Brooke Baldwin

Tags ››› Brooke Baldwin
  • STUDY: Fox News Ignored Transgender Voices While Discussing Rollback Of Protections For Transgender Students

    MSNBC Hosted Four Transgender Guests, And CNN Brought On One

    Blog ››› ››› CRISTINA LóPEZ G.

    From the time it happened through the day that followed President Donald Trump’s rollback of federal trans-inclusive nondiscrimination protections, Fox News failed to include transgender guests who could provide insights about the policy. Of the major cable news networks (MSNBC, Fox, and CNN), MSNBC led the count by hosting four transgender guests, while CNN hosted only one.

    On February 22, the Trump administration revoked the federal protections for trans students implemented by President Barack Obama, which outlined the right of trans students to use the public facilities that match their gender identity. Conservative commentators reacted by pushing the long-debunked myth that sexual predators exploit these types of nondiscrimination protections to sneak into women’s facilities by pretending to be transgender.

    Media Matters analyzed the guests invited on cable news networks to discuss the rollback of the federal trans-inclusive nondiscrimination guidelines from 8 p.m. February 22 until midnight on February 23. We found that Fox News failed to bring on a single transgender guest, perpetuating the network’s long history of trans exclusion. In comparison, MSNBC set the standard by including four transgender guests: Cub Scout Joe Maldonado, actress and activist Laverne Cox, transgender rights advocate Mara Keisling, and Gavin Grimm, whose case against his school over restroom access will go before the Supreme Court. CNN hosted only one trans person, teenager Juliet Evancho, who appeared during the February 23 edition of CNN Newsroom with Brooke Baldwin, but on February 22, New Day featured Katharine Prescott, the mother of a trans student who committed suicide. Prescott’s subsequent activism was influential in the implementation of protections during the Obama administration. It is worth noting that CNN also hosted Grimm on the February 24 edition of New Day, but the morning shows of February 24 fell outside of the time frame analyzed by Media Matters.

    While CNN’s and MSNBC’s inclusion of trans voices provided a welcome respite from a trend of underrepresentation, news networks must still work for progress in terms of improving trans visibility. That’s because stories of violence against the transgender community are often ignored, and when news shows do discuss issues that directly affect transgender people, they often fail to include any trans people as guests.

    Because Trump is an avid TV consumer, cable news shows have an increased in influence as platforms for policy discussion, giving the guests included a unique opportunity to send impactful messages. This platform could also be used to boost the voices of those usually underrepresented in the media. And transgender people -- who are often mocked, misgendered, and negatively portrayed on TV news -- deserve a space to directly address misperceptions audiences might have about their lives. Their lived experiences not only add value to segments about legislation that directly affects their lives, it also can enrich the political discussion more broadly. Networks owe it to the transgender community to talk to them, instead of just about them.

    Jared Holt contributed research to this report.

  • CNN Said A Decade-Old Video Was “Brand New” From Yemen Raid, Before Clarifying That It Was Years Old

    Blog ››› ››› JOHN WHITEHOUSE

    BuzzFeed reported on February 3  that the Pentagon has taken down a video that it originally said was seized from a raid in Yemen last week after realizing that the video is actually a decade old:

    The US military on Friday took down the link to a video that it said it secured from a raid in Yemen last week just hours after posting it, having realized that far from showing off the intelligence gained from the raid, the videos were a decade old.

    The video, titled “Courses for Destroying The Cross,” was first released in 2007 and had been online for years, as it turns out. In the less than two-minute long video, which was widely circulated after it was pushed out on Friday morning, there are several clips showing a man in a white robe and black mask explaining how to make a bomb using chemicals.

    ....

    It was an embarrassing admission about the Jan. 29 raid, the first approved by President Donald Trump since his term began, which has been swirling in controversy since its existence was first revealed. There are reports that children were killed and that female fighters pinned down Seal Team 6 during an hour-long fire fight.

    Chief Petty Officer William “Ryan” Owens was killed during the raid. The father of three was reportedly on his 12th deployment.

    CNN discussed this video in a segment Friday afternoon at approximately 1:23 p.m. Eastern Standard Time. Wolf Blitzer called the video “slick propaganda” and asked if it was old or new. CNN’s Pentagon reporter, Ryan Browne, responded that “we believe” that the video was “brand new.” 

    WOLF BLITZER: In the initial statement that the Pentagon put out, Ryan, about this operation, they said the U.S. collected a lot of very importance intelligence about terror operations. How will these videos specifically help the U.S. military deal with this down the road?

    RYAN BROWNE: This video, in particular, not necessarily that advantageous. It does provide a little insight into what this terror group’s strategy is, that is trying to inspire these lone wolf attackers in the West. But I think this is one thing that the military has released, but we are told that there's volumes and volumes of additional information, intelligence on hard drives, that the military will not be releasing in hopes of exploiting that information to conduct additional strikes or additional raids against the terror group down the road.

    BLITZER: It looks like these videos were pretty slick propaganda. Were they intended to be posted on social media sites to promote this kind of homegrown terror, if you will? Have some of them already been posted or are these all brand new?

    BROWNE: That’s right, Wolf. We believe this one is brand new, but this is something that they have done in the past. In fact they produced an English language magazine called “Inspire” that was distributed digitally and has actually been traced to several terrorist attacks, including the Boston marathon bombings. This is something very much in the M.O. of this terror group, not necessarily bringing foreign fighters in like ISIS does, but actually reaching out to these lone wolves, to these disgruntled people in western countries and trying to kind of show them the knowhow on how to conduct terrorists attacks on their own.

    BLITZER: Pretty sophisticated propaganda.

    Later on in the segment, CNN’s military analyst, Cedric Leighton, told Blitzer that while the tactics in the video were not new,  “What’s new is the detail, … very slick graphics and the fact that they spent a lot of time discussing TATP, which is the exact explosive that was used in Paris, in Brussels -- by the shoe bomber -- and it is probably the most dangerous, the most volatile explosive that the AQAP group has used.”

    Less than two hours later, at 3:15 p.m., CNN revealed that the video was, in fact, a decade old. Browne called it a “mix up” and said that the video had been online for “years.”

    Browne concluded that while it was an “embarrassing moment” for the military, the military still believes that there was actionable intelligence obtained.

    Browne gave no reason why this assertion should be trusted and no reason for his earlier statement that the video was “brand new.” Host Brooke Baldwin immediately moved on.

  • Media Discover Due Caution When It Comes To Reporting About Trump

    But Where Was That Prudence On Clinton Email Reporting? 

    Blog ››› ››› TYLER CHERRY

    The media’s four-alarm fire drill over FBI Director James Comey’s announcement that the bureau would further investigate more emails related to its Hillary Clinton server investigation stands in stark contrast to the cautious, measured approach the press took when reporting on several stories about Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump’s alleged ties to Russian entities. The divergent approaches to the so-called “October surprises” underscore the media’s double standard when reporting on Clinton and Trump.

    After Comey released a letter on October 28 to congressional leaders stating that “the FBI has learned of the existence of emails that appear to be pertinent to the [Clinton email] investigation” and that the bureau was going to “review these emails” (which may or may not be “significant”), the chorus of pundits hyping the DEFCON 1 “bombshell” was unrestrained, despite the dearth of information about the FBI’s decision or next moves.

    With scarcely any details about the new developments, cable news talking heads -- relying solely on Comey’s vague letter and Rep. Jason Chaffetz’s (R-UT) misleading spin that the investigation was “reopened” -- hyped the news as “damaging” and called it “a dramatic new twist” and “an exclamation point on the end of a horrible week for Clinton and the Democrats.” Bloomberg’s Mark Halperin crowed that the “presidential race has been rocked by another head-scratching, rally-bending, M. Knight Shyamalan-worthy plot twist.”

    CNN’s Brooke Baldwin even conceded that “there is so much we do not know,” yet nevertheless declared that “it’s a significant story … [with] 11 days to go.” Indeed, the media’s immediate email coverage relied solely on speculation, but it sounded as if the damage and implications were definitive: So much was made of so little. 

    Contrast the Clinton email reaction with that to the litany of stories that were published on October 31 about Trump: that Trump allegedly has a secret server that communicates with a shady Russian bank; that the Russian government has allegedly “for years tried to co-opt and assist Trump”; that the FBI is reportedly “conducting a preliminary inquiry” into the “foreign business connections” of Trump’s former campaign manager Paul Manafort; and that Comey was reluctant “to name Russia as meddling in the U.S. election” because “it was too close to Election Day.” The double standard becomes pretty clear.

    CNN’s Erin Burnett, referring to the CNBC and Huffington Post stories about Comey’s objection to naming Russia as an “election meddler,” said that “CNN has not been able to corroborate” the reporting. Likewise, CNN’s Alisyn Camerota asserted that “reports about [the Trump] campaign’s links to Russia” were “uncorroborated.” On MSNBC, Bloomberg’s Megan Murphy called the series of Trump stories “Russian conspiracy theories,” and MSNBC host Craig Melvin calmly asked about the “new information” regarding “possible Russian business ties in the Trump campaign” (emphasis added).

    The media’s treatment of the Trump stories with a cautious eye is not unwelcomed -- in fact, it embodies the best possible way to report on new developments with limited information and uncorroborated claims. As it turns out, the veracity of some of the allegations about Trump’s Russian ties seemingly came into question hours after the initial reports, with The New York Times reporting that no FBI “investigations so far have found any conclusive or direct link between Mr. Trump and the Russian government.” The media’s measured approach to the initial spate of stories was thus a proper safeguard for reporting on stories that may or may not be true.

    But the overhyped media freakout, the rush to judgment, the presumption of guilt, and the reliance on GOP spin after the FBI letter was publicized couldn’t have been further from the media’s approach to the Trump stories, and the disparity falls in line with what James Carville calls the “Clinton Rule”: “There shall be one standard for covering everyone else in public life, and another standard for the Clintons.”

    Media figures qualified the Trump-Russia stories by noting that they were unproven allegations with little supporting information, yet they didn’t give that same benefit to the FBI email story (for which, to be sure, there is even less information). The cautious reporting isn’t the problem; the double standard is. 

  • Fox Only Cable News Network That Ignored Trump Supporters’ Racist Attacks On Hispanic Journalist

    Blog ››› ››› DINA RADTKE

    Fox News was the only cable news network not to cover a revealing story by senior political writer Henry Gomez of Cleveland.com about the influx of racist “vitriol” he has received from his readers, most of which he said “parrot[ed] a lot of Donald Trump’s greatest hits,” referring to the Republican presidential nominee’s inflammatory rhetoric against Latinos.

    Gomez’s September 12 piece outlined the “racist, hateful messages” that Trump supporters have been sending him for months, telling him, as he noted in an interview, to “go back” to Mexico -- even though he was born in Youngstown, OH -- and claiming that he has a conflict of interest as a journalist because of his Mexican heritage.

    Both CNN and MSNBC gave Gomez airtime to discuss his perspective as a Latino journalist covering Trump, yet Fox News ignored the story.

    From the September 13 edition of CNN Newsroom with Brooke Baldwin:

    While Latino journalists continue to stress the point that Trump’s rhetoric has put Latinos across the country at risk of vicious attacks and even violence, right-wing media consistently go to Trump’s defense and downplay the damaging impact his racist fearmongering has had on the Latino community.

    Methodology: Media Matters searched SnapStream for interviews with Henry Gomez between September 12, 2016, when the story was first reported, and September 13, 2016, on CNN, Fox News, and MSNBC using the terms: “henry gomez” or “cleveland.com.”

  • Fox Defends Trump’s “Extreme Vetting” Proposal As Other Journalists Criticize It

    ››› ››› CAT DUFFY

    Fox News figures are praising Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump’s proposal to have “extreme vetting” of immigrants wanting to come into the United States and using questionnaires to vet their beliefs, saying “we’ve done it before,” that it “made sense,” and that it was part of a “a solution-based program.” Meanwhile, other journalists and media outlets are saying the idea “just beggars belief” and is an “impractical” attempt “to recast his Muslim ban in other, less obviously offensive terms.”