Right-wing media capitalized on the Supreme Court's Hobby Lobby ruling with the refrain that the so-called 'war on women' is nonexistent, a bizarre take on a decision that relied on conservative talking points to deal a devastating blow to women's rights and health access.
Last month the Supreme Court ruled that "closely held" for-profit secular corporations like Hobby Lobby are exempt from the so-called contraception mandate, a provision of the Affordable Care Act (ACA) that requires employer-sponsored health insurance to cover comprehensive preventive health care including birth control. Right-wing media cheered the decision -- made by a conservative all-male majority relying on right-wing media myths in the opinion -- by mocking the notion that it limited women's access to health care or evidenced a larger war on women.
Bill O'Reilly argued that Hobby Lobby exemplifies how the war on women narrative is being falsely sold by liberals by citing the fact that his two female guests, both Fox News figures, disapprove of "paying for other people's birth control" and haven't themselves experienced "gender bigotry."
Similarly, Fox News anchor Martha MacCallum predicted Democrats will use the decision to campaign on the "so-called war on women" with the "message that something's been taken away" from women. MacCallum deemed the notion "hard to understand" because, according to her, women still "have the freedom to get whatever kind of birth control they want to get," either from Hobby Lobby's health coverage or "free from Planned Parenthood."
Other Fox figures laughed at the idea of Hobby Lobby's connection to a war on women by comparing the term to the "Rocky Movie Franchise" which "just sort of keeps on going with different evolutions," and by describing it as a fabricated Democratic campaign strategy.
The war on women, a term coined by advocacy groups, describes the barrage of attacks from "far-right national and state lawmakers, in coordination with Religious Right activists" on "not just abortion rights, but also access to birth control and preventative care, as well as contemporary views of women's roles in the workplace, the family and the halls of power," as People for the American Way explained.
MSNBC political analyst Joan Walsh corrected attempts to cast doubt on the fact that Hillary Clinton served as defense attorney on a decades-old criminal case at the direction of the court, pointing out that, in fact, the judge had compelled Clinton to take the case.
The July 8 edition of MSNBC's Hardball with Chris Matthews rehashed Hillary Clinton's work as a court-appointed defense attorney in the 1975 prosecution of an alleged rapist, a role that, while known publicly for years, is reemerging in wake of the conservative Washington Free Beacon's improper appropriation and publication of an interview Clinton gave in the mid-1980s discussing the case.
During the discussion, frequent MSNBC guest and president of the conservative Bernard Center for Women Michelle Bernard repeatedly suggested that Clinton had elected to represent the defendant of her own volition. Joan Walsh, Salon editor and MSNBC analyst, attempted to correct the record on Clinton's court appointment, pointing out that "she was court-appointed" and that the judge had forced her to take the case. Bernard, however, continued to imply Clinton may have voluntarily accepted the role after speaking with the prosecutor.
The fact that the court appointed Clinton to represent the defendant is not in doubt. The judge -- not the prosecutor -- directed Clinton to take on the case, as Glenn Thrush established in a 2008 Newsday report:
Washington Post fact-checker Glenn Kessler misquoted Hillary Clinton while criticizing her recent and accurate comments about the Supreme Court's Hobby Lobby decision.
Kessler specifically took Clinton to task over a comment she made during the Aspen Ideas Festival:
CLINTON: It's very troubling that a salesclerk at Hobby Lobby who needs contraception, which is pretty expensive, is not going to get that service through her employer's health-care plan because her employer doesn't think she should be using contraception.
But in taking issue with the portion of Clinton's remarks about the affordability of contraception, Kessler actually misquoted what she said:
As for "very expensive," this is in the eye of the beholder. Studies have indicated that when times are tough, women have tried to save money by skimping on birth control, such as skipping pills and delaying prescription refills.
Clinton never said that contraception is "very expensive." She said it was "pretty expensive." The distinction is meaningful in light of the fact that Kessler specifically went on to criticize Clinton for not being careful while making extemporaneous remarks.
Kessler also criticized Clinton for observing that a Hobby Lobby sales clerk would not be able to access contraception because her employer doesn't think she should be using it. Here's Kessler's rationale:
In the specific case, the company on religious grounds objected to four of 20 possible options, leaving other possible types of contraceptives available to female employees -- though not necessarily the most effective or necessary at the moment.
Contrary to Kessler's reasoning, it's entirely accurate to say that a sales clerk could decide in consultation with her doctor that a valid form of contraception is the best option for her health needs and yet be denied access because her boss doesn't think she should be using it.
Kessler addressed similar criticism from readers in an update, calling it an "interesting parsing" but standing by his original analysis.
Right-wing media personalities took victory laps following the Supreme Court's decision in Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, in which the Court ruled that closely held corporations cannot be required to provide health coverage for employees that includes contraception if the employer has a religious objection.
Conservative talk radio hosts lashed out at Mississippi Republican Sen. Thad Cochran for beating his tea party primary challenger, Chris McDaniel, with the help of votes from blacks and Democrats.
The Washington Free Beacon responded to media criticism over the fact that it paid tens of thousands of dollars to GOP operatives to conduct research by declaring that it is "standard practice" for its reporting to rely on such consultants without disclosure, and comparing Media Matters' David Brock to a Nazi.
Business Insider released documents last week revealing that the Free Beacon hired a Republican operative to obtain information for a series of anti-Hillary Clinton stories which failed to disclose this financial relationship to readers. The conservative outlet attempted to attack Clinton based on tapes obtained from the University of Arkansas archives that depict interviews Clinton gave in the early 1980s. Though Free Beacon reporter Alana Goodman's byline appeared on the pieces, according to Business Insider it was Shawn Reinschmiedt, the former research director for the Republican National Committee and founding partner of a GOP opposition research firm, who requested and received the tapes on which the reports were based.
The Free Beacon failed to disclose the partisan source of its anti-Hillary stories, and the dishonest journalism prompted Media Matters founder David Brock to caution the media against validating the journalistic legitimacy of the outlet as a source for accurate information. In a letter to editors and reporters, Brock likened the reports to "similar right-wing dirt-digging operations disguised as journalism conducted against the Clintons in the 1990s," and told Buzzfeed that "The M.O. is the same. This is the Arkansas Project redux."
In response, Free Beacon founder Michael Goldfarb doubled down on the underhanded practice, calling it "standard practice" for Free Beacon reporters to rely on outside consultants such as the GOP operative for stories' research components. Buzzfeed noted that the Center for American Freedom, which houses the Free Beacon, paid Reinschmiedt's partisan firm $150,000 for research services in 2012.
After blaming CBS News' supposed political bias for her decision to leave the network, Sharyl Attkisson represented her recent affiliation with a conservative online blog as little more than a freelancer, a description seemingly at odds with the blog's explicit designation of Attkisson as a contributor.
Atkisson left CBS News in March, reportedly because of a perceived political bias at the network, and in June began work for the conservative Heritage Foundation's online news outlet, The Daily Signal. On The Daily Signal's authors page, Attkisson is currently listed as a "Senior Independent Contributor."
Yet Attkisson appeared to downplay her relationship with The Daily Signal during a Q&A interview with CSPAN on June 22. She presented her position as akin to that of a freelancer, telling host Brian Lamb "I don't have an ongoing obligation" with the outlet after they purchased one particular story:
NBC and ABC's Sunday news shows turned to discredited architects of the Iraq War to opine on the appropriate U.S. response to growing violence in Iraq, without acknowledging their history of deceit and faulty predictions.
This week a Sunni Iraqi militant group (Islamic State in Iraq and Syria, or ISIS) seized control of several Iraqi cities and is focusing their sights on taking control of Baghdad and the rest of the country. The United States is still debating a response to the escalating violence, and has reportedly moved an aircraft carrier to the Persian Gulf.
To discuss the growing unrest and potential threat of terrorism that could emerge, NBC's Meet The Press turned to Paul Wolfowitz, the former Deputy Secretary of Defense under the Bush administration.
Wolfowitz, who served in the Bush administration from 2001 -- 2005 as Deputy Secretary of Defense, is universally recognized as one of the original architects of the Iraq invasion. He infamously predicted the war reconstruction effort could pay for itself from Iraqi oil revenue (for reference, the cost of the Iraq War is now estimated to be more than $2 trillion), and publicly accused Saddam Hussein of possessing weapons of mass destruction long after the intelligence community informed the Pentagon that he did not. Later, Wolfowitz claimed that the conflict was primarily about liberating the Iraqi people rather than confronting the WMD threat, while also making the assertion -- without evidence -- that without the invasion, "we would have had a growing development of Saddam's support for terrorism."
Ten years after the start of the war, Wolfowitz admitted that the Bush administration bungled the conflict and should never have taken control of the country away from Iraqi leadership, despite having been the first senior Bush official after September 11, 2001 to call for Hussein's overthrow.
And on June 15 from his NBC platform, Wolfowitz opined that the current Iraqi violence could be traced to the absence of U.S. troops, suggesting that we should have stayed in Iraq just as we "stuck with South Korea for 60 years." When Meet The Press host David Gregory asked the former Bush official for advice on how to mitigate the potential terrorist threat merging from ISIS, saying "what do you do then, as a policy matter, to stop this," Wolfowitz responded that the Obama administration must convince the Middle East that the U.S. "is serious," arguing, "I would do something in Syria."
That same day ABC's This Week invited network contributor and Weekly Standard editor Bill Kristol to discuss how the U.S. should handle the growing violence in Iraq, a notable decision given Kristol's poor record on Iraq War predictions.
Just two weeks of Fox News' Benghazi coverage is worth over $124 million, according to a Media Matters study.
Fox's coverage of the 2012 attacks in Benghazi, Libya went into overdrive in the wake of House Speaker John Boehner's (R-OH) announcement on May 2 that Republicans would form a select committee to further investigate the tragedy. The decision marked a victory for the network, which has dedicated months -- and years -- to pushing misinformation and demanding answers to questions already addressed in the public record.
According to a Media Matters study of publicity values for Fox programming, the network's never-ending effort to hawk the GOP's Benghazi theories amounts to a public relations windfall for Republicans valued at over $124 million.
For the two weeks following the select committee announcement, Media Matters reviewed TVEyes Media Monitoring Suite, a subscription-only database of television broadcasts, for Fox's weekday coverage of Benghazi. Data revealed that the network devoted over 16 hours and 27 minutes -- at least 225 segments -- to Benghazi in that time period. According to TVEyes' "national publicity value," which estimates the value of 30-second slots on any given program, this coverage carries a value of approximately $124,234,562.74.
And yet, given the fervor with which Fox has politicized the tragedy since September 2012, this amount almost certainly represents but a fraction of the publicity value Benghazi scandal mongers have enjoyed from the network's devotion to their phony attacks.
Glenn Beck's The BlazeTV acted out sexual propositions and labeled each skit "RAPE!" in an attempt to mock the prevalence of reported sexual assault.
In response to reports that the 22-year-old who went on a deadly shooting spree in Santa Barbara was inspired by a hatred towards women who had refused his sexual advances, The Glenn Beck Program attempted to debunk the statistic that one in five women have reported experiencing a sexual assault. The May 27 edition of Beck's program dismissed the number -- cited by the Obama administration during the announcement of a new initiative to protect college students from sexual violence -- as a "completely untrue statistic."
As evidence, Beck presented a pre-recorded segment by The Blaze's Stu Burguiere, which featured skit performances of sexual assault scenarios in which network radio host Jeff Fisher propositioned another man in a blonde wig and skirt.
The skits purported to reenact questions from two studies on sexual assault -- the 2007 Campus Sexual Assault Report and 2010 National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey -- ostensibly to show how the number of sexual assault victims is "massively" inflated: