Blog

  • Yahoo Reports Bruce Springsteen Cancels North Carolina Show Over "Bigotry" Of  Anti-LGBT Law

    Blog ››› ››› MEDIA MATTERS STAFF

    On March 23 North Carolina’s general assembly passed a bill "barring transgender people from bathrooms and locker rooms that do not match the gender on their birth certificates." The New York Times editorial board slammed the legislation, writing that it "makes North Carolina [a] pioneer in bigotry," while regional editorial boards admonished the "recklessness and foolishness" of state officials rolling back nondiscrimination protections. On April 7, NBA analyst and TV personality Charles Barkley told CNN "the NBA should move the all-star game from Charlotte" due to the law. 

    Fox News host Todd Starnes lashed out at Springsteen on Twitter by pushing the conservative “bathroom predator” myth, claiming that Springsteen’s opposition to the anti-LGBT law meant Springsteen wanted “grown men to use the bathroom with little girls”:

     

     

     

     

     

    In a statement reported by Yahoo News, Springsteen said "this fight against prejudice and bigotry" in North Carolina is "more important than a rock show":
    Bruce Springsteen is taking a stand over recently passed legislation in North Carolina that requires people in the state to use gendered public restrooms that match their birth certificate, specifically targeting transgender people. In a statement posted to Facebook on Friday, Springsteen canceled an upcoming show in Greensboro, N.C., over the law.

    “Some things are more important than a rock show and this fight against prejudice and bigotry — which is happening as I write — is one of them,” Springsteen wrote. “It is the strongest means I have for raising my voice in opposition to those who continue to push us backwards instead of forwards.”

    [...]

    In his statement, Springsteen notes that fans can get their tickets refunded for Sunday’s concert. You can read the full statement here:

    As you, my fans, know I’m scheduled to play in Greensboro, North Carolina this Sunday. As we also know, North Carolina has just passed HB2, which the media are referring to as the “bathroom” law. HB2 — known officially as the Public Facilities Privacy and Security Act — dictates which bathrooms transgender people are permitted to use. Just as important, the law also attacks the rights of LGBT citizens to sue when their human rights are violated in the workplace. No other group of North Carolinians faces such a burden. To my mind, it’s an attempt by people who cannot stand the progress our country has made in recognizing the human rights of all of our citizens to overturn that progress. Right now, there are many groups, businesses, and individuals in North Carolina working to oppose and overcome these negative developments. Taking all of this into account, I feel that this is a time for me and the band to show solidarity for those freedom fighters. As a result, and with deepest apologies to our dedicated fans in Greensboro, we have canceled our show scheduled for Sunday, April 10th. Some things are more important than a rock show and this fight against prejudice and bigotry — which is happening as I write — is one of them. It is the strongest means I have for raising my voice in opposition to those who continue to push us backwards instead of forwards.

    Bruce Springsteen and the E Street Band’s Sunday April 10th show is canceled. Tickets will be refunded at point of purchase.

  • Yahoo Reports Bruce Springsteen Cancels North Carolina Show Over "Bigotry" Of  Anti-LGBT Law

    Blog ››› ››› CRISTIANO LIMA

    Yahoo reports Bruce Springsteen cancelled an upcoming show in Greensboro, North Carolina, in opposition to the state's anti-LGBT HB2 law that bans transgender people from restrooms that align with their gender identity.

    On March 23 North Carolina’s general assembly passed a bill "barring transgender people from bathrooms and locker rooms that do not match the gender on their birth certificates." The New York Times editorial board slammed the legislation, writing that it "makes North Carolina [a] pioneer in bigotry," while regional editorial boards admonished the "recklessness and foolishness" of state officials rolling back nondiscrimination protections. On April 7, NBA analyst and TV personality Charles Barkley told CNN "the NBA should move the all-star game from Charlotte" due to the law. 

    Fox News host Todd Starnes lashed out at Springsteen on Twitter by pushing the conservative “bathroom predator” myth, claiming that Springsteen’s opposition to the anti-LGBT law meant Springsteen wanted “grown men to use the bathroom with little girls”:

    In a statement reported by Yahoo News, Springsteen said "this fight against prejudice and bigotry" in North Carolina is "more important than a rock show":

    Bruce Springsteen is taking a stand over recently passed legislation in North Carolina that requires people in the state to use gendered public restrooms that match their birth certificate, specifically targeting transgender people. In a statement posted to Facebook on Friday, Springsteen canceled an upcoming show in Greensboro, N.C., over the law.

    “Some things are more important than a rock show and this fight against prejudice and bigotry — which is happening as I write — is one of them,” Springsteen wrote. “It is the strongest means I have for raising my voice in opposition to those who continue to push us backwards instead of forwards.”

    North Carolina’s “bathroom bill,” which is officially called the Public Facilities Privacy and Security Act, was signed into law by North Carolina Gov. Pat McCrory in March. Never mind that North Carolina police have admitted that the law is essentially unenforcible, there is no factual evidence to support the pervasive theory behind this law, which is that sexual predators would exploit transgender nondiscrimination laws in order to enact assaults. Data compiled by Media Matters for America shows that states with laws preventing discrimination against trans people have no evidence of a rise in sexual assaults.

    [...]

    In his statement, Springsteen notes that fans can get their tickets refunded for Sunday’s concert. You can read the full statement here:

    As you, my fans, know I’m scheduled to play in Greensboro, North Carolina this Sunday. As we also know, North Carolina has just passed HB2, which the media are referring to as the “bathroom” law. HB2 — known officially as the Public Facilities Privacy and Security Act — dictates which bathrooms transgender people are permitted to use. Just as important, the law also attacks the rights of LGBT citizens to sue when their human rights are violated in the workplace. No other group of North Carolinians faces such a burden. To my mind, it’s an attempt by people who cannot stand the progress our country has made in recognizing the human rights of all of our citizens to overturn that progress. Right now, there are many groups, businesses, and individuals in North Carolina working to oppose and overcome these negative developments. Taking all of this into account, I feel that this is a time for me and the band to show solidarity for those freedom fighters. As a result, and with deepest apologies to our dedicated fans in Greensboro, we have canceled our show scheduled for Sunday, April 10th. Some things are more important than a rock show and this fight against prejudice and bigotry — which is happening as I write — is one of them. It is the strongest means I have for raising my voice in opposition to those who continue to push us backwards instead of forwards.

    Bruce Springsteen and the E Street Band’s Sunday April 10th show is canceled. Tickets will be refunded at point of purchase.

  • NPR Highlights Public Citizen’s New Analysis On Lack Of Campaign Finance Questions In Presidential Debates

    Blog ››› ››› MEDIA MATTERS STAFF

    NPR’s Peter Overby highlighted new analysis from Public Citizen pointing out that presidential candidates on both sides of the aisle “have raised a combined total of around $1 billion,” but that out of 1,000 debate questions and 21 debates so far in this campaign, only 15 questions related to political money have been asked and none addressed “candidates' views of the system or ways they would change it.”

    Despite polls showing Americans overwhelmingly disapprove of the post-Citizens United campaign finance landscape, most news outlets still provide little coverage of the current impact of money in politics and possibilities for campaign finance reform. A lack of questions on campaign finance reflect a larger trend of debate moderators not asking about substantive issues or policies, such as the impact of -- or plans to combat -- climate change.

    In an April 8 article, Overby quotes Public Citizen’s Congress Watch director Lisa Gilbert saying, “There's a disconnect between voters and the media, who are not paying attention to something that's front-and-center for most Americans as never before. They're unwilling to press the candidates on solutions":

    The politicians who would be president have a lot to say about money, at least when they're soliciting it.

    They and their sidekick superPACs have raised a combined total of around $1 billion, according to NPR calculations from data compiled by the nonpartisan Center for Responsive Politics.

    But when it's time for a TV debate, the candidates aren't so eager to expound on their fundraising, the big donors they court for superPACs, or the legal rulings that give the wealthy more avenues for giving.

    A new analysis by the liberal advocacy group Public Citizen finds that Bernie Sanders, Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump accounted for 92 percent of all commentary about political money and special interests in the 21 presidential primary debates through March 24.

    The analysis, called The Elephant in the Room, also found that Sanders, Clinton and Trump were also the only candidates to talk about repairing a campaign finance system that has unexpectedly become a flashpoint for voter anger in this election cycle.

    [...]

    Public Citizen criticizes the debate questioners. In the 21 debates, they asked about political money in 15 of more than 1,000 questions. The analysis found no questions on candidates' views of the system or ways they would change it.

    Lisa Gilbert, director of Public Citizen's Congress Watch, said she was surprised that the candidates and questioners made only 13 mentions of Citizens United, the 2010 Supreme Court ruling that has come to represent the surge in big-dollar politics.

    "There's a disconnect between voters and the media, who are not paying attention to something that's front-and-center for most Americans as never before," she said. "They're unwilling to press the candidates on solutions."

  • NRA Fakes CDC Statistic To Attack Cosmopolitan For Calling Attention To Women And Gun Violence

    Blog ››› ››› TIMOTHY JOHNSON

    A commentary video from the National Rifle Association (NRA) falsely claimed that the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) found there were up to 3.3 million defensive gun uses each year in the United States. But the CDC has never released a study with that conclusion. 

    Moreover, the CDC is actually prevented from researching gun violence due to decades of NRA lobbying efforts.

    In an April 7 video, NRA News commentator Dana Loesch, who is also a radio host for Glenn Beck’s The Blaze network, criticized Cosmopolitan for running recent features on women and gun violence, claiming the magazine is “sexist” and believes “women are less valuable than their potential rapists, and its rapists' feelings which we should prioritize rather than women’s safety.”

    To support this claim, Loesch fabricated a statistic, stating a “CDC report commissioned by Barack Obama … shows that there are anywhere from 500,000 to 3.3 million instances of defensive gun use annually” and that the “CDC said that concealed carry is ‘a great deterrent to crime.’”

    Loesch is likely referring to a 2013 Institute of Medicine and National Research Council (NRC) report requested by Obama in order to provide the CDC a possible research agenda should the agency be allowed to research gun violence.

    One of the contributors to the report was criminologist Gary Kleck and included in the report is his repeatedly discredited research that claims that there are between 500,000 and 3 million defensive gun uses each year. The citation of Kleck's research in an NRC report is not indicative of the CDC’s conclusions about defensive gun uses, as Loesch falsely claimed.

    The consensus view among gun violence researchers is that guns are used far more often to commit crimes than they are used to prevent crimes. Research has also found that defensive gun uses are so rare they are difficult to measure.

    The NRA’s claim that the “CDC said that concealed carry is ‘a great deterrent to crime’” is also fabricated. Loesch may have been referring to more Kleck research in the NRC report which found “self-defense can be an important crime deterrent,” although the words quoted by Loesch do not even appear in the NRC report.

    Loesch previously included fake historical Second Amendment quotes in her 2014 book about firearms, Hands Off My Gun: Defeating the Plot to Disarm America.

  • Longtime Roger Stone Ally Paul Manafort Gets Larger Role In Trump’s Campaign

    Blog ››› ››› ERIC HANANOKI

    Donald Trump has elevated strategist Paul Manafort within his presidential campaign. The increased role is a win for Roger Stone, a dirty trickster who reportedly recommended Manafort to Trump and has been Manafort’s longtime friend and former business partner.

    Stone has long been a friend and adviser to Trump, and he now heads a pro-Trump super PAC. He formed the anti-Hillary Clinton group C.U.N.T. in 2008 and has spent much of the 2016 cycle pushing smears about the Clintons. He has a history of lobbing racist and sexist attacks against media figures, and was recently banned by CNN and MSNBC. Stone has been under fire this week for his stated plan to "disclose the hotels and the room numbers of those delegates who are directly involved in" allegedly stealing the nomination from Trump at the Republican convention.

    The New York Times reported on April 7 that Trump is “reboot[ing]” his campaign by giving a “stepped-up role” to Manafort. Media outlets have reported that campaign manager Corey Lewandowski sees Manafort as a “threat” to his power. Stone, who left the Trump campaign last year after reportedly clashing with Lewandowski, has criticized Trump’s campaign manager in the media.

    Manafort and Stone co-founded the lobbying and consulting firm Black, Manafort, Stone and Kelly (BMS&K). The Washington Post noted that BMS&K “garnered considerable scrutiny for their tactics and clients”:

    Manafort is the co-founder of two lobby and consulting firms, Black, Manafort, Stone and Kelly (BMS&K) and, later, Davis Manafort. Even in the lobbying industry, where the buying and selling of influence can blur ethical lines, both businesses garnered considerable scrutiny for their tactics and clients.

    BMS&K, founded in 1980, was investigated by a congressional panel in 1989 for its role in obtaining millions of dollars in federal grants from the Department of Housing and Urban Development to rehabilitate a low-income housing complex in New Jersey.

    In exchange, Manafort and his partners received consulting fees from developers. During the investigation, Manafort acknowledged that the work he performed in return for consulting fees could be termed “influence peddling,” The Post reported in 1991. The firm was sold to public relations giant Burson-Marsteller in 1991 for an undisclosed price.

    BMS&K also appears to be the early link that connected Manafort and Trump decades ago. The firm lobbied on behalf of the Trump Organization on gaming, taxes and other issues related to Trump’s hotels, at both the federal and state levels in New York and Florida, said lobbyist and GOP strategist Charlie Black, Manafort’s former business partner.

    Stone has frequently talked up Manafort’s credentials in media appearances.  

    “[Manafort is] the single best vote counter and convention strategist in the Republican Party,” Stone said during a March 29 appearance on Fox Business.

    “My partner Paul Manafort, partner of 15 years, a friend of mine of almost 50 years, someone I’ve known since childhood, is without any question the single best convention organizer and strategist in the country,” Stone said on an April 6 appearance on The Alex Jones Show. “Whether the Trump campaign gives him the authority and the resources he needs to score a win for Donald Trump remains to be seen.”

    After news of Manafort’s increased role broke, Stone tweeted an old picture of himself with Manafort and wrote, “I have every confidence @realDonaldTrump will be nominated with the experienced leadership of Paul Manafort.”

  • "Entitlement Nation Run Amok”: Fox’s Andrew Napolitano Peddles Lies About The Minimum Wage

    Blog ››› ››› ALEX MORASH & CRAIG HARRINGTON

    Fox News’ misinformation campaign against the minimum wage has shifted into high gear following the passage of statewide increases in California and New York. The network is now hyping worries from senior judicial analyst Andrew Napolitano that a $15 minimum wage is a subversive attempt to “bribe the poor for votes,” which will result in dramatic price increases and job losses while driving more low-wage workers onto public assistance programs.

    In an April 6 op-ed published by the right-wing Washington Times, Napolitano suggested that politicians are raising the minimum wage to $15 per hour “to win the votes of those they promised to help” while claiming that increased wages would have drastic negative economic consequences. On the April 7 edition of Fox News’ Fox & Friends, Napolitano claimed that raising the minimum wage would result in price increases that put necessities beyond the reach of low-wage workers, destroy jobs, and expand reliance on public assistance. Later that morning, Napolitano appeared on Fox Business’ Varney & Co. and claimed that “poor people will lose their jobs because they simply are not worth” a $15 wage. From Fox & Friends:

    CLAIM: Minimum Wage Increases Will Result In Job Losses, Price Inflation

    Counter to Napolitano’s claim that raising the minimum wage would lead to dramatic price increases, researchers at Purdue University concluded in a July 2015 report that increasing the minimum wage of fast-food workers to $15 per hour would result in only a 4.3 percent increase in restaurant prices. According to The Economist’s Big Mac Index, a 4.3 percent increase in the cost of a Big Mac in the United States would be roughly 22 cents. Researchers at Cornell University found that raising the regular and tipped minimum wages for workers in the restaurant and hospitality industries has "not had large or reliable effects" on the number of people working in the industry and price increases have not been large enough to “dramatically affect overall demand." Right-wing media have a long history of claiming that minimum wages destroy jobs and inflate prices, but the overwhelming majority of economic research shows no such relationship.

    CLAIM: Minimum Wage Work Isn’t Worth $15 Per Hour

    Napolitano’s poor-shaming stance on the supposedly lesser value of low-skilled and low-income workers mirrors similar comments from Fox Business host Charles Payne, who on multiple occasions has slammed minimum wage increases as rewarding and encouraging "mediocrity." In fact, according to ThinkProgress, a $15-per-hour minimum wage would not even be a living wage in many states, including California or New York -- workers today already need to make closer to $22 per hour. Furthermore, according to a report from the Center for Economic and Policy Research (CEPR), minimum wage workers have been undervalued for decades; if the federal minimum wage had kept up with increasing worker productivity since the 1970s, it would have reached $21.72 per hour by 2012.

    CLAIM: Minimum Wage Increases Will Expand Dependence On Welfare

    Napolitano falsely claimed that increasing the minimum wage would drive more low-income Americans into poverty by destroying opportunities for employment, and that it would result in an increased reliance on public assistance programs. On the contrary, according to research by the Center for American Progress (CAP) on an abandoned 2014 proposal to raise the federal minimum wage from $7.25 to $10.10 per hour by July 2016, the wage increase could have decreased reliance on the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), also known as “food stamps,” by $4.6 billion annually. In February 2014, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimated that a $10.10 federal minimum wage would lift 900,000 Americans out of poverty while injecting billions of dollars into the consumer economy. A December 2013 study from the Economic Policy Institute (EPI) similarly found that the modest wage increase would have directly or indirectly lifted wages for nearly 30 million American workers. Conservative media personalities like Napolitano frequently bemoan the supposed ill effects of raising the minimum wage, completely ignoring the heavy public cost that historically low minimum wages across the country already carry. An October 2013 report by the University of California, Berkeley Labor Center found that low wages in the fast-food industry alone cost taxpayers $7 billion annually by increasing the strain on public assistance.

    CLAIM: Minimum Wage Increases Are A Means of “Buying Votes”

    Napolitano’s claim that minimum wage increases are a political tool meant to curry favor and “bribe the poor for votes” is a common right-wing media theme. Fox News personalities, often led by Fox Business host Stuart Varney, frequently claim that Democrats support policies aimed at alleviating poverty only as a means of “buying votes.” For years, Fox has claimed that the Lifeline program -- a Reagan-era telecommunications subsidy for low-income families -- was a Democratic plot to “bribe” and “enslave” American voters. In fact, tens of millions of Americans across the political spectrum rely on these vital programs, and Republican politicians are actually more likely than their Democratic counterparts to represent constituents who use food stamps -- a program that low-income families would be less reliant on if minimum wages were increased.

  • Rush Limbaugh's GOP Primary Season From Hell

    Blog ››› ››› ERIC BOEHLERT

    "It's almost like you're going so far out of your way and almost doing back flips and cartwheels to defend Trump. It's just a turn-off at this point." [Caller to Rush Limbaugh, March 31]

    Conservative media's "Trumpkins"-fueled civil war has spared few victims. Just ask Rush Limbaugh, who continues to take on fire as he stumbles his way through the right-wing media's divisive Primary Season from Hell.

    Routinely condemned for not calling out what Republican critics see as Donald Trump's brand of faux conservatism, Limbaugh continues to fish around for a middle ground. The host seems anxious to defend Trump from attacks, but also wary of offending his legion of listeners, who see the front-runner as a fraud, and see Limbaugh as a hypocrite for playing nice with him.

    Torn between the allure of what's popular (Trump) and abandoning everything Limbaugh's said about how he defines conservatism over the last 30 years, Limbaugh now often finds himself in no-man's land.  

    "Every day of Rush's show now feels like an exercise in strained, compulsory quasi-neutrality, which amounts in practice to him defending nearly everything Trump says and does but mixing in some praise for Cruz here and there just to make sure he's got his footing on the tightrope," wrote the Hot Air blogger known as Allahpundit.

    In other words, Limbaugh's playing defense, a mode that most talk radio hosts despise. 

    Have there been previous primary squabbles, and has Limbaugh been at odds with his famously like-minded listeners in the past? Of course. But as a rule, the conservative media world over the years hasn't been known as the home of freewheeling and raucous partisan debate within the GOP, pitting Republicans against Republicans. Instead, it's been known to be an amazingly disciplined echo chamber that directs its fire outward toward Enemy No. 1: Democrats.

    The current primary battle is the most bitter in recent memory. It's also threatening to implode the Republican Party -- and to a degree, the entire conservative movement as we know it -- as Trump angles to secure the party's nomination while breaking free from core beliefs that have been considered sacrosanct for generations by Limbaugh's listeners.

    The host, meanwhile, has become a piñata, as conservatives line up to take whacks at him in a way we've never really seen before.

    In a scathing critique of Limbaugh's support of Trump, The Wall Street Journal's Bret Stephens lamented that conservatives "used to have the good sense to dismiss" unserious candidates like Trump "as eccentrics, lowlifes or clowns."

    Michael Gerson, former speechwriter for President George W. Bush, complained, "Through a long series of controversies, Limbaugh has excused Trump's narcissism and bluster as an endearing 'schtick.'"

    Then he lowered the boom: "Populist anti-intellectualism, on the rise at least since Sarah Palin, has culminated in Trump. It is the passing of conservatism, even if Limbaugh baptizes the dead."

    At The Daily Caller, Matt Lewis nicked Limbaugh for "abdicating" his "responsibility" and not having the "intellectual honesty and moral courage" of local Wisconsin talk show hosts who stood up to Trump. Lewis blamed Limbaugh and other nationally syndicated hosts for feeding the Trump beast last year to the point where he now may be unstoppable.

    "Limbaugh is a mind-numbing, frustrating hypocrite," wrote longtime listener Travis Hale at The Hill. "His tacit endorsement of Trump, now occurring daily during his show, is almost impossible to understand."

    You don't get the sense that these brushback pitches are coming from Ted Cruz diehards who are furious with Limbaugh's partisan refereeing. Some of the missives are coming from people who are puzzled that someone they looked up to for so many years "to be our voice of conservative reason" is revealing himself to be a weather vane this primary season, pointing whichever way the (Trump) wind blows.

    That includes some of Limbaugh's Dittohead listeners, who are chewing him out, too. "I believe that most of the time you stimulate my intelligence, but today I feel like you're insulting my intelligence -- and that of many other people," a caller recently lamented to Limbaugh.

    In response, Limbaugh is alternately defending himself and periodically bowing out of the Republican free-for-all.

    Retaliating against conservative commentators who have branded the talker a "sellout," Limbaugh returned fire last month with his own accusations of hypocrisy: "They turn to me as a source of blame for the fact that Trump hasn't been taken out, despite the fact that they've tried. But I don't see where they've endorsed other people. I don't see where they have actually engaged in the behavior they demand that I engage in."

    When controversy erupted after Trump's campaign manager was charged with simple battery after grabbing the arm of a reporter, and after Limbaugh was seen as defending the Trump campaign, the host announced that the topic was suddenly off-limits. "I have determined here that because tensions are so tight, everybody is wound up to such a feverish pitch here, that no matter what I say it is misunderstood and is not helpful," he announced.

    Lamenting the state of the GOP primary season, Limbaugh conceded the arm-grabbing incident might not be the only one where he'd have to "muzzle" himself: "Because it's apparently impossible to be correctly, properly, understood."

    For someone whose entire career has been based on lies and misinformation, there's something wonderfully fitting about Rush Limbaugh silencing himself because his fans and conservative media just aren't listening properly and he just can't be understood.

  • Wash. Post Reporter: "It's Pretty Remarkable" That Cable News Channels Have Shunned Trump Ally Roger Stone

    Blog ››› ››› MEDIA MATTERS STAFF

    A Washington Post reporter said it's "remarkable" that Trump ally Roger Stone has been "blacklisted" from two major cable news channels over his history of sexist and racially offensive comments. 

    Roger Stone -- a notorious "dirty trickster" -- has a terrible track record of violent, sexist remarks against the Clintons, racist tweets, and dedicating a book he co-wrote to a Holocaust denier. In February, CNN banned Stone from appearing as a guest, following his series of incendiary tweets against the network's personalities. MSNBC has also banned Stone from their network, something Stone blamed Media Matters for. 

    In an April 7 blog post for the Washington Post's The Fix, Callum Borchers wrote, "it's pretty remarkable" that Stone, a vocal Trump ally with a "regular television presence," has been banned from major cable news networks. Borchers noted that Stone still appears as a guest on Fox News:

    With many big-name conservative commentators vigorously opposed to -- or, at least, highly skeptical of -- Donald Trump, cable news channels have looked to the end of the bench for articulate, telegenic supporters of the Republican presidential front-runner.

    [...]

    A good Trump surrogate -- or at least one who won't send a TV segment careening off the rails -- can be hard to find. Media outlets aren't really in a position to scratch names off an already-short list.

    So it's pretty remarkable that two of the three major cable news channels have blacklisted Roger Stone, the veteran Republican strategist who is one of Trump's most vocal allies and who had been a regular television presence.

    CNN banned Stone in February, after he tweeted sexist, racist comments about two of the network's on-air personalities. On Monday, MSNBC edited out a Stone interview that was part of that day's episode of "With All Due Respect," a weekday program that airs earlier on Bloomberg TV. The Stone interview was included in Bloomberg's broadcast but cut from MSNBC's. The liberal press watchdog group Media Matters was first to flag the edit.

    An MSNBC spokesman said in an email to The Fix that "Roger Stone will not be a guest on MSNBC because of his now very well-known offensive comments."

    Fox News Channel has not banned Stone, according to a spokeswoman; he was a guest on "Mornings with Maria" on Fox Business Network on Monday. The Washington Post also does not have a policy against quoting Stone.

    [...]

    Now two cable news channels have decided to run him off their air. The search for Trump backers who are suitable for television continues.   

  • The Fox Primary For March: Trump Widens His Airtime Lead

    Blog ››› ››› ROB SAVILLO

    As the Republican presidential field shrunk to three candidates in March, front-runner Donald Trump again led his competitors in interview airtime on Fox News. Fox News hosted the businessman for 6 hours and 15 minutes, compared to Texas Sen. Ted Cruz's 5 hours and 18 minutes and Ohio Gov. John Kasich's 3 hours and 44 minutes.

    Florida Sen. Marco Rubio and former neurosurgeon Ben Carson both ended their campaigns in March -- their airtime totals from before they dropped out are listed, but they will not be included in future editions.

    Trump's lead in Fox interview time comes amid ongoing tension between him and the conservative network. Mid-month, Trump declined to participate in a Fox News-hosted debate, leading Kasich to drop out as well. Fox canceled the event in response.

    Overall, Trump's numbers on Fox News since Media Matters began tracking interview time last May have remained well above those of all the other Republican candidates. Since May, he has logged 41 hours and 12 minutes on the network, more than double Cruz's 19 hours and 26 minutes and nearly triple Kasich's 13 hours and 57 minutes.

    Hannity was again the Fox show that devoted the most time to the Republican candidates, with 5 hours and 38 minutes total in March. The Kelly File followed in a distant second with 2 hours and 49 minutes, and Fox & Friends' weekday edition was third with 2 hours and 16 minutes.

    Since last May, Hannity has amassed 43 hours and 44 minutes of interview time for all of the Republican candidates past and present in this election cycle. The Kelly File and Fox & Friends' weekday edition followed far behind with just over 20 hours each.

    The Numbers

    Most Total Airtime In March: Donald Trump (6 hours and 15 minutes)

    Most Total Appearances In March: Donald Trump (28 appearances)

    Fox Show With The Most Total Candidate Airtime In March: Hannity (5 hours and 38 minutes)

    Fox Show With The Most Candidate Appearances In March: Hannity (17 appearances)

    Softball Question Of The Month: On the March 29 edition of Hannity, host Sean Hannity questioned Trump about an altercation between his campaign manager, Corey Lewandowski, and conservative journalist Michelle Fields -- for which Lewandowski had just been charged with simple battery -- by first telling viewers that he didn't agree with Fields' description of the incident:

    HANNITY: All right, let me ask one other question that made a lot of news today. And in full disclosure, I'm friendly with both parties here. I know your campaign manager, Corey Lewandowski, very well. I know Michelle Fields. She's been a guest on this program a lot over the years.

    And I got to be honest, I looked at this tape at least 100 times today to try and see -- and I have her original statement here that she was, quote, "jolted backwards and somebody grabbed me tightly by the arm, yanked me down. I almost fell to the ground."

    Now, I'm showing the tape. I don't see that. I've -- I've looked at it 100 times. 

    Most Total Airtime Since May 1, 2015: Donald Trump (41 hours and 12 minutes)

    Most Total Appearances Since May 1, 2015: Donald Trump (216 appearances)

    Fox Show With The Most Total Candidate Airtime Since May 1, 2015: Hannity (43 hours and 44 minutes)

    Fox Show With The Most Candidate Appearances Since May 1, 2015: Hannity (252 appearances)

    Previous Fox Primary Reports

    May 2015

    June 2015

    July 2015

    August 2015

    September 2015

    October 2015

    November 2015

    2015 Overview

    January 2016

    February 2016

    Methodology

    For this study, we used FoxNews.com's "2016 Presidential Candidate Watch List." Jim Gilmore's inclusion in the study began after his formal announcement on July 30. The following candidates' data collection stopped when they each ended their respective campaigns: Rick Perry (September 11), Scott Walker (September 22), Bobby Jindal (November 17), Lindsey Graham (December 21), George Pataki (December 29), Mike Huckabee (February 1), Rand Paul (February 3), Rick Santorum (February 3), Chris Christie (February 10), Carly Fiorina (February 10), Jim Gilmore (February 12), Jeb Bush (February 20), Ben Carson (March 4), and Marco Rubio (March 15). These candidates will not be included in future reports.

    Media Matters searched the Nexis database and our internal video archive for all guest appearances on Fox News Channel between 6 a.m. and 11 p.m. and Fox News Sunday for the five presidential candidates current for March: Ben Carson, Ted Cruz, John Kasich, Marco Rubio, and Donald Trump.

    This study includes all original appearances between May 1, 2015, and March 31, 2016. Repeat appearances were counted if they aired on a new day. Appearances during early morning post-debate specials were counted.

    Charts by Oliver Willis. Additional research by Media Matters' research staff.

  • The Staggering Numbers Behind The Media's Trump Obsession

    Blog ››› ››› ERIC BOEHLERT

    2-to-1. 5-to-1. 10-to-1.

    Those are some of the lopsided ratios that appear when you start examining just how imbalanced the campaign coverage has been in favor of Donald Trump this election cycle. And it's not just that front-runner Trump is getting way more media time and attention than front-runner Hillary Clinton. It's that Trump's getting way more than Clinton and Bernie Sanders.

    During March, the network evening newscasts on ABC, CBS and NBC devoted a jaw-dropping 143 minutes to the Trump campaign, compared to just 26 minutes to the Clinton and Sanders runs, according to an analysis compiled by Andrew Tyndall, who's been monitoring the evening newscasts for years. Specifically, on NBC Nightly News, 51 minutes were set aside for Trump last month, but just six minutes for Clinton and Sanders. (Two minutes for Clinton, four for Sanders.) 

    Meanwhile, in the last 30 days, CNN has mentioned Trump approximately 25,000 times according to the GDELT Project using data from the Internet Archive's Television News Archive. Clinton and Sanders? A relatively paltry 13,000 CNN mentions in comparison.

    In terms of free media, Trump's wall-to-wall coverage has earned him $1.9 billion worth of free media in nine months of campaign, according to the New York Times' analysis, compared to $746 million for Clinton and $321 million for Sanders.

    And during a one-week survey of online news campaign coverage overseen by University of Southern California researcher Ev Boyle, nearly 70 percent of the Washington Post homepage mentions of presidential candidates were for Trump, while the remaining five candidates -- Republican and Democrat -- accounted for just 30 percent of the mentions.

    "Trump's name appeared on the homepage 112 times across these 7 days, while Hillary Clinton's name only appeared 13 times," Boyle noted. "That's almost 10 times more mentions of Trump than any other single candidate."

    There's been lots of debate about whether the press "created" Trump's front-runner status via its obsessive (and often subservient) coverage, or if voters themselves are solely responsible for his campaign success. But it's also important to focus on the sheer tonnage of the Trump coverage and the wild inequity on display. (Even Fox News marvels at the "clear imbalance.")

    Overeager to portray Trump as a political phenomenon, the press has gorged on his campaign while often losing sight of the fact that perhaps the only true phenomenon has been just how much time and attention the press has decided to give to the Republican. (That, and how Trump has completely "bent television to his will.")

    The staggering imbalance comes in the face of new polling that shows Americans by a huge, bipartisan margin think Trump's getting way too much press attention.

    The disparity is also leading to tensions between supporters and the press. Over the weekend, hundreds of Sanders supporters protested outside CNN's Los Angeles studios, demanding the candidate get more airtime. "Stop showing Trump so much," one protester urged. "Stick to the issues."

    Keep in mind this endless buffet of Trump coverage comes at a time when the Republican campaign itself has essentially declared war on the media. When not allegedly assaulting the press, Trump's team is herding them into pens while the candidate hurls endless insults their way. 

    We're witnessing two extraordinary occurrences play out simultaneously: Nobody has ever treated the White House campaign press as badly as Trump, and nobody has ever been rewarded with more coverage than Trump.

    So here's the simple question that won't go away: Why is the Republican front-runner often deemed to be four or five times more newsworthy than the Democratic front-runner? And why is the Republican front-runner constantly getting way more news coverage than both Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders, combined? 

    Statistics like the ones cited above badly undercut a favorite journalist defense that Trump's massive amount of free media simply reflects his front-runner status. Note CNN chief Jeff Zucker has brushed off claims that the channel's Trump coverage has been badly out of whack. "The front-runner of the party is always going to get a disproportionate amount of attention," he said. (There's too much "handwringing" about Trump coverage, Zucker reportedly told CNN employees.)

    But again, why does the likely Republican nominee land almost twice as many mentions on CNN as Clinton and Sanders combined? Especially when current polling indicates Clinton and Sanders have a much better chance of becoming president.  

    The answer clearly seems to revolve around the short-term profits Trump helps generate. "I go on one of these shows and the ratings double, they triple," Trump recently told Time. "And that gives you power. It's not the polls. It's the ratings."

    But newsroom executives seem reluctant to acknowledge that fact.  

    "I think that taking candidate rallies unedited is actually a valuable service," CNN Washington Bureau Chief Sam Feist recently explained, when pressed about the Trump tsunami. "I think that taking those rallies live, unedited, without commentary is useful," he added

    In theory, that's great. If CNN wants to turn itself into C-SPAN during the campaign season and just televise rally after candidate rally in their entirety, more power to them. But have you seen lots and lots of Clinton and Sanders rallies aired uninterrupted? (Veteran journalist Jeff Greenfield compared the regular airing of "unvetted" Trump events to state-run television under Fidel Castro.)

    Meanwhile, the numbers are still hard to make sense of. As mentioned, Trump received 143 minutes of network evening news time during the month of March. By comparison, Obama's reelection campaign garnered 157 minutes of evening network news time during all of 2012.

    Seen another way, Trump in just three months this year has received more than 250 minutes of network evening news time, which far surpasses all of Obama's 2012 re-election coverage.

    And there's still seven months left until November.

1 - 10 / 21150