This Week

Tags ››› This Week
  • ABC's This Week to host Eric Bolling, a misogynistic, bigoted birther from Fox News

    Fox luminary to join Sunday show panel

    Blog ››› ››› JULIE ALDERMAN

    Fox News host and Trump shill Eric Bolling is scheduled to appear as a panelist on ABC’s This Week. Aside from cheerleading everything President Donald Trump says and does, Bolling was a prominent birther who challenged former President Barack Obama’s legitimacy, as well as a racist, sexist and Islamophobic conspiracy theorist.

    Bolling has been one of Trump’s most outspoken media sycophants, even on Fox News. He’s dismissed Trump’s lies, downplayed the controversies surrounding the president, and deflected blame from Trump and his allies. Even his colleagues at Fox News have called him a “Trump apologist.” Bolling has also criticized the integrity of the host of This Week, George Stephanopoulos. In October, Bolling speculated that Good Morning America, ABC’s morning show which Stephanopoulos also hosts, did not cover hacked emails from former Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton’s top aides released on WikiLeaks because Stephanopoulos used to work for former President Bill Clinton.

    Bolling’s affection for Trump makes sense. After all, they both have a history of using racist, sexist and Islamophobic rhetoric, as well as a pattern of hyping conspiracy theories.

    “Boobs on the ground” and more casual sexism

    Bolling had a pattern of making sexist remarks as a co-host of Fox News’ The Five. In 2014, Bolling had to apologize for asking if the first female pilot for the United Arab Emirates, who conducted bombing against Islamic State terrorists, “would … be considered boobs on the ground.” Later that year, Bolling said men are “more successful ... and better leaders” than women. In 2013, he lamented that allowing young girls to play football was part of “the wussification of American men.” The year before, he had criticized a story of a 9-year-old girl playing football, saying, “Let the boys be boys, let the girls be girls.” And in 2015, Bolling cackled in response to co-host Kimberly Guilfoyle’s remark that “anything a guy can do, a woman can do better.”

    “Step away from the crack pipe” and other racist remarks

    Bolling also has a history of racist remarks. In 2012, Bolling told Rep. Maxine Waters (D-CA), who is African-American, that she should “step away from the crack pipe.” Bolling also lectured "rappers" last year, saying that they should be happy because white people are “financing their lifestyles” by buying their music. When the Gabonese president Ali Bongo visited the White House during the Obama administration, Bolling characterized it as "a hoodlum in the hizzouse." Bolling also criticized Obama's leadership in 2011 by claiming the first African-American president was "chugging a few 40s" instead of doing his job. 

    Bolling has said that racism doesn’t exist anymore, because the U.S. elected a black president and there are “black entertainment channels.” He has also argued, “There’s no racial aspect of [police] profiling” and called Obama and former Attorney General Eric Holder “race merchants” for defending the Voting Rights Act.

    “Every terrorist on American soil has been a Muslim,” and other everyday Islamophobia

    Bolling has also made a series of Islamophobic remarks on Fox News. In 2012, Bolling alleged that “every terrorist on American soil has been a Muslim.” Bolling also opposed the proposal to build a Muslim community center near ground zero in New York City, suggesting it could be “a meeting place for some of the scariest minds,” even “some of the biggest terrorist minds.”

    In addition to his own rhetoric, Bolling has defended Islamophobic remarks made by others. After then-presidential candidate Ben Carson said in 2015 that the U.S. shouldn’t elect a Muslim president, Bolling defended him, saying, “Unless you’re willing to denounce Sharia law as the governing law over yourself, and anyone you oversee, I wouldn’t vote for a Muslim either.” Bolling also defended Trump’s false claim that “thousands and thousands” of Muslims in New Jersey cheered on 9/11 as the twin towers came down, alleging, “I know there were Muslims and Muslim groups who were happy that the World Trade Center came down.”

    Birtherism, Muppets, and other conspiracy theories from Bolling

    During his time at Fox News, Bolling has pushed a number of conspiracy theories. He was a big force behind the “birther” conspiracy theory that alleged that Obama was not born in the U.S. After Obama released his long-form birth certificate, Bolling still claimed, that “there is a legitimate question as to whether or not the president of the United States is allowed to be president of the United States.” Bolling took it upon himself to thoroughly examine Obama’s birth certificate on air, even speculating that the certificate’s border showed it may have been photoshopped.

    Bolling also speculated about the death of former Democratic National Committee staffer Seth Rich who was murdered in 2016, dismissing the police conclusion that his death was the result of a botched robbery: “It’s clearly not a robbery. There wasn’t a robbery. … This was a hit.” Bolling concluded that there’s “lots of smoke right now” and that the death was “like an episode of Homeland.”

    Beyond that, Bolling has pushed a number of other conspiracy theories, alleging that Obama was trying to “bring people closer to the cities” to keep an eye on them and questioning whether Obama “let” an oil rig leak so he “could renege on his promise” to “allow some offshore drilling.” Perhaps his most entertaining conspiracy theory came in 2011 when Bolling wondered if “liberal Hollywood was using class warfare [in a Muppets movie] to brainwash our kids”:

    Just this week, Bolling lived up to his reputation when he suggested that “maybe the Russians were colluding with Hillary Clinton to get information on Donald Trump,” claimed he was unsure “if the climate’s getting warmer or colder,” and attempted to deflect from reports of a previously undisclosed meeting Trump had with Russian President Vladimir Putin at last week’s G-20 conference, calling it a “fake news headline” “generated by the biased left media.”

  • 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.

  • Frequent Fox guest and Trump's new lawyer kicked off rumors that Trump is considering removing the special counsel

    Jay Sekulow Has Been Tying Himself Into A Pretzel Trying To Defend His New Client

    Blog ››› ››› NICK FERNANDEZ

    After using his almost nightly platform on Fox News’ Hannity to push legal defenses of President Donald Trump’s various scandals and effectively audition for a job at the White House, Jay Sekulow, who was recently hired as one of Trump’s personal attorneys, has found himself at the center of rumors that Trump is considering firing special counsel Robert Mueller.

    During the June 11 episode of ABC’s This Week, host George Stephanopoulos asked Sekulow if Trump would “promise not to interfere, not attempt at anytime to order the deputy attorney general to fire Robert Mueller.” Sekulow did not give a definitive response, instead saying, “If there was a basis … that raised the kind of issues that are serious, as in the situation with James Comey, the president has authority to take action. Whether he will do it is ultimately a decision the president makes.” Later, Newsmax Media CEO Chris Ruddy, who is a close friend of the president, said that Trump was “considering perhaps terminating the special counsel.” Ruddy also cited Sekulow’s response and said that the fact that Trump is “weighing” this “option” was made “pretty clear by what one of his lawyers said on television recently.”

    As explained by the Los Angeles Times, “The public comments from close friends suggest Trump may be testing the waters on a decision that would be among the most controversial he has made since becoming president, recalling the ‘Saturday Night Massacre’ when President Nixon fired special prosecutor Archibald Cox amid the Watergate investigation.”

    Since Trump’s inauguration in January, Sekulow has appeared on Fox News numerous times to defend the president’s actions and to parrot administration talking points. Highlights of his appearances include his assertion that Trump acted “within his authority” to fire then-Acting Attorney General Sally Yates because, as Sekulow argued, “unlike the FBI director,” the acting attorney general and other federal appointees “serve at the pleasure of the president.” Sekulow later claimed that he had been calling for Comey’s removal “for a year,” contradicting his earlier comment that the president cannot remove the FBI director.

    In addition, after Comey’s June 8 testimony before the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, Sekulow repeated an erroneous timeline around Comey’s firing that came from one of Trump’s other personal lawyers, Marc Kasowitz. He said Comey lied under oath and committed a “crime” when he leaked the memos about his meetings with Trump, which Comey said he had released after the president made thinly veiled threats on Twitter against him. Sekulow falsely said that the “content” of the memo had actually been reported in The New York Times the day before Trump’s tweets, claiming that the release was “retaliatory” for Comey’s firing. In reality, the Times had cited officials, and not the memos, for its story on the dinner between Trump and Comey in which the president allegedly asked him for loyalty. The story about the memos was published four days after Trump’s tweets. 

    Although Sekulow appears to not have much experience outside of Fox News punditry when it comes to criminal defense and obstruction of justice, he is a well-known conservative activist and attorney who has both personally and through his organization -- the American Center for Law and Justice (ACLJ) -- promoted hard-right religious ideologies both in this country and abroad

  • 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.