Huffington Post

Tags ››› Huffington Post
  • Media Highlight The “Misleading” Evidence Used During Congressional Panel’s Attack On Planned Parenthood

    Second Select Panel Hearing Was Just Like “A Bad House Of Cards Plotline”

    ››› ››› SHARON KANN

    Following the Congressional Select Investigative Panel on Infant Lives’ second hearing, multiple media outlets heavily criticized the Republican members’ continued lack of objectivity. The select panel was established by Republicans in October 2015 based on discredited allegations against Planned Parenthood from the anti-choice Center for Medical Progress (CMP). Despite claiming to be “impartial,” Republican members during both hearings have relied on CMP’s deceptive work as evidence.

  • Congressional Hearing On Fetal Tissue Again Relies On Discredited Anti-Choice Propaganda As Evidence

    How The Select Investigative Panel Recycled More Of CMP’s Deceptive Work To Attack Planned Parenthood

    ››› ››› SHARON KANN

    On April 20, Congress’ Select Investigative Panel on Infant Lives held its second hearing: “The Pricing of Fetal Tissue.” Republicans in Congress established the panel following baseless allegations from the discredited anti-choice group Center for Medical Progress (CMP) against Planned Parenthood. During the second hearing, the panel again relied on evidence taken directly from CMP’s videos and website to attack abortion providers and fetal tissue research.

  • Conservatives Were Stunningly Wrong About Obamacare, New Report Finds

    ››› ››› JULIE ALDERMAN

    A New York Times analysis found “historic increases” in those covered by the Affordable Care Act, destroying right-wing media predictions about health care reform including that it would “topple the stock market” and enslave Americans. The Times analysis is just one of many pieces of research that have highlighted the successes of the Affordable Care Act.

  • David Daleiden Is Not A Journalist

    Media Outlets Debunk CMP’s Fraudulent Claim That Its Work Is “Investigative Journalism”

    ››› ››› SHARON KANN

    Despite the indictment by a grand jury and numerous lawsuits over Center for Medical Progress (CMP) founder David Daleiden’s attempts to smear Planned Parenthood, right-wing media have claimed that CMP’s deceptively edited videos are “investigative journalism.” Other media outlets have rejected this claim, confirming that CMP’s videos are misleading, fraudulent, and, above all, not journalism.

  • CNN President Jeff Zucker Defends Network's "Heavy Focus" On Trump And Hiring Of Trump Boosters

    Blog ››› ››› MEDIA MATTERS STAFF

    The Huffington Post's senior media reporter Michael Calderone reported that "CNN president Jeff Zucker ... defend[ed] his network's heavy focus on Republican front-runner Donald Trump," and that he dismissed criticism of overcoverage of Trump as "too much handwringing."

    In March 2016 alone, Trump has received nearly three hours of interviews on CNN, not including coverage of his live events, or the commentary of his campaign surrogates Jeffrey Lord and Kayleigh McEnany, who are employed by CNN and appear frequently to push Trump's talking points and defend his racist statements. Even as journalists have called for the end of the media's practice of allowing Trump to call in to shows, CNN's Wolf Blitzer granted Trump an 11-minute phone interview where he advocated for torture following the Brussels attacks. More recently, when news broke of Trump's campaign manager Corey Lewandowski being charged with battery, CNN interviewed both McEnany and Trump supporter Scottie Nell Hughes, with McEnany calling Lewandowski's charge "a side story." This was soon after Trump complained that CNN's coverage was "one-sided and unfair."

    In the March 30 article, Calderone reported that CNN president Jeff Zucker is standing by his network's "heavy focus" on Trump and that Zucker cited the March 29 Republican forum as "the most-watched ever for that format." Calderone noted that Trump "has been a ratings bonanza for cable news networks like CNN" even while they "have faced questions about the excessive amount of airtime given to Trump." Calderone also noted that CNN has faced scrutiny for hiring Jeffrey Lord and Kayleigh McEnany, "whose on-air roles seems to be primarily Trump boosters and defenders," and that Zucker defended Lord's role at CNN:

    CNN president Jeff Zucker on Wednesday defended his network's heavy focus on Republican front-runner Donald Trump the day before, particularly its coverage of the arrest of Trump's campaign manager, according to network sources.

    Zucker kicked off Wednesday's employee town hall by saying that the previous night's televised Republican forum, which featured Trump, Sen. Ted Cruz (Texas) and Ohio Gov. John Kasich, was the most-watched ever for that format.

    CNN averaged 3.26 million viewers during the three-hour event, with viewership jumping to more than 4 million during the second hour, which focused on Trump. The real estate mogul has been a ratings bonanza for cable news networks like CNN, which is up 165 percent in prime time from a year ago. At the same time, CNN and its network rivals have faced questions about the excessive amount of airtime given to Trump, who has benefited from having his rallies broadcast live and being able to routinely call in to news shows rather than appearing in person.

    During Wednesday's town hall, an employee asked why CNN seemed to devote "80 to 90 percent" of its airtime Tuesday to Trump, and to the news of the battery charge against his campaign manager, Corey Lewandowski. The employee pointed out that there were other significant news stories Tuesday, such as a Supreme Court decision on public-sector unions and President Barack Obama's pledge of new initiatives to fight opioid abuse.

    "We actually covered every one of these stories on CNN, but they weren't all necessarily on television," Zucker said, according to sources who were not authorized to discuss the internal meeting.


    Speaking at Wednesday's town hall, Zucker said there has been "too much handwringing" over the media's coverage of Trump, according to sources.

    CNN has also come under scrutiny for hiring two political commentators, Jeffrey Lord and Kayleigh McEnany, whose on-air roles seem to be primarily as Trump boosters and defenders.


    On Wednesday, Zucker said he's "really comfortable" with Lord's role at the network. The network chief touted CNN's "tremendously diverse roster of analysts," including Lord, as being a big part of the network's success this election cycle.

  • New Media Outlets Explain That Abortion Laws Already Punish Women

    ››› ››› ALEX KAPLAN

    Several writers for online media outlets are pointing out that Republican presidential front-runner Donald Trump's remarks that "there has to be some form of punishment" for women who have abortions just made "more explicit" the philosophy of Republicans who already punish women for obtaining the procedure through various pieces of legislation.

  • It's Time For Reporters To Break Out Of The Trump Rally Press Pens

    Blog ››› ››› ERIC BOEHLERT

    Is the only thing more shocking than Donald Trump's campaign manager being charged with simple battery of a reporter the fact that the crime isn't all that startling, given the bullying campaign's open contempt for reporters?

    Enough is enough.

    With Trump's top aide, Corey Lewandowski, now facing charges, focus has shifted back to the increasingly abusive relationship between the GOP front-runner and the campaign press, and the unprecedented barrage of attacks journalists have faced, including constant insults hurled at them by the candidate himself. (Reporters are "disgusting" "horrible people," Trump regularly announces.)

    Sadly, news organizations have brought some of the degradation on themselves by acquiescing to all kinds of Trump campaign demands, such as the rule that they camp out inside mandatory press pens at events. Basically, the Trump campaign disparages the media, and news organizations do nothing in response -- except shower him with even more coverage. (Talk about a win-win for him.)

    "For ratings and clicks, they've allowed themselves to be penned up like farm animals at his rallies and risked scuffles with the Secret Service for covering the events like actual reporters," wrote Eliana Johnson at National Review.

    In fact, the press pens have become a hallmark of Trump's war on the press.

     "Unlike other presidential campaigns, which generally allow reporters and photographers to move around at events, Trump has a strict policy requiring reporters and cameramen to stay inside a gated area, which the candidate often singles out for ridicule during his speeches," Time reported.  

    And Time should know.

    In February, a Secret Service agent lifted Time photographer Chris Morris up off the ground and choke-slammed him onto a table after Morris momentarily "stepped out of the press pen to photograph a Black Lives Matter protest that interrupted the speech."

    It's long past time for journalists to demand their freedom from Trump press pens. It's like deciding to finally stop taking Trump's phone-in interviews. Escaping from the pens represents a simple way for news organizations to assert their obvious right to cover the Trump campaign on their own terms, rather than being penned in at campaign events and living in fear of having access denied if coverage is deemed to be too critical. 

    Covering the Trump campaign on a daily basis today appears to be a rather miserable media existence. Reporters are threatened by staffers, and the Trump communications team seems to be utterly nonresponsive to media inquires. ("There is no Trump press operation," one reporter told Slate.)

    But it's even worse than that. Just ask CBS News reporter Sopan Deb. In January at a Trump rally in Reno, a Trump supporter demanded to know if Deb was taking pictures on behalf of ISIS. Then, in March, after Trump's raucous would-be rally in Chicago was canceled, Deb was covering mayhem unfolding on the streets when he was "thrown to the ground by Chicago cops, handcuffed, arrested, and detained in jail."

    I give journalists on the Trump beat credit for trying to make the best of a very bad situation. My question is why aren't bosses standing up more forcefully for their staffers on the Trump front line? Why aren't executives saying "enough" to the campaign bullying? And why don't they take collective action and fix the obvious problems with how the Trump campaign is mistreating the press?

    In case you missed it, last year 17 journalists representing scores of news organizations met for two hours in Washington, D.C., because they were so angry with how Hillary Clinton's campaign was limiting access for journalists.

    "The problems discussed were the campaign's failure to provide adequate notice prior to events, the lack of a clear standard for whether fundraisers are open or closed press and the reflexive tendency to opt to speak anonymously," The Huffington Post reported.

    Looking back, the press's Clinton complaints seem minor compared to the disrespect and invective the Trump campaign rains down on the press. But at the time, news organizations banded together and insisted that changes be made. ("The Clinton campaign is far less hostile to reporters than Donald Trump's campaign," The Huffington Post recently noted.)

    So why the relative silence in light of the constant Trump mistreatment of the press? Why did news outlets quickly marshal their forces when Democrat Clinton was the target of criticism, but they apparently do very little when the Republican front-runner is trampling all over the press? Why the obvious double standard for covering Trump and Clinton?

    Note that last November, several news organizations discussed their concerns with the Trump campaign. "Representatives from five networks -- ABC, NBC, CBS, Fox and CNN -- discussed their concerns about the Trump campaign restrictions on a Monday conference call, but did not present the campaign with any specific access requests," according to The Huffington Post.

    But very little came of it. "Facing the risk of losing their credentialed access to Trump's events, the networks capitulated," BuzzFeed reported.

    Indeed, in the wake of that meeting, press pens at Trump rallies have recently become even more restrictive, with longer avenues of exit and entries created to separate journalists even further from rally attendees.

    More recently, BuzzFeed reported, "Two network sources also confirmed the unprecedented control the television networks have surrendered to Trump in a series of private negotiations, allowing him to dictate specific details about placement of cameras at his event, to ensure coverage consists primarily of a single shot of his face."

    So yes, news organizations have had behind-the-scenes negotiations with the Trump campaign. But the result has been to let Trump "dictate specific details about place of cameras at his event."

    Just amazing.

    And note that it's not just the press pens. Here's a list of the news organizations that have had reporters banned from previous Trump events, presumably because the campaign didn't like the news coverage: The Des Moines Register, Fusion, The New York Times, BuzzFeed, Politico, The Huffington Post, National Review, The Daily Beast, and Univision.

    Over and over we've seen this pattern play out: Report something negative about Trump and watch your press credentials get yanked. This kind of bullying, of course, is unprecedented for American presidential campaigns. The tactic goes against every principle of a free press, inhibiting the news media's unique role in our democracy to inform the public, without fear or favor.

    Yet to date, I'm not aware of outlets banding together to make concrete ultimatums in response to the Trump campaign's bullying. Instead of collective action, we get sporadic, nonbinding complaints from editors.

    But what kind of signal does that send, other than capitulation

  • Ten Journalists Who Have Called Out Trump's "Shocking" Phone "Advantage"


    As scrutiny has mounted against cable and network news programs regularly allowing Donald Trump to call in to their broadcasts, rather than appearing in person or by satellite, several journalists have said they will no longer allow him that privilege. Others have called for an end to the "shocking" special treatment across all networks and pointed out the ways the practice gives Trump a strategic "advantage."

  • A Sexual Assault Survivor Explains The Hypocrisy Behind Anti-LGBT "Bathroom Bill" Proponents

    Blog ››› ››› RACHEL PERCELAY

    A sexual assault survivor and long-time advocate for other victims of sexual assault has explained exactly why anti-LGBT "bathroom bills" that cast transgender people as sexual predators do nothing to help victims of sexual assault. In fact, she argues that those opposing LGBT equality with "bathroom bills" are not working to strengthen programs addressing sexual assault, but rather to "exploit" survivors to further their agenda.

    Loree Cook-Daniels is a survivor of sexual assault and a professional advocate for other sexual assault survivors to help them heal through the Milwaukee based organization Forge. In response to North Carolina's unprecedented new anti-LGBT law that bans transgender people from using the bathroom that aligns with their gender identity, Cook-Daniels wrote a piece debunking the anti-LGBT "bathroom predator" myth peddled by the law's supporters. Proponents of the law have parroted the talking point spread by anti-LGBT activists that nondiscrimination protections for transgender people will allow men to pretend to be transgender to sneak into bathrooms and commit sexual assault.

    Although this so-called "bathroom predator" myth has been widely debunked by experts -- including law enforcement officials and victims' rights advocates in localities with similar laws on the books -- the narrative has largely dominated local North Carolina media coverage unchecked. Cook-Daniels adds her voice to the list of experts dismantling the "bathroom predator" myth, further arguing that those pushing for "bathroom bills" are simply "exploiting" victims of sexual assault. She also notes that the organizations backing bathroom bills do not advocate for other initiatives to help survivors of sexual assault (emphasis added):

    They seem like unlikely leaders in the dozen-plus states where proposed legislation would effectively keep transgender people out of public restrooms, but there they are: sexual assault survivors.


    Each survivor shows long-term signs of trauma. ...

    Even more tragically, decades after they were first harmed, these survivors are again being exploited. Those who are promoting their stories, including the Heritage Foundation, are claiming they want to "protect" them. Actually, however, like these women's original abusers, these "helpers" are acting only in their own interests. In this case, their interest is ensuring transgender people are not guaranteed rights to privacy and safety.

    This is far from the first time people have used the specter of sexual assault as a political tool. Politicians have demonized many American minorities over the centuries as rapists and/or child molesters, using those charges to whip up opposition to granting those groups respect, dignity, and rights. Those so targeted have included (but by no means are limited to!) African-Americans, young Japanese men, Jewish Americans, gay men, and, most recently, Mexican immigrants.

    I, too, am a sexual assault survivor. I also work with sexual assault survivors professionally, both helping them heal and training others how to help them, as well. So I am in a position to know who is really helping us make progress, and who is just using us.

    Part of the evidence these survivors are being used comes from the jurisdictions that have already protected transgender individuals' rights to pee and change clothes in peace: all of them report that there has been no increase in sexual assaults in bathrooms or locker rooms (see, for example, " 15 Experts Debunk Right-Wing Transgender Bathroom Myth").

    More importantly, perhaps, is the list of what the Heritage Foundation and other politicians who are using sexual assault survivors are NOT doing:

    • They are not leading the effort to support the growth and funding of programs working on the prevention of sexual assault, such as the Violence Against Women Act. The Heritage Foundation in fact opposed the 2013 reauthorization of the Violence Against Women Act).
    • They are not acknowledging that both men and women can be survivors, and that both men and women can be perpetrators. Instead, they are picking out just the one type of sexual assault that meets their needs and enforcing silence about all the others. How would they protect boys who shower or toilet with men? Is anyone talking about the needs of women and men whose female relative or babysitter molested them?
    • They are not visibly demanding follow-up of the hundreds of thousands of untested rape kits that are gathering dust in evidence rooms nationwide.
    • They are not conducting public education campaigns to tell people the facts of who abusers are and how they behave, so that people can start identifying and addressing actual dangerous situations.
    • They are not proposing legislation to change statutes of limitations so that adults can prosecute the people who molested them as children, or backing other reforms that might change the fact that 98 percent of rapists never serve a day in jail.
    • They are not funding or advertising quality trauma-treatment programs that can help survivors re-integrate into the world without carrying a debilitating fear of half of its inhabitants.


    As a society, we have already chosen: rather than using public policy to "protect" one group from another that they fear is dangerous, we have affirmed civil rights and worked instead to change stereotypes. White people who fear Blacks no longer have a right to a whites-only bathroom or water foundation. An employer can no longer fire a pregnant single mother because one of her co-workers finds her "immoral." A restaurant owner can no longer refuse to serve a Muslim patron because some other diner believes all Muslims are terrorists. It is time we now protect transgender people from those who mistakenly fear they are -- or can be used by -- child molesters and rapists.


    Another Women's Advocacy Group Debunks Anti-LGBT "Bathroom Predator" Myth

    An Expert Explains Why The Right-Wing "Bathroom Predator" Myth Is Wrong And Dangerous

    15 Experts Debunk Right-Wing Transgender Bathroom Myth

  • Media Highlight New Research Confirming HB 2 Imposes An "Undue Burden" On Abortion Access

    ››› ››› SHARON KANN

    In oral arguments for Whole Woman's Health v. Hellerstedt, pro-choice groups called on the Supreme Court to strike down Texas' extreme anti-choice law, HB 2. Right-wing media and conservative lawmakers have long argued the bill's restrictions are aimed at protecting women's health and will not force clinic closures. In response, media in Texas have highlighted new research from the Texas Policy Evaluation Project (TxPEP) confirming HB 2 is dangerous, forces clinic closures, and places an "undue burden" on abortion access.

  • Director Ejecutivo De LULAC Escribe Columna Llamando La Marca De Trump Una "Quebrada Marca De Odio"

    Blog ››› ››› CRISTINA LOPEZ English language version

    Brent Wilkes, director ejecutivo de la League of United Latin American Citizens (LULAC por sus siglas en inglés), denunció la marca del candidato presidencial Republicano Donald Trump por ser un "símbolo con poco valor de fanatismo, odio y exclusión."

    En una columna del 16 de marzo, publicada en HuffPost Latino Voices en inglés y en en español, Wilkes escribió que el eslogan de la campaña de Trump es un "mensaje abierto a sus seguidores" de que revertirá los cambios demográficos del país, excluyendo a "inmigrantes, latinos, negros y asiáticos". Según Wilkes, Trump ha logrado ir "directo al megáfono, hablando con una retórica de odio" que atrae a grupos racistas.

    Algunas figuras en los medios han señalado los efectos dañinos de la retórica de Donald Trump. A pesar de la evidencia de que algunos incidentes violentos han sido inspirados por el discurso de Trump, muchas personalidades de Fox News aún se resisten a "declarar a Trump como racista" y continúan lavándole la cara por la violencia que se genera en sus eventos, a veces incluso culpando a las víctimas.  

    De la columna de Wilkes:

    La marca "Trump", antes sinónimo de lujo ostentoso, ha sido distorsionada por el mismo candidato a un símbolo con poco valor de fanatismo, odio y exclusión. Desde el momento en que Donald Trump anunció su candidatura, condenó la fuerte comunidad latina de 58 millones de personas como violadores, asesinos, narcotraficantes y criminales.Trump tiene como blanco a los grupos étnicos minoritarios como la pieza central de su campaña siendo la única promesa en la cual tiene una agenda detallada.

    Hasta el eslogan de su campaña, "hacer América grande nuevamente" es un mensaje abierto a sus seguidores que de alguna manera logrará revertir los cambios demográficos de nuestra nación. Haciendo América grande nuevamente en la retórica siniestra de Trump significa excluir inmigrantes, latinos, negros y asiáticos, solo nombrando algunos.

    Un ejemplo claro del cambio de la marca de Trump puede ser visto en las escuelas secundarias alrededor del país donde niños están usando el nombre de Trump para burlarse de los grupos raciales minoritarios.


    Enfatizado por la habilidad del candidato Trump de crear puntos de vista racistas como simplemente "políticamente incorrectos", y aún así tener la atención de los medios, algunos estudiantes están utilizando a Trump como símbolo del fanatismo y la exclusión que su marca representa ahora.


    Para un hombre de negocios que valora su marca personal en 3,300 millones de dólares, el afán de Trump para que su nombre sea asociado con odio desafía la norma. Prácticamente, todas las otras compañías en América hacen todo lo posible para proteger sus marcas en vez de destruirlas.

    Aun así, el deseo de Trump de atraer la angustia de los blancos sobre los cambios demográficos de nuestra nación no es único, sino más abierto. Ha ido directo al megáfono, hablando con una retórica de odio y apostando que los blancos racistas votan más de lo que los anteriores candidatos pensaban posible.

    Al jugar con los odios, temores y prejuicios de las personas, Trump está sacando lo peor en los americanos para ganar su voto. Está explotando y empeorando las divisiones raciales en Estados Unidos para poder ganar la nominación del partido Republicano en la candidatura presidencial.

    A pesar de todo, también está transformando su lujosa marca, su llamativa marca, en una marca de odio arrastrando junto a él al partido Republicano durante el proceso.

  • LULAC Director Pens Op-Ed Calling The Trump Brand A "Bankrupt Brand Of Hate"

    Blog ››› ››› CRISTINA LOPEZ Versión en español

    Brent Wilkes, executive director of the League of United Latin American Citizens (LULAC), denounced Republican presidential front-runner Donald Trump's brand as a "symbol of bigotry, hatred and exclusion."

    In a March 16 op-ed, which ran in English on HuffPost Latino Voices and in Spanish on, Wilkes wrote that Trump's campaign slogan "is an overt message to his followers" that he will reverse the country's demographic changes, "excluding immigrants, Latinos, Blacks, Asians and the disabled." According to Wilkes, Trump has "dispensed with the usual dog whistles and gone straight for the bullhorn" when it comes to racially-motivated political rhetoric.

    Media figures have already pointed out the harmful effects of Donald Trump's rhetoric. Despite evidence that some violent incidents have been inspired by Trump's discourse, many Fox News figures still refuse to "brand Trump as racist" and continue to whitewash the violence at his events, often even blaming the victims.

    From Wilkes' op-ed:

    The Trump brand, once synonymous with ostentatious luxury, has been twisted by the candidate himself into a worthless symbol of bigotry, hatred and exclusion. The moment that Donald Trump announced his candidacy, he condemned the entire 58 million-strong Latino community in the United States as rapists, murders, drug dealers and criminals. Trump has targeted ethnic minorities as the centerpiece of his campaign and the only promise for which he has released a detailed agenda.

    Even his campaign slogan "Make America Great Again" is an overt message to his followers that he will somehow turn back the clock on our nation's demographic changes. Making America great in Trump's ominous rhetoric means excluding immigrants, Latinos, Blacks, Asians and the disabled, just to name a few.

    A clear example of the rebranding of Trump can be seen in high schools across the country where kids are using Trump's name and likeness to taunt racial minorities.


    Emboldened by candidate Trump's ability to sell overtly racist views as merely "politically incorrect" and still command relentless media attention, some students are using Trump as a synonym for the bigotry and exclusion that his brand now represents.


    For a businessman who values his personal brand at $3.3 billion -- more than a third of his total worth -- Trump's eagerness to associate his name with hate speech defies the norm. Virtually all other businesses in America do everything possible to protect their brands rather than to destroy them.

    Yet Trump's naked appeal to white angst about our nation's changing demographics is not unique, just the most overt. He has dispensed with the usual dog whistles and gone straight for the bullhorn, spewing hateful rhetoric and betting that racialized whites are a bigger block of voters than many previous candidates thought possible.

    By playing on people's hatred, fear and prejudice, Trump is bringing out the worst in Americans in order to win their vote. He is exploiting and aggravating racial divisions in the United States in a gambit to win the Republican Party's nomination for president.

    Yet he is also transforming his namesake luxury brand, gaudy as it was, into the brand of hate and dragging down the Republican brand along with him in the process.

  • Huffington Post: Media Has Not Asked Trump About Disturbing Allegations Against His Campaign Manager

    Blog ››› ››› MEDIA MATTERS STAFF

    A Huffington Post report found that in over a dozen TV interviews with Republican presidential front-runner Donald Trump, not a single network has asked him about the alleged assault of Breitbart News reporter Michelle Fields by Trump's campaign manager Corey Lewandowski.

    Fields filed a police report against Lewandowski Friday after she was allegedly forcefully grabbed by Lewandowski at a Trump rally while asking a question. Breitbart News' weak response to the incident led to Field and others resigning from the outlet. On the March 14 edition of Fox News' The Kelly File, Fields claimed that her former editor told her the incident would be "great" because it would lead to "more access to Donald Trump."

    Donald Trump's campaign has a history of problems with the press, including a Time magazine photographer being choked by a Secret Service agent. Lewandowski himself has been previously accused of making "sexually suggestive and at times vulgar comments to -- and about -- female journalists." Media Matters previously found that the March 13 Sunday political talk shows on NBC, CNN, Fox, and CBS failed to ask Trump about the incident.

    The Huffington Post's Michael Calderone wrote in a March 17 article that "Fields' charge hasn't come up once" in "more than a dozen TV interviews [with Trump] amounting to over two and a half hours of airtime." Calderone noted that "Trump notably brought Lewandowski up on stage during his Tuesday night victory speech in Florida, praising him while he berated the reporters in attendance as 'disgusting' and 'horrible people'":

    Since former Breitbart News reporter Michelle Fields filed a police report Friday alleging that Donald Trump campaign manager Corey Lewandowski assaulted her after a press conference, the GOP front-runner has done more than a dozen TV interviews amounting to over two and a half hours of airtime.

    And in all that time, Fields' charge hasn't come up once.

    Neither have more recent allegations against Lewandowski. Politico reported Tuesday that the top Trump aide has treated reporters roughly and made "sexually suggestive and at times vulgar comments" to and about female journalists covering the campaign. Lewandowski denied the claims.

    As Lewandowski's behavior has gone unquestioned in Trump's recent interviews on ABC, CBS, NBC, FOX, Fox News, MSNBC and CNN, the business mogul has only helped thrust his campaign manager further into the national spotlight.

    Trump notably brought Lewandowski up on stage during his Tuesday night victory speech in Florida, praising him while he berated the reporters in attendance as "disgusting" and "horrible people." Lewandowski enjoyed the media-bashing while Trump refused to take reporters' questions, even though the gathering was purportedly a "press conference." One of the Politico reporters behind Tuesday's story was barred from the event, the latest in a pattern of retribution against news outlets that are critical of Trump.

    Television journalists have subjected Trump to tough questions over the past week about encouraging violence at his events, with Friday night's cable news takeover understandably focused on the candidate's decision to cancel a Chicago rally. Some have also pressed Trump on the $40 million fraud lawsuit involving Trump University, his employment of foreign workers, his lack of a foreign policy team, and his past misogynistic remarks, resurrected in a new ad from an anti-Trump super PAC. They've also, of course, asked about Trump's recent victories and the state of the primary race.

    Still, the lack of questions about the police report Fields filed against Lewandowski has been maddening to Trump's critics, who see it as a serious issue that's going completely unaddressed. Several journalists have pointed out when TV interviewers fail to bring it up, despite the incident's relevance to other questions about violence at Trump's campaign events and his treatment of women.