I have been reluctant to weigh in on the matter of The New York Times‘ firing of Executive Editor Jill Abramson, because 1) so much has been written about it already, and 2) I wasn’t there, so what do I know? But I have been reflecting on my years in the newspaper business, working for both male and female bosses, and certain things have fallen into place.
Yes, women and men are treated differently in newsrooms. Although goalposts have been uprooted, not just moved, there remains a double standard, not just in the newspaper industry, but at all workplaces.
In my first job at a daily newspaper in central Illinois, I remember a male colleague telling me – confidentially – that he had just been given a raise because he and his wife had a baby. I didn’t even know how to respond. Should I have said, “Congratulations! You’re going to need more income” or “That’s so unfair”? (“That totally sucks” was an uncommon term in the 1970s.) Was my work now worth less than his? Of course, with more responsibilities at home, he didn’t have to cover the same amount of evening meetings that I did.
At the same paper, a friend who had graduated college with me and I started work on the same day. He covered the police beat. I wrote features and wedding notices. Now, to be certain, his talents tended toward straight news, while mine were feature writing and editing. Still, we were pigeonholed pretty early.
When I worked for The Milwaukee Journal, now The Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel, in the early 1980s, I had the unenviable task of filling in on the overnight desk while the usual editor was on vacation. It meant starting about 10 p.m. and working until 6 a.m. – not the best shift for a morning person like me. The reason given was “Well, you’re single. You can’t expect a married guy to do this.” At the same paper, a group of women reporters got together for lunch once a month to talk about issues of sexism in the media. I remember one discussion about the double standard that Margaret Thatcher faced as prime minister, since the press always zeroed in on what she was wearing. With obsessions about Hillary Clinton’s clothing, have we really changed that much? And the men at the paper, especially those in sports, made fun of these monthly lunches.
I have worked for both men and women editors over the years. Some of both the men and women were truly awful, and some of both were a joy to work for and taught me a lot. I have been a boss, too, of both men and women (full disclosure: not a role I particularly enjoyed). I think I can say with certainty that I treated both genders equally, although I can’t say that’s how they treated me. I have friends who are women physicians who told me that during their residencies, they had to “turn themselves into a man” to get by.
So what about Jill Abramson? According to various news reports, she found out that she was being paid less than a predecessor, and that she had earned less as a managing editor than a deputy managing editor under her. Unfair? Yes. Are there extenuating circumstances? Most likely, including the tenure at that particular paper.
More disturbing are the reports that her “style” is what the Times execs objected to. Politico Magazine Editor Susan B. Glasser wrote an eye-opening piece called “Editing While Female: Field notes from one of journalism’s most dangerous jobs,” in which she comments on the story from her viewpoint. Glasser was pushed out as national news editor of the Washington Post. A good friend, Natalie Nougayrede, was forced to quit her job as editor-in-chief of Le Monde.
“This has happened to just about every woman I know who has dared to take up a highly visible leadership position in our great but troubled news organizations. Including me,” Glasser wrote. “We like to pretend it’s different now, that Hillary Clinton really did shatter the glass ceiling into thousands of pieces. But it’s not true. There are shockingly few women at the top anywhere in America, and it’s a deficit that is especially pronounced in journalism, where women leaders remain outliers, category-defying outliers who almost invariably still face a comeuppance.”
We heard a lot of these same issues in Lean In: Women, Work, and the Will to Lead by Sheryl Sandberg, the chief operating officer of Facebook. The same kind of characteristics that win points for male bosses (boldness, authority, strength) are detracting in female bosses (bitchiness, pushiness, bossiness).
A recent cover story in the May issue of The Atlantic headlined “The Confidence Gap,” by TV journalists Katty Kay and Claire Shipman, described a truth that too many women probably realize: Too many women lack self-assurance, and men have too much. Even if it’s not deserved.
Let’s face it, women: Some odds are still stacked against us. Kay and Shipman offer some advice – to become more confident, women need to stop thinking so much and just act. Even when those actions show our “temperament.”
So Republican strategist and sleazy rumormonger Karl Rove hints that former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton must have a “brain injury” because a few years back, she fell, got a concussion, and developed a blood clot. Obviously, he infers, she’s not capable of being president.
This from a guy whose own presidential boss called him “Turd Blossom.” On The Daily Show, Jon Stewart even gave this a new hashtag – #BRAINGHAZI.
“Thirty days in the hospital?” Rove said, according to the report of a speech he gave at a conference a week ago. “And when she reappears, she’s wearing glasses that are only for people who have traumatic brain injury? We need to know what’s up with that.”
According to Politico, Rove was trying to inject questions about Clinton’s health into the debate. And he wasn’t being too subtle about it.
It would be one thing if what Rove said multiple times during his speech was anywhere close to the truth. Thirty days? Of course, she was in the hospital for only four days. He must be skewing the numbers again, just like he did in Ohio in the 2012 election. And yes, Hillary Clinton has worn those same sunglasses before.
Clinton’s people pushed back, as did many Democrats and many in the media. “Karl Rove has deceived the country for years, but there are no words for this level of lying,” said Clinton spokesman Nick Merrill. As for Clinton’s health, he said, “She is 100 percent. Period.”
Of course, initial reports of Rove’s smear used the term “brain damage,” which Rove immediately denied saying. True, he said “brain injury.” Not a lot of difference, is there? It’s the old GOP trick of claiming that his words were taken out of context.
“In other words, Rove didn’t say Hillary Clinton has brain damage,” writes Peter Beinart in the Atlantic. “He hinted it, thus giving himself deniability while ensuring that the slur lingers in the public mind. Which is what he’s been doing his entire career.”
Let’s remember how Karl Rove first got involved in politics. In 1970, when he was still a college student, Rove used a fake identity to sneak into a campaign office for Alan Dixon, who was running for Illinois treasurer. Rove stole some stationery with campaign letterhead and printed fake campaign rally fliers promising a rally with “free beer, free food, girls, and a good time for nothing.” These were distributed at rock concerts and homeless shelters – Rove hoped the rowdy crowd would disrupt Dixon’s rally. Dixon won anyway.
That’s one political smear he admits to. He has never admitted his likely involvement in the whispering smear campaign against Sen. John McCain (R, Ariz.) in the 2000 GOP primary battle, supposedly for fathering an African-American “love child” (McCain and his wife adopted a daughter from Bangladesh). McCain had been gaining strength, but he lost South Carolina to George W. Bush, eventually giving Bush the GOP nomination.
There have been other smears of which he is likely guilty. But that’s how he plays the game – intimate something negative or tawdry and see what sticks.
Look, there are things to question about Hillary Clinton’s career, and her age in 2016 will be one of them, although there’s an awful lot of sexism in talking about it, since so many male candidates are older. Some on the left say she’s too much of a hawk. Those on the right say, well, that she’s Hillary Clinton. And don’t forget BENGHAZI!
I think this latest approach from Rove is likely to backfire, since the obviousness of the attack may have the effect of angering women and older voters. It makes it look like the GOP is so scared of Hillary Clinton in 2016 that there’s no level they won’t stoop to to bring her down.
No, I think the sheer stupidity of bringing up this false report shows something else – Karl Rove is past his prime. Whose brain should we be worrying about now?
Well, summer must be on its way. The weather is turning more hot and humid. TV shows are airing their finales. Kids are looking forward to the end of school. And the Republicans are gearing up for more hearings on Benghazi.
The chairman of the new House select committee on Benghazi, Rep. Trey Gowdy (R, S.C.), was on Sunday talk shows this week, “demanding” to know from former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton why the U.S was still in the Libyan city on Sept. 11, 2012, when four Americans, including Ambassador Christopher Stevens, died in a terrorist attack on the U.S. consulate. He will make sure, he insisted to (where else?) Fox News Sunday, that his committee will get to the bottom of the Benghazi attack, once and for all. Earlier, he even slipped and called the committee’s purpose a “trial.”
Actually, Clinton already has answered that question and many more. In a hearing before the House Foreign Affairs Committee in January 2013, Committee Chairman Ed Royce (R, Calif.) asked her why the U.S. was still in Benghazi despite continued threats and an attack on a British diplomat. Here is part of Clinton’s answer:
“Our team, led by security professionals, but also including intelligence professionals and others, did not recommend, based on those incidents, abandoning Benghazi. In part, because over the last years we have become accustomed to operating in dangerous places. … And we do, as by necessity, rely on security professionals to implement the protocols and procedures necessary to keep our people safe. … Because you know, most of the time they get it right. I was also engaged … in the issues related to the deteriorating threat environment, particularly in Libya. There were other places across the region. We were also watching to try to see what we could do to support the Libyan government to improve the overall stability of their country to deal with the many militias.”
Of course, that wasn’t Clinton’s only stop on the Benghazi outrage tour. She also testified before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, chaired by Rep. Darrell Issa (R, Calif.), who has spent $14 million in U.S. taxpayer money on repetitive hearings.
There have been 13 public hearings and 50 briefings on the topic, and 25,000 documents have been released, according to Politico. Just how much more do GOP politicians hope to uncover? Or is this just the next moving target, since the Affordable Care Act signed up 8 million people? They can’t really vote to repeal it again, as they’ve done more than 50 times.
And it’s not just GOP politicians: When President Obama announced the latest ACA figures, even Fox News knew the jig was up. So the mentions of the Affordable Care Act continued to drop, and the mentions of Benghazi skyrocketed. Fox pundits were demanding that, during Obama interviews with meteorologists about the White House Climate Change report, those same meteorologists ask questions about Benghazi.
Right. Because Benghazi is so tied to global warming. Sorry, there’s just no “there” there.
In April 1983, when Ronald Reagan was president, the U.S. Embassy in Beirut, Lebanon, was destroyed by Islamist militants, killing 61 people. In October 1983, 241 U.S. servicemen were killed in Beirut when a truck bomb exploded in barracks housing the servicemen, who were in Beirut as part of an international peacekeeping force. The U.S. Embassy was rebuilt and had been open for only six weeks when it was bombed again in September 1984, killing 20 people. There was ample evidence of lack of security in all three cases, as later investigations found, but Democrats did not make political hay out of the attacks. They didn’t use the attacks as an excuse to raise political money, as Republicans are doing now.
House Speaker John Boehner told Fox News on Sunday that he wanted committee members to investigate “the number of requests for security and why it was not provided.” Um, Mr. Speaker? It wasn’t provided because the GOP cut funding for embassy security overseas. Also, Ambassador Stevens repeatedly asked that security NOT be increased at the Benghazi consulate. He was an effective ambassador who wanted to be able to move around among Libyan people and not be isolated by security.
Let’s face it: Republicans have nothing to run on this fall, so they have to gin up their base with faux outrage over a tragedy, asking questions to which they already have the answers. Even though the families of the four Americans killed have specifically asked Congress NOT to hold any more hearings. And of course, the real reason for this bogus committee and these bogus hearings is to try to tarnish Hillary Clinton’s standing before the 2016 presidential election.
Welcome to election season. Let’s see if the rest of the media – besides Fox – are gullible enough to play along.
It might be overkill to poke more fun at CNN for the network’s over-the-top coverage of the missing Malaysian jetliner. Yet when the cable news station pulls something like this, it’s too hard to resist.
CNN has been the brunt of many well-deserved jokes over the last two months since the flight went missing on March 8. The coverage was seemingly around the clock and included interviews with psychics, questions about black holes, and suggestions that the reason the flight went missing might be due to supernatural forces. No matter what bit of non-news was reported, CNN always used the all-cap lead-in of BREAKING NEWS. What was thought to be flotsam from the flight turned out to be garbage – breaking news. The supposed path of the flight changed – breaking news. The flight is thought to be in a different ocean – breaking news. Each tidbit, no matter how inconsequential, was reported breathlessly.
To attempt to justify the over-saturation in coverage, CNN polled more than 1,000 Americans about what they thought happened to the plane. The poll was done with CNN’s usual polling practices by telephone. Some of the results are predictable: Nealy 80% of Americans think there are no survivors. Slightly over half think the public eventually will find out what happened to the flight, while 46% think the flight’s status will forever remain a mystery. About two-thirds think it’s somewhat or very likely that the flight crew had something to do with the disappearance; 57% thought terrorists might have been involved; and 42% blamed hijackers. Only 9% of survey respondents blame aliens.
Yes, CNN asked survey respondents the following question, with four possible answers: “Now here are a few groups that some people have suggested may be responsible for the disappearance of Flight 370 if an accident or mechanical failure was not the cause. As I read each one, please tell me whether you think it is very likely, somewhat likely, not too likely, or not likely at all that the disappearance of Flight 370 was due to actions by that group.” The choices were:
A) Terrorists or people associated with a hostile foreign government.
B) Hijackers not associated with a terrorist organization.
C) The pilot, co-pilot, or another member of the plane’s crew.
D) Space aliens, time travelers, or beings from another dimension.
Note: The directions to those asking the question in the survey were to put A, B, and C in random order, but always put D last. Well, gosh. At least we got through some semi-realistic possibilities until we got to the space aliens.
How could a question like that get into what is supposed to be a serious poll, you may ask. I wish I knew the answer to that.
But CNN does have one silver lining – its ratings grew over the last two months. So I guess we can expect more of the same if network officials see space aliens as the key to success.
So real estate magnate and professional publicity hound Donald Trump called into Fox News’ morning show, “Fox & Friends,” last week to discuss the infamous audiotape of Los Angeles Clippers owner Donald Sterling making racial remarks and asking his girlfriend/assistant/whatever she was not to bring blacks to Clippers games. Trump made his usual outrageous comments because, well, he’s Donald Trump. And now he is blasting the media for reporting what he said.
The Donald seems to love to call into conservative radio and TV shows, because he knows he’ll always get some airtime. The three Fox talking heads didn’t disappoint — they let him ramble on for more than five minutes. Trump did criticize Sterling’s remarks, but he also said that Sterling had been “set up” by the “girlfriend from hell.”
Of course, reporters couldn’t resist such a quote, so it got reported widely. And why not? By that point, everyone was criticizing Donald Sterling’s comments. No one was defending him, and Trump didn’t say anything else that was new. And news media reporting on Trump’s quotes didn’t say that Trump was defending Sterling, either — they just repeated a juicy quote. Indeed, they also repeated his slams against Sterling. But I guess that wasn’t good enough for The Donald.
“I knocked the hell out of Donald Sterling for five minutes, said what a bad guy, said, you know, horrible things he said,” Trump said on the cable news show on May 5. “And then I said just in passing and by the way, the ‘girlfriend from hell,’ and everybody laughed. Which is obviously true — I mean this girlfriend is taping him, and with very bad intentions obviously. She’s bad news.”
Trump lamented that “thousands of articles” repeated the “girlfriend from hell” line while ignoring the fact that he condemned Sterling’s comments. (Thousands? I think you’re overestimating your impact here, Mr. Trump.)
“Reporters are really dishonest, especially political reporters,” Trump said. “I’ve never seen anything like this.”
Oh, REPORTERS are dishonest? This from the man who supposedly sent private investigators to Hawaii to dig up “the truth” about President Obama’s birth certificate? He promised bombshell disclosures that never were released. (Wonder why?) This from the guy who complained that the 2012 election results were a “travesty and a sham,” and shouldn’t be believed? That Obama “lost the popular vote by a lot,” and that we should “have a revolution,” even though Obama won the popular vote by nearly 5 million? This from the fellow who tweeted “The concept of global warming was created by and for the Chinese in order to make U.S. manufacturing non-competitive”? This from the man who said a “confidential source” had called him and said Obama had added $6 trillion to U.S. debt, despite the fact that the actual U.S. deficit has been DROPPING since Obama became president, after the initial expenditure for the stimulus package? This from the one who tweeted the lie about Chrysler sending Jeep manufacturing jobs to China? (For more, read “Donald Trump’s 50 Stupidest Tweets.” If you can stand to.)
And why, Trump demands, aren’t the media covering BENGHAZI? Trump claims that the “liberal” media are covering up the story of the Libyan attack on the U.S. consulate in 2012, trying to protect possible 2016 Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton.
Uh, maybe because there’s no news there? Just about all media reported how House GOP leaders are setting up a special committee to keep investigating Benghazi because — well, it’s not really clear why, except to fight to keep the story alive. The release of a White House email sent the Fox network and conservative media into a new feeding frenzy. Fox even broke away from a joint news conference between President Obama and German Chancellor Angela Merkel because “no one was asking any questions about Benghazi.” Again, maybe that’s because the other, more professional reporters in the room had more important issues to talk about, such as the continued crisis in Ukraine, the chances and effects of more U.S. and European sanctions against Russia, and the NSA spying scandal.
Look in the mirror if you want to see dishonesty, Mr. Trump. If you can see underneath your hairpiece, that is.
Yes, that’s the name “Sarah” with a dollar sign for the “S.” Because apparently money is the only thing $arah Palin believes in anymore.
$arah Palin recently gave a speech for the annual meeting of the National Rifle Association for which she no doubt was paid a hefty fee (her net worth is estimated at $12 million). She didn’t disappoint the red-meat crowd when she threw them this tasty morsel: Terrorists “obviously have information on plots to carry out jihad. Oh, but you can’t offend them, can’t make them feel uncomfortable, not even a smidgen. Well, if I were in charge, they would know that waterboarding is how we baptize terrorists.”
You know, in my church, baptism is a sacrament, just like it’s a sacrament in just about every other Christian church (Christian Scientists, Quakers, and Unitarians don’t baptize). Whether it’s baptism by immersion at a conscious age of consent or baptism by water on the head of an infant, it’s an act that represents the individual’s becoming a part of the church.”Meet your new brother (or sister) in Christ,” is what our ministers say after an infant, a toddler, a teen, or even an adult baptism takes place.
For $arah Palin, who claims to be a born-again Christian and who claims the high moral ground on cultural issues – well, she was all wet on this one.
The National Religious Campaign Against Torture called on $arah and the NRA to repudiate the statement. Of course, since the GOP doesn’t apologize for anything, we’ll all grow old waiting for that to happen. As the group’s letter to the NRA, signed by 17 faith leaders from different religions and denominations, said: “For Christians, baptism is a profoundly holy act. It is in stark contrast to the abhorrent act of waterboarding. Equating baptism to an act of torture like waterboarding is sacrilegious – and particularly surprising coming from a person who prides herself on her Christian faith.”
In a separate letter to $arah Palin herself, the group said: “Your statements play into a false narrative conveying that somehow, the conflict between the United States and the terrorist cells is a conflict between Christianity and Islam, or Islam and ‘the West.’ ”
Faithful America, a group with the wonderful tagline “Love thy neighbor. No exceptions,” started an online petition to object to $arah Palin’s statement drawing a parallel between waterboarding and baptism. “This is what we’ve come to in America: A former candidate for vice president can equate torture and Holy Baptism, and one of the nation’s most powerful political lobbies erupts into cheers and applause.” Started only a few days ago, the petition has nearly 60,000 signatures so far.
In a published blog on the Huffington Post titled “Sarah Palin’s Heresy,” Rabbi Menachem Creditor also objected to her words about torture: “Most faith traditions incorporate water’s restorative power. The Muslim ritual ablution of Wudu, the Jewish Mikveh ritual bath, the Hindu ritual immersions in the River Ganges, and the Christian practice of baptism, each point to renewal, transformation, and life. How dare the NRA tolerate – worse, amplify – hatred garbed in religious symbolism.”
The blog Patheos had an interesting take on why $arah Palin was correct in her take on waterboarding and baptism, quoting the Rev. Daniel Brereton:
“We baptized ‘combatants’ with waterboarding. … We raised to life new creations of our own making, creating enemies in our own image. We baptized the innocent in the indiscriminate and remote violence of drone warfare. … We baptized prisoners at Abu Ghraib with brutality, humiliation, and torture. And we were surprised when we raised to life new hatred, horror, and disgust. … We are still baptizing the world with American violence.”
Gone are the days when $arah Palin was treated as a kingmaker or queenmaker. Her endorsements don’t carry the weight they used to, and these days she waits until she sees a clear front-runner before endorsing. That way, she can claim her endorsement helped. But most political observers know better. She’s selling fewer books, and fewer people are contributing to SarahPAC. And whatever she was paid by the NRA, she doesn’t command the top speech fees she used to get.
The half-term governor of Alaska was Sen. John McCain’s running mate in 2008 on the GOP ticket. “If I were in charge,” she told the NRA, to the cheers of the nearly all-white and mostly Republican audience. Thank the Lord that she isn’t.
No matter where you get your news, you’ve probably heard or read about Cliven Bundy, the Nevada rancher who refused to pay public grazing fees for his cattle for 20 years. If you read a straight news version, you learned about a man who withheld the heavily subsidized rate of $1.35 per cattle unit per month and now owed the federal government $1 million, having racked up quite a bill. But if you get your news with a right-wing tilt, you got 24/7 coverage of a “patriot” who had been “wronged” by evil federal agents.
Despite losing at every level, from government appeals to the courts, Bundy refused to pay. He had multiple opportunities to make good, just as countless other Western ranchers have done. But Fox News and others in conservative media land — not to mention several prominent Republican politicians — touted the deadbeat Nevada rancher as a “patriot,” comparing him to the Founding Fathers, Gandhi, and Rosa Parks.
This saturated coverage stirred up armed militia members in neighboring states to come to join Bundy’s fight. Assault rifles in hand, they lined highways, ready to shoot it out with those evil feds who were trying to enforce the law by removing Bundy’s cattle from federal land. Those militia members were only too happy to explain to the cameras how the federal government has “no right” to demand payment from Bundy. It was “the people’s land,” after all. They were “sovereign citizens” who “didn’t recognize” the existence of the United States. And they did this all while waving American flags.
Of course, it turns out Bundy is a racist windbag and a liar. In video shown widely on Thursday, April 24, he is seen ranting against “the negro,” suggesting that African-Americans might be better off as slaves picking cotton. No surprise there — that kind of thinking goes hand in hand with the militia movement, as it has throughout its history. As explained thoroughly in a segment on The Rachel Maddow Show the same day, the militia movement really started when white Southerners wanted to keep federal forces from coming South to protect black citizens after the Civil War. The idea of posse comitatus, or “power to the county,” means that “sovereign citizens” don’t need to obey federal and state laws, only the county sheriff. Other laws don’t apply to these loons. Don’t pay your income taxes? No problem. Drive without a license plate? Don’t need one. Refuse to get a state ID? You can print your own from the Internet from a URL conveniently supplied in an ad from the back of an Aryan Nation magazine.
“I don’t recognize the United States government as even existing,” Bundy said.”If I get a letter from the federal government, I don’t even open it.” (But you’re certainly happy to get that free mail delivery, aren’t you, Mr. Bundy?)
Bundy claimed that his family had been ranching the land since the mid-1800s, and they never had to pay anything for grazing cattle on public land. Land records, however, showed that his father didn’t buy the ranch until the 1950s. The Bureau of Land Management started the grazing fee program in Nevada in the 1940s.
Of course, ol’ rancher Bundy just can’t keep his mouth shut. On CNN on April 25 (why are news organizations still giving this nutjob a microphone?) he said this: “If I call — if I say negro or black boy or slave, I’m not — if those people cannot take those kind of words and not be offended, then Martin Luther King hasn’t got his job done then yet.”
Well, of course, Martin Luther King is dead, shot and killed by a white supremacist. So he was kind of stopped in his tracks before he could get his job done, wasn’t he?
Once Bundy’s repugnant racial views were made public, the right-wingers couldn’t run away fast enough. Indeed, “repugnant” seemed to be the favorite term used by Sen. Ron Paul, Fox News and radio host Sean Hannity, and many others. Texas Gov. Rick Perry made an early comment still supporting Bundy, then quickly realized his error and backtracked quickly.
You’ve got a lot to answer for here, Fox, National Review, and others. You backed the wrong horse in this fight, Sens. Rand Paul, Ted Cruz, and Dean Heller. Those like Democratic Nevada Sen. Harry Reid were right on the money when they called this crowd “domestic terrorists.” What else would you call a group of people who refuse to follow federal laws and call for the dissolution of the nation?
U.S. Rep. Steven Horsford (D, Nev.) represents the state’s Fourth congressional district, which contains the Bundy ranch and the federal land in question, as well as many surrounding communities. Horsford, who ironically is African-American, appeared in a segment of the same Rachel Maddow Show Thursday night. He described how he had been meeting with constituents and listening to how frightened they were of the gun-toting lunatics on Bundy’s ranch. Children are afraid to walk to school. Families are afraid to go to church on Sundays because the towns are full of armed militia members. Other ranchers, who have paid their bargain grazing fees (the same fees on private land can be nearly $20 per month), have no sympathy for Bundy and his crowd. They all want the militia members to leave so they can get back to their lives.
Look, you want to have a debate about federal overreach, fine. You want to talk about states’ rights, go right ahead. But use an argument based in fact, not with examples of armed scofflaws who are frightening their neighbors with their heavy weaponry and militant rhetoric.
Next fall, two people are expecting a baby. An upcoming blessed event for one couple and the prospective grandparents. Except if you pay attention to some inane reports in the Beltway media. To them, it’s all about how it affects Hillary Clinton’s possible run for the presidency.
The headline from the DC Decoder: “Chelsea Clinton baby: Will Hillary Clinton be less likely to run in 2016? (plus video).”
(Seriously. PLUS VIDEO!!!)
“But we have to ask: How, if at all, might the news affect whether Hillary Clinton runs for president in 2016? … Perhaps it’s sexist even to ask the question – how will a grandchild affect her decision – but until she announces either way, it will be out there,” the website posts. “It must be noted that former President Clinton, too, has talked longingly about grandchildren. But as anyone who’s had children knows, there’s often nothing like the bond between mother and daughter when the first grandbaby is on the way. If we had to guess, we’d say that Hillary Clinton will be a tad less interested in running for president now that she’s about to be a grandmother.”
Oh, PERHAPS it’s sexist to ask. As if a prospective grandmother has nothing better to do than follow, dog-like, after a pregnant daughter. So from one ridiculous point of view, a grandchild makes it less likely for Hillary Clinton to run.
Let’s not forget about the “humanizing” factor. On MSNBC’s Morning Joe, New York Times financial columnist Andrew Ross Sorkin was quick to pounce, calling the arrival of a grandchild a 2016 “game changer.”
“Can we talk about the human drama that is Grandma Clinton? … I don’t want to be cynical and suggest that anyone’s having a baby for election purposes, but — ”
Luckily, the other guests on the show cut him off at that point. Still, he wasn’t finished.
“It’s going to change the dynamic of the campaign. … It’s a softening, there’s a compassion thing. You don’t think that over the next two years on the campaign trail this is gonna be part of the narrative? Come on. That’s interesting.”
So a grandchild will make Hillary Clinton “more compassionate.” And no doubt, the media will cover every last second. There will probably be a “baby-watch” frenzy as bad as that running up to the birth of little Prince George last summer, now fourth in line to the British throne.
On the right-wing side, the conspiracies started immediately. At Newsmax, Steve Malzberg speculated that the pregnancy was deliberately timed to benefit a Hillary Clinton candidacy.
“Pardon the skeptic in me, but what great timing! I mean, purely accidental, purely an act of nature, purely just left up to God. And God answered Hillary Clinton’s prayers and she’s going to have the prop of being a new grandma while she runs for president. It just warms the heart. It brings a tear to my eye. It really does!”
OK, so NOW the only reason for Chelsea Clinton to have a baby is to give Hillary Clinton a “prop” while she’s running for president? According to these conspiracy theorists, the upcoming bundle of joy makes it MORE likely for Hillary Clinton to run. (To Newsmax’s credit, it backed off the claim a few days later, calling Malzberg’s comments “clearly inappropriate.”)
Chelsea Clinton and her husband, Marc Mezvinsky, were married in 2010. It’s pretty logical that they would be starting a family by this point in their marriage. In an interview last fall, she told Glamour that they would like to have a child in 2014. But instead of just saying congratulations or mazel tov, the media turned the pregnancy into political fodder for 2016 presidential election watchers.
Do we even need to point out that hordes of male candidates regularly trot out their first- and second-generation progeny for the cameras? Think of the scenes at political conventions, with candidates surrounded by spouse, children, and grandchildren, with confetti or balloons falling around them. Often the grandchildren adorably bat at the balloons, which cameramen are only too happy to capture.
And let’s not even get started on the idiocy of polling this far from a presidential election. (Hillary’s ahead! No, it’s Chris Christie! No, he’s down…) No doubt that will be the subject of posts to come. Yes, we’ve got two and a half more years of this lunacy.
Why do some news networks pretend that climate change isn’t real? Why do they act like there’s still a “debate” about the subject?
There is no debate. Facts are facts. I understand why certain politicians who get a lot of campaign money from the fossil fuel industry want to muddle the issue, but that doesn’t mean national news organizations have to act as a mouthpiece. But muddle it they have, and some news organizations are only too willing to play along.
In one of the silliest recent shows on Meet the Press, scientist and educator Bill Nye (the science guy) had a “debate” with GOP Rep. Marsha Blackburn (R, Tenn.) about climate change. It wasn’t much of a contest. One had science and facts on his side. One didn’t. But the very fact that Meet the Press presented it as a “debate” gives some undeserved semblance of legitimacy to the anti-climate change argument. Is it too much to expect that the media report, you know, facts, instead of presenting ill-informed opinions and claiming they’re giving “both sides of the argument”?
The release of a new U.N. report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change stresses that there is limited time to take action against global warming — limited time to reduce warming of some 2 degrees Celsius (3.6 degrees Fahrenheit) above pre-industrial levels. This is the level scientists say the planet must not breach to avoid the worst risks of climate change. The report calls for action by all major countries, in both the developed and the developing world.
It’s pretty scary to read the report’s conclusions. Global emissions of greenhouse gases have risen to unprecedented levels. Emissions grew more quickly between 2000 and 2010 than in each of the three previous decades. The report stresses that “only major institutional and technological change will give a better-than-even chance that global warming will not exceed” the 2 degrees Celsius threshold. Indeed, in many countries and areas of the world, people and governments already have been forced to make concessions to deal with the effect of global warming, especially low-lying areas close to sea level.
As it turns out, many countries around the world are trying to do their part. According to officials from GLOBE International, a nonprofit group that backs legislative efforts on sustainable development: “Some 450 climate-related laws since 1997 have been passed in 66 countries covering around 88% of global greenhouse gases released by human activities. This legislative momentum is happening across all continents. Encouragingly, this progress is being led by the big emerging and developing countries, such as China and Mexico, that together will represent 8 billion of the projected 9 billion people on Earth in 2050.”
A new global summit will be held in Paris in November 2015 to work on a new global climate treaty. Of course, if history is any guide, countries will have a hard time coming to agreement. But the need is only getting more important, more dire.
In another new report, the Union of Concerned Scientists analyzed how three major cable news networks — CNN, Fox News, and MSNBC — covered climate science. The results aren’t surprising, but they’re still disheartening.
“In 2013, 70% of climate-science-related segments on CNN were accurate, 28% of Fox News Channel segments were accurate, and 92% of such segments on MSNBC were accurate,” the report states.
Hmm. Only 28% of climate science segments on Fox were accurate. No wonder a certain segment of the population is so confused.
The report continues: “Cable news coverage of climate science often reflects and reinforces people’s perceptions of the science, which are related to their partisan identification as Democrats, Republicans, Independents, or Tea Party supporters. Political ideology can also have a large effect on whether or not people accept the scientific consensus on climate change. On the cable news networks, as in the halls of Congress, discussions about climate change feature a mix of political opinions and scientific information.”
The UCS report puts blame where it belongs, but says crying wolf doesn’t help.
“Many opponents of policies designed to reduce emissions or prepare for climate change, including hosts and guests on cable news programs, use inaccurate and dismissive portrayals of established climate science in order to bolster their political arguments and preferences. Meanwhile, some advocates for proactive climate policies occasionally overstate the effects of climate change, although they make misleading statements far less often than do opponents of climate policy action.”
Perhaps the most important thing the UCS says in its report is this:
“Established climate science is clear: human activities are largely responsible for the majority of recent warming, and climate change is already disrupting human and natural systems. Nevertheless, public attitudes toward climate science lag behind scientific understanding. Only two-thirds of Americans accept that climate change is occurring, and less than half of the population recognizes that it is largely due to human activities.”
The UCS is a nonprofit scientific advocacy organization that includes scientists worldwide, including many Nobel laureates. Conservative groups love to bash it as “left-wing” and “liberal.” Televangelist Jerry Falwell warned his followers not to fall for “global warming hocus-pocus” from the UCS. That should tell you which side to be on. And it’s not Jerry Falwell’s.
The IPCC report is available online. The UCS report Science or Spin? Assessing the Accuracy of Cable News Coverage of Climate Science also is available online.
The recent case before the U.S. Supreme Court about birth control coverage required by the Affordable Care Act brings up one of the biggest faults the U.S. media have when they cover religion — namely, “Christian” equals “religious right.”
This observation isn’t new. This media habit probably started in the 1990s, during the rise of right-wing media. Still, it’s lazy, it’s judgmental, it’s overly simplistic. And it’s wrong.
Just to refresh: The craft store franchise Hobby Lobby disagrees with the requirement that the health insurance it offers its employees must include contraception for women. Hobby Lobby has stated that providing contraception as part of its health insurance plan is a violation of the company’s “religious freedom.” Hobby Lobby calls itself a “Christian-owned” craft supply chain.
(It’s worthwhile to note that most of Hobby Lobby’s merchandise comes from China, where abortions are provided by the government and religious freedoms are widely restricted. In other words, Hobby Lobby has no problem restricting religious freedom when profits are concerned. Hobby Lobby also has no problem investing in drug companies that manufacture emergency contraceptive medicine like Plan B and devices it claims can cause abortions, like IUDs. But that hypocrisy is another story. As is the whole notion that a corporation can have a religion. But we digress.)
While the media continue to push the meme that the “Christian” point of view is that mandatory insurance coverage of birth control is wrong, you may be surprised to learn that many church groups take the opposite approach. They support the mandate that requires companies to provide birth control coverage, because they see such services as basic to women’s health care. According to Juicy Ecumenism, a blog by the Institute on Religion and Democracy:
“The United Methodist General Board of Church and Society, along with the Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice, which includes the Episcopal Church, Presbyterian Church (USA) and United Church of Christ (UCC), have endorsed the HHS mandate that requires employers to provide insurance coverage for contraceptives and abortifacients. So too have the UCC’s president, the Reformed Church in America’s general secretary, the Episcopal Bishop of Washington, D.C., the president of Union Seminary, the dean of Vanderbilt Divinity School, and the president of Episcopal Divinity School, plus the New Evangelical Partnership for the Common Good.”
Well, that’s quite a few Christian groups and churches! All in support of insurance coverage for birth control. Of course, it’s not unanimous. The blog also reports:
“In contrast, the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, Union of Orthodox Jewish Congregations of America, National Association of Evangelicals, Southern Baptist Convention, Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod, National Religious Broadcasters, and Council for Christian Colleges & Universities have identified the HHS Obamacare mandate as an assault on religious liberty.”
In 2012, a group of Christian pastors collected more than 80,000 signatures on petitions against Hobby Lobby’s suit. They represented an activist online group called Faithful America and demanded that Hobby Lobby drop the lawsuit. No, not much coverage of that, either, except in far-right media that claimed the whole thing must have been funded by billionaire George Soros.
I bet this is news to most people reading this post. I suspect that in all of the coverage of the Hobby Lobby case, you didn’t read one word that many, many churches support coverage of birth control as being part of basic women’s health care, and many, many didn’t. I would bet that you thought ALL churches must support Hobby Lobby’s position because otherwise, it’s an “assault on religious liberty.” And why? Because the many news reports about the Hobby Lobby case never reported on any split. Anything the religious right proclaims is “Christian”; anything else can get ignored.
The story of Noah takes up only a few chapters in the Book of Genesis in the Bible. Yet the movie Noah is “controversial” because “Christian” leaders object to it. (Full disclosure: I haven’t seen the film yet, although the publicity sent me back to read the story in Genesis.) Yes, Noah gets drunk after the ark lands, but the objection that he is portrayed as a drunk who only cares about climate change is beyond silly. The movie has attracted a wide audience so far, and people of different faiths have different opinions about it. Many Christians have different opinions about it. Is there any surprise there? No. Should there be? No.
I’m not talking about movies or TV that give positive or negative portrayals of Christianity, from Bible-beating killers to holier-than-thou types. I’m talking about news media, which should be doing a more thorough job.
One of the pastors at my church recently attended a conference on church youth programs. She said a major problem churches face in engaging young people is that many don’t want to be labeled or seen as a “Christian” because they equate the term with conservative evangelicals. Given the prevalence of the media to paint all Christians with a broad brush, I understand their hesitation.
A recent Pew Research poll showed that the Millennial generation, Americans ages 18-29, are considerably less religious than older Americans. One-quarter are not affiliated with any faith. They are less likely to attend church on a regular basis, even though the poll showed that many have the same basic beliefs as their elders.
Unless there is a more honest portrayal in the media of the differences in the way people believe and worship, I fear this trend will continue. Is that a good or bad thing? I remain agnostic on the issue.