are incredibly valuable, both will find their audiences, and that is what I think the new CNN is about, being a multi-platform company that reaches many different audience members on many different platforms.”Talking about Neistat’s appeal to CNN, he noted, “He does great work, he has a huge following and he can reach a different market that CNN never could.“We have hundreds and hundreds of reporters and people who can tell video stories and stand there with a microphone and a trench coat and tell a story, but we don’t have Casey.“I think that’s what is missing, not just from CNN, but all the legacy television news broadcasters who think it’s enough to take a video report and put it on a platform where young people go. It just doesn’t work.”

Source: Jeff Zucker: Viewers trust CNN ‘more than ever’ | Page Six

Let’s call this one “‘F***!’ news.”We’re told CNN flew into a panic on Friday after it accidentally aired a fake National Enquirer cover during Jake Tapper’s broadcast.Tapper did a segment on his “The Lead” show about Joe Scarborough and Mika Brzezinski’s claim that Donald Trump tried to blackmail them with a hit piece in the National Enquirer.During the piece, it showed a cover from the tabloid, which seemed to be about a scandal involving GOP senator Ted Cruz and his wife, Heidi Cruz.Unfortunately, the cover is — literally — fake news.The cover — which has the headline “Heidi Cruz: Betrayed by Cheating Husband!” and promised details on a “sordid threesome, sleazy love letters and sensational photo proof — has never appeared on the National Enquirer, according to sources at the magazine.It seems that it may have been created as clickbait.

Source: CNN screws up — again | Page Six

Almost as soon as Donald Trump was inaugurated president, the hosts on MSNBC’s Morning Joe began pushing a narrative that the president could very well be criminally insane. The president, whom these hosts regularly remind viewers is tasked with overseeing America’s nuclear arsenal, is mentally “unbalanced,” “unhinged,” and obviously suffers from “mental illness.”  “He keeps getting worse,” Dr. Joe Scarborough said. “Mentally, he keeps getting worse. This is a man in decline.” “There’s an unwritten rule in

Source: Montage: The Doctors on Morning Joe Have Diagnosed Donald Trump as a Sociopath :: Grabien News

Mark Zuckerberg has claimed Facebook is “the new church” and the social network can take on the role that religion once did in giving people a sense of community.The billionaire boss said groups on Facebook could give people a sense they are part of “something bigger than ourselves” akin to a religious congregation.Facebook passed 2 billion users this week — meaning almost one in three of the global population are signed up.And its founder said people could find “purpose and support” online that previous generations found by going to church.Zuckerberg has recently been pushing the idea of communities as Facebook’s new mission and last week said it would be the company’s focus from now on.In a speech in Chicago, he said only 100 million Facebook users are part of what he called a “meaningful community.”This meant they were part of a group on Facebook that involved regular interactions with other people.Zuckerberg said he wanted the 100 million figure to rise to 1 billion.He said: “If we can do this, it will not only turn around the whole decline in community membership we’ve seen for decades, it will start to strengthen our social fabric and bring the world closer together.”“As I’ve traveled around and learned about different places, one theme is clear: Every great community has great leaders. Think about it. A church doesn’t just come together. It has a pastor who cares for the well-being of their congregation, makes sure they have food and shelter.”“Leaders set the culture, inspire us, give us a safety net, and look out for us.”Zuckerberg has denied he has ambitions to run for president, but he recently went on a week-long listening tour of America that looked like a political campaign.In a recent interview with CNN, he said connecting people is not enough and that Facebook has a responsibility to manage its communities.

Source: Mark Zuckerberg says Facebook is ‘the new church’ | New York Post

A tourist who flew all the way to New York to buy a dress for her wedding wound up getting jilted by a phony Airbnb listing — and was left unable to afford her dream gown.“The one I really want I can’t get,” lamented bilked bride Malissa Blackman, 36.Blackman traveled from her home in Barbados and expected to be staying in a swank rental at 400 Fifth Ave. in Midtown with her mom, two sisters and two bridesmaids.ADVERTISINGBut when she got there, the doorman broke the bad news to her that the digs she’d shelled out $2,000 to use for five nights didn’t exist — and that they weren’t the first people to turn up at the address.“I’m on the street thinking, what the hell? Where are we going to go?” she said.A concierge confirmed to The Post that at least two other groups had shown up looking for the bogus beds this year — including a family of six from Spain and Argentina.Modal TriggerBlackman tries on a dressRichard Harbus“Those poor families come here and then they have nowhere to stay,” said Aguedo Avias.“I tell them I can help them find a hotel, but that the building doesn’t allow Airbnb and no one in the building has a listing on Airbnb.”Blackman then had to cough up another $2,600 for last-minute hotel rooms — exactly what she’d planned to blow on a wedding dress.She saw a gorgeous dress from her favorite designer Hayley Page the next day that would have been perfect for her November nuptials with fiancee Heath.It featured layers of tulle and a “lovely back with lots of straps on it” — but at $2,500, the frock was now out of her price range.She spent the day in tears.“Because of the money situation, we said we’d have to go with a cheaper one,” said Blackman, who is herself a wedding planner back in Barbados.Blackman contacted Airbnb to report the scam and ask for a refund Wednesday, but the site told her she wasn’t eligible — the conman had tricked her into clicking on a fake Airbnb site, so all the fraud happened off its territory.Blackman, a newbie to the room-rental service, said that after contacting the seller over the app, she then emailed the supposed apartment owner.He responded with an “airbnb.com” link to click through for the booking. It took her to what appeared to be the real deal — but she didn’t notice it actually said “airbnb.com-listining-online31215.info.”“For me, who’s never booked Airbnb before, I’d never have known I was not dealing with Airbnb,” she said.An Airbnb spokesman responded that Blackman went against warnings on the site telling users not to email with hosts or transfer money off the platform, and provided screenshots that show her messaging with the fraudster right next to one such alert.But he acknowledged the site’s software isn’t supposed to allow users to share direct email addresses in the first place, and the safeguard failed. He added the listing has been removed, and that it wouldn’t have been there if anyone else had reported it for fraud in the past.“The moment a fake listing is reported, it’s removed. We are investigating the situation at this address and our team is working hard to constantly strengthen our defenses and stay ahead of fraudsters,” said Press Secretary Peter Schottenfels.After The Post inquired about Blackman’s story Friday, Airbnb said it will refund her after all — contrary to its previous missives to the heartbroken bride.But Blackman said it was the first she’d heard of it and by then it was too late, anyway — her trip was almost over and she had already made arrangements to buy a $975 dress.Fortunately, she’s now falling in love with the strapless lace number and she’s looking forward to walking down the aisle in it later this year.She’s just bummed that she wasn’t able to enjoy her Big Apple shopping spree her fellow wedding planner pals had planned out for her.“I feel like from the minute we landed I was so excited and then it just went from one thing to the next … I was bursting out in tears instead,” she said.

Source: Bride can’t afford dream wedding dress thanks to Airbnb scam | New York Post

WASHINGTON — YOU know who is really sick and tired of Donald Trump winning, to the point where they beg, “Please, Mr. President, sir, it’s too much”? Democrats. The Democrats just got skunked four to nothing in races they excitedly thought they could win because everyone they hang with hates Trump. If Trump is the Antichrist, as they believe, then Georgia was going to be a cakewalk, and Nancy Pelosi was going to be installed as speaker before the midterms by acclamation. But it turned into another soul-s

Source: Donald Skunks the Democrats – The New York Times

My husband, Miguel, and I were sipping lattes in a south Florida resort, feeling exhausted and exhilarated, one newborn each in our arms. Just three weeks earlier, our sons had been born via surrogate and this was our first “outing” since the boys had left the hospital.Suddenly, an older gentleman walked up to us. “Beautiful babies,” he said. “Which one of you is the dad?”“We both are,” we responded in unison. I braced for what might come next. But the man simply turned and offered a smile: “Mazel tov!” he exclaimed, “my nephew and his partner did exactly the same thing.” ADVERTISEMENT Advertisement (1 of 1): 0:02When the Supreme Court legalized same-sex marriage in June 2015, it was seen as a historic victory, one that would finally put gay and straight couples on an equal footing. But in my experience, the real equalizer for gay couples is parenthood.According to the Williams Institute at UCLA, 10 percent of LGBTs are married, while 10 percent of same-sex male couples and 24 percent of lesbian couples are raising children. And while marriage absolutely conveys certain rights, parenthood offers a path to societal acceptance that feels both revolutionary — and a revelation.Back on our first date about six years ago, Miguel and I discovered we are both twins — and would one day like to have twins of our own. But, both being close to 40, we were part of a generation that assumed gay people couldn’t have kids. The limits of biology and stigmas of HIV and homophobia made fatherhood seem impossible.Then, as the years passed, gay parenthood suddenly became viable, as reproductive technologies intended for infertile straight couples were embraced by gay ones eager to form families of their own.Suddenly, Miguel and I had an unexpected path into mainstream society.Assimilation is not something we necessarily had desired, but it actually felt good.We decided to go the surrogacy route — a process that can take years and cost more than $100,000 even without a guaranteed result. Miguel and I aren’t rich, but we devoted our savings and energy in order to achieve our dream.The process wasn’t without its doubts. Friends and family questioned our ability to successfully parent, and I felt a homophobic subtext to their comments. “These kids are going to need a woman around them,” they’d say.Having been raised by a single mom myself, their concerns weighed on me. And yet, we progressed, and by 2016 our surrogate was pregnant.In November, two weeks before the twins were born, Miguel and I married. It was a joyous occasion, but this ceremony, surrounded by our small, supportive family network, did far less to advance LGBT equality than our new parenthood status soon would.With two children, we would be barrier breakers, forcing the world to confront our version of a family.In the small-town hospital where our twins were born, we were nervous that the nurses wouldn’t accept us as the parents, given that our twins were born to a woman neither of us was married to. But instead, they embraced us and gave us a room to share with the boys, an entitlement the hospital automatically affords heterosexual couples.At our building in the Upper East Side, I worried that we’d be judged or even shunned by my fellow residents and the doormen. Instead, my neighbors have invited the boys to play dates, while doormen constantly comment on how fast our kids are growing.I fretted most about the reaction from heterosexual dads, but even this has surprised me.Last month at a playground, Miguel and I cautiously bonded with an alpha-male dad-bro and his son. The father clearly had little experience with gay men, but he opened up as we shared our children’s recent milestones (solid foods, new teeth, a few words) and pushed them on swings. “Hope to see you again,” he said as he finished up.While most interactions have been positive, integrating as a gay parent can be exhausting and even scary. Every day, my husband and I have to “come out” as our sons’ fathers to the world — at doctors’ offices and baby stores and official government agencies that stumble (and then correct) their words when we register for a shot or a stroller or a Social Security card. But, as a result, society is being forced to treat families like mine the same as any other.I’m not saying there won’t be major struggles for us in the future. And I certainly don’t think all gay people should become parents, or even marry for that matter, to feel equal. But it has been surprising to find myself at the age of 45 — a half-black, half-Jewish, gay man — finally accepted, simply because I now have a new identity that transcends all others.I’m a dad. Nothing is more equalizing than that.

Source: Why gay parenthood is more important than gay marriage | New York Post

Reporters at the New York Times could soon be “vulnerable” to the ax. If the ongoing round of voluntary buyouts being offered to editing staff does not get enough takers, the Gray Lady could begin another round, NYT Executive Editor Dean Baquet recently warned his top department editors.“Up until now, the company had not indicated that layoffs would happen if targeted numbers weren’t achieved,” Grant Glickson, president of the NewsGuild, told Media Ink.As part of the NYT’s ongoing restructuring of its editing ranks, 109 copy editors have had their jobs eliminated. There are estimated to be about 50 new jobs available in the restructured editing operation that the Times envisions for its digital- and video-oriented future.When the downsizing was first revealed in late May, a memo from Baquet and Managing Editor Joe Kahn portrayed the cuts as a “streamlining” of the editing process and indicated that some of the savings would be used to hire up to 100 more journalists.But in a mid-June meeting with department heads, Baquet admitted that journalists could be targeted in a new round of layoffs once the editing ranks are culled.–– ADVERTISEMENT ––“I just attended a department head meeting with Dean and the rest of the staff,” Metro Editor Wendell Jamieson said in a June 15 memo to his own staff. “While much of the buyout discussions have focused on editors, the buyouts are also available to reporters. Dean made it clear that, should the Times find itself in a layoff situation, reporters will also be vulnerable.” The memo eventually made its way to the NewsGuild, where it triggered a new uproar.The NewsGuild blasted the decision by Times management to do away with copy editors — and potentially expand its layoffs to reporters. “This proves what we have suspected all along,” said Glickson. “The Times ‘restructuring’ of the newsroom is really about the bottom line and not about making the editing process more efficient, as they claim.”The process is speeding along, however, despite the union’s objections. Interviews for copy editors to apply for the new positions are expected to conclude June 27. They are being conducted by 14 top editors — Jamieson, Monica Drake, Nancy Gauss, Steve Kenny, Marc Lacey, Patrick LaForge, Dean Murphy, Caroline Que, Carolyn Ryan, Karron Skog, Dick Stevenson, Archie Tse, Vivian Toy and Susan Wessling. The interview committee will meet June 28 and June 29 to decide who will be called back for a second interview.The second interview process is expected to end by July 10.The buyout window closes July 20 — so there will be a 10-day period in which copy editors who have essentially been job eliminated can then “volunteer” for a buyout.Said one insider, “If you don’t have a job after the interview process is complete, you really have no choice but to take the buyout.”

Source: New York Times bloodbath could include reporter jobs | New York Post

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court enters its final week of work before a long summer hiatus with action expected on the Trump administration’s travel ban and a decision due in a separation of church and state case that arises from a Missouri church playground.The biggest news of all, though, would be if Justice Anthony Kennedy were to use the court’s last public session on Monday to announce his retirement.To be sure, Kennedy has given no public sign that he will retire this year and give President Donald Trump his second high court pick in the first months of his administration. Kennedy’s departure would allow conservatives to take firm control of the court.But Kennedy turns 81 next month and has been on the court for nearly 30 years. Several of his former law clerks have said they think he is contemplating stepping down in the next year or so. Kennedy and his clerks were gathering over the weekend for a reunion that was pushed up a year and helped spark talk he might be leaving the court.”Soon we’ll know if rumors of Kennedy’s retirement are accurate,” one former Kennedy clerk, George Washington University law professor Orin Kerr, said on Twitter Friday.When the justices take the bench Monday, they are expected to decide the case of Trinity Lutheran Church of Columbia, Missouri, which was excluded from a state grant program to pay for soft surfaces on playgrounds run by not-for-profit groups. The case is being closely watched by advocates of school vouchers, who hope the court will make it easier to use state money to pay for private, religious schooling in states that now prohibit it.Missouri has since changed its policy under Republican Gov. Eric Greitens so that churches may now apply for the money.Also expected in the next few days, though there’s no deadline by which the court must decide, is a ruling on whether to allow the administration to immediately enforce a 90-day ban on visitors from six mostly Muslim countries.Justice Neil Gorsuch, Trump’s first Supreme Court nominee, could play a pivotal role in both the travel ban and church playground cases.In all, six cases that were argued between November and April remain undecided. Three of those, all involving immigrants or foreigners, were heard by an eight-justice court, before Gorsuch joined the bench in April.If the eight justices are evenly divided, those cases could be argued a second time in the fall, with Gorsuch available to provide the tie-breaking vote.

Source: Associated Press