The Wall Street Journal

Tags ››› The Wall Street Journal
  • New Research Debunks Right-Wing Media Myths About Effects Of Paid Leave

    Research Suggests Paid Sick Leave Improves Public Health

    ››› ››› ALEX MORASH

    Several media outlets highlighted new research that found workers that had access to paid sick leave are less likely to come to work when contagious -- thus slowing the spread of diseases and improving overall public health. While this may seem like an obvious conclusion, right-wing media have criticized paid sick time and other forms of earned leave as unnecessary “giveaways” for low-wage workers.

  • WSJ Pushes Flawed Talking Point That Teachers Unions Hurt Students Of Color

    ››› ››› PAM VOGEL

    The Wall Street Journal editorial board’s response to a California court decision that declined to review a challenge to state teacher tenure laws framed support for educators’ labor rights as a move to “deny upward mobility to poor black and Hispanic children.” The editorial ignores ample evidence that strong unions benefit low-income students of color and their neighborhood schools by boosting teacher quality and contributing to more equitable school funding, and that teachers unions routinely support efforts to combat racial and class inequality beyond the classroom. 

  • Media Continue To Fall For Clinton Foundation Pseudo-Scandals Promoted By Judicial Watch

    Blog ››› ››› TYLER CHERRY

    Media are once again rushing to scandalize newly released State Department emails pushed by the conservative group Judicial Watch that allegedly show a conflict of interest created by “Clinton Foundation donors receiving special access” to then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. But the emails actually show the heir to a head of state arranged a meeting with Clinton through “official channels,” as he had with Clinton’s previous Republican predecessors.

    Judicial Watch’s press release framed the emails as showing “Hillary Clinton State Department Gave Special Access to Top Clinton Foundation Donors,” and focused on exchanges between Bill Clinton aide Doug Band and Hillary Clinton aide Huma Abedin regarding a meeting Crown Prince Salman of Bahrain requested with Clinton. Judicial Watch suggested that the crown prince’s relationship with the Clinton Foundation was crucial to him meeting with Clinton:

    Included among the Abedin-Band emails is an exchange revealing that when Crown Prince Salman of Bahrain requested a meeting with Secretary of State Clinton, he was forced to go through the Clinton Foundation for an appointment. Abedin advised Band that when she went through “normal channels” at State, Clinton declined to meet. After Band intervened, however, the meeting was set up within forty-eight hours. According to the Clinton Foundation website, in 2005, Salman committed to establishing the Crown Prince’s International Scholarship Program (CPISP) for the Clinton Global Initiative. And by 2010, it had contributed $32 million to CGI. The Kingdom of Bahrain reportedly gave between $50,000 and $100,000 to the Clinton Foundation. And Bahrain Petroleum also gave an additional $25,000 to $50,000.

    From: Doug Band

    To: Huma Abedin

    Sent: Tue Jun 23 1:29:42 2009

    Subject:

    Cp of Bahrain in tomorrow to Friday

    Asking to see her

    Good friend of ours

    From: Huma Abedin

    To: Doug Band

    Sent: Tue Jun 23 4:12:46 2009

    Subject: Re:

    He asked to see hrc thurs and fri thru normal channels. I asked and she said she doesn’t want to commit to anything for thurs or fri until she knows how she will feel. Also she says that she may want to go to ny and doesn’t want to be committed to stuff in ny…

    From: Huma Abedin [Huma@clintonemail.com]

    Sent: Thursday, June 25, 2009 10:35:15 AM

    To: Doug Band

    Subject:

    Offering Bahrain cp 10 tomorrow for meeting woith [sic] hrc

    If u see him, let him know

    We have reached out thru official channels

    But the emails show that the meeting was proposed and arranged through “normal” and “official channels,” not through “special access” as Judicial Watch characterized it. Crown Prince Salman of Bahrain “asked to see [Clinton] thurs and fri thru normal channels,” according to the emails, and Clinton didn’t “want to commit to anything” until she confirmed her schedule and how she was feeling. Later that week, Abedin confirmed that Clinton and her staff “reached out [to Crown Prince Salman of Bahrain] thru official channels” to set up the meeting.

    According to a write-up from Agence France-Presse, obtained via Nexis search, the meeting was about the “tense post-election climate in Iran and the Middle East peace process” -- exactly the sorts of topics one would expect the secretary of state to discuss with a Middle Eastern leader.

    Given that past secretaries of state and US presidents have met with Crown Prince Salman -- including Condoleezza Rice, Colin Powell, and President George W. Bush -- it’s not unusual that the crown prince sought a meeting with Clinton during her tenure as secretary of state, and there is no evidence he got the meeting due to his affiliation with the Clinton Foundation.

    But that hasn't prevented the press from trying to turn the meeting into a scandal.

    Media outlets immediately ran with the story, suggesting that “the new revelations,” as Politico put it, “add to the controversy that has swirled around the Clinton Foundation, with Donald Trump and other critics accusing Hillary Clinton of using her position at the State Department to reward major donors through access to other power players.”

    The Wall Street Journal scandalized the emails, saying they “could fuel criticism that the Clinton family’s charitable foundation, in fundraising with wealthy donors, corporations and foreign nations, created a conflict of interest for Mrs. Clinton during her work as the nation’s top diplomat.”

    A Fox News article wrote that “Such emails have fueled accusations from Republicans of a ‘pay-to-play’ operation.”

    CNN’s John Berman said, "It doesn't literally have to be provable pay to play to have an appearance problem."

    These accounts adopt Judicial Watch’s frame that the meeting between Bahrain’s crown prince and Clinton was granted only because of “special, expedited access” and “preferential treatment” because of his relationship with the Clinton Foundation, and that at the least, the emails and meeting reflect bad optics.

    Judicial Watch is a right-wing organization with a history of duping the press on Clinton email stories. 

  • WSJ Claims Clinton Penalizing Tax-Dodging Corporations Is Akin To “Class Warfare”

    Editorial Board Calls For “Trumpian Pragmatism” On Corporate Taxes Even Though Journal’s Own Reporting Shows Experts Prefer Clinton On The Economy

    Blog ››› ››› ALEX MORASH

    The Wall Street Journal blasted Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton’s plan to assess a tax on corporations that move overseas as “familiar class-warfare artillery” and claimed that what these supposedly overburdened American multinational corporations really deserve is "Trumpian pragmatism" in the form of massive tax cuts. The editorial, which promoted a number of discredited and misleading talking points to advocate for corporate tax cuts, was published just hours before the Journal reported on a survey of over 400 economists showing an overwhelming expert preference for Clinton’s economic policies.

    In an August 21 editorial, the Journal attacked Clinton’s push to rein in corporate tax avoidance schemes as a means of “class warfare” and “the sort of thing banana republics impose when their economies sour.” Clinton’s plan would be to levy an “exit tax” on corporations that engage in a process called “tax inversion,” wherein an American multinational corporation acquires a foreign company and claims its taxable profits are now based outside the United States. Rather than imposing a tax on companies that try to skirt federal law -- and using the revenue to invest in critical infrastructure projects, as Clinton has suggested -- the Journal advocated for what it called “Trumpian Pragmatism”: slashing the corporate tax rate by more than half as a way to “deter inversions” and convince companies to relocate in the United States. From the August 21 edition of The Wall Street Journal:

    The Democrat would impose what she calls an “exit tax” on businesses that relocate outside the U.S., which is the sort of thing banana republics impose when their economies sour. She’d conduct a census and then categorize any multinational with more than 50% U.S. ownership as a domestic concern that would be subject to a tax on its deferred profits if it inverts. She isn’t specifying the punitive tax rate.

    [...]

    Mr. Trump proposes to cut the U.S. corporate rate to 15% from 35% (or 40% counting average state rates). Fifteen percent is low enough to deter inversions while making the country more attractive to capital investment and better primed for higher wages. He would also offer a preferential rate of 10% for the $2 trillion already earned overseas.

    Mrs. Clinton calls this tax-cutting for billionaires and corporate-jet owners, which shows how unhappy her Presidency could be. Such Trumpian pragmatism—10% of $2 trillion is better than 35% of $0—is the only realistic way for Mrs. Clinton to fund her infrastructure plan, and Republicans in Congress have sounded out Democrats for such a deal for years. President Obama has rebuffed their entreaties, settling for nothing—and now Mrs. Clinton is setting herself up for the same.

    Despite the editorial board’s claims against Clinton, reporter Ben Leubsdorf actually reported in the Journal’s Real Time Economics blog on August 22 that business economists overwhelmingly prefer Clinton as the best candidate on the economy. According to a recent survey by the National Association for Business Economics (NABE) that Leubsdorf cites, 55 percent of the 414 economists surveyed believed Clinton “would do the best job of managing the economy” compared to just 14 percent who picked Republican nominee Donald Trump. (Trump registered less support in the survey than did Libertarian nominee Gary Johnson, who garnered 15 percent.)

    An independent economic analysis of Clinton’s plan from Moody’s Analytics found it would boost job creation by roughly 10 million jobs over four years -- over 3 million more jobs than would be gained by maintaining current economic policies. When Moody’s ran the same analysis of Trump’s tax plan, which the candidate has since revised, it found that his proposals were likely to stymie economic growth and job creation while increasing the debt and deficit, largely for the benefit of “very high-income households” like his own.

    When CNNMoney correspondent Cristina Alesci and CNN analyst Ali Velshi compared Clinton's economic plan to Trump’s on the August 17 edition of CNN's Legal View with Ashleigh Banfield, Alesci noted that Clinton's plan would largely benefit the middle class while Velshi reported that the lack of details in Trump's economic plan makes it "unclear ... who it actually helps and who it doesn't." Velshi added that experts believe parts of Trump's plan, including the child care tax deduction, are "designed for higher-income, more affluent families."

    Trump’s tax plan would sharply reduce corporate tax rates from 35 percent to 15 percent and create three individual income tax brackets of 12, 25, and 33 percent. The Trump plan has been lambasted by economists as “nonsense,” and media fact-checkers ridiculed its “pathetic” lack of details. Nobel Prize-winning economist and New York Times columnist Paul Krugman slammed Trump for promoting more of the “standard voodoo” economics frequently pushed by Republican supply-side advocates. Economic policy professor and former Secretary of Labor Robert Reich blasted Trump and his economic advisor Stephen Moore for attempting to rebrand the “sheer lunacy” in Trump’s original tax plan into the “normal nonsense of supply-side, trickle-down economics.”

    For its part, The Wall Street Journal is no stranger to pushing discredited “trickle-down” tax cuts, so the editorial board’s decision to embrace Trump’s implausible platform in the face of overwhelming evidence is no surprise.

  • WSJ Video Instructs Viewers To “Trust” Climate Science-Denying Fossil Fuel Front Group

    Blog ››› ››› MEDIA MATTERS STAFF

    In a video interview posted on The Wall Street Journal’s website, Journal editorial board member Mary Kissel told viewers that if they are “confused about the science surrounding climate change,” they should “trust” Rod Nichols, chairman of a climate science-denying fossil fuel front group known as the CO2 Coalition. During the interview, Nichols denied that human activities such as burning oil and coal are responsible for recent global warming, claiming that “[c]limate change has been going on for hundreds of millions of years,” that “[t]here is not going to be any catastrophic climate change,” and that “CO2 will be good for the world.” Kissel asked Nichols, “why don't we hear more viewpoints like the ones that your coalition represents,” and concluded that the CO2 Coalition’s research papers are “terrific.”

    Here's the August 17 video:

    MARY KISSEL (Wall Street Journal editorial board member): Are you confused about the science surrounding climate change? Don't know who to trust? Well, we have help for you! Rod Nichols is chairman of the CO2 Coalition ... Rod, I want to start with the CO2 Coalition. What exactly is it, and who's involved?

    RODNEY NICHOLS (CO2 Coalition chairman): We formed about a year ago -- a group of scientists, mostly physicists, a few chemists, engineers, economists -- who are convinced that the public is being misled about carbon dioxide. CO2. Carbon dioxide is not a pollutant. It is not a pollutant. But if you read the editorial pages and the news pages of most papers the word "pollutant" is always used with CO2. 

    KISSEL: So does that mean that your group doesn't believe in climate change? Or doesn't believe in something called "catastrophic climate change"?

    NICHOLS: Climate change has been going on for hundreds of millions of years. Everybody should recognize that there is climate change. There is not going to be any catastrophic climate change. CO2 will be good for the world. CO2 enhances agriculture. Crops tend to grow on the average of 15 percent more per year given more CO2. And even more important, crops don't need as much water when they're growing if they have more CO2. You can see this at the edges of deserts where struggling little green plants -- you couldn't see them 35 years ago. Thirty-five years later the satellite photos clearly show that these little green plants -- with more CO2 and needing less water at the edge of deserts -- they're fluorishing!

    KISSEL: So this is a completely opposite viewpoint than what is represented in, as you say, most of the media, most of our college classrooms. How did they get to this point, Rod? Why don't we hear more viewpoints like the ones that your coalition represents?

    NICHOLS: Well, that's a really good question that I don't have a completely satisfactory answer to. I shy away from conspiracy theories, I don't think -- but it's true in the scientific literature, you can find "skeptics" as we are sometimes called who are arguing against what appears to be a consensus but their views are not covered. Their views are not debated. If nothing else, the CO2 Coalition wants to open up a real debate. Science thrives with discovery and debate. And the subtitle of our first report, about six months ago, was called "See For Yourself."

    KISSEL: So where do viewers go to find out more information about what you're doing and to get educated on science about climate change?

    NICHOLS: Good questions. CO2Coalition.org is a storehouse of very reliable data. We've surveyed data over decades published in our reports. One is called White Paper 1, and White Paper 2. You can get these, we'd be glad to send them to you.

    KISSEL: And you don't need to be a scientist to understand these papers?

    NICHOLS: They're prepared to be readable by any intelligent citizen. Even my daughter found them readable and she's not an environmentalist, she's not an alarmist, she's an art history major. She loved them.

    KISSEL: Maybe even I will find it readable. In fact, it is readable. I have read these papers. They're terrific. CO2Coalition.org, go check it out, Rod Nichols is the chairman, thanks for joining us.

    Related:

    Climate Nexus Analysis: How The Wall Street Journal Opinion Section Presents Climate Change

    Previously:

    Breitbart News: Go-To Outlet For "Academics-For-Hire" By The Fossil Fuel Industry?

    Slate Destroys Climate Denier Myth That CO2 Is Not A Pollutant

    The Wall Street Journal: Dismissing Environmental Threats Since 1976

  • The Conservatives Who Said That Trump’s New Campaign Chief Betrayed Breitbart's Memory By Backing Donald Trump

    ››› ››› OLIVIA KITTEL

    Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump’s new campaign chief Stephen Bannon is the executive chairman of conservative website Breitbart News, which has been embroiled in a civil war over the publication’s Trump support. Numerous conservative media figures have slammed Bannon -- who is taking a leave of absence to work for Trump -- and Breitbart News for destroying the legacy of the site’s founder Andrew Breitbart, who said in 2011 that Donald Trump is “not a conservative.”

  • The Continuing Conservative Media Civil War Zeroes In On Sean Hannity

    ››› ››› CAT DUFFY

    In the latest development in the conservative media civil war over Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump, Fox News host Sean Hannity, a staunch Trump supporter, is battling other conservative media figures over his unapologetic and unconditional defense of the candidate, with those media figures now calling his shilling for Trump “slavish” and “disgraceful.”

  • Wall Street Journal Claims Raising The Minimum Wage Leads To “Fewer Opportunities” For Working Families

    Editorial Board Distorts Research Conclusions To Fit Anti-Minimum Wage Narrative

    Blog ››› ››› ALEX MORASH

    The Wall Street Journal bizarrely claimed the idea of raising minimum wages had been “thoroughly dismantled” after a study found Seattle low-wage jobs grew by only 99 percent as much as the study’s model predicted would have been the case if the city had not raised the municipal minimum wage.

    In an August 14 editorial, the Journal claimed that raising the minimum wage would lead to “fewer opportunities” for working families, citing a report from researchers at the University of Washington that found low-wage employment grew by one percentage point less than the researchers predicted had the city not raised wages. The report looked at economic growth in Seattle since it raised the local minimum wage to $11 per hour in April 2015, as part of the city’s gradual phase-in of a $15 per hour minimum wage. The Journal cited the report as evidence that “Seattle’s increase last year seems to be reducing employment,” dismissing that the same researchers found that the Seattle economy saw a “boom in job growth” over the last 18 months. The Journal also misleadingly claimed that “only 73 cents” of the recorded wage growth experienced by low-income workers from 2014 through 2015 was “owed to the minimum wage.” Median wages for low-wage workers increased from $9.96 per hour to $11.14 per hour over that time frame, meaning the vast majority of the wage increase -- roughly 62 percent -- was the result of the minimum wage ordinance alone. From The Wall Street Journal:

    Few ideas have been so thoroughly dismantled by reality as minimum-wage laws, which price some jobs out of existence and some workers out of jobs. Yet progressives keep expecting different results, and on Thursday Hillary Clinton endorsed a national increase. So let’s check in on the latest experiment: Seattle’s increase last year seems to be reducing employment.

    That’s the finding of a new report by researchers at the University of Washington. The study compared nine months of 2015 in Seattle, where the wage is ticking up gradually and hit $13 an hour in January, with similar areas elsewhere in Washington. The authors produced a statistical model to figure out what Seattle would have looked like if the city’s planners hadn’t increased the wage floor.

    The researchers found that the ordinance decreased the low-wage employment rate by about one-percentage point. Median wages went up for those who earned less than $11 an hour in 2014: to $11.14 at the end of 2015, from $9.96. Yet the study notes that only an estimated 73 cents of the increase is owed to the minimum wage.

    [...]

    None of this will surprise anyone who understands that increasing the cost of something will reduce the demand for it. Then again, that concept seems to elude both major presidential candidates, who have floated national minimum-wage increases. The results will be the same as in Seattle: Fewer opportunities for the people the law is intended to help.

    When the University of Washington study was first reported by local Seattle outlets they touted the report as evidence the city’s economy is booming despite the minimum wage increase. Contrary to the Journal’s right-wing spin, The Seattle Times stated the report showed the wage increase had “little impact” on the labor market and that the “city’s job-growth rate has been triple the national average.” Meanwhile, Seattle Weekly used the report to debunk conservative predictions that the increase “would ‘devastate’ small businesses” and harm low-wage workers.

    While the Journal falsely claimed the report proved right-wing media talking points against raising minimum wages, the researchers actually warned readers “to not interpret these results as likely to be generalizable,” cautioning that “these results show only the short-run impact of Seattle’s increase to a wage of $11/hour” because it will take many years for the full effects to be seen. The researchers also stated that “given the lack of standard errors in this draft, some caution should be used in confidently asserting that the Minimum Wage Ordinance caused an impact of a particular size.” In an August 10 op-ed in The Washington Post, economist Jared Bernstein found this lack of standard errors in the model a “limitation” and noted that economist Michael Reich found the calculations were “not distinguishable from zero” -- making the one percent difference between the city’s experimental and actual job growth possibly negligible.

    It is important to note the university report did not find that the minimum wage increase itself was responsible for Seattle’s recent economic boom. Nevertheless, the report follows a trend of positive economic data out of Seattle, including research from Automatic Data Processing (ADP), which found that from mid-2014 to the end of 2015, “the Seattle labor market was exceptionally strong” and the city’s “job growth rate tripled the national average.”

    Right-wing media are staunchly opposed to increasing the minimum wage at the local, state, and federal level and are dedicated to promoting the myth that wage increases result in job losses, despite a wealth of evidence showing that minimum wage increases have a negligible effect on employment.

  • WSJ Editorial Board Bashes Trump For Failing To Run A “Competent Campaign”

    Blog ››› ››› MEDIA MATTERS STAFF

    The Wall Street Journal editorial board criticized Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump for his dysfunctional campaign, writing, “he needs to stop blaming everyone else and decide if he wants to behave like someone who wants to be President.” The board also slammed him for “lash[ing] out at the media” for highlighting his campaign troubles, noting that “The latest stories comport with what we also hear from sources close to the Trump campaign.”

    In recent weeks, Trump has attacked a Gold Star family and suggested that “Second Amendment people” could do something about Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton’s judicial nominees if she is elected president. He also falsely labled both Clinton and President Obama as the “founders” of ISIS and suggested that the upcoming election will be “rigged.” Media reported these statements -- all of which were roundly condemned -- as well as other stories about the state of Trump’s campaign, prompting Trump to lash out at the press. After The New York Times wrote an August 14 article headlined “Inside the Failing Mission to Tame Donald Trump’s Tongue,” Trump said at a campaign rally that the Times “is going to hell” and threatened to revoke its press credentials.

    In an August 14 editorial, the Journal's editorial board wrote that Trump “has alienated his party" and that "he isn’t running a competent campaign.” The board slammed the candidate, writing that “by now it should be obvious that none of [his campaign approach] is working” and that “If they can’t get Mr. Trump to change his act by Labor Day, the GOP will have no choice but to write off the nominee as hopeless and focus on salvaging the Senate and House.” From the editorial:

    Donald Trump lashed out at the media on Sunday after more stories describing dysfunction inside his presidential campaign. “If the disgusting and corrupt media covered me honestly and didn’t put false meaning into the words I say, I would be beating Hillary by 20%,” Mr. Trump averred on Twitter.

    [...]

    The latest stories comport with what we also hear from sources close to the Trump campaign. Mr. Trump’s advisers and his family want the candidate to deliver a consistent message making the case for change. They’d like him to be disciplined. They want him to focus on growing the economy and raising incomes and fighting terrorism.

    [...]

    Is that so hard? Apparently so. Mr. Trump prefers to watch the cable shows rather than read a briefing paper. He thinks the same shoot-from-the-lip style that won over a plurality of GOP primary voters can persuade other Republicans and independents who worry if he has the temperament to be Commander in Chief.

    [...]

    By now it should be obvious that none of this is working. It’s obvious to many of his advisers, who are the sources for the news stories about dysfunction. They may be covering for themselves, but this is what happens in failing campaigns. The difference is that the recriminations typically start in October, not mid-August.

    These stories are appearing now because the polls show that Mr. Trump is on the path to losing a winnable race. He is now losing in every key battleground state, some like New Hampshire by double digits. The Midwest industrial states he claimed he would put into play—Wisconsin, Pennsylvania—have turned sharply toward Mrs. Clinton.

    [...]

    Mr. Trump has alienated his party and he isn’t running a competent campaign. Mrs. Clinton is the second most unpopular presidential nominee in history—after Mr. Trump. But rather than reassure voters and try to repair his image, the New Yorker has spent the last three weeks giving his critics more ammunition.

    [...]

    Those who sold Mr. Trump to GOP voters as the man who could defeat Hillary Clinton now face a moment of truth. Chris Christie, Newt Gingrich, Rudy Giuliani, Paul Manafort and the talk-radio right told Republicans their man could rise to the occasion.

    If they can’t get Mr. Trump to change his act by Labor Day, the GOP will have no choice but to write off the nominee as hopeless and focus on salvaging the Senate and House and other down-ballot races. As for Mr. Trump, he needs to stop blaming everyone else and decide if he wants to behave like someone who wants to be President—or turn the nomination over to Mike Pence.

  • News Outlets Hyping New Clinton Judicial Watch Email Story Ignore New Development Undermining It

    ››› ››› ALEX KAPLAN & CAT DUFFY

    Several news shows and outlets covering a new email dump by conservative group Judicial Watch have ignored developments undermining the group’s claims that emails show the State Department rewarded Clinton Foundation donors with access at the foundation’s request. Judicial Watch baselessly suggested that Doug Band, an aide to Bill Clinton, worked as an agent of the Clinton Foundation to facilitate a donor’s meeting with a U.S. ambassador. Numerous media outlets have reported on the story without noting that the ambassador has since explained that he never met with the donor.

  • BEDLAM: Hannity, National Review, WSJ Editor Go To War Over Donald Trump

    Blog ››› ››› JULIE ALDERMAN

    In what was supposed to be a moment of unity within the Republican Party following the national convention, presidential nominee Donald Trump has fostered a party consumed by infighting, much of which is taking place within right-wing media. Fox News anchor Sean Hannity has been at the center of the brawl, going to battle against conservative magazine National Review and an editor of the Wall Street Journal editorial page.

    Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump spurred a civil war among the Republican Party following a week where the campaign has been rocked by Trump’s extended fight with a Gold Star family, staff firings, his refusal to endorse several Republican leaders, a variety of additional bizarre and extreme comments, and cratering poll numbers. NBC’s Chuck Todd has described this as a “crisis” faced by the campaign, stemming from Trump’s “36 hours of total and complete chaos.” Several Congressional Republicans have refused to endorse Trump, with Rep. Richard Hanna (R-NY) announcing he will vote for Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton.

    The disarray is not limited to the Republican Party. Infighting also broke out within conservative media circles this week over the GOP nominee. Sean Hannity, a fervent Trump supporter and defender, along with Breitbart News, conservative radio host Hugh Hewitt, and Ann Coulter lashed out against what they called “establishment Republicans” who tepidly endorsed the nominee and the Republicans who refuse to support Trump, saying they would be to blame if Trump loses in November. Several right-wing media figures, including George Will, Erick Erickson, and radio host Charlie Sykes, have said they would not support Trump.

    National Review, a conservative publication that once called Trump “the very epitome of vulgarity,” blamed Hannity, Fox News, and conservative talk radio for the rise of Trump, saying “they have created an intellectual ghetto that no one else wants to visit.”

    Hannity also drew ire from Wall Street Journal editor Bret Stephens, who called him “Fox News’ dumbest anchor.” Hannity subsequently went after Stephens in a tweetstorm, calling him an “arrogant” and “elitist” “enabler[].” He also proclaimed that “If Hillary wins I will hold assholes like you accountable.”

    UPDATE: Stephens responded to Hannity’s criticism in an August 8 column, calling Hannity’s “excuses” for Trump “disgraceful” and writing that “Today’s GOP is on the road to self-immolation, thanks in part to the veneration of ignorance typified by” Hannity. Stephens added that Hannity “proved my point” that Hannity is Fox’s “dumbest anchor” by retweeting Stephens. He also labeled Hannity’s Twitter tirade a “tantrum” and wrote that Hannity calling him a “dumba-- with his head up his a--” showed “he can’t even swear competently.”

  • Donald And Eric Trumps’ Sexual Harassment Victim-Blaming Is A Staple In Right-Wing Media

    ››› ››› JULIE ALDERMAN

    Donald and Eric Trump’s victim-blaming responses to questions about sexual harassment were condemned in the media, but they echoed right-wing media’s long history of putting the onus on the victims of sexual harassment and sexual assault. Right-wing media figures have suggested that being a sexual assault survivor is a “coveted status,” that victims should “make better decisions,” and that “women need to take some responsibility.”

  • Right-Wing Media Distort WSJ Article To Claim Obama Administration Made Secret Payment To Iran

    The Obama Administration Announced Fund Transfer For Settlement Over Abandoned Arms Deal In January

    ››› ››› NICK FERNANDEZ

    Right-wing media figures are hyping a new article in The Wall Street Journal which reports the United States “secretly organized an airlift of $400 million worth of cash to Iran that coincided with the January release of four Americans detained in Tehran” to claim that the administration concealed this deal from the public. But President Obama explained in a January 17 press conference that, as a result of the newly agreed-upon Iran nuclear deal, Iran and the U.S. “are now settling a longstanding Iranian government claim against the United States government,” and Secretary of State John Kerry issued a press release the same day which explained “Iran will receive … $400 million,” “as well as a roughly $1.3 billion compromise on the interest.”

  • Media Slam The Republican Leaders Disavowing Trump’s Feud With Khans But Not Rescinding Their Endorsements

    ››› ››› JULIE ALDERMAN

    Media figures are criticizing Republican leaders, including House Speaker Paul Ryan (R-WI), Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY), and Sen. John McCain (R-AZ), for refusing to rescind endorsing Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump while condemning his attacks on the Khans, an American Muslim family whose son was killed in action in Iraq in 2004. They are calling the statements refusing to flat-out disavow Trump “acts of cowardice,” “less than worthless,” and “empty words.”