From the December 21 edition of MSNBC's Morning Joe:
Loading the player reg...
Conservative media are calling on teachers to be armed in response to the tragedy at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Connecticut, even as law enforcement experts, educators, and others argue that bringing guns into schools would make classrooms more dangerous. This advice comes on the heels of legislation being considered by Republicans in at least six states that would allow or require teachers and staff to carry guns.
On December 14, a lone gunman killed 26 people, among them 20 children, at Sandy Hook Elementary in Newtown, Connecticut, before shooting and killing himself.
During a segment on the tragedy, Fox & Friends co-host Brian Kilmeade dismissed arguments for gun control, saying that he favors "hardening the target and maybe arming the teachers" as a way to avert such massacres in the future. He also advocated for the hiring of retired law enforcement and military to police school halls.
Co-host Steve Doocy pointed to a school in Harrold, Texas, whose teachers carry concealed weapons to suggest that such a program would work well at other schools.
When co-host Gretchen Carlson dissented, saying she worries about what the consequences would be for children to grow up in a culture in which people are armed, Kilmeade stated: "They're in that culture." He added: "The reality is there's school shootings and I want my kid to get out alive."
CNN contributor Bill Bennett also supports arming teachers. In a CNN.com opinion piece, he wrote: "Suppose the principal at Sandy Hook Elementary who was killed lunging at the gunman was instead holding a firearm and was well trained to use it. Would the result have been different? Or suppose you had been in that school when the killer entered, would you have preferred to be armed?" He concluded: "Evidence and common sense suggest yes."
However, former law enforcement officers argue against arming teachers, citing the lack of necessary training and experience.
From the December 17 edition of MSNBC's PoliticsNation:
News Corp. CEO Rupert Murdoch's call for politicians to find the "courage" to ban automatic weapons in the aftermath of the tragic mass shooting at a Connecticut elementary school is sharply at odds with the extreme rhetoric often heard on Fox News. Indeed, Fox voices routinely demonize any calls to strengthen gun laws.
The Daily Show called out Fox News' hypocrisy in determining who is and isn't allowed to talk about gun violence.
Fox heavily criticized NBC's Bob Costas after he quoted at length from Fox Sports' Jason Whitlock's column on the recent murder-suicide involving Kansas City Chiefs player Jovan Belcher. Costas' endorsement of part of the column that expressed concern about "our current gun culture" came under attack immediately from Fox News as cowardly and inappropriate.
Watch the full segment in the videos below:
Fox Nation dishonestly accused Planned Parenthood of teaching teenagers how to use makeup to cover up facial marks left from domestic violence. But the video they use as evidence is in fact an anti-domestic violence public service announcement that explicitly implores victims of domestic violence not to cover it up but to seek help.
The source of Fox Nation's dishonest smear is a PSA called "How to look your best the morning after" that was posted on Planned Parenthood's Facebook page. The PSA shows a woman using makeup to conceal facial bruises. Fox Nation posted the video and a section of a LifeNews.com article under the headline "Planned Parenthood Shows Teens How to Hide a Beating with Makeup." The article accompanying the video also claimed Planned Parenthood "shows how to cover up those nasty cuts and bruises that result from a beating":
But contrary to Fox's deceptive campaign to smear Planned Parenthood, the PSA very clearly urges women not to cover up the effects of domestic violence. The video portrays a woman with facial bruises discussing ways to conceal her bruises. Responding to the sound of a door closing off-screen, the woman abruptly ends the recording with a panicked look on her face. At that point, on-screen text reports that 65 percent of women who suffer domestic abuse try to keep it hidden. The PSA then urges women: "Don't cover it up."
From the December 4 edition of Fox News' The Five:
Loading the player reg...
From the December 3 edition of Fox News' The O'Reilly Factor:
Loading the player reg...
Rush Limbaugh dismissed the notion that Kasandra Perkins, who was killed in a murder-suicide this weekend by her boyfriend, NFL football player Jovan Belcher, would still be alive today if Belcher hadn't had a gun. In fact, there is a good chance Perkins would still be alive: Data show that guns greatly increase the probability that women who are victims of domestic violence will be killed by their abuser.
According to research by the Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence, "Domestic violence assaults involving a firearm are 23 times more likely to result in death than those involving other weapons or bodily force." From the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, which highlighted a 1992 study on domestic violence assaults:
The study found that in incidences of family and intimate assaults the use of guns was 12 times more likely to result in death than assaults that did not involve a firearm. Compared to knives or other cutting instruments, the involvement of a gun increased the risk of death by 3 times and compared to other weapons and bodily force, risk of death increased 23 times if a gun was involved.
The Bureau of Justice Statistics reports that between 1976 and 2005, one third of female murder victims were killed by an intimate -- a spouse, ex-spouse, or boyfriend -- and more than two-thirds of the spouse and ex-spouse victims were killed by firearms. Girlfriend victims were killed by guns 56 percent of the time.
Similarly, a study by the Violence Policy Center, which concluded that the "most common catalytic component in murder-suicide is the use of a firearm," found that women victims in murder-suicides were killed by another type of weapon or by other means in just 9 percent of cases:
During his radio show on Monday, Limbaugh noted that there are upwards of 600 murder-suicides each year, but discounted the fact that guns play any significant role.
Discussing the Belcher case, Limbaugh criticized NBC sportscaster Bob Costas for bringing up the issue of gun violence during Sunday's night football game. Costas seemed to agree with Fox Sports columnist Jason Whitlock's comments that "if [Belcher] didn't possess/own a gun, he and Kasandra Perkins would both be alive today."
LIMBAUGH: No, we don't know that, sadly. I'm sure there are knives in this guy's house. And I'm sure that if he wanted to strangle her, he could have, and he clearly was irrational. The gun and even the availability of it is not why he killed her. And the gun and the availability of it is not why he killed himself. But to say that, ladies and gentlemen, is totally unacceptable.
To say what I just said is to be blind and to ignore the reality staring at us, because if there were no gun, if he couldn'ta gotten the gun then she'd be alive, and he'd be alive, and the baby wouldn't be an orphan and everything would be hunky dory and the Chiefs might have even lost. Everything would have been as it should have been.
Fox News used the tragic story of a grieving father to continue smearing undocumented immigrants as violent criminals and attack the Obama administration's deportation policies. In fact, data shows that immigrants are less likely to be incarcerated and do not commit crimes at higher rates than others. Moreover, the Obama administration's deportation of undocumented immigrants is at an all-time high.
Fox & Friends co-host Steve Doocy interviewed Don Rosenberg to discuss the death of his son, Drew, who was killed in California when his motorcycle was hit by an unlicensed driver in 2010. As San Francisco Chronicle columnist Debra J. Saunders reported, Roberto Galo was charged in the incident for driving without a license and with felony negligent homicide for causing Drew's death. He is reportedly slated for release on Friday.
As Saunders noted, Rosenberg has called for Galo to be deported upon his release. However, Galo is "a legal immigrant with 'temporary protected status,'" which, according to U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, means Galo cannot be deported under certain circumstances: Conditions in his home country temporarily prevent him from returning safely or his country is unable to adequately handle his return.
Galo is reportedly from Honduras, which affords its nationals and those without nationality who last resided in that country protected status in the United States until July 2013. However, those eligible under these conditions might forfeit protected status if they have been convicted of a felony or have committed two or more misdemeanors in the United States.
In introducing the segment, Doocy called Galo "an unlicensed illegal immigrant" while onscreen text repeatedly identified him as an "illegal immigrant."
Fox News website Fox Nation also highlighted the story, linking to Saunders' column with the headline, "Obama Won't Deport Illegal Alien Killer," even though she reported that Galo is in the country legally:
From the November 3 edition of SiriusXM's Media Matters Radio:
Loading the player reg...
With facts and statistics staring down the New York Post's attempted defenses of the New York Police Department's controversial stop-and-frisk agenda, the Post has been forced to resort to purely emotional appeals in their attempt to maintain public support for the policy.
Over the past few months, the New York Post has published several news pieces dedicated to interrogating the friends and family members of recent New York City shooting victims. Each story features someone emotionally close to the case speculating about whether ramping up the New York Police Department's controversial "stop-and-frisk" policy could have saved their loved ones' lives. Meanwhile, the Post's editorial page has been littered with hyperbole and graphic imagery -- fear mongering designed to scare readers into believing that ending stop-and-frisk will result in "more blood in the streets."
Several recent interviews in the news section of the New York Post have followed the above theme. Given the unconditional support for stop-and-frisk expressed by the Post's editors over past months, it's difficult to view these stories as anything more than an effort to exploit the raw emotions of their subjects in order to push the paper's political objectives in a "straight news" format. One example, from the New York Post on July 19, was an interview with a mother whose teenage son was shot and killed in July:
The grieving mother of a 15-year-old student who was shot in the head and died last week told The Post police should stop and frisk every person on the streets in order to stem increasing gun violence.
"My son is gone because of an illegal gun on the street," said Natasha Christopher, whose eldest son, Akeal, died on his birthday.
"If they had frisked the person who killed my son, it would have been one less gun on the streets. I'm for it," she declared.
Over the past few months, the New York Post editorial page has defended the New York Police Department's controversial stop-and-frisk policy with myths and imbalanced coverage.
From the July 10 edition of Premiere Radio Networks' The Rush Limbaugh Show:
Loading the player reg...
"You think rising cell phone thefts are bad? Wait till car thefts soar back over 100,000 a year. Wait till you start hearing about mushrooms and learn that the word refers to children who have been struck by stray bullets."
So opined the editorial board of the New York Daily News in response to public scrutiny of the New York Police Department's "stop-and-frisk" policy -- a controversial program that last year alone resulted in over 685,000 stops of primarily black and Latino residents (only 12% of persons stopped were charged with a crime). This week, Manhattan Federal Court Judge Shira Scheindlin granted class action status to a group of victims of the policy who are bringing suit against the city for what they argue is a discriminatory and unconstitutional practice. The Daily News, as well as the New York Post, viewed the ruling -- which they inexplicably believe risks the existence of the "stop-and-frisk" practice altogether -- as nothing less than life-threatening.
In the aforementioned editorial, titled "How to kill New York," the Daily News editorial board ominously predicted that If the program is reformed, 'the body count will start rising.'
The NY Post's editors weighed in as well, attacking outspoken critics of the program whom the editors say "won't rest until the murder rate skyrockets":
They're playing with fire -- all of them.
Indeed, if they do manage to weaken the program, the blood of new crime victims will be on their hands.
So: Will the city once again become the Crime Capital of the World?
Alas, so it seems.