BuzzFeed

Tags ››› BuzzFeed
  • Media Explain Everything Wrong With Trump’s Energy Speech

    ››› ››› DENISE ROBBINS

    Presumptive GOP presidential nominee Donald Trump gave a speech about energy issues on May 26 at an oil conference in North Dakota in which he asserted that he would expand fossil fuel drilling and restore coal mining jobs and he ignored or downplayed renewable energy’s potential. Media figures have criticized Trump’s claims as “utter nonsense” that “defy free market-forces” and noted that his remarks displayed a “lack of basic knowledge” about the energy industry and were full of “absurd, impossible-to-keep promises.”

  • To Understand Trump’s Latino Problem, Just Look At Hispanic Media

    Fusion: "The Republican Party, 162, Has Died"

    ››› ››› CRISTINA LOPEZ

    Hispanic media and Latino journalists reacted to the news that Donald Trump is the GOP’s presumptive presidential nominee by noting that Trump's anti-immigrant vitriol has made it extremely challenging for the businessman to get the Latino vote he needs in the general election.

  • BuzzFeed’s Editor-In-Chief Slams Media For Giving Credence To Trump’s Lie He Opposed Invasion Of Iraq

    Blog ››› ››› MEDIA MATTERS STAFF

    BuzzFeed Editor-in-Chief Ben Smith lambasted media outlets and reporters for allowing GOP presidential front-runner Donald Trump to “lie to their face” about his opposition to the invasion of Iraq, ignoring the evidence showing that in 2002 Trump supported the invasion of Iraq.

    Donald Trump has repeatedly claimed throughout the GOP presidential primaries that he opposed the Iraq invasion, using his alleged opposition to attack his GOP rivals and Democratic front-runner Hillary Clinton. But BuzzFeed’s “Andrew Kaczynski unearthed an audio recording of [Trump] saying he supported” the invasion in 2002. Despite releasing audio evidence, media outlets, including “CNN, Fox, MSNBC, NBC, CBS, Bloomberg, the New York Times, and the Washington Post” have all either reprinted Trump’s lie, or allowed him to claim he opposed the invasion without pushback.

    Smith also highlighted how the media, led by the Times’ Maureen Dowd, have also added this “fake fact” into a “fake narrative” that Trump is more of a “dove” on foreign policy than Hillary Clinton, ignoring that Trump’s claim he opposed the invasion has been debunked, that he has has refused to rule out using nuclear weapons in the Middle East and Europe, and has floated military engagement with Iran.

    In his May 3 article, Smith implored media reporters to “stop letting [Trump] lie to their face about the most important policy call of the last 20 years,” writing, “Donald Trump did not oppose the invasion of Iraq” and “there’s no evidence that he’s ever been a ‘dove'”:

    One of the great stories of 2016 is how Donald Trump hacked the media: How he learned from the New York tabloids and The Apprentice; how he dictated terms to the weakened television networks; how he used Twitter and won Facebook.

    Those are complex questions that we will argue about for decades.

    Here is a simpler one: Could reporters stop letting him lie to their face about the most important policy call of the last 20 years?

    Donald Trump did not oppose the invasion of Iraq. Further, there’s no evidence that he’s ever been a “dove” — and a great deal that he’s been an impulsive supporter of military intervention around the world.

    We know this because BuzzFeed News’s intrepid Andrew Kaczynski unearthed an audio recording of him saying he supported it. You can listen to it above. The audio quality is clear.

    In the recording, made on Sept. 11, 2002, when it mattered, Howard Stern asked Trump whether he supported the invasion. His answer: “Yeah, I guess so.” On the war’s first day, he called it a “tremendous success from a military standpoint.”

    It was the most recent in a series of belligerent statements about Iraq. In 2000, he opined at length in his book how U.S. airstrikes did nothing to stop Iraq’s WMD programs and said it “is madness not to carry the mission to its conclusion” in the context of a new war. He said many times in the late 1990s and early 2000s George H.W. Bush should have toppled Saddam during the Gulf War.

    Trump’s opinions during that period have all the force and thoughtfulness of a man who isn’t paying much attention and whose opinion doesn’t matter. His support for the war is also totally unambiguous.

    And yet, since Kaczynski found the audio recordings, most of the leading American media organizations have either repeated Trump’s lie or allowed him to deliver it unchallenged. That includes CNN, Fox, MSNBC, NBC, CBS, Bloomberg, the New York Times, and the Washington Post.

    This fake fact is the basis for a fake narrative, crystallized in a Maureen Dowd column over the weekend christening “Donald the Dove.”

     

  • It's Time For Reporters To Break Out Of The Trump Rally Press Pens

    Blog ››› ››› ERIC BOEHLERT

    Is the only thing more shocking than Donald Trump's campaign manager being charged with simple battery of a reporter the fact that the crime isn't all that startling, given the bullying campaign's open contempt for reporters?

    Enough is enough.

    With Trump's top aide, Corey Lewandowski, now facing charges, focus has shifted back to the increasingly abusive relationship between the GOP front-runner and the campaign press, and the unprecedented barrage of attacks journalists have faced, including constant insults hurled at them by the candidate himself. (Reporters are "disgusting" "horrible people," Trump regularly announces.)

    Sadly, news organizations have brought some of the degradation on themselves by acquiescing to all kinds of Trump campaign demands, such as the rule that they camp out inside mandatory press pens at events. Basically, the Trump campaign disparages the media, and news organizations do nothing in response -- except shower him with even more coverage. (Talk about a win-win for him.)

    "For ratings and clicks, they've allowed themselves to be penned up like farm animals at his rallies and risked scuffles with the Secret Service for covering the events like actual reporters," wrote Eliana Johnson at National Review.

    In fact, the press pens have become a hallmark of Trump's war on the press.

     "Unlike other presidential campaigns, which generally allow reporters and photographers to move around at events, Trump has a strict policy requiring reporters and cameramen to stay inside a gated area, which the candidate often singles out for ridicule during his speeches," Time reported.  

    And Time should know.

    In February, a Secret Service agent lifted Time photographer Chris Morris up off the ground and choke-slammed him onto a table after Morris momentarily "stepped out of the press pen to photograph a Black Lives Matter protest that interrupted the speech."

    It's long past time for journalists to demand their freedom from Trump press pens. It's like deciding to finally stop taking Trump's phone-in interviews. Escaping from the pens represents a simple way for news organizations to assert their obvious right to cover the Trump campaign on their own terms, rather than being penned in at campaign events and living in fear of having access denied if coverage is deemed to be too critical. 

    Covering the Trump campaign on a daily basis today appears to be a rather miserable media existence. Reporters are threatened by staffers, and the Trump communications team seems to be utterly nonresponsive to media inquires. ("There is no Trump press operation," one reporter told Slate.)

    But it's even worse than that. Just ask CBS News reporter Sopan Deb. In January at a Trump rally in Reno, a Trump supporter demanded to know if Deb was taking pictures on behalf of ISIS. Then, in March, after Trump's raucous would-be rally in Chicago was canceled, Deb was covering mayhem unfolding on the streets when he was "thrown to the ground by Chicago cops, handcuffed, arrested, and detained in jail."

    I give journalists on the Trump beat credit for trying to make the best of a very bad situation. My question is why aren't bosses standing up more forcefully for their staffers on the Trump front line? Why aren't executives saying "enough" to the campaign bullying? And why don't they take collective action and fix the obvious problems with how the Trump campaign is mistreating the press?

    In case you missed it, last year 17 journalists representing scores of news organizations met for two hours in Washington, D.C., because they were so angry with how Hillary Clinton's campaign was limiting access for journalists.

    "The problems discussed were the campaign's failure to provide adequate notice prior to events, the lack of a clear standard for whether fundraisers are open or closed press and the reflexive tendency to opt to speak anonymously," The Huffington Post reported.

    Looking back, the press's Clinton complaints seem minor compared to the disrespect and invective the Trump campaign rains down on the press. But at the time, news organizations banded together and insisted that changes be made. ("The Clinton campaign is far less hostile to reporters than Donald Trump's campaign," The Huffington Post recently noted.)

    So why the relative silence in light of the constant Trump mistreatment of the press? Why did news outlets quickly marshal their forces when Democrat Clinton was the target of criticism, but they apparently do very little when the Republican front-runner is trampling all over the press? Why the obvious double standard for covering Trump and Clinton?

    Note that last November, several news organizations discussed their concerns with the Trump campaign. "Representatives from five networks -- ABC, NBC, CBS, Fox and CNN -- discussed their concerns about the Trump campaign restrictions on a Monday conference call, but did not present the campaign with any specific access requests," according to The Huffington Post.

    But very little came of it. "Facing the risk of losing their credentialed access to Trump's events, the networks capitulated," BuzzFeed reported.

    Indeed, in the wake of that meeting, press pens at Trump rallies have recently become even more restrictive, with longer avenues of exit and entries created to separate journalists even further from rally attendees.

    More recently, BuzzFeed reported, "Two network sources also confirmed the unprecedented control the television networks have surrendered to Trump in a series of private negotiations, allowing him to dictate specific details about placement of cameras at his event, to ensure coverage consists primarily of a single shot of his face."

    So yes, news organizations have had behind-the-scenes negotiations with the Trump campaign. But the result has been to let Trump "dictate specific details about place of cameras at his event."

    Just amazing.

    And note that it's not just the press pens. Here's a list of the news organizations that have had reporters banned from previous Trump events, presumably because the campaign didn't like the news coverage: The Des Moines Register, Fusion, The New York Times, BuzzFeed, Politico, The Huffington Post, National Review, The Daily Beast, and Univision.

    Over and over we've seen this pattern play out: Report something negative about Trump and watch your press credentials get yanked. This kind of bullying, of course, is unprecedented for American presidential campaigns. The tactic goes against every principle of a free press, inhibiting the news media's unique role in our democracy to inform the public, without fear or favor.

    Yet to date, I'm not aware of outlets banding together to make concrete ultimatums in response to the Trump campaign's bullying. Instead of collective action, we get sporadic, nonbinding complaints from editors.

    But what kind of signal does that send, other than capitulation

  • Lo Que Los Medios En Español Deben Saber Sobre Los Grupos De Nacionalismo Blanco Que Apoyan A Trump

    ››› ››› CRISTINA LOPEZ

    El candidato presidencial Republicano Donald Trump ha recibido críticas de los medios por distanciarse débilmente de David Duke, el ex-dirigente de la organización racista del Ku Klux Klan, después de que Duke expresara públicamente su apoyo al candidato. Los medios en español deben hacer énfasis en el largo historial de apoyo que la campaña de Trump ha recibido de parte de grupos de nacionalismo blanco, pues estos grupos sostienen posturas anti-inmigrantes y podrían estar inspirando la retórica ofensiva del candidato contra minorías raciales y étnicas.

  • After Super Tuesday, It's Time For The Press To Drop Its Doomsday Clinton Coverage

    Blog ››› ››› ERIC BOEHLERT

    The time has come for the campaign press to finally pack away its Hillary Clinton doomsday script.

    Since the new year, much of the Clinton campaign coverage has revolved around trying to detail her weaknesses, stitching together scenarios where she would fail, and just generally bemoaning what an awful campaign she was supposedly running: She's too loud! And "everything" is going wrong.

    In fact, the primary season has unfolded in the way level-headed observers suggested it might: Iowa was close, Sanders enjoyed a clear advantage in New Hampshire, and then Clinton started accumulating victories. But instead of telling that sober story, the press opted for a far more tantalizing tale -- a Clinton collapse! A 2008 repeat! Even when Clinton did win, the press often stressed how her victories weren't really victories. (Politico claimed Clinton was "stung" by her narrow Iowa win.)

    The narrative has been tightly knit: Voters don't really like her.

    "In reality, nobody is that excited about Hillary Clinton, and young voters, women and men -- the foot soldiers of any Democratic Party movement -- aren't coming around," BuzzFeed reported. Days later, Clinton won women voters in South Carolina by nearly 50 points.

    Keep in mind, Clinton's win-loss primary record today doesn't look that much different from Donald Trump's. Yet his coverage is delivered in the glow of a celebrity; of a candidate who's enjoying an astounding run of unmatched victories. Instead, the tone and tenor of Clinton's coverage this year often mirrored that of Jeb Bush's -- the guy who ran a historically futile campaign and dropped out without winning a state.

    By all indications the Democratic primary contest will march on, and Clinton remains a ways away from securing the delegates needed to officially secure the nomination. But in the wake of Super Tuesday and Clinton's widespread primary success, this seems like a good time for the press to reassess its coverage; to maybe reset how it sees the campaign, and specifically adjust the at-times comically doomsday coverage it continued to heap on the Democratic frontrunner.

    Request to the media: Please take your thumb off the scale. In fact, please take both thumbs off the scale.

    Trust me, critics of the Clinton coverage aren't looking for the Democratic frontrunner to get a free pass. Close observers of the Clintons over the years know that's just never going to happen. They just want a fair shot. They'd like the press to go back to its job of simply reporting and analyzing what's happening on the campaign trail and to get out of the narrative-building business. Stop with the hyperventilating that every Clinton campaign speed bump seems to produce, and stop trying to force-feed voters a story that's not actually happening.

    The cyclical waves of she's-doomed coverage have become as tiresome as they are predictable:

    *During Clinton's summer of 2014 book tour, which the press announced was a complete "disaster."  

    *During March of 2015 when the Clinton email story broke.

    *During the Clinton Foundation witch hunt in May of last year.

    *During renewed email fever last September when the Washington Post averaged more than two Clinton email updates every day of the month.

    On and on this production has run.  

    But was it really that bad this winter? Consider that this was an actual headline from a February Washington Post column, "Clinton email scandal: Why It Might Be Time For Democrats To Draft Joe Biden."

    Yep. Democrats might need to replace Clinton.

    On the eve of the Nevada vote, Vanity Fair insisted Clinton allies were "panicking," and that anything short of a "blowout" win would be "disastrous" for her campaign. Indeed, when Clinton won by five points, Vanity Fair announced she had lost "her narrative."

    Author Gail Sheehy, writing a piece for The New York Times, claimed Baby Boomer women weren't supporting Clinton's campaign, when in fact Baby Boomer women are among Clinton's most ardent supporters.

    And reporting from South Carolina, the Post stressed that Bill Clinton was causing all kinds of "headaches" for the campaign by being caught "on the wrong side of the headlines." Critiquing his campaign persona, the Post insisted "he seems to lose it," pointing to his "apparent vitriol." Hillary Clinton's subsequent 47-point victory in South Carolina raised doubts about the paper's claim that Bill Clinton was hurting the campaign.

    Meanwhile, Post columnist Kathleen Parker, leaning heavily on the she's-doomed narrative, painted an extraordinarily negative picture of Clinton's chances of winning in the Palmetto state. Parker claimed Clinton was entering "troubled water" in South Carolina and "particularly among African Americans."

    Fact: Clinton won 86 percent of the South Carolina African-American vote. As a pundit, it's hard to be more wrong than Parker was.

    Can you imagine scribes typing up articles and columns this winter about how Bernie Sanders was having trouble attracting young voters and arguing that if he couldn't tap into the enthusiasm of millennials his campaign was doomed? Of course not, because that would have made no sense. Yet that didn't stop people from writing about how Clinton was struggling with women and black voters, even though the premises were so easily debunked.

    Those are the Clinton Rules: Anything goes. There's no penalty for being wrong about the Clintons, which of course only encourages people to be as illogical as they want when chronicling her campaign.

    But now as the contours of the looming general election race come into view, it's time now for an honest media reassessment.

  • Pundits Across Political Spectrum Blast Trump For Declining To Disavow Support From KKK

    ››› ››› NICK FERNANDEZ

    On the February 28 edition of CNN's State of the Union, Republican presidential front-runner Donald Trump declined to disavow the support of former Ku Klux Klan grand wizard David Duke. Media are lambasting the presidential hopeful for not unequivocally distancing himself from the support of white supremacists, saying his failure to do so "is disqualifying," likening it to "a Todd Akin moment," and arguing that Trump's non-response shows he is catering to racists and xenophobes.

  • As Obama Moves To Replace Scalia, The Press Enables Radical GOP Obstruction

    Blog ››› ››› ERIC BOEHLERT

    Supreme Court

    In the wake of Antonin Scalia's sudden death, the Beltway press almost immediately began to seamlessly frame the unfolding debate about the Supreme Court justice's replacement along the contours of Republican talking points. To do so, the press continued its habit of looking away from the GOP's stunning record of institutional obstructionism since 2009.

    Immediately after the news broke of Scalia's passing, Republican Senate leaders, GOP presidential candidates, and conservative commentators declared that the job of picking Scalia's replacement should be performed not by President Obama, but by his successor.

    Quickly suggesting that Obama was picking a "fight" with Republicans by signaling he plans to fulfill his constitutional duty by nominating Scalia's successor, the press aided Republicans by presenting this radical plan to obstruct the president as being an unsurprising move that Democrats would likely copy if put in the same position during an election year. (Given the rarity of the situation precedents aren't perfect, but it's worth mentioning that during the election year of 1988, Democrats actually did the opposite, confirming Justice Anthony Kennedy unanimously.)

    The framework for much of the coverage regarding the GOP's radical demand that Scalia's seat sit empty for a year is this: It's Obama's behavior that's setting off a showdown, and of course Republicans would categorically oppose anyone Obama nominates. But journalists often don't explain why: Why is it obvious Obama would have zero chance of getting a Supreme Court nominee confirmed when every president in the past has been able to fill vacancies?

    Is it unusual for a president to face a Supreme Court vacancy his final year in office? It is. But there's nothing in the Constitution to suggest the rules change under the current circumstances. (Obama still has 50 weeks left in office.) It's Republicans who have declared that all new rules must apply. And it's the press that has rather meekly accepted the extreme premise.

    Note that Republicans and their conservative fans in the media aren't telling Obama that a particular nominee he selects to become the next justice is flawed and will likely be rejected after hearings are held. Republicans are telling Obama that there's no point in even bothering to make a selection because the Senate will reject anyone the president names. Period. The seat will remain vacant for an entire year. That is the definition of radical. But the press still looks away.

    For instance, Politico reported the president "was facing the choice between setting off a nasty brawl with Congress by seizing the best chance in a generation to flip the ideological balance of the Supreme Court, or simply punting." The Politico headline claimed Obama had chosen to "fight" Republicans.

    But Obama faces no real "choice," and he isn't the one who decided to pick a "fight." As president of the United States he's obligated to fill Supreme Court vacancies.

    The New York Times stressed Scalia's death had sparked "an immediate partisan battle," suggesting the warfare ran both ways. But how, by doing what he's supposed to do as president, is Obama sparking a "partisan battle"?

    If Obama eventually decided to nominate an extremely liberal justice to replace the extremely conservative Scalia, then yes, that could accurately be described as sparking a "partisan battle." But what could be "partisan" about the president simply doing what the Constitution instructs him to do?

    Meanwhile, the Associated Press framed the unfolding story as Obama's announcement being "a direct rebuttal to Senate Republicans," without noting the Republican demand that a Supreme Court justice's seat sit empty for at least a year is without recent precedent.

    And BuzzFeed suggested Scalia's vacancy is different because the justice was, "as one Republican put it, 'a rock solid conservative seat,' and given the divisions on the court conservatives will be adamant that one of their own replace him."

    But that's not how Supreme Court nominations work. Obviously, while the Senate has the responsibility to advise and consent on nominees, the party out of power doesn't get to make the selection. So why the media suggestion that Republicans deserve a say in this case, or else?

    Again and again, the press has depicted Obama's expected action in the wake of Scalia's death as being highly controversial or partisan, when in fact it's Republicans who are acting in erratic ways by categorically announcing they'll refuse to even consider Obama's next Supreme Court pick.   

    The sad part is this type of media acquiescence has become a hallmark of the Obama era. Republicans have routinely obliterated Beltway precedents when it comes to granting Obama the leeway that previous presidents were given by their partisan foes in Congress.

    Yet each step along the way, journalists have pulled back, refusing to detail the seismic shift taking place. Instead, journalists have portrayed the obstruction as routine, and often blamed Obama for not being able to avoid the showdowns.

    Today's Republican Party is acting in a way that defies all historic norms. We saw it with the GOP's gun law obstructionism, the sequester obstructionism, the government shutdown obstructionism, the Chuck Hagel confirmation obstructionism, the Susan Rice secretary of state obstructionism, the Hurricane Sandy emergency relief obstructionism, and the consistent obstruction of judicial nominees.

    For years under Obama, Republicans have systematically destroyed Beltway norms and protocols, denying the president his traditional latitude to govern and make appointments. It's sad that in Obama's final year in office, the press is still turning a blind eye to the GOP's radical nature.

  • New Study: Executives Break Promises To Improve Diversity Following Media Mergers

    Blog ››› ››› MEDIA MATTERS STAFF

    Buzzfeed News highlighted a Columbia University study that found that "Media company mergers rarely result in a significant boost in representation for Latinos on or off screen, despite promises from studio executives to increase diversity."

    Buzzfeed's report echoes prominent advocates for the Hispanic community who have previously underscored the importance of improving the representation of Latinos in the media. During a Media Matters-sponsored panel on September 17, 2015, Voto Latino's Maria Teresa Kumar pointed out that, although Latinos "are the second-largest demographic group of Americans," the policies, issues and opinions of this community "are completely missed from mainstream." National Council of La Raza's Janet Murguía added that media coverage of Latino issues often presents "a very shallow view of what the Latino voter looks like." The underrepresentation of Latinos in media is reflected across the board, including in government -- according to NPR's Latino USA, "Latinos make up 17 percent of the population of the country but only one percent of its elected officials."

    Buzzfeed News' Adolfo Flores reported on January 15 that data from Columbia University's study showed "no significant increase in diversity behind the camera" after Comcast and NBCUniversal merged in 2011. The study also found that the percent of Latino senior executives at Comcast and NBCUniversal increased from zero to 3.1 percent, but that "only one [executive] held a senior position outside of Telemundo," the Spanish-language network owned by NBCUniversal. On-screen representation improved, but the "slight increase ... was accompanied by a significant rise in Latino stereotypes." Flores noted that the study examined all media mergers from 2008 to 2015, but focused on the Comcast-NBCUniversal merger "because it was the largets and well documented":

    Media company mergers rarely result in a significant boost in representation for Latinos on or off screen, despite promises from studio executives to increase diversity, new research has found

    The report -- The Latino Disconnect: The Impact of Media Mergers on Latino Consumers and Representation -- was provided to BuzzFeed News ahead of publication and analyzed the relationship between media mergers and Latinos from 2008 to 2015.

    Researchers at Columbia University's Center for the Study of Ethnicity and Race found there was no significant increase in diversity behind the camera after the 2011 Comcast-NBCUniversal merger, despite a pledge to increase Latino representation in programming.

    "In general, we found that the increase in representation after the merger was very minimal and really only happens in front of the camera, which makes sense because it's the most visible," said Frances Negrón-Muntaner, the study's lead researcher.

    Researchers looked at all mergers after 2008, but focused on the one between Comcast-NBCUniversal because it was the largest and well documented.

    After the Comcast-NBCUniversal merger and through 2015, Latinos made up less than 7% of behind-the-camera talent across all categories on the network's top 10 shows, national news programs, and films. It also found that while the percentage of Latino directors increased on average 0.8% after the merger, the percentage of producers and writers decreased by 1.1% and 1.2%. Executive produce[r]s also declined by 0.4%.

    [...]

    The average number of all Latino actors on television increased from 6.6% before the merger to 7.3% afterward. The slight increase, the study states, was accompanied by a significant rise in Latino stereotypes on NBCUniversal. Latinos who appeared as maids, janitors, inmates, and police officers in NBC's top 10 scripted television shows nearly tripled from 2008 to 2014.

    [...]

    "Despite the fact that the majority of Latinos are U.S.-born and English-dominant," researchers wrote, "the percentage of Latino executives remained extremely low in the company's non-Spanish language media sector."

    [...]

    Researchers recommended that media companies develop plans to diversify leadership and creative positions and hire experienced Latinos behind the camera who can help writers avoid stereotypes.

    UPDATE: Felix Sanchez, Executive Director and Co-Founder of The National Hispanic Foundation for the Arts told Media Matters in a statement:

    "This report is a cautionary tale that media mergers can usurp progress for minority communities. We have to follow the adage of trusting but verifying commitments made by companies before they merged. Given the findings of this study, we can conclude that not all key promises made have come to fruition."

  • Will Media Give Other Republicans A Pass On Trump-Like Anti-Muslim Rhetoric?

    ››› ››› ALEX KAPLAN

    Media figures and outlets are strongly condemning Republican presidential frontrunner Donald Trump's proposal to ban Muslims from entering the United States. But while Trump's rhetoric is extreme, it is not unique -- several other Republican candidates have extreme anti-Muslim rhetoric without receiving such "universal condemnation," as The New Republic noted.

  • Media Explain That Frank Gaffney, Whose Poll Inspired Trump's Proposed Ban On Muslim Immigration, Is A "Notorious Islamophobe"

    ››› ››› BRENNAN SUEN

    Multiple media outlets documented the Islamophobic and conspiratorial views of Frank Gaffney, the president and founder of the right-wing Center for Security Policy (CSP), after Republican presidential frontrunner Donald Trump cited a CSP poll to justify his proposal to ban Muslims from entering the United States.