Media are criticizing Washington Post associate editor Bob Woodward and MSNBC host Joe Scarborough's "thinly veiled" attacks on Hillary Clinton's voice as "a redux of sexist coverage" of women in politics.
Fox News co-hosts Eric Bolling and Kimberly Guilfoyle questioned whether hate crimes against Muslims in the U.S. actually exist, despite numerous reports showing that attacks on Muslims in America have been on the rise for years.
During the February 4 edition of Fox News' The Five, co-hosts Juan Williams, Eric Bolling, and Kimberly Guildoyle discussed President Barack Obama's recent speech at a U.S. mosque. Co-host Juan Williams pointed out that Obama's visit to the mosque comes as hate crimes against Muslims in America have increased, to which Bolling asked whether there were many hate crimes against Muslims "because I haven't heard of any." Guilfoyle echoed Bolling, demanding Williams produce evidence:
KIMBERLY GUILFOYLE (CO-HOST): Yes, I think that Christians are being driven out of the Middle East in droves, being raped and tortured, murdered. Religious Christian sites and churches not being allowed to be rebuilt. What is the president doing to stand for them? Instead every time he gives one of these speeches we hear a little excerpt from the book of Obama of how Christians should be living their life and that Muslims is a religion of peace. Show me the evidence.
JUAN WILLIAMS (CO-HOST): The challenge at the moment has to do with the spike in attacks, hate crimes against Muslims in the United States. And don't forget you've had Donald Trump say we should ban --
ERIC BOLLING (CO-HOST): Are there a lot of a hate crimes against Muslims in the United States, because I haven't heard of any?
GUILFOYLE: Where are the numbers for that?
The Washington Post reported on February 3, that, "Hate crimes against Muslims are five times more common today than they were before 9/11. And they've been edging steadily upward over the past few years." A previous report on December 4, 2015, also found that "American Muslims ... feel growing anti-Muslim sentiment after the recent Islamic State attacks in Paris and this week's San Bernardino shootings."
The Southern Poverty Law Center noted that the FBI's hate crime statistics found that "reported hate crimes [are] down nationally, except for Muslims," adding that hate crimes against Muslim Americans "rose about 14 percent over the prior year." The Huffington Post recently launched a project to track anti-Islamic acts in the U.S., declaring that "Islamophobia is real. And it's not going anywhere":
After last year's terror attacks in Paris and mass shooting in San Bernardino, California -- and amidst a surge in anti-Muslim rhetoric from U.S. politicians -- reports about Muslims in America facing violence, harassment, intimidation and bigotry have become omnipresent. Many Muslims say Islamophobia is worse now than it's ever been -- even worse than it was after 9/11.
A comprehensive list of discriminatory acts against American Muslims might be impossible, but The Huffington Post will document this deplorable wave of hate for all of 2016 using news reports and firsthand accounts. The breadth and severity of Islamophobia in America can no longer go unnoticed. Enough is enough.
Fox News is putting its thumb on the scales in the wake of the Iowa Republican caucuses, promoting Sen. Marco Rubio's third place finish as "better than expected" and the "surprise of the evening," despite recent Iowa polls consistently showing Rubio in third place.
Media outlets fell for Republican presidential candidate Marco Rubio's Iowa caucus strategy by calling the presidential hopeful "the unofficial winner" in Iowa and declaring his third place finish a victory for his campaign.
El Huffington Post desmanteló el alegato sin fundamentos del candidato presidencial Republicano Marco Rubio de que hay más inmigrantes indocumentados en los Estados Unidos ahora que hace cinco años.
Durante su participación del 31 de enero en el programa de NBC Meet The Press, Rubio le dijo al presentador Chuck Todd que "estamos peor ahora de lo que estábamos hace cinco años. Tenemos más inmigrantes ilegales acá". Como la reportera del Huffington Post Elise Foley señaló en un artículo del 1 de febrero, Chuck Todd no presionó al candidato sobre la validez de sus estadísticas. A pesar de la evidencia de que la población indocumentada ha venido decreciendo desde 2008, los candidatos Republicanos han tomado posturas anti-inmigración y han usado retórica alarmista en contra de los inmigrantes que hace eco de las voces más extremas de los medios conservadores.
Foley citó estadísticas del Pew Research Center para indicar que la "población indocumentada se ha mantenido esencialmente estable por cinco años", en contradicción directa de los argumentos de Rubio. También señaló un reporte del Center for Migration Studies que demuestra que en 2014 la población indocumentada alcanzó su punto más bajo desde 2003, y que ha continuado disminuyendo desde entonces. Citando estadísticas similares, Politifact también calificó la declaración de Rubio como falsa. Como reportó Foley, Rubio ha estado usando los mismos estimados para referirse a la población indocumentada -- 11 o 12 millones -- durante los últimos tres años. Traducido del Huffington Post (énfasis agregado):
El candidato presidencial Republicano y senador de la Florida Marco Rubio se presenta como el candidato más informado y realista en lo que a reforma migratoria se refiere. Pasó meses ayudando a redactar una ley de reforma migratoria en 2013 y ha dedicado aún más tiempo a defenderla.
Así que pareciera que debería estar especialmente consciente de la cantidad de inmigrantes indocumentados en los Estados Unidos -- y del hecho de que el número se ha mantenido estable o incluso ha decrecido en años recientes.
Rubio dijo lo opuesto el domingo en el programa de NBC "Meet the Press."
"Estamos peor ahora de lo que estábamos hace cinco años", le dijo al presentador Chuck Todd. "Tenemos más inmigrantes ilegales acá".
A Rubio no lo presionaron para que explicara de dónde sacó esa información. El HuffPost contactó a dos portavoces de Rubio el domingo y nuevamente el lunes para ver si el senador tenía alguna fuente para su declaración de que el número de inmigrantes en los Estados Unidos ha aumentado en años recientes, pero ninguno respondió.
Lo que dijo no cuadra con los estudios más confiables. El Pew Research Center, un tanque de pensamiento apartidista, estimó el año pasado que había 11.3 millones de inmigrantes indocumentados viviendo en los Estados Unidos en 2014, y que la "población se ha mantenido esencialmente estable por cinco años". El número alcanzó su pico en 2007 con 12.2 millones de inmigrantes indocumentados, de acuerdo a lo estimado por Pew.
El Center for Migration Studies, otro tanque de pensamiento, publicó este mes un reporte basado en datos del Censo estimando que había 10.9 millones de inmigrantes indocumentados para 2014 -- el nivel más bajo que esta población ha alcanzado desde 2003. El número ha continuado disminuyendo desde 2008, de acuerdo al Center for Migration Studies.
Rubio ha estado diciendo por años que hay entre 11 y 12 millones de inmigrantes indocumentados en los Estados Unidos -- usó esa figura en 2013, el año en que el Senado pasó su reforma migratoria comprensiva, y lo ha seguido citando durante su campaña actual.
Otros Republicanos también han dicho que la población indocumentada es más grande de lo que en realidad es, de manera un poco más específica. El líder de las encuestas Donald Trump dijo el año pasado que había más de 30 millones de personas viviendo en los Estados Unidos sin autorización -- un alegato para el que Politifact no encontró fundamentos, fuera de las declaraciones de la columnista conservadora Ann Coulter.
The Huffington Post debunked Republican presidential candidate Marco Rubio's unsubstantiated claim that there are more undocumented immigrants in the U.S. now than there were five years ago.
During a January 31 appearance on NBC's Meet The Press, Rubio told host Chuck Todd that "we are worse off today than we were five years ago. We have more illegal immigrants here." As Huffington Post reporter Elise Foley pointed out on a February 1 article, Chuck Todd didn't press the candidate on the validity of his stats. Despite evidence that the undocumented immigrant population has been declining since 2008, Republican candidates have increasingly taken anti-immigrant stances and spouted alarmist anti-immigrant rhetoric that echoes the most extreme voices on right-wing media.
Foley cited data from Pew Research Center to indicate that the undocumented "population has remained essentially stable for five years," directly contradicting Rubio's claim. She also pointed to a report from the Center for Migration Studies that demonstrates that in 2014, the undocumented population reached its lowest point since 2003 and that it has continued to decline since. Citing some of the same data, Politifact also rated Rubio's claim as false. As reported by Foley, Rubio has been using the same undocumented population estimates -- 11 million to 12 million -- for the past three years (emphasis added):
Republican presidential hopeful and Florida Sen. Marco Rubio paints himself as the most informed and realistic candidate when it comes to immigration reform. He spent months helping draft a comprehensive immigration reform bill in 2013, and has spent even longer defending it.
So it seems like he should be especially aware of how many undocumented immigrants are in the U.S. -- and the fact that the number has leveled off or even decreased in recent years.
Rubio said the opposite Sunday on NBC's "Meet the Press."
"We are worse off today than we were five years ago," he told host Chuck Todd. "We have more illegal immigrants here."
Rubio wasn't pressed on where he got that information. HuffPost contacted two spokesmen for Rubio on Sunday and again Monday to see if the senator had a source for his claim that the number of undocumented immigrants in the U.S. has risen in recent years, but neither of them replied.
What he said doesn't square with most reputable studies. Pew Research Center, a nonpartisan think tank, estimated last year that there were 11.3 million undocumented immigrants living in the U.S. in 2014, and that the "population has remained essentially stable for five years." The number peaked in 2007 with 12.2 million undocumented immigrants, according to Pew estimates.
Center for Migration Studies, another think tank, released a report based on Census figures this month estimating there were 10.9 million undocumented immigrants in the U.S. as of 2014 -- the smallest the population has been since 2003. The number has been on the decline since 2008, according to the Center for Migration Studies.
Rubio has been saying for years that there are 11 million to 12 million undocumented immigrants in the U.S. -- he used that figure in 2013, the year the Senate passed its comprehensive reform bill, and has cited it during the current campaign.
Other Republicans have also said the undocumented population is larger than it is, although with more specifics. Front-runner Donald Trump said last year that there were more than 30 million people living in the U.S. without authorization -- a claim for which Politifact found no basis, other than statements from conservative columnist Ann Coulter.
In a new study, the Texas Policy Evaluation Project (TxPEP) interviewed a number of women whose access to abortion care was severely impeded as a result of Texas' anti-choice law, HB 2. In spite of mounting evidence that lack of access to safe and legal abortion has dire consequences, conservative media have insisted that Texas' legislative restrictions are desirable and do not create an undue burden on women seeking care.
As explained by RH Reality Check Reporting Fellow Teddy Wilson, this latest study confirms the "disastrous effects that Texas' omnibus abortion law has had on women and families" through clinic closures and restricted access to services. By interviewing 23 women "who either had their abortion appointments cancelled when clinics closed or who sought care at closed clinics" following the passage of HB 2, TxPEP found that women's health care "was delayed, and in some cases [women were] prevented altogether" from obtaining an abortion, according to a news release about the study. Investigators noted that the subjects not only "reported a lack of information and confusion" in the wake of clinic closures, but also that once they had located an affordable provider, many "faced substantial added travel and hotel costs when seeking abortion services."
Despite stories like these, conservative media have waged a continued campaign of misinformation about the law, insisting that its restrictions are medically necessary and pose no substantial burden on women's access to care. When the HB 2 law was first passed in 2013, Fox News contributors Monica Crowley and Kirsten Powers denied the impact it would have on Texas women. Powers claimed that reproductive rights groups were exaggerating the impact the law would have on women's access to care, claiming: "I don't think that many clinics are going to close." Crowley agreed, adding that reproductive rights advocates always "try to go right to hyperbole -- that women are going to have to flee to Tijuana because they're not going to have access in Texas to abortion. It's all ridiculous."
TxPEP previously analyzed HB 2's effect on wait times at clinics and found that they appeared to increase in Dallas and Fort Worth, with waits so long that the existing clinics seemed unable to meet the total demand for services. An additional TxPEP study previously found that between 100,000 and 240,000 Texas women between the ages of 18 and 49 have attempted to self-induce an abortion, demonstrating how increased barriers to accessing abortion in Texas might put women at risk.
Dr. Daniel Grossman, a co-author in both TxPEP findings on HB 2's effects on patients, explained that the new study "demonstrates that the sudden closure of clinics created significant obstacles to obtain care, forcing some women to obtain abortion later than they wanted, which increases the risks and cost." He noted that those challenges caused some women "to continue with an unwanted pregnancy." Grossman added that if HB 2 remained in effect, the undue burden on women would grow, as "wait times to get an appointment will likely increase in most cities across the state, as they recently have in Dallas and Ft. Worth, because the 10 remaining facilities will not be able to meet the demand for services statewide."
RH Reality Check's Wilson summarized one of the many interviews in the study as an example of this experience:
Dr. Valerie Peterson, a single mother in her 30s residing in Austin, said that HB 2 had a direct impact on her when she needed to terminate a pregnancy. Doctors detected a possible fetal abnormality during the first 12 weeks of her pregnancy.
When Peterson was 16 weeks into her pregnancy, the fetus was diagnosed with holoprosencephaly (HPE), a brain development disorder. She said that the severity of the disorder left her with two options: carry the doomed pregnancy to term or terminate the pregnancy.
Peterson's doctor referred her to an abortion provider in Austin, but because of the demand she was unable to secure an appointment for three weeks. "Every day I had to remain pregnant was emotionally painful," Peterson said.
Even after she was able to secure an earlier appointment with another provider, the procedure would take four days to complete due to Texas law. It was then that she made the decision to seek the care she needed at a provider in Florida, despite the additional cost.
"I was ultimately able to access abortion in a timely manner," Peterson said. "However, HB 2 leaves many women without hope and without options." She said that she hopes the Supreme Court overturns the law, which she called "downright cruel."
As TxPEP's work shows, the predicted consequences of HB 2 were far from "ridiculous," as Fox News claimed. In particular, the impact of the law on lower-income women and women of color is disproportionate. Huffington Post senior legal reporter Laura Bassett warned that HB 2 would "end abortion access for low-income women in rural areas of the state, who are already having a hard time finding providers." These fears were confirmed in the interviews conducted by TxPEP, as many of the women emphasized "the challenges they faced" in trying to locate care, including poverty.
The Supreme Court will hear the case challenging Texas' HB 2, Whole Woman's Health v. Hellerstedt, on March 2. NARAL explained in an editorial by President Ilyse Hogue and accompanying video that the stakes for women could not be higher:
This spring, the Supreme Court will be hearing a case that gets to the heart of what it means to have access to our rights. A positive outcome of Whole Woman's Health v. Hellerstedt will send the message that our reproductive rights can not be eroded. The court can stand up and say that state laws should not be used to keep women from accessing their right to reproductive care including abortion.
Conversely, the court could give a stamp of approval to the political efforts to dismantle reproductive rights until it is a right only in theory--inaccessible to millions of American women who live in certain zip codes or have lower incomes.
As the president of Whole Woman's Health commented to The Austin Chronicle: "This is the real world and these laws have real implications on real women's lives."
Watch NARAL's Roe v. Wade anniversary video:
A newly released study conducted by the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) found that more than one in four undergraduate women have experienced sexual assault, further debunking right-wing media's repeated assertions doubting the the frequency and severity of sexual violence on college campuses.
The January 20 BJS report found that on average "21 percent of female undergraduates at the unnamed colleges and universities told researchers they had been sexually assaulted since starting their higher education," while "[o]ne in four female seniors reported being sexually assaulted in their undergraduate years." Huffington Post senior editor Tyler Kingkade wrote that the results of this latest study are "similar to the results of earlier research" and confirmed an earlier "survey of 300,000 collegiate women in 2007 that concluded 5 percent were raped annually, and 13 percent were raped before college or by the time they graduated."
Kingkade wrote that researchers believe the study to be "a major advance in the research about sexual assault on campus" and quoted John Foubert, a researcher at Oklahoma State University, who said that "the study is well done" and researchers "have many excellent reasons to trust the results."
This latest study once again rebuts conservative media's campaign of misrepresenting and outright rejecting studies demonstrating the frequency of campus sexual assault, casting previous, similar findings as "ridiculous" or "bizarre and wholly false." In December 2015, Fox News host Martha MacCallum criticized the earlier statistic that one in five women are sexually assaulted while in college, claiming that "other studies contradict that finding," and that "[n]o one really knows for sure." National Review's Rich Lowry previously alleged that studies documenting the severity of campus sexual assault are "bogus" because the measure "is based on a survey that includes attempted forced kissing as sexual assault."
Among female sexual assault victims, only 12.5 percent of rapes and 4.3 percent of sexual battery incidents were reported to any official, defined as a university administrator, law enforcement or crisis centers.
A majority of women who experienced sexual assault reported only one incident happening to them, while about one-third said they experienced two incidents.
An average of 21 percent of female undergrads had experienced sexual assault since entering college, and 34 percent had experienced it in their lifetime.
An average of 7 percent of men said they had been sexually assaulted since starting college, and 11.2 percent experienced it in their lifetime.
- Those who identified as LGBT or non-heterosexual reported sexual assault at higher rates than their heterosexual classmates.
After President Obama announced executive actions to curb gun violence, Fox Host Bill O'Reilly claimed that "there is not a gun crime epidemic" and downplayed the fact that "more than 8,000 people were victims of firearm murders in 2014." However, public health and medical experts roundly disagree, noting that "gun violence is a public health issue that has reached epidemic proportions."
Media should highlight the importance that gun violence prevention measures have on Latinos when reporting on President Obama's executive actions designed to address the issue. The issue of gun violence particularly impacts Latinos -- who widely support gun violence prevention measures -- since Latinos are disproportionately affected by fatal shootings despite being less likely to own guns themselves.
Leading up to the 2016 elections, media should be careful not to perpetuate the same myths about Latino voters that many pushed in 2015, including portraying Latinos as a monolithic voter bloc exclusively interested in immigration or superficially attracted to Hispanic or bilingual candidates regardless of their policies, and suggesting this growing demographic will be a "non-factor" in 2016.
Media outlets called out both Republican presidential candidates and CNN for "resort[ing] to scare tactics" during the December 15 presidential debate, lamenting the fact that "fear and terror stole the Republican debate stage."
Republican presidential frontrunner Donald Trump cited a misleading poll from Washington Times columnist Frank Gaffney's Center for Security Policy to justify a call he issued "for a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States." Gaffney has been described as "one of America's most notorious Islamophobes" and experts dismiss the poll's methodology as questionable.
Media outlets condemned Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump for "catering to the worst sort of racism" by retweeting "racist and wildly inaccurate" statistics about murder and race in the United States from an organization that "does not exist."
At least 30 state governors -- 29 Republican, 1 Democratic -- are parroting right-wing media myths about security concerns presented by incoming Syrian refugees to argue against taking part in expanded refugee resettlement programs. However, the overwhelming majority of refugees pose no credible threat to the United States, and the vetting process for refugee applicants is thorough. Furthermore, state governments lack the legal authority to dictate immigration policy in the United States.