Dear media: Quit being idiots about Chelsea Clinton’s pregnancy

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.”)

“Pardon the skeptic in me,” Malzberg said, “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 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. Wow!” – See more at:
“Pardon the skeptic in me,” Malzberg said, “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 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. Wow!” – See more at:

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.

Climate science is settled. Get over it.

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.

Who you callin’ a Christian?

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.

Sex and the single candidate

It’s past time for the media to treat male and female candidates, officials, and politicians the same.

Consider: Janet Yellen is the first female chair of the Federal Reserve. Her credentials are impeccable. She was vice chair for four years. She has degrees from Brown and Yale. She was head of President Clinton’s Council of Economic Advisers and president of the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco.

So what gets reported about her by male columnists? She wore the same outfit twice in one month.

Wrote Warren Rojas of Roll Call: “Whether Janet Yellen, President Barack Obama’s latest pick to head the Federal Reserve, proves to be the financial genius our sputtering economy so desperately needs, remains to be seen. At least we know her mind won’t be preoccupied with haute couture.”

To Rojas’ credit, when he got some pushback from media groups, he said he had learned his lesson. He posted: “Message received, America. Perhaps I should leave all the fashion policing to the Joan Rivers and Tim Gunns of the world.”

Damn straight he should. Too bad so many others still need to learn the lesson. When Yellen was nominated last October, the conservative website Daily Caller posted this: “Who’s hotter? Janet Yellen or Miley Cyrus?” Sure, let’s equate the accomplishments of one of the most qualified people to ever hold the office of Federal Reserve chair with a former child star now famous for twerking.

A national bipartisan organization called “Name It. Change It.” tracks coverage of how women in public life are treated in the media. And the group doesn’t like what it sees.

“Widespread sexism in the media is one of the top problems facing women,” says an intro on the group’s home page. “A highly toxic media environment persists for women candidates, often negatively affecting their campaigns. The ever-changing media landscape creates an unmonitored echo chamber, often allowing damaging comments to exist without accountability.”

The group was co-founded by Gloria Steinem, but both Republican and Democratic candidates have suffered the effects of  sexism in coverage. Consider:

* When Sarah Palin was chosen as John McCain’s running mate in 2008, one of the first questions the media brought up was “How can she be vice president with a special needs child?” (Her then-infant son has Down’s syndrome.) Gee, I wonder how many male politicians have special needs children? They seem to do quite well without being home all the time.

* A Boston Herald reporter, covering a female Green Party candidate running for governor in 2010, wrote a story quoting stylists on how the candidate should improve her looks. The headline: “She’s a great candidate … for a makeover!” Her hair was “a Brillo pad that’s seen better days.” Her clothes are “earthy crunchy.” Not a word about her policy positions.

* During a 2012 televised debate in New York for two female candidates running for the Senate, the moderator asked both candidates if they had read the sexually graphic novel Fifty Shades of Grey. Would that moderator ask a male candidate if he reads Playboy?

* Wendy Davis is running for governor of Texas and got a lot of publicity in the summer of 2013 when she led a successful filibuster against an anti-abortion bill in the state Legislature. But what got the most coverage? Her pink tennis shoes. More recently, a story about her in a Texas newspaper that questioned some discrepancies in her biography focused on her role as a single mother, how she spent time away from her children, and how her ex-husband was the one who really made everything possible by paying for law school. As if a male candidate never had to spend time away from his children, or if that candidate’s parents didn’t pay for his schooling.

* A Today Show interview with Samantha Powers, U.S. ambassador to the UN, touched on her views on Syria, but the label across the bottom of the screen read “UN AMBASSADOR ON BALANCING DIPLOMATS AND DIAPERS.” Guess the media just couldn’t resist the meme of “How does the working mom do it all?”

The examples are endless. Hillary Clinton’s pantsuits and changing hairstyles. What Michelle Bachmann wore to Republican debates (“When her numbers went down, she should have brought down her neckline. Might have helped,” wrote one columnist). Referring to many female candidates over the age of 50 as  “granny.” Terms describing women candidates like “ice queen,” “mean girl,” and “cougar,” or even worse, “slut” and “prostitute.” One candidate was even asked for her measurements — in the middle of a stump speech.

So what should female candidates do when they face this kind of sexist coverage? “Name It. Change It.” advises candidates to jump on the coverage immediately and say, “We need to be talking about issues, not calling people names.”

Only 2% of the 13,000 people who have served in Congress have been women. Only 31 women have ever been governor of a state, compared with more than 2,300 men. The U.S. actually has a worse record than other Western countries when it comes to female office holders. And media coverage of female candidates has played a big part.

As the “Name It. Change It.” campaign puts it: Don’t say she’s had facial surgery unless you say he dyes his hair or has hair plugs.

Sure, they’ve got to fill 24 hours of “news,” but …

You wonder how long the cable news channels can sustain their endless coverage of the disappearance of Malaysian flight MH370.

It’s a tragedy for those with family members or loved ones on board, and I don’t want to minimize that. But we really don’t know any more now than we did when the flight went missing on March 8. Still, that hasn’t stopped the parade of aviation experts, government officials from around the world, and other pundits from offering theories, whether plausible or unsubstantiated, about what happened. And at the same time they offer these theories, they admit that they have no idea what’s true or not.

Stolen passports! It was the pilots! It was the flight engineer! It was the passengers themselves!

No doubt many stations jumped the shark on this long ago. But consider: CNN’s Don Lemon asked a guest a few days ago if something “supernatural” might have happened to the flight. “Especially today, on a day when we deal with the supernatural,” Lemon said. “We go to church, the supernatural power of God … people are saying to me, why aren’t you talking about the possibility — and I’m just putting it out there — that something odd happened to this plane, something beyond our understanding?”

Really, Don? Why stop there? Why not aliens? ET? Maybe the plane, its crew, and its passengers were all assimilated by the Borg. Maybe the plane was diverted to Nepal (hey, it’s in the neighborhood) and was taken over by Yeti. Maybe the plane landed on the Indian Ocean’s version of the island on Lost. Or Gilligan’s Island.

In The Guardian, Michael Wolff wrote that although we are all fascinated by the missing or the unknown, this story is really “anti-journalism.”

“Everyone is entitled to his or her own their own theory it’s more democratization of journalism – including, but not limited to: a) terrorism; b) mechanical failure; c) hijacking; d) mad or rogue pilot; e) meteor; d) aliens; e) reality show promotion (in this, the 239 passengers and crew would have been in on it – each paid for their performance),” he wrote. “It is, of course, an ideal story for the current journalism era because it costs nothing. Nobody has to go anywhere. Nobody has to cover the wreckage and the recovery. Not only is the story pretty much all just theories – but theories are cheap.”

And while we are oversaturated with coverage of a missing airliner, we are not learning all we should about more important stories elsewhere in the world. Crimea. Syria. Iran. The effects of the Affordable Care Act, both good and bad. Congress’ lack of any legislative accomplishments.

Probably the best comments about the 24/7 coverage of the missing flight came from political satirist Andy Borowitz in his always-sharp posts on the Borowitz Report. The blame is spread across the board. (And in case anyone thinks these quotes are real, remember: THIS IS SATIRE.)

“As a news network, we regard a lack of news as a worthy challenge,” CNN chief Jeff Zucker said. “Our people are doing a heroic job of filling the void with rumor and hearsay.”

A spokesperson for MSNBC, however, scoffed at Mr. Zucker’s assessment that there was no information about the missing plane. “We are receiving tons of erroneous and conflicting reports from authorities every hour, and the instant we get them we pass them on to our viewers,” he said.

Over at Fox, host Sean Hannity expressed confidence in his network’s coverage. “When it comes to broadcasting twenty-four hours a day with no verifiable facts, I wouldn’t trade our experience and expertise for anybody’s,” he said.

The social cost of carbon

A report released March 13 by three environmental groups makes the case that the social cost of carbon is far higher than the $37 per ton estimated by the U.S. government.

The costs of carbon — the including harm to human health, decreased farm productivity, and a growing rise in sea levels — should be estimated at a much higher figure, says a report from the Cost of Carbon Project, a joint initiative by the Environmental Defense Fund, the Institute for Policy Integrity, and the Natural Resources Defense Council. The latest government estimate by the U.S. Office of Management and Budget leaves out many specifics, such as growing acidity in oceans, spikes in food prices, increases in respiratory diseases, and damage to ecosystems.

Although the U.S. estimate was raised in November 2013 from $24 to $37, the new report says the estimate is still way too low. The report says there is a “downward bias” in how OMB measures the social cost of carbon because of other omissions, including forced migration, social and political conflict, extreme weather events, and catastrophic damages.

“What we know is bad,” said Gernot Wagner, a senior economist at the Environmental Defense Fund. “What we don’t know makes it worse.”

The bigger question, of course, is: Where is the coverage of this? Where is the coverage of environmental issues, period? Thirty-one Democratic senators pulled an all-nighter on March 10 to talk about environmental issues, but they did so admitting that no environmental legislation would get passed this year. Republicans dismissed the talk-a-thon as a “political stunt.” Maybe if something concrete happened, people — and the media — would pay attention.

The full report, “Omitted Damages: What’s Missing From the Social Cost of Carbon,” is at

%d bloggers like this: