National Rifle Association (NRA) web series host Colion Noir cited the "theatrics" and the loud sound guns make as the reason people want to restrict firearms after a high-profile shooting occurs. Noir made the comment during an appearance on a conservative news show where he also defended his recent, controversial advice to the parents of two murdered Virginia journalists.
Noir, who has been helping the NRA's efforts to attract a younger audience to its media platforms, made headlines recently for warning the parents of Virginia journalists Alison Park and Adam Ward to not "become so emotional" in response to their childrens' fatal shooting that they misdirect their "grief-inspired advocacy." Parker's father, who has said he will make it his "mission in life" to pass stronger gun laws, called Noir's claim "insulting and disingenuous."
Noir discussed the Virginia shooting and his comments during a September 2 appearance with conservative radio host Dana Loesch on her show, Dana, which appears on Glenn Beck's network The Blaze.
After Loesch brought up an Indiana stabbing that occurred the same day of the August 26 shooting, Noir said, "What the gun suffers from, unfortunately, is its inherent theatrics. With a gun, it's loud, it explodes, it's very theatrical in nature. So it's easy to prop it up on a screen when somebody gets shot with a gun and say, 'Oh my god these things are so dangerous.' With a knife it's quiet, it's very swift, it's unknown, and so there is really not much to show."
According to Noir, unlike knives, guns are treated as "the most dangerous thing in the world":
LOESCH: The same day that this Virginia story came out, Colin [sic], there was a story in Indianapolis where a guy car jacked a lady, stabbed her, ran over six people, it's almost -- it doesn't matter the tool, I mean you can't legislate away free will and evil.
NOIR: Yeah, absolutely. What the gun suffers from, unfortunately, is its inherent theatrics. With a gun, it's loud, it explodes, it's very theatrical in nature. So it's easy to prop it up on a screen when somebody gets shot with a gun and say, "Oh my god these things are so dangerous." With a knife it's quiet, it's very swift, it's unknown, and so there is really not much to show. But when you have a gun it's like, "Oh my god here it is," -- look you see it, you hear it -- "Oh my god it's the most dangerous thing in the world." That's when the more irrational aspects of our mentality start to kick in and we're like "Oh we just got to get rid of the gun, we just got to get rid of the gun." Not realizing, no, the real actor is the person who is utilizing a gun. Because the same way that gun can kill is the same way it can defend.
There are a few obvious reasons guns are more dangerous than knives. Guns are used in 68 percent of murders while knives are used in only 12.2 percent. This is because guns are more effective at killing people. One-third of people who are shot die, compared to 7.7 percent of stabbing victims who do. Guns are also ubiquitous in episodes of mass violence. Of 279 mass killings documented by USA Today since 2006, 211 were committed with firearms, compared to 33 where a knife was used.
In response to a judge's decision to jail Kentucky county clerk Kim Davis for contempt of court because she refused to obey a federal court order to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples, Fox News contributor Erick Erickson suggested in an op-ed that a civil war might soon break out in America.
Since the historic June 26 Supreme Court decision that made marriage equality the law of the land, Kim Davis, the clerk of Rowan County, Kentucky, has refused to issue marriage licenses to either same or opposite-sex couples. The lengthy legal battle over her refusal culminated on September 3, when U.S. District Court Judge David L. Bunning ordered Davis detained for contempt of court after she continued to refuse to issue the licenses as required by a federal court order. In response to Jude Bunning's decision, Fox News contributor Erick Erickson, who once previously said that countries with marriage equality are "bent on suicide," wrote an opinion piece for the IJReview that asked "How much longer until we have another civil war?"
While maintaining that "no one should want it and no one, myself included, does want it," Erickson listed what he said were potential reasons why a civil war could break out: Davis' jailing, Hillary Clinton's email practices, Internal Revenue Service audits, Supreme Court rulings, and "the President of the United States tell[ing] supporters that Republicans are the enemy and they should take guns to knife fights."
From Erickson's September 4, 2015 op-ed in the IJReview (emphasis added):
When Kim Davis, the Rowan County, KY, clerk was hauled off to jail for refusing to give marriage licenses, a White House spokesman said no official is above the law. Hillary Clinton cheered on Twitter. The left went wild. "Where is your god now?" one person tweeted.
Hillary Clinton using a private email server is no big deal to the left. Every changing story is met with acceptance. The Democrats' immigration plans have included trying to pull a fast one on a judge in Texas and the left applauded. The IRS can leak confidential donor lists of conservative groups and harass the same groups. Political opponents get awfully convenient "random" audits. Again and again, the left gets to ignore the laws it wishes to ignore while the right must comply.
On top of that, five Justices of the United States Supreme Court, who are some of the least representative of Americans, can invalidate the laws of a majority of states on a whim without actual legal reasoning. Because people want to be happy, the laws can be overturned.
At that point, the citizens will clash beyond the ballot box. We see that beginning with random killings of police and random killings by police. It will only get worse. No one should want it and no one, myself included, does want it. But how much longer until we have another civil war?
Our nation's leaders have excelled at nothing so much as dividing and pitting American against American. When the President of the United States tells supporters that Republicans are the enemy and they should take guns to knife fights, we should not be surprised when they take him seriously. Besides, who will punish them? They perceive themselves to be on the winning team.
How much longer before the cold war of citizenry fed and flamed by Washington turns hot?
During an appearance on MSNBC's Morning Joe, Washington Post columnist David Ignatius thoroughly debunked arguments that Hillary Clinton should be charged with a crime as a result of her use of a private email system while serving as secretary of state. When MSNBC re-aired the first hour of its program later in the morning, the bulk of Ignatius' debunking had been edited out.
On the September 4 edition of Morning Joe, co-hosts Joe Scarborough and Mika Brzezinski continued their efforts to stoke controversy around Hillary Clinton's email practices while serving as secretary of state. Both Scarborough and Brzezinski suggested that guest David Ignatius was simply "getting tired" of the wall-to-wall media coverage directed at Clinton after the columnist authored an August 28 op-ed in The Washington Post arguing that "this 'scandal' is overstated." Ignatius responded by explaining that experts he spoke with dismissed as far-fetched claims Clinton committed a criminal offense.
But during the rebroadcast of the segment, Morning Joe cut away from Ignatius' explanation mid-sentence. During the initial broadcast, Ignatius said (emphasis added), "As I talked to a half dozen of lawyers who do nothing but this kind of work, they said they couldn't remember a case like this, where people informally and inadvertently draw classified information into their phone conversations or their unclassified server conversations, where there had been a prosecution."
When the segment re-aired, Ignatius is heard saying, "As I talked to a half dozen of lawyers who do nothing but this kind of work, they said they couldn't remember a case like this," before the show skipped forward to a remark by co-host Mika Brzezinski about Clinton aide Cheryl Mills.
Significantly, the rebroadcast failed to include the conclusion of Ignatius' thought, which is that Clinton's email practices do not amount to a prosecutable offense, according to several expert attorneys he talked to. Here are Ignatius' unedited remarks (emphasis added):
JOE SCARBOROUGH: David, so you have over the past week or two turned a bit in some of your editorial, in some of your op-eds, you've said you would rather hear Hillary's policy positions than more talk about the servers, you said you don't think she faces any criminal prosecution. You haven't exactly said nothing is here, move along, move along, but you've certainly --
MIKA BRZEZINSKI: Getting tired of it, which is what they're hoping.
SCARBOROUGH: -- Yeah, I mean aren't you playing into what the Clinton sort of scandal response team wants, which is so much stuff comes at you that at some point you just say, "Come on, let's just move on."
DAVID IGNATIUS: Joe, I've tried to respond as a journalist but in particular I've tried to look at what is a real prosecutable offense here. There are violations clearly both of administrative procedure and probably technically of law and how classified information was handled. As I talked to a half dozen of lawyers who do nothing but this kind of work, they said they couldn't remember a case like this, where people informally and inadvertently draw classified information into their phone conversations or their unclassified server conversations, where there had been a prosecution.
SCARBOROUGH: But this isn't happenstance. This is a very calculated move to say if you want to communicate with the Secretary of State, as Edwards Snowden said, whether you are a foreign diplomat or a spy chief from another country or a leader of another country, which they all did, you've got to come to this unsecured server, whether it is in Colorado or wherever it is, and there is a standard in the U.S. Code under prosecutions for this sort of thing which is gross negligence. It's not a know or should have known -
IGNATIUS: This issue comes up surprisingly often because there is an administrative problem where people do these things and their security officers summon them and warn them and issue reprimands and it goes in their file and it's a serious personnel administrative problem. My only point is I couldn't find a case where this kind of activity had been prosecuted and that's just worth noting as we assemble our Clinton e-mail - and more thing, Joe, legally there is no difference between her using her private server and if she'd used State.gov, which is also not a classified system. The idea that, oh this would have been fine if she used State.gov, not legally, no difference.
Here is how Morning Joe re-aired the segment:
Scarborough, a former Republican member of the House of Representatives, has a long history of hyping the supposed Clinton email "scandal" despite all evidence to the contrary. He recently claimed that Clinton intentionally timed a press conference to coincide with a mass-shooting in Virginia and falsely claimed that Clinton whitewashed a foreign country's ties to international terrorism in exchange for a charitable donation to her family foundation.
A reader tip contributed to this story. Thank you for your support and keep them coming.
Fox News plans to broadcast an hour-long special about this summer's Planned Parenthood smear campaign by the anti-choice Center for Medical Progress, which has released a series of deceptively-edited videos claiming to show the organization's staff engaging in unlawful actions related to fetal tissue donation. The special will be anchored by Fox News reporter Shannon Bream, who has a history of inaccurate, slanted reporting on reproductive rights issues, and who once told a class of graduating college students to always uphold "scripture absolutes."
Fox News To Air Special On Smear Campaign Against Planned Parenthood Anchored By Shannon Bream. On September 4, Fox News plans to air a special called Planned Parenthood: The Hidden Harvest anchored by Fox News reporter Shannon Bream and focused in part on a series of undercover videos claiming to show that Planned Parenthood violated federal laws on fetal tissue donation. According to Fox, the special "delves into the controversy, featuring exclusive new details about the making of those videos, and investigating an industry and field of scientific research that many didn't even know existed." [FoxNews.com, 9/3/15]
Operation Rescue President: "I Expect The Documentary Will Be Very Much On Our Side." Troy Newman, president of the anti-choice group Operation Rescue, told Breitbart News, "I expect the documentary will be very much on our side." Newman is also on the board of the anti-choice Center for Medical Progress, which produced the manipulated videos. From the September 1 Breitbart News article (emphasis added):
Fox News is reportedly set to air Planned Parenthood: The Hidden Harvest on September 4 at 10 p.m., which will shine a light on the controversial undercover videos that have gone viral.
The hour-long report will look inside the undercover campaign of David Daleiden and his Center for Medical Progress, how they trained themselves to be experts in at least talking about the arcane world of baby-parts harvesting, and how they wormed their way into a position of trust with senior managers of Planned Parenthood and tissue procurement companies who buy from them.
Troy Newman, president of the pro-life group Operation Rescue, helped hatch the plan with Daleiden more than three years ago. Newman, who is also on the board of Daleiden's non-profit group, told Breitbart News, "I expect the documentary will be very much on our side. This information really made [Fox News anchor] Shannon Bream emotional."
He said the documentary would look at "how CMP came about and how it is rocking the world in exposing the 'dark harvest' of baby parts. It will be about David and the people around him and how we hatched the plan to go undercover to uncover these atrocities."
In announcing the report, a Fox News email said:
This summer, a series of secretly recorded videos have exposed a business in fetal tissue. Already a number of politicians have called for the defunding of Planned Parenthood, a primary target of the sting, while others support the organization and call this just another salvo in the War on Women. The Fox News Reporting special ... delves into the controversy, featuring exclusive new details about the making of those videos, and investigating an industry and field of scientific research that many didn't even know existed.[Breitbart News, 9/1/15 Media Matters, 9/1/15]
Bream Cited A For-Profit Company's Website To Baselessly Suggest Illegal Activity At Planned Parenthood. On the July 28 edition of Fox News' America's Newsroom, Bream reported that while Planned Parenthood "says it has never made a profit" on fetal tissue donations, "there are things that raise questions." As evidence, she pointed to the website of a company called StemExpress, which she said "does business with Planned Parenthood affiliates" and where "you will see pricing for a fetal liver, in some cases, at over $24,000 for a single item." Bream failed to mention that the website explains that the $24,000 refers to the price for medical researchers for "a vial containing five million frozen fetal liver CD133+ stem cells." [Media Matters, 7/28/15]
Bream Cited Fox's Gimmicky "Taxpayer Calculator" To Suggest Public Funding Of Planned Parenthood Is Far Higher Than It Actually Is. On the July 27 editions of Fox News' America's Newsroom and Happening Now, Bream promoted the efforts of Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) and Rep. Diane Black (R-TN) to strip federal funding for Planned Parenthood. She referred viewers to Fox's "Taxpayer Calculator" to supposedly find out how much individual taxpayers have contributed to Planned Parenthood, and falsely claimed that Planned Parenthood received $4.3 billion-worth of federal funding "over 10 years." [Media Matters, 7/27/15]
Independent Analysis By Forensic Experts Concluded CMP Footage Was "Manipulat[ed]." An independent analysis commissioned by Planned Parenthood and conducted by forensic experts found that the Center for Medical Progress' (CMP) videos "contain intentionally deceptive edits, missing footage, and inaccurately transcribed conversations." The experts found "42 instances in which CMP edited out content from the short as well as so-called full versions of the tapes" and that "at least two of the filmed interviews with Planned Parenthood officials are missing at least 30 minutes of content." [Media Matters, 8/27/15]
Multiple Official Investigations Into Allegations Have Found No Illegal Activity By Planned Parenthood. The deceptively-edited videos have prompted at least 11 states to launch investigations into Planned Parenthood's operations, even though there are "only three states in which Planned Parenthood affiliate clinics can participate in fetal tissue donation programs," according to Yahoo News. Five states -- Massachusetts, Indiana, South Dakota, Georgia, and Pennsylvania -- and the Department of Health and Human Services have all announced that they found no wrongdoing by Planned Parenthood or violations of federal fetal tissue laws. [Media Matters, 8/24/15]
Multiple Media Outlets Have Called Out CMP's Videos For Showing "Nothing Illegal" And Taking Planned Parenthood Staff "Grossly Out Of Context." Multiple media outlets, including The New York Times, The Guardian, the Huffington Post, and the Daily Beast, have condemned the CMP's videos. After the first video appeared, FactCheck.org debunked CMP's claim that Planned Parenthood was "selling aborted baby parts," and detailed the ways in which the allegation was inaccurate and unfounded. The videos have also been condemned for taking Planned Parenthood personnel's words "grossly out of context" and for showing "nothing illegal." The New York Times' editorial board wrote that the videos were part of a "campaign of deception" and said those who use the videos for political purposes care "nothing about the truth." [Media Matters, 7/15/15; 7/21/15; 7/22/15]
Bream Falsely Told Viewers That Government's Contraception Accomodation Violated Supreme Court's Hobby Lobby Ruling. After the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) complied with the Supreme Court's ruling in Burwell v. Hobby Lobby and announced a new set of rules to accommodate employers who object to providing employee health insurance that includes birth control, Bream told viewers of the August 25, 2014 edition of Fox News' Real Story that "a lot of people are saying" that HHS's rule change "was just a sleight of hand" that "doesn't really change anything." She went on to argue that the new rule actually defied the court's ruling because "the Supreme Court said simply [that employers] don't have to comply with the mandate, [and] now they'd have to fill out paperwork to comply with the mandate."[Media Matters, 8/25/14]
Bream Misleadingly Framed Hobby Lobby Case As About Abortion, Not Contraception. During the March 25, 2014 edition of Fox News' Special Report, Bream reported on oral arguments before the Supreme Court in the Burwell v. Hobby Lobby case, which concerned the craft store chain's opposition to the Affordable Care Act's contraception mandate. Bream misleadingly claimed the case had to do with "abortion and Obamacare, two controversial topics that stir heated passions," adding, "and that is just what happened both inside and outside the Supreme Court today." [Media Matters, 3/25/14]
Bream Tried To Tie Obamacare To Abortion Funding For Planned Parenthood. On the August 22, 2013 edition of Fox News' America Live, guest host Bream and correspondent Molly Henneberg dishonestly linked abortion with federal funds earmarked for Planned Parenthood to help sign people up for health insurance. Bream declared that there was "outrage over a new plan to give federal money to Planned Parenthood" and claimed that "critics are upset that the government wants to give funds to clinics that also provide abortions." [Media Matters, 8/22/2013]
Bream Inaccurately Suggested The Emergency Contraceptive "Plan B" Is An "Abortafacient." On the November 26, 2013 edition of Fox News' Special Report, guest host Bream inaccurately suggested that taking "Plan B" -- the brand name of the levonorgestrel emergency contraceptive sold by Teva Pharmaceuticals -- is the same as getting an abortion. She argued that there are "people who believe that that's an abortafacient, that it can cause an abortion. And there is science that these folks cite." [Media Matters, 11/30/13]
Bream Falsely Claimed That Helping A Minor Obtain A Judicial Bypass For An Abortion Is Illegal. In 2011, the conservative anti-choice group Live Action released undercover videos claiming to show Planned Parenthood engaged in wrongdoing because a staff member at a Richmond, VA clinic was caught on tape offering advice on how to help a minor obtain a legal abortion. On the February 3, 2011 edition of Fox News' Special Report, Bream falsely suggested that the "judicial bypass" procedure the staffer mentioned in the video -- which allows an adult to help a minor obtain a judge's permission to have an abortion -- is illegal. [Media Matters, 2/4/11]
Fox News Reporter Shannon Bream Endorsed Strict Religious Views In Liberty University Speech. Bream is a graduate of Jerry Falwell's deeply religious Liberty University, and in May 2013, she delivered the commencement speech at her alma mater. In her remarks, she urged the graduating class to "never back down" from "scriptural absolutes we must stay tethered to" (emphasis added):
Not talking about politics, and I personally don't care what party you do or don't belong to. This is about right and wrong, unwavering absolutes, respecting life, loving our neighbors, yeah, as much as we love ourselves, purging our lives of the secret sins that we've convinced ourselves is just no big deal, living in humility, defending those who cannot defend themselves, fighting to end religious oppression against men and women and children all across the globe and never backing down from the scriptural absolutes we must stay tethered to. [Media Matters, 9/17/15]
Rep. Adam Schiff, a Democratic member on the House Benghazi Select Committee, strongly criticized the committee's partisan focus and called out media myths about the September 2012 attacks and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.
In a September 4 New York Times op-ed headlined, "Disband the Benghazi Committee," Schiff discussed the committee's recent focus on Clinton's State Department emails, writing that they "don't substantiate the bogus theory that the State Department ordered the military to 'stand down' or that there was gun running, or that the secretary somehow interfered with the security provided at the diplomatic facility or annex" at Benghazi.
Schiff, also the top Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee, wrote that none of the secretary's emails were "marked classified at the time she received them. Some in the intelligence community believe that a subset of them should have been, a conclusion with which the State Department disagrees."
Media Matters has noted that media have repeatedly pushed the myth that Clinton received "top secret" classified emails, while downplaying the fact that the emails' retroactive classification status remains in dispute between government agencies -- a common occurrence.
Schiff concluded that Republicans have used the Benghazi committee "as a cudgel against the likely Democratic nominee for president." A Media Matters study of Fox News' Benghazi obsession found that in the first 20 months following the attacks, the conservative network's evening lineup aired 105 segments attempting to link Benghazi to Hillary Clinton's potential presidential ambitions.
The California congressman has been skeptical of the Benghazi Select Committee since its formation. During a May 4, 2014, appearance on Fox News Sunday, for instance, Schiff said the committee's formation was "a colossal waste of time" and "taxpayer resources" since "we've had four bipartisan investigations of this already."
From Rep. Schiff's op-ed:
Since its formation, the Select Committee on Benghazi has been aimless and slow moving, not knowing what it was looking for or where. It has acted in a deeply partisan way, frequently failing to consult or even to inform Democratic members before taking action, and selectively leaking information to the press. After 16 months and more than $4 million, the committee has gained no additional insight into the attacks in Benghazi. It has nothing new to tell the families of those killed or the American people.
But it does have emails. Lots of emails. Some of them are from former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. But none of her emails tell us anything of consequence regarding the events of Sept. 11, 2012. They don't substantiate the bogus theory that the State Department ordered the military to "stand down" or that there was gun running, or that the secretary somehow interfered with the security provided at the diplomatic facility or annex.
Nor were any of the secretary's emails marked classified at the time she received them. Some in the intelligence community believe that a subset of them should have been, a conclusion with which the State Department disagrees. That's not an uncommon clash of views. As the ranking Democrat on the Intelligence Committee, I am deeply interested in making sure that all classified information is protected. And yet, as a member of the Select Committee charged with finding out the truth about the attacks, I am appalled at how much we have lost sight of the mission -- if indeed that was ever the point.
Whatever their original purpose, the Select Committee's leaders appear no longer to have any interest in Benghazi, except as the tragic events of that day may be used as a cudgel against the likely Democratic nominee for president.
Iowa based radio host Steve Deace said Kentucky country clerk Kim Davis is comparable to civil rights icon Rosa Parks because, like Parks, who famously refused to give up her bus seat for a white person, Davis is refusing to obey a Supreme Court order to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples.
Deace, an influential, nationally syndicated radio personality popular with Christian conservatives, tweeted the comparison between Davis and Parks on September 2 while promoting his afternoon radio show. The host, who has endorsed Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) for president, also took to Facebook to criticize GOP presidential candidate Carly Fiorina for calling on Davis to do her job and issue marriage licenses to all couples who apply.
Deace's last show at USA Radio Network will air September 17 after the host said the station was "no longer able to meet the requirements of growing/managing" his show. USA Radio Network did not respond to Media Matters' request for comment about the split between Deace and the network.
While leading Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump and Fox News waged a protracted public feud for much of August, the network continued to lavish the business mogul with far more interview airtime than the other sixteen contenders. After being given nearly 5 hours of airtime in August, Trump now has 10 hours and 21 minutes of airtime since the beginning of May, nearly double that of former Fox host Mike Huckabee, who is second with 5 hours and 16 minutes.
Fox News and Trump engaged in a war of words after Megyn Kelly questioned Trump about his history of sexism during the network's August 6 Republican presidential debate. The argument culminated the last week of the month after Trump promoted a tweet calling Kelly a "bimbo," which prompted a statement from Fox News chief Roger Ailes demanding an apology -- Trump, of course, declined.
Following a press conference in which Trump complained that Fox News "treats me terribly," he announced on Laura Ingraham's radio show on August 26 that he and "good friend" Roger Ailes had once again smoothed things over. Despite yet another truce, Trump has not had a new interview on the network since an August 24 appearance on The O'Reilly Factor, the night he promoted the "bimbo" tweet about Kelly. (Though O'Reilly Factor did re-air an edited version of Trump's August 24 interview on August 28.)
Trump led all candidates in airtime during August, though his lead is bolstered by lengthy interviews on both Hannity and Justice with Judge Jeanine that the network re-aired multiple times in primetime.
Lagging well behind Trump's 4 hours and 48 minutes of airtime were Carly Fiorina (1 hour and 30 minutes), Mike Huckabee (1 hour and 22 minutes), Chris Christie (1 hour and 15 minutes), Ben Carson (1 hour and 13 minutes), and Scott Walker (1 hour and 2 minutes). No other candidate had more than an hour of airtime.
In overall airtime, Trump is lapping the field. His 10 hours and 21 minutes of airtime dwarf runners up Huckabee (5 hours and 16 minutes), Fiorina (4 hours and 18 minutes), and Rick Perry (4 hours and 12 minutes).
For August, Hannity once again featured the most candidate interview airtime, with 3 hours and 21 minutes.
Overall, Hannity continues to far outpace other programs in candidate interview airtime. His show has featured more than 13 hours of interviews since May 1.
Most Total Airtime In August: Donald Trump (4 hour and 48 minutes)
Most Total Appearances In August: Donald Trump (17 appearances)
Fox Show With The Most Total Candidate Airtime In August: Hannity (3 hours and 21 minutes)
Fox Show With The Most Candidate Appearances In August: Fox & Friends and The O'Reilly Factor (20 appearances each)
Softball Question of the Month: During the August 4, 2015 episode of The O'Reilly Factor, host Bill O'Reilly pressed hard to pin down just how nervous Donald Trump was feeling about the August 6 Fox News Republican presidential debate [transcript via Nexis]:
O'REILLY: Ok. Now, are you nervous? Do you get nervous? I mean, you know, it's a big deal, 48 hours, this is probably the biggest thing in your life. I mean, you can tell Geraldo that he is a pinhead on your other show that you are not doing anymore, but that's nothing compared to this worldwide debate. Are you nervous?
TRUMP: Well, I mean, the biggest thing in my life is my family and my children in all fairness -- Bill. This is a different kind of a thing.
O'REILLY: Ok. But I'm now talking professional. Right.
TRUMP: This is a different kind of a thing. This is a big league deal. There is no question about it. Everybody is talking about it. I'm getting calls from the biggest people in the world. They are watching. They are watching.
O'REILLY: Well, you are on the biggest show in the world right now. Come on. You know where you are.
TRUMP: Well, I'm on a great show.
O'REILLY: But do you get nervous? Are you apprehensive? You know, are you staying up at night? I know you don't sleep much at all. But are you a little apprehensive?
TRUMP: I would think so. I mean you don't know what's going to come at you. You don't know where these other people are going to come. You don't know whether or not the three folks that are asking the questions, I mean they are going to try to trick you up which is unfortunate because all of that has nothing to do with being a great president.
But I'm doing it because it's something you have to do. And, again, I have never debated. My sort of my whole life has been a debate, but I have never debated before. These politicians all they do is debate.
Most Total Airtime Since May 1: Donald Trump (10 hour and 21 minutes)
Most Total Appearances Since May 1: Donald Trump (54 appearances)
Fox Show With The Most Total Candidate Airtime Since May 1: Hannity (13 hours and 11 minutes)
Fox Show With The Most Candidate Appearances Since May 1: Hannity (64 appearances)
Previous Fox Primary Reports
For this study, we used FoxNews.com's "2016 Presidential Candidate Watch List." Jim Gilmore's inclusion in the study began after his formal announcement on July 30.
Media Matters searched the Nexis database and our internal video archive for all guest appearances on Fox News Channel between 6 a.m. and 11 p.m. and Fox News Sunday for the 17 presidential candidates in question: Jeb Bush, Ben Carson, Chris Christie, Ted Cruz, Carly Fiorina, Jim Gilmore, Lindsey Graham, Mike Huckabee, Bobby Jindal, John Kasich, George Pataki, Rand Paul, Rick Perry, Marco Rubio, Rick Santorum, Donald Trump, and Scott Walker.
Beginning with the August report, Media Matters has collected appearances on weekend shows in addition to weekday shows and Fox News Sunday. All weekend data from May 1 onward is now included.
For programs where a transcript was unavailable, we reviewed the raw video.
Charts by Oliver Willis. Additional research by Media Matters' research staff.
Fox News senior judicial analyst Andrew Napolitano decried how the "tone" of the national immigration law debate "has taken an ugly turn" with the increasing use of nativist rhetoric to attack "anchor babies," yet glossed over the fact that his Fox colleagues have been some of the loudest proponents of the slur and ending birthright citizenship.
Napolitano condemned attacks on birthright citizenship as "dangerous" and "anti-American" in a September 3 opinion piece for Foxnews.com, detailing how Hispanics are "being demonized because of the politics of nativism." Revoking the 14th Amendment right to birthright citizenship, Napolitano wrote, would change the country "far more radically and dangerously than any wave of undocumented immigrants did":
Today, the potential victims of public indifference and government repression are Hispanics in America. Hispanics here without documentation are being demonized because of the politics of nativism. Nativism -- we are exceptional; we are better people than they are; we were here first -- is very dangerous and leads to ugly results.
The Declaration of Independence and the Constitution underscore the truism that all persons have the same natural rights, irrespective of where their mothers were when they delivered them.
The Fourteenth Amendment requires this, and its language is inclusive: "All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof are citizens of the United States..." Though written to protect former slaves, its language is not limited to them.
When the history of our times is written, it might relate that the majority repressed the rights of minorities by demonizing them using appeals to group prejudice -- by blaming entire ethnic groups for the criminal behavior of some few members of those groups.
That history might reflect that this was done for short-term political gain.
If that happens, it will have changed America far more radically and dangerously than any wave of undocumented immigrants did.
And that would be profoundly and perhaps irreparably un-American.
Yet Napolitano's criticism fails to note that his Fox colleagues have been some of the loudest proponents of revoking birthright citizenship and using "anchor baby" slurs to demonize immigrants.
Even before Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump proposed amending the constitution to revoke the 14th Amendment right, Fox figures like Bill O'Reilly, Steve Doocy, and Laura Ingraham were calling for an end to birthright citizenship. Their demand grew even louder after Trump voiced his support -- Sean Hannity demanded an end to birthright citizenship to stop "anchor babies" while Fox & Friends lauded Trump's plan as "remarkable." Lou Dobbs proposed a legal justification to spur along the end of birthright citizenship, which Fox radio host Todd Starnes declared would put "Americans first."
What's more, Fox figures applauded Trump's use of the term "anchor baby" -- Brian Kilmeade even said "a lot of people think that [term] would be a compliment," while Hannity claimed "there is no other term to use."
Beyond a purported wave of "anchor babies" being an anti-immigrant myth, the term is offensive to Hispanics. As NBC News explained, it's a "dog whistle" or a "term used to describe coded language that means one thing in general but has an additional meaning for a targeted population. According to one expert, 'anchor baby' is used as a code 'to stimulate fear about changing racial demographics.'"
Diplomats from the UK, China, France, Germany and Russia told Congress that the Iran nuclear deal is the best deal possible, according to a report from The New York Times.
Since the Iran Nuclear agreement was announced in July, many nonproliferation and national security experts have praised the deal for being "about as good as any real world agreement could be" and "pretty damn good." Nuclear and military experts have also called the deal "the most effective means currently available to prevent Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons."
Adding to the list of those voicing support for the deal, The New York Times reported that diplomats around the world have strongly argued for the agreement and told members of Congress it was "as good a deal as you could get." The diplomats stressed that if Congress rejected the deal, they would not join in efforts to re-impose sanctions, something conservative media have overlooked in their push against it. The Times report also highlighted support from experts who told Congress the deal "would do more to slow Iran's production of a nuclear weapon than a military attack":
Just before the Senate left town for its August break, a dozen or so undecided Democrats met in the Capitol with senior diplomats from Britain, China, France, Germany and Russia who delivered a blunt, joint message: Their nuclear agreement with Iran was the best they could expect. The five world powers had no intention of returning to the negotiating table.
"They basically said unanimously this is as good a deal as you could get and we are moving ahead with it," recalled Senator Chris Coons, the Delaware Democrat who lent crucial support to the deal this week despite some reservations. "They were clear and strong that we will not join you in re-imposing sanctions."
Many Democrats said they were persuaded on the merits, including a point stressed by Mr. Moniz, the energy secretary, that the International Atomic Energy Agency would have technology that could catch even the most minute trace amounts of radioactive material, and help expose any cheating on the deal by Iran.
They also heard from experts who said that a 15-year limit on fissile material, the makings of a nuclear weapon, would do more to slow Iran's production of a nuclear weapon than a military attack, which intelligence experts said would only delay a weapons program by three years.
Nonetheless, conservative media have trashed the deal, claiming it "planted the seeds of World War III" and likening it to a "deal with the devil" while continually making false claims to try and kill it.
Hillary Clinton likes to watch Parks and Recreation.
That's what the Clinton email kerfuffle seemed to amount to this week. News organization excitedly dove into the latest trove of emails released from Clinton's time as secretary of state, only to have to settle for vacuous nuggets about her TV viewing habits.
We seem to be at the stage where the mere existence of publicly-available Clinton emails prompts journalists to hype each additional set as big news, even when the contents of the emails are non-descript. Hard-wired into the Republican way of thinking, the Beltway press often automatically treats Clinton's electronic communications as damning and suspect.
But they're not.
We've seen this pattern repeated numerous times in recent days, and not just with the latest, monthly release of Clinton's State Department emails. Last week, news outlets including CNN, Washington Post, and ABC News dutifully typed up reports about emails obtained by the Clinton-bashing group Citizens United, which filed lawsuits for the release of Hillary Clinton's communications. Presented as containing some damning revelations, upon closer examination the emails simply produced more yawns. They contained nothing proving any kind of wrongdoing on the part of Clinton. (Unless Clinton aide Huma Abedin using emails to organize a small dinner for the former secretary of state now qualifies as wrongdoing.)
Ordinarily, I might chalk up this oddly breathless coverage about ho-hum emails to the summer doldrums, as journalists are hard-pressed to create compelling content during the traditionally slow news month of August. But the Beltway press did the exact same thing with the previous email release. And I suspect we'll see this pattern continue for months to come, in part because a U.S. District court has decreed that the email dumps are going to be monthly events through January.
There have now been three enormous batches of State Department emails released, totaling more than 10,000 pages, and none of them have produced blockbuster revelations or truly fueled the so-called Clinton email scandal.
So why hasn't the press treated the release of boring, "mundane" emails as proof that widespread partisan claims of malfeasance are simply not supported? Why doesn't the press openly concede that the email disclosures that show the former secretary of state to be funny and hardworking represent good news for Clinton, instead of perpetually presenting them as bad news? (i.e. A "fresh headache," according to Yahoo News.)
As I previously noted, the out-of-context coverage likely stems from the fact there's a standing army of Clinton-assigned journalists who are responsible for producing endless content for the next year. Additionally, many in the press have invested a huge amount of capital in the email story since it broke in March, and now seem reluctant to acknowledge there might not be any there there.
Today in fact, The New York Times published a column from a Republican operative who announced the email story had "crippled" Clinton's campaign, and claimed she may have committed a crime worse than former CIA director David Petraeus, who pleaded guilty to unauthorized removal and retention of classified information. The Times published this claim days after Petraeus' prosecutor, former U.S. Attorney Anne Tompkins, explained there's no connection between the two cases and that unlike Petraeus, "Clinton committed no crime."
Elsewhere, the press forged ahead on the email dump in search of news. This was Politico's news lede for the email release:
A new batch of Hillary Clinton's emails made public by the State Department on Monday night show her expressing interest in the presidential aspirations of Gen. David Petraeus, who ultimately took a job as CIA director in the Obama administration rather than run for president in 2012 and was then driven out of government by scandal.
According to Politico, the most newsworthy "insight" from the thousands of Clinton emails released this month was that the former secretary of state expressed "interest" that a famous U.S. general was possibly eyeing a White House run. How did Politico gage Clinton's "interest"? How did Politico conclude she "sounded intrigued"? A friend emailed Clinton some information in 2010 and she typed back a five-word response.
Meanwhile, after being given Clinton emails from Citizen United regarding foreign speech offers Bill Clinton had received, and his insistence on getting guidance from the State Department on whether he should accept the offers (he did not), ABC News's Jonathan Karl announced:
ABC News has obtained State Department e-mails that shed light on Bill Clinton's lucrative speaking engagements and show he and the Clinton Foundation tried to get approval for invitations related to two of the most repressive countries in the world -- North Korea and the Democratic Republic of the Congo.
In fact, the emails did not show Clinton and the Foundation "tried to get approval." The emails showed that Clinton and the Foundation sought advice on the matter. At no point did Clinton or the Foundation try to overrule the State Department. And in the end neither invitation was accepted.
In other words, Bill Clinton's office routinely ran speech requests past the State Department to "review for any real or apparent conflict of interest with the duties of Secretary of State." So when ABC News obtained emails that confirmed that fact, rather that presenting the emails as proof the Clintons did in private exactly what they said they were doing in public, ABC News presented the emails as somehow troubling and controversial -- they showed "show just how far Bill Clinton was willing to go to earn those lucrative fees."
This is what's called heads you lose/tails you lose.
Without any discernible news value found in the emails themselves, the press instead clings to the "glimpse" and "window" crutch. From ABC News: "The emails also provide a glimpse into the person behind the office." And The New York Times stressed the emails "offered a rare window into" the Clintons.
But again, how does a "glimpse" into routine communications pass as news? It doesn't.
The truth is, the wind continues to go out of the email "scandal" sails. As the Associated Press reported this week, experts agree there's currently virtually no chance Clinton faces any criminal jeopardy over the handling of her emails.
Indeed, after speaking with "half-dozen knowledgeable lawyers," longtime Washington Post foreign affairs columnist David Ignatius recently broke from the D.C. pack and concluded the email "'scandal' is overstated."
So with the criminal element of the so-called scandal evaporating, the press is left to dwell on the perception and the optics of the controversy. And the press remains mostly in heated agreement that it's all very bad news for Clinton, insisting this summer that her polling has gone "under water" because of it. (Note that a national survey released Tuesday showed Clinton maintaining a 35-point lead in the Democratic primary race, the same large advantage she enjoyed the previous month.)
"Clinton" + "email" has become media shorthand for big, big news. But with each new batch of emails released, it's becoming impossible to defend that formula.