MSNBC on-screen text falsely suggested Republicans wanted to pass Fair Pay Act
Please upgrade your flash player. The video for this item requires a newer version of Flash Player. If you are unable to install flash you can download a QuickTime version of the video.
SUMMARY: On MSNBC Live, as host Alex Witt reported on a press conference held by Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, on-screen text read: "GOP leaders criticize Dems for delaying vote on Fair Pay Act," falsely suggesting that Republicans wanted to pass the measure. At no point in the coverage of McConnell's press conference did Witt or MSNBC in its on-screen text explain that the Republicans planned to filibuster the bill.
On the April 23 edition of MSNBC Live, while preparing to cut away to a press conference held by Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY), host Alex Witt said, "Want to take you live to Capitol Hill, where you see Senator Mitch McConnell. They're holding a news conference, upset at the fact that there has been a delay on a big Senate vote to accommodate, they say, [Sens.] Clinton and Obama's campaign schedules." While McConnell spoke, on-screen text read: "GOP leaders criticize Dems for delaying vote on Fair Pay Act," falsely suggesting that Republicans wanted to pass the measure. At no point in the coverage of McConnell's press conference did Witt or MSNBC in its on-screen text explain that the Republicans planned to filibuster the bill. Indeed, the planned vote to which Witt referred is a vote for cloture on the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act of 2007 -- that is, a vote to overcome a filibuster.
By contrast, an April 23 Boston Globe article reported that "Senate Republicans plan to block the bill with a filibuster unless [Sen. Edward M.] Kennedy [D-MA] can assemble 60 votes to get it through a sharply-divided Senate." And an April 23 New York Times article reported: "Senate Republicans said on Tuesday that they were confident they would be able to block legislation intended to reverse a Supreme Court ruling last year that established tight time restrictions on lawsuits over pay discrimination."
According to the Globe, the Fair Pay Act, "which passed in the House of Representatives in July 2007, seeks to restore the clear intent of Congress that workers must have a reasonable opportunity to file a pay discrimination claim after they become victims of discriminatory compensation."
From the noon ET hour of the April 23 edition of MSNBC Live:
WITT: Want to take you live to Capitol Hill, where you see Senator Mitch McConnell. They're holding a news conference, upset at the fact that there has been a delay on a big Senate vote to accommodate, they say, Clinton and Obama's campaign schedules. Let's take a quick listen.
McCONNELL [video clip]: -- and it strikes me as particularly ridiculous. This isn't the first time we've had this experience. Last June, when the -- there was a big labor meeting here in Washington. All the schedule was pushed aside. We went to the so-called card check, the issue of getting rid of the secret ballot in labor union elections, and did it at a time that could get the Democratic candidates for president back here.
A month later, last July, we had a Code Pink/MoveOn rally, and once again, the presidential candidates were invited back. We had an all-night show-and-tell here on Iraq.
And now, you know, we're staging this for another special interest vote. This time for the plaintiff's lawyers with the Ledbetter vote, so, here we are.
WITT: Sounds like running for president and being senator at the same time can be a sticky situation. We'll keep our eye on that vote, expected to take place later today around 5 p.m. on that equal pay -- I think it's the Fair Pay act. So, we'll watch for that, and bring you the very latest.
"GOP leaders say Dems are playing politics. . ."--MSNBC text.
The phrase: "Playing politics" has always baffled me. Accusing Republican or Democrats of playing politics is like accusing the Tigers, Yankees, Cubs, and Mets of "Playing Baseball."
Well, maybe not the Mets. :-)
Rick,
As a diehard Cubs fan...... don't make me have to tell my 87 year young grandma on you......she'll beat ya up with her walker and fake leg, all while wearing her Cubs hat! :)
As for the GOP......If they had not been smart enough all those years ago when Reagan was in to kill the fairness doctrine and sold their collective soul to for-rofit corporations (well, ok, they did that before the last Great Depression) there is absolutely no way they would be getting away with this kind of garbage......
They are destroying this great country for their personal greed and yet still can get just enough people to vote for them and against their own interests........ if not for the seriousness of it all.... it would be damn hillarious
"GOP leaders criticize Dems for delaying vote on Fair Pay Act", falsely suggesting that Republicans wanted to pass the measure.
No it does not. It doesn't say anything of the sort, it simply says the Dems are delaying the VOTE, not suggesting the Republicans want to pass anything.
Gimme a break. It clearly implies that the repubs are in favor of the bill, and that the big bad Dems are blocking it.
Ah, corporate media. They all play the same game, don't they? They're going to make sure that the Dems lose in November.
Why doesn't it say:
REPUBLICANS PLAN TO FILLIBUSTER VOTE ON FAIR WAGE BILL
At least that would be factual, rater than the editorializing that they put on the screen.
"GOP leaders criticize Dems for delaying vote on Fair Pay Act"
Makes it sound as though the Democrats don't want fair pay.
it simply says the Dems are delaying the VOTE, not suggesting the Republicans want to pass anything
Oh, please. That kind of nit-pick parsing is the "logic" of the third grade lawyer, arguing over the precise meaning of every word. It's like saying "Hey, you picked Boston to win the Stanley Cup" only to be told "Yeah, but I didn't say what year."
It is hardly a part of normal experience for those who are against a bill to push for a vote on it, since the lack of a vote on a bill works as well for them as if the bill was defeated.
It is therefore a perfectly normal understanding of, and a clear implication of, a statement that the GOPpers are criticizing a delay on a vote as meaning that those GOPpers want the bill in question passed. Arguments to the contrary are vapor emitted by those more interested in being obstinate than observant.
I'm prepared to accept for lack of contrary evidence that MSNBC did not create that implication deliberately; I suspect it was rather the result of the sloppy "journalism" of which we see so much, when news outlets just accept the GOPper frame because it's easier than actually understanding what's going on. That, however, does not mean the implication is not there.
Hello Larrye - I think you have been watching Mr. Obama too much. Like him you use many words to say nothing. Like Tommy - I read the story and see nothing that indicates the Repubs are in favor if the bill.
When you have predetermined what someone is going to say before they say it, then you will hear what you want to hear and not what was said. MM is guilty of that here. While not misinformation it does expose them as a partisan organization and casts further doubt on their credibility.
When you have predetermined what someone is going to say before they say it, then you will hear what you want to hear and not what was said. MM is guilty of that here. While not misinformation it does expose them as a partisan organization and casts further doubt on their credibility.
The only thing around here that has no credibility is people like you posting stupid stuff like you just did in order to discredit MMFA. Well, it ain't gonna work, so why don't you just give up and go back to whatever cybersewer you crawled out of to come here?
this is valid criticism, because 1]-- the "delay" is only until "around 5 pm" on the same day. This is a big deal why? and 2]-- it should have been mentioned at least somewhere, by witt or onscreen, that the republicans were opposed and were planning a filibuster. that would be accurate.
Oh the humanity! Oh the lameness of Media Matters (very little)! This is it?
Just glad no referrence made that the Dems were creating an operation of chaos in the Senate, just to extend the day's deliberations.
Nothing-to-Be-Proud-Of-Conservative was simply making a lame attempt to interject a reference to Rush Limbaugh's "Operation Chaos" into the conversation. As usual, he brings nothing to the table, and adds nothing of value to the discussion.
Oh the lameness of Media Matters (very little)! This is it?..PC
==============================================
And yet here you are, day after day .. posting your blather ..
Kinda defeats your argument, PC ... but than again, you conservatives are full of contradictions.... :)
And I knew even before I clicked on "show comments" what I would find from the always predictable WITH patrol: "It doesn't say that the RePooplickers aren't going to filibuster!"
Yes, concrete thinkers, you're absolutely right. You win again. Aside from a neon-colored banner blazing across the screen that says "Fvck the Demoncrat Party" , nothing seems obvious enough to register with your fair & balanced brains as misinformation.Therefore, nothing else is.
Reading your posts everyday is like visiting those baby-proofed houses where every moving part and sharp object has to be made completely acceptable to the most vulnerable and helpless .
Please email your moderate friends that the Senate Republicans filibustered and stopped a bill for equal pay for women.
John McCain opposes the bill while Hillary Clinton and Obama support it.
More on the bill here.
Please email your moderate friends that the Senate Republicans filibustered and stopped a bill for equal pay for women.
Any woman who was planning to vote Republican this fall needs to know that her party of choice is working against her.
There is not enough information in your AP link to honestly assess the pros and cons of the bill. In fact - from what I read there the bill is not about FAIR PAY at all but about LAWSUITS.
There is not enough information in your AP link to honestly assess the pros and cons of the bill. In fact - from what I read there the bill is not about FAIR PAY at all but about LAWSUITS.
What the bill did was remove the statute of limitations of bringing lawsuits against employers for pay discrimination. By blocking its passage, the Republicans have once again sided with Big Business and against the people.
Thank you for reaffirming my point - that the bill is about lawsuits. Without delving into the details of the bill - it does nothing to advance the practice of FAIR PAY. Had the bill been titled for what it targets, say Removal of Statute Of Limitations on Compensation Lawsuits there would not be the play on emotion that liberals are so fond of.
Any employee who feels they have been discriminated against does have an avenue of recourse through the legal system and are given a reasonable amount of time to do so.
Any employee who feels they have been discriminated against does have an avenue of recourse through the legal system and are given a reasonable amount of time to do so.
Not if they don't learn about the discrimination within 180 days of it taking place - that would have been fixed by the bill the GOP blocked.
Actually, I think that's incorrect. The problem was that the SC decision said that the 180 day period began with the date of the first infraction, even though the victim of the discrimination didn't know unfairness had occurred because of pay secrecy policies. She didn't find out until many years later what men in her position were making. The SC decision rewards discriminatory employers who refuse to give employees information that enable them to determine whether pay is discriminatory. The new law would have kept a statute of limitations but it would begin again with every discriminatory paycheck. So as long as the employer continued to discriminate, it could be sued. That is consistent with the way most courts had interpreted the law prior to the SC decision.
Read Ginsburg's dissent for the best discussion of why the SC decision was so wrong.
"Any employee who feels they have been discriminated against does have an avenue of recourse through the legal system and are given a reasonable amount of time to do so."
"I will agree that the 180 day limit should be extended. "
But this is just plain dumb:
"However to imposo no Statute of Limitations is too extreme the other way."
No it's not. If a person did the work, didn't get the pay, they still deserve to compensated fairly for their work.
Of course it's about lawsuits, with the trial lawyer, in-the-pocket-of-the-Democratic-party-litigation-happy lobbyists behind it.
Not hard to figure.
Any employee who feels they have been discriminated against does have an avenue of recourse through the legal system and are given a reasonable amount of time to do so.
Yes they do, through LAWSUITS. In which case they will most certainly require the services of a TRIAL LAWYER.
But apparently using those things makes them some sort of greedy scumbags in the eyes of black and white thinkers like you and the rest of the corporate-friendly, labor-hating conservative movement. Can't have any laws that balance power between the hordes of lawyers and deep pockets of the offenders and the citizenry now, can we? That would be down right LIBERAL, perhaps even RADICALLY LEFTIST.
Lawsuits? Oh, no! Not those! *snicker*
Whoever coined the phrase "take a ham sandwich to court", had it right. We're a litigation-happy nation. Hell, we elect lawyers to public office. We must be insane.
We must be insane.
Only the Libertarians....
Here's a link to a page that provides a pretty good synopsis of the facts behind the Lilly Ledbetter bill. The way the law now stands, a woman who feels she was the victim of pay discrimination has to take action within 180 days after such discrimination took place - if she does not find out about the discrimination until years later (as was the case with Ms. ledbetter), she's out of luck. This bill would have removed the 180-day limit; by keeping it in force, the GOP has acted against the best interests of thousands of women in the work force.
http://docket.medill.northwestern.edu/archives/003741.php
One would think that with so much time to fill on cable news, the news people would welcome a chance to explain what the bill is about, who is for it, who's against it, and why. Maybe they would even offer up that Bush said he would veto it if it comes to him. But no, they show a GOP press conference, let McConnell spew his gripes, and move on. Where's the opposing view or the context? This is crap journalism and doesn't justify breaking into the "news" program. This sounds like a whine session, nothing more. Poor Mitch!