Fox's John Bolton Tells CPAC: "Let's Not Ever Forget Benghazi"

From CSPAN's February 27 coverage of the 2015 Conservative Political Action Conference:Previously: REPORT: Fox's Benghazi Obsession By The Numbers Fox's Bolton: To Investigate Benghazi, "Use Rendition" To Put Suspects In Guantanamo Bay And "Try A Little Gentle Persuasion" The John Bolton Acknowledgment That Should End The Benghazi Scandal Mongering

Posted by on 27 February 2015 | 10:36 am

USA Today : Fox News Should "Distance Itself" From O'Reilly But It Won't

USA Today's editorial board is calling on Fox News to "distance itself" from the network's "truth-challenged" Bill O'Reilly in the wake of revelations that the Fox host has repeatedly lied about some of his experiences as a reporter. Bill O'Reilly's record has come under scrutiny after Mother Jones and Media Matters exposed a series of lies and exaggerations about his reporting during the Falklands War and the even one in five Democrats think the news media are too liberal. That was never the networks' goal. Their news divisions are built on a commitment to impartiality. But good intentions don't guarantee success, and Fox has turned perception of liberal bias into a profitable reality. As a business matter, Fox doesn't need to compete on credibility. Many of its viewers long ago decided the rest of the news media have none. That's why, absent any earth-shattering revelations, O'Reilly isn't going anywhere. Every time media critics hit Fox and O'Reilly, it just feeds the feeling that the left is out to get them, which in turn feeds Fox's success.

Posted by on 27 February 2015 | 10:25 am

PA Radio Host Compares Obama Supporters To "People Who Ignored The Train Cars" In Nazi Germany

From the February 26 edition of iHeartMedia's The Ken Matthews Show: Transcript: KEN MATTHEWS (Host): This is now the comparison I'm going to start using for people that still go to Obama rallies. Not in the beginning, because I know in the beginning the kool-aid was sweet. Oh it was so sweet, it went down so nice. Now we're in 2015 and guns are being banned and the ammo market was messed with effectively and our health care has been taken over and now our internet has been taken over. And I know you're thinking, "No, no, no, Ken you just don't understand, you see, I understand because I sense that." No you don't understand either because no ones read it yet. So now its official and you still haven't read it. And if you trust the government then you have more work to do intellectually than I thought. If you really in your gut believe it, "We're from the government, we're here to help." If you believe that, there is very little I can do to sway you if that's your belief. If you really believe that, after Solyndra, after Obamacare, after Benghazi, after the IRS targeting, after illegal immigration, after Fast and Furious, after Brian Williams, after Chris Matthews, after Al Sharpton, after the head of the VA, if you really believe the government is here to help, wow you are far gone.  You know what you are? If you believe that, you are one of those people that stood -- you were in the farm country or the fields of Germany and train cars of human beings would go by, because that's how Germany did it. Now they don't really teach this that much in schools because if you were to let young people know what men are capable of, what man, what we are as a race, what we are capable of, I think some of them would be scared and they wouldn't accept a lot of the crap that is peddled out of the Obama administration. Now I'm going to connect these two and I know you're -- and if you're really wacky your saying, "Oh my gosh hes doing it again, hes comparing Barack Obama to Hitler." Not at all. What I'm comparing is, I'm comparing people in 2015 who nod in agreement and believe the government are as if worse, from a gullibility standpoint, than the people who ignored the train cars. There were people that saw those train cars. You cannot have giant factories where you're killing humans and making lampshades out of them and collecting their bones as trophies by the millions and nobody knows it. And the people that got the feeling about it and the people that saw the train cars and said, "You know, I know it sounds weird but I think there are humans in those cars" they said in German, which I cannot speak. And there was always plenty of people to say, "What are you crazy? Hey, Heimlich over here is a nut! He says that they're killing a bunch of people. You better shut up Heimlich or I'm going to report you."  So there were two groups. There were groups that said, "Go Hitler, you're the man." And then there were the group that said, "I'm not messing with Hitler, he's the man. I don't want to end up on that train." And then there were the people that said, "What the hell is this whacko doing?" So I guess the question you need to ask yourself as you're driving along now, getting angrier as your blood pressure rises: "Which group are you?" Wow, really upset people with the talk about the Jews and the trains. Now was that upsetting to people because you don't believe that the Germans put Jews in trains and killed them by the millions? Or was it upsetting to people that I implied that if we all sit around with our thumb in our butt, as my grandfather used to say, bad things happen? The government makes bad things happen.

Posted by on 27 February 2015 | 10:20 am

Fox News, Murdoch Papers Fall Silent On O'Reilly Fabrication Questions

Fox News and owner Rupert Murdoch's newspapers The New York Post, and The Wall Street Journal have all fallen silent as more questions emerge about Bill O'Reilly's claims about his reporting career.  The New York Post has never reported on any of the recent revelations that O'Reilly has inflated tales of his journalism career, while the Wall Street Journal provided just one article right as the controversy began, and Fox News' scant coverage has disappeared as they now ignore all new developments, according to a Media Matters review. O'Reilly has come under heavy criticism for multiple lies and exaggerations, after a Mother Jones report first noted the Fox host has a history of misleadingly claiming to have been "in the Falklands" and in "combat" during the Falklands War. Media Matters has also identified serious discrepancies in O'Reilly's stories about witnessing nuns being shot in El Salvador, and overhearing the suicide of a figure linked to President John F. Kennedy's assassination. When the original Mother Jones piece broke, Murdoch's Fox News went to war with the magazine. O'Reilly immediately gave a series of interviews to other news outlets, denying the allegations by saying he had never said he was on the Falkland Islands themselves, and launching personal attacks. On Fox News itself, O'Reilly first lashed out at critics during his February 20 show and dismissed the Mother Jones report as "garbage," and later used his February 24 show to try to shift the focus away from the scrutiny. Fox's MediaBuzz also covered the story, giving O'Reilly another platform to attack his critics. No other Fox News program covered the story, according to a search of the Nexis and Snaptream databases.  The Wall Street Journal, which is also owned by Murdoch, similarly reported on O'Reilly's initial denials. When Media Matters further reported on February 25 that O'Reilly had fabricated the claim that he personally "saw nuns get shot in the back of the head" in El Salvador, O'Reilly also offered a statement to Mediaite claiming that when he said "I was in El Salvador and I saw nuns get shot in the back of the head" he was referring to seeing "horrendous images" of nuns murdered, not personally witnessing their deaths. He did not, however, mention the El Salvador controversy that night on his show, and Fox's PR department released a statement the same day suggesting they would not continue to respond to the "accusation du jour." Additionally, neither Fox nor O'Reilly have directly addressed Media Matters' report on the substantial evidence undermining O'Reilly's claim that he "heard" a shotgun blast when a figure linked to the assassination of President John F. Kennedy committed suicide. Outside of O'Reilly's own program, no Fox News show has even hinted at these developments, according to a search of the Nexis and Snaptream databases.  Similarly, other Rupert Murdoch-owned media properties have fallen silent or failed to mention the controversies entirely. Though the Wall Street Journal reported on February 20 on O'Reilly's initial denials of the Falklands story, the paper hasn't mentioned O'Reilly since. According to a search of the newspaper's website and Factiva, the paper has not reported any of the new developments. And The New York Post hasn't published any stories about O'Reilly this month, except for a brief mention in an Inside Edition anniversary special piece. The evidence of O'Reilly fabricating and exaggerating past experiences has sparked national news coverage in other non-Murdoch outlets, including CNN, MSNBC, Politico, The Washington Post, The Daily Beast, The Huffington Post, and more. Previously, Murdoch-owned properties have not shied away from reporting on O'Reilly controversies. For example, the New York Post published multiple reports in 2004 on the alleged $60 million dollar settlement over an O'Reilly a sexual harassment lawsuit filed by Andrea Makris, a former O'Reilly producer.

Posted by on 27 February 2015 | 10:15 am

Yes, O'Reilly's Fabrications Are Damaging Fox News

As questions continue to mount surrounding Bill O'Reilly's many embellisments about his reporting career, a parallel media debate has formed over the long-term consequences of the controversy, and specifically whether being tagged as a liar even matters to Fox News hosts. A common refrain goes like this: O'Reilly the entertainer isn't going to be fired by Fox News for his transgressions because it doesn't hold employees accountable. If O'Reilly's standing is secure and he's going to turn the allegations around and use them for political gain, do the confirmed fabrications even matter? And since Fox News relishes bare-knuckle fights, aren't Fox and O'Reilly the real winners? "The media controversy is one that plays to his and Fox News' inherent strengths," announced the Columbia Journalism Review.  Added the Daily Beast, "It doesn't matter what accusations are leveled at the veteran Fox News host, whatever the new evidence he will shout it down louder than ever." (i.e. This guy's bulletproof!) The avalanche of revelations began last week when Mother Jones detailed how O'Reilly had "recounted dramatic stories about his own war reporting that don't withstand scrutiny." This week, Media Matters documented two more O'Reilly fabrications. Copious evidence contradicts his previous claim over the years about hearing a shotgun blast that killed a figure in the investigation into President John F. Kennedy's assassination. And he lied about witnessing the execution of nuns while reporting on the civil war in El Salvador. Then yesterday, The Guardian reported six former O'Reilly colleagues from Inside Edition dispute accounts he has told over the years about his allegedly harrowing work covering the Los Angeles riots in 1992. But again, lots of the media chatter has focused on how O'Reilly viewers expect a conservative-friendly version of the news so they won't hold O'Reilly accountable, especially if he portrays the controversy as nothing more than a "left-wing smear campaign." In other words, the partisan battle lines were drawn long ago and nobody's opinion about Fox News is going to be swayed by the O'Reilly uproar. "The current flap seems unlikely to damage his reputation among his fans," reported The New York Times. "It could have the opposite effect." Frank Rich at New York agreed: "This all looks like a win-win for O'Reilly."  And Rich's colleague Gabriel Sherman wrote that the Mother Jones story had "backfired" because O'Reilly had used it to his advantage and "hit [it] out of the park." I'm not so sure.

Posted by on 27 February 2015 | 9:53 am

Laura Ingraham Hammers Jeb Bush In CPAC Speech While Rushing To Scott Walker's Defense

From CSPAN's February 27 coverage of the 2015 Conservative Political Action Conference:Related:  Scott Walker Says He Can Take On ISIS Because He Took On Labor Unions  Jeb Bush has a serious talk radio problem

Posted by on 27 February 2015 | 8:04 am

After FCC Passes Net Neutrality, Fox Attacks New Rules As Government Power Grab That Will Slow Down The Internet

A Fox News Special Report segment attacked new rules approved by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to ensure net neutrality, claiming the rules were done in secret and would slow down the Internet. But the FCC received millions of public comments in favor of net neutrality, and experts say the rules will ensure Internet fairness.Today, the FCC passed "net neutrality" rules, which allows the agency to regulate Internet service as a utility and prohibits "Internet service providers from granting faster access to companies that pay for the privilege."On the February 26 edition of Fox News' Special Report, host Bret Baier reported that "the FCC approved sweeping new rules that no member of the public has even seen." Correspondent Peter Doocy called the new regulations a government "power grab" that will result in consumers having slower Internet. In fact, the public overwhelmingly supports new net neutrality regulations. During the public comment period, the FCC received a record 3.7 million comments on the topic of net neutrality. According to a report by the Sunlight Foundation, fewer than one percent of the first 800,000 public comments were opposed to net neutrality enforcement. Furthermore, tech experts have called net neutrality the guiding principle that has made the Internet successful. Google's director of communications explained that the new net neutrality rules would promote competition and help the economy. And the National Bureau of Economic Research reported that "there is unlikely to be any negative impact from such regulation on [Internet Service Provider] investment." The Washington Post reported that new rules could make the Internet faster by "mak[ing] sure services such as Google Fiber can build new broadband pipes more easily."

Posted by on 26 February 2015 | 8:42 am

On Fox, Franklin Graham Claims Obama Admin "Has Been Infiltrated By Muslims"

From the February 26 edition of Fox News' The O'Reilly Factor:Previously: Fox's Ralph Peters: Obama Administration "Just [Doesn't] Care About Dead Christians"

Posted by on 26 February 2015 | 7:48 am

As O'Reilly Spins, New Sources Further Undermine His JFK Story

Fox News host Bill O'Reilly is furiously spinning amid mounting evidence that he has repeatedly lied about his professional history as a journalist.  On Wednesday, the Fox anchor put forth a laughable explanation to justify his claim to have seen nuns gunned down in El Salvador even as new evidence emerged casting doubt on his claim to have been at the scene when a friend of Lee Harvey Oswald committed suicide. After it was revealed that O'Reilly could not possibly have witnessed nuns being gunned down in El Salvador, as he has repeatedly claimed, O'Reilly argued that he only meant that he had seen pictures of nuns who were killed before he even arrived in the country in 1981. That disingenuous explanation follows the pattern O'Reilly set in response to earlier reporting, led by Mother Jones, that he had been in an active combat zone "in Argentina, in the Falklands." O'Reilly now claims he never meant to suggest that he was in the Falkland Islands during the war, only that he was in Argentina when a violent protest broke out. And tonight, The Guardian is reporting that O'Reilly's former Inside Edition colleagues "have disputed his account of surviving a bombardment of bricks and rocks while covering the 1992 riots in Los Angeles." As questions regarding Bill O'Reilly's credibility linger, more individuals have stepped forward casting doubt on his claim he was at the scene when a figure linked to President John F. Kennedy's assassination committed suicide. Significant evidence contradicts O'Reilly's repeated statements that in 1977 he personally "heard" the self-inflicted shotgun blast that killed Lee Harvey Oswald's friend, George de Mohrenschildt, Media Matters reported on February 24. Despite the heavy scrutiny of O'Reilly's claim, he has offered no evidence to confirm that he was outside the residence and "heard" the shot. By contrast, the detailed police report filed after de Mohrenschildt's suicide refutes the notion that O'Reilly could have been at the residence at the time of death. It states that three people around and inside the house didn't hear the gunshot and also didn't see any strangers around the residence. O'Reilly is not mentioned at any point in the report. A congressional investigator's memoir and tapes of his conversations with O'Reilly also undermine O'Reilly's claims. Byron Harris, who earlier this week told Media Matters he "guarantee[d]" that O'Reilly was not in Florida at the time of the suicide, now says he thinks O'Reilly was in Florida around that time, though Harris maintains his belief that O'Reilly was not at the scene when de Mohrenschildt committed suicide. His story shifted after talking with Bob Sirkin, an O'Reilly ally and freelance reporter who previously worked for Fox News. Sirkin described himself as one of the few people at WFAA who got along "very well" with O'Reilly, and said that he spoke to O'Reilly earlier this week when news of his JFK claim broke. Sirkin claims to have reported from Florida with O'Reilly at the time and says O'Reilly told him he had heard the gunshot that killed de Mohrenschildt. Sirkin confirmed he wrote a September 2012 blog comment claiming he visited Florida with O'Reilly prior to de Mohrenschildt's suicide. That entry makes no mention of O'Reilly hearing the gunshot or being present at the location of the suicide. And three new sources -- a WFAA colleague, a former Newsweek bureau chief, and a videographer who said he was O'Reilly's Florida cameraman -- also cast doubt on O'Reilly's story. In an interview with Media Matters on Wednesday, Doug Fox, who worked for WFAA from 1974 to 2003, cast further doubt on O'Reilly's claim to have been at the scene. "Sirkin and O'Reilly were both going to Florida to interview de Mohrenschildt," Fox said. "I think O'Reilly called and said the guy is dead before he could even get to him. He never mentioned to my knowledge hearing the gunshot that took de Mohrenschildt's life." Frank Eberling, an Emmy Award-winning filmmaker who has served as an adjunct professor in the Palm Beach State College Film Department, told Media Matters he had worked with O'Reilly and Sirkin when they reported from Florida around the time of de Mohrenschildt's death. Eberling said that while he is unsure, he thinks O'Reilly arrived in Florida the day after the suicide. Eberling also said that he does not remember O'Reilly telling him that he had overheard the death. "If he had told me, that is something I would have remembered," he said. Sirkin told Media Matters he didn't recognize Eberling's name, but acknowledged he wasn't sure who their freelance cameraman was in Florida. Even Sirkin, who told Media Matters he was "not really interested" in going on O'Reilly's show to corroborate his claim, acknowledged that he cannot confirm O'Reilly's whereabouts at the time of de Mohrenschildt's suicide, noting that he was not with O'Reilly at the time. Hugh Aynesworth, a former bureau chief for Newsweek and the Washington Times, strongly refuted O'Reilly's JFK claim. The Dallas Observer reported on February 26 that the de Mohrenschildt suicide scoop came from the Dallas newspaper "where Aynesworth was working. It was his story, he says. He did go to Palm Beach, and he says now there was nobody around the news scene that day named Bill O'Reilly." Aynesworth, a "JFK assassination expert," says he was on the scene "within hours" of the suicide, adding, "I didn't see him [O'Reilly] there. I was at the police department or that house for hours, and he just was not there."

Posted by on 26 February 2015 | 7:02 am

The Guardian : Six Former Colleagues Dispute O'Reilly's Claim He Was "Attacked By Protesters" During The L.A. Riots

The Guardian reports that six of Bill O'Reilly's former colleagues dispute the embattled Fox News host's claim that he and his crew were "attacked by protesters" during the 1992 Los Angeles riots. O'Reilly covered the riots, which took place after several LAPD officers were acquitted on charges they used excessive force against Rodney King, while serving as the host of Inside Edition. In a February 20 interview with conservative radio host Hugh Hewitt, O'Reilly claimed that during the riots, "We were attacked, we were attacked by protesters, where bricks were thrown at us." In a 2006 interview, O'Reilly said, "They were throwing bricks and stones at us. Concrete was raining down on us. The cops saved our butts that time." Several of O'Reilly's former Inside Edition colleagues -- "reporters Bonnie Strauss, Tony Cox and Rick Kirkham, and crew members Theresa McKeown, Bob McCall and Neil Antin" -- disputed O'Reilly's characterization of the event and suggested he was exaggerating an incident where the crew was confronted by a single man. According to The Guardian, "Two of the team said the man was angered specifically by O'Reilly behaving disrespectfully after arriving at the smoking remains of his neighbourhood in a limousine, whose driver at one point began polishing the vehicle. O'Reilly is said to have shouted at the man and asked him: 'Don't you know who I am?'"

Posted by on 26 February 2015 | 5:39 am

George Will's Fawning Profile of Illinois' Anti-Union Republican Governor Gets The Facts Wrong

Washington Post syndicated columnist George Will dedicated his most recent column to Gov. Bruce Rauner (R-IL), praising the governor's plans to go after public-sector unions, but got some basic facts wrong in the process. Rauner has quickly become a favorite among right-wing media figures, both during his gubernatorial campaign and since his election in November. The Wall Street Journal and National Review have also lauded Rauner for his February 9 executive order blocking public-sector unions from collecting "fair share" fees from state employees they represent. Although state employees are not required to join, their union is nevertheless required to represent every state employee -- including nonmembers -- during contract negotiations. Without fair-share fees, nonmembers would get all the benefits of unionization without having to pay for it. Rauner's order would effectively institute "right-to-work" rules for state workers without the headache of getting approval from the Democratic majority in the state legislature first. In his February 25 column, Will called Rauner's election "this century's most intriguing political experiment" and endorsed the governor's plan "to change Illinois's political culture of one-party rule by entrenched politicians subservient to public-sector unions." Will went on to support Rauner's executive order on union dues, but completely bungled basic facts about the order and the ongoing legal challenges surrounding it: By executive order, Rauner has stopped the government from collecting "fair share" fees for unions from state employees who reject joining a union. This, he says, violates First Amendment principles by compelling people to subsidize speech with which they disagree. The unions might regret challenging this in federal court: If the case reaches the Supreme Court and it overturns the 1977 decision that upheld "fair shares," this would end the practice nationwide. Rauner hopes to ban, as some states do, public employees unions from making political contributions, whereby they elect the employers with whom they negotiate their compensation. Rauner notes that an owner of a small firm that does business with Illinois's government is forbidden to make political contributions. Rauner also hopes to enable counties and local jurisdictions to adopt right-to-work laws, thereby attracting businesses that will locate only where there are such laws.

Posted by on 26 February 2015 | 4:32 am

Fox News Baselessly Suggests Obama Administration Has A "Secret Plan B" If Supreme Court Rules Against Obamacare

Fox News is reporting on an unsubstantiated rumor that the Obama administration has a "secret plan B" to deal with the fallout of an upcoming Supreme Court case that could invalidate tax credits for millions of Americans. But administration officials have repeatedly denied that such a plan exists -- and there is little the administration could do to restore the credits if the court strikes them down. On March 4, the Supreme Court will hear King v. Burwell, a case that could block the availability of health care subsidies for consumers who purchased insurance over the federal exchange, which operates as the sole health insurance marketplace in the 37 states that don't operate their own. The lawsuit is based on a right-wing misinterpretation of the Affordable Care Act (ACA) that claims that the law allows the IRS to provide tax credits only to those who bought insurance over "Exchanges established by the State," and not the federal government. In addition to the congressional authors of the ACA, the vast majority of health and legal experts agree that this strained reading of the law is not only incorrect, but contrary to the way the Supreme Court generally interprets statutes -- as a whole, and in context. Despite the lawsuit's clear flaws, right-wing media have acted as a booster for its potential to gut the ACA -- and only recently figured out that without the subsidies, millions of Americans would be faced with ruinous health care costs. As The New York Times explained, "if the court decides to limit federal tax credits, the result could essentially be the creation of two American health care systems. The haves -- in mostly Democratic states -- may not be impacted, while the have-nots -- in 37 mostly red states -- could face spiraling costs." But now Republicans are attempting to shift the blame to the Obama administration by claiming that the administration actually does have a super-secret contingency plan, and multiple statements to the contrary are an effort "to influence the court ahead of the March 4 arguments," according to The Hill. Even though the administration has said that there is no such plan -- secret or otherwise -- Fox News was happy to pass along this unsubstantiated rumor on the February 26 edition of America's Newsroom. In a report about a congressional hearing on the ACA, Fox's Doug McKelway stated that Health and Human Services Secretary Sylvia Burwell would be facing questions about the administration's "contingency plans" if the tax credits are struck down. McKelway went on to report that "there are rumors circulating that senior HHS officials do have a secret plan B should the Supreme Court rule against Obamacare":

Posted by on 26 February 2015 | 3:45 am

Rush Limbaugh Conspiracy Theory: NYC ISIS Arrests A Ploy To Push Net Neutrality, Ban Gun Ammunition

Radio host Rush Limbaugh suggested that reports of the recent arrests of three suspected American supporters of the so-called Islamic State (ISIS or ISIL) are actually a ploy by the Obama administration to push net neutrality regulations and a ruse to "ban the sale of bullets." On February 25, two men were arrested in New York City, along with an accomplice in Florida, charged with "providing support for the Islamic State" according to The New York Times. During the February 25 edition of his radio program, Limbaugh suggested that the news of the arrests was politically timed to coincide with the FCC's ruling on net neutrality regulations. Limbaugh also described the arrests as a media conspiracy meant to give cover for the government to "ban the sale of bullets," an apparent reference to a proposal by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives to limit the availability of ammunition that when fired from a handgun is capable of penetrating body armor worn by law enforcement officers. Listen: LIMBAUGH: Barack Obama is taking over the Internet today. He's gonna be sued. It's going to have a long shake out period. I mean, it's not gonna cease to operate today the way you're used to it. But the objective is to put it all under the control of government -- and here comes the story how ISIS has sympathizers in New York City. They're in Brooklyn and in all 57 states, and ISIS is using the Internet to recruit terrorists, and the government must have control of the Internet if we are to be safe.  [...] The narrative just happens to magically fit the Democrat Party agenda every day. The narrative in the news media just happens to be exactly what the issues that Barack Obama cares about happen to be. And banning bullets -- what do you bet, when the story breaks, it becomes mainstream that this action, that this stuff we've learned about ISIS operating in New York City -- well, we have to, we have to take extraordinary actions to maintain homeland security. We can't have bullets readily available over-the-counter with ISIS in the country -- 57 states with outposts buying up weapons themselves and ammo. It all happens under the aegis of your safety. It all happens under the claim of making you safe and secure. Because the Democrat Party really cares about you -- and they know they can't ban everybody's guns, but to keep you safe they will ban the sale of bullets.

Posted by on 26 February 2015 | 3:07 am

Medios En Español En La Florida Rompen Con Los Estándares Éticos De Periodismo En Reportaje De Homicidios De Mujeres Transgénero

La cobertura de la reciente violencia contra mujeres transgénero por parte de los medios locales en la Florida, ha demostrado que falta trabajo por hacer en cuanto al respeto de los estándares éticos para el reportaje de asuntos LGBT. "Desde principios del año, más de media docena de mujeres transgénero han sido asesinadas a lo largo del país y la mayoría de los homicidios no han sido reportados por los medios de comunicación nacionales. Otra complicación es la cobertura problemática por parte de la prensa local, la cual continúa agregando a la discriminación y violencia en contra de nuestra comunidad," según comentó a Media Matters Bamby Salcedo, presidenta de la Coalición TransLatina. En su cobertura de la muerte reciente de Kristina Gómez Reinwald, una mujer transgénero en Miami, tanto Univisión23 como Telemundo51- filiales locales en la Florida de Univisión y Telemundo, respectivamente - rompieron con los estándares que expertos en ética periodística recomiendan para la cobertura de los temas relacionados a la comunidad lésbica, gay, bisexual y transgénero (LGBT). Lo especialmente inapropiado de su cobertura ocurrió en su segmento del 20 de febrero de 2015, cuando Univisión23 perpetuó la deshumanización de las personas transgénero en su reportaje al decir que "la comunidad transexual padece a diario de disforia de género", una incorrecta generalización que niega la dignidad y respeto que toda persona merece al distraer del problema real: los ataques y asesinatos de mujeres transgénero en los Estados Unidos. Similarmente, la inclusión de detalles que poco tienen que ver con la muerte de Kristina, fueron reportados por Telemundo51 durante su segmento el mismo día, donde se incluyó la mención de información médica de Kristina, como sus procedimientos de cirugía, lo cual demuestra una fijación voyeurista con su cuerpo que resta importancia a su vida y a la tragedia de su muerte. En su guía de estilo, la NLGJA (que se traduce como la Asociación Nacional de Periodistas LGBT) recomienda a periodistas cubriendo temas relativos a la comunidad LGBT alejarse de la mención de un tema tan personal como las cirugías, a menos que sea la persona transgénero quien lo traiga a colación o el tema tenga relevancia para la noticia que se está cubriendo.Al respecto, la NLGJA recomienda: (Traducido de un comunicado de prensa de la NLGJA): No se trata de cirugías u hormonas. Si una persona quiere hablar de estos temas personales, está bien. Pero la identidad de género y el derecho a ser respetados no dependen de que alguien pase por estos procedimientos, ni son necesariamente temas de discusión pública. También GLAAD, en su guía para medios recomienda a los periodistas alejarse de sobre-enfatizar el rol de la cirugía en el proceso de transición. Telemundo51 incluyó en el mismo segmento la mención al nombre masculino con el que aparecía registrada la víctima anteriormente, a pesar de que expertos - incluyendo la guía de estilo de la Associated Press - han hecho un llamado a los periodistas a evitar la mención de nombres y pronombres diferentes a los escogidos por la persona. Al respecto, dicen específicamente: (Traducido de un comunicado de prensa de NLGJA): Cosas que son simples en la mayoría de historias pueden volverse más complicadas al escribir sobre personas transgénero, en particular nombres y pronombres. Como indica el estilo AP, debería usarse el nombre y pronombre preferido por la persona. Con independencia de lo que aparezca en licencias de conducir o certificados de nacimiento. Otro detalle problemático es que en diferentes momentos, incluyendo en los titulares que usaron en la cobertura en línea del caso, ambas estaciones hicieron uso del término "transexual" como intercambiable con transgénero, el término adecuado y culturalmente competente.  NLGJA ha recomendado el uso de transgénero como el término apropiado para referirse a las personas cuyas características físicas al nacer no coinciden con la identidad de género con la que se identifican. Recomiendan, de manera específica: (Traducido de la guía de estilo de la NLGJA): transexual:  Evitar este término anticuado a favor de "transgénero" o "persona transgénero". Algunos personas lo prefieren de manera individual pero acarrea connotaciones médicas que pueden llevar a interpretaciones erróneas. (el énfasis es nuestro).

Posted by on 26 February 2015 | 2:46 am

Watch Hannity Jump On CPAC Stage To Praise Ted Cruz, Telling Crowd "We Can Fundamentally Transform America" In 2016

From CSPAN's February 26 coverage of the 2015 Conservative Political Action Conference:Previously: The "Hannity Primary" Begins: Fox Host Touts Central Role In GOP Race Hannity Brands 2012 Election: "Can You Afford Four More?" Fox News Figures Back Ted Cruz In Texas Senate Runoff

Posted by on 26 February 2015 | 1:48 am