The New York Times | Page 22 | Media Matters for America

The New York Times

Tags ››› The New York Times
  • The Right-Wing Pundits Who Pushed Automatic Classification Myth To Smear Clinton Are Burned Again

    ››› ››› TYLER CHERRY

    A State Department letter sent to Capitol Hill reportedly stated that sending “‘foreign government information’ in unclassified emails ‘does not amount to mishandling the information,’” undercutting right-wing media claims that Democratic presidential front-runner Hillary Clinton violated the law by sending and receiving emails that contained “foreign government information." 

  • Inside The Fossil Fuel Industry's Media Strategy To Drill And Mine On Public Lands

    ››› ››› DENISE ROBBINS

    A handful of fossil fuel industry front groups are engineering media campaigns aimed at persuading the public that the federal government should relinquish control of public lands to western states, claiming it would benefit the states economically. But evidence actually suggests that these land transfers would harm state economies, and the industry front groups are hiding their true motivation: opening up more public lands to oil drilling and coal mining while sidestepping federal environmental laws.

  • Trump Campaign Hires Ben Carson, Fox's Former Favorite Candidate, To Head VP Selection Committee

    Blog ››› ››› NICK FERNANDEZ

    Former Fox News contributor Dr. Ben Carson will reportedly be included on presumptive Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump’s “committee to handle the selection process” of a vice presidential running mate. Fox helped launch Carson’s own failed presidential campaign while he served as a network contributor despite the extreme comments he repeatedly made on the network.

    Carson, who suspended his own presidential campaign several months ago, endorsed Trump in March. According to a May 4 report in The New York Times, Trump has indicated that he'll include Carson on his vice presidential selection committee.

    Much like Donald Trump, Carson had a beneficial relationship with Fox News. As a network contributor, Carson was encouraged by Fox figures to launch his own bid for the White House. Sean Hannity hosted Carson on his Fox News show and asked him if he would ever run for president, then announced, "I would vote for you in a heartbeat." Carson even thanked Fox News in a 2014 speech for providing him a platform to push his own beliefs, saying, “We’d be Cuba if there were no Fox News.”

    Fox frequently defended Carson during his presidential campaign, following Carson’s lead and claiming that media were unfairly scrutinizing his past. In November 2014, Fox News reportedly terminated Carson's contract, yet the announcement came over a month after Fox News senior vice president Neil Cavuto told Carson on air, "I think you're running for office now."

    Carson has a history of making extreme and inflammatory comments. He has claimed that the outcome of the Holocaust would have been different “if the people had been armed,” fabricated a story about being admitted to West Point, said he believes Joseph built Egypt’s pyramids to store grain, and compared advocates of marriage equality to pedophiles.

  • Conservative Media Lash Out At John Boehner For Calling Ted Cruz “Lucifer In The Flesh”

    Blog ››› ››› JULIE ALDERMAN & BOBBY LEWIS

    Right-wing media condemned former Speaker of the House John Boehner (R-OH) for referring to Republican presidential candidate Ted Cruz (R-TX) as “Lucifer in the flesh” and the most "miserable son of a bitch” he has ever worked with.

    Former House Speaker John Boehner Calls Ted Cruz “Lucifer In The Flesh”

    NY TimesBoehner Described Ted Cruz As Lucifer In The Flesh, The Most "Miserable Son Of A Bitch” He Ever Worked With. The New York Times reported on April 28 that Boehner “described Senator Ted Cruz as ‘Lucifer in the flesh’ … and said that he would not vote for” Cruz if he became the Republican presidential nominee:

    Former House Speaker John A. Boehner described Senator Ted Cruz as “Lucifer in the flesh” during a forum at Stanford University on Wednesday and said that he would not vote for the Texas Republican if he is the party’s presidential nominee.

    [...]

    Mr. Boehner’s harshest assessment was saved for Mr. Cruz, who he has not forgiven for spearheading the 2013 government shutdown.

    “I have Democrat friends and Republican friends,” Mr. Boehner told David Kennedy, an emeritus history professor, at the event. “I get along with almost everyone, but I have never worked with a more miserable son of a bitch in my life.” [The New York Times4/28/16]

    Conservative Media Lash Out At Boehner, Call His Comments A “Witless Cheap Shot”

    National Review Editors: Boehner’s Comments Are “A Witless Cheap Shot” And “Petty Grudge-Holding. National Review’s editorial board wrote on April 28 that Boehner’s characterization of Cruz was a “witless cheap shot.” The editors said the comments were “petty grudge-holding” and speculated that these “knee-jerk responses … though cathartic, would ultimately set back our common goals”:

    We get it. John Boehner doesn’t like Ted Cruz. In a witless cheap shot, Boehner called him “Lucifer in the flesh” at an event at Stanford University. Boehner’s attitude is widespread among Republican insiders who are foolishly allowing personal ill will to cloud their reasoned judgment about who, among the candidates left in the GOP race, is the best representative of conservative principles and policies, and about who would be the best candidate in the upcoming general election.

    [...]

    [P]rominent conservatives who might not be counted among Cruz’s friends — Lindsey Graham and Jeb Bush come to mind — have urged the party to rally around Cruz as the only reliable conservative left in the race.

    They’re right to do so, and not to give in to the petty grudge-holding of John Boehner. In 2013, when Cruz was engineering his ill-fated government shutdown, his Republican critics, including us, warned against interpreting tactical disagreements as evidence of disagreements about objectives. We encouraged conservatives not to indulge in knee-jerk responses that, though cathartic, would ultimately set back our common goals. That argument works in both directions. Whatever his personal feelings, Boehner agrees with Cruz on most questions of principle and policy, and it’s a shame he can’t act accordingly. [National Review4/28/16]

    Sean Hannity: “John Boehner, Shut Up … You Failed The Republican Party.” On the April 28 edition of Fox News’ Hannity, host Sean Hannity told Boehner to “shut up,” calling his performance as speaker “weak, timid, feckless, visionless.” Hannity asserted that Boehner “failed the Republican Party,” concluding, “We don’t need lectures from you”:

    SEAN HANNITY (HOST):  All right, I’ve got to tell you something. I can't say this strongly enough. John Boehner, shut up. You know what? You gave us $4 trillion in debt. You were weak, timid, feckless, visionless. And I’ve got to be honest, you want to know why Cruz and Trump are doing so well? Look in the mirror, because you are afraid of your own shadow that you might get blamed for a government shutdown, so you wouldn't defund Obamacare, you wouldn’t use the power of the purse, you wouldn’t defund executive amnesty, which was -- which Republicans ran on in 2014. You failed the Republican Party. We don't need lectures from you against presidential candidates that are resonating with the American people, thank you very much. [Fox News, Hannity4/28/16]

    Townhall’s Kurt Schlichter: Boehner “Today Just Demonstrated His Utter Contempt For” The People On The Right. During the April 28 edition of NRA News’ Cam & Company, conservative Townhall columnist Kurt Schlichter said Boehner’s remarks “proved” that he was “a giant waste of air.” Schlichter concluded, “The people on the right are angry … at people like John Boehner, who today just demonstrated his utter contempt for them”:

    CAM EDWARDS (HOST): How about that? “Lucifer in the flesh.” So, I saw that description today, and for whatever reason, Kurt, the phrase “Goldwater’s baby” came to mind --

    KURT SCHLICHTER: Its eyes! Its eyes! What did you do to its eyes!

    EDWARDS: I want somebody to use that as an insult this year, I just want to hear somebody call someone else “Goldwater’s baby.”

    SCHLICHTER: Oh my gosh. You know, with Boehner, sometimes it's like, you know, we all knew it, and then it happens. This guy literally says he would vote for Hillary Clinton before one of the nominees by the other Republicans. This was our speaker. We were all saying you know, this guy is a giant waste of air, and then he comes out and just completely proves it.

    [...]

    SCHLICHTER: The people on the right are angry. They’re angry at people like John Boehner, who today just demonstrated his utter contempt for them. And they always knew it, and there were people saying, "No, no, no, he really doesn’t feel that way." And well I said, “You know, I kind of think he does.” And now he’s kind of proved it. I think people are justifiably angry. They’re not going to -- to quote Roger Daltrey, "won't be fooled again!" [NRA News, Cam & Company4/28/16]

    Fox’s Laura Ingraham: “I Don’t Like That Comment By John Boehner. At All.” On the April 29 edition of Courtside Entertainment Group’s The Laura Ingraham Show, host Laura Ingraham decried Boehner’s comments as “not helpful.” Ingraham called Boehner and “establishment” Republicans “devils,” saying, “I have the idea it’s devilish to run on one thing and then govern on something quite different”:

    LAURA INGRAHAM (HOST): This John Boehner comment about Cruz as “Lucifer in the flesh"? Not helpful. I said yesterday when I saw that this had been said that, I mean, John Boehner should just button it. It's not helpful. Now, you see, I have the idea it's devilish to run on one thing and then govern on something quite different. I think that's very deceiving, as the devil is deceiving. Ted Cruz actually said he was going to run on some basic principles, and for the most part it seems like Ted Cruz actually, you know, tried to fulfill his Senate duties with those principles in mind. Now that's “Lucifer in the flesh”? What? It seems like the revolt against the establishment is making it pretty clear who people think the devils are. The devils are the people who say they’re going to oppose Obama only to fund his entire budget. The devils are the people who say they’re pro-life only to fund Planned Parenthood. The devils are the people who spend most of the good part of an entire year pushing Obama's Trade Promotion Authority. The devils are the people who say they’re going to get rid of Obamacare only to allow Obamacare to be funded. Those are the devils. The devils are the people who call the people the loud people, or make fun of them and say “it’s too hard,” like John Boehner did. So I don't like that comment by John Boehner. At All. [Courtside Entertainment Group, The Laura Ingraham Show4/29/16]

    Conservative Radio Host Hugh Hewitt: “Despicable Is My Term For [Boehner’s] Attack On [Cruz].

    [Twitter, 4/29/16]

    Media Research Center’s Brent Bozell: “Boehner Doesn’t Have The Guts To Apologize. He Is A World-Class Coward.”

    [Twitter, 4/29/16]

    The Blaze’s Dana Loesch: “John Boehner Gets Along With Every Beltway Elitist -- But Not The Average American. This Is Why He’s Out To Pasture.”

    [Twitter, 4/28/16]

     

  • NY Times Ed. Board: Trump's "Makeover Efforts" Can't Obscure "His Unfitness For The Presidency"

    Blog ››› ››› MEDIA MATTERS STAFF

    The New York Times editorial board called out Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump's "makeover efforts" at rebranding as presidential, saying they "cannot obscure his brutish agenda" or "his unfitness for the presidency."

    After Trump's campaign chief Paul Manafort told members of the Republican National Committee (RNC) that Trump’s “image is going to change,” several media figures criticized the move as a sham reinvention, noting "it is important to remember" his myriad insults and extreme rhetoric. Other media outlets continued to give Trump misplaced credit for his supposed reinvention as "presidential."

    On April 26, the Times editorial board asserted that despite Manafort's statement that Trump is "evolving," the candidate already "has reverted to bad habits...telling lies" and saying "that he hasn’t forgotten or doesn’t regret what he said about Mexicans and Muslims." The board also reported that Trump ally Roger Stone said "the presidency 'is show business' to Mr. Trump":

    Mr. Trump has hired a Henry Higgins to work on his comportment. Paul Manafort, Mr. Trump’s new campaign chief and an old-guard Republican strategist, has eclipsed the abrasive Corey Lewandowski and his nonnegotiable “Let Trump Be Trump” approach. Mr. Manafort’s ambition is to turn this Eliza Doolittle into a candidate more acceptable to decent society, in time for the general election.

    [...]

    But Mr. Trump has reverted to bad habits. He’s still telling lies, and earned four Pinocchios last week for saying that ISIS is “making a fortune” on Libyan oil the terrorist group doesn’t control. On the trail last week, he showed crowds that he hasn’t forgotten or doesn’t regret what he said about Mexicans and Muslims. “I sort of don’t like toning it down,” he said in Connecticut. “Isn’t it nice that I’m not one of these teleprompter guys?”

    Mr. Trump knows that to do well in Tuesday’s primaries he still needs those “motivated voters” who want him to say what other politicians won’t. Yet the Trump on the stump is the true man. However copiously applied, cosmetics cannot obscure his brutish agenda, nor the narcissism, capriciousness and most of all, the inexperience paired with intellectual laziness that would make him a disastrous president.

    [...]

    Whatever persona or good manners Mr. Trump chooses to display from now on, he can’t hide his unfitness for the presidency.

     

  • NY Times: In Firing Of Schilling, ESPN Affirmed They Would No Longer Tolerate "The Language Of Bias"

    Blog ››› ››› MEDIA MATTERS STAFF

    Earlier this week, ESPN fired baseball commentator Curt Schilling following criticism he received after sharing an offensive image attacking transgender people on Facebook, affirming that media is increasingly refusing to accept discriminatory language from staff.

    In response to the backlash, Schilling wrote on his blog that those who have spoken out were "just dying to be offended" so they "can create some sort of faux cause to rally behind." Schilling has a history of posting crass messages online and was previously suspended after posting an image that compared Muslims to Nazis. Former ESPN ombudsmen previously described how Schilling would post “hurtful” messages which reflected on ESPN because "Curt Schilling is representing ESPN."

    Schilling’s termination this week reflects a larger wave among media companies, who are acting after media figures' comments create a backlash which reflect poorly upon companies that employ them. In March, Univision fired a TV host who used racially inflammatory comments on its network. CNN and MSNBC have banned Roger Stone from appearing on air after his sexist and racist tweets were revealed.

    The New York Times' Richard Sandomir positively highlights ESPN’s decision to fire Curt Schilling for violating the company's corporate policy and noted that this type of language is hurtful and unnecessary:

    When [Schilling] shared the message on social media earlier this week, he did not seem to grasp that he had implicitly endorsed it, especially after he added a comment about which public restrooms are appropriate for men and which are not. He is a public figure with a well-developed online profile as a political conservative and Second Amendment supporter who, by the way, was a terrific pitcher over a 20-season career. His propensity for living on the third rail of social media was at odds with ESPN’s internal policy that cautions its workers to be prudent.

    But by Wednesday, ESPN had had enough of him and fired him from his job as an analyst on “Monday Night Baseball.” He had been sent there from his previous, more prestigious position on Sunday night games, for retweeting a message last summer about extreme Muslims and Nazis, which earned him a monthlong suspension.

    In firing him, ESPN shed itself of a nuisance who did not, or could not, follow corporate policy and could not grasp that passing around an anti-transgender message digitally might affect people who are finding their way to new gender identities. Crass words and visuals hurt.

    We are in a moment when tolerance exists side-by-side with intolerance. Same-sex marriage is widely accepted, but North Carolina enacts its bathroom law. Advocacy groups like the You Can Play Project and Athlete Ally fight homophobia in sports, yet players still utter anti-gay slurs in the heat of the moment — and after the sweat dries, they say their spontaneous exhortations do not represent who they are.

    [...]

    But, of course, the language of bias is as hurtful as it is unnecessary.

  • NY Times Editorial Board Debunks Conservative Myths About Obamacare

    Blog ››› ››› MEDIA MATTERS STAFF

    The New York Times editorial board debunked the “big myths” Republican presidential candidates Donald Trump and Ted Cruz are “peddling about the Affordable Care Act and also their ill-conceived plans of what might replace it.” The board wrote that Trump and Cruz are “willing to mislead the public any way they can” to “trash the Affordable Care Act” by “inventing problems that don’t exist and proposing solutions that won’t help.”

    Right-wing media have smeared Obamacare for years with baseless catastrophic predictions and falsehoods, and 2016 Republican presidential candidates have followed suit. That fearmongering has been stunningly wrong, and numerous reports have repeatedly highlighted the Affordable Care Act’s successes in bringing “historic increases in coverage.”

    In an April 19 editorial, the Times’ editorial board explained that, contrary to Trump and Cruz’s misleading attempts to trash the Affordable Care Act, “the law has helped millions of Americans, especially low-wage workers … who previously struggled to pay for coverage.” From the Times’ editorial board:

    “Disaster.” “Incredible economic burden.” “The biggest job-killer in this country.”

    Central to the presidential campaigns of Donald Trump and Ted Cruz has been the claim that the Affordable Care Act has been a complete failure, and that the only way to save the country from this scourge is to replace it with something they design.

    [...]

    Mr. Cruz claimed that “millions of Americans” had lost their health insurance because of the health reform law.

    […]

    Insurers did stop offering some plans after the law took effect, including those that didn’t provide required benefits like maternity care or that charged higher premiums to older or sicker people. But people with those plans had the opportunity to sign up for others. And over all, the law has drastically reduced the number of Americans who lack health insurance. According to the Census Bureau, the number of uninsured Americans dropped by 10 million between 2010, when the law passed, and 2014. While critics said employers might stop offering health insurance because of the law, three million people actually gained coverage through their employers between 2010 and 2014.

    [...]

    Mr. Cruz has called the Affordable Care Act “the biggest job-killer in this country” and said “millions of Americans have lost their jobs, have been forced into part-time work” because of it. This is false. The unemployment rate has fallen since the law took effect, PolitiFact notes, as has the number of people working part time when they would rather work full time. A 2015 study using data from the Current Population Survey found that the law “had virtually no adverse effect on labor force participation, employment or usual hours worked per week through 2014.”

    [...]

    [T]he biggest obstacle stopping insurers from setting up in more states is not regulation; it’s the difficulty of establishing a network of providers in a new market. And such a structure would destroy the longstanding ability of states to regulate health insurance for their populations. Some states, for instance, require coverage for infertility treatment and others have chosen not to. Allowing cross-border plans would encourage insurers to base themselves in low-regulation states, and the result might be a proliferation of poor-quality plans.

    The Affordable Care Act is not perfect.

    [...]

    But the law has helped millions of Americans, especially low-wage workers like cashiers, cooks and waiters who previously struggled to pay for coverage. In inventing problems that don’t exist and proposing solutions that won’t help, Donald Trump and Ted Cruz show that they don’t care about helping Americans get health care, which has never been their interest. They want to trash the Affordable Care Act, and they’re willing to mislead the public any way they can.

  • NY Times Editorial Board Calls Out The “Lunacy” Of Anti-LGBT Bathroom Bills

    Blog ››› ››› RACHEL PERCELAY

    For the second time in the past month, the New York Times editorial board decried the “lunacy” of anti-LGBT “bathroom bills” seeking to ban transgender people from the public bathrooms that align with their gender identity, calling on lawmakers to consider the “price of bigotry” when pushing for such legislation.  

    Last month, following a special session convened by North Carolina's Republican-controlled legislature, Republican Gov. Pat McCrory signed into law a bill (HB2) targeting the transgender community by banning people from using public restrooms that do not match the gender on their birth certificate. The measure, which also prohibits local municipalities from enacting LGBT-inclusive nondiscrimination ordinances, was introduced in response to a provision adopted in Charlotte expanding nondiscrimination protections for LGBT people.

    Proponents of the law peddled the debunked talking point that the ordinance's nondiscrimination protections for transgender people would allow male predators to enter women’s bathrooms and commit sexual assault. Responding to the law last month, the New York Times editorial board excoriated the North Carolina legislature for "spuriously portraying transgender women as potential rapists" to ram through an "appalling, unconstitutional bill." The board slammed the "bathroom predator" myth as a "threat [that] exists only in the imagination of bigots."

    Despite the intense backlash to HB2 and economic harm caused by the law over the past several weeks, legislators in six other states are pushing for similar laws broadly banning transgender people from restrooms. On April 18, the New York Times editorial board once again called out the “lunacy” of these laws, quoting a letter from a South Carolina sheriff with 41 years of experience in law enforcement, who called the “bathroom predator” myth a “non-issue.” The Times also highlighted the serious economic cost of “bathroom bills” and asked lawmakers to consider “the price of bigotry” when pushing for anti-LGBT legislation:

    After the withering backlash against North Carolina for passing a discriminatory law against gay and transgender people last month, it would stand to reason that lawmakers and governors in other states would think twice before peddling bills that dictate which restrooms transgender people can use.

    And yet, state legislators in Tennessee, Kansas, South Carolina and Minnesota are pushing similar absurd measures. The lunacy at the heart of this demand to police every public bathroom was captured by Leon Lott, the sheriff of Richland County in South Carolina, who told state lawmakers last week that the law would be unenforceable because his officers could not be in the business of inspecting people’s genitals.

    “In the 41 years I have been in law enforcement in South Carolina, I have never heard of a transgender person attacking or otherwise bothering someone in a restroom,” Sheriff Lott wrote in a letter to the committee studying the state’s bathroom bill. “This is a non-issue.”

    Laws to address non-issues can have serious repercussions. The hastily passed bill in North Carolina, which said people must use public restrooms based on the gender on their birth certificate and prohibited local governments from passing nondiscrimination ordinances, has been roundly condemned by corporate leaders, civil rights groups and religious leaders.

    The law cost the state hundreds of jobs after PayPal scrapped plans to open a global hub in Charlotte and Deutsche Bank suspended plans to expand its operations in the state. Executives from 80 major companies, including Google, Apple and Facebook, wrote a letter to the governor of North Carolina, Pat McCrory, urging repeal of the law, arguing that it would make it “far more challenging for businesses across the state to recruit and retain the nation’s best and brightest workers.”

    […]

    Despite what supporters of these laws might claim, the measures do nothing to make restrooms safer. They will only further stigmatize and endanger people who already face systemic discrimination. If lawmakers who might want to follow North Carolina’s abhorrent example aren’t moved by appeals to equality and human rights, they should ponder this reality: The price of bigotry is becoming quite steep.

  • Why Won't The New York Times Tell The Truth About "Bathroom Predators" In Its Reporting?

    Blog ››› ››› CRISTIANO LIMA

    The New York Times has failed to debunk the "bathroom predator" myth in its reporting on North Carolina's anti-LGBT bathroom law, despite its own editorial board acknowledging that the myth "exists only in the imagination of bigots."

    On March 23, North Carolina legislators passed a law, House Bill 2 (HB2), barring transgender people from certain bathrooms and locker rooms that do not match the gender on their birth certificates. Proponents of the law falsely claim it’s needed to stop sexual predators from sneaking into women's restrooms by claiming to be transgender.

    The New York Times' own editorial board has described that talking point as baseless, writing in a March 25 editorial (emphasis added):

    Gov. Pat McCrory, who signed the bill into law late Wednesday, said it was necessary to undo Charlotte’s ordinance, which included protections for gay and transgender people, because it allowed “men to use women’s bathroom/locker room.” Proponents of so-called bathroom bills, which have been introduced in state legislatures across the country, have peddled them by spuriously portraying transgender women as potential rapists.

    That threat exists only in the imagination of bigots. Supporters of the measures have been unable to point to a single case that justifies the need to legislate where people should be allowed to use the toilet. North Carolina is the first state to pass such a provision.

    [...]

    By promoting the ludicrous idea that transgender women are inherently dangerous, the law endangers citizens who are already disproportionately vulnerable to violence and stigmatization.

    Despite this, the Times has failed to debunk the "bathroom predator" myth in its reporting on HB2, choosing instead to create a false equivalency by uncritically presenting comments from both opponents and supporters of the law.

    • On March 28, the Times reported that "some conservatives complained that the [North Carolina] ordinance would endanger women and girls by allowing people who are anatomically male to use their restrooms," adding that "transgender advocates dismiss that as nonsense, saying that transgender people have been using their chosen bathrooms for years without incident."

    • On March 29, the Times reported that lawmakers focused on “the contention that it might allow men dressed as women to enter bathrooms and commit assaults,” and noted that “critics say there is no evidence that has happened elsewhere.”

    • On April 1, the newspaper reported that "lawmakers had said that they were trying to prevent men from dressing as women to enter bathrooms and commit assaults," adding that "Critics said there was no evidence that had happened."

    • On April 11, the Times quoted Lt. Gov. Dan Forest who perpetuated the myth stating, “If our action in keeping men out of women’s bathrooms and showers protected the life of just one child or one woman from being molested or assaulted, it was worth it,” yet failed to include any pushback to Forest's claim.

    The Times adopted that same false equivalency in its reporting on anti-discrimination ordinances in cites like Jacksonville, FL and Houston, TX despite its editorial board acknowledging that the "bathroom predator" myth is "completely unfounded."

    That kind of false balance is a form of misinformation -- it distorts reality and makes it harder for readers to figure out the truth. In 2012, The New York Times' Public Editor Margaret Sullivan called attention to the issue of false balance and encouraged journalists “to make every effort to get beyond the spin and help readers know what to believe,” writing:

    Simply put, false balance is the journalistic practice of giving equal weight to both sides of a story, regardless of an established truth on one side. And many people are fed up with it. They don’t want to hear lies or half-truths given credence on one side, and shot down on the other. They want some real answers.

    […]

    It ought to go without saying, but I’m going to say it anyway: Journalists need to make every effort to get beyond the spin and help readers know what to believe, to help them make their way through complicated and contentious subjects.

    The more news organizations can state established truths and stand by them, the better off the readership — and the democracy — will be.

    The Times' editorial board has correctly and repeatedly stated that the "bathroom predator" talking point is baseless and harmful. But that kind of truth-telling needs to show up in its reporting on laws like North Carolina's, rather than being relegated to its opinion section.

  • Media Document The Economic Cost Of North Carolina’s Anti-LGBTQ Law

    Republican North Carolina Officials Defend Discriminatory Law Despite Increasing Economic Consequences

    ››› ››› ERIN FITZGERALD

    North Carolina’s Republican administration is still defending its anti-LGBTQ law House Bill 2 (HB 2), even as media outlets continue to document the economic harm the law has done to the state, including via backlash from the business community and potential loss of federal funds. 

  • David Daleiden Is Not A Journalist

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

    ››› ››› SHARON KANN

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