The right-wing media is using a photo from Nelson Mandela's memorial service to fabricate a sexist depiction of President Obama and Michelle Obama.
A photographer from Agence France-Presse took a series of photos of the Obamas and Danish Prime Minister Helle Thorning-Schmidt, who was seated next to them at the December 10 service.
The New York Post seized on one of the photos to produce this cover for its December 11 edition:
Fox & Friends picked up the angle later in the morning. "I remember the last time I was sitting with the Danish prime minister," co-host Brian Kilmeade quipped. "She caused trouble in my relationship as well."
Fox and the New York Post used the image to concoct a sexist narrative that suggests that the only reason President Obama could possibly have to be friendly to the prime minister of Denmark is because he wants to flirt with her, and that portrays Michelle Obama as jealous.
But the photojournalist who took the pictures rejected the interpretation that his photos showed Michelle Obama was angry, writing of another photo, the "selfie" that President Obama took with Thorning-Schmidt and British Prime Minister David Cameron:
I later read on social media that Michelle Obama seemed to be rather peeved on seeing the Danish prime minister take the picture. But photos can lie. In reality, just a few seconds earlier the first lady was herself joking with those around her, Cameron and Schmidt included. Her stern look was captured by chance.
Indeed, via Twitter, here's a photo of Michelle Obama smiling as President Obama and Thorning-Schmidt converse:
Fox News host Megyn Kelly hosted J. Christian Adams, a former Justice Department attorney who she identified as a "well-known Washington whistleblower." Adams is best known as the fabulist behind the New Black Panthers Party pseudoscandal, which Kelly extensively promoted.
Kelly presents herself in interviews as politically unbiased. Some media observers also push that claim, often pointing to her Election Night rebuttal to Karl Rove's objections to Fox News calling Ohio for President Obama or her rebukes of Erick Erickson and Lou Dobbs for their comments on women in the workplace. But Kelly is also a champion of anti-Obama scandalmongering, notably her effort to turn the New Black Panthers Party story into a damaging attack on President Obama.
In 2010, Adams accused the Obama administration of racially-charged "corruption" for allegedly refusing to protect white voters from intimidation at the hands of minorities in the New Black Panthers Party voter intimidation case. Adams was a long-time Republican political operative who was reportedly hired as part of the Bush administration's illegally politicized hiring of conservative Justice Department lawyers. An investigation by the Justice Department's Office of Professional Responsibility ultimately cleared DOJ officials in 2011 of any wrongdoing or misconduct in the case.
Kelly was responsible for launching Adams' claims into the national debate, giving him his first cable news interview in July 2010 and providing dozens of segments and hours of coverage to the story in the subsequent weeks.
Because Adams' story did not stand up to the facts, it was quickly rejected by the Republican vice chair of the U.S. Civil Rights Commission, Fox contributors, and other media figures. Kelly in particular was criticized as being "obsessed" and conducting a "minstrel show"; her own colleague Kirsten Powers accused Kelly of "doing the scary black man thing" and promoting the claims of "a conservative activist posing as a whistleblower."
But three years later, Kelly welcomed Adams to her December 7 program, introducing him as a "well-known Washington whistleblower."
Yesterday the world mourned the death of Nelson Mandela. In a moving speech, President Obama described the former South African president as a man who through "fierce dignity and unbending will to sacrifice his own freedom for the freedom of others... transformed South Africa -- and moved all of us." Obama also noted that his first political action was inspired by Mandela -- a protest against South Africa's brutal apartheid regime in the late 1970s, part of a wave of progressive activism that would sweep the country over the next decade and compel the United States to enact economic sanctions against South Africa's government.
American conservatives have a far more complicated history with Mandela, as many of the movement's most prominent figures spent the decade leading up to his release from prison opposing actions geared toward ending South Africa's brutal apartheid regime. In 1986 President Reagan vetoed a bill that would have imposed economic sanctions on South Africa unless it met five conditions, including Mandela's release. Congress overrode that veto. Washington Post columnist George Will derided calls for sanctions and divestment in a 1985 column: "Clearly some of the current campaigning against South Africa is a fad, a moral Hula Hoop, fun for a while."
On the very day Mandela was freed in 1990, conservative icon William Buckley warned that "the release of Mandela, for all we know, may one day be likened to the arrival of Lenin at the Finland Station in 1917" (referring to Lenin's return to Russia from exile and the ensuing Bolshevik seizure of power) and mocked South African opponents of apartheid for their concern with "the question of one-man, one-vote," which he claimed "has not yet hit the United States, whose Senate guarantees most unequal treatment."
American conservatives of the era recognized the brutal repression of black South Africans by the whites, but ultimately determined that ending that system was less important that preserving South Africa as an ally in the Cold War. They pointed to Mandela's ties to South Africa's Communist Party and his history of violent activism and warned of dire results if he were freed and the apartheid government overthrown. (In his statement at the opening of the 1964 trial that ended in his imprisonment, Mandela explained that his African National Congress worked with communists toward the common goal of "the removal of white supremacy." He compared this to the United States and Great Britain allying with the Soviet Union during World War II).
Ronald Reagan neatly summed up the conservative position on South Africa and apartheid in a March 1981 interview with Walter Cronkite:
In an interview with CBS News, Reagan said the United States should still be concerned about South Africa's policy of racial separatism, called apartheid. But he suggested that as long as a "sincere and honest" effort was being made to achieve racial harmony, the United States should not be critical.
Reagan then asked: "Can we abandon a country that has stood by us in every war we have ever fought, a country that is strategically essential to the free world in its production of minerals that we all must have?" [Associated Press, March 23, 1981, via Nexis]
Since Mandela's passing, conservatives in the media have grappled with their movement's actions in light of the fruits his leadership bore. Here's how they're responding, in ways ranging from repugnant to laudatory:
Some conservative hardliners are convinced that they were right about Mandela all along. "Don't Mourn For Mandela" is the headline of Joseph Farah's December 6 column, in which the WND editor highlights Mandela's communist ties and use of violence, writing:
Apartheid was inarguably an evil and unjustifiable system. But so is the system Mandela's revolution brought about - one in which anti-white racism is so strong today that a prominent genocide watchdog group has labeled the current situation a "precursor" to the deliberate, systematic elimination of the race.
In other words, the world has been sold a bill of goods about Mandela. He wasn't the saintly character portrayed by Morgan Freeman. He wasn't someone fighting for racial equality. He was the leader of a violent, Communist revolution that has nearly succeeded in all of its grisly horror.
Farah concludes that someone needs to highlight these "inconvenient truths" because "the Mandela mythology is as dangerous as the terror he and his followers perpetrated on so many innocent victims - white and black."
Similarly, PJ Media's David Swindle headlined his piece on Mandela, "Communist Icon Nelson Mandela Dead at 95." In a post at his Gateway Pundit site, popular conservative blogger Jim Hoft marked Mandela's passing by posting a picture of Mandela with Fidel Castro and highlighting a tweet from a "Communist Party" Twitter account mourning his death.
With the anniversary of the tragic school shooting in Newtown, CT, on the horizon, CNN is promoting a poorly-worded poll question to suggest that there is "fading support" for new laws that strengthen firearms regulation.
CNN.com reports today:
As memories fade from last December's horrific school shooting in Newtown, Connecticut, a new national poll indicates that support for stricter gun control laws appears to be fading, too.
According to a new CNN/ORC International survey, 49% of Americans say they support stricter gun control laws, with 50% opposed. The 49% support is down six percentage points from the 55% who said they backed stricter gun control in CNN polling from January, just a few weeks after the tragedy at Sandy Hook Elementary School, where a lone gunman killed 20 young students and six adults before killing himself, in one of the worst mass shootings in U.S. history.
CNN's Jake Tapper highlighted the new poll numbers, asking Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-CT) to explain why "your side of this debate is losing at the public opinion war."
As Media Matters has noted in the past, asking whether respondents would like gun laws to be "more strict" or "less strict" is a particularly poor way to determine their views on the issue. Regardless of their position in the abstract, the vast majority of Americans say they support the passage of specific new restrictions on firearms possession.
That 49 percent support for "stricter gun control laws" represents a slight decline from the 53 percent who supported that aim when CNN/ORC last polled the question, in April. But that April poll also asked respondents whether they supported the specific policy of expanding federal background checks on gun sales -- when asked, 86 percent of respondents said they supported that policy. (As CNN noted, that figure "is in line with just about every other national survey released over the past couple of months.")
That shows the paradox of polling on "stricter gun control laws": in that April poll, a full third of the total respondents said they didn't support "stricter gun control laws" in the abstract, but when specifically asked about one such law, they said they were for it.
Unfortunately, CNN/ORC doesn't seem to have polled specific "stricter gun control laws" in their latest poll, leading to results and thus media coverage that is far less informative.
The campaign manager for Mark Herring, the declared winner in the Virginia Attorney General race, says they won the election because they ignored the conventional wisdom typically pushed by media pundits that supporting stronger gun laws is a political liability.
Media pundits often claim that it is electoral suicide for candidates to call for stronger gun laws, suggesting that National Rifle Association has the power to punish candidates who oppose any portion of its absolutist pro-gun agenda. After two Colorado state senators who backed stronger gun laws were unseated in a September recall election, the media hyped this narrative and suggested the Colorado recall served as a warning to politicians who would advocate for stricter gun laws. (MSNBC host Chuck Todd, for example, said the lesson of the recall elections was that "every Democrat south of the Mason-Dixon Line" should stay away from the gun issue.)
But Kevin O'Holleran, Mark Herring's campaign manager, writes in a December 1 Washington Post op-ed that they were able to win an extremely narrow victory specifically because they ignored such commentary, ran on Herring's "strong record and advocacy for sensible gun legislation," and hammered his opponent's support for "irresponsible proposals" on the issue:
Political conventional wisdom has it that in a purple state, such as Virginia, support for gun-safety legislation is best played down. As manager of Mark Herring's campaign for attorney general, I got a lot of advice. One of the things I heard most frequently was that we should soft-pedal his strong record and advocacy for sensible gun legislation. It would hurt us outside of Northern Virginia and wasn't a voting issue within the Beltway, I was told.
Like much conventional wisdom, this was wrong -- and we not only ignored this advice but did the opposite. There were stark differences between Herring and his Republican opponent, Sen. Mark D. Obenshain (R-Harrisonburg), on gun safety. Obenshain opposed comprehensive background checks and opposed closing the gun-show loophole. He opposed former governor Douglas Wilder's landmark "one-gun-a-month" legislation. Obenshain also made a habit of voting for such irresponsible proposals as allowing guns in bars and restaurants where alcohol is served.
In short, Obenshain has opposed every constructive proposal to help reduce gun violence.
We knew this would open an opportunity for us to draw an effective contrast; public polling showed widespread support for sensible gun-safety laws, as did our own polling. Hence, more than a year out from Election Day, dealing with gun violence was a fundamental messaging point for Herring. And when the primary was over, and Herring and Obenshain met in their first debate, he drew a sharp contrast with his opponent on guns. We would prosecute that case throughout the fall campaign.
The NRA spent $500,000 to defeat Herring -- on ads O'Holleran writes were aimed at the group's base, not the "swing voters" that were motivated by Herring's message. That failure is not unusual for the NRA, whose candidates up and down the ballot were soundly defeated in 2012. The NRA spent a similar amount against Virginia gubernatorial candidate Terry McAuliffe, who was elected after denigrating the gun lobby and calling for expanding background checks on firearm purchases.
Source: Senate Democrats
National Review editor Rich Lowry, who previously called judicial filibusters a "perversion" of democratic checks and balances and urged the Republican Senate majority leader to end them and then "sleep the sleep of an utterly justified defender of Senate tradition" is lashing out at Senate Democrats for taking his advice.
On November 21, Senate Democrats responded to the Republican minority's unprecedented wave of filibusters of President Obama's executive and judicial nominees by changing the Senate rules to allow their confirmation with the support of a simple majority. In 2005, when Senate Democrats were in the minority and blocked the confirmation of a handful of President Bush's judicial nominees, many in the conservative media urged then-Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-TN) to take that same step. That "nuclear option" was not deployed after several Senate Democrats agreed to allow the confirmation of most of the held-up nominees.
Discussing the issue on Fox's The Real Story, Lowry accused President Obama of trying to "pack" a prominent appeals court and called Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid "the biggest hypocrite in the country" because he supposedly "made the filibuster for judges sound like the most sacrosanct institution in our Constitutional republic" in 2005 and "now, when it's convenient for him, he's changing it."
While accusing others of hypocrisy, Lowry sweeps under the rug his fulsome support for eliminating the filibuster in 2005 after Democrats filibustered several arch-conservative Bush nominees. At the time, Lowry called judicial filibusters a "perversion" that flew in the face of the Senate tradition of bringing "a president's nominees to the floor for an up-or-down vote without filibusters." He urged Frist to "take away [Democrats'] ability to mount unprecedented judicial filibusters through the so-called nuclear option, then sleep the sleep of an utterly justified defender of Senate tradition."
Reid and the Senate Democrats are responding to the dramatic change in circumstances since 2005. While Democrats blocked a handful of nominees who they considered ideologically extreme, Republicans have engaged in an unprecedented effort to obstruct the confirmations of virtually all Obama nominees, including some positions for which they say they will accept no nominee at all.
As the Office of the Majority Leader explains, according to the Congressional Research Service, "nearly half of all the filibusters waged on nominations in the history of the United States have been waged by Republicans under President Obama. In the history of the U.S., 168 nominees have been filibustered - with 82 occurring during the Obama administration. In the history of the U.S., 23 district court nominees have been filibustered - with 20 being Obama nominees."
This effort has included the blanket filibustering of all nominees for the U.S. D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals, which Republicans now claim does not require a full complement of judges. Republicans have filibustered more than twice as many Obama executive branch nominees as were blocked during the Bush administration.
Taking their cues from the National Rifle Association, right-wing media are pointing to a mayoral election in a tiny town in central Pennsylvania as a rebuke to the gun violence prevention movement. In reality, the victorious pro-gun candidate won by a margin of only 167 votes in a Republican town after spending more than six times as much as the losing incumbent.
On November 5, Pete Lagiovane, the mayor of Chambersburg, PA, was defeated for re-election by Darren Brown, a veteran of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and a student at Shippensburg University.
The NRA painted the election as "a huge victory for Second Amendment supporters and sportsmen in Chambersburg" because Brown had promised not to join Mayors Against Illegal Guns, a coalition of more than 1,000 mayors that had included Lagiovane. That talking point was picked up this week by Pittsburgh Tribune Review columnist Salena Zito, who said that Lagiovane had lost "in part because he signed up Chambersburg as one of New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg's anti-gun cities" and thus "[w]hat happens in New York City usually can only happen in New York City, and is best kept there." RealClearPolitics and Breitbart News have since amplified Zito's claims.
In fact, there are a number of other factors that explain Lagiovane's defeat that have nothing to do with the candidates' positions on guns.
Partisanship. 46 percent of registered voters in Chambersburg are Republicans, compared to 39 percent that are Democrats, giving Brown a substantial built-in advantage. Lagiovane won his last election in 2009 by running unopposed. The position pays $5,600 a year for roughly 30 hours of work a month and has little power -- Brown's top campaign promise appears to be creating a series of YouTube videos to highlight local businesses.
Turnout. Brown won the election by a margin of 1,429 to 1,262. The local paper noted that "Democrats failed to get out the vote" for the election, with turnout in the three Chambersburg voting precincts where Democrats outnumber Republicans running at 16, 16, and 11 percent, the lowest in the town. Only 400 people in the town's most ethnically diverse precinct voted; 1,700 voted in the presidential election. It likely did not help Lagiovane that Eugene Rideout, his African-American opponent in the Democratic primary, ran a write-in campaign in the general election that was built around one of Martin Luther King's sermons.
Spending. As of a week before the election, Brown's campaign had spent $6,700 on the election (with more than $500 left in the bank), compared to "less than $1,000" from Lagiovane. According to the local paper, "a candidate typically spends a few hundred dollars to run a mayoral campaign." The additional funds allowed Brown to blanket the town with banners, yard signs, and pamphlets. That spending aided Brown's extensive door-to-door campaign, which he credited with the win.
Media have frequently sought to portray narrowly-won, low-turnout elections as major defeats for gun violence prevention and have for decades promoted the myth of the NRA's electoral supremacy.
On October 27, CBS' 60 Minutes aired a segment anchored by correspondent Lara Logan and featuring the results of her year-long investigation into the September 11, 2012, attacks on U.S. diplomatic facilities in Benghazi, Libya. Right-wing media outlets and conservative politicians promptly seized on the story, claiming it validated their extensive effort to turn the attacks into a political scandal for President Obama and Hillary Clinton.
12 days later, the network pulled the report and apologized to viewers, with the network acknowledging that it had committed its biggest failure since the 2004 controversy surrounding a 60 Minutes story on President Bush's Air National Guard service.
After facing withering criticism for issuing an apology on 60 Minutes that failed to detail what the network had done wrong or any investigation CBS would undertake to explain how its blunder had occurred, CBS announced on November 14 that it had begun an ongoing "journalistic review" of the segment. But the network declined to detail who is performing that review or whether its results will be made public.
Much of the criticism has revolved around the network's handling of its interview with the former British security contractor Dylan Davies, identified by CBS as a "witness" to the attacks. But numerous flaws in the report have been identified since the segment aired.
Here are all of those flaws.
Dylan Davies, the British security contractor at the heart of a CBS segment about the Benghazi attacks that was pulled following questions about his credibility, has "disappeared" after sending an email to his publisher detailing an alleged "threat," according to Daily Beast reporter Eli Lake, who obtained the email.
Lake previously received exclusive access to Davies, who apparently lied to the reporter in an attempt to control the damage to his credibility as his story unraveled.
The Washington Post reported on October 31 that the eyewitness account of the attack detailing his own personal bravery that Davies had provided to CBS' 60 Minutes and published in a book released by CBS-owned Simon & Schuster differed from an incident report submitted by his employer, which stated that the contractor never got near the compound on the night of the attack. In an interview for a November 2 article written by Lake and Josh Rogin, Davies said that he was being smeared by critics, that he hadn't written the report, and that his interviews with the FBI matched the story he had told to CBS and written in his book.
Days later, CBS retracted their report and Simon & Schuster withdrew the book after both The New York Times and CBS News confirmed from administration officials that the information Davies provided to the FBI was consistent with the incident report.
In his November 14 article, headlined "Exclusive: Why Dylan Davies Disappeared," Lake writes that on November 8 -- the morning after CBS had pulled their report -- an executive at the publisher received an email from Davies. That email stated that Davies had received a threat to his family five days before -- the day after his interview with Lake was published -- and that while he stands by his story, due to the threat, he "will not discuss the book with anyone under any circumstances for the foreseeable future." Hours after Simon & Schuster reportedly received the email, they announced that they had withdrawn Davies' book from publication and recommended that bookstores take it off their shelves.
Lake writes that he confirmed with the South Wales police that an investigation into the alleged threat is underway. He also details how the facts of Davies' original account have been "called into question."
McClatchy News has offered a damning critique of 60 Minutes' now-retracted story on the September 2012 Benghazi attacks, pointing out that several aspects of the story feature minimal sourcing and contradict the statements of experts.
The report comes as CBS News discloses that a "journalistic review" of the heavily criticized October 27 segment, which featured a since-discredited "witness" and promoted his book on the attacks without disclosing that the book was published by a CBS division. CBS has declined to explain who is conducting that review, how it is being conducted, and whether its findings will be public.
During the segment, correspondent Lara Logan made a number of claims about the attack and its perpetrators, often sourced only with the statement "[w]e have learned" or with nothing at all. McClatchy News Middle East Bureau Chief Nancy Youssef's reporting suggests that these claims were also inaccurate. Given that the report's sources included a man whose account CBS News has already acknowledged was fraudulent, it's fair to question the sourcing of other claims in the report.
A full, complete, and independent investigation of the segment could provide answers to these and other questions about CBS News' reporting.
"Other weaknesses" identified in Youssef's "line-by-line review" include:
The Role Of Al Qaida
The report repeatedly referred to al Qaida as solely responsible for the attack on the compound, and made no mention of Ansar al Shariah, the Islamic extremist group that controls and provides much of the security in restive Benghazi and that has long been suspected in the attack. While the two organizations have worked together in Libya, experts said they have different aims - al Qaida has global objectives while Ansar al Shariah is focused on turning Libya into an Islamic state.
It is an important distinction, experts on those groups said. Additionally, al Qaida's role, if any, in the attack has not been determined, and Logan's narration offered no source for her repeated assertion that it had been...
Logan claimed that "it's now well established that the Americans were attacked by al Qaida in a well-planned assault." But al Qaida has never claimed responsibility for the attack, and the FBI, which is leading the U.S. investigation, has never named al Qaida as the sole perpetrator. Rather it is believed a number of groups were part of the assault, including members and supporters of al Qaida and Ansar al Shariah as well as attackers angered by a video made by an American that insulted Prophet Muhammad. The video spurred angry protests outside Cairo hours beforehand.