Video ››› ››› MEDIA MATTERS STAFF
Loading the player reg...
Loading the player reg...
Loading the player reg...
Sean Hannity called Donald Trump’s claim that he “never attacked” Hillary Clinton’s religious beliefs “honest,” despite Trump arguing that “we don’t know much about Hillary in terms of her religion” nine days earlier.
While criticizing Clinton on the June 30 edition of Fox News’ Hannity, Donald Trump argued he never attacked her faith, claiming he only said he knew nothing about it. Hannity replied saying “that’s an honest answer”:
SEAN HANNITY: Can you imagine if you're the one -- she's that programmed that they actually put in how she should act after she gives a line. I don't know what -- if you did it, it would be -- it would be a bigger story.
DONALD TRUMP: They thought it was so cute, it was so wonderful. They were saying, oh, isn't that cute? Isn't that nice? Isn't that wonderful? Can you imagine if I did it?
TRUMP: I never noticed that on teleprompter. When I do a teleprompter, they don't put sigh. You're supposed to be who you are. Can you imagine sigh? And let me tell you, I never attacked her faith. A question was asked about her faith. I said I know nothing about it. I wasn't saying that in a good way or a bad. I really know nothing about her faith.
HANNITY: Well, that's an honest answer.
TRUMP: I would never attack her faith. So, I just want to let that be clear.
But during comments made by Trump to a June 21 gathering of evangelical Christian leaders Trump said that despite Clinton being in the public eye for decades, “we don’t know anything about Hillary in terms of religion,” and suggested that people keep their “guard up” even more than they have with President Obama:
Speaking to a group of top social conservative evangelical Christian leaders at a gathering in New York City, Trump said, “we don't know anything about Hillary in terms of religion.” “Now, she's been in the public eye for years and years, and yet there's no — there's nothing out there,” Trump said. “There's like nothing out there. It's going to be an extension of Obama but it's going to be worse, because with Obama you had your guard up. With Hillary you don't, and it's going to be worse.”
On June 30, Defense Secretary Ashton Carter announced that the Department of Defense would lift its ban on transgender individuals openly serving in the military. Some right-wing media figures were quick to attack the Defense Department’s decision as an “insane PC” move that allows “men with mascara” to serve.
Loading the player reg...
Right-wing media figures are joining presumptive Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump in using the name “Pocahontas” as an attack against Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA). The line of attack was popularized by Boston right-wing radio host and Trump surrogate Howie Carr.
According to Donald Trump surrogate and Boston-based radio host Howie Carr, the presumptive GOP presidential nominee told him “Whatever you do, don’t apologize” for imitating a Native American “war whoop” to mock Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) during a Trump rally.
While introducing Trump during a June 29 rally, Carr, who has a long history of mocking rape victims, Muslims, Catholics, and the LGBT community, imitated a Native American “war whoop” to mock Warren whom Donald Trump has been calling Pocahontas for the last several weeks. Trump and Carr are close friends who have vacationed and golfed together at Trump’s Mar-a-Lago-Club Resort as recently as December.
Carr wrote in a blog post that following the immediate negative coverage of his comments, Trump told him not to apologize while the two flew on Trump’s private plane. According to Carr, Trump said “You never hear me apologize, do you? That’s what killed Jimmy the Greek way back. Remember? He was doing okay ‘til he said he was sorry,” a reference to the former sports commentator and Las Vegas bookie who was fired for saying that black people were “bred” to be better athletes than whites. Carr doubled down on the comments saying he has no intention of apologizing “for mentioning the name of the fake Indian and then doing a few seconds of a war whoop”:
ABOARD TRUMP ONE – The candidate loosened his tie and offered me some advice.
“Whatever you do, don’t apologize,” he said. “You never hear me apologize, do you? That’s what killed Jimmy the Greek way back. Remember? He was doing okay ‘til he said he was sorry.”
Not to worry, I wasn’t going to say I was sorry for mentioning the name of the fake Indian and then doing a few seconds of a war whoop. About an hour earlier, I had been at the Cross Insurance Center in Bangor, warming up a crowd of maybe 5000 Trump supporters for Gov. Paul LePage before he introduced The Donald at a weekday rally I was speaking extemporaneously when I free-associated Fauxchohantas’ name, and suddenly a war whoop seemed appropriate for the occasion.
How many moons have I been challenging Lieawatha to submit to a DNA test? Scott Brown brought up the issue of her forked tongue again on Fox earlier this week. But yesterday it goes viral, because I’m speaking live on youtube and who knows where else on the Internet.
Loading the player reg...
Loading the player reg...
Cover model Caitlyn Jenner reflects on her athletic career, winning gold at the Summer Olympics 40 years ago, and role of recent reality TV star and transgender icon in the summer issue of Sports Illustrated. The story allows Jenner to tell her own story, while also highlighting the positive impact of transgender visibility in the media, pointing out that her story helps transgender people and their families battle intolerance and isolation.
Nearly 40 years after her last cover appearance on Sports Illustrated, the magazine again featured Caitlyn Jenner in multi-platform profile in its July 4-11 edition. The profile largely focuses on Jenner’s reflections about her journey both before and after winning the decathlon gold medal at the 1976 summer Olympics. In addition to elevating Jenner’s voice, the story spotlights the positive impact of Jenner’s media presence on transgender people, who “battle not only intolerance but also suicidal thoughts, depression and poverty at staggering rates and who are just gaining a foothold in society.”
The piece contrasts with sensationalist, irresponsible reporting that has often accompanied stories about Jenner and the transgender community. In May, The Washington Post and CBS both parroted the shoddy, unsubstantiated report of a discredited celebrity biographer, who claimed that Jenner might “de-transition.” Sports Illustrated’s profile of Jenner proves that even high-profile celebrity news can educate readers about transgender people and the importance of transgender visibility.
From the July 4-11 edition of Sports Illustrated:
If there is no medal, Caitlyn Jenner almost certainly does not become the most famous transgender person in history. She does not become a towering (literally, 6' 4" in heels) public figure who both unifies and polarizes (even within the trans community) while spurring discussion of gender issues in ways that no one else has. She has used her celebrity—earnestly, sometimes naively, on a steep learning curve, with millions watching—to help the 700,000 trans men, women and children in America who battle not only intolerance but also suicidal thoughts, depression and poverty at staggering rates and who are just gaining a foothold in society. “I feel like, now, nobody can say they don’t know a transgender person, because she is that famous,” says Chris Mosier, 35, a transgender male triathlete who represented the U.S. at the world sprint duathlon (cycling and running) championships last month in Spain. “She has brought about this awareness among people who are attuned to pop culture and media. Challenges that trans people face have really come to light since she’s come out.
If there is no medal, she does not affect the lives of thousands of families trying to find their way in a trans world that many scarcely knew existed. Says Dr. Johanna Olson-Kennedy, adolescent medicine specialist in the care of gender nonconforming children and transgender youth at Children’s Hospital Los Angeles, “For parents who are scared or nervous about having a child come out as transgender, it suddenly feels like they’re not the only one, because they remember Caitlyn from the Olympics, and this is real. And for the kids, if they know Caitlyn at all, it’s from the Kardashians, but for them, their life is impacted by their parents’ being more open to their journey. It’s a lot easier for them if they have affirming and supportive parents.”
Loading the player reg...
Loading the player reg...
In response to the Supreme Court's decision to strike down Texas’ HB 2 law, which imposed restrictions causing over half the state's abortion clinics to close, Spanish-language media have widely highlighted the positive impact the decision will have for women, particularly the state’s 2.5 million Latinas of reproductive age. But Univision, the largest Hispanic TV news network, failed to explain how the decision will affect Latinas in its report on the ruling during its most highly viewed news show, Noticiero Univision.
After the Supreme Court handed down its ruling on HB 2, some Hispanic media outlets explained how the law contributed to the many already existing barriers Hispanic women face in accessing reproductive health care, and specifically noted that the decision will benefit Latinas. The editorial board of La Opinión, for example, said that “in practice, restricting abortion in Texas was a way to punish poorer women,” including many of the 2.5 million Hispanic women of reproductive age living in the state. Telemundo’s Noticiero Telemundo mentioned in its report that the shuttering of abortion clinics in Texas disproportionately affected “Hispanic women of reproductive age” and explained that many Hispanic women rely on these clinics for all of their reproductive health care needs.
But Noticiero Univision, Univision’s flagship evening news program, excluded any mention of how the Supreme Court’s decision will benefit women, or Latinas in particular, in its report on the ruling. Univision reporter Juan Carlos Gonzalez interviewed activists and read a statement from Texas Gov. Greg Abbott, an HB2 proponent, but failed to address the impact of the decision for Latinas.
According to Pew Research Center, Noticiero Univision had the highest viewership among Spanish-language cable news shows in 2015. Univision and Telemundo both have a history of providing lackluster reporting on the ways Latinas are disproportionately affected by barriers to reproductive health care.
From the June 27 edition of Univision’s Noticiero Univision (translated from Spanish):
JORGE RAMOS: The Supreme Court ratified the right to abortion when it threw out the Texas law that complicated access for women to end a pregnancy. The highest court found unconstitutional the restrictions imposed by the Texas law on clinics that practice abortion. Many of these clinics had to close when the controversial law was implemented in 2013. Juan Carlos Gonzalez has reactions and details of the verdict.
JUAN CARLOS GONZALEZ: The Supreme Court’s decision invalidated the law of the state of Texas that obligated clinics that practice abortion to operate like ambulatory surgical clinics and doctors to have hospital-admitting privileges. The decision, the most important in decades on this controversial issue, made those who favor abortion rights happy.
JULIO DANIEL DÍAZ: As a man, I don’t have the right to tell women to make a decision about their bodies.
GONZALEZ: But it was a hard hit for those such as Cecilia Salinas, who has always resided in McAllen, Texas, who are opposed to abortion.
CECILIA SALINAS: I am 100 percent convinced that only God has the right to decide on the life of any human being.
GONZALEZ: The measure known as HB 2 was passed by the Texas legislature in 2013, but it was subjected to a lawsuit that went to the Supreme Court. Texas Governor Greg Abbott reacted with a statement that said, “The decision erodes states’ lawmaking authority to safeguard the health and safety of women and subjects more innocent life to being lost. Texas' goal is to protect innocent life, while ensuring the highest health and safety standards for women."
For his part, President Barack Obama commented that he feels pleased that the Supreme Court protected the rights and health of women. Before the law went into effect here in Texas, there were approximately 41 clinics like this. After it took effect, the measure closed about half of them. Since 2008, some 70 clinics in the United States have also stopped providing abortions. Nonetheless, many hope that after this decision, many of them return to their operations. [Univision, Noticiero Univision, 6/27/16]
In a 5-3 vote, the Supreme Court struck down Texas’ HB 2 law that imposed “unnecessary health regulations” on abortion providers and clinics and created serious barriers for women seeking abortions. Hispanic media outlets lauded the decision, noting that HB 2 had a particularly negative impact on the approximately 2.5 million Latina women of reproductive age living in Texas.
Right-wing media figures are shocked by the Supreme Court decision in Fisher v. University of Texas II, which reaffirmed that the consideration of race as a factor in college admissions is constitutional under the Equal Protection Clause. Conservative media have been questioning the validity of affirmative action policies for years, appearing equally baffled by the Supreme Court’s decision in 2013 on the same matter. This time around, the confusion was again amplified as right-wing media attempted to cast race-conscious college admissions as “racist,” misrepresent the strict legal scrutiny already in place for these types of policies, and dismiss the numerous educational and economic benefits of diverse colleges.
On his radio show immediately following the release of the new Fisher decision, host Rush Limbaugh read from the synopsis of the majority opinion authored by Justice Anthony Kennedy, in particular focusing on a line stating that schools have a “compelling interest” to seek the benefits of a diverse student body through means other than impermissible racial quotas. Limbaugh was so baffled by the “stunning,” “unbelievable,” and “absurd” reasoning, he had to read the line several times and was left speechless, before exclaiming, “This is so bad, I don’t know how to describe it.” Limbaugh then labeled the numerous and proven educational benefits of student body diversity a “liberal concept, perverted and corrupt as it is,” and an “absolutely vacuous argument that the left has been advancing for years.”
Perhaps if Limbaugh had read more of the opinion, he would better understand how the Supreme Court could deem “the educational benefits that flow from student body diversity” a “compelling interest.” In fact, the American Educational Research Association and “nine other scientific societies” filed an amicus brief in the Fisher case, “urging the court to consider an overwhelming body of evidence” showing “that student body diversity promotes cross-racial understanding, educational and classroom benefits, and professional development,” and “prevents the harms of racial isolation.” A wide range of businesses, public institutions, and educational leadership once again filed amicus briefs in the case, arguing for the value of race-conscious admissions policies. Coalitions of Fortune 100 CEOs and other major business leaders, former senior military officials, several top professional associations for college professors and admissions staff, and the federal government all filed briefs in support of policies like the University of Texas’ admissions approach.
During the Fisher oral arguments in December, the late Justice Antonin Scalia made headlines for referencing the discredited “mismatch theory” that affirmative action policies place underprepared students of color in schools that are too challenging for them. The flawed assumptions that underscore this theory have likewise pervaded right-wing media’s reactions to the Supreme Court’s decision.
Several conservative media figures have expressed their confusion and concern that black and Latino students might somehow be disserved by race-conscious admissions policies in social or emotional ways, in addition to struggling with academic “mismatch.” Commentator Heather Mac Donald, for example, denounced the decision, asserting that “race-based admissions preferences” allow students to “come into environments for which they’re not prepared,” leading to academic failure, “the sort of insanity that this country went through last year with the Black Lives Matter protests on campuses,” and a “growing victimology on campuses.”
But here are the facts: Numerous studies have shown students of color do better in more selective schools, and experts have discredited what little research backs “mismatch theory.” In fact, a brief filed with the Supreme Court in the Fisher case by experts in methodology and statistics urged the court to disregard the most highly cited study supporting the debunked theory, writing that the study “fails to satisfy the basic standards of good empirical social science research.”
The facts haven’t stopped conservative media from once again incorrectly characterizing the ongoing legality of narrowly tailored affirmative action programs as a major shift in legal precedent amounting to reverse racism. This time around, right-wing media figures lamented the Fisher decision as propping up “another kind of discrimination” that might be “equally wrong,” “reverse discrimination” or “racist,” and incorrectly suggested that the decision is related to setting impermissible racial quotas for admissions. Rush Limbaugh, in particular, appeared deeply confused, first insisting that the decision relates to racial quotas specifically. Then, after reading a portion of the majority opinion that highlighted the holistic review process at the University of Texas several times, Limbaugh concluded that affirmative action, which he previously understood as a “glorified quota program,” has shifted to something “even worse.” Conservative commentator Ben Shapiro also asserted that Justice Kennedy had “flipped” in his ruling and that “our freedoms are decided” based on whether the Supreme Court justice “had his Metamucil that morning.”
But the court’s reaffirmation of the University of Texas’ race-conscious admissions policy, while a surprising decision for many court experts and affirmative action advocates who feared the court had shifted irrevocably to the right, does not break new legal ground. In fact, Kennedy’s opinion specifically represents a continued belief that properly tailored affirmative action programs remain constitutional under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment -- a line of reasoning he has espoused for nearly a decade. The narrow ruling on the Texas holistic admissions approach is the latest Supreme Court opinion to reaffirm what has been a guiding principle since 1978, further detailed in 2003: that the use of race as one factor among many in individualized and holistic considerations of applicants to institutions of higher education remains both necessary and constitutional to ensure the diversity of America's future leaders.