Michael Brown

Tags ››› Michael Brown
  • This 1968 Report Highlights Exactly Why Reporting On Race Is Still A Disaster

    Fifty Years Later, The "White Perspective" Still Dominates Media Coverage Of Race, Racism, And Violence

    Blog ››› ››› TYLER CHERRY

    In 1967, responding to a number of riots in black neighborhoods of cities including Detroit, Los Angeles, and Chicago, President Lyndon Johnson convened an investigatory commission to figure out how and why the riots had occurred.

    Seven months later, the commission published the informally named Kerner Report, spotlighting how institutional and explicit anti-black racism, police brutality, concentrated poverty, and political disenfranchisement had come together to spark the riots.

    The report also strongly criticized major media's shoddy coverage of the riots, warning that a "significant imbalance" between reality and news reports of the riots was exacerbating the schism between the country's "two societies, one black, one white -- separate and unequal." The report concluded:

    Along with the country as a whole, the press has too long basked in a white world, looking out of it, if at all, with white men's eyes and a white perspective. That is no longer good enough. The painful process of readjustment that is required of the American news media must begin now. They must make a reality of integration--in both their product and personnel. They must insist on the highest standards of accuracy--not only reporting single events with care and skepticism, but placing each event into meaningful perspective. They must report the travail of our cities with compassion and depth.

    Fifty years later, mainstream media continues to be defined by the "white perspective" that the Kerner Report hoped to challenge. And the media circus that surrounded the protests against police brutality in Ferguson, MO, in August 2014 and Baltimore, MD, in April 2015 shows how little has changed in the broken way the mainstream media talks about race, violence, and systemic inequality.

    Exaggerating The "Scope And Intensity" Of Protests

    The Kerner Report criticized media coverage of the 1967 riots for exaggerating the "scope and intensity of the disorders," which created "an impression at odds with the overall reality of events":

    ... there were instances of gross flaws in presenting news of the 1967 riots. Some newspapers printed scare headlines unsupported by the mild stories that followed. All media reported rumors that had no basis in fact.


    This is not "just another story." It should not be treated like one. ... Reporters and editors must be sure that descriptions and pictures of violence, and emotional or inflammatory sequences or articles, even though "true" in isolation, are really representative and do not convey an impression at odds with the overall reality of events.

    Following Michael Brown's high-profile death at the hands of police officer Darren Wilson in Ferguson, MO, and Freddie Gray's death while in the custody of Baltimore's police department, protests over the use of excessive police force and racial discrimination erupted. Though protesters clashed with police at times, the demonstrations largely consisted of civil rights leaders, activists, politicians, and residents coming together to mourn the injustices and raise awareness of the circumstances.

    TV and print media flooded their coverage of the Baltimore and Ferguson unrest with incendiary imagery, misleadingly casting the demonstration sites as war zones. CNN, MSNBC, and Fox News rolled videos on loop of Baltimore buildings ablaze, police cars destroyed, and protesters in gas masks. Print newspapers led their front-page coverage with "fiery images of angry protesters attacking police vehicles, looting and burning buildings ... police in riot gear and tense moments between law enforcement and demonstrators," according to American Journalism Review. Online publications continuously posted incendiary pictures showing lawlessness and destruction.

    (Photo courtesy of American Journalism Review)

    But the sensationalized images that dominated cable and print media coverage of Baltimore and Ferguson painted a misleading picture of the crises there. As many commentators noted, the scenes in Baltimore and Ferguson were significantly calmer and less sensational than media watchers would likely have realized. ColorOfChange.org warned reporters covering Ferguson that "stories coming out of many major media outlets [painting] a picture of total lawlessness ... could not be further from the truth." The Daily Show also mocked the breathless media coverage of disorder in Baltimore.

    Baltimore resident Danielle Williams also called out this type of selective reporting during an on-the-street interview with MSNBC's Thomas Roberts, saying "when we were out here protesting all last week for six days straight peacefully, there were no news cameras, there were no helicopters, there was no riot gear, and nobody heard us. So now that we've burned down buildings and set businesses on fire and looted buildings, now all of the sudden everybody wants to hear us."

    Media also often printed exaggerated headlines that were unsubstantiated by the article body. An April 2015 Economist article describing the Baltimore protests was headlined "It's Chaos" and said the demonstrations were "best described not as a riot but as anarchy."

    But the article noted that "few protesters or people [were] fighting the police or hurling stones" and that "people standing around [were] mostly taking photos on their phones." What was first labeled as "anarchy" was then chronicled as "groups of young men, boys really, wearing bandanas and hoodies ... staring at anyone passing, and occasionally throwing projectiles at cars."

    Likewise, a Wall Street Journal article was headlined "Arrests in Baltimore as Freddie Gray Protests Turn Violent." But the piece mostly hyped what was otherwise non-violent protesting, including an "impromptu 'die-in'" and "a small group [throwing] cans and plastic bottles in the direction of police officers."

    Newsrooms covering Baltimore and Ferguson also disseminated misinformation that often originated from local city and police department officials. On April 27, 2015, The Baltimore Sun reported that a mass police presence had been pre-emptively convened near a Baltimore mall because of a "flier that circulated widely" among students online advocating a "purge," referencing the 2013 movie The Purge that dramatized a night of lawlessness and anarchy.

    After Baltimore students finished school and headed toward the mall, they were greeted by police in riot gear. Because of the purge rumors, the police allegedly shut down the subway and blocked buses from leaving, leaving hundreds of students on the streets unable to get home. A violent clash ensued. Baltimore Police Department Capt. Kowalczyk said the police would identify and arrest "lawless individuals with no regard" for safety.

    But the purge rumor was immediately disputed. Fairness & Accuracy In Reporting (FAIR) tried tracing The Baltimore Sun's account of the flier's distribution and said the evidence was "murky at best." FAIR noted how the Sun's shaky reporting ended up "creat[ing] a perception of actual danger that the proffered evidence doesn't substantiate." Mother Jones poked holes in the police's narrative that they responded to a "rumored plan" of students executing a purge, noting that "many of the kids, according to eyewitnesses, were stuck there because of police actions" -- not because they wanted to fight.

    Such shoddy reporting does more than run counter to journalistic ethics and best practices. Back in 1968, the Kerner report said the commission was "deeply concerned that millions of Americans, who must rely on the mass media, ... formed incorrect impressions and judgments about what went on in many American cities." 

    Ignoring Systemic Inequality Behind Unrest And Protests

    The Kerner Commission also harangued media for failing to investigate how systemic and institutional racism contributed to the riots:

    The media report and write from the standpoint of a white man's world. The ills of the ghetto, the difficulties of life there, the Negro's burning sense of grievance, are seldom conveyed.


    The media--especially television--also have failed to present and analyze to a sufficient extent the basic reasons for the disorders. ... [C]overage during the riot period itself gives far more emphasis to control of rioters and black-white confrontation than to the underlying causes of the disturbances.

    In 2014, Race Forward: The Center for Racial Justice Innovation analyzed over a thousand national and local newspapers articles and cable television news transcripts to determine what percentage of race and racism coverage was "systemically aware" -- meaning it "mentions or highlights policies and/or practices that lead to racial disparities; describes the root causes of disparities including the history and compounding effects of institutions; and/or describes or challenges the aforementioned."

    The study concluded that "most of the mainstream media's racism content is not 'systemically aware,'" finding that "about two out of three articles on race and racism failed to include a perspective with any insight on systemic-level racism." It also concluded that "very rarely" did media "feature prominent, robust coverage of racial justice advocacy or solutions."

    Media coverage of the events in Baltimore and Ferguson similarly failed to investigate the role systemic inequality and institutional racism played in creating unrest, denying audiences the ability to understand those news events in context.

    A second Race Forward analysis examined media's race coverage specific to the Ferguson protests, seeking to determine "how much attention [race is] actually getting in the coverage."

    The study found that media overwhelmingly failed to contextualize the Ferguson protests in a broader discussion of racist policing practices. The Race Forward report found that although nearly half of the articles included "terms such as 'race,' 'racial,' 'racism,' 'racist,' and 'diversity,'" "only 34 of 994 articles analyzed led with a minimally systemically aware perspective."

    During a contentious interview with Fox's Sean Hannity, Adam Jackson, CEO of Leaders of a Beautiful Struggle, explained how this kind of reporting skewed understandings of the protests in Baltimore:

    ADAM JACKSON: The fundamental problem with the coverage of these stories is that it's mired with racist subterfuge, because to talk about the violence that's going on in Baltimore, and not talking about the systemic inequalities and racist policing practices that have led us to this point, it posits a situation where we're talking about either high violence in our communities or racist police when ... the task should be to fix both.

    Following unrest in Ferguson after Darren Wilson was not indicted, NPR TV critic Eric Deggans noted that cable news coverage of Brown's death had largely avoided a broader discussion of systemic issues like "poverty, urban gangs, aggressive drug enforcement and more":

    [T]ackling a difficult story about race in a panel debate format doesn't serve the issue and distracts from the serious questions at hand. It only serves television news networks' need for conflict among well-known opinionators.

    Trying to talk about systemic racial issues during a crisis is always much harder.

    Lack Of Diversity In Newsrooms And Reporting

    The Kerner Commission also attributed media's distorted race coverage to a lack of diversity in the newsroom:

    The journalistic profession has been shockingly backward in seeking out, hiring, training, and promoting Negroes.


    If the media are to report with understanding, wisdom and sympathy on the problems of cities and problems of the black man -- for the two are increasingly intertwined -- they must employ, promote and listen to Negro journalists.

    The lack of newsroom diversity is just as germane and dire in 2015 as it was nearly 50 years ago. In 1967, "fewer than 5 percent of the people employed by the news business" were black, according to the Kerner Report. In 2015, 4.74 percent of newspaper employees were black, according to the latest data from the American Society of News Editors. Since 2000, the number of black journalists in newspaper newsrooms -- including supervisors, copy editors, producers, reporters, and photographers -- has dropped 52.3 percent.

    Some media leaders have sought to justify, or at least explain, these dismal numbers on newsroom diversity. Former Slate editor David Plotz said the recession caused newsrooms to go into "survival mode" and prioritize "saving ... jobs" over ensuring diversity. NYMag.com's Ben Williams said, "It's well-established that, in part due to economic reasons, not enough 'diverse' candidates enter journalism on the ground floor to begin with. So the biggest factor in improving newsroom diversity is getting more non-white male employees into the profession to begin with."

    But these arguments and others that invoke a so-called pipeline problem are "hollow," in the words of the Kerner Report. "The number of minorities graduating from journalism programs and applying for jobs doesn't seem to be the problem after all," Alex Williams wrote for the Columbia Journalism Review in 2015. According to his study, non-white graduates who "specialized in print or broadcasting" were 17 percent less likely to be hired by print and broadcast journalism organizations than non-minorities. "The problem," he wrote, "is that these candidates are not being hired."

    The Media As "Instruments Of The White Power Structure"

    The Kerner Report determined that the sweeping failure of media's race coverage in the 1960s had fostered a far-reaching sentiment of "distrust" in the black community for the media:

    [Persons interviewed] believe ... that the media are instruments of the white power structure. They think that these white interests guide the entire white community, from the journalists' friends and neighbors to city officials, police officers, and department store owners.

    Fifty years later, similar distrust of mainstream news media persists. A September 2014 survey by the American Press Institute found that 75 percent of African-Americans thought the press accurately portrayed African-American people and issues "moderately," "slightly," or "not at all." The authors posited that the "news ecosystem itself" -- one where the black community has scant access to black-centered news sources -- "is uneven, potentially creating uneven perceptions."

    Another survey, by the Pew Research Center, found that nearly 60 percent of African-Americans "say that news coverage of blacks is generally too negative." Conversely, 75 percent said coverage of whites was "too positive" or "generally fair." And a majority of African-Americans said the "amount of coverage news organizations give to race relations" is "too little."

    The media's flawed race coverage has real consequences. The Kerner Report warned, "If what the white American reads in the newspapers or sees on television conditions his expectation of what is ordinary and normal in the larger society, he will neither understand nor accept the black American." Today's flawed reporting continues to pose an obstacle to educating broader audiences about the realities of racial injustice, police brutality, and systemic inequality. 

    It Doesn't Have To Be This Way 

    The media hasn't always provided such skewed coverage of race, racism, and violence. During the 1950s and 1960s, the press played a key role in bringing to light the systematic discrimination of black Americans, helping to galvanize widespread reform.

    As detailed in Gene Roberts and Hank Klibanoff's book The Race Beat, a history of reporting during the Civil Rights era, Gunnar Myrdal, a Swedish economist and sociologist sent by the Carnegie Corporation to the American South, reported in the 1940s that the plight of black Americans could be improved only if white Americans in the North became aware of their struggle. Consequently, Myrdal wrote in the book An American Dilemma, "the future of race relations ... rested largely in the hands of the American press" exposing these racial crises.

    As the civil rights movement swept the nation, the press listened. Roberts and Klibanoff explained that the way the white press reported on race conspicuously improved over the next two decades, with newspapers opening new bureaus in the South, assigning full-time staff to cover the movement, and hiring black reporters. Rep. John Lewis (D-GA), a prominent civil rights leader during the time, told the authors, "If it hadn't been for the media -- the print media and television -- the civil rights movement would have been like a bird without wings, a choir without a song."

    But when the demonstrations turned violent in the latter half of the 1960s, the authors write, the improvements in coverage slipped away. Whereas "white journalists" reporting on civil rights in the South "were threatened by white mobs and found safety in black neighborhoods," the journalists investigating rioting in the Watts neighborhood of Los Angeles in 1965 "fled black mobs" and reported on the strife "from a distance, from outside the ghetto looking in." As the riots raged on, according to the book, black people saw the news "portray[ing] the militancy of black power" and "'simplistically' focusing on the violence and mayhem of the riots" without examining the underlying problems, leading to the problems detailed by the Kerner Commission and the way the media continues to report on race now.

    Fifty years ago, the Kerner Report urged the American media to begin the "painful process" of fixing its racial justice reporting. The fact that its criticisms are still so pertinent, and the historical example of responsible reporting throughout the civil rights movement, point to the need for higher standards in accurate, appropriate, and inclusive race coverage.

  • The 15 Most Ridiculous Things Conservative Media Said About Climate Change In 2015


    From Pope Francis' encyclical on climate change, to the establishment of the first-ever federal limits on carbon pollution from power plants, to a landmark international climate agreement, 2015 has been full of major landmarks in national and global efforts to address global warming. Yet you wouldn't know it if you inhabited the parallel universe of the conservative media, where media figures went to ridiculous and outrageous lengths to dismiss or deny climate science, attack the pope, scientists, and anyone else concerned with climate change, and defend polluting fossil fuel companies. Here are the 15 most ridiculous things conservative media said about climate change in 2015.

  • How Fox News' Primetime Lineup Demonized Black Lives Matter In 2015

    Blog ››› ››› TYLER CHERRY

    In 2015, Fox News' three primetime hosts engaged in a smear campaign against the Black Lives Matter movement, fearmongering about the alleged threat they pose to law and order and hyping racist canards aimed at discrediting the movement's calls for justice.

    The Black Lives Matter movement -- which emerged after the 2013 shooting death of black teenager Trayvon Martin -- became a regular news fixture in 2015 following the high-profile deaths of several unarmed black civilians at the hands of police officers. The movement brought national attention to the issues of police brutality and racial disparities in criminal justice. One group associated with the movement introduced a set of concrete policy solutions, and the movement as a whole became a politically relevant force amid the 2016 presidential race.

    In response, Fox's primetime lineup -- Bill O'Reilly, Megyn Kelly, and Sean Hannity -- spent the year disparaging the movement, caricaturing Black Lives Matter as extreme and dangerous while downplaying the problem of police brutality.

    Accusing Black Lives Matter Of Extremism

    At the forefront of Fox's primetime coverage of Black Lives Matter has been an effort to cast the movement as a radical, militant group that poses a threat to law and order.

    The network has primarily sought to disparage the Black Lives Matter movement by likening them to marginalized hate groups by and large rejected from mainstream society. In October, Sean Hannity decried the Democratic National Committee's decision to approve a presidential town hall hosted by groups associated with Black Lives Matter, asking "why don't you let the [Ku Klux] Klan host a party?" Bill O'Reilly bemoaned that "the rise of fascism on American college campuses" has been "no doubt encouraged by groups like Black Lives Matter and other radical concerns," and once equated the Black Lives Matter movement to the Nazi Party, reasoning that they are both "extreme group[s]."

    Bill O'Reilly has also outright labeled Black Lives Matter a "hate group," claiming they "want [police officers] dead":

    BILL O'REILLY: I think they're a hate group, they hate police officers ... they hate them, they want them dead.


    They're a hate group and I'm going to tell you right now I'm going to put them out of business. And any media person who supports them, I'm going to put them on this program and put their picture right up on the air.

    Fox's top hosts have also suggested that Black Lives Matter protesters and demonstrations endanger social cohesion and nationwide safety. After a video went viral in June showing a white McKinney, Texas police officer manhandling a black teenage girl, pinning her to the ground and drawing his gun on other black teens, Bill O'Reilly opened his June 9 show with a segment titled "The War On Cops." In the segment, which included b-roll of Black Lives Matter protesters interspersed with footage of riots, O'Reilly stoked fears about the possibility of a "war between the police and minorities in America," charging that "anti-police zealots are given wide latitude to spew their hatred and irresponsible ravings." O'Reilly gave the police in the video a pass, instead noting that "there is a growing disrespect for police officers in some American neighborhoods" and arguing that "that attitude is going to lead to violence."

    Fox's primetime line-up also baselessly connected the Black Lives Matter movement to the September death of a Fox Lake, Illinois police officer. Megyn Kelly labeled the death a "murder," noting that "it comes just days after" a Texas sheriff claimed the death of a deputy was inspired by Black Lives Matter. Bill O'Reilly asked whether "the Black Lives Matter crew and other radicals are igniting violence against cops." The officer's death was later ruled a suicide.

    Fox's primetime hosts have also fixated on extreme comments of random protesters to discredit the Black Lives Matter movement as violent extremists. On August 29, a small group of protesters at the Minnesota State Fair protesting police brutality chanted "pigs in a blanket, fry 'em like bacon." Black Lives Matter organizers distanced themselves from the controversial chant, but in the following months, O'Reilly, Kelly, and Hannity repeatedly invoked the chant to decry the Black Lives Matter movement as a whole. Fox's Juan Williams called out the ploy on Hannity:

    SEAN HANNITY: Your Democratic Party is going to allow the "pigs in a blanket, fry them like bacon" group to host a Democratic forum? What's wrong with your party? ... Talk about killing cops? Fry them like bacon?

    JUAN WILLIAMS: I don't think that they were serious by the way. You guys make this into, like that was the anthem of all Black Lives Matter. This was a group making some offhand remarks.

    HANNITY: Oh no? That was the Black Lives Matter movement.

    WILLIAMS: You tried to connect it to the death in Houston. It had nothing to do with it.


    HANNITY: Right, the "pigs in the blanket, fry them like bacon" group.

    WILLIAMS: I don't think that's fair.

    HANNITY: Larry, is that fair? That's their group. That's their chant. They did it.

    In response to the chant, Megyn Kelly remarked, "You're supposed to put on somebody from the Black Lives Matter movement to represent their side of the story," but asked "why should we be listening to someone who speaks like that?"

    Inviting Extreme Guests To Attack Black Lives Matter

    When they're not demonizing Black Lives Matter themselves, Fox's primetime hosts invite extreme right-wing commentators to do the job for them.

    Megyn Kelly hosted notorious right-wing race-baiters Ron Hosko and Mark Fuhrman to discuss Black Lives Matter, crime, and policing over a dozen times in 2015, and in doing so mainstreamed and legitimized some of the most racist impulses of the right-wing.

    Ron Hosko is the president of the Law Enforcement Legal Defense Fund, a conservative nonprofit that "prop[s] up right-wing organizations to which they have ties." Hosko has made inflammatory remarks in the past about policing, once calling former Attorney General Eric Holder "chief among the antagonists" of unrest in Ferguson, Missouri. Hosko also suggested that Darren Wilson, the police officer who shot Michael Brown, had been symbolically lynched, claiming that Eric Holder wanted cops to "watch" the lynching and that Holder should "cut Darren Wilson down from that tree."

    In keeping with his record of disparaging comments, Hosko frequently attacked the Black Lives Matter movement on Kelly's show. On the September 1 edition of The Kelly File, after the Fox Lake police officer was found dead and Fox News rushed to associate the death with Black Lives Matter, Megyn Kelly asked Hosko about President Obama's response to instances of police brutality. Hosko quickly pivoted towards attacking Black Lives Matter:

    MEGYN KELLY: [President Obama] always gives a shout out to the cops when he comments on this matter. But the critics have said, Ron, whenever he compliments the cops or, you know, pays tribute to the hard work they do, there is always a but. You know, but, we have seen this epidemic. But, you know, young black men have good reason to fear. But we have this problem that the cops are responsible for, and so on.

    RON HOSKO: We have. And too often it does seem like it is superficial, like it's something he has to say, not something he feels strongly about or truly believes in. Here we have a movement with hundreds of people standing behind a Black Lives Matter banner discrediting themselves. They have done it before. When is it time for senior administration officials to discredit them, as well? These are people who are tugging as hard as they can and tearing at the fabric of trust between our community and law enforcement. It is time to push them to the margins.

    Mark Fuhrman, a Fox contributor and former detective for the Los Angeles Police Department, is a regular on both The Kelly File and Hannity. Fuhrman has a record of racist comments that he has made publicly and privately, including using the word n***** more than 40 times over a 10 year period. Yet despite Fuhrman's problematic past statements regarding race and policing, he regularly appears on Fox during primetime to disparage the Black Lives Matter movement. On the one-year anniversary of the death of Michael Brown, Fuhrman derided peaceful demonstrations in Ferguson as "gang members and street drug dealers ... just hanging out" and "taking advantage of a hesitant police department," lamenting that the protesters always "just take more and more."

    Sean Hannity frequently hosts Milwaukee Sheriff David Clarke to discuss crime and policing. Clarke, himself an African-American, has called Black Lives Matter "an ideology of victimhood with a list of grievances that do not exist" while appearing on Hannity, and said that the endorsement of Black Lives Matter by Democratic politicians is "plantation politics."

    O'Reilly often invites former Fox host Glenn Beck onto The O'Reilly Factor. Beck has equated politicians speaking to Black Lives Matter supporters to "choosing death." Fox commentator Bernie Goldberg once lamented to O'Reilly that networks "were all showing [Black Lives Matter protesters'] good racial manners" instead of their "bad racial manners" due to "white liberal guilt because of slavery."

    Linking Black Lives Matter To Criminality

    Fox News' primetime hosts have also been quick to caricature Black Lives Matter protesters as criminals, implying that if black people didn't rob, join gangs, use drugs -- so the story goes -- they wouldn't be subjected to such heavy policing. The hosts have repeatedly seized on events that have inspired Black Lives Matter protests, deriding victims of police brutality and black communities broadly in an attempt to discredit the Black Lives Matter movement.

    In May, after Black Lives Matter protesters took to the streets in Baltimore to protest the death of Freddie Gray, Sean Hannity blamed the community reaction on a "tragic wave of violent crime" in American cities "with no end in sight." Hannity then attempted to lecture black activists about crime in the black community, mocking the idea that racism could be a root cause of violence in Baltimore.

    Megyn Kelly is notorious in her own right for shaming and blaming black victims of police brutality. Kelly suggested that Sandra Bland's death could be due in part to her failure to obey the police officer, arguing that her death could have been averted if she had just "compl[ied] and complain[ed] later." Kelly also interjected that the black teenage girl manhandled by a McKinney police officer "was no saint either," after bemoaning that people had "made this into a race thing."

    Characterizing Black Lives Matter protesters or black victims of police brutality as criminals occurs within a broader context of Fox News implying that there is something inherently criminal within black communities. After a nine-year-old boy was killed by gun violence in Chicago, Bill O'Reilly argued that the people perpetrating violence in Chicago have "no conscience at all ... and do what they want" and claimed that violence in Chicago comes from a "culture that is sociopathic." He also suggested that Chicago's high incidence of violence "never improves" "because these deaths are in the black precincts" and "in the white precincts ... this would never happen." Megyn Kelly once bemoaned the "anti-cop ... thug mentality" she sees in "black communities." And throughout 2015, Sean Hannity has aired several segments linking black-on-black crime to the "problems" in black communities. 

    Fox's obsession with black criminality highlights how the network dissuades largely-white audiences from believing that police brutality is indicative of systemic racism, working to mainstream the notion that injustices in the black community are deserved. As media outlets disproportionately misrepresent black people as criminals, Fox's primetime hosts help to "[reinforce] a culture in which the benefit of the doubt is not distributed evenly" and "inaccurate and harmful stereotypes" of black criminality are pervasive. The network's portrayal of black communities as "out of control and replete with danger" consequently "reduces [white people's] empathy and heightens animosity," all to distract from or even excuse police brutality.

    The reality is that black people still face incredibly disproportionate rates of police brutality, unarmed killings, and incarceration. Black people are more than twice as likely than white people to be murdered by police. In 2015 alone, nearly 70 unarmed black people have been killed by law enforcement.

    And yet, instead of embracing these facts, Fox News has impugned Black Lives Matter, fearmongering about the movement's potential and blaming them for the very injustices that befall the black community.

  • Why Is Fox Still Treating Disgraced Ex-FEMA Head Michael Brown As Credible?

    Blog ››› ››› MIKE BURNS

    This morning on Fox News' America's Newsroom, Bill Hemmer hosted former FEMA director Michael Brown to comment on FEMA's cash flow problems and Hurricane Irene. Brown criticized FEMA for its spending on certain disaster programs and said that the government will have to start making "hard decisions" on how much to allocate to the agency because the "country is broke." Brown also criticized government officials for "fail[ing] ... to deescalate" Hurricane Irene warnings once it became clear that the hurricane "was losing power and strength."

    From the August 30 edition of Fox News' America's Newsroom:

    Why Fox thought it would be a good idea to get advice from Michael Brown is a mystery.

  • Why has Bush's former FEMA head Michael Brown been all over your television?

    Blog ››› ››› KARL FRISCH

    Earlier this week, Mediaite.com's Frances Martel asked why Michael Brown -- Bush's former FEMA director -- has been all over the television. Well, as Tommy Christopher points out, Politico appears to have the answer.

    Politico's Andy Barr and Patrick Gavin report:

    Former FEMA Director Michael Brown has been all over cable television recently bashing the federal response to the oil spill off the Gulf Coast.

    But he doesn't see it as an attempt to rehabilitate his image or set the record straight. Nothing that dramatic.

    Rather, he just wants the publicity. He wants to sell his new book, he says, and he wants to get some clients for his company.

    "There's that phrase, 'Any publicity is good publicity'" Brown told POLITICO. "I kind of buy into that."

    It looks like the media is doing a "heckuva job" giving Brownie just the platform he's been looking for.


  • Cavuto digs deeper in response to controversy over his Brown interview

    Blog ››› ››› MATT MCLAUGHLIN

    Yesterday, my colleague Jeremy Schulman said that it's time for Fox News to own up to its role in airing the wild conspiracy theories of former FEMA director Michael Brown. Neil Cavuto addressed the controversy on his show today, but he didn't shed any light on the issue, and he certainly didn't own up to his role in it.

    Instead, he threw his viewers a red herring -- making much of a largely insignificant distinction between White House press secretary Robert Gibbs' description of what Brown said and Brown's actual remarks -- while never playing the most egregious of Brown's remarks and never addressing Gibbs' criticism that Cavuto did little to "push back" against Brown's conspiracy theory.

  • Fox tries to cover up its failure to challenge Michael Brown's conspiracy theories

    Blog ››› ››› JEREMY SCHULMAN

    Yesterday, on Fox News' Your World with Neil Cavuto, former FEMA director Michael Brown repeatedly suggested that the Obama administration deliberately chose to let the BP oil spill "get really bad" so it would have an "excuse" to "shut down offshore drilling."

    Today, White House press secretary Robert Gibbs called out Fox News for airing Brown's absurd conspiracy theories without pushing back on them.

    Now, Fox appears to be devoting the full resources of its news division to covering up what Brown actually said and Cavuto's failure to call Brown out on it. The network has repeatedly insisted that Gibbs was wrong without ever showing viewers what Brown clearly said.

    So since Fox won't report the truth, here's what actually happened.