Issues ››› Crime
  • On Fox, Lisa Boothe Lashes Out At “People Like Beyoncé” Who Push The “False Narrative” Of Racial Bias In Police Shootings

    Boothe: “I Really Think That There Is Danger Here For Society, The Mainstream Media, Corporations, To Let This False Narrative Continue To Be Perpetuated"

    Blog ››› ››› MEDIA MATTERS STAFF

    From the August 30 edition of Fox News’ Outnumbered:

    DAGEN MCDOWELL (CO-HOST): Remember the players -- who hands up, don't shoot? They were not, they were not reprimanded for that at all. They were not fined by the NFL. 

    HARRIS FAULKNER (CO-HOST): And that was narrative that turned out not to be true. 

    MCDOWELL: Right, it was complete lie and a falsehood, and nothing happened to them. 

    LISA BOOTHE (CO-HOST): And the idea that there is somehow racial bias in police shootings has also been dispelled as fiction, and I really think that there is danger here for society, the mainstream media, corporations, to let this false narrative continue to be perpetuated because there is police officers lives at risk. And we've seen it from people like him. We’ve seen it from people like Beyoncé, and people allow it, and this society allows it. The mainstream media allows it. Corporations allow it. And it is a big problem because, as I mentioned, there are police lives at stake. It needs to be dispelled as fiction, and people need to call it out for what it is, which is fiction.  


    Fox's Katie Pavlich: "Police Aren't Shooting Innocent Black Men"

    Fox Host Criticizes Beyoncé's VMA Performance By Dismissing Police Brutality

    Fox Criticizes Beyoncé For Walking Red Carpet With Mothers Of Victims Of Violence

  • The NY Daily News Just Apologized For Their Stop And Frisk Defense. When Will Bill O'Reilly?

    Blog ››› ››› MEDIA MATTERS STAFF

    The New York Daily News recently abandoned its longstanding support of the New York Police Department’s (NYPD) now-unconstitutional stop and frisk program, acknowledging that their doomsaying predictions that crime would spiral without it were incorrect. Will Fox News anchor Bill O’Reilly, another ardent supporter of the program, continue clinging to his fact-free defense, or will he follow suit?

    After a federal judge ruled the program, which gave police officers wide-ranging authority to stop people on the streets, to question and frisk them for suspected weapons and other contraband, unconstitutional in 2012, the Daily News editorial board warned that the ruling “threatens to push the city back toward the ravages of lawlessness and bloodshed.” In an August 8 editorial, the board admitted that this has not happened. The board wrote “we are delighted to say that we were wrong,” and explained that on the third anniversary of a federal judging ruling the program unconstitutional, “New York is safer while friction between the NYPD and the city’s minority communities has eased.”

    As the Daily News has now acknowledged, violent crime in New York City has continued to fall since stop and frisk was ended. That shouldn’t be a surprise -- since the program’s inception, research had consistently shown it was not only ineffective in stopping crime, but was also discriminatory. The federal judge who ruled the program unconstitutional in 2013 determined that "at least 200,000 stops were made without reasonable suspicion," which "resulted in the disproportionate and discriminatory stopping of blacks and Hispanics in violation of the Equal Protection Clause." Between 2003 and 2013, 86 percent of stops were of black and Latino New Yorkers, according to the New York Civil Liberties Union (NYCLU). Despite the high number “of young black and Latino men stopped,” the NYCLU reported, “89.7 percent were innocent.”

    But the Daily News editorial board wasn’t alone in defending the policy -- O’Reilly was a leading advocate for stop and frisk, warning that “it's a fact that if you take stop-and-frisk away, more black Americans and more Hispanic Americans are going to die."

    Now that the New York Daily News has admitted its fault in previously endorsing New York’s stop and frisk policy, noting that crime rates in New York City have hit record lows since the program was scaled back -- will O’Reilly continue to buck the facts or follow suit?

  • Washington Post: Do Donald And Eric Trump Understand “The Term ‘Victim Blaming’”?

    Blog ››› ››› MEDIA MATTERS STAFF

    A Washington Post reporter is suggesting that based on the answers provided by both Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump and his son, Eric, to the hypothetical of someone sexually harassing Ivanka Trump like Roger Ailes has allegedly done to many women in the workplace, it’s possible neither man understands what ‘victim blaming’ means.

    During an interview in a USA Today opinion piece, Trump said that his daughter “would find another career” or “another company” if treated the way Roger Ailes, the ally he has expressed “love” and support for, has allegedly treated many women at Fox News, allegations that led to his departure as chairman and CEO. Eric Trump doubled down on this attitude during an interview with CBS’ Charlie Rose, stating his sister, “as a strong person,” would never “allow herself to be subjected to that.” Both statements have drawn condemnation from figures in the media, including former Fox host Gretchen Carlson, who sued Roger Ailes for sexual harassment.

    In an August 2 blog post, Post reporter Janell Ross points out that the privilege Ivanka Trump has of being able to change career or work place isn’t shared by most women, underscores how this solution would “leave the harasser in place,” and calls the idea that strength is all that’s needed to respond to sexual harassment “plain wrong”:

    On Monday, USA Today published a column in which the elder Trump was quoted saying that were his daughter Ivanka Trump to face workplace sexual harassment akin to what former employees have said that former Fox News chief and on-again, off-again Trump ally Roger Ailes subjected them to, Ivanka would find another career or company. Just like that.

    Just to be totally clear, this is what the elder Trump said:

    “I would like to think she would find another career, or find another company if that was the case."

    Those are his words. USA Today columnist Kirsten Powers described that response as retrograde and, "startling even by Trumpian standards." By Tuesday morning, Eric Trump did what so many of his father's supporters and surrogates have been called upon to do this week. Trump offered an explanation for Trump's comments. During an interview with Charlie Rose on "CBS This Morning," Eric Trump, said this:

    “I think what he’s saying is, Ivanka is a strong, powerful woman, she wouldn’t allow herself to be objected to it, and by the way, you should take it up with Human Resources, and I think she would as a strong person, at the same time, I don’t think she would allow herself to be subjected to that. I think that’s a point he was making, and I think he did so well.”


    Now, on to the content of the two Trump men's comments, and some things that don't seem to have crossed their minds.

    Here's one: Ivanka's status as the daughter of two billionaires, the head of her own companies, manager of many lucrative projects and the wife of a very wealthy man also born to a wealthy family — all of which might make her response to harassment different than it might be if none of those titles applied.


    What's more, their "solution" would likely leave a harasser in place.

    It would force a worker, who may feel that the job or some project or aspect of their job is what they are uniquely called to do, to accept the "punishment" of leaving that task or opportunity. That harassed worker would have to endure all the personal and economic upheaval associated with leaving that job.

    Meanwhile, the harasser and anyone aware of the harassment would emerge with a strong sense this behavior will not be a problem in the future.


    As for Eric Trump's suggestion that a "strong" woman like his sister, Ivanka, would not "allow" this sort of thing happen or should simply go to HR, there are more than a few reasons to be troubled. Among them: there's little reason believe that the world and its HR departments uniformly work that well for all American workers.


    The Trump definition of strength on terms that may not be an option for a large share of workers — say, for instance, that 40 percent of American mothers who are the primary or sole breadwinner in their families — is definitely something. Let's start with plain wrong. It's an idea that can have very real implications for the careers of victims, the companies for which they work and the entire country.