A new survey conducted by the Pew Research Center found that Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, and Glenn Beck's talk radio shows are more distrusted than trusted among three generations surveyed by Pew.
Pew surveyed millennials, Generation Xers, and baby boomers on political news sources and how each generation trusted them. The study published on June 1 found that "Four sources are distrusted more than trusted by all three: The Glenn Beck Program, The Rush Limbaugh Show, The Sean Hannity Show, and BuzzFeed." From Pew Research Center:
José Díaz-Balart, el presentador del programa dominical de Telemundo Enfoque, desafió la declaración del director ejecutivo de la Iniciativa Libre, Daniel Garza, de que la falta de liderazgo presidencial es culpable de que no se logre una reforma migratoria, recordándole a Garza y a la audiencia que son los Republicanos los que tienen el control del Congreso entero.
A pesar de que otros portavoces de la Iniciativa Libre -- organización financiada por los hermanos Koch -- han reconocido en el pasado la responsabilidad de los Republicanos de que no se logre una reforma migratoria integral, en la edición de Enfoque del 31 de mayo Garza decidió culpar "la incapacidad" de "cuajar lo que es una agrupación de gente que ya están de acuerdo en ciertas cosas". Agregó que la postura en inmigración de Hillary Clinton -- que calificó de "extrema" -- demostraba su "incapacidad de ser líder". Díaz-Balart interrumpió a Garza para decir que el otro lado también necesita trabajar y no solo hablar, refiriéndose al hecho de que los Republicanos tienen la mayoría tanto en el Senado como en la Cámara de Representantes.
De la edición del 31 de mayo de Enfoque:
DÍAZ-BALART: Ahora Dan, si hubiera en la cámara de representantes la voluntad política -- de nuevo, ahora, esa cámara de Representantes, y no solo la cámara de Representantes está en manos Republicanas, sino también el Senado -- si hubiera voluntad política, liderazgo político en esas Cámaras, hoy pudiera por lo menos haber una conversación, un primer paso hacia una reforma migratoria para que estas familias no sigan siendo separadas, y eso no está ocurriendo, Dan.
GARZA: No, no, por eso hay que proponer de que comience el debate y de que comience un nuevo esfuerzo para tratar de lograr una reforma...
DÍAZ-BALART: (interrumpe) ... ¡pero es que el mismo partido controla ambas Cámaras!
GARZA: Lo que pasa es que pueden hacer todas las promesas que quieran José. Lo que aquí importa es cumplir con esas promesas. Y ahora Hillary Clinton ha dicho, ha tomado una postura dice más extrema que aún los Demócratas porque ella quiere avanzar una reforma pero a su modo. Lo que pasa es esto: Hillary, puedes prometer todo lo que quieras, si no te mueves al centro para reconciliar esas diferencias nunca va a haber nada. Entonces, yo creo que esa incapacidad de hacer líder [sic], de persuadir a la gente, de yo creo, de cuajar lo que es una agrupación de gente que ya están de acuerdo en ciertas cosas, en ciertos aspectos de una reforma, eso hay que avanzar. Entonces lo que tiene que hacer el presidente, [es] no imponer su propia ley, o su propio capricho, sino trabajar con el otro lado opuesto para llegar a una acuerdo.
DÍAZ-BALART: Pero que el otro lado opuesto también trabaje, y que no diga y que no haga. Ese es el gran problema que ha habido en este país, que muchos hablan...
GARZA: (casi inaudible)... y hay que poner la presión de los dos lados.
DÍAZ-BALART: Dan Garza de la Iniciativa Libre y Alan Cisneros del Texas Organizing Project. Caballeros, gracias por estar conmigo este domingo.
Garza también minimizó la acción ejecutiva de Obama en inmigración, refiriéndose a ella como un "capricho" del presidente, ignorando el hecho de que una encuesta de Latino Decisions demuestra que un 89 por ciento de latinos apoya la acción del presidente, que tiene el potencial de beneficiar a millones de inmigrantes indocumentados concediéndoles un alivio temporal que los protegería de ser deportados.
Conservative media are praising actor Vince Vaughn for repeating a debunked right-wing talking point that falsely claims most mass shootings occur in "gun-free zones."
Vaughn is receiving widespread attention for an interview he gave to British GQ in which he advocated the carrying of guns in public and in schools, declared that the purpose of the Second Amendment is to defend against an "abusive government," and claimed that mass shootings have "only happened in places that don't allow guns."
According to Vaughn:
All these gun shootings that have gone down in America since 1950, only one or maybe two have happened in non-gun-free zones. Take mass shootings. They've only happened in places that don't allow guns. These people are sick in the head and are going to kill innocent people. They are looking to slaughter defenceless human beings. They do not want confrontation. In all of our schools it is illegal to have guns on campus, so again and again these guys go and shoot up these f***ing schools because they know there are no guns there. They are monsters killing six-year-olds.
Vaughn's claim, which suggests that possibly none but at most two mass shootings since 1950 have happened in a place where guns were allowed, is a variation on a claim about public mass shootings over the last half-century that was first made by discredited gun researcher John Lott.
José Díaz-Balart, the host of Telemundo's Sunday interview show Enfoque, challenged an assertion by the Libre Initiative's Daniel Garza that presidential lack of leadership is to blame for inaction on immigration, reminding Garza and viewers that Republicans control the entire Congress.
Even though other spokespersons for the Libre Initiative -- which receives funding from the conservative Koch brothers -- have previously acknowledged Republican responsibility for the lack of action on comprehensive immigration reform, on the May 31 broadcast of Enfoque, Garza chose to assign blame to "a lack of leadership" persuasive enough to bring together "a group of people that already agree on certain things." He added that Hillary Clinton's position on immigration -- which he called "extreme" -- showed her "inability to be a leader." Díaz-Balart interrupted Garza to say that the other side also needs to work, but "many only talk," referring to the fact that Republicans hold a majority in both the Senate and House of Representatives.
Translated from the May 31 edition of Telemundo's Enfoque,
DÍAZ-BALART: Now, Dan... If there was the political will in the House of Representatives - again, right now both the House and the Senate are controlled by Republicans - if there was political will, political leadership in both chambers, now we could at least have a conversation, a first step towards immigration reform so that families can stay together, and that isn't happening.
GARZA: No, no, that's why it's necessary to propose that a debate starts and that a new effort starts to try to accomplish reform...
DÍAZ-BALART: (interrupts) ... but the same political party controls both chambers!
GARZA: What's happening is that they can make all the promises they want Jose -- what really matters here is keeping those promises. Hillary Clinton has taken a position that is even more extreme than Democrats. She wants to advance reform, but on her own terms. What happens is this: Hillary, you can promise whatever you want but if you don't move to the center to reconcile differences, there's never going to be anything [reform-wise]. I think that that inability to be a leader, of persuading people, of consolidating a group of people that already agree on certain things in terms of a reform, that's what needs to be advanced. Therefore what the president has to do is not to impose his own law, his own whim, but work with the opposition to reach an agreement.
DÍAZ-BALART: But the other side also needs to work, and stop talking and not working. The big problem happening in this country is that many only talk and not work.
Garza also minimized Obama's executive action on immigration, referring to it as a "whim" and ignoring the fact that a poll by Latino Decisions showed that 89 percent of Latinos support the president's action, which could potentially benefit millions of undocumented immigrants by granting them temporary immunity from deportation.
The Associated Press violated its own guidelines for how to refer to transgender people in a voyeuristic report about former Olympian and reality television star Caitlyn Jenner's appearance on next month's cover of Vanity Fair.
On June 1, Vanity Fair released a preview of its July issue cover story, headlined, "Call Me Caitlyn." The story is Jenner's public debut as Caitlyn following a highly-watched television interview with ABC's Diane Sawyer in which Jenner, who still identified then as Bruce, announced that she is transgender and detailed her experiences hiding her gender identity while appearing on the popular reality show, "Keeping Up With The Kardashians." The Vanity Fair story says Caitlyn Jenner now wishes to be referred to as a woman.
In its report on the Vanity Fair cover, the Associated Press violated its own guidelines on how to report on transgender people, which state that trans people should be identified by their preferred pronouns. Instead, the AP story refers to Jenner as a male and calls her Bruce. The report also objectifies Jenner by describing her as wearing "va-va-voom fashion" and highlighting her "ample cleavage:"
Bruce Jenner made his debut as a transgender woman in a va-va-voom fashion in the July issue of Vanity Fair.
"Call me Caitlyn," declares a headline on the cover, with a photo of a long-haired Jenner in a strapless corset, legs crossed, sitting on a stool. The image was shot by famed celeb photographer Annie Leibovitz. Prior to the unveiling of Caitlyn, Jenner had said he prefers the pronoun "he," but Vanity Fair contributing editor Buzz Bissinger, who wrote the accompanying story, refers to "she."
Jenner debuted a new Twitter account as well with: "I'm so happy after such a long struggle to be living my true self. Welcome to the world Caitlyn. Can't wait for you to get to know her/me." In about 45 minutes, the account had more than 180,000 followers.
According to the magazine, which took to Twitter with the cover Monday, Jenner spoke emotionally about her gender journey: "If I was lying on my deathbed and I had kept this secret and never ever did anything about it, I would be lying there saying, 'You just blew your entire life.'"
In addition to the corset, Vanity Fair released a black-and-white video on the making of the cover. It shows Jenner getting her hair done and posing in a long, off-the-shoulder gown with ample cleavage. [emphasis added]
Media outlets are baselessly linking an increase in murders in Baltimore and other cities to "increased scrutiny" of police, without noting the legitimate reasons why such scrutiny of local police departments is needed.
Homicides have spiked in the last month in Baltimore, with 43 killings reported in May, the most in one month since 1971 and the highest monthly per capita rate on record, according to The Baltimore Sun. At the same time, arrests have plummeted, with a WBAL-TV investigation finding arrests have gone down 32 percent since the curfew was lifted, and the Sun reporting arrests in May this year were less than half the number in May last year.
Several right-wing media figures are attributing these numbers to increased scrutiny of police, and this narrative is seeping into mainstream coverage. On the June 1 edition of Fox & Friends, during an interview with author Kevin Jackson, co-host Kimberly Guilfoyle argued that "police are more concerned about their own well-being. They don't want to be arrested or persecuted for just putting on the blue every morning." She added that "when you have individuals like [Baltimore City State's Attorney] Marilyn Mosby going aggressively against the police," this "undermines the ability of law enforcement to keep people in the community safe," linking the increase in homicides to Mosby's decision to charge six Baltimore police officers in connection with the death of Freddie Gray.
On the May 31 edition of Fox & Friends Sunday, National Review Online contributor Heather Mac Donald similarly claimed the U.S. is "in the grips of a hysteria against cops," saying "cops have gotten the message that they should back off of policing." She faulted the "mainstream media, the university presidents talking about assaults on blacks and of course the president and former attorney general." Mac Donald, who has a history of deeply offensive commentary on race, was discussing her recent Wall Street Journal op-ed, in which she argued that the "most plausible explanation of the current surge in lawlessness is the intense agitation against American police departments over the past nine months."
The previous week, National Review editor Rich Lowry also advocated for increased incarceration in response to the spike in violence, and cited anonymous police officers who "say they feel that city authorities don't have their back, understandably enough when city leaders are loath to call rioters 'thugs.'"
And now the Associated Press is adopting the same language. In a May 31 report on Baltimore homicides, the AP stated that "Some attribute the drop [in arrests] to increased scrutiny of police following the April death of Freddie Gray from injuries received in police custody."
Aside from the obvious problem with this argument -- that there is no evidence these feelings attributed to the police have resulted in an increase in murders -- this coverage has also missed a significant reason why people have called for increased scrutiny of police officers since the deaths of men like Eric Garner, Walter Scott, and Freddie Gray: the fact that police killings and police brutality disproportionately affect people of color.
On May 30, the Washington Post released a study on police killings, which found that two-thirds of unarmed victims of police shootings were minorities, and "blacks were killed at three times the rate of whites or other minorities when adjusting by the population of the census tracts where the shootings occurred." Their figures represent far greater total than the FBI statistics on police killings, which are "widely considered to be misleading and inaccurate": FBI records show about 400 shootings per year, compared to 385 so far this year in the Post's data. Three of the 385 shootings the Post reported on resulted in the officer being charged, or less than one percent. And over the last several years, the Department of Justice has found that numerous local police departments have engaged in a "pattern or practice" of improper discrimination against residents of color, and have disproportionately targeted them for stops and arrests.
Faced with stark numbers like these, any media outlet should feel compelled to at least contextualize claims of a "hysteria against cops" with this evidence of disproportionate police violence against minorities.
Editors of the National Rifle Association's magazine, America's 1st Freedom, attacked a national plan to honor Hadiya Pendleton, the Chicago teenager whose 2013 shooting death made national headlines, and draw attention to all victims of gun violence, calling it "pointless."
June 2 will mark the country's first National Gun Violence Awareness Day. A national campaign organized by the Everytown for Gun Safety Action Fund has asked Americans to wear the color orange to honor victims of gun violence. The "Wear Orange" campaign organizers say they hope to turn the color "into a symbol for the value of human life everywhere."
According to the Chicago Sun-Times, "Groups such as Amnesty International USA, MomsRising and Sandy Hook Promise; mayors from Chicago to Miami and Chapel Hill; and members of Congress representing states from Illinois to New York and California will be wearing or promoting orange on Tuesday. Media entities such as HBO and Essence Magazine are involved, with MTV and Motown Records planning to turn their logos orange." (Media Matters is also a partner organization.)
In a May 30 post in its digital magazine, America's 1st Freedom, the National Rifle Association attacked the campaign as "pointless" and said "participating is an easy way of scoring points for being 'socially conscious.'" The magazine also criticized celebrities Julianne Moore, Russell Simmons, and Michael Stipe for participating in National Gun Violence Awareness Day, writing, "It's a shame that quite a few presumably well-meaning celebrities are caught up in a thinly veiled anti-gun stunt orchestrated by Bloomberg and friends." (Former New York City mayor Michael Bloomberg is the founder of Everytown for Gun Safety.)
Sen. Lindsey Graham, who announced today he's running for president, has previously suggested he fears attacks from Fox News. Graham has attempted to placate the conservative network with nonstop appearances and praise of their coverage of issues like Benghazi and immigration reform.
Ryan Lizza reported in The New Yorker that during 2010 negotiations on a climate bill, Graham warned fellow senators "that they needed to get as far as they could in negotiating the bill 'before Fox News got wind of the fact that this was a serious process.'"
But, back in Washington, Graham warned Lieberman and Kerry that they needed to get as far as they could in negotiating the bill "before Fox News got wind of the fact that this was a serious process," one of the people involved in the negotiations said. "He would say, 'The second they focus on us, it's gonna be all cap-and-tax all the time, and it's gonna become just a disaster for me on the airwaves. We have to move this along as quickly as possible.' "
Graham later abandoned the efforts, which were heavily attacked by Fox, and said he did not believe human-caused emissions "are contributing overwhelmingly to global climate change."
In 2011, Graham told reporters that Fox News was making it difficult for him on immigration reform. He said: "When Fox News is saying 'amnesty' 24 hours a day, it makes it harder for me to get people on my side."
In 2013, however, Graham told the Wall Street Journal that Fox News chief Roger Ailes "supported fixing the broken immigration system and that his network was 'far more balanced' in covering the debate":
But Mr. Graham, an architect of last year's Senate immigration bill, said in an interview that the chief of Fox News supported fixing the broken immigration system and that his network was "far more balanced" in covering the debate than it had been during the 2006-2007 effort. Mr. Ailes has also been quoted on the record supporting the immigration overhaul, including its most contentious piece, a path to citizenship for those here illegally.
"I met with him at least three to four times in person and talked to him a lot," Mr. Graham said. He said he and others aggressively courted Mr. Ailes in hopes of toning down what Mr. Graham described as vocal opposition on Fox in the past. "People who observed the debate noticed that the tone was different and not so one-sided. It wasn't 'amnesty' every 15 minutes."
Graham has been a solid ally of Fox News' obsession with Benghazi. A 2014 Media Matters study found that Graham was the elected official interviewed most frequently on the network about the September 2011 attacks. Graham said in May 2013 of Fox's Benghazi coverage: "Thank God for Fox."
The senator has been a frequent presence on Fox News' evening and primetime programming and Fox News Sunday. Since President Obama's second inauguration to early April, Graham made 72 appearances, including 46 on Greta Van Susteren's program.
While most of the Sunday political news shows ignored accusations that former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush (R) may be unlawfully coordinating with his super PAC, CBS' Bob Schieffer asked the prospective presidential candidate if he was "violating the spirit of the law."
Bush has recently come under scrutiny for coordinating with his super PAC, Right to Rise. As the Washington Post reported, "Democracy 21 and the Campaign Legal Center -- sent a letter to Attorney General Loretta Lynch [on May 27] asking that the Justice Department investigate whether Bush and his PAC 'are engaged in knowing and willful violations of federal campaign finance laws.' The groups are calling on Lynch to appoint an independent Special Counsel to investigate potential violations."
In a May 31 editorial, The New York Times editorial board endorsed the idea and urged the Justice Department to get involved, describing Bush's relationship with Right to Rise as "brazen," and "cynical" and noted that Bush is "obviously" running for president:
Ideally, the F.E.C. should be doing its enforcement job. Given that agency's dereliction, the Justice Department must exercise its authority to enforce the law. The abuses of runaway political money will only grow when candidates believe there's no one to stop them.
During the May 31 edition of Face the Nation, host Bob Schieffer questioned Bush over his questionable PAC coordination. Asserting that it was "pretty obvious" that Bush was running for president, Schieffer pointed to criticism and requests for investigation into his dealings with Right to Rise, asking if he thought he "may be just at least violating the spirit of the law" by coordinating with the group. Bush dismissed Schieffer, claiming that he "wouldn't ever do that" and simply was "trying to get a sense of whether [his] candidacy would be viable or not" prior to deciding if he would officially run for president:
The media have largely continuously ignored that likely Republican presidential contenders in 2016 are using dark money and secretive nonprofit groups to sidestep campaign finance laws. Face the Nation was the only Sunday broadcast network political show to even broach the subject.
In March, Bush gave his "tacit endorsement" to Right to Rise Policy Solutions, a nonprofit organization that allows him to side-step campaign finance laws that cap donations from individual donors and require donations to political action committees (PACs) to be publicly reported, permitting "individuals and corporations" to "give as much as they want while remaining anonymous," according to the Post. The news garnered little media attention at the time, with just a scattering of articles and two segments on broadcast and cable news outlining the dark money connections.
Univision and the Los Angeles Times have thoroughly debunked an ad by the anti-immigrant group Californians For Population Stabilization (CAPS) that blames California's drought-induced water shortage on immigration.
Although CAPS presents itself as an organization focused on "preserv[ing] the environment," numerous experts have pointed out that the group disingenuously uses environmental concerns to promote an anti-immigrant agenda. For example, the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) has described CAPS as "a nativist organization masquerading as an environmental group." Similarly, Huffington Post reported that the executive director of the California Immigrant Policy Center (CIPC) remarked of CAPS: "They're basically trying to find any way to spin their anti-immigrant vitriol, so hey, why not choose the environment?" And NBC News reported that "[t]he National Council of La Raza said CAPS can say their concern is the environment, but that it is actually an anti-immigrant group."
According to SPLC, CAPS is part of an anti-immigration network that includes several organizations that have been labeled as "hate groups." Further, SPLC notes that CAPS has received funding from the Pioneer Fund, which has bankrolled "leading Anglo-American race scientists." The California drought is not the first example of CAPS exploiting a crisis in order to advance its anti-immigrant agenda -- in 2011, the group used California's unemployment rate to advocate for "slow[ing] legal immigration."
CAPS' television ad that plays on concerns about the drought features a young boy asking, "[i]f Californians are having fewer children, why isn't there enough water?" On the May 27 edition of Univision's Noticiero Univision, correspondent Luis Megid interviewed San Francisco State University professor Oswaldo Garcia about the ad:
Garcia, a meteorology professor and tropical climatology expert, dismissed CAPS' claims. He noted that although California's population has grown, 80 percent of the state's developed water supply is used for agricultural -- not residential -- purposes.
The Los Angeles Times also rebutted CAPS in both a news article and column. Addressing CAPS' claims in a May 24 article, the Times reported:
Some drought experts have taken issue with [CAPS'] claims, pointing out that the majority of the state's water supports agriculture.
Blaming the drought on immigrants "doesn't fit the facts," said William Patzert, a climatologist from NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory. The drought is caused by meager snowpack and poor planning, he said, "not because the immigrants are drinking too much water or taking too many showers.
Others point out that many immigrants probably use less water than the average California resident because they tend to live in multi-family dwellings, not higher-consuming single-family homes.
"It's unlikely that the 'burden' of immigrants is very significant," said Stephanie Pincetl, professor in residence at the Institute of the Environment and Sustainability at UCLA."
Additionally, in a May 26 column, the Times' Michael Hiltzik wrote that CAPS was "exploit[ing]" the drought by "immigrant bashing," and added that "pointing the finger at immigrants" is "cynical, dishonest and factually incorrect." Hiltzik noted that even with population growth, "a sharp reduction in urban per capital water use" has allowed the state's total water consumption to go down (emphasis added):
The truth is that California has been able to sustain that huge increase in population without a commensurate increase in water consumption--actually, with a decrease in water consumption. In 1990, when the census placed the state's population at 29.8 million, the state's freshwater withdrawals came to 35.1 billion gallons per day, according to the authoritative U.S. Geological Survey. In 2010, with a population of 37.3 million, that state drew 31.1 billion gallons per day.
How did that happen? Chiefly through a sharp reduction in urban per capital water use, which has been falling steadily since the mid-1990s, according to the Public Policy Institute of California, and especially in the populous coastal zone.
CAPS' anti-immigration claims, which were recently echoed by the National Review, are reminiscent of other conservative media outlets that have used the California drought as an opportunity to baselessly attack environmental policies.