Despite the success of many female athletes representing the United States in the 2014 Winter Olympics, the legislative reform largely responsible for the growth and success of women's sports in the United States -- Title IX -- has been conspicuously absent from media coverage of the games.
The passage of Title IX in 1972 led to an explosion of women's participation in collegiate sports. The law forbids most educational programs which receive federal funding from discriminating against participants based on sex, and specifically requires equal opportunity in athletic programs for men and women. The National Center for Education Statistics found that thanks to Title IX, women's participation in college-level sports has increased dramatically, particularly in the last decade.
The 2014 Winter Olympics provides even more evidence that the law has had a lasting effect on post-collegiate athletics as well. In the women's two-person bobsled, American women achieved history by taking home silver and bronze medals at the same Olympics. Each of the four women medaling in the event -- Elana Meyers, Lauryn Williams, Aja Evans, and Jamie Greubel -- participated in collegiate athletics before adapting to Olympic bobsled competition thanks to Title IX. The other American team competing in the medal round -- Lolo Jones and Jazmine Fenlator -- was also comprised of athletes who participated in college sport programs that likely owe their existence to educational reforms brought about by Title IX.
Furthermore, this year's gold medal match in women's hockey featured the two best teams in the world, the United States and Canada; of the two teams' 42 combined athletes, 36 played collegiate hockey in the United States (Olympic rosters here and here).
In 2012, when the law's 40th anniversary coincided with the Summer Olympics in London, America's athletic successes garnered praise for the law. Numerous outlets reported on the role of Title IX in leveling the playing field for American female athletes. Media outlets like ESPN and Sports Illustrated dedicated airtime and column space about the role of Title IX for American Olympians. The United States national team celebrated the anniversary with a lengthy and informative piece on its official website. The law was celebrated on The New York Times' official London 2012 blog.
But despite continued Olympic achievement for the United States' women's teams in this year's Winter Olympics, Title IX has received little attention from media this time around.
A Media Matters review of current Olympic coverage from three major print outlets -- The New York Times, The Washington Post, and The Wall Street Journal -- revealed no substantive mentions of Title IX as it relates to current or former American Olympians since the start of the 2014 Sochi Olympic Games on February 7. A further review of transcripts from broadcast evening -- ABC, CBS, NBC, PBS -- and cable evening and primetime -- CNN, Fox News, MSNBC -- news coverage of the 2014 Olympics shows a similar lack of coverage concerning Title IX's role in encouraging and supporting American female athletes.
Media Matters conducted a Nexis search of transcripts of evening (defined as 5 p.m. through 11 p.m.) weekday programs on CNN, Fox News, MSNBC, and network broadcast news (ABC, CBS, NBC, PBS) from February 7, 2014 through February 20, 2014. We identified and reviewed all segments that included any of the following keywords: olympics or sochi or title nine or title 9 or title ix.
Media Matters conducted Nexis and Factiva (for The Wall Street Journal) searches for print articles in The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal, and The Washington Post from February 7, 2014 to February 21, 2014, using the search terms: olympics or sochi or title nine or title 9 or title ix.
The following television programs were included in the data: PBS NewsHour, World News with Diane Sawyer, Evening News (CBS), Nightly News with Brian Williams, The Situation Room, Crossfire, Erin Burnett OutFront, Anderson Cooper 360, Piers Morgan Live, The Five, Special Report with Bret Baier, The O'Reilly Factor, Hannity, On the Record with Greta Van Susteren, The Kelly File, The Ed Show, Hardball with Chris Matthews, PoliticsNation with Al Sharpton, All In with Chris Hayes, The Rachel Maddow Show, and The Last Word with Lawrence O'Donnell. For shows that air re-runs, only the first airing was included in data retrieval.
The New York Times improved its standards for budget reporting over the past four months, providing readers with more adequate context to understand the size and scope of federal programs, budget deficits, and policy proposals.
On October 18, 2013, New York Times public editor Margaret Sullivan issued a statement affirming the paper's commitment to improving its numbers-based reporting. Sullivan's comments came in response to mounting criticism over how print media's reliance on reporting large numbers devoid of context often confuses and unintentionally misleads readers.
Ongoing Media Matters analysis of print media budget reporting standards confirms that the Times has begun to address these concerns, and now leads two other prominent print outlets -- The Washington Post and The Wall Street Journal -- in providing context when reporting numbers.
The Times was less likely than other selected outlets to rely on raw numbers for budget reporting from October 19, 2013 -- the day after Sullivan's statement -- to February 14, 2014. The paper was also more likely than the other newspapers analyzed to provide relevant context. Furthermore, the Times was the most likely to present figures in percentage terms relative to the size of the budget or the size of the economy.*
These results show a deviation from past practices. Media Matters research through the first half of 2013 revealed that the Times relied on out-of-context raw numbers for nearly 67 percent of its reporting concerning the federal budget, the debt and deficit, and spending programs. This reflected roughly the average style of reporting among the three outlets examined.
Despite recent improvement, the paper still relies on out-of-context figures for a majority of its coverage. Sullivan acknowledged in her October 18 statement that "[i]t won't be easy to make these changes happen consistently" across the newspaper's entire staff, but that change is coming "and the sooner, the better."
Hopefully other major outlets follow suit.
Image via Flickr user Frank Sheehan using a Creative Commons License.
CNN's Carol Costello shot down conservative talking points disparaging the minimum wage, correctly noting that raising it would increase incomes and decrease poverty.
On February 18, the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO) released estimates of the economic impacts of proposals to lift the minimum wage to $9.00 and $10.10, respectively. Among the report's summary conclusions was the revelation that the $10.10 option would raise the wages of 16.5 million workers while lifting up to 900,000 Americans out of poverty. Ignoring these positive side-effects, conservative media have focused heavily on estimates that increasing the minimum wage to such levels could reduce full-time employment by approximately 0.3 percent, the equivalent of roughly 500,000 positions.
On the February 19 edition of CNN Newsroom, host Costello was joined by Wall Street Journal editorial board member and Heritage Foundation chief economist Stephen Moore to discuss the CBO report. Moore, a prominent right-wing media figure, rehearsed standard talking points about the alleged disastrous impacts of increasing the minimum wage for low-skilled and entry-level workers.
Despite Moore's efforts, Costello checked his spin at every turn, continually pointing to the positive impacts of increasing the minimum wage.
Costello's strong reporting highlights the important role of media in sifting through misinformation to present unbiased results. While the median estimate of a $10.10 per hour minimum wage was decreased full-time employment, the CBO's projection also concludes that job loss could be "very slight" -- a fact highlighted by Costello. She also noted the positive income effects of increasing the federal minimum wage -- effects that are being ignored in media coverage of the CBO report -- and argued that many Americans would accept marginal job loss in exchange for lifting hundreds of thousands more out of poverty.
Costello's coverage of the minimum wage hopefully reflects a mainstream media trend of actually analyzing policy news, rather than allowing right-wing media to spin the narrative.
Three major national print outlets were more likely to report economic figures in terms of raw numbers devoid of relevant and necessary context, such as previous years' numbers or monthly figures that would give readers an accurate depiction of the economy. These findings, calculated since halfway through 2013, are consistent with a previous Media Matters analysis of print media.
Fox wants to know whether the stimulus package signed by President Obama caused a recession.
In recognition of the five-year anniversary of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 -- commonly known as the stimulus -- Fox Business' Varney & Co. framed a segment around the question of whether it caused a recession.
Fox is just asking, and here is the answer in one simple chart. The most recent recession started in December 2007, over a year before the stimulus bill was signed into law. Since its passage in February 2009, the American economy experienced an immediate positive turn, culminating in more than four years of steady, gradual economic growth.
Fox's disregard for facts in its frantic push to disparage the president and his policies is nothing new, but the basic failure to understand that the economy has been recovering for the past five years marks a new low.
Washington Post columnist and former Republican speechwriter Marc Thiessen erroneously claimed that a recent report shows the Affordable Care Act (ACA) will reduce wages and cause a "$70 billion pay cut" when in fact the report shows that the health care law will result in increased compensation.
On February 4, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) released its annual 10-year projection of current policy's impact on the budget and economy. The report garnered so much attention following its release that CBO Director Doug Elmendorf was forced to issue a public response refuting misleading allegations that the ACA would erase up to 2.5 million jobs over the next decade.
Having lost the battle to spin the ACA as a job killer, right-wing media have pivoted to a new erroneous claim: Americans will see a "$70 billion pay cut" thanks to the health reform law.
On February 10, Washington Post columnist Marc Thiessen published an op-ed claiming that "buried on page 117" of the CBO report was evidence of the ACA depressing American wages. Thiessen spun the report's mention of a "roughly 1 percent reduction in aggregate labor compensation over the 2017-2024 period" to mean that the health care law was taking money out of the pockets of working-class Americans. From The Washington Post:
Obamacare means a 1 percent pay cut for American workers.
How much does that come to? Since wages and salaries were about $6.85 trillion in 2012 and are expected to exceed $7 trillion in 2013 and 2014, a 1 percent reduction in compensation is going to cost American workers at least $70 billion a year in lost wages.
Economist Dean Baker of the Center for Economic and Policy Research was quick to note that the next decade will see relative compensation increase as a result of health reform. Had Thiessen included the CBO's actual conclusion in his analysis, he would have found that the CBO projects hours worked to decrease more than relative compensation. From CEPR (emphasis added):
"According to CBO's more detailed analysis, the 1 percent reduction in aggregate compensation that will occur as a result of the ACA corresponds to a reduction of about 1.5 percent to 2.0 percent in hours worked. (p 127)"
We checked with Mr. Arithmetic and he pointed out that if hours fall by 1.5 to 2.0 percent, but compensation only falls by 1.0 percent, then compensation per hour rises by 0.5-1.0 percent due to the ACA. In other words, CBO is telling us that for each hour worked, people will be seeing higher, not lower wages. That is the opposite of a pay cut.
In a February 6 New York Times op-ed addressing the CBO's findings, Nobel Prize-winning economist Paul Krugman arrived at a similar conclusion. Among numerous corrections of right-wing media distortion, Krugman noted that "wages will go up, not down" in response to a marginally and voluntarily diminished supply of labor over the next decade.
This sort of factual analysis is missing from a right-wing media landscape unilaterally aligned against every facet of the ACA. Right-wing media have spent years promoting an array of false claims about the calamitous effects of the health care law, and recent Media Matters research exposed conservative media turning to misrepresentations of the CBO's findings to support claims that the ACA is going to destroy the job market.
Congress is debating whether to give the president the authority to fast-track a massive free trade agreement -- the Trans-Pacific Partnership -- between the U.S., Canada, and 10 nations from the Asia-Pacific region. The nations involved in the talks account for nearly 40 percent of the world's GDP and 26 percent of the world's trade, but weekday evening television news broadcasts have largely ignored the topic.
Fox Business contributor Charles Payne argued that a businessman "may be a couple of years ahead of the curve" after he drew parallels between the treatment of the wealthy in America and "fascist Nazi Germany."
On January 24, The Wall Street Journal published a letter to the editor comparing the alleged "demonization of the rich" to the boiling over of European anti-Semitism that led to the Holocaust. The letter, written by billionaire venture capitalist Tom Perkins, questions whether a "Progressive Kristallnacht" looms on the horizon:
Progressive Kristallnacht Coming?
Regarding your editorial "Censors on Campus" (Jan. 18): Writing from the epicenter of progressive thought, San Francisco, I would call attention to the parallels of fascist Nazi Germany to its war on its "one percent," namely its Jews, to the progressive war on the American one percent, namely the "rich."
From the Occupy movement to the demonization of the rich embedded in virtually every word of our local newspaper, the San Francisco Chronicle, I perceive a rising tide of hatred of the successful one percent. There is outraged public reaction to the Google buses carrying technology workers from the city to the peninsula high-tech companies which employ them. We have outrage over the rising real-estate prices which these "techno geeks" can pay. We have, for example, libelous and cruel attacks in the Chronicle on our number-one celebrity, the author Danielle Steel, alleging that she is a "snob" despite the millions she has spent on our city's homeless and mentally ill over the past decades.
This is a very dangerous drift in our American thinking. Kristallnacht was unthinkable in 1930; is its descendant "progressive" radicalism unthinkable now?
Mr. Perkins is a founder of Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers.
In response to media criticism, Perkins defended his remarks during a January 27 interview with Bloomberg. Perkins admitted that Kristallnacht was a "terrible word to have chosen," but reiterated that he neither regrets nor retracts his core argument that the rich are being demonized and persecuted in the United States.
The sentiment that America's ultra-wealthy are being singled out for persecution is shared by some voices in the right-wing media. On the January 28 edition of Fox Business' Varney & Co., contributor Charles Payne glossed over Perkins' demeaning allusion to the horrific, racially-motivated violence that defined Nazi Germany at the onset of the Holocaust. Rather than criticizing the paranoia of Perkins' comments, Payne argued that the wealthy have "justified rage" and Perkins "may be a couple of years ahead of the curve":
Fox News has a history of facile and offensive comparisons of progressive economic or social policies with Nazi Germany. This is not even the first time a Fox employee has used Kristallnacht as the impetus for their faux outrage. In response to his recent indictment for violating campaign finance regulations, Fox darling Dinesh D'Souza wasted no time in parroting the "this is like Nazi Germany" line.
The fact remains, the United States in no way resembles Nazi Germany and there is no legitimate defense of Tom Perkins, or any other person, comparing Kristallnacht and other Nazi atrocities to protestors advocating in favor of better wages, affordable housing, and reasonable income tax rates for high earners. Perkins, a yacht-enthusiast who owns high-end property around the world as well as his own personal submarine, is not witnessing the sort of persecution faced by European Jews in the 1930s. The real Kristallnacht (November 9-10, 1938) saw intense racial violence in which 267 synagogues were destroyed, at least 91 innocent Jewish citizens of Germany were killed in the streets, and tens of thousands more were rounded up and placed in concentration camps. Most of them would die before Europe was liberated from Nazi oppression.
At Fox News, President Obama's push to increase the federal minimum wage for millions of American workers through legislative and executive action is merely a "symbolic" gesture.
On January 28, the White House announced that President Obama had authorized an executive order raising the minimum pay for federal workers to $10.10 per hour, a regulation that will be effective for all employees signing a new federal contract. According to the White House's official press release, the president hopes that this move will encourage Congress to take action on a proposal by Representative George Miller (D-CA) and Senator Tom Harkin (D-IA) to increase the federal minimum wage to $10.10 for all American workers.
On the January 28 edition of Fox News' America's Newsroom, co-host Bill Hemmer called the move a "shot across the bow" for congressional Republicans resisting an increase to the minimum wage. Fox Business' Stuart Varney questioned the White House's motivation, claiming that it was a "symbolic" move motivated by political circumstances and concluding that an executive order lifting wages for all federal employees was simply "not a big deal":
Varney's disregard for the impact of executive action on the minimum wage mirrors comments from other Fox News personalities. On the January 27 edition of The Real Story, contributor Charles Payne scoffed at the notion that lifting the minimum wage is an important goal, noting, "higher minimum wage is not the cure, we're talking about something that impacts less than 3 percent of real workers."
Demos' Heather McGhee hailed the Obama administration for lifting federal pay through executive order, noting that the decision "adds momentum to the fight for a federal minimum wage increase." According to research from the Economic Policy Institute, adopting a $10.10 minimum wage nationwide, which would require congressional legislative action, would positively impact the wages of more than 27 million workers while boosting overall economic growth by $22 billion and creating enough economic demand to support 85,000 new jobs.
Increasing the federal minimum wage to $10.10 nationwide also has the support of hundreds of economists around the country, including numerous Nobel Laureates.
In an economy as large as the United States, while it may be easy for right-wing media voices to shrug off the implications of minimum wage policies, the fact is that, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, roughly 3.6 million American workers currently work at or below the federal minimum wage of $7.25 per hour. After adjusting for inflation, the federal minimum wage is lower than at any point from the 1950s to the early 1980s.
Right-wing media's opposition to raising the minimum wage has grown as public sentiment has turned in favor of it. Varney's pattern of deriding both policies to lift wages and low-wage workers themselves appears to be par for the course.
New research reveals that the Affordable Care Act has a relatively strong effect on reducing income inequality and economic insecurity for low-income Americans. However, given past coverage of the law, this fact is likely to go underreported in media.
A new study from the non-partisan Brookings Institution projects the Affordable Care Act (ACA, or "Obamacare") to positively impact low-income Americans. The research, performed by economists Henry Aaron and Gary Burtless, reviews a comprehensive income measure combining wages, the value of employer-provided health insurance, and the value of government-subsidized coverage. The authors project that the ACA will increase incomes in the bottom-fifth of the population by almost 6 percent, while increasing incomes in the bottom-tenth of the population by more than 7 percent.
Additionally, the authors found that positive "benefits of the ACA to low-income families would have been greater if the enacted version of the law had been put into effect." According to the study, the Supreme Court's landmark 2012 decision upholding the law, but allowing states to opt-out of expanding Medicaid to low-income residents, has dampened the effectiveness of health care reform -- preventing nearly 6 percent of the American population in the lowest 20 percent of income earners from accessing free health coverage through Medicaid. If not for the Supreme Court's decision, and corresponding "state inaction," the relatively strong impact of the ACA in reducing inequality for low-income Americans would have been greater.
The study concludes that, while the ACA does not positively impact the income of all Americans, the "small proportional drops in income" correspond with "larger proportional gains" for the poorest quarter of the working population. The graph below shows the average expected impact of the ACA on after-tax adjusted incomes for each tenth of the wage spectrum. The results show that corresponding positive impacts at the bottom of the income bracket more than make up for marginal decreases at higher income levels.
Previous Media Matters research has exposed how the media almost never mentions the positive impact of health insurance access on reducing economic inequality and strengthening economic security. Instead, media outlets opted to focus on the difficult rollout of Obamacare health care exchanges -- notably Healthcare.gov. The lack of discussion regarding the positive impact of the ACA on reducing economic inequality is particularly pervasive among right-wing media, where policy proposals aimed at reducing inequality are treated as trivial and unimportant.
Image via southerntabitha using a creative commons license