Face the Nation | Media Matters for America

Face the Nation

Tags ››› Face the Nation
  • After Charlottesville terrorism, black voices provide vital perspective on the pervasiveness of racism in America

    Blog ››› ››› DINA RADTKE

    After a white supremacist, neo-Nazi rally in Charlottesville, VA, left one person dead and many others injured, black voices in the media conveyed a powerful and unequivocal rebuke of the resurgence of emboldened white nationalism in America.

    Black voices took to Sunday news shows to share the pain felt by them and their community and rebuke the argument that “many sides” were to blame for the white supremacist rally. The “Unite the Right” demonstration on August 12 was designed to be “one of the largest gatherings of white nationalists in recent times, attracting groups like the Ku Klux Klan and neo-Nazis and movement leaders like David Duke and Richard Spencer,” according to The New York Times. The rally prompted counterprotesters to turn out en masse to collectively denounce the hateful demonstrations, and clashes between the sides quickly ensued. One 20-year-old who stood with white nationalists at the rally and has been described as a Nazi sympathizer drove his car through a crowd of counterprotesters, killing one woman and leaving 19 injured. President Donald Trump has received widespread criticism for personally failing to denounce white supremacy or call it out by name following the incident and instead condemning “violence on many sides.”

    On CNN’s State of the Union, Van Jones bluntly noted that “an American citizen was assassinated in broad daylight by a Nazi” who “the day before had been marching with torches down American streets … this is not a time to talk about both sides.” Jones said that it was “almost painful” that he had to point out the distinction, adding that “people watching this show gave their lives to stop Nazism. Dr. King gave his life to stop the Klan.” Jones also admonished the president for sending “a signal to people that this is all right” by decrying “many sides, many sides.” From the August 13 episode:

    Another guest on the panel, Nina Turner, communicated the deep pain felt by African Americans, asking, “Do you understand the pain? My heart is skipping beats right now to think about all that my foreparents went through to get to this point in time in America’s history. … People are in pain, having flashbacks. In the 21st century, we shouldn’t be going through this.” From the episode:

    NBC’s Joy Reid noted that Trump’s response marked an “extraordinary” moment in history, saying, “The idea that a president of the United States cannot unambiguously denounce Nazism is extraordinary, and Donald Trump has placed himself in a history. There is no way that I think the American people could have contemplated that their president could not unequivocally condemn David Duke and Nazis. And he couldn’t, and he didn’t.” From the August 13 edition of Meet the Press:

    And on CBS' Face the Nation, as the panel debated the motives behind Trump's ambiguous condemnation of violence at the rally, Slate's Jamelle Bouie highlighted that "in the context of an event that was held to defend Confederate statues in Charlottesville, VA, to say we need to ‘cherish our history,’ to me, sounds like a dog whistle to the ‘Unite the Right’ demonstrators.” From the August 13 episode:

    Politicians and media figures from across the political spectrum have come together to denounce the racism, anti-Semitism, and outright bigotry exhibited at the rally, despite Trump’s failure to call out the racism by name. But it was black voices that shined through with important perspective and historical context.

  • Pundits overlook John Kelly's extreme record, instead speculate that he could save Trump

    ››› ››› NINA MAST

    Media figures and political strategists flocked to the Sunday shows to speculate that Department of Homeland Security Secretary John Kelly will promote “discipline” and reduce “chaos” as White House chief of staff, and that Trump will listen to him because he “respects” military officers. What their analyses left out is Kelly’s extreme policy position on immigration and his defense of Trump’s chaotic Muslim travel ban implementation.

  • Republicans’ media strategy for health care: Hide, attack, and lie

    Blog ››› ››› JULIE ALDERMAN

    On Sunday morning political talk shows, Republicans have deployed a three-pronged approach surrounding the Senate bill to repeal and replace the Affordable Care Act (ACA). Republicans who openly support the bill have mostly been hiding. In three weeks of major Sunday talk shows that have aired since the bill was released, only two Republican senators who openly support the bill have appeared on the shows to defend it. Meanwhile, the Republicans willing to defend the bill in public have been attacking the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) and lying to make their case for the Better Care Reconciliation Act (BCRA), which is reportedly the most unpopular bill in three decades.

    1. Hiding

    Since the Senate bill was unveiled on June 22, there have been 15 appearances by Republican senators on the major Sunday morning political talk shows -- ABC’s This Week, CBS’ Face the Nation, CNN’s State of the Union, Fox Broadcasting Co.’s Fox News Sunday, and NBC’s Meet the Press. Of those appearances, only two senators expressed support for the bill: Sens. John Barrasso (R-WY) and Pat Toomey (R-PA). Other appearances by Republican senators included Sens. Mike Lee (R-UT), Rand Paul (R-KY), Susan Collins (R-ME), Ted Cruz (R-TX), and Ron Johnson (R-WI), all of whom have publicly stated that they do not support the bill. Sens. Bill Cassidy (R-LA), Lindsey Graham (R-SC), John McCain (R-AZ) and Ben Sasse (R-NE) also appeared on Sunday shows to discuss the bill, but gave no indication of whether they’d support it in its current form.

    For context, there are 52 Republican senators and, according to The New York Times, 17 of them have publicly said they would support the bill -- yet only two have gone on the Sunday political talk shows to defend it. It’s understandable why they would want to stay away from the shows; after all, the bill is incredibly unpopular.

    2. Attacking the CBO

    Republicans who have been willing to go on the Sunday shows to discuss the bill have borrowed a play right out of right-wing media’s playbook: attack the CBO. Days after the bill was released, the nonpartisan CBO published its report which stated that the bill “would increase the number of people without health insurance by 22 million by 2026.” Amid the bad news, some Republicans took to the Sunday shows to lash out at the office.

    On the July 2 edition of CNN’s State of the Union, Sasse attempted to discredit the CBO’s findings, claiming that while the CBO is “good at certain kinds of analysis,” when “analyzing macro, long-term, highly complex dynamic social programs, they’ve almost never been right.”

    Additionally, Health and Human Services Secretary Tom Price, who helped pick the man who is now in charge of the CBO, suggested that the CBO did not “look at the entire plan” and left out additional reforms the Republican Party intends to offer (which the GOP have not articulated yet):

    This tactic of attacking the CBO has been employed several times by others in the Trump administration and its right-wing media cronies to drum up support for the bill.

    3. Spreading flat-out lies

    With their backs against the wall, Republican lawmakers have resorted to flat-out lying in an attempt to garner support for the bill. During his appearance on Fox News Sunday, Barrasso invoked the conservative media canard that “Obamacare is collapsing every day,” despite the fact that this talking point has been repeatedly debunked.

    Toomey also lied about the bill on Face the Nation, saying “The Senate bill will codify and make permanent the Medicaid expansion.” As Politico’s Dan Diamond pointed out, “The GOP bill ends funding for Medicaid expansion in 2024, and bill’s additional cuts projected to reduce coverage for millions”:

    Republicans are utilizing these strategies of hiding, attacking, and lying because they cannot defend it by telling the truth and arguing on policy merits; the bill is set to kick millions off insurance plans while giving a tax cut to the most wealthy. And other Republicans who are uncomfortable using these strategies have stopped appearing on TV. Journalists, especially on the Sunday shows, need to ask why Republicans can’t stand behind the bill they are trying to jam through the Senate, before it’s too late.

  • Sunday shows omit key consequences of GOP Senate health care bill

    Blog ››› ››› JULIE ALDERMAN

    During discussions of the health care bill released by Senate Republicans this week, several of the Sunday morning political talk shows failed to cover some of the detrimental consequences the bill could impose on millions of Americans, including premium increases for the elderly, cuts to essential health benefits, and the defunding of Planned Parenthood.

    After drafting the bill with an “almost-unprecedented opacity,” Senate Republicans finally publicly introduced their health care proposal on June 22. The Senate draft comes over a month after the House of Representatives passed the American Health Care Act (AHCA) on May 4. While the June 25 editions of the Sunday shows devoted a significant amount of time to covering the bill, and all mentioned the severe cuts to Medicaid and the spike in premiums that would be a result of the legislation, several left out a few key provisions of the bill that are incredibly consequential to vulnerable Americans:

    Disproportionate impact on the elderly

    As HuffPost noted, the Senate bill “is worse for seniors than what the House passed,” pointing out that cuts to Medicaid, the “age tax” that allows for insurance companies to charge older people more, and smaller subsidies “puts vulnerable seniors smack in its crosshairs.”

    The disproportionate impact the Senate bill would have on the elderly went unmentioned on Fox Broadcasting Co.’s Fox News Sunday, CNN’s State of the Union, and CBS’ Face the Nation. But this fact was mentioned on other programs. Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) pointed out on NBC’s Meet the Press that the Senate bill will “raise premiums for older workers.” Additionally, on ABC’s This Week, panelist Neera Tanden noted that under the law, “a 60-year-old person in Maine will have $9,200 increase in their premiums.”

    Cuts to essential health benefits and impact on people with pre-existing conditions

    The Atlantic explained that the Senate bill “created a backdoor way” to allow insurers “to discriminate against a pre-existing condition” by allowing states to “easily waive the requirement to cover Essential Health Benefits,” which exists under the Affordable Care Act (ACA). By waiving these essential health benefits, many people with pre-existing conditions might not be able to afford the health insurance necessary to be covered as premiums could skyrocket. As Vox’s Sarah Kliff also explained, although pre-existing condition coverage is still required, “Building a health insurance system without an individual mandate or any replacement policy runs a significant risk of falling into a death spiral, where only the sickest people buy coverage and premiums keep ticking upward.”

    These points went unmentioned on State of the Union and This Week. Face the Nation host John Dickerson and Meet the Press host Chuck Todd both noted that under the Senate bill, Republicans could use this maneuver to cut coverage for things like mental health care, substance abuse treatment, and maternity care. Fox News Sunday host Brit Hume and Secretary of Health and Human Services Tom Price mentioned pre-existing conditions only to incorrectly state that patients with pre-existing conditions would not be affected by the bill.

    Cuts to Planned Parenthood

    The Senate bill also includes a one-year freeze on federal funding for Planned Parenthood. Several states have defunded Planned Parenthood, which has led to an “exploding HIV outbreak” and problems for low-income women who were suddenly unable to find a health care provider.

    Cuts to Planned Parenthood went unmentioned on Fox News Sunday and State of the Union. It was, however, mentioned in passing but with no real substantive conversation around the impacts by guests on Face the Nation and Meet the Press, while Sen. Susan Collins (R-ME) told This Week that cuts to Planned Parenthood may be one of the factors preventing her from voting for the bill.

    Methodology

    Media Matters used SnapStream to search for the following on the June 25 editions of Fox Broadcasting Co.’s Fox News Sunday, CNN’s State of the Union, ABC’s This Week, NBC’s Meet the Press, and CBS’ Face the Nation:

    • Media Matters searched for mentions of “old” or “elderly” to code for mentions of premium increases the elderly would face under the Senate bill.

    • Media Matters searched for mentions of “condition” or “benefit” to code for mentions of cuts to essential health benefits in the Senate bill and impact on those with pre-existing conditions.

    • Media Matters searched for mentions of “Planned Parenthood” to code for mentions of cuts to Planned Parenthood in the Senate bill.

  • Sunday shows ignore Angela Merkel saying Europe can no longer rely on the United States

    Blog ››› ››› ZACHARY PLEAT


    Medienmagazin / Creative Commons

    Before today’s cable and broadcast network Sunday political talk shows aired, German Chancellor Angela Merkel announced in a speech that President Donald Trump’s visit to the NATO and G7 summits showed that Europe no longer sees the United States as a reliable ally. Even though most of the Sunday shows discussed or mentioned Trump’s overseas trip, none of the shows reported on this perspective of his visit.

    During a reelection campaign stop in Munich, Germany, The New York Times reported Merkel “has apparently concluded that the United States of President Trump is not the reliable partner her country and continent have automatically depended on in the past.” Citing Trump’s refusal to publicly endorse the NATO doctrine of collective defense and inability to agree to common positions on climate change, Russia, and other issues, she “said on Sunday that traditional alliances were no longer as reliable as they once were, and that Europe should pay more attention to its own interests ‘and really take our fate into our own hands.’”

    The NY Times further reported:

    Her strong comments were a further indication that Mr. Trump’s trip did not go down well with influential European leaders and that it seems, at least from the Continent’s perspective, to have increased trans-Atlantic strains rather than diminish them.

    Ms. Merkel did not mention Mr. Trump by name, and she also spoke of Britain’s decision to quit the European Union, a move seen as weakening trans-Atlantic ties and leaving the Continent more exposed.

    [...]

    Speaking on the campaign trail after contentious summit meetings in Belgium and Italy, Ms. Merkel said: “The times in which we could rely fully on others, they are somewhat over.”

    “This is what I experienced in the last few days,” she said.

    Given this new context for international relations, she said, “that is why I can only say that we Europeans must really take our fate into our own hands — of course in friendship with the United States of America, in friendship with Great Britain and as good neighbors wherever that is possible also with other countries, even with Russia.”

    Though Merkel’s comments were reported on before the Sunday shows began airing, Fox Broadcasting Co.’s Fox News Sunday, CNN’s State of the Union, NBC’s Meet the Press, ABC’s This Week, and CBS’ Face the Nation all failed to mention her speech. (Face the Nation mentioned that “some not-so-happy allies were left questioning the president’s commitment to NATO and a global pact on climate change” but did not mention Merkel’s comments.)  NY Times correspondent Binyamin Appelbaum demonstrated how comments like Merkel’s could and should shape media coverage of Trump’s recent visit -- something the Sunday shows failed to deliver to their viewers.

    Methodology: Media Matters searched SnapStream for mentions of “NATO” and “Merkel” on the May 28 editions of CNN’s State of the Union, ABC’s This Week, CBS’ Face the Nation, NBC’s Meet the Press, and Fox Broadcasting Co.’s Fox News Sunday.

  • Climate Change Is Getting Worse And So Is Media's Coverage Of It

    Blog ››› ››› DAYANITA RAMESH, JOHN KERR & KEVIN KALHOEFER

    Broadcast networks are decreasing their climate coverage at a time when the case for reporting on the issue is become more and more compelling. By ignoring this serious matter, media are failing to inform audiences about pressing impacts on human migration patterns, women, and the economy.

    In 2016, media had no shortage of compelling reasons to cover climate change -- from the revelation that it was the third consecutive hottest year on record to the United States’ election of a climate denier to its highest office. Yet broadcast news outlets’ coverage of climate change dropped a whopping 66 percent from 2015 to 2016, making it the third consecutive year of declining coverage.

    When media turn a blind eye to climate change, they ignore an issue that will have devastating impacts and multiply existing threats across the globe. According to The New York Times, unmitigated climate change could displace between 50 million and 200 million people by 2050. But the effects of climate change are already visible. Un the U.S. last year, the federal government allocated $48 million in grants to resettle residents of Isle de Jean Charles in Louisiana, which represents “the first allocation of federal tax dollars to move an entire community struggling with the impacts of climate change.”

    Climate change poses a particular threat to women. A whole host of studies have concluded that women will bear the brunt of climate change-induced natural disasters and severe weather events. According to a United Nations analysis, “Women are more vulnerable to the effects of climate change than men—primarily as they constitute the majority of the world’s poor and are more dependent for their livelihood on natural resources that are threatened by climate change.” The analysis also stated, “When coupled with unequal access to resources and to decision-making processes, limited mobility places women in rural areas in a position where they are disproportionately affected by climate change.”

    The prospect of a warming planet also presents a huge risk to the global economy. Researchers at Stanford University and the University of California, Berkeley found that climate change could "reshape the global economy by reducing average global incomes roughly 23% by 2100 and widening global income inequality." The National Climate Assessment reported that in the U.S., “more than 5,790 square miles and more than $1 trillion of property are at risk of inundation from sea level rise of two feet above current level by 2050.” Not surprisingly, Bloomberg recently reported that most of the world’s biggest investors now consider climate change when making investment decisions.

    More and more Americans are waking up to the threat of climate change. Recent polls have found that a majority of Americans are concerned about global warming and believe action should be taken to address it. And yet there’s an inverse relationship between Americans’ growing concern about climate and the media’s coverage of it.

    By dropping the ball on climate change, media are doing audiences a huge disservice. As Washington Post Deputy Weather Editor Angela Fritz wrote, “The media have a responsibility to report the facts. If scientists agree an extreme weather event was made worse by climate change, viewers need to know that, not just because it is true, but because people do think it’s a problem. I don’t know whom network news and Congress are serving by turning a blind eye to climate change, but according to these poll results, it’s not the voters.” 

  • Sunday News Shows Mostly Silent On March For Science, Perpetuating The Dearth Of Coverage On Climate Change

    Blog ››› ››› DINA RADTKE

    Most of the Sunday news shows failed to cover the worldwide March for Science protests, an international demonstration partly meant to draw attention to President Donald Trump’s “disregard for evidence-based knowledge” and climate change denial.

    Protesters across the world demonstrated on April 22 for Earth Day, many of whom demonstrated against Trump’s “proposal to sharply cut federal science and research budgets and his administration's skepticism about climate change and the need to slow global warming,” according to Reuters. Leading up to the protests, a number of scientists voiced their concerns about the Trump administration’s climate-denying appointments, “politically motivated data deletions” of environmental science citations, and general “woeful ignorance” of science and climate change.

    Nonetheless, Sunday news shows generally ignored the events that attracted hundreds of thousands of protesters. ABC’s This Week, CBS’ Face the Nation, and NBC’s Meet the Press failed to mention the March for Science at all, according to a Media Matters review. CNN’s State of the Union only had a brief headline about the demonstrations, and Fox Broadcasting Co.’s Fox News Sunday only dedicated about one and a half minutes to the story.

    Sunday shows’ lack of coverage of the march is representative of media’s dearth of climate change coverage in general. A recent Media Matters study found that in 2016, the evening newscasts and Sunday shows on ABC, CBS, and NBC, as well as Fox News Sunday, collectively decreased their total coverage of climate change by 66 percent compared to 2015.

    Methodology

    Media Matters searched SnapStream for mentions of “March for Science,” “science,” and “march” on the April 23 editions of CNN’s State of the Union, ABC’s This Week, CBS’ Face the Nation, NBC’s Meet the Press, and Fox Broadcasting Co.’s Fox News Sunday.

  • Punditry On Syrian Airstrikes Is Encouraging Trump To Escalate Tensions With North Korea

    Similar Media Support Helped Enable Iraq War

    ››› ››› BOBBY LEWIS

    After President Donald Trump launched airstrikes against Syria in retaliation for a chemical weapons attack in that country, media figures from across the political spectrum praised his “beautiful” attack, with many also linking the action to the growing threat that another country -- North Korea -- poses to the United States. Effusive media support of military conflict was a key precursor to the Iraq War; the danger of such uncritically hawkish commentary has multiplied under Trump, who sources policy ideas -- and defenses for his conduct -- directly from media.

  • Following Dramatic Drop In Coverage, U.S. Senators Condemn Irresponsible Lack Of Climate Change Coverage

    Blog ››› ››› KEVIN KALHOEFER

    U.S. senators are calling on broadcast networks to fulfill their duty and bolster their news coverage of climate change, after a Media Matters study found that the networks dramatically decreased their coverage of climate change in 2016, during a campaign in which the U.S. elected a climate denier as president.

    Sens. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI) and Brian Schatz (D-HI) issued statements this week calling on the major broadcast networks to fulfill their responsibility and provide audiences with essential reporting on the impacts of and science surrounding climate change, as well as related policies. The senators’ statements were made in response to a study by Media Matters finding that in 2016, evening newscasts and Sunday shows on ABC, CBS, and NBC, as well as Fox Broadcast Co.'s Fox News Sunday, collectively decreased their total coverage of climate change by 66 percent compared to 2015.

    Sen. Whitehouse stated: 

    The Trump presidency has brought into sharp focus the critical responsibility of an independent news media to cover the science and policy of climate change. … Donald Trump ran a campaign blissfully unconcerned about climate change, even referring to it as a "hoax." Now President Trump has an ardent climate change denier who received millions from big polluters running the EPA, the former CEO of ExxonMobil heading up the State Department, and other industry operatives making decisions that affect the health and safety of American families. More than ever, Americans will need the free press to deliver the real facts on climate change. We don’t have time to waste on alternative ones.

    Sen. Schatz echoed Whitehouse’s sentiment, stating: 

    In a year when the American people were deciding who our next leader should be, you would think there would have been more discussions about climate change in our news programs, not less. This isn’t just shameful, it’s irresponsible. The climate is changing, and it’s affecting everything from the weather to our national security and our economy. Its impacts are already being felt and the American people deserve to know more about it.

    Indeed, as Media Matters found, during the campaign, ABC, CBS, NBC, and Fox did not air a single segment about the ramifications and impacts of a Trump or Hillary Clinton administration as they relate to climate change. 

  • How Broadcast Networks Covered Climate Change In 2016

    ››› ››› KEVIN KALHOEFER

    In 2016, evening newscasts and Sunday shows on ABC, CBS, and NBC, as well as Fox Broadcast Co.'s Fox News Sunday, collectively decreased their total coverage of climate change by 66 percent compared to 2015, even though there were a host of important climate-related stories, including the announcement of 2015 as the hottest year on record, the signing of the Paris climate agreement, and numerous climate-related extreme weather events. There were also two presidential candidates to cover, and they held diametrically opposed positions on the Clean Power Plan, the Paris climate agreement, and even on whether climate change is a real, human-caused phenomenon. Apart from PBS, the networks also failed to devote significant coverage to climate-related policies, but they still found the time to uncritically air climate denial -- the majority of which came from now-President Donald Trump and his team.

  • STUDY: Women’s Voices Marginalized In 2016 News Coverage Of Foreign Affairs And National Security

    ››› ››› MEDIA MATTERS STAFF

    Women accounted for just one-quarter of total guests discussing foreign affairs and national security in 2016 during prime-time programming on CNN, Fox News, MSNBC and on the five major Sunday political talk shows. This stark disparity between women and men is actually a slight improvement over previously established trends for 2015 and 2014, but more work remains to be done to better include perspectives from women. Over the last 3 years, Media Matters has partnered with Foreign Policy Interrupted to expose and address gender disparities in news coverage of foreign affairs and national security.

  • Mainstream Outlets Are Normalizing Trump's Impeachable Offense

    Blog ››› ››› TIMOTHY JOHNSON

    During the first month of Donald Trump’s presidency, broadcast evening news shows and Sunday political talk shows devoted a total of just over 10 minutes to discussing the allegation that Trump is violating the U.S. Constitution by receiving foreign government payments. The scant reporting that did address this issue failed to mention that such conduct is an impeachable offense. 

    Article I, Section 9 of the Constitution, known as the Emoluments Clause, creates a broad prohibition on federal officeholders, including the president, receiving payments from foreign governments without the consent of Congress. It reads: “No title of nobility shall be granted by the United States: and no person holding any office of profit or trust under them, shall, without the consent of the Congress, accept of any present, emolument, office, or title, of any kind whatever, from any king, prince, or foreign state.”

    The provision is much broader than a ban on receiving bribes. According to legal experts, even “fair market value transactions that result in any economic profit or benefit” count as an emolument, because the Founding Fathers wanted a “prophylactic” rule aimed at preventing even the appearance of corruption.

    A president’s violation of the clause is an impeachable offense.

    According to legal experts, Trump’s retention of an ownership interest in the Trump Organization as president means that he has been violating the Constitution since the moment he took the oath of office. Indeed, just two days after the inauguration, the watchdog organization Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) filed a lawsuit in federal court “to stop President Trump from violating the Constitution.” A press release about the suit notes that the president “is now getting cash and favors from foreign governments, through guests and events at his hotels, leases in his buildings, and valuable real estate deals abroad.” (Other presidents have avoided violating the clause by placing their assets into an independently controlled blind trust, something Trump has refused to do.)

    In what should serve as a prompt for investigative journalists, the exact nature of the emoluments Trump has received is unclear in many instances due to Trump’s refusal to release his tax returns. As Emoluments Clause expert Zephyr Teachout, an associate law professor who is a lawyer on CREW’s lawsuit, explained in The Washington Post, while some emoluments Trump is receiving are known -- including rent paid by the Qatari state airline at a Trump property, licensing fees paid by several foreign countries for rights to the TV show The Apprentice, and construction permits granted by the Indian government -- the full extent of his violations is unknown because “Trump hasn’t disclosed any information about his finances.”

    In spite of Trump’s secretive business dealings, two concrete new violations emerged during the first month of his presidency.

    According to a February 9 report from Politico, “A lobbying firm working for Saudi Arabia paid for a room at Donald Trump’s Washington hotel after Inauguration Day, marking the first publicly known payment on behalf of a foreign government to a Trump property since he became president.” The article notes that the payment “raises questions about whether it represents a violation of the foreign emoluments clause.”

    Politico quoted Obama ethics attorney Norm Eisen, who described the payment as part of a “systemic problem,” and constitutional law expert Laurence Tribe, who said, “This example is bound to be one of a vast stream of instances.” Both Tribe and Eisen are lawyers on CREW’s lawsuit.

    Then The Associated Press reported on February 14 that Trump was set to score an “unlikely” legal win in China by way of a “trademark for building construction services” following “a decade of grinding battle in China's courts.” According to the report, the legal victory “could signal a shift in fortune for the U.S. president's intellectual property in China. At stake are 49 pending trademark applications -- all made during his campaign -- and 77 marks already registered in his name, most of which will come up for renewal during his term.” (China announced the trademark two days after AP’s article.)

    As the AP report aptly noted, “Trump's foreign trademarks have raised red flags with ethics lawyers across the political spectrum who say they present grave conflicts of interest and may violate the emoluments clause of the U.S. Constitution.” (Indeed, a post at the libertarian Volokh Conspiracy blog concluded that the trademark grant qualifies as an emolument received by Trump.)

    The nation’s leading news programs have insufficiently covered a story about a president openly taking actions that not only violate the Constitution but also are grounds for impeachment.

    CBS Evening News, ABC World News Tonight, and NBC Nightly News have each devoted a single segment to foreign payments to Trump.

    A January 20 CBS Evening News segment didn’t mention the Emoluments Clause explicitly, but it included an interview with George Washington University law school professor Steven Schooner, who explained how Trump can profit from foreign governments via the Trump Organization.

    ABC World News Tonight and NBC Nightly News each devoted brief segments on January 23 to CREW’s lawsuit.

    In total, the issue was covered for just over seven minutes on broadcast nightly news between January 20 and February 20. None of the segments mentioned violating the Emoluments Clause is an impeachable offense:

    Sunday political talk shows provided even less coverage. During the January 22 broadcast of ABC’s This Week, host George Stephanopoulos directly asked White House counselor Kellyanne Conway and Sen. Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) about Trump and the Emoluments Clause. During the January 29 edition of NBC’s Meet the Press, host Chuck Todd asked White House chief of staff Reince Priebus why Muslim-majority countries with business ties to Trump were left out of Trump’s travel ban, although the Emoluments Clause was never directly cited. CBS’ Face the Nation, Fox Broadcasting Co.’s Fox News Sunday, and CNN’s State of the Union all failed to discuss the issue.

    Sunday show coverage of the issue totaled just under four minutes, with no discussion of how the offense is grounds for impeachment:

    Methodology:

    Media Matters searched Nexis transcripts for ABC, NBC, CBS, Fox News, and CNN for "emoluments," "emolument," "Trump Organization," "Trump Hotel," Trump w/10 “trump international hotel,” Trump w/10 impeach, Trump w/10 constitution, Trump w/10 "conflict of interest," Trump w/10 conflicted, Trump w/10 payment, Trump w/10 “foreign payment,” and Trump w/10 divest. We identified segments that mentioned foreign payments to Trump in the context of conflict-of-interest questions and/or the Emoluments Clause directly, and then counted those segments for time in iQ media.

    Graphics by Sarah Wasko.

  • STUDY: Cable And Broadcast Coverage Of The Economy Spiked After The Election

    Representation Of Economists Remained High In Fourth Quarter As Surprising Election Result Forced Outlets To Scramble For Explanations

    ››› ››› ALEX MORASH & CRAIG HARRINGTON

    The final quarter of 2016 saw an increase in cable and broadcast news coverage of the economy from the prior three-month period. Yet the proportion of economic coverage that focused on economic inequality decreased sharply as attacks on progressive economic policies rose. Fox News led the charge in attacking progressive policies and health care reform throughout the fourth quarter of the year, while the leading defender of progressive initiatives, MSNBC, aired most of its economic coverage after Election Day. The relative proportion of economists booked as guests during economic news segments remained higher than in years past but dropped as a percentage from the third to fourth quarters of 2016. The proportional representation of women in cable and broadcast evening news discussions of the economy reached a record, but dispiriting, high in the fourth quarter at a mere 30 percent of all guests.