Media criticized Republican presidential candidate Marco Rubio's reaction to President Obama's address at the Islamic Society of Baltimore for "contort[ing]" Obama's speech while being steeped in "seemingly Islamophobic" rhetoric that left open "the possibility for dog whistling."
David Gregory, antiguo presentador de Meet the Press, argumentó en CNN que el candidato presidencial Republicano Marco Rubio podría "acercar a los conservadores, potencialmente, al tema migratorio", ignorando cómo Rubio ha cambiado su postura migratoria, retirando su anterior apoyo a una reforma migratoria comprensiva mientras gradualmente adopta posturas conservadoras más extremas.
Former Meet the Press host David Gregory argued on CNN that Republican presidential candidate Marco Rubio could "bring conservatives around, potentially, on immigration," failing to note that Rubio has changed his stance on immigration, walking back his previous support for comprehensive reform while gradually adopting extreme conservative positions.
Media figures are calling out National Review's feature of conservatives criticizing current GOP presidential frontrunner Donald Trump, noting that the magazine and conservative media as a whole created the conditions for Donald Trump's rise by "engendering an oppositional mode towards government," being "hostile to immigration and immigrants," and bashing "political correctness."
New York magazine's Gabriel Sherman highlighted how Fox News chief Roger Ailes has been "forced ... to make a choice between his audience and [Megyn] Kelly," since GOP presidential frontrunner Donald Trump has threatened to boycott the next Fox News Debate, unless Kelly is dropped as moderator.
Trump has been feuding with Fox host Megyn Kelly since the August 6, 2015 Republican debate, where Kelly, serving as a moderator, questioned Trump about past offensive statements about women. In an interview two days later, Trump attacked Kelly by saying that she had "blood coming out of her eyes, blood coming out of her wherever." He then later attacked Kelly on Twitter, saying "I liked The Kelly File much better without @megynkelly. Perhaps she could take another eleven day unscheduled vacation!" and retweeting a tweet calling her a "bimbo." And while Trump is a frequent guest on Fox, Fox News chief Roger Ailes and many Fox hosts came to Kelly's defense after Trump's attacks.
In his January 24 article, Gabriel Sherman highlighted Trump's latest salvo against Kelly, where he tweeted that Megyn Kelly's "conflict of interest and bias" should prevent her from moderating the next debate. With Trump's campaign threatening to "walk away from the debate if Fox won't exclude Kelly," Sherman wrote that while "Ailes's strategy in situations where his stars are attacked is to ... apply overwhelming force," Trump's popularity "has forced Ailes to make a choice between his audience and Kelly":
With just five days until Fox News airs the final GOP debate before the Iowa Caucuses, Donald Trump is reigniting his war with Megyn Kelly. "Based on Megyn Kelly's conflict of interest and bias she should not be allowed to be a moderator of the next debate," Trump tweeted while campaigning in Iowa on Saturday.
Trump's campaign manager, Corey Lewandowski, indicated that Trump could walk away from the debate if Fox won't exclude Kelly. "Let's see what happens," he told me. "It's fair to say Mr. Trump is a significant ratings driver for these debates. If we aren't on stage for some reason, they wouldn't have the record 24 million viewers and would be back with 1-2 million people."
In a statement to reporters, Fox News spokesperson Irena Briganti said: "Megyn Kelly has no conflict of interest. Donald Trump is just trying to build up the audience for Thursday's debate, for which we thank him."
For Fox News chief Roger Ailes, Trump's threat of a debate boycott raises the stakes in a war that Ailes has struggled to develop a playbook for. Historically, Ailes's strategy in situations where his stars are attacked is to follow a version of the Powell Doctrine: Apply overwhelming force. But Trump's popularity with the GOP base - that is, Fox viewers - has forced Ailes to make a choice between his audience and Kelly. In the wake of the first debate, Ailes was said to be rattled by the volume of anti-Kelly emails Fox News received from Trump supporters. Kelly told people she was receiving death threats, and Fox did not have a ready response. Ailes, who is less of a presence at Fox, now has to make another choice, which could result in the GOP front runner walking away.
Lewandowski, Trump's campaign manager, told me Trump could stage his own televised town hall on Thursday night and let Fox's rivals air it. "That would be a great idea," he said.
In a January 18 article for New York Magazine, writer-at-large Rebecca Traister joined other media figures in criticizing a lack of questioning on reproductive rights in the January 17 Democratic debate in South Carolina. Traister characterized the silence as "particularly galling" given the prioritization of questions about Bill Clinton's sexual indiscretions and potential duties as "First Gentleman" over discussion of Hillary Clinton's "breathtakingly comprehensive" reproductive rights agenda. According to Traister, there have been "three questions in four debates that somehow relate to the masculinity of a guy who wasn't even on the stage, but not one about the millions of Americans who experience restricted access to legal abortion services," many of whom "also have limited access to sex-education programs, and affordable contraception."
Traister pointed out that the exclusion of reproductive rights from the debates was also notable because of Clinton's recent efforts "campaigning vocally and without apology against the Hyde Amendment," a budgetary rider that bans the use of federal Medicaid funds for abortion, making the procedure prohibitively expensive for many women. According to Traister, Clinton's stance on the Hyde Amendment "dropped a bomb on the political conversation about abortion...[y]et no one at any of the four official Democratic debates has asked Clinton about her remarkable amplification of feminist argument." Traister wrote (emphasis added):
There was a question, directed at Hillary, about the role her husband, former president Bill Clinton, would play in her administration, and one directed at Bernie about what he thought about Bill Clinton's past sexual indiscretions. If you include the previous debate's question about whether Hillary would have her husband do flower-arranging as First Gentleman, that makes three questions in four debates that somehow relate to the masculinity of a guy who wasn't even on the stage, but not one about the millions of Americans who experience restricted access to legal abortion services, many of them Americans who also have limited access to sex-education programs and affordable contraception, not to mention the jobs, educations, state benefits, affordable child care, and early schooling options that would make decisions about if, how, and under what circumstances to start or grow a family more just.
The lack of interest in the topic of reproductive justice is particularly galling, since this primary season -- which has included talk of political revolution coming mostly from Sanders -- has lately also featured some revolutionary language coming from Clinton, not a candidate usually known for being on the radical edge of debate.
But as too few people seemed to have noticed, Hillary Clinton has spent the past ten days campaigning vocally and without apology against the Hyde Amendment. Hyde, a legislative rider first passed in 1976 and added to appropriations bills every year since, prohibits the use of federal funds to pay for abortion, which means that the low-income women, many of them women of color, who rely on Medicaid for health insurance cannot use their insurance to terminate their pregnancies except in cases of rape, incest, or their life being in danger.
It is a discriminatory law that perpetuates both economic and racial inequality.And the notion of repealing it has remained a third rail in American politics until about five minutes ago ... or, more precisely, until this summer, when California representative Barbara Lee introduced the EACH Woman Act, which would effectively repeal Hyde. So far, the bill has 109 co-sponsors but a vanishingly small chance of going anywhere.
Clinton, in her lengthy, thorough statements about the relationship between reproductive-health-care access and economic inequality, dropped a bomb on the political conversation about abortion. It would be difficult to overstate how radical it is to hear a mainstream politician address the inability of women to make reproductive choices about their bodies and lives as an economic issue, central to class and racial discrimination in America. Yet no one at any of the four official Democratic debates has asked Clinton about her remarkable amplification of feminist argument.
In an attempt to cover for Donald Trump, right-wing media blamed Hillary Clinton after the Republican presidential candidate's anti-Muslim rhetoric was featured in a terrorist group's recruitment video. Conservative media claim that Hillary Clinton inspired the terrorist group to create the video when she stated that Trump's Islamophobic rhetoric could help ISIS recruit.
New York Magazine's Jonathan Chait criticized right-wing media outlets for claiming the Paris climate agreement is toothless after previously denying the reality of man-made climate change.
Conservative media personalities criticized the Paris conference leading to a landmark December 12 climate change agreement to limit global emissions. Right-wing media outlets and figures, such as Fox News' Stuart Varney and The Daily Caller, claimed any agreement would have "little... impact" and argued that lowering global temperatures by a "minuscule amount" would cost America "an enormous amount of money." Fox News in particular demonstrated its hypocrisy over the issue by falsely implying that those at the Paris agreement were hypocrites for having a supposed large carbon footprint the Paris summit and dismissing the "hoopla" over the event due to any agreement being non-binding, while at the same time pointing to record level Alaska snowfall to dispute climate change. A Fox host also falsely claimed global temperatures have "stabilized or gone down a little bit," and Fox's Laura Ingraham claimed that the summit is about "bringing America's economy down."
In a December 20 article, Chait pointed out how conservative media were moving the goalposts on the issue, writing they had "shifted their emphasis from denying the science to denying the possibility that policy can change it." Noting that conservative media previously "objected to previous climate deals precisely because their 'mandatory' character presented an unacceptably onerous burden," conservative media were claiming "the absence of that unacceptable feature makes the new agreement worthless." Chait also called out outlets like National Review, Fox News, and The Daily Caller for misrepresenting a MIT climate study to downplay the agreement's impact:
Most conservative energy on climate change over the last quarter-century has gone into questioning the validity of climate science. Conservative intellectuals have invested enough of their reputations into this form of scientific kookery that it cannot be easily abandoned. Instead, as the evidence for anthropogenic global warming grows ever more certain, and the political costs for Republican presidential candidates of openly questioning science rise, conservatives have shifted their emphasis from denying the science to denying the possibility that policy can change it. A National Review editorial last year dismissed the notion of an international agreement to limit climate change as a metaphysical impossibility, on the grounds that reducing coal usage in one place would axiomatically increase it elsewhere. As The Wall Street Journal editorial page asserts, "If climate change really does imperil the Earth, and we doubt it does, nothing coming out of a gaggle of governments and the United Nations will save it." Having begun with their conclusion, conservative are now reasoning backward through their premises.
Accordingly, a new data point has taken hold on the right and quickly blossomed. One study by MIT finds that the Paris agreement would reduce the global temperature increase by a mere 0.2 degrees by 2100. The entire right-wing media has eagerly circulated the finding. "Current analysis by researchers at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology -- not exactly a nest of fossil-fuel conservatism -- suggests that the emissions cuts being agreed to in Paris would reduce that estimated warming by as little as 0.0°C or by as much as 0.2°C," announces a National Review editorial, thrilled to have an empirical basis for the conclusion it previously asserted as an a priori truth. The same study has been recirculated by places like the Daily Caller, Fox News, and elsewhere. Rich Lowry, writing in the New York Post, reports, "The best estimates are that, accepting the premises of the consensus, the deal will reduce warming 0.0 to 0.2 degrees Celsius."
In fact, this study is just one estimate, not estimates plural. There are many other studies, and while Lowry's column does not reveal what process he used to deem the MIT study "the best," we can probably guess that it has something to do with MIT being the one that supports his preferred conclusion. In fact, the MIT study does not produce the conclusion its gloating conservative publicists claim on its behalf.
So MIT's conclusion of emissions levels over the next 15 years is right in line with other estimates that assume Paris will do a great deal to limit climate change.
It is also certainly possible that global willpower to reduce emissions will weaken, or collapse entirely. Future events cannot be proven. Only rigid dogma like American conservatism (or, for that matter, Marxism) gives its adherents a mortal certainty about the fate of government policy that a liberal cannot match, and should not want to.
New York Magazine's Jonathan Chait explained how conservative media personalities helped coerce the GOP into climate-science denialism.
In a December 1 article, Jonathan Chait discussed the way right-wing media has bullied the GOP to adopt climate-science denialism or face the "AM radio interrogation" from conservative radio hosts. Chait wrote that "GOP politicians that understand climate science [are] cowed into submission by an angry minority," and media figures like Fox News contributors George Will and Charles Krauthammer, and The Wall Street Journal's Bret Stephens.
Though it was surely not his intention to do so, David Brooks' column today has made an airtight case for why no sane person would support any Republican candidate for president next year.Brooks begins his column by conceding that climate-science deniers have a hammerlock on public discourse within the party. "On this issue the G.O.P. has come to resemble a Soviet dictatorship," he writes, "a vast majority of Republican politicians can't publicly say what they know about the truth of climate change because they're afraid the thought police will knock on their door and drag them off to an AM radio interrogation." Brooks uses this observation as a launching point to tout glimmerings of moderate (or, at any rate, less extreme) thought within the party.
In fact, as terrifying as the reality depicted by Brooks may sound, matters are actually worse. Brooks presents the situation as a "vast majority" of GOP politicians that understand climate science cowed into submission by an angry minority. Perhaps the vast majority of Republican politicians who confide their private beliefs to Brooks feel this way, but this is probably not a representative cross section. It is clear that a large proportion of party elites proclaim themselves to be climate-science skeptics for reasons purely of their own volition. Nor is this sentiment confined to talk-radio shouters. Esteemed chin-strokers and collectors of awards, like George F. Will and Charles Krauthammer, broadcast their disdain for the findings of the climate-science field.
Here is a typical example at hand in Wall Street Journal columnist Bret Stephens's offering today, which dismisses climate change as an imaginary problem. "The hysteria generated by an imperceptible temperature rise of 1.7 degrees Fahrenheit since 1880--as if the trend is bound to continue forever, or is not a product of natural variation, or cannot be mitigated except by drastic policy interventions. The hyping of flimsy studies--melting Himalayan glaciers; vanishing polar ice--to press the political point."
Parties operate by coalescing around mutually agreeable policies. The presidential nominee may downplay the most outlandish anti-scientific conspiracy theories, but the party's agenda will have to accommodate the beliefs expounded by the likes of Smith, Inhofe, Will, Krauthammer, Stephens, and many others.
This week conservative media personalities also attacked the U.N. climate summit in Paris. Conservative radio and Fox News host Sean Hannity called those who believed in climate change "idiots." Fox host Bill Hemmer pointed to increasing snowfall in Alaska to dismiss the summit entirely. And radio host Rush Limbaugh said that the climate summit is "an attack on capitalism" and is "about weakening the United States."
New York Magazine's Gabriel Sherman highlighted the ongoing "civil war" between Fox News host Bill O'Reilly and contributor George Will over O'Reilly's newest book, Killing Reagan, in a new report. Sherman interviewed executives at the network who call O'Reilly's books "a joke" and offered insight on a feud between Fox executives Bill Shine and Mike Clemente.
The recent feud began after Will published a November 5 Washington Post column titled, "Bill O'Reilly slanders Ronald Reagan." In the column, Will called the book "nonsensical history and execrable citizenship," with a "preposterous premise" that "should come with a warning: 'Caution -- you are about to enter a no-facts zone.'"
O'Reilly responded to Will's column later that night, calling it "libel," and challenged Will to come onto his show and attack him in person - a challenge Will accepted.
Sherman's November 9 exclusive highlighted the "civil war" currently raging at Fox, noting the distain for O'Reilly and his Killing books and how the rift has strengthened the rivalry between Mike Clemente, who oversees the news division, and Bill Shine, who oversees the prime-time shows. Both are high level executives hoping to replace Fox News Chairman and CEO Roger Ailes. According to Sherman, a Fox executive also commented O'Reilly's Killing series of books are considered "something of a joke inside the network," with the executive saying, "[O'Reilly] certainly doesn't research his books":
Inside Fox, the O'Reilly-Will feud is being closely studied by executives because it is part of a larger power struggle that's taking place at the highest reaches of the organization. On opposing sides of the fault line are Clemente, who oversees news (where Will works), and executive vice-president Bill Shine, who oversees prime-time shows (where O'Reilly works). Clemente and Shine are vying to replace Ailes and are such bitter rivals that they barely speak, numerous Fox employees say. In August 2014, the rivalry intensified when Ailes put Shine in charge of the Fox Business Network. "This is some Game of Thrones shit," one insider told me. The relationship is so bad that Clemente is not involved at all in preparing for the upcoming GOP debate on Fox Business.
Shine's loyalists tell me that Clemente did not confer with Shine about Will's anti-O'Reilly column before it was published. Furthermore, they're furious at Clemente for not stopping Will from embarrassing Fox's highest-rated host in the pages of the Post. They reminded me that it was Clemente who recruited Will to Fox from ABC in 2013. One source also explained that Will received a special contributor contract with Fox that grants him editorial independence for his column (other contributors are barred from writing about Fox without permission). "He doesn't have to check with Fox," the source said.
Clemente did not comment, but his camp is firing back off the record. "Almost everyone is on team George," one said. "Everyone is snickering and thinks it's a riot." Another told me that O'Reilly's Killing series is considered something of a joke inside the network. "He certainly doesn't research his books," one executive said.
Where Ailes stands remains unclear. In the past he's been critical of O'Reilly's book-writing ventures. In my biography of Ailes, I reported Ailes told colleagues that O'Reilly is "a book salesman with a TV show." Fox News has not commented on the mess. "Roger is probably in the men's room hoping this whole thing blows over," one insider told me today. That might be wishful thinking. The rumor at Fox is that Will is preparing to write another O'Reilly column. Will did not respond to requests for comment.
Media outlets are pointing out Sen. Marco Rubio's (R-FL) shifting position on immigration reform after the presidential hopeful changed his position on ending the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program (DACA). While Rubio previously supported eliminating the program after comprehensive immigration reform was in place, he recently stated he'd eliminate it regardless. This shift follows a push by conservative media figures who have long criticized Rubio for his immigration stances.
Fox News CEO Roger Ailes reportedly told network host Eric Bolling to defend Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump on air. Bolling has repeatedly gone to bat for Trump, praising him as someone who "means business" and defending his controversial remarks.
A New York magazine blog post pointed to anecdotal evidence as proof that Fox News is moderating its political advocacy in the run-up to the 2012 election, but the weight of the evidence shows that Fox is playing a heavy role in selecting the next president.
In a September interview with the Daily Beast's Howard Kurtz, Fox News head Roger Ailes claimed that the cable behemoth had taken a "course correction" in light of the network's close connections to Glenn Beck, Sarah Palin, and the tea party movement becoming a "branding issue."
Citing a recent, contentious interview Fox anchor Bret Baier conducted with Mitt Romney, New York magazine's Gabriel Sherman took the bait and argued that while Fox would "continue to function as home turf" for Republicans, Ailes' "course correction" has been on display during the 2012 primary:
This chaotic and raucous primary season is demonstrating that Roger Ailes will put the interests of his network ahead of all else. If 2010 was the year that Fox fueled the tea party -- culminating in record ratings and the Republican sweep of the House midterms -- 2012 is shaping up to be the year that Ailes decided Fox will benefit if the political world recognizes that his network is willing to make GOP candidates sweat in front of their base. Like any good candidate, the network plans to tack toward the center for the general election.
It's a complex game Ailes is playing. Conversations with Fox sources and media executives suggest a new strategy: Fox is trying to credibly capture the center without alienating its loyal core of rabid viewers. To this end, the network is flexing its news-gathering muscles in high-profile ways that will capture media attention.
Baier's interview with Romney must be viewed in the context of Fox's overall treatment of the GOP candidates. As The Washington Post's Eric Wemple noted, "based on recent appearances, Fox appears to be treating Mitt Romney (hardball warehouse interview with Bret Baier) more harshly than Newt Gingrich (smiling, treacly interview with Sean Hannity)." The New York Times recently reported on the role that television has played during the 2012 election, in particular Fox News:
"Everything has changed," said Gov. Sam Brownback of Kansas, who traveled across Iowa as an unsuccessful Republican presidential candidate four years ago. "It's like a town hall every day on Fox News. You hear people talking back to you what you saw yesterday on Fox. I like Fox, and I'm glad we have an outlet, but it is having a major, major effect on what happens."
Sherman also pointed to the presence of a New York Times reporter at a recent Fox News candidates forum as further evidence that Fox is a different animal during the 2012 primary. An adequate analysis of Fox News' role in electing the next president, however, requires looking beyond the dog and pony show.
In a February 27 New York magazine article, Fox News contributor Karl Rove renewed his attacks on fellow Fox News contributor Sarah Palin, criticizing her for starring in a reality show and asking, "How does that make us comfortable seeing her in the Oval Office?" During the interview, Rove reportedly did a "withering impersonation of Palin" while criticizing her reality show. From the article:
One week before the 2010 midterm elections, Rove took aim at Sarah Palin, questioning the wisdom of her appearance on a reality show, Sarah Palin's Alaska, if she really wanted to be taken seriously as a presidential candidate. Palin lacked the "gravitas" to be president, went a subhead in the U.K.'s DailyTelegraph.
Rove later tried wriggling out of his comments, as well as observations he made in a German magazine that tea-partiers weren't "sophisticated," being unfamiliar, as Rove was, with intellectuals like the economist Friedrich August von Hayek. But Rove's backhands weren't accidental, nor was he the victim of outrageous tabloid reporting. When I bring up his statements about Palin during our interview, Rove says only that he wished he'd made his comments on Fox News instead--before going into a withering impersonation of Palin, recalling a scene from her TV show in which she's fishing.
"Did you see that?" he says, adopting a high, sniveling Palin accent: " 'Holy crap! That fish hit my thigh! It hurts!' "
"How does that make us comfortable seeing her in the Oval Office?" he asks, disgusted. "You know--'Holy crap, Putin said something ugly!' "
Did the editors of New York magazine not read The Overton Window?
I mean, they can be forgiven for not reading Glenn Beck's non-thrilling "thriller" novel, which set a new, impossibly low standard for cliché-ridden, nonsensically awful writing. But they really should have before they turned their pages over to Beck this weekend so he could give his "factionalized" account of an Al Gore presidency.
For those unaware, "faction" is the clever-but-not-really portmanteau Beck employs to describe his style of creative writing, which, as you've probably already guessed, blends "fact" with "fiction." In the pages of New York, however, Beck has tweaked the formula a bit, blending fiction with thoroughly debunked garbage:
Gore's four o'clock was another one of the bright young minds that he liked to surround himself with, a guy named Barry Obama. (Who continued to maintain that his name was Barack, leading Gore to once advise him that no one in North Carolina would ever be caught dead voting for a guy named Barack.) Barry had come to the administration as deputy attorney general via an under-the-radar deal between Gore and Jack Ryan, now the senator from Illinois. Though he had been leading Barry in the polls, Ryan didn't want to take any chances, so he called in a favor. He had information about a certain late afternoon Gore had spent in a hotel in Chicago a few years back. A trip to the day spa had turned into a second chakra-release party.
Remember that smear, forwarded by the National Enquirer and later determined to be completely and totally without factual basis? It's back! And now it's true! At least it is in Beck's make-believe world. And anyone who wants to defend Beck's inclusion of this smear in his larger fictionalized attack on Gore will likely point that out: "It's only fiction! It's not real! Lighten up!"
But that's just the thing: even within the contours of Beck's fictional world, there's no reason to include this. Beck seems to acknowledge this himself -- he writes that Ryan was leading Obama in the polls (apparently there was no real-life divorce scandal waiting in the wings to take the Illinois Republican down), but for some reason he "call[s] in a favor" with Gore, threatening to expose the president's tryst with a masseuse if he doesn't lure the opponent he's already beating out the race.
Also: we're supposed to believe that a Republican politician would sit on information regarding a Democratic president's marital infidelities so he could call in a (relatively minor) favor later on? Really?
It's completely gratuitous. Including it in the story only makes it seem less plausible. But Beck thinks it's hilarious to crack about the former vice president having affairs and (I wish I were kidding) accidentally eating polar bear meat. So instead of something interesting, or funny, or well-written, or coherent, we get Glenn Beck's latest turn at "faction," and New York magazine inextricably links themselves to the author who brought us the timeless admonition: "Don't tease the panther."