Ohio Media Highlight Consequences Of Kasich's Push To Defund Planned Parenthood

Ohio media outlets are warning about the potential health care consequences if Ohio Gov. John Kasich, a Republican presidential candidate, is successful in his push to defund Planned Parenthood. News outlets are saying the move could potentially "jeopardize comprehensive health care for women around the state."Kasich Is Expected To Sign Legislation Defunding Planned Parenthood Kasich To Sign Bill "Stripping Government Money From Planned Parenthood." John Kasich is expected to sign legislation that would take away government funding from Planned Parenthood. The Associated Press reports that the bill, which was approved by the Ohio state legislature February 10, targets $1.3 million that Planned Parenthood receives from Ohio's health department, which supports "initiatives for HIV testing, breast and cervical cancer screenings, and prevention of violence against women": Ohio Gov. John Kasich is expected to sign a bill stripping government money from Planned Parenthood, a move that might help him with conservatives who dominate the upcoming Republican presidential primary in South Carolina. [...] The House gave its final approval Wednesday on a mostly party-line vote, with the bill's Democratic co-sponsor voting in favor and two Republicans voting against it. The bill targets the roughly $1.3 million in grant funding that Planned Parenthood receives through Ohio's health department. The money, which is mostly federal, supports initiatives for HIV testing, breast and cervical cancer screenings, and prevention of violence against women. The legislation would prohibit such funds from going to entities that perform or promote abortions, their affiliates and those that contract with an entity that performs abortions. [...] Kasich is unlikely to reject the bill. [The Associated Press, 2/10/16] Ohio Media Say Defunding Planned Parenthood Would "Jeopardize Comprehensive Health Care For Women Around The State" Cleveland Plain Dealer Editorial Board: Bill May "Directly Penalize Women Who Seek" Other Health Services. In a January 29 piece, the Cleveland Plain Dealer's editorial board called out the bill to defund Planned Parenthood in Ohio as an effort that may "directly penalize women who seek non-abortion health services." The board explained that "only demagoguery can explain a purported anti-abortion bill that wouldn't really limit abortion but really would limit health services that benefit women": Many Ohioans have a good-faith belief in the right of women to choose abortion, something courts have consistently upheld. Many other Ohioans have a good-faith belief that abortion is wrong. But Substitute House Bill 294, which the Ohio Senate passedon Wednesday, and which purports to penalize Planned Parenthood indirectly because it provides abortions, may instead directly penalize women who seek non-abortion health services. That is, HB 294, which needs only the Ohio House's final OK and Gov. John Kasich's signature to become law, is a partisan response to a divisive and, yes, moral question. In no discernible way would HB 294 necessarily limit the number of abortions women may choose to obtain in Ohio. That number is already steeply declining. And that decline is first and foremost the result of the thoughtful, painful decisions that some Ohio women have had to make. [...] [P]olitics explains HB 294, not principle. But only demagoguery can explain a purported anti-abortion bill that wouldn't really limit abortion but really would limit health services that benefit women. That is, a plan to take Planned Parenthood down a notch or two actually takes a swipe at 51.1 percent of Ohio's people. HB 294's backers may claim it's "philosophical." If they cared about accuracy, the word they'd use is "cynical." [Cleveland Plain Dealer, 1/29/16] Akron Beacon Journal Ed Board: Bill "May Lead To Funding Complications For Local Hospitals And Public Health Departments." In a January 29 editorial, the Akron Beacon Journal's editorial board noted that the "loose language in the bill may lead to funding complications for local hospitals and public health departments." The Beacon Journal also said Planned Parenthood brings "opportunity to those in tough circumstances ... though family planning" and "provides health services that elevate lives," "a mission the governor shares": Proponents contend the measure would enhance the quality of health care for women by spreading state dollars more broadly across the state. They overlook that many women, especially in disadvantaged areas, prefer Planned Parenthood. More, the organization has received funding in the past because its work has been rated highly for quality and cost-effectiveness. So, why take that away? One argument revives criticism about the money indirectly supporting abortions. Yet this matter was addressed decades ago through the compromise barring coverage of abortions with public funds. For their part, critics of the legislation warn that the Republican majority has not weighed fully the potential consequences, and not just for women who use the array of services provided by Planned Parenthood. Opponents rightly caution that loose language in the bill may lead to funding complications for local hospitals and public health departments. In the past, this editorial page has urged John Kasich to veto legislation in which the Republican majorities have gone too far in restricting abortion rights. Then, the Associated Press reported last fall that the air of neutrality suggested by the governor amounted to deception on his part. His staff had a hand in writing the legislation. Still, it is worth trying again, even with the governor preoccupied as he makes his presidential run. No doubt, he opposes abortion. At the same time, he talks about bringing opportunity to those in tough circumstances. That is the mission of Planned Parenthood, essentially, achieved through family planning. It provides health services that elevate lives, a mission the governor shares, and why he should veto this bill. [Akron Beacon Journal, 1/29/16] Cincinnati Enquirer: Possible Consequences Of The Bill Have "Some Healthcare Workers Worried." In a February 10 article, The Cincinnati Enquirer explained that while it is unlikely that Planned Parenthood clinics will "close their doors over this lost money," the amount cut "does represent a large chunk of the organizations' budget for health education" and those programs "could be scaled back." The article also points out that some health care workers are worried that "clinics might not have the capacity to serve all the patients that Planned Parenthood does" while Planned Parenthood warns that the proposal will "have unintended consequences for health departments and hospitals seeking the same money": [D]on't expect Planned Parenthood's clinics to close their doors over this lost money. But nearly $1.4 million does represent a large chunk of the organizations' budget for health education. Those programs, especially at smaller clinics, could be scaled back, said Stephanie Kight, CEO of Planned Parenthood of Greater Ohio. [...] Are local health clinics prepared to replace Planned Parenthood? Time will tell. The size of a health center and the length of its waiting list could determine whether they have the capacity to take on Planned Parenthood clients, Runyons said. But the change has at least some healthcare workers worried. Claire Boettler, president of the Ohio Public Health Association, cautioned lawmakers in a letter that clinics might not have the capacity to serve all the patients that Planned Parenthood does. Rachel D'Amico, a Cincinnati native and Ohio State University medical student, said she fears a repeat of what happened in Texas: community health centers saw an 81 percent increase in their caseloads after Planned Parenthood was defunded in 2012. "Defunding health centers overnight that serve thousands of people in Ohio, will create an immediate crisis in health care access. In a health care system that is already overworked, other community centers are not equipped to serve so many more patients," D'Amico said. [...] Will the change cut off health departments and hospitals from money? Maybe. Planned Parenthood advocates argue that the proposal to ax money from its coffers will have unintended consequences for health departments and hospitals seeking the same money. Because of the way the change is worded, any health department or hospital that interacts with an abortion provider could be barred from money, Kight said. For example, if Hamilton County accepts health insurance that covers abortions for something unrelated, like a flu shot, that could put the county's state money at risk. [The Cincinnati Enquirer, 2/10/16] Toledo Blade Columnist: Bill Would "Jeopardize Comprehensive Health Care For Women Around The State." In a February 6 column, Toledo Blade columnist Marilou Johanek explained that the bill to defund Planned Parenthood would "jeopardize comprehensive health care for women around the state": Ohio women see how Mr. Kasich supports not only anti-abortion measures, which include restrictions on women seeking abortions and new limits on emergency transfer agreements with hospitals, but also defunding Planned Parenthood. A bill that would end state aid to Planned Parenthood and jeopardize comprehensive health care for women around the state is heading to the governor's desk. [Toledo Blade, 2/6/16]

Posted by on 12 February 2016 | 11:59 am

Fox Post Debate Panel Angry PBS Moderators Didn't Focus On Clinton Scandals During Debate

From the February 11 edition of Fox News' America's Election HQ: RON FOURNIER: Hillary Clinton did not sharpen her message. I mean, she is still meandering all over the place. What does she really stand for? It's hard to tell, and Bernie Sanders, for the love of god, how do you go through that debate and not mention the emails, not mention that the State Department IG went after the Clinton Foundation?  BRET BAIER (HOST): Well, we should also point out there wasn't a question.  FOURNIER: But If I'm running for president, you don't have to ask me that question, I'm bringing it up myself. BAIER: But if I'm moderating, you have to ask.  FOURNIER: You would ask it again. and again. and again as you should. It's a very pertinent question.  Previously: Bill O'Reilly: "Some Precincts" In Fox News "Stacked Up" Against Hillary Clinton Fox Host Falsely Claims The FBI "Confirmed" It Is Investigating Hillary Clinton Fox Contributor Calls Out Network's Overeager Coverage Of Hillary Clinton Emails

Posted by on 12 February 2016 | 11:00 am

Amid Anti-Semitism Controversy, NRA's Nugent Attacks His "Mentally Challenged" "Devil" Critics

National Rifle Association (NRA) board member Ted Nugent participated in a softball interview to attack his critics as "mentally challenged" and "the devil" following outrage over his promotion of an anti-Semitic image. On February 8, Nugent posted an anti-Semitic image to his Facebook page alleging that Jews were behind a conspiracy to enact gun regulations. After being condemned by civil rights organization the Anti-Defamation League, Nugent doubled down by posting more inflammatory content, including an image of Jews being rounded up by Nazis alongside his comment "Soulless sheep to slaughter. Not me." In the ensuing controversy, Nugent has been condemned by diverse voices including civil rights groups, Jewish organizations, and both gun safety groups and pro-gun organizations and writers. Several organizations called on the NRA to remove Nugent from its board of directors. (Nugent was praised by white nationalists, and his support for Ted Cruz is still displayed prominently on the GOP contender's website.) In a February 11 interview with an unnamed questioner, available only on his Facebook page, Nugent suggested that his critics are "mentally challenged" and said, "To attack me one would have to not only play devil's advocate, one would actually be the devil's advocate or more probably the devil itself." To deny charges of anti-Semitism, Nugent stated, "I admire and love my good Jewish friends even more than usual because of their valiant dedication to 'Never Again!'" The unnamed interviewer fawned over Nugent and provided him cover, describing the Israeli flags that were used to label Jewish American politicians in Nugent's anti-Semitic image as "proud." Instead of asking actual questions, the interviewer instead served up friendly prompts to Nugent such as, "You aren't anti-semitic. For certain," and "You support the state of Israel." Below the interview, Nugent posted a link to a press release issued by a fringe gun group called The Zelman Partisans, a more hardline spin-off of the far-right gun group Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership (JPFO). The press release, which excused Nugent's use of the anti-Semitic image and played on the same anti-Semitic tropes espoused by Nugent, suggested that The Zelman Partisans would accept Nugent's conduct if he joined the group. According to the press release, "Nugent is correct that Jewish individuals play an outsized role in U.S. anti-gun leadership. (Aaron Zelman, in his inimitable style, called them 'bagel brains.')" The Zelman Partisans still chided Nugent for his image but made him an "offer" that he could prove he is "really pro-Jewish" by joining the organization. The Zelman Partisans is an offshoot of JPFO, which was founded by Aaron Zelman. (JPFO, whose website claims that many Jews who support guns safety efforts are "professional victims," released an alert condemning Nugent but then deleted it from their website.) The organization, formed after Zelman passed away in 2010, explains,"We will not let Aaron's philosophy -- the philosophy to which we are all also committed -- be watered down, betrayed, or 'disappeared.'" The group's website contains far-right pro-gun material and sells a shooting target that allows target shooters to take aim at quotes from Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA), other gun safety proponents, and Hitler. Nugent's interview:

Posted by on 12 February 2016 | 10:32 am

Fox Pushes "Regular Guy" And Contributor Scott Brown For Trump VP

Fox News contributor Scott Brown's network colleagues are pushing him as a potential running mate for Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump. The network -- where Brown has worked on and off as a contributor -- has been boosting the half-term senator's political ambitions for years.  During a January 16 event in New Hampshire where Brown introduced Trump, the business mogul responded to an audience member's suggestion that Brown should be his running mate by replying, "He's central casting! A great guy and a beautiful wife and a great family. So important!" On February 2, Brown officially endorsed Trump for president, calling him "a change agent." Since his endorsement, Brown's Fox colleagues have regularly floated him as a potential Trump running mate. For instance: Fox Business host Trish Regan interviewed Brown about him potentially being Trump's vice president. Regan agreed with Trump's assessment that Brown could be a VP candidate out of "central casting." Regan also explained that "what a lot of viewers may not realize about you -- because, you know, when you come on set here you're all spiffy, dressed in your nice suit -- is that you're a pretty regular guy. I mean, you drive a pickup. You work assembling bikes at Gus' Bike Shop in North Hampton." She later asked him, "vice-presidential nominee, potential, would you consider it?" Brown replied he's "flattered" but it's "highly, highly unlikely." [Fox Business, Intelligence Report, 2/3/16] Fox Business host Charles Payne told Brown that people are thinking about him as Trump's running mate and commented, "you look good in that seat." Brown dodged Payne's question about whether he would accept the slot. [Fox Business, Making Money with Charles Payne, 2/3/16]  Fox Business host Maria Bartiromo asked Brown about the prospects of him being Trump's running mate. Brown dodged the question. [Fox Business, Mornings with Maria, 2/3/16] Fox News host Martha MacCallum asked Trump about whether he was thinking about a running mate and mentioned Brown. Trump replied, "I like Scott Brown because he endorsed me," but said it's too far in advance to think about. [Fox News, America's Newsroom, 2/9/16] Neil Cavuto, senior vice president and anchor for Fox News and Fox Business, said when he saw a picture of Trump and Brown together, he thought: "Hey, that could be the ticket right there." [Fox News, Your World with Neil Cavuto, 2/9/16, via NewsHounds] Fox News has spent years trying to further Brown's political career. The channel spent significant time boosting his only successful Senate run in 2010. After he lost his reelection bid in 2012, Brown was hired by Fox News. He then left the network and received major but ultimately unsuccessful help from Fox in his New Hampshire Senate bid. He was rehired by Fox in 2014. 

Posted by on 12 February 2016 | 9:56 am

Speech Transcripts: The Press Finds A New Hoop That Only Clinton Must Jump Through

As journalists continue to press Hillary Clinton to release the transcripts from all the paid speeches she made as a private citizen, including those made to Wall Street powerhouse Goldman Sachs, it's helpful to keep in mind how unusual the request is. Reading the coverage you might think the transcript demand is routine for all candidates. (i.e. Why won't she just do it already?) But it's not the norm. In fact, it's the opposite of normal. Once again separate rules have been created for Clinton, although the coverage and commentary on the transcript story is usually careful to leave that part out. "Whether it's Mitt Romney's tax returns or Clinton's emails or Clinton's speech transcripts, 'Why won't Politician X release Document Y?' is a reliably compelling story line," the Washington Post noted, suggesting that releasing tax returns, which most nominees do, is suddenly synonymous with releasing speech transcripts. But if it's so common why haven't campaign reporters pressed Mike Huckabee, Donald Trump, Ben Carson, and Jeb Bush to release the transcripts of their paid speeches?  (Or Carly Fiorina before she recently dropped out?) And previously in 2012, why weren't Mitt Romney, Herman Cain, and Newt Gingrich told to do the same?  And don't forget about Rudy Giuliani. As Media Matters previously reported: "In the thirteen months directly prior to kicking off his Republican presidential campaign in February 2007, Rudy Giuliani earned more than $11 million dollars giving paid speeches."   Not only didn't the press demand the transcripts to Giuliani's speeches, the press rarely questioned his huge speaking fee paydays, even when he was the Republican frontrunner in 2007. Clinton recently agreed to release the transcripts if all the other candidates would do the same. But the press has essentially brushed that aside, making plain they're only interested in hers. That, despite the fact some Republicans have given paid speeches while running for office. There's obviously nothing wrong with asking Clinton about the speeches and the large sums of money she was paid for them. It's a legitimate campaign topic of inquiry and some voters might be turned off by the big paydays. But the idea that Clinton should suddenly be held to a new disclosure standard seems odd. We're told the circumstances are different with Clinton because she gave speeches to banks and might have said something that could be construed as embarrassing for her campaign. (i.e. The optics might be bad!) But Bush, Romney and Giuliani all cashed big speech checks from financial clients just before their White House runs, so why the double standard for the Democrat? Well, the speeches illustrate how "cozy" Clinton is with Wall Street and how she's influenced by their money, we're also told. But is she? Note that in 2014 Clinton gave a series of lucrative speeches paid for by a pair of Canadian banks that were aligned with the proposed Keystone XL pipeline. Both banks would have benefited financially from the pipeline being built. But after accepting their speaking fees, Clinton came out against the pipeline in 2014. That's the opposite of a quid pro quo. As Kevin Drum noted at Mother Jones, while Clinton "has hardly been a scourge of the banking industry," it's difficult to claim she's "cozy" with Wall Street given her record: She supported the Lilly Ledbetter Act. She supports higher taxes on the wealthy. She supported repeal of the carried interest loophole in 2007. The Boston Globe, after an extensive review of her voting record in the Senate, summed up her attitude with this quote from a lobbyist: "The financial sector viewed her as neutral. Not helpful, but also not harmful." Citizens for Tax Justice gives her a generally favorable grade on financial issues. Still, journalists seem focused about uncovering the transcripts for a series of speeches Clinton gave to Goldman Sachs, the idea being that the Wall Street powerhouse would only pay Clinton big bucks because they expected something in return. But Goldman Sachs regularly brings in a wide array of speakers, including clergy, athletes, researchers, journalists, and entrepreneurs. Is Clinton the only one who received Goldman Sachs speech paychecks and was then expected to deliver favors to the company? The whole idea that paid corporate speeches are built around the expectation of favors returned doesn't make much sense. "Paying a former secretary of state for giving a speech is what companies and associations do when they want to feel important, not when they want to influence legislation and regulations," noted Paul Waldman at the Washington Post. Meanwhile, The New York Times spoke to someone who attended one of those speeches [emphasis added]:    Mrs. Clinton mainly offered what one attendee called "a tour of the world," covering her observations on China, Iran, Egypt and Russia. This person said Mrs. Clinton also discussed the dysfunction in Washington, how to repair America's standing in the world after the government shutdown and also talked a bit about the Affordable Care Act, which had had a difficult rollout. Politico reported one attendee remembered a Clinton Goldman Sachs speech as "mostly basic stuff, small talk, chit-chat." (That person thought the optics of the speech might not look so good today.) And note that in 2014, Clinton addressed the Ameriprise Financial conference. According to a Boston Globe account, Clinton urged political compromise and delivered a populist message about income equality: "We have the feeling growing in our country that the deck is stacked against the middle class, and those fighting to get into the middle class," Clinton said, adding that the country is hobbled by "rising inequality, growth that hasn't really picked up yet, and the feeling that many Americans now have that somehow the system seems rigged against them." Clinton's clearly being held to a new standard. The press thinks that's fine and even celebrates it.  

Posted by on 12 February 2016 | 8:43 am

Fox Guest: "Blacks Should No More Vote For Hillary or Bernie Than They Should The Grand Wizard Of The KKK"

From the February 12 edition of Fox News' Fox & Friends: BRIAN KILMEADE (HOST): Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders slamming law enforcement and our criminal justice system at last night's debate again, in an attempt to appeal to  minority voters. Will it work? Is that a strategy? Joining us right now to react is the editor of Conservative Black Chic and the author of Con Job, Crystal Wright. Crystal, looking right there and that approach, does that resonate in the black community? CRYSTAL WRIGHT: It doesn't resonate with me, but yes it resonates to black people who want to keep buying the Democrat lies. I mean Brian, don't we hear this every presidential cycle? Every election? Over the past 50 years, Democrats say the same thing about black people, we've got to stop the mass incarceration, we've got to stop the high crime, high employment. Have any of those problems been solved? No. KILMEADE: Right. But Republicans to their detriment don't try and the Democrats take it for granted. But now it'll split the difference between Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton. Do either one of them deserve that vote, from what they've done and what they plan on doing? WRIGHT: Bernie and Hillary, just like Barack Obama and every Democrat before them, has done nothing for black people but tell them lies. And then what happens is they look at black leaders and they fight to pimp out the black vote. So they are jockeying now, Bernie and Hillary. They're fawning all over the black leaders and they are trying to get black people to tell us, like we're dummies, hey black people, vote for these Democrats who aren't going to do anything for you, and the cycle keeps repeating itself. I have always said Republicans need to go out there and ask for the black vote. Because blacks should no more vote for Hillary or Bernie than they should the grand wizard of the KKK, because they keep giving us all these bad policies. And last night you know what they should have said, Brian? Hey, black people, stop having 72% of your babies out of wedlock and your kids won't be going, won't be massively incarcerated and arrested. KILMEADE: Well, that'd be an interesting message. I'm not sure it would have resonated, unless you said it. Previously: Megyn Kelly Guest Says Bernie Sanders Should Have Met With Fried Chicken Rep Instead Of Al Sharpton Fox Guest: "Blacks Have Shown A Slavish Support For The Democrat Party" Fox's Stacey Dash: The Democratic Party Has "A Plantation Mentality" Fox Business Guest Compares Beyonce's Super Bowl Performance To KKK

Posted by on 12 February 2016 | 8:35 am

Fox's Geraldo Rivera Slams Network's Disingenuous Coverage Of Benghazi, Clinton Emails

From the February 12 edition of Fox News' Fox & Friends: STEVE DOOCY (HOST): First of all, why didn't PBS ask the questions about Hillary's email or any of that stuff? And why doesn't Bernie go after her on that? JEANINE PIRRO: Bernie is already locked in because he said, 'no, we don't care about your emails. I don't give a damn,' excuse me, that's what he said -- DOOCY: People can evolve. PIRRO: -- about the emails, okay. Yesterday, a subpoena -- the subpoena that was on the Clinton Foundation by the State Department was released. And of all days, a federal judge says you've got to have all of those emails by February 29th or whatever it is. Nobody talks about it.  DOOCY: How do they not ask about that?  GERALDO RIVERA: It is the most overrated scandal we have ever covered. The emails. There is no crime there. There is absolutely no crime there. You get your -- DOOCY: Geraldo, setting up the server was a crime. RIVERA: -- hopes up on this e-mail scandalette --  BRIAN KILMEADE (HOST): No one's hope. RIVERA: -- and by getting your hopes up that they'll be an indictment, you lose sight of the real issue.  [...] RIVERA: My bottom line is this. By putting all of political capital in the email investigation, the risk is simple. The email investigation will go nowhere. There will be no indictments and then people who have spent so much time, invested so much energy and so much vitriol in the email scandal will then say, 'oh, I guess we were wrong. I guess we were wrong.' [...] PIRRO: She has an obligation in the interest of transparency to release all of the emails that she deleted, 30,000 of them. She has an obligation to release the transcripts. If she wants to say, 'I'm not -- oh, I don't owe anything to Wall Street' --  RIVERA: You know what, Judge? PIRRO: Let me finish this sentence, Geraldo. 'I don't owe anything to Wall Street?' Well then tell  us what you told them. Tell us why they paid you.  RIVERA: I want to release -- I want to finish my statement. My statement is this. This administration was slandered by the coverage of the Benghazi event. We --  PIRRO: No. Four Americans were killed. RIVERA: We promulgated to the world the false notion that the Obama administration had the military capacity to save those people.  PIRRO: Oh, really? We didn't have planes in Sigonella?   RIVERA: We promulgated that, broadcasts day after day, day after day, we have never apologized for that.  PIRRO: We couldn't get planes for 13 hours? Apologized?  RIVERA: We have never -- apologized for slandering good people that you may politically disagree with by saying they could have saved people -- PIRRO: They could have. RIVERA:  -- We basically accused them of murdering our own people.  PIRRO: There was a stand down in Tripoli.  RIVERA: Stand down baloney. We still have not apologized for it, still are not apologizing for it. Concentrate on the real issues. Previously: A Comprehensive Guide To Myths And Facts About Hillary Clinton, Benghazi, And Those Emails Three Years Of The Benghazi Hoax In Five Minutes Emails Are To Clinton What Benghazi Was To Obama: The Source Of Endless Fox News Fantasies

Posted by on 12 February 2016 | 8:33 am

Debate Moderators Keep Failing To Mention Climate, So Democratic Candidates Are Doing It Themselves

The PBS moderators of last night's Democratic presidential primary debate never uttered the words "climate change." But Senator Bernie Sanders did. As we have progressed through the primary debate season, this has happened again and again. The media figures hosting the debates keep failing to bring up climate change, so the Democratic candidates for president are taking matters of our planet's future into their own hands. According to a Media Matters analysis of Democratic debate transcripts, Senator Sanders, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, and the Democratic candidates who are no longer in the race have thus far brought up climate change on their own 17 times combined, proactively addressing climate change in their opening or closing statements, or connecting climate change to a question they were asked on another topic. That's more than twice as often as the moderators of the debates, who have only asked seven questions about climate change to the Democratic candidates so far. Here are the 17 times that Democratic presidential candidates brought up climate change on their own: In his opening remarks at the October 13 CNN debate, former Rhode Island Governor Lincoln Chafee said: "I want to address climate change, a real threat to our planet." [CNN, 10/13/15] In his opening remarks at the CNN debate, former Maryland Governor Martin O'Malley said: "[W]e must square our shoulders to the great challenge of climate change and make this threat our opportunity." [CNN, 10/13/15] In his opening remarks at the CNN debate, Sanders said: "Today, the scientific community is virtually unanimous:  climate change is real, it is caused by human activity, and we have a moral responsibility to transform our energy system away from fossil fuel to energy efficiency and sustainable energy and leave this planet a habitable planet for our children and our grandchildren." [CNN, 10/13/15] In her opening remarks at the CNN debate, Clinton said she has put forward a plan to "tak[e] the opportunity posed by climate change to grow our economy." [CNN debate, 10/13/15] O'Malley was asked during the CNN debate to name "the greatest national security threat to the United States." He replied: "I believe that nuclear Iran remains the biggest threat, along with the threat of ISIL; climate change, of course, makes cascading threats even worse." [CNN debate, 10/13/15] Sanders was also asked during the CNN debate to name "the greatest national security threat to the United States." He replied: "The scientific community is telling us that if we do not address the global crisis of climate change, transform our energy system away from fossil fuel to sustainable energy, the planet that we're going to be leaving our kids and our grandchildren may well not be habitable.  That is a major crisis." [CNN debate, 10/13/15] During the CNN debate, Clinton responded to O'Malley bringing up her position on the Keystone XL pipeline by saying: "I have been on the forefront of dealing with climate change, starting in 2009, when President Obama and I crashed a meeting with the Chinese and got them to sign up to the first international agreement to combat climate change that they'd ever joined." [CNN debate, 10/13/15] Former Senator Jim Webb was asked during the CNN debate whether he is "out of step with the Democratic party" because "[y]ou're pro-coal, you're pro-offshore drilling, you're pro-Keystone pipeline." Webb responded, in part: "Well, the question really is how are we going to solve energy problems here and in the global environment if you really want to address climate change? And when I was in the Senate, I was an all-of-the-above energy voter.  ... And really, we are not going to solve climate change simply with the laws here [in the United States]." He added: "So let's solve this problem in an international way, and then we really will have a way to address climate change." [CNN debate, 10/13/15] During the CNN debate, Chafee was asked which "enemy" he was "most proud" of making. He responded: "I guess the coal lobby.  I've worked hard for climate change and I want to work with the coal lobby.  But in my time in the Senate, tried to bring them to the table so that we could address carbon dioxide.  I'm proud to be at odds with the coal lobby." [CNN debate, 10/13/15] In his closing statement at the CNN debate, Chafee said: "America has many challenges confronting us - ending the perpetual wars, addressing climate change, addressing income inequality, funding education, funding infrastructure, funding healthcare, helping black Americans, helping Native Americans." [CNN debate, 10/13/15] During the November 14 debate on CBS, O'Malley was asked whether he would use the tax increases he implemented in Maryland as a "blueprint" to pay for his family leave plan. O'Malley replied, in part: "I believe that we paid for many of the things that we need to do again as a nation, investing in the skills of our people, our infrastructure and research and development and also climate change -- by the elimination of one big entitlement that we can no longer afford as a people. And that is the entitlement that many of our super wealthiest citizens feel they are entitled to pay, namely a much lower income tax rate and a lower tax rate on capital gains." [CBS debate, 11/14/15] During the CBS debate, Clinton was asked a question about her use of a private email server as Secretary of State. Clinton replied, in part, that it is important to "start talking about the issues that the American people really care about." She then noted that although "there are differences" among the Democratic candidates, "the differences among us pale compared to what's happening on the Republican side," and pointed out that unlike the Republican candidates, "[a]ll of us believe climate change is real." [CBS debate, 11/14/15; Media Matters, 7/1/15] In his opening statement at the December 19 debate on ABC, Sanders said: "I'm running because we need to address the planetary crisis of climate change and take on the fossil fuel industry and transform our energy system away from fossil fuel to energy efficiency and sustainable energy." [ABC debate via The Washington Post, 12/19/15] In his closing statement at the ABC debate, O'Malley said: "The other big challenge we have is climate change. The greatest business opportunity to come to the United States of America in 100 years. We need to embrace this. I have put forward a plan that does this, that moves us to 100 percent clean electric grid by 2050." [ABC debate via The Washington Post, 12/19/15] In the January 17 debate on NBC, O'Malley was asked to name his top three priorities for his first 100 days in office. He replied, in part: "I believe the greatest business opportunity to come to the United States of America in 100 years is climate change. And I put forward a plan to move us to a 100 percent clean electric energy grid by 2050 and create 5 million jobs along the way." [NBC debate via The Washington Post, 1/17/16] During a discussion of campaign contributions in the February 4 debate on MSNBC, Sanders said: "Let's talk about climate change. Do you think there's a reason why not one Republican has the guts to recognize that climate change is real, and that we need to transform our energy system? Do you think it has anything to do with the Koch brothers and ExxonMobil pouring huge amounts of money into the political system? ... You know, there is a reason why these people are putting huge amounts of money into our political system. And in my view, it is undermining American democracy and it is allowing Congress to represent wealthy campaign contributors and not the working families of this country." [MSNBC debate, 2/4/16] During a discussion of campaign finance reform in the February 11 debate on PBS, Sanders stated: "Why does the fossil fuel industry pay -- spend huge amounts of money on campaign contributions? Any connection to the fact that not one Republican candidate for president thinks and agrees with the scientific community that climate change is real and that we have got to transform our energy system?" [PBS debate, 2/11/16] And here are the 7 questions that debate moderators managed to ask the Democratic candidates about climate change, some of which misrepresented the issue or downplayed its importance: During the October 13 CNN debate, CNN's Don Lemon rephrased a social media user's question about what candidates will "do to address climate change" by broadly asking O'Malley how he would "protect the environment better than all the other candidates." As Vox's David Roberts explained, this "maddening segue" suggested that Lemon and CNN view climate change as a "special interest issue" that is only of concern to environmentalists. [CNN debate, 10/13/15; Vox, 10/14/15] During the October 13 CNN debate, CNN's Anderson Cooper asked Sanders: "Senator Sanders, are you tougher on climate change than Secretary Clinton?" [CNN debate, 10/13/15] During the October 13 CNN debate, Cooper asked Clinton to "respond" to Sanders' comments about climate change. Clinton said, in part: "When we met in Copenhagen in 2009 and, literally, President Obama and I were hunting for the Chinese, going throughout this huge convention center, because we knew we had to get them to agree to something. Because there will be no effective efforts against climate change unless China and India join with the rest of the world. ... [T]here will be an international meeting at the end of this year, and we must get verifiable commitments to fight climate change from every country gathered there." [CNN debate, 10/13/15] In the November 14 debate on CBS, CBS' John Dickerson noted that Sanders said he wants to "rid the planet of ISIS," and then asked Sanders if he "still believe[s]" the statement that he made one month prior that climate change poses the greatest threat to America's national security. In this context, Dickerson was bringing up climate change solely to challenge its importance relative to terrorism. [CBS debate, 11/14/15; Media Matters, 1/11/16] During the January 17 debate on NBC, NBC's Lester Holt asked Sanders: "How do you convince Americans that the problem of climate change is so urgent that they need to change their behavior?" [NBC debate via The Washington Post, 1/17/16] Holt also gave O'Malley "30 seconds" to respond to the question he had asked Sanders about climate change. But he did not give Clinton an opportunity to respond to the question. [NBC debate via The Washington Post, 1/17/16] During the February 4 debate on MSNBC, NBC's Chuck Todd asked Clinton: "So there are three big lifts that you've talked about: immigration, gun reform, climate change. What do you do first? Because you know the first one is the one you have the best shot at getting done." [MSNBC debate, 2/4/16] Denise Robbins assisted with the research for this analysis.

Posted by on 12 February 2016 | 1:49 am

Megyn Kelly Hypes Rush Limbaugh's Claim That Ted Cruz Is The Real Conservative In The GOP Presidential Race

From the February 11 edition of Fox News' The Kelly File: MEGYN KELLY (HOST): What is so fascinating about Trump is, and Rush Limbaugh was making this point, that he's not ideological. What Limbaugh was saying, he's not a Republican, but he's not a Democrat. He's not an ideologue at all. He was saying, "if you are an ideologue, if you are going for the most conservative guy, you go for Cruz." Trump's got sort of a different group. I'll let Limbaugh say it in his own words here, listen. RUSH LIMBAUGH: If conservatism is your bag, if conservatism is the dominating factor in how you vote, there is no other choice for you in this campaign than Ted Cruz. Because you are exactly -- this is the closest in our lifetimes we have ever been to Ronald Reagan. Previously: Limbaugh: "If Conservatism Is The Dominating Factor In How You Vote, There Is No Other Choice For You In This Campaign Than Ted Cruz" Ted Cruz Ripped His GOP Debate Talking Points Straight From The Limbaugh Playbook Hannity And Limbaugh Defend Cruz From GOP Birther Allegations, After Pushing Them Against ObamaRush Limbaugh Defends Ted Cruz From Fox News' Criticism Of His Immigration Dishonesty

Posted by on 11 February 2016 | 9:03 am

Fox's Bernie Goldberg: It Takes "A Certain Amount Of Courage To Talk About Black Behavior"

From the February 11 edition of Fox News' The O'Reilly Factor: BERNIE GOLDBERG: There's a debate tonight. A Democratic presidential debate tonight. It would be nice, I'm not holding my breath, but it would be nice if one of the reporters said, Mrs. Clinton, do you really think that racist cops are running rampant in black communities? And, by the way, you said that black parents, plural, shouldn't have to worry about their kids being shot. You do know that 72 percent of black babies are born to single mothers. Do you think that widespread breakdown of the black family is a bigger or lesser problem than bigoted cops? That's one thing. Bernie Sanders, in his speech, his victory speech in New Hampshire said that there was a disproportionate number of minorities in prison. Again, it would be nice at the debate if one of the reporters said, "Senator Sanders, do you think, perhaps, the reason there is a disproportionate number of blacks and Latinos in prison [is] because blacks and Latinos commit a disproportionate amount of crime in America? That's not a racist thing. I was just about to say to say that's not a racist question. BILL O'REILLY (HOST): But it would be spun that way. Look, those questions are never going to be asked. Because the journalists are afraid to ask them. But let me just ask you this. If you and I were at a debate and we were the moderators, Goldberg and O'Reilly and we would ask those questions, both -- GOLDBERG: Right. O'REILLY: We would ask them. But I would also say that I believe if we did ask them, that the black community, certainly the leadership of that, would attack us for asking it. We would be attacked. GOLDBERG: No question. No question. O'REILLY: And so the answers or whatever or what we're trying to raise up is, A, there is no epidemic of white cops shooting black kids. It's black-on-black murders at 90 percent that are the real problem and are not being stopped in places like Chicago. That's the real racism. And, B, the dissolution of the black family has led to the rise of young black male crime. GOLDBERG: Those are not racist questions. O'REILLY: And they're provable with statistics. But the black community itself by and large, generally they don't want to hear it. GOLDBERG: Right. Well, you mentioned the black establishment. I think you said that that's an important point. Look, liberal politicians like Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton, it doesn't take any courage to put billionaires and Wall Street in their crosshairs. They blame them. They make them the villains and they get a lot of applause, okay? But it would take a certain amount of courage to talk about black behavior or minority behavior, and I'm not talking about widespread. I'm talking about kids having kids and kids, and kids dropping out of school, and kids shooting each other. That would take courage to talk about that because the black establishment wouldn't like that. O'REILLY: That's right. And that's why it won't happen. GOLDBERG: That could cost you votes. O'REILLY: Lots of votes. GOLDBERG: That's what this is all about. Previously: On O'Reilly, Bernie Goldberg Says Liberals Defend Beyoncé Because She Is Black Fox's Bernie Goldberg: "Facts Mean Something Totally Different" To "Black Liberals" In Michael Brown Shooting Fox's Bernie Goldberg Accuses Obama Of Intentionally Stoking Racial Resentment

Posted by on 11 February 2016 | 8:40 am

Bill O'Reilly: "Some Precincts" In Fox News "Stacked Up" Against Hillary Clinton

From the February 11 edition of Fox News' The O'Reilly Factor: BILL O'REILLY (HOST): Fairness and news coverage of the presidential race. That is the subject of this evening's talking points memo. Almost every politician feels that one news operation or another doesn't give him or her a fair shake. I, myself, have leveled charges of unfairness against some entities so I can sympathize with the polls a bit. [...] Here is how the campaign should be covered. Hard news, just the facts, please. Don't need any shading. Commentators like me are free to give opinions on just about everything. Morning hosts, they're opinion people too. Each show has a different definition. So while candidates like Hillary Clinton might feel Fox News is stacked up against them, that's only true in some precincts, not network wide. For example, I go out of my way to keep it all about issues, unless a politician strays into dubious areas like the email deal. That being said, I have sometimes defended Hillary Clinton from cheap shots and have stayed completely away from any and all personal attacks. But it's easy for politicians to dodge tough interviews by saying ,"oh, I'm going to be treated unfairly. And that's what often happens in these cases. One guy who does not dodge is Donald Trump, although he does hold a grudge if you hit him hard. Mr. Trump, like all the other candidates, says he just want to be treated in a fair manner. Here is his assessment of the press in general. [...] It's hard to argue with that. Myself, of course, excluded. Summing up, hard news, folks, just the facts, please. Commentators, say anything you want, and the candidates should not take it personally unless personal attacks are used. Those are unacceptable. Previously:  O'Reilly: "Hillary Clinton Has An Advantage" Because "It's Open Season" On White Men In The U.S. O'Reilly Says He Will Cover Hillary Clinton In A "Fair And Balanced Way, " Then Calls Her "Untrustworthy" Bill O'Reilly Advises Donald Trump To Call Hillary Clinton "Inept"

Posted by on 11 February 2016 | 7:56 am

Fox's Jesse Watters: If Obama Were President During World War II He'd "Thank The Japanese For Bombing Pearl Harbor"

From the February 11 edition of Fox News' The Five: JESSE WATTERS (CO-HOST): Iran is our new friend right? Wrong. Today while the country celebrated the 37th anniversary of Islamic revolution, the chants were loud and clear. Death to America, death to Israel. So anti-American sentiment hasn't waned since the nuke deal. But according to our administration the country is showing its kindness now. Remember? They freed our sailors and treated them so well. [...] Continuing their propaganda stunt, Iran released new footage of yesterday's sailors in tears. Some Republican presidential candidates are irate. [...] I think if President Obama was president in the 1930s he'd probably thank the Japanese for bombing Pearl Harbor. Previously: Poor-Shaming, Sexism, And Transphobia: This Is What You Can Expect Of Jesse Watters' Upcoming Hosting Gig At Fox Fox's Jesse Watters: Obama Has Imported "Dangerous Things" Like "Ebola Into America" Fox's Jesse Watters: New York City Traffic "Is What Happens When You Let Women Drive"

Posted by on 11 February 2016 | 5:48 am

Bigotry, Hate and Lies Taking Shape

Posted by on 11 February 2016 | 4:12 am

Nationally Syndicated Radio Host Michael Berry: "Black Folk Don't Need To Hear No Economics"

From the February 11 edition of iHeart Radio's The Michael Berry Show: MICHAEL BERRY: Bernie Sanders' meeting with Al Sharpton yesterday. None of these people are speaking out on the basis of economic policy, foreign policy. None of these things affect whether life in this country will be wonderful because of opportunity. All of this is related to what are you going to do for blacks? What are you going to do for us? Those are the words that come out. But what they really mean is what are you going to do for me? How much I'm going to get paid? What I'm going to get out this deal? CNN's Marc Lamont Hill says, quote, "Bernie Sanders has to put himself in a position where black voters see him as the conscious choice, see him as the one who reflects their sensibilities. He has not done that purely by talking economics." You can't talk economics. We talking about black folk here! Black folk don't need to hear no economics! Next line. '"He has to talk to our racial pain, our racial realities." In other words, he has to talk down to us. Headline yesterday: Over 40 percent of babies born in American in 2015 were to fatherless woman, fatherless homes. Over 40 percent. If you look at just blacks -- want to talk about the black experience today? Last time I checked, I think it was three-quarters. Might have been two-thirds but I think it was three-quarters of babies born in America. Listen, I got news for you. When you attack a cop, you can blame him for shooting back. When you break the laws, even if they're stupid, you knew what the law was, and you get caught, you're going to jail. You can blame the system. But what you can't blame the system for is when a black man makes a baby with a black woman, with no intention of taking care of it. That ain't whitey's fault. And that's the biggest problem because every little baby that's plopped out is gonna grow into a man or a woman, and many times without any direction.    Previously: Texas Right-Wing Radio Host Michael Berry's Long History Of Offensive Public Comments Syndicated Radio Host Michael Berry Calls McKinney Teens "Jungle Animals" Syndicated Radio Host Michael Berry: White People Don't Kill People The Way Black People Do

Posted by on 11 February 2016 | 3:10 am

Fox Dismisses Video About Systemic Racism As "Dumb," Instead Highlighting Complaints From "Outraged" Parents

Fox News levied a series of complaints and attacks against a Black History Month video by the African American Policy Forum that portrays the barriers of institutional and historical anti-black racism. Fox ignored the substance of the video, which was shown to students at a Virginia high school, and instead focused on complaints that the video is "trying to make students feel guilty for being white." Fox's diatribe against the video underscores a long-standing pattern of shortsighted race coverage at Fox and in mainstream media.Educational Video Compares Systemic Racism To Unequal Marathon -- A Long-Established Metaphor Video Shows "Metaphors For Obstacles To Equality," Including Slavery, Mass Incarceration, And Housing Segregation. An educational video by the African American Policy Forum metaphorically portrays the barriers of "structural discrimination" and the historical legacy of slavery through a marathon. The video shows white runners are afforded a host of privileges and opportunities that the black runners are not, and it shines light on issues including wealth disparities, discrimination, underemployment, education disparities, the school-to-prison pipeline, and housing, among others. [African American Policy Forum, accessed via YouTube, 2/11/16] Marathon Analogy Of Racial Inequality Has A Long History, Dating Back At Least To President Johnson. President Lyndon B. Johnson used the race metaphor during his June 4, 1965, commencement address at Howard University, which is "widely known as the intellectual framework for affirmative action." According to The Washington Post, in the speech, Johnson said, "'You do not take a person who, for years, has been hobbled by chains and liberate him, bring him up to the starting line of a race and then say, 'You are free to compete with all the others,' and still justly believe that you have been completely fair.'" [The Washington Post, 6/4/15] Fox Ignores Substance Of The Video, Hypes Complaints That It Was Created To "Divide" And "Make Students Feel Guilty For Being White" Fox's Steve Doocy: Is This So-Called "White Guilt Video ... . Really The Way To Address Racial Discourse?" In a "Trouble With Schools" segment during the February 11 edition of Fox & Friends, co-host Steve Doocy introduced the video by saying that it has "been referred to as a white guilt video," and asking, "So was this really the way to address racial discourse or was it just a way to create a divide among some students?" Doocy ignored the information in the video, instead hyping the criticism of parents who are "outraged," and his guest Craig Johnson said that the video was only a "partial history" and that the barriers portrayed were not "real issues": STEVE DOOCY (HOST): Parents at a Virginia high school are outraged after their children were shown this, which has been referred to as a white guilt video, as part of Black History Month. The video shows athletes at a track meet, two are white, getting a head start while black runners are shown running into roadblocks like slavery, genocide, and discrimination. So was this really the way to address racial discourse, or was it just a way to create a divide among some students? ... . You say it is out and out deception. Why? CRAIG JOHNSON: Well, it's partial history. The simple fact of the matter is that slavery and discrimination has happened since the dawn of time in every culture. You've had black Barbary pirates enslave the white Europeans, you have white Europeans then enslave blacks. You have black on black capturing of slaves, selling them to Jewish and Muslim middlemen who sold them to Europeans. The entire world, Steve, participated in slavery. But only England and America fought to end slavery, and you still have slavery in certain parts of North Africa to this day. Blacks are enslaved by Muslims to this day, OK? ... . Martin Luther King died for America to be a place where you're judged by the content of your character, not the color of your skin, and the poverty pimps need to beat their swords into plowshares. Roll their sleeves up and get busy with real issues that these children are going to have to face once they leave school and go into a very, very increasingly competitive marketplace. DOOCY: Craig, this is not historical. It's not looking back in the rearview mirror. It's saying that if you are African-American today, the deck is stacked against you for your entire life. [Fox News, Fox & Friends, 2/11/16] Fox's Charles Payne: "It Looked Real, Real Dumb"; There Are "A Lot Better Ways To Explain American History." During the February 10 edition of Fox Business' Varney & Co., guest host Charles Payne said that the video "looked real, real dumb," and claimed there are "a lot better ways to explain American history than that"while guest Ashley Webster claimed that although the video is "supposed to be a lesson in racial discourse," it was "heavy-handed at the very least": CHARLES PAYNE (GUEST HOST): And now to this, a video shown to high school students in Virginia causing controversy. Ashley, what's the story here? ASHLEY WEBSTER: Yeah, it's an animated film, it's called "Unequal Opportunity Race." You're seeing it here, it was shown for a Virginia high school. It's supposed to be a lesson in racial discourse. What you're seeing here is four athletes, two whites and two African-Americans, take off in the race. And the minority races are told to hold back, and then you see such words as discrimination, slavery and so on, come up on the screen. Parents have said, "Look, this is like an attempt to create white guilt for students and is inappropriate."But the school said, "Look, this is a presentation involving an American -- discourse in American history and racial issues." Well as you can see, some parents not very happy, saying, "Wait a minute; this is just purely designed to, as they say, create white guilt." PAYNE: It looked real, real dumb. And considering this is educational -- WEBSTER: Heavy-handed at the very least -- PAYNE: A lot better ways to explain American history than that. [Fox Business, Varney & Co., 2/10/16] Fox's Heather Nauert: "Parents Are Outraged" At A Video They Claim Is "Trying To Make Students Feel Guilty For Being White." On the February 10 edition of Fox & Friends, news anchor Heather Nauert ignored the substance of the video, instead hyping criticisms from "parents are outraged" and questioning whether the video was "trying to make students feel guilty for being white." Nauert further noted that the video "raises a whole lot of eyebrows": HEATHER NAUERT: And a school trying to make students feel guilty for being white? Parents are outraged at Glen Allen High School, this is in Virginia, after this video was played during class. It shows athletes at a track meet, several white runners get a head start on several black runners, who are forced to deal with things like slavery, genocide and broken treaties along the way. School officials defending that video, calling it a lesson in quote, American history and racial discourse. What do you think about that one? That one raises a whole lot of eyebrows at that school in Virginia. [Fox News, Fox & Friends, 2/10/16] Video Raises Important Points About The Continuing Effects Of Institutional And Systemic Racism Mass Incarceration The Sentencing Project: "One Of Every Three Black American Males Born Today Can Expect To Go To Prison In His Lifetime." A 2013 report by The Sentencing Project found that "racial minorities are more likely than white Americans to be arrested" and "once arrested, they are more likely to be convicted." The report showed that "African-American males are six times more likely to be incarcerated than white males" and that "if current trends continue, one of every three black American males born today can expect to go to prison in his lifetime": The United States criminal justice system is the largest in the world. At year end 2011, approximately 7 million individuals were under some form of correctional control in the United States, including 2.2 million incarcerated in federal, state, or local prisons and jails. The U.S. has the highest incarceration rate in the world, dwarfing the rate of nearly every other nation. Such broad statistics mask the racial disparity that pervades the U.S. criminal justice system. Racial minorities are more likely than white Americans to be arrested; once arrested, they are more likely to be convicted; and once convicted, they are more likely to face stiff sentences. African-American males are six times more likely to be incarcerated than white males and 2.5 times more likely than Hispanic males. If current trends continue, one of every three black American males born today can expect to go to prison in his lifetime, as can one of every six Latino males--compared to one of every seventeen white males. Racial and ethnic disparities among women are less substantial than among men but remain prevalent. The source of such disparities is deeper and more systemic than explicit racial discrimination. The United States in effect operates two distinct criminal justice systems: one for wealthy people and another for poor people and minorities. [The Sentencing Project, August 2013] Education PBS: "School To Prison Pipeline." PBS republished a factsheet from SuspensionStories.com that highlights the "school-to-prison pipeline," saying that rather than receiving appropriate punishments, many"students are suspended, expelled, or even arrested for minor offenses." PBS noted that "statistics reflect that these policies disproportionately target students of color and those with a history of abuse, neglect, poverty or learning disabilities": [PBS, accessed 2/11/16] U. Penn Study: Black Students Are Suspended And Expelled At "Disproportionately High" Rates In The South. A 2015 study from the University of Pennsylvania's Graduate School of Education examined school suspension and expulsion rates in 13 southern states and found that black students were suspended and expelled from school at rates far higher than school demographics would suggest. The report summarized: Nationally, 1.2 million Black students were suspended from K-12 public schools in a single academic year - 55% of those suspensions occurred in 13 Southern states. Districts in the South also were responsible for 50% of Black student expulsions from public schools in the United States. [ ... ] On average, Blacks were 24% of students in the 3,022 districts we analyzed, but rates at which they were suspended and expelled are disproportionately high... . In 132 Southern school districts, Blacks were disproportionately suspended at rates five times or higher than their representation in the student population. In 84 districts, Blacks were 100% of the students suspended from public schools. In 346 districts, Blacks were 75% or more of the students suspended from public schools. In 743 districts, Blacks were 50% or more of the students suspended from public schools. Blacks comprised 74% of suspensions from public schools in Mississippi, which was the highest proportion among the states... . In 77 Southern school districts, Blacks were disproportionately expelled at rates five times or higher than their representation in the student population. In 181 districts, Blacks were 100% of the students expelled from public schools. In 255 districts, Blacks were 75% or more of the students expelled from public schools. In 484 districts, Blacks were 50% or more of the students expelled from public schools. Blacks comprised 72% of expulsions from public schools in both Louisiana and Mississippi, which was the highest proportion among the states. [University of Pennsylvania Center for the Study of Race and Equity in Education, 2015] Georgetown University Center On Education And The Workforce: Higher Education Remains "Separate And Unequal" Among Racial Groups. A 2013 report from Georgetown's Center On Education And The Workforce found that the types of institutions students chose for college enrollment were starkly divided by race, perpetuating white privilege through education outcomes. In an analysis of enrollment trends at 4,400 postsecondary institutions, researchers determined that white students disproportionately attended selective colleges and black and Hispanic students disproportionately attended open-access and community colleges, leading to racial discrepancies in graduation rates and access to resources. The report summarized: Between 1995 and 2009, 82 percent of new white freshman enrollments were at the 468 most selective four-year colleges, compared to 13 percent for Hispanics and 9 percent for African Americans; 68 percent of new African-American freshman enrollments and 72 percent of new Hispanic freshman enrollments were at open-access two- and four-year colleges, compared to no growth for whites. [...] These racially polarized separate pathways exist, even among highly qualified students: Among "A" students, African Americans and Hispanics are more likely to enroll in community colleges than similarly qualified white students. [Georgetown Center on Education and the Workforce, 7/31/13, 7/31/13] Study: "A Black College Student Has The Same Chances Of Getting A Job As A White High School Dropout." A 2015 study from the nonprofit Young Invincibles found that "African-American students need to complete two more levels of education to have the same probability of getting a job as their white peers" elaborating that "an African-American male with an associates degree has around the same chance of getting a job as a white male with just a high school diploma." ThinkProgress reported on the study's findings, based on federal labor and census data, which attributed this gap to factors associated with "a long history of discrimination": African-American students need to complete two more levels of education to have the same probability of getting a job as their white peers, a new study by Young Invincibles finds. The researchers looked at data mainly from the Bureau of Labor Statistics and the U.S. Census, isolating the effects of race and education on unemployment. They found that an African-American male with an associates degree has around the same chance of getting a job as a white male with just a high school diploma. "At every level of education, race impacts a person's chance of getting a job," Tom Allison, a research manager and one of the study's authors, told ThinkProgress. [...] The study attributes the employment gap mainly to hiring discrimination, high incarceration rates for black people, and African Americans' lack of inherited wealth from past generations due to a long history of discrimination. Less inherited wealth results in low homeownership rates and high deficits among African Americans: While a college-educated white American has an average net worth of $75,000, a college-educated black American has a net worth of less than $17,500. [ThinkProgress, 6/24/15] Gallup: "Black College Grads More Likely to Graduate With Debt." A Gallup analysis from 2014 revealed that "half of 2000-2014 black college graduates in the U.S. report graduating with more than $25,000 in undergraduate student loan debt" compared with "34% of recent white graduates." Gallup also found that "recent black college graduates are 17 points more likely to have graduated with student loan debt than white college graduates," pointing out that this is part of a "larger issue of the income and wealth gap between the races that has failed to close": Half of 2000-2014 black college graduates in the U.S. report graduating with more than $25,000 in undergraduate student loan debt. By comparison, 34% of recent white graduates report similar levels of debt, revealing a large borrowing gap between the races. While there has also been a concurrent rise in the amount of undergraduate debt for whites as well as blacks, the gap between white and black college graduates has remained roughly the same over the timespan, at nearly 20 percentage points. Recent black college graduates are 17 points more likely to have graduated with student loan debt than white college graduates, close to the differences that existed between white and black college graduates in the 1970s (20 points), 1980s (20 points), and 1990s (17 points). Then there is the larger issue of the income and wealth gap between the races that has failed to close, according to several studies. Indeed, a 2011 study by the Center on Education and the Workforce at Georgetown University showed that even when educational attainment is the same between whites and blacks, blacks consistently earn less. This could help create a vicious cycle for many black graduates whereby they are compelled by economic necessity to take out student debt when they attend college and then subsequently spend a substantial period of their professional life paying down this debt, minimizing the ability to save for a child's college education. [Gallup, 9/18/14] St. Louis Fed: Even With A College Degree, Black And Hispanic Graduates Have Less Economic Security. Recent research from the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis called into question the common assumption that college degrees lead to some level of economic stability for all graduates, finding that black and Hispanic college graduates are not guaranteed the same protections as their counterparts simply by having a degree -- partly because of outsized household debt burdens. The New York Times wrote of the study's findings (emphasis added): A college degree has long been recognized as a great equalizer, a path for minorities to help bridge the economic chasm that separates them from whites. But the report, scheduled to be released on Monday, raises troubling questions about the ability of a college education to narrow the racial and ethnic wealth gap. "Higher education alone cannot level the playing field," the report concludes. Economists emphasize that college-educated blacks and Hispanics over all earn significantly more and are in a better position to accumulate wealth than blacks and Hispanics who do not get degrees ... But while these college grads had more assets, they suffered disproportionately during periods of financial trouble. [The New York Times, 8/16/15, Federal Reserve Board of St. Louis, August 2015] Housing Discrimination Economic Policy Institute: History Of Housing Segregation Has "Continuing Effects." The Economic Policy Institute's Richard Rothstein explained that the discriminatory housing policies of the 20th century have "continuing effects" that cause social and economic disadvantages for African-Americans. Rothstein notes that the "widely acknowledged difference in educational outcomes is, in considerable part, the enduring effect of de jure segregated house policies of the 20thcentury": Even those who understand this dramatic history of de jure segregation may think that because these policies are those of the past, there is no longer a public policy bar that prevents African Americans from moving to white neighborhoods. Thus, they say, although these policies were unfortunate, we no longer have de jure segregation. Rather, they believe, the reason we don't have integration today is not because of government policy but because most African Americans cannot afford to live in middle class neighborhoods. This unaffordability was also created by federal, state, and local policy that prevented African Americans in the mid-twentieth century from accumulating the capital needed to invest in home ownership in middle-class neighborhoods, and then from benefiting from the equity appreciation that followed in the ensuing decades. [...] In short, middle-class African Americans and whites are in different financial straits. Total family wealth (including the ability to borrow from home equity) has more impact than income on high-school graduates' ability to afford college. Wealth also influences children's early expectations that they will attend and complete college. White middle-class children are more likely to prepare for, apply to, and graduate from college than black children with similar family incomes. This widely acknowledged difference in educational outcomes is, in considerable part, the enduring effect of de jure segregated housing policies of the 20th century, policies that prevented African Americans from accumulating, and bequeathing, wealth that they might otherwise have gained from appreciating real estate. [Economic Policy Institute, 11/12/14] Wealth Disparity Slate: "The Wealth Gap Between Blacks and Whites Is Even More Enormous (and Shameful) Than You Think." A December 2015 Slate article explored the growing wealth gap, pointing to a Pew Research Center report that found that the "median white household was worth...12.9 times more than the typical black household." The article explained that "racist policies like redlining" and other housing policies have made it so "blacks weren't able to save and build assets to pass on to the next generation concluding that. The piece concludes that "when it comes to finances, the U.S. has left the typical black household with just about nothing": "Perhaps no statistic better illustrates the enduring legacy of our country's shameful history of treating black people as sub-citizens, sub-Americans, and sub-humans than the wealth gap," the Atlantic's Ta-Nehisi Coates wrote in his masterful essay, "The Case for Reparations." That gap, enormous and awful as it already was, has been growing since the recession. Last week, the Pew Research Center reported that the median white household was worth $141,900, 12.9 times more than the typical black household, which was worth just $11,000. In 2007, the ratio was 10 to one. The divide between white families and Hispanics was similar. [...] This doesn't fundamentally change the story Pew is telling about the racial wealth divide. It just shows that the median black household lives even closer to the edge than the official numbers might suggest. The reasons why have to do with far more than relative poverty (as Matt Bruenig has written at Demos, white households are worth far more than black households even when they have similar incomes). Because of racist policies like redlining, midcentury black families were regularly cut off from the housing market, forced into predatory lending arrangements when they did buy, and settled in neighborhoods that were eventually decimated by white flight and urban decay. For the American middle class, homeownership is wealth, and without it, blacks weren't able to save and build assets to pass on to the next generation. In more recent years, subprime lenders specifically targeted minority communities with the risky loans that later led to the foreclosure crisis. The story is complicated. But the upshot is simple: When it comes to finances, the U.S. has left the typical black household with just about nothing. [Slate, 12/10/15] Life Expectancy Business Insider: "This Chart Showing The Gap Between Black And White Life Expectancy Should Be A National Embarrassment." A 2014 Business Insider article pointed out the "yawning racial gap" in the results of a life expectancy analysis by the Centers for Disease Control (CDC). The analysis showed that in 2009,"the average life expectancy of black men and women in the United States was just 75," which was the same as that of "white men and women in 1979 - 30 years earlier": The latest analysis by the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) show that for people in the U.S., the average life expectancy in 2009 was 79 years -- that's up from 68 in 1950 and 57 in 1929. But this generally positive upward trend obscures a yawning racial gap. Take a look at this chart: In 2009, the average life expectancy of black men and women in the United States was just 75. That's roughly the same as the average life expectancy of white men and women in 1979 -- 30 years earlier. The average life expectancy of black men in 2009 was just 71 (compared to 76 for white men). While such a significant gap is troubling, the 2009 black/white life expectancy gap was actually at an all-time low of 4 years. In 1950, that gap was almost twice as large. [...] The researchers found that white men with 16 or more years of schooling can expect to live an average of 14 years longer than black men with fewer than 12 years of education. (For white and black women with the same educational differences, that gap was 10 years.) [Business Insider, 1/9/14] Fox Has A Long History Of Problematic And Skewed Race Coverage Fox News Relentlessly Demonized The Black Lives Matter Movement In 2015. In 2015, Fox News' three prime-time hosts -- Megyn Kelly, Bill O'Reilly, and Sean Hannity -- engaged in a smear campaign against the Black Lives Matter movement, fearmongering about the alleged threat it poses to law and order whilehyping racial canards aimed at discrediting the movement's calls for justice. The three hosts relentlessly accused Black Lives Matter of extremismwhileinviting extreme guests onto their shows to attack Black Lives Matter, and linking Black Lives Matter to criminality. [Media Matters, 12/29/15] Fox Has A History Of Race-Baiting And Hyping An Alleged Nationwide Race War. Fox's well-documented history of problematic race coverage and race-baiting includes attacking black victims of police brutality, smearing the Voting Rights Act, associating black people with victimization and criminality, hyping black-on-black crime, and using racist dog-whistles. [Media Matters, 12/16/13, Media Matters, 12/31/13, Media Matters, 2/18/14, Media Matters, 7/4/15] Fox's Actions Fit Into A Larger Media Pattern Of Failing To Discuss Systemic Racism And Contextualize Racial Disparities Race Forward Study: Media's Race Coverage Is Largely "Systemically Absent." In 2014, Race Forward: The Center for Racial Justice Innovation analyzed over a thousand national and local newspapers articles and cable television news transcripts to determine what percentage of race and racism coverage was "systemically aware" -- meaning it "mentions or highlights policies and/or practices that lead to racial disparities; describes the root causes of disparities including the history and compounding effects of institutions; and/or describes or challenges the aforementioned." The study concluded that "most of the mainstream media's racism content is not 'systemically aware,'" finding that "about two out of three articles on race and racism failed to include a perspective with any insight on systemic-level racism." It also concluded that "very rarely" did media "feature prominent, robust coverage of racial justice advocacy or solutions." [Race Forward, January 2014] Media Failed To Contextualize Ferguson Unrest With Broader Discussion Of Police Brutality And Historic Racism. Media coverage of the events in Baltimore and Ferguson similarly failed to investigate the role systemic inequality and institutional racism played in creating unrest, denying audiences the ability to understand those news events in context. A second Race Forward analysis examined media's race coverage specific to the Ferguson protests, seeking to answer "how much attention [race is] actually getting in the coverage." The study found that media overwhelmingly failed to contextualize the Ferguson protests in a broader discussion of racist policing practices. The Race Forward report found that although nearly half of the articles included "terms such as 'race,' 'racial,' 'racism,' 'racist,' and 'diversity,'" "only 34 of 994 articles analyzed led with a minimally systemically aware perspective." [Race Forward, September 2014]

Posted by on 11 February 2016 | 2:54 am