Author Page | Page 30 | Media Matters for America

Cristina López G.

Author ››› Cristina López G.
  • Falso Alegato Sobre Clinton Y Su Uso De Correos Pasa Desapercibido Por Jorge Ramos

    ››› ››› CRISTINA LóPEZ G.

    En el programa de Univision Al Punto, Jorge Ramos no corrigió el falso alegato del estratega republicano, Lincoln Díaz-Balart, de que Hillary Clinton está siendo investigada criminalmente por el uso de su correo personal mientras servía como Secretaria de Estado. De hecho, el New York Times, el primer medio en reportar el alegato, publicó una corrección y se ha retractado de múltiples aspectos de su historia defectuosa.

  • INFORME: Menos Invitados Latinos En Programas Dominicales, Tema Migratorio Sigue Dominando Las Discusiones

    ››› ››› JESSICA TORRES & CRISTINA LóPEZ G. English language version

    En un nuevo informe sobre el "síndrome monotemático", Media Matters encontró que los programas dominicales en español continúan dedicando considerable atención al tema migratorio, aparentemente a expensas de temas que son de igual importancia para la comunidad latina. Adicionalmente, a pesar de que los latinos constituyen más del 17 por ciento de la población estadounidense, solo cuatro por ciento de los invitados a los programas dominicales en inglés entre el 4 de enero y el 3 de mayo de 2015 eran latinos - una reducción de un 42 por ciento en los niveles de participación para finales de 2014.

  • STUDY: Hispanic Guests And The Sunday Shows: Fewer Appearances On English-Language Programs, Single-Issue Emphasis On Immigration Continues

    ››› ››› JESSICA TORRES & CRISTINA LóPEZ G. Versión en español

    A new Media Matters report on the "single issue syndrome" found that Spanish-language Sunday shows continue to devote considerable attention to immigration at the apparent expense of issues equally important to the Latino community. In addition, although Latinos make up more than 17 percent of the U.S. population, only 4 percent of guests on English-language Sunday shows between January 4 and May 3, 2015 were Hispanic - a drop of 42 percent from their 2014 appearances over a similar time period.

  • Univision No Revela Conflictos De Intereses En Columna Contra El Salario Minimo

    Blog ››› ››› CRAIG HARRINGTON & CRISTINA LóPEZ G. English language version

    Univision Noticias falló a su audiencia al no revelar adecuadamente los vínculos financieros entre un columnista y organizaciones alineadas en contra de un aumento federal al salario mínimo, permitiéndole al autor decir, de manera engañosa, que subir el salario mínimo resultaría en un daño a las minorías trabajadoras y que destruiría empleos.

    En una columna del 6 de julio, Daniel Garza, de la organización de extrema derecha Iniciativa Libre, alegó que la "inconveniente realidad de subir el salario mínimo" sería un daño a los "más vulnerables" al aumentar los costos de producción y reducir la demanda de trabajadores. Garza citó un reporte de febrero de 2014 elaborado por la Oficina de Presupuesto del Congreso (CBO, por sus siglas en inglés) como prueba aparente de que aumentar el salario mínimo traería consecuencias negativas a "los más vulnerables", y culpó un aumento del salario mínimo en 2009 de haber destruido cientos de miles de empleos -- ignorando por completo a la verdadera culpable de la pérdida de empleos, la recesión. De su columna en Univision.com:

    La Oficina de Presupuesto del Congreso (CBO) pronosticó una pérdida de aproximadamente 500,000 trabajos. Cuando el Congreso aumentó el salario mínimo un 10.6 por ciento en el 2009, más de 600,000 jóvenes perdieron sus trabajos. Actualmente, el salario mínimo contribuye significativamente al desastre fiscal por el que atraviesa Puerto Rico, donde la ley ha contribuido a un alto nivel de desempleo según el Washington Post.

    Univision no reveló los profundos lazos financieros existentes entre Daniel Garza, la Iniciativa Libre y la red de activistas anti-salario mínimo financiada por los multimillonarios conservadores Charles y David Koch, lazos que documentó recientemente Media Matters. Univision.com le ha estado brindando una plataforma a Garza y a la Iniciativa Libre sin revelar su agenda financiada por los Koch desde, por lo menos, el 18 de marzo 2015.

    Otros medios, como MSNBC, han hecho un mejor trabajo en lo que a revelar los patrocinadores de Garza respecta, poniendo en perspectiva la parcialidad de su opinión. Traducido de MSNBC:

    "No es un desarrollo positivo tener a alguien como Trump menospreciando la contribución de los inmigrantes a la corriente conservadora, especialmente a la marca Republicana", dijo Daniel Garza - director ejecutivo de la Iniciativa Libre, un grupo financiado por la red de los hermanos Koch, dedicado a vender el conservadurismo a los latinos - en una entrevista con MSNBC.

    El argumento de Garza en contra del salario mínimo se encuentra basado enteramente en su mala interpretación de un estudio de la CBO de 2014. La CBO no predijo una "pérdida de aproximadamente 500,000 trabajos", como alega Garza. Predijo 500,000 empleos netos menos creados entre 2014 y 2016 como resultado de aumentar el salario mínimo a $10.10 por hora. El mismo estudio también predijo que un salario mínimo federal de $10.10 aumentaría los ingresos por hora de 16.5 millones de trabajadores estadounidenses, a la vez que sacaría a 900,000 estadounidenses de la pobreza e inyectaría miles de millones de dólares a la economía. El error de Garza no es sorprendente; de acuerdo al Center for American Progress (CAP, por sus siglas en inglés), el estudio de la CBO ha sido malinterpretado ampliamente. Traducido de CAP:

    Primero que todo, las proyecciones de la CBO no son que las oportunidades laborales para trabajadores de bajos ingresos disminuirán en los próximos tres años si el salario mínimo se subiera del actual $7.25 a $10.10 la hora, como muchos han reportado. Apenas hace un par de semanas, la CBO publicó su panorama económico y presupuestario para 2014 a 2024, que estima que el empleo en Estados Unidos crecerá en 7 millones de empleos entre ahora y 2018. Por supuesto, esa proyección se basa en un número de supuestos sobre el futuro que consisten en poco más que conjeturas.

    Un estudio de febrero de 2013 del Center for Economic and Policy Research (CEPR por sus siglas en inglés) demostró que décadas de investigación sobre el salario mínimo no han revelado ningún "efecto discernible en el empleo" como resultado de aumentos incrementales al salario mínimo. No hay evidencia de que aumentar el salario mínimo afecte los niveles de empleo, pero hay investigaciones considerables mostrando los impactos positivos para trabajadores de bajos ingresos cuando se aumenta el salario mínimo -- especialmente para las mujeres y las minorías raciales.

  • Univision Fails To Disclose Conflicts Of Interest In Misleading, Anti-Minimum Wage Op-Ed

    Blog ››› ››› CRAIG HARRINGTON & CRISTINA LóPEZ G. Versión en español

    Univision Noticias failed to adequately disclose for readers the financial ties between an op-ed contributor and organizations aligned against raising the federal minimum wage, allowing the author to misleadingly claim that increasing the baseline hourly wage would actually hurt minority workers and destroy jobs.

    In a July 6 Spanish-language op-ed published by Univision.com, Daniel Garza of the far-right Libre Initiative claimed that the "inconvenient reality" of a minimum wage hike is that it would hurt "the most vulnerable" by increasing labor costs and reducing demand for workers. Garza cited a February 2014 report from the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) as apparent proof that raising the minimum wage would bring dire consequences to "the most vulnerable" among the population, and blamed a 2009 minimum wage increase for destroying hundreds of thousands of jobs -- completely ignoring the actual culprit for job loss that year, the recession. Translated from Univision.com:

    The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) predicted a loss of approximately 500,000 jobs. When Congress raised the minimum wage by 10.6 percent in 2009, more than 600,000 youths lost their jobs. Currently, the minimum wage contributes significantly to the fiscal disaster by running through Puerto Rico, where the law has contributed to a high level of unemployment, according to The Washington Post.

    Univision failed to disclose the extensive financial ties between Daniel Garza, the Libre Initiative, and the network of anti-minimum wage advocates funded by conservative billionaires Charles and David Koch, which was recently documented by Media Matters. Univision.com has been providing a platform for Garza and the Libre Initiative without disclosing their Koch-backed agenda since at least March 18, 2015.

    Other media outlets, like MSNBC, have done a better job in disclosing Garza's financial backers, putting the bias in his opinion columns in context:

    "It's not a positive development to have someone like Trump disparage the contribution of immigrants to the conservative brand, especially the Republican brand," Daniel Garza - executive director of the LIBRE Initiative, a group backed by the Koch brothers' donor network devoted to selling Latinos on conservatism - told msnbc in an interview.

    Garza's entire anti-minimum wage argument is based on his misinterpretation of a 2014 CBO study. The CBO did not predict "a loss of approximately 500,000 jobs," as Garza claims. It predicted 500,000 fewer net new jobs created from 2014 through 2016 as a result of increasing the minimum wage to $10.10 per hour.  The same study also predicted that a $10.10 federal minimum wage would increase the hourly earnings of 16.5 million American workers, while lifting 900,000 Americans out of poverty and injecting billions of dollars into the economy. Garza's mistake isn't surprising, according to the Center for American Progress, the CBO study has been widely misinterpreted:

    First of all, CBO does not project that job opportunities for low-wage workers will decline over the next three years if the minimum wage were raised from the current $7.25 to $10.10 per hour, as so many have reported. Only a few weeks ago, CBO published its economic and budget outlook for 2014 to 2024, which estimated that U.S. employment will grow by 7 million jobs between now and 2018. Of course, that projection is based on a number of assumptions about the future that are little more than educated guesses.

    February 2013 study by the Center for Economic and Policy Research (CEPR) showed that decades of minimum wage research reveal no "discernible effect on employment"  resulting from incremental increases. There is no evidence that raising the minimum wage affects employment levels, but there is considerable research showing the positive impacts of increasing the minimum wage for low-wage workers  -- specifically women and people of color

  • Fox News Falsely Claims "Sanctuary Cities" Violate Federal Immigration Law

    ››› ››› SALVATORE COLLELUORI, JESSICA TORRES & CRISTINA LóPEZ G.

    In the wake of the shooting death of a San Francisco woman by an undocumented immigrant, Fox News has blamed so-called "sanctuary city" policies for the murder, incorrectly claiming that these policies are illegal. However, multiple experts and government officials have confirmed that these local and state policies do not conflict with federal immigration law.

  • Hannity Defends Donald Trump's Incendiary Comments After NBC Announces Intentions To Sever Business Ties

    Blog ››› ››› CRISTINA LóPEZ G.

    Television and radio host Sean Hannity defended GOP presidential hopeful Donald Trump, who faced widespread backlash by media outlets following comments made during a speech where he called Mexican immigrants "rapists" and "murderers." Hannity agreed with Trump arguing that immigrants wouldn't leave their home countries if they were successful.

    On June 16, Trump announced that he was running for the Republican nomination for president. During his speech, Trump railed against Mexican immigration, claiming that the "U.S. has become a dumping ground for everybody else's problems," and referred to people coming across the southern border as "rapists" and criminals:

    When Mexico sends its people, they're not sending their best. They're not sending you. They're not sending you. They're sending people that have lots of problems, and they're bringing those problems with us. They're bringing drugs. They're bringing crime. They're rapists. And some, I assume, are good people.

    Trump faced widespread outrage following his incendiary remarks. In a June 25 press release, Univision announced their intention to cut ties with Trump and drop Trump's Miss Universe pageant, in response to his "insulting remarks" about Latino immigrants. And in a June 29 statement released by NBC, the company expressed its intentions to no longer air Trump's Miss USA and Miss Universe pageants and to exclude him from participating in NBC's reality-show The Apprentice, because of his "derogatory statements" regarding immigrants.

    But on the June 29 edition of his radio show, Sean Hannity defended Trump's incendiary rhetoric. After highlighting NBC's announcement that they will be cutting ties with Trump, Hannity asserted that Trump was correct, immigrants coming to the U.S. are criminals, and argued that they would not be leaving their country if they were successful (emphasis added):

    HANNITY: We've got a problem in this country. If he [Trump] can make that statement and CNN refers to it as "racially-tinged," because [inaudible...] could play this on TV. Floor to ceiling drugs confiscated by people crossing our southern border. You want to talk about crime? Well what do you think -- who's coming from Latin America and Mexico? Are they rich, successful Mexicans, Nicaraguans, El Salvador residents? No! Why would they leave if they're so successful? It's people who have not had opportunity in Mexico and so they will raise all this money and give it to these human traffickers, human traffickers take full advantage of them, take every penny they've got and then maybe get them across the border in a perilous journey which some people don't make it. Now if we really care about our fellow human beings, we owe it to them not to put that -- sort of like a sign up that says "Take a risk you can try and come across because we're gonna make it easy for you" and it turns out not to be so easy. But if we had a fence, if we wanted to secure the border, it wouldn't be a problem. So when Trump says, "are they sending their best, their brightest?" In other words, if you have a pool of people, if we opened up America's borders, and who would apply to come to America? We probably would have our choice of doctors, and lawyers, and computer programmers, everybody wants to come to America. You know that's a great thing, we're not building a fence to keep people in, we're building a fence to prevent people from coming in because the world would flood here, which they've been doing.

  • Univision Drops Trump's Miss Universe In Response To His "Insulting Remarks About Mexican Immigrants"

    Trump Stands By His Remarks, Promises To Sue Univision

    ››› ››› CRISTINA LóPEZ G.

    Univision announced the company's intention to cut ties with Donald Trump, including the Trump Organization's Miss Universe pageant, in response to his derogatory remarks that Mexican immigrants bring crime, drugs, and rapists into America. Trump has stood by his remarks and has announced plans to sue the network.

  • The Washington Times Ignored Ben Carson's Plan To Seal The Border In Coverage Of His Latino Outreach Efforts

    Blog ››› ››› CRISTINA LóPEZ G.

    While chronicling the Latino outreach efforts of their former columnist and current GOP presidential candidate Ben Carson, The Washington Times chose to leave out what Carson said about immigration in a speech at the National Association of Latino Elected and Appointed Officials (NALEO) conference, the largest gathering of its kind.

    In its overwhelmingly positive profile of Carson, the Times highlighted the candidate's hope that being the only Republican to speak at NALEO's annual conference would win him Hispanic votes, and underscored his support for a flat tax and repeal of Obamacare.

    But the piece left out Carson's actual remarks at the conference, which revealed his desire to "seal the borders" to prevent "somebody from Syria who wants to bomb us" from entering the country. From the 32nd Annual NALEO conference:

    [T]he reason that I think that we need to seal our borders, completely, all of our borders -- north, south, east and west -- is not so much because I'm afraid of somebody from Honduras. I'm afraid of somebody from Syria who wants to bomb us, who wants to do bad things. So that's the main reason that we need to seal all of our borders. But in the meantime, we do have an illegal immigration problem that would be solved if you sealed the borders and you ceased the benefits so that people wouldn't see a reason to come here. But what about the 11 million people who are still here, what do you do with them? Well, many of them have never known any other country, so where are you going to send them? So I don't think that that's necessarily a good idea but what we should do, I believe, is provide them a way that they don't have to hide in the shadows, give them an opportunity to become guest workers, they have to register, they have to enroll in a back tax program. And if they want to become citizens, they have to get in the line with everybody else and do what's necessary because we have to pay homage to the people who have done it the right way and not slap them in the face and say we don't care about you. That's not fair either, so we have to do things that are fair to everyone, and if we use that general philosophy, recognizing that the people who came here across the border, they weren't coming here to be Democrats or Republicans they came here to try to improve their quality of life. And we need to understand that, and our policies need to understand that.

    The Washington Times has a history of championing Carson; they continued to publish his columns and promote his image in its sister publications even after he made it clear he planned to run for president, while paying him large sums of money for his contributions.