The anti-gay hate group American Family Association (AFA) announced that Bryan Fischer -- the organization's most prominent face -- had been fired as the organization's director of issues analysis due to his years of inflammatory rhetoric. Fox News has a history of whitewashing Fischer's anti-LGBT extremism.
On January 28, MSNBC's Rachel Maddow reported that AFA had fired Fischer as the group's long-time director of issues analysis. In 2010, AFA was labeled an anti-gay hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Center, thanks largely to Fischer's extreme rhetoric about the LGBT community.
The announcement came in advance of a controversial AFA-sponsored trip to Israel that nearly 100 RNC members are scheduled to take this weekend. Fischer has made a number of disparaging comments about "counterfeit religions" and has repeatedly blamed gay men for the Holocaust:
Varias figuras conservadoras se destacaron al culpar a los inmigrantes, de manera absurda, por un sinnúmero de problemas en las últimas semanas:
De Bajar Los Sueldos De Los Trabajadores Americanos. En la edición del 28 de enero de 2015 del programa radial que lleva su nombre, el locutor ultra-conservador Sean Hannity, culpó a quienes vienen a Estados Unidos a buscar mejores oportunidades de "bajar los salarios de los trabajadores americanos". Hannity, cuyo historial presenta repetidas posiciones anti-inmigrantes (fuente en inglés), dijo sobre la posición pro-acción ejecutiva de Loretta Lynch, la actual nominada del presidente Obama para ser Secretaria de Justicia:
(Traducido de su programa The Sean Hannity Show):
(Lynch) "apoya el derecho al trabajo de los inmigrantes ilegales de manera idéntica que el de los ciudadanos americanos. ¿Qué hay de todos los americanos que no tienen trabajo por el momento? Si tenemos más mano de obra barata entrando a Estados Unidos crece la oferta. ¿Qué le hará esto a los sueldos americanos? Los bajará". [The Sean Hannity Show, 1/28/2015]
El argumento de que la inmigración conlleva una reducción de sueldos para los demás trabajadores esuno que ha sido desmentido una y otra vez por diversos estudios:
(Traducido de Brookings Institution):
Las más recientes investigaciones académicas sugieren que, en promedio, los inmigrantes aumentan la calidad de vida de los trabajadores estadounidenses al estimular los salarios y bajando los precios. Una razón es que los inmigrantes y trabajadores nacidos en Estados Unidos generalmente no compiten por los mismos trabajos; en cambio, muchos inmigrantes complementan el trabajo de empleados estadounidenses y aumentan su productividad. Por ejemplo, los trabajadores poco calificados permiten que granjeros, constructores o artesanos nacidos en Estados Unidos puedan expandir la producción agrícola o construir más casas-- de este modo expandiendo las posibilidades de empleo y salario para trabajadores estadounidenses. [Media Matters, 1/28/2015]
De Criminalidad. Donald Trump, el multimillonario magnate neoyorquino con frecuentes ambiciones presidenciales, criticó en un discurso recientemente emitido por CSPAN la postura migratoria de Jeb Bush- otro potencial candidato del partido republicano:
No lo olviden, recuerden lo que dijo "vienen por amor" ¿Qué? La mitad son criminales. Vienen por muchas otras razones y no es amor [fuente en Inglés: Iowa Freedom Summit,1/24/2015].
De manera similar, la analista política conservadora y locutora de radio de derecha extrema Laura Ingraham, afirmó argumentos parecidosen la edición del 28 de enero de 2015 de su programa Laura Ingraham Show. La locutora, que varias veces ha mostrado posiciones intolerantes hacia los trabajadores indocumentados, hizo sus acusaciones sobre la supuesta criminalidad de los inmigrantes basándose en un estudio del Center for Immigration Studies (CIS por sus siglas en inglés), un centro de activismo con el que comparte la agenda anti-inmigrantes: "Nunca he oído a nadie refutar estos números". Sin embargo, la poca credibilidad del CIS ha sido denunciada con anterioridad (fuente en inglés) y los números del reporte en que alegan que inmigrantes criminales son puestos en libertad a diario han sido refutados ampliamente.
(Traducido de un comunicado de prensa del American Immigration Council):
Un nuevo reporte del Center for Immigration Studies (CIS) hace un número de argumentos falsos sobre datos de deportaciones. Primero, su argumento de que de 722,000 "sujetos potencialmente deportables" que encontró la agencia Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) solo contra 195,000 se presentaron cargos, es totalmente engañoso. Como resultado del programa Secure Communities (Comunidades Seguras) cualquier individuo nacido en el extranjero que entra en contacto con la policía probablemente cae dentro de los 722,000 que cita CIS. Por eso, este número incluye inmigrantes (incluyendo residentes permanentes con bastante tiempo de haber inmigrado) cuya interacción con la policía fueron tan mínimas que ni siquiera son legalmente sujetos de deportación. De hecho, los datos probablemente incluyen también ciudadanos estadounidenses.
Además, el reporte argumenta que ICE "soltó" 68,000 "sujetos criminales" pero no explica que soltar no equivale a dejar en libertad. Ser liberado de la custodia de ICE a menudo significa recibir una notificación para comparecer ante la corte, ser liberado con un brazalete en el tobillo o bajo una orden de supervisión. Estos detalles fueron convenientemente omitidos del análisis de CIS.
Entender las estadísticas de deportaciones es importante en el debate actual sobre una reforma migratoria. Sin embargo, reportes llenos de estadísticas falsas o engañosas nada hacen para avanzar la discusión y pavimentan el camino hacia más polarización e inacción. [Media Matters, 8/1/2015]
De Haber Causado La Epidemia De Sarampión En El Parque De Diversiones Disneyland. Varios analistas políticos (fuente en inglés) del ala conservadora expresaron su agenda anti-inmigrante aprovechando la más reciente epidemia de sarampión desatada en Disneyland, el parque de diversiones en California. Entre ellos, se encontró Rush Limbaugh, un locutor conservador con un largo récord de intolerancia y xenofobia.(fuente en inglés)En su programa radial del 26 de enero de 2015, Limbaugh afirmó en referencia a los niños migrantes, sin fundamento alguno:
(Traducido de su programa The Rush Limbaugh Show):
"Estos niños estuvieron detenidos en celdas varios días y después fueron puestos en libertad. De ninguna manera se les hicieron las revisiones médicas adecuadas. Y ahora lo del Sur de California (en referencia a la epidemia de sarampión), ¿Según ustedes es un accidente? Es por esto que tenemos que cerrar las fronteras" [The Rush Limbaugh Show, 1/26/2014]
En contra de lo que afirma Limbaugh, ha quedado demostrado que no hay prueba de que los inmigrantes traigan enfermedades contagiosas (fuente en inglés), y que la epidemia de sarampión la desataron las tasas bajas de vacunación entre muchos infantes (fuente en inglés).
(Traducido de Forbes):
Dos cosas están detrás de la epidemia de sarampión- y ninguna de las dos son los inmigrantes indocumentados. Las dos cosas son la alta infecciosidad de la enfermedad y los bajos niveles de inmunidad comunitaria en partes del sur de California. El sarampión afecta a nueve de diez individuos no inmunes que encuentra. [Forbes, (fuente en ingés), 1/20/2013]
Alabama Supreme Court Chief Justice Roy Moore praised a 1986 Supreme Court decision upholding anti-sodomy laws during a radio interview with a prominent anti-gay hate group.
On January 27, Moore wrote a letter to Gov. Roy Bentley recommending that he ignore a U.S. district court's decision striking down Alabama's same-sex marriage ban, in deference to Alabama law and "the Biblical admonition stated by Our Lord." The letter prompted the Southern Poverty Law Center to file a judicial ethics complaint against Moore for failing to "conform his conduct to the canons of judicial ethics" and ignoring the basics of "Constitutional Law 101" - that the judge "has himself taken an oath to uphold the federal constitution, even if there are other sources of authority he agrees with or prefers."
On January 28, Moore appeared on Washington Watch -- the radio show of the Family Research Council (FRC), a notorious anti-gay hate group -- to discuss the controversy surrounding his letter. FRC president Tony Perkins praised Moore for challenging the district court's decision, wrongly asserting that states aren't required to abide by pro-equality decisions made by federal courts other than the Supreme Court.
Moore went on to praise the Supreme Court's now-overturned 1986 decision in Bowers v. Hardwick, which upheld state laws criminalizing sodomy (emphasis added):
PERKINS: This has been happening in state after state. We've seen, you know, I think 23 or so states where judges have overturned votes of the people -- 21 states where they have overturned the vote of the people, substituting their view for the view of millions of Americans. What's it going to take to stop this?
MOORE: Well, I think, Tony, we need to wake up to what the Constitution says. And the danger of this is, if we let judges overturn the will of the people and do nothing about it and do not push that, then the United States Supreme Court turns around and says, "Well, now, 30 states have adopted this, and that's a majority of the people that want it." This should be brought out, because that is maybe what's going to happen. And in doing so, we're letting the judiciary run the country without constitutional authority. And that was exactly what the Supreme Court of the United States said in 1986 when they had a case in Atlanta, Georgia, Bowers versus Hardwick, and they refused to recognize sodomy as a right. And they said, "If we do so, we will become closest to illegitimacy." And then they said, "If we redefine a category of rights wrongfully, then we're attempting to rule the country without a constitutional authority." And I think that's what you're seeing here. You're seeing the Supreme Court intimate, in the cases they've had previously on this issue, and what the federal courts have picked up and started striking down all the traditional marriage laws of the states and people not reacting to it, not standing up against it, then the United States Supreme Court's going to take this case in April and simply say, "Well, we have all these states that have now adopted, or, you know, turned to same-sex marriage, so we're bound by it."
MOORE: And I think that's wrong, and I think this has to stop. And in Alabama, I'm simply doing my duty. I'm not doing anything to be noticed, which I've been accused of. I'm saying what the law is. The law is that they can't force their will upon us, because it doesn't affect our court -- our state court system. But when they try to make probate judges issue licenses, that is affecting our court system.
Fox News contributor Karl Rove is warning Republicans that former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton might be "happy" to get criticized over Benghazi, comparing it to how President Obama supposedly "loved" birther attacks. Rove's declaration comes after years of trying to use the 2012 attacks to bludgeon a potential Clinton presidential bid.
Rep. Elijah Cummings, the top Democrat on the House committee investigating the September 11, 2012, attacks in Benghazi, Libya, told reporters earlier this week that Clinton is willing to testify before the committee. Clinton previously testified before House and Senate committees in January 2013.
Rove discussed Clinton's willingness to testify on the January 28 edition of Fox News' The O'Reilly Factor. When asked by host Bill O'Reilly what would be Clinton's biggest weakness, Rove replied "foreign policy" and pointed to several alleged failures but did not initially mention Benghazi.
O'Reilly then noted that Clinton now "wants to testify about Benghazi and get that all clear." Rove responded that Benghazi "could be a problem" but "I'm beginning to suspect that Mrs. Clinton might have been happy to let the Benghazi thing go forward" in the same way that President Obama "loved having conservatives talk about" his birth certificate. Rove added: "She's really, if you get into, isolated, insulated from it." From the segment:
O'REILLY: All right. But you know that that's not on the minds of the American people. That's not even in the top five in the general foreign policy arena. Terrorism is but not foreign policy. And the other thing is Mrs. Clinton has said that now she wants to testify about Benghazi and get that all clear.
ROVE: Yeah, look. Benghazi could be a problem. My sense is this is sort of like potentially like President Obama. And remember how he let all this conversation go about how he was not really born in the United States of America and it took him years before he finally put it out? He loved having conservatives talk about it.
I'm beginning to suspect that Mrs. Clinton might have been happy to let the Benghazi thing go forward and the controversy to be there because she has some asbestos. She's really, if you get into, isolated, insulated from it, I don't know. But the overall picture of foreign policy is going to be difficult for her to defend the record.
Rove's statement comes after years of attempts to make Benghazi a political liability for Clinton.
Interviewing Environmental Protection Agency administrator Gina McCarthy late last year about the Obama administration's historic climate change agreement with China, MSNBC's Andrea Mitchell asked how the administration would handle Republican critics of the deal. Mitchell wondered what the White House plan was to deal with GOP "climate deniers" firmly entrenched against the carbon emissions agreement.
On the eve of the 2016 presidential season, Mitchell and the rest of the Beltway press face a similar query: How will journalists deal with Republican climate deniers on the campaign trail? The question goes to the heart of informative political reporting and the importance of holding candidates accountable.
Political jockeying over climate change was elevated last week when the U.S. Senate, for the first time in eight years, cast votes on the topic. On January 21, the Senate voted 98-1 to approve a resolution stating, "climate change is real and not a hoax." Then the Senate rejected a second amendment that stated climate change is real and is significantly caused by humans.
"Man can't change the climate," Sen. Jim Inhofe (R-OK), announced. "The hoax is there are some people so arrogant to think they are so powerful they can change the climate." Republicans, including possible White House candidates Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX), Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY), and Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL), voted overwhelmingly against the second resolution, even though the scientific evidence is nearly unanimous that human activity is the dominant cause of climate change.
Meanwhile, the flood of scientific warnings continue and the issue gains urgency. (Tuesday's New England blizzard was the latest example of severe weather that may have been exacerbated by warming seas.) In 2012, Barack Obama and Mitt Romney did not address climate change one time during their three televised debates. But just two years later during the midterm cycle the topic came up "in at least 10 debates in Senate and governor's races" across the country, according to the New York Times. If that trend continues, climate change could well be a cornerstone topic of the next general election campaign season.
For years though, the political press' handling of Republican and conservative climate deniers has been troubling, as journalists politely make room in the debate for fact-free claims about the lack of human involvement. The pending campaign season raises the stakes in terms of holding politicians accountable. But is the press up to the challenge?
New York University journalism professor Jay Rosen Tweeted last week, "This train -- climate change denialism -- is coming directly at the campaign press and they have no clue how to deal."
The Washington Post blog The Fix is claiming that an upcoming Supreme Court decision that could eliminate health care subsidies for millions of Americans under the Affordable Care Act (ACA) "might not matter" because Republicans might restore the subsidies, a proposition that seems not to consider the fact that the GOP has long ignored these tax credits' popularity in their quest to bring the law down, subsidies and all.
In March, the Supreme Court will hear arguments in King v. Burwell, a right-wing challenge to the ACA. The challengers argue that, based on their strained reading of the subsidies provision of the law, which was designed to make health insurance affordable, the IRS does not have the authority to provide tax credits to Americans who purchased their insurance through the federal health care exchange website. Instead, they argue, only consumers who bought insurance through state-based exchanges are eligible for the subsidies -- a problem since Republican-controlled states refused to set up their own sites.
In a January 28 post, The Fix argued that it "might not matter" if the Supreme Court strikes down the subsidies, because a new poll from the Kaiser Family Foundation suggests that the majority of Americans would want the Republican-controlled Congress to restore the subsidies.
But it actually matters a lot -- leading Republicans have repeatedly and publicly sided with the right-wing challengers of the subsidies as a way to bring down the ACA. In September, a group of congressional Republicans filed a brief with the Supreme Court asking the justices to hear the case and to rule that the IRS doesn't have the authority to provide subsidies to Americans who bought insurance through the federal exchange. Republican members of Congress know full well that if they are successful, the ACA will collapse -- that's their self-admitted goal.
Earlier this month, Sen. John Cornyn (R-TX), who was one of legislators who filed the brief, told Roll Call that he expected the court to "render a body blow to Obamacare from which I don't think it will ever recover." In December, Sen. John Barrasso (R-WY) similarly argued that blocking the subsidies was "enough to bring down the health care law. ... We're going to continue to try one, repeal; two, strip out the worst parts of the law; and three, look to the courts." Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell similarly made it clear that Republicans are not interested in restoring anything about the ACA if the court "take[s] it down," but rather are looking for a "mulligan here, a major do-over of the whole thing." Even The Fix's post acknowledged that "just because restoring subsidies might be popular doesn't mean congressional Republicans would do it. The GOP base would certainly cry foul if they moved to do so."
Breitbart.com is incorrectly claiming that Loretta Lynch "undercut the legal argument" supporting President Obama's executive action on immigration, when in reality she did no such thing.
On January 28, Lynch appeared before the Senate Judiciary Committee for her confirmation hearing to become the next attorney general of the United States. Lynch is widely considered by people on both sides of the aisle to be a well-qualified pick for the post, but she still faced tough questions from Senate Republicans who, as The New York Times put it, wanted "assurances she would break from some of the practices" of current Attorney General Eric Holder.
One line of questioning in particular centered around Lynch's thoughts on the legality of Obama's recent executive action on immigration that will defer deportation proceedings for some undocumented immigrants. Legal experts agree that the president's action, which will provide temporary administrative relief for certain undocumented parents of U.S. citizens or lawful permanent residents who pass a background check, is "clearly within his discretionary power." Immigrants whose deportations are deferred under this form of prosecutorial discretion are then eligible to apply for work authorization permits and driver's licenses (depending on the state) -- a benefit that was not introduced by Obama, but rather is permitted under the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 and the Real ID Act of 2005, respectively.
Breitbart.com, a site that once spectacularly confused nominee Lynch with a completely different Loretta Lynch in its rush to smear her qualifications, made yet another error in reporting on the confirmation hearing. A January 28 post on Breitbart claimed that Lynch "[p]erhaps by accident" had "undercut the legal justification the president has given for his executive amnesty for millions of illegal aliens during her confirmation hearing." Aside from incorrectly defining the president's immigration actions as "amnesty" -- a mistake that other conservative media figures like Fox News' Megyn Kelly have avoided -- Breitbart homed in on an exchange between Lynch and Sen. Mike Lee (R-UT), who asked about limitations on using prosecutorial discretion to prioritize deportations. Breitbart quoted Lynch's response:
I think that if a prosecutor were to come to the view that they had to prioritize one crime over another, you would always still want to retain the ability -- even if it was an area that was not an immediate priority -- if for example it became one. Because if a particular neighborhood was being victimized, or again to use your issue of speeding, there were deaths resulting from that. You would want to have the ability to, if you could, take resources and focus on that issue. It might not be the first priority but you would want to have the ability to go back and deal with that issue.
Breitbart went on to argue that, in her response, "Lynch effectively admits that what Obama has done with executive amnesty -- providing legal documentation and work permits for millions of illegal aliens, thereby legalizing their status in the United States -- far exceeds any reasonable definition of prosecutorial discretion. She also said that prosecutors should keep the door open to prosecuting an illegal action that isn't currently a priority if it becomes one eventually. So even if illegal immigration isn't a priority right now for whatever reason, prosecutors need to be able to go after that crime later. "
What she said does not "undercut" the policy at all. By definition, the executive actions (which are reversible themselves) that grant temporary administrative relief by deferred action "keep the door open" and allow law enforcement "to go after that crime later," as Lynch stated. The hint is in the name of the actions, which Breitbart did not cite: the "case-by-case" Deferred Action for Parental Accountability (DAPA) and the expanded Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) programs.
Given the fact that it would be impossible for law enforcement to deport every person currently living in the United States without the appropriate documentation, it is essential to prioritize some removals over others. Lynch's comments do not undermine the administration's position, which she said was "reasonable" -- they simply explain how prosecutorial discretion, such as DAPA and DACA, works in practice.
ABC News and CBS News helped potential GOP presidential candidate Mitt Romney dredge up discredited attacks on Hillary Clinton in their reports on an upcoming speech by Romney. The attacks smear Clinton's diplomatic work with Russia as secretary of state and scandalize comments she made on trickle-down economics that were taken out of context by the media.
Reports from two news networks hyped excerpts from Romney's planned speech at Mississippi State University on Wednesday night that will be targeted at Clinton. Both ABC and CBS News articles uncritically reported that Romney will be criticizing Clinton's "clueless" efforts to "reset" U.S.-Russia relations during Mr. Obama's first term.
But the "reset" moment that media outlets frequently cite as the primary example of Clinton's dealings with Russia while serving as secretary of state does not accurately portray her tenure. Clinton's successful negotiations with Russia resulted in in an agreement that allows the "U.S. military planes to transport lethal materiel over Russia to Afghanistan," reducing reliance on Pakistan for transporting cargo. Clinton also expressed serious concerns with Russia's 2011 elections, and warned that Russia was trying to "re-Sovietize" Eastern Europe and that Vladimir Putin would attempt to consolidate Russian control over eastern Ukraine if the opportunity presented itself.
Both ABC and CBS also highlighted another misleading attack against Clinton from Romney's upcoming speech, where he will assert that Clinton "doesn't know where jobs come from in the first place," an apparent reference to a scandal invented by the media over Clinton's statement that tax breaks for the rich don't cause companies to create jobs. CBS portrayed Clinton's remarks on tax breaks for the rich as a slip-up:
In his speech text, Romney takes a swipe at Hillary Clinton for telling voters during the 2014 midterm campaign, "Don't let anybody tell you it's corporations and businesses that create jobs."
"How can Secretary Clinton provide opportunity for all if she doesn't know where jobs come from in the first place?" Romney is expected to ask. "We need a president who will do what it takes to bring more good paying jobs to the placement offices of our college campuses."
After her remarks sparked a round of mockery from her opponents on the right, Clinton claimed she misspoke and said she meant to say that the economy grows when companies create good-paying jobs in America, "not when we hand out tax breaks for corporations that outsource jobs or stash their profits overseas."
This attack on Clinton's remarks, omits crucial context used by right-wing media outlets to scandalize the comments. The full context shows that Clinton's statement was in reference to tax breaks for the rich, and argued that trickle-down economics is not successful at creating jobs (emphasis added):
CLINTON: Don't let anybody tell you that raising the minimum wage will kill jobs. They always say that. I've been through this. My husband gave working families a raise in the 1990s. I voted to raise the minimum wage and guess what? Millions of jobs were created or paid better and more families were more secure. That's what we want to see here, and that's what we want to see across the country.
And don't let anybody tell you, that, you know, it's corporations and businesses that create jobs. You know, that old theory, trickle-down economics. That has been tried. That has failed. That has failed rather spectacularly.
One of the things my husband says, when people say, what did you bring to Washington? He says, well I brought arithmetic. And part of it was he demonstrated why trickle down should be consigned to the trash bin of history. More tax cuts for the top and for companies that ship jobs over seas while taxpayers and voters are stuck paying the freight just doesn't add up.
The Fox TV station in Houston has repeatedly mischaracterized the city's recently passed non-discrimination law in its reporting about a legal challenge against the measure, falsely stating that it would allow men to enter women's restrooms.
In May, the city of Houston approved the Houston Equal Rights Ordinance (HERO), which prohibits discrimination on the basis of a number of characteristics, including sexual orientation and gender identity. Opponents of the ordinance, including the extreme Houston Area Pastor Council, collected signatures to put the measure up for a repeal vote, falsely claiming that HERO would let sexual predators sneak into women's restrooms while pretending to be transgender.
In its coverage of the legal proceedings, Fox's Houston affiliate has uncritically echoed the myth that HERO allows men to enter women's restrooms.
In a January 26 report, for example, reporter Damali Keith wrote:
Chances are you've heard of the fairly new Houston ordinance that allows transgender men to use women's restrooms among other things. Now a judge and jury will hear about the ordinance. Today is day one of a trial that names Mayor Annise Parker as a defendant.
The next day, Keith published another report suggesting that "transgendered men" would be allowed to enter women's restrooms:
The controversial equal rights ordinance came under fire when it was revealed as part of the measure transgendered men would be allowed to use women's restrooms. This petition is an effort to give Houstonians the right to vote on the ordinance.
On January 28, Senator Brian Schatz (D-HI) released a statement in response to Media Matters' study detailing how the major broadcast networks covered climate change in 2014. The Media Matters analysis found that although the networks increased their coverage of climate change, the Sunday shows still underrepresented scientists and most of them provided a platform for climate science deniers.
Sen. Schatz stated that the networks' increase in climate coverage is "not enough," and that he "remain[s] deeply concerned about both the lack and the quality of the coverage." He concluded: "It is time for broadcasters to stop creating a false debate about the reality of climate change and engage in the real debate about how we can solve it."
Sen. Schatz's full press release read:
Washington, DC - U.S. Senator Brian Schatz (D-Hawai'i) today released the following statement in response to a new Media Matters report detailing how broadcast networks covered climate change in 2014:
"While I am pleased that broadcast media coverage of climate change has increased this year, it is not enough," said Senator Schatz. "I remain deeply concerned about both the lack and the quality of the coverage. This new report shows that Sunday shows still aired segments that misled audiences and ignored the scientific consensus by framing the facts of climate change as a "debate". The debate is over. Human-caused climate change is accepted by Fortune 500 companies, school-teachers, religious groups, the United States military, nurses and doctors, professional sports leagues, the majority of other countries, and over 97 percent of climate scientists. It is time for broadcasters to stop creating a false debate about the reality of climate change and engage in the real debate about how we can solve it."