Some tropical trees are preppers: They store water for times of drought, researchers discover

Image: Some tropical trees are preppers: They store water for times of drought, researchers discover

(Natural News)
Much like humans and animals, trees need water to survive. In harsh places where there is next to no water or moisture, some trees still manage to thrive. One study, published in Tree Physiology, aims to shed some light on how trees adapt to such environments.

Scientists discovered that certain species of trees are able to retain stored water and limit the growth rate of their roots in order to survive a drought.

A three-month study of various tropical saplings showed that species adapt to avoid dehydration by developing traits that favor water storage, which allowed them to retain a water reservoir during a drought. In addition, the trees limit their root surface area, suggesting that root abscission is a key component in preventing water loss from roots to soil during severe drought.

The study offers insights into how these trees respond to droughts. It highlights mechanisms and processes that control tree survival, which influences carbon dioxide levels.

The research team tested the ability of different species of tropical saplings to avoid dehydration during severe droughts by subjecting potted saplings to three months without water, and found that the species avoided dehydration through developing certain traits that favored water storage, such as low tissue density, low leaf-mass fraction, or isolating their stems from soil. Such traits provided a water reservoir that buffered the drought conditions.

Interestingly, the saplings maintained most of the water they stored during the simulated drought. Moreover, their reduced root area diminished further during the drought. The researchers believe this root growth may slow water loss into the soil. The findings suggest that saplings’ ability to avoid dehydration during extreme drought depends on retaining stored water.

Fruit trees for dry climate

Some trees thrive and are even built for dry and hot climates. The following are some fruit-bearing trees that grow well in harsh weather conditions. (Related: Trees in the city can handle the heat and the bugs – if they have enough water.)

  • Apple trees – Some varieties will grow in the desert where the winters are not very chilly. Do take note that the fruit may not look as attractive as the grocery variety. If you decide to plant an apple tree, your best choices are Dorsett Golden, Fiji, Pink Lady and Anna.
  • Apricot trees – Apricot trees can thrive in desert places, such as Early Gold, Blenheim, Royal, Chinese, Tilton, Floragold (a dwarf variety), and Newcastle. Most of these are self-pollinating and need some winter chill, but overall can do well in dry places.
  • Citrus trees – Lemon trees, lime trees, and orange trees generally don’t like parts of the desert with cold winters, such as Las Vegas, Nevada. Some citrus trees can be grown in low desert areas where winters are warm.
  • Nectarine trees (Prunus persica nucipersica) – Nectarine trees need to be pruned back severely every year because the fruit grows only on the first year growth. These self-pollinating varieties can thrive in hot places: Goldmine, Gower, Stanwick, and Le Grand.
  • Peach trees (Prunus persica) – Some varieties of peach trees that will do well in the desert are Desert Gold, Early Elberta, Bonita, and Rio Grande.
  • Plum trees (Prunus) – Among the best varieties for hot, dry climate are two self-pollinators, Beauty and Santa Rosa.
  • Pomegranate trees (Punicaceae) – The best variety of pomegranate to plant for such a climate is the Wonderful. Pomegranates can take sunlight all day and will grow in alkaline soil. Even better, they don’t need a lot of watering.

Some grapes grow well in hot, dry gardens as well, including these varieties: Thompson Seedless, Golden Muscat and the Alden. Do take note that Golden Muscat needs some shade as its leaves are susceptible to sunburn. Grape plants require pruning and constant soil moisture to produce fruit, but they are generally drought-tolerant if bearing fruit is not your goal.

Visit to learn more about how trees adapt to their ever-changing environment.

Sources include:



Source Article from

New York Times whitewashes Israel’s massacre of Gazan demonstrators

new york times


Today’s main New York Times article on Israel’s massacre of Gazan demonstrators – the lead front-page story in the print edition – is a masterpiece of deceit. The article, by David Halbfinger, employs the time tested tools of distortion, including classic Orientalism, dueling narratives, one-sided use of sources, and hiding the perpetrators behind passive sentences, topped off by outright dishonesty.

The distortion starts in the first sentence. “Across the Gaza Strip on Monday morning, loudspeakers on minarets urged Palestinians to rush the fence bordering Israel. . .” An Orientalist gem, insinuating that Gazan protesters are motivated by religious primitivism, instead of Israel’s crushing blockade and regular armed attacks.

“. . where they [the Gazans] were met by army snipers.” “Met” is hardly the appropriate word here, especially after another Times correspondent, Declan Walsh, has already described how far off Israeli snipers shot a woman in the stomach right in front of him on Sunday night.

“At least 58 were killed and thousands injured. . .” Passive voice; conceal the killers.

New York Times fake news


In paragraph 4, Halbfinger turns explicitly to dueling narratives. “For generations, both sides of the conflict have been locked in competing mutually negating narratives. . .” The implicit question: Who knows which side is right? This is post-modernism gone lethal, a view favored by Western liberals who sense something is terribly wrong but who are too cowardly to criticize Israel. Sometimes, one side of a dueling narrative is fundamentally true, and the other is a pack of lies.

Lower in the article are 4 short paragraphs reported from the standpoint of the Gazan demonstrators themselves.

But then immediately, a reverent respect for the Israeli military’s point of view. For 7 paragraphs, Halbfinger took dictation from the army’s mouthpiece, Lt. Col. Jonathan Conricus, who asserted that the Gazans were: “planting or hurling explosives”; flying flaming kites into Israel; trying to slip armed fighters into Israel to “wreak havoc”; launching an armed attack on the border fence; and firing “numerous shots” at Israeli soldiers – all of which amounted to an “unprecedented level of violence” – against Israel!

Next, stenographer Halbfinger writes that “Israel responded with gunfire and tear gas, and Israeli jets struck five targets in a Hamas military training facility. . .” This is Orwellian. Lt. Col. Conricus makes up or grossly exaggerates Gazan actions, and Halbfinger then calls Israel’s vicious attacks a ‘response’ to things that never happened.

Conricus also alleges that “one Israeli soldier was wounded by shrapnel from what was believed to be an explosive device.” Halbfinger fails to report that if true, this would be the very first injury to any Israeli whatsoever, whether soldier or civilian, in nearly 7 weeks of protest during which Israel has killed 107 Palestinians and injured another 13,000.

You have to pause to see what is happening here. Israel has just committed the biggest single massacre since its 2014 invasion of Gaza. The Times has 3 correspondents in Gaza, including the aforementioned Walsh, Iyad Abuheweila and Ibrahim El-Mughrabi – all of them doubtless risking their lives to report from amid the mass killing, and their shorter secondary article in today’s Times is helpful. But the paper’s main report gives them 4 puny paragraphs and devotes twice as much space to unsubstantiated claims from the proven liars of the Israeli military. This is truly taking “dueling narratives” to ugly ends.

Halbfinger does not quote a single human rights group, not even the respected Israeli organization B’Tselem, which has implored Israel’s soldiers not to fire at the Gazan demonstrators. Palestinians are dying by the dozens and being grievously wounded by the hundreds – Medicines Sans Frontieres said sniper bullets are leaving exit wounds the size of a fist – but Halbfinger did not let the Palestinians speak.

David Halbfinger is a skilled reporter and he must know exactly how he is distorting what is really happening in Gaza. We suspect he is under tremendous pressure – from the Israeli government, from his editors, from some of his readers. Until the pressure to tell the truth increases, he (and his colleagues) will continue to whitewash.

Source Article from

Chicago Sun-Times Columnist Accuses Obama of Ignoring Community

Please support NewsBusters today! (a 501c3 non-profit production of the Media Research Center)


Source Article from

UPDATE: Porn Star Lawyer Interviewed 147 Times in 10 Weeks

In the past ten weeks, lawyer Michael Avenatti, who is representing porn star Stormy Daniels in her lawsuits against President Trump, has been interviewed a staggering 147 times on broadcast and cable news shows.

More than half of those interviews (74) were on CNN, which almost certainly makes Avenatti the most ubiquitous guest in the network’s history. No guest — not Donald Trump or Bernie Sanders in 2016, nor Adam Schiff in 2017 — received anything close to the outpouring of free media coverage that CNN has bequeathed to Avenatti.

The media’s massive donation of publicity is obviously the main reason why Daniels and Avenatti have been able to use a crowd funding site to raise a whopping $500,000 to fund their anti-Trump lawsuits, with many of the thousands of anonymous donors citing the interviews as they make their gifts.

The latest Media Research Center study tallied all of Avenatti’s interviews on national news programs from March 7 (when the publicity first began) through May 15. While CNN has been the friendliest network, hosting the Trump-bashing lawyer an astonishing 74 times, MSNBC has been close behind, donating 57 segments featuring Avenatti.

On a single day (May 3), MSNBC featured Avenatti a stunning seven times — from 7am ET (Morning Joe) through 10pm ET (The Last Word).

Rounding out the tally were interviews on ABC (six), CBS (five), NBC (four) and the Fox News Channel (just once, on FNC’s Fox News at Night back on March 20).

CNN’s Anderson Cooper 360 and MSNBC’s The Last Word with Lawrence O’Donnell were the most smitten with Avenatti, interviewing him the most of any program (20 times in the case of Cooper, 16 in the case of O’Donnell). CNN’s New Day with Chris Cuomo and Alisyn Camerota came in third with 13 inteviews, just beating out CNN Tonight with Don Lemon and MSNBC’s Deadline: White House, which hosted Avenatti 12 and 11 times, respectively.



To help put CNN’s news priorities in perspective, the network’s 73 interviews with Avenatti during those ten weeks are vastly more than those given to any other newsmaker during an equivalent time period. For example, when Donald Trump was seemingly everywhere during the 2016 primaries, CNN interviewed him a total 30 times during his busiest ten-week period (from January 4 through March 16, 2016) — barely 40 percent of what they’ve handed Avenatti.

At his peak popularity as a CNN source, between May 3 and July 11, 2017, Representative Adam Schiff (the ranking Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee) was interviewed by the network a total of 25 times, barely one-third of Avenatti’s total. And at his high-water mark during the 2016 primaries, left-wing presidential candidate Bernie Sanders was booked on CNN a total of 18 times (from January 31 through April 11, 2016).



There’s no guest in CNN’s recent history who has been given as much free media exposure by the network as Avenatti has been granted. Based on interviews as of May 10, the Washington Free Beacon’s David Rutz estimated that the media’s open-door policy for Avenatti would be worth roughly $175 million if the lawyer had to pay for the airtime himself.

But the benefits to the case are even more tangible, as many donors to the campaign page on specifically cite Avenatti’s media interviews, as well as those of Daniels herself, as a reason for their gift.

“I watch all the TV interviews you do. You are both so amazing and I am rooting for you every day!!!!” one donor wrote on the site. “Just saw the 60 Minutes interview, and I’m pledging a second week’s worth of allowance. I believe you, Stormy,” gushed another.

“Tell Michael to mention this [sic] on every TV appearance I never heard of it until May 8 on Rachel Maddow,” one patron instructed. Another contributor who had evidently watched the same program announced a gift of $100: “Thought about giving before. Michael Avenatti’s appearance on the Rachel Maddow show reminded us to do just that.”

CNN viewers were also stimulated to open their wallets to the cause: “What a cool interview with Anderson Cooper. I hope you’ll win the trials. Hope it will help getting rid of Trump.”

Avenatti has apparently gotten very chummy with some liberal anchors. On April 29, MSNBC’s The Last Word host Lawrence O’Donnell (who’s had Avenatti on his 10pm ET program 16 times in the past ten weeks), joked with AM Joy host Joy Reid: “Michael Avenatti is becoming my co-host. I’ve got to say.” Reid, who has hosted the lawyer four times on her show, chimed in: “He’s good.”

In one of his many appearances on CNN, Avenatti last week crowed to host Anderson Cooper that the media’s generous contribution of airtime was helping him: “There’s been some criticism about our media strategy and how often I’ve been on CNN… Here’s the bottom line, Anderson. It’s working. Okay? It’s working in spades….Because we’re so out front on this, people send us information. People want to help our cause.”

There’s no conservative lawyer in the universe who could ever expect to get even half as much free airtime to bash a liberal President. The media’s massive donations to Daniels and Avenatti can only be explained by their shared interest in making life as miserable as possible for President Donald Trump.

The fact that the duo have built a fund-raising scheme to capitalize on all of this exposure should make these liberal networks reconsider if they’re really in the news business any longer.

Source Article from

Asteroid 3 times larger than Chelyabinsk making close approach… TODAY!

asteroid 2010 WC9


Last night in Australia, near-Earth asteroid 2010 WC9 glided silently across the starry sky of Brisbane while the city’s residents slept. Well… not every resident slept. Amateur astronomer

asteroid 2010 WC9


Dennis Simmons was wide awake and recorded the flyby:

“The asteroid moved rapidly through the constellation Hercules shining about as brightly as a 15th magnitude star,” says Simmons. “The ‘wobbly’ appearance of the trail is as a result of slight periodic errors in the telescope mount’s gear train. This is not caused by the asteroid tumbling!”

Tonight, the view will improve – a lot. On May 15th, 2010 WC9 will fly through the Earth-Moon system, splitting the distance between our planet and the Moon. At closest approach (203,000 km), the asteroid will glow like an 11th magnitude star (~40 times brighter than shown above) as it races through the southern constellation Pavo (the Peacock).

2010 WC9 is known as the “lost asteroid” because astronomers lost track of it soon after it was discovered in November 2010. The asteroid receded from Earth and didn’t return for nearly 8 years… until now.

Estimates of 2010 WC9’s size range from 60 m to 130 m wide. This puts it in the class of the Tunguska impactor, which leveled a forest in Siberia in 1908. And it is at least 3 times as large as the Chelyabinsk meteoroid, which exploded in the morning sky over Russia on Feb. 15, 2013, shattering windows and knocking people to the ground.

There’s no danger of a collision this time, though. Analysts are certain 2010 WC9 will not hit Earth – neither this week nor in the foreseeable future. New observations of the asteroid in recent days have extended our knowledge of its orbit and eliminated it as a threat for at least the next 100 years.

Comment: That’s good to know. Although, it’s a little bit disconcerting that they only know this because they just discovered that it’s going to miss us… as it is flying by!

2010 WC9 is invisible to the naked eye. Advanced amateur astronomers can photograph it, however, using mid-sized telescopes equipped with low-light video cameras. Southern hemisphere observers are favored, especially those in South Africa and southern parts of South America where the asteroid will be high in the night sky at closest approach.

[ephemeris] [3D orbit]

Source Article from

CNN’s Brian Stelter Admits to NY Times Columnist: ‘I’m a Trump Addict’

Reliable Sources


11:48 AM

BRIAN STELTER: Is the news media addicted to Trump news? Is it time for an intervention?


STELTER: Joining me now, Nick Kristof, an op-ed columnist for The New York Times. Great to see you in person here.

NICHOLAS KRISTOF: Good to be with you.

STELTER: I am a Trump addict. I think I’m willing to admit that. I think all roads lead to Trump right now. But you pointed out in a recent column that that can be a problem. How so?

KRISTOF: So, I mean — and let me express my own addiction as well.


KRISTOF: You know, my, my wife and I, we find ourselves, our pillow talk is sometimes about Trump.

STELTER: Oh, terrible.

KRISTOF: But I do think that we have to acknowledge that there is so much more happening in the world than Donald Trump. And we in the media are essentially all Trump all the time. And, frankly, it’s a little rude to say, this, but I think cable television is — it’s particularly true of cable TV.

STELTER: It is. Yeah. Yeah.

KRISTOF: And the upshot is that we risk not covering a lot of really important things at home and around the world. And we complain that President Trump is, you know, is parochial, isn’t paying attention to important things around the world, and we’re absolutely right. But that can also be said about us.

STELTER: Well, there’s always been a critique of the American press that it’s too focused on politics, Washington inside baseball, and not focused enough on real world issues that affect communities. And I guess the point is, that’s even more true now, because Trump sucks up all the oxygen.

KRISTOF: I think that’s part of it. And, also, I think, frankly, that there is obviously a crisis in journalism, and our old business model has been collapsing. And then along came Trump, and he’s a bit of the solution to our, to our business model. As long as we have cameras focused on him, then audiences will follow.

STELTER: Now, that’s interesting that you said that. He brought up something similar at his rally a few days ago. Here’s what he said.


PRESIDENT TRUMP: So I said, unless they give me an extension for the presidency…



TRUMP: … which I don’t think the fake news media would be too happy about.


TRUMP: Wait, wait, wait, wait, wait. Actually, they would be happy, because, when I’m not here, their ratings are going to sink.


STELTER: Now, I don’t think that’s entirely true, but there is a Trump bump that we have seen in television ratings, in “New York Times” subscriptions, et cetera.

KRISTOF: Absolutely.

STELTER: So I suppose, on an individual and an institutional basis, we have to reckon with this.

KRISTOF: Yeah. And I think we have to acknowledge it. You know, in 2016, frankly, I think we in the media to some extent blew a historic election because we were so relieved that there was somebody we could cover that would generate these subscriptions. And then, as you, as you remember, there was some anxiety in newsrooms that Hillary Clinton was going to be elected and government would be boring again, and our audiences would desert us. Well, I mean, that did not happen.

STELTER: Isn’t this really about proportionality? Here is part of the column you wrote. “I’m not arguing that we avert our eyes from Trump or mute our criticism. Far from it. But we have to figure out how to spare bandwidth for the genocide in Myanmar, opioids in America, and so on.”

KRISTOF: Yeah, absolutely. I mean, we’re focused on one conflict, which is basically the Washington conflict. And that’s important. And we have got to cover that. But there are all these others out there as well, and that I don’t think we’re adequately covering those, and, you know, for very understandable reasons. If — it’s easy for me to write this as a columnist, because, you know, I don’t — I’m far enough out of the game, I can write columns that only my mother will read, and that’s fine.


KRISTOF: But if I were executive producer of a TV show, I can understand that if I sent a camera crew off to Myanmar to write about the genocide against the Rohingya, then my audience is going to drop compared to a rival network that puts a Democrat and a Republican in a studio together and has them yell at each other. And that’s a real problem. And I don’t really have a solution to that.

STELTER: You also wrote in the column — quote — “The biggest Trump scandals aren’t those unfolding in Washington, but those devastating the lives of poor and vulnerable people in distant American towns.” Again, that’s harder to cover, and the resources are not always there. But I really like the way you framed the scandal, the real scandal, being outside Washington.

KRISTOF: That’s right. I mean, I come from a part of Oregon that has — that is indeed pro- Trump in part because it did get neglected and because there has been a real crisis.
You know, American life expectancy has gone down two years in a row, whereas, in the rest of the industrialized world, it’s gone up. And this — if this were happening because of terrorism, we would be all over it. But it’s happening in really boring, nondramatic ways, through suicide, alcohol abuse, through drugs, because of a crisis in work, a crisis in self-esteem, a crisis in employment, in living standards. And I think we have kind of dropped the ball on that. And it helped elect President Trump, I believe. And I think, in turn, his policies are going to magnify that problem.

STELTER: What a thought, that if these people were dying from terrorism, there would be wall-to-wall coverage right here. But because it happens in the shadows, one at a time, it’s almost invisible to us.

KRISTOF: Yes. And that invisible America, if you will, I think, is one that, because we don’t cover it adequately, because we don’t talk about it, we don’t develop good policies to address it. I think that, as a nation, we tend to have our worst policies towards issues that are difficult to talk about or that are invisible. We can be part of the solution. We can help leverage these issues and, you know, put them on the agenda. And it’s hard, and we have to figure out how to build a business model for that kind of thing. But maybe a starting point is to have a conversation about that.

Source Article from

Trump mocks New York Times as he welcomes American hostages home from North Korea

Trump pompeo north korea hostages


While welcoming three American hostages who had been held in North Korea, President Donald Trump managed to get in a dig at the New York Times.

Trump spoke briefly to reporters on the tarmac, calling it a “great honor” to welcome the hostages home. The remarks were positive and lighthearted except for a moment when a reporter asked about the new secretary of state, Mike Pompeo.

The Times ran a story Tuesday with the headline, “At a Key Moment, Trumps Top Diplomat Is Again Thousands of Miles Away,” before it was revealed that he was negotiating the release of the hostages.

new york times north korea pompeo


Trump mentioned the report in his remarks.

“I think our secretary of state, despite the fact that the New York Times said he was missing – he was in North Korea – but I think our secretary of state has done a fantastic job,” Trump said.

“Mike, did you know that you were missing? They couldn’t find you,” the president said, turning to Pompeo. “They couldn’t find you. They couldn’t find him. They couldn’t find him because he was in North Korea.”

Kim Dong-Chul, Kim Hak-Song and Tony Kim, who had been held for a least a year, were released in the lead-up to the historic meeting planned between North Korean leader Kim Jong-un and Trump planned in the coming weeks.

They were welcomed by Trump, first lady Melania Trump and Vice President Mike Pence in a 3 a.m. arrival at Joint Base Andrews in Maryland.

The three men are reportedly healthy and are being released to their families after being debriefed by officials.

Source Article from

No, the carbon footprint of travel is not four times as big as we thought

A new study looks at the full carbon impact of travel, but it is probably being misinterpreted.

A new study, The carbon footprint of global tourism, is causing a stir, with news sources writing headlines like Global tourism’s carbon footprint is four times bigger than thought, study says or Tourism’s carbon impact three times larger than estimated. They all report that the study claims tourism accounts for 8 percent of carbon emissions, but that “previous estimates of the impact of all this travel on carbon suggested that tourism accounted for 2.5-3% of emissions.” Almost every story is illustrated with a photo of airplanes.

TreeHugger has been on this case for a while, starting with George Monbiot’s Flying is Dying, when he noted that “If we want to stop the planet from cooking, we will simply have to stop traveling at the kind of speeds that planes permit.” That’s why a lot of people have given it up and others (like me) buy offsets to assuage their guilt.

But this study doesn’t just look at the impact of the flying; it looks at the entire picture of tourism, including what people do when they get to where they are going. They look at the carbon footprint of what happens when you get off the plane: getting around, staying at a hotel, buying food in restaurants and shopping. They look at the supply chains getting all this stuff to where the tourist is visiting.

It adds up to a lot of carbon, and as the world gets richer, more people are doing it. But in general, as people get richer, their carbon footprint increases whether they are traveling or not. And that is what I think is so confusing about this report; it is not as much about the carbon footprint of travel as it is the carbon footprint of living, with some transportation thrown in.

The emissions from road transport are larger than those from air transport. The emissions from buying goods is almost as high as flying. The agriculture to make the food, combined with the food service and food is almost as high. In fact when you total them up, the stuff of living while traveling is just about as much as the traveling itself.

And that is the biggest issue here; wherever people are, they gotta eat, they gotta sleep. Where people get richer, they eat more and spend more. Yet, the authors of the study note (my emphasis):

It could be argued that food, shopping and ground transport be counted net of what tourists would have eaten, purchased or traveled had they stayed at home. If only additional emissions were counted with reference to a stay-home scenario, air travel may well come out as the dominant emissions component. We do not attempt to quantify additionality for a number of reasons, but most importantly because food, shopping and transport by international visitors increase the carbon footprint of destinations, as opposed to the carbon foot-prints of the visitors’ home country. These activities matter for international embodied carbon transfers.

Carbon Movements© Blue is international travel; yellow is for domestic holidays.

In other words, this is more about carbon transfers than it is about consumption and carbon generation. You do learn interesting things, watching how carbon takes a vacation; Americans and Chinese tend to stay in their own countries while Canadians and Mexicans visit the States a lot. In fact Canada, with a tenth the population of the USA, has more traveling carbon in total that all of the USA. But so what? My carbon footprint may be higher when I travel because I eat out more often, but I also walk, bike or take transit and don’t use a car. I may shop for stuff, but I do that at home too.

Should we be flying all over the place? Of course not. Eric Holthaus, Grist’s meteorologist, gave up flying in 2014 and tells the Christian Science Monitor that he is taking local trips instead.

“What we’re talking about is a change in culture, getting happiness from more local travel, or slower travel,” Holthaus says. A jet-setting culture in which people travel around the globe for a few days or a week is “not compatible with a future that is livable.”

He is right. More people are flying, new and bigger airports are being built, and travel is having a bigger footprint as people get richer. But this study is, I think, being misinterpreted. CO2 doesn’t recognize borders, but this study seems to be all about them.

The carbon footprint of travel is not three or four times as big as we thought; we are just taking our carbon with us. You have to subtract the stuff of daily life.

On sister site, Starre Vartan looks at this study and concludes that when we travel, we can still do our best to reduce our carbon footprint once we are there, all of which are sensible and help.

What are the solutions to reducing impact if you love to travel? Vacationing closer to home is one simple way to cut emissions. (Let’s bring back the summer lake vacation!) You can always refuse housekeeping when you stay at hotels, or better yet, seek out smaller, family-run, eco-friendly accommodations. Use public transportation instead of renting a car, and pack light.

Source Article from

One A Day: CNN Hosts Porn Star’s Lawyer Michael Avenatti 59 Times in Less Than Two Months

CNN has exhibited a fetish for the Stormy Daniels story, particularly for her Trump-smacking lawyer, Michael Avenatti. In less than two months (from March 7 to April 30), Avenatti has been a guest on CNN a total of 59 times – an average of more than once per day.

MRC analysts combed through transcripts of all of CNN’s 2018 coverage looking for references to interviews with Avenatti, and then double-checked using our video archive. Since Avenatti’s first appearance on March 7, he has been interviewed on CNN a whopping 59 times, more than one-third of which (19) were with Anderson Cooper — who, of course, interviewed Stormy Daniels on CBS’s 60 Minutes back in March.

By comparison, CNN hosted House Democrat Adam Schiff (CA) – who had been a favorite of the network – ten times during the months of March and April. That would be a generous portion of airtime for any politician, but it was barely one-sixth the exposure granted to a lawyer overwhelmingly known for representing a porn star.

Unfortunately for the Congressman, CNN’s interest in Schiff was noticeably higher before Avenatti showed up. In January and February, the Trump-bashing Democrat was interviewed a total of 17 times; in March and April, that fell to just ten times, a decline of roughly 40%.


Here’s another statistic that should put CNN’s interest in Avenatti into perspective: From March 7 to April 30, all 51 Republican Senators combined received just 34 interviews on the cable network.

Though CNN has eagerly hosted Avenatti at seemingly every opportunity, some at the network have commented on his inordinate on-air presence. On April 6, New Day stand-in host David Gregory elicited a laugh from his fellow panelists when he sarcastically referred to “rare public comments from Michael Avenatti.” And on April 30, CNN legal analyst Paul Callan characterized the lawyer’s most recent lawsuit against the President as “a publicity stunt” during yet another appearance by Avenatti on Cooper’s show.

Despite these remarks by Gregory and Callan, it remains to be seen whether CNN will ratchet back the absurd amount of coverage they have given Avenatti. But if their current pace of 1.09 interviews per day (including weekends) continues for the rest of the year, the network will have bombarded viewers with a total of 327 Avenatti appearances for all of 2018.

Stay tuned.

Source Article from