Lily Salter's Blog, page 963
November 2, 2015
Abortion and “Jane the Virgin”: Ultimately, giving birth is the one choice that matters on this show
When it debuted in 2014, the "Jane the Virgin" was one of TV’s freshest and most unexpected surprises. The critically acclaimed dramedy stars Golden Globe-winner Gina Rodriguez as an aspiring writer who accidentally gets artificially inseminated after a hospital mix-up—and decides to keep it. This causes obvious tension in her relationship with Michael (Brett Dier) and a romance to blossom with Rafael (Justin Baldoni), the soon-to-be father of her child. If this all sounds ripped from a telenovela, that’s because it is—the CW show was adapted from a Venezuelan program of the same name—but what makes "Jane the Virgin" so extraordinary is the way it treats the daily stresses of pregnancy and motherhood as just as noteworthy as Jane’s neverending love triangle. Last season found Jane struggling to prepare for the responsibilities of parenting, and this season has devoted entire episodes to breastfeeding and getting your baby to blink. This past installment found Jane trying to decide between being a stay-at-home mom and going to grad school, and the show emphasized that, for mothers, there is no wrong choice. It’s an incredibly non-judgmental view of motherhood—in a culture that too often tells women that however you’re raising your child, you’re doing it wrong. (Hell, Kim Kardashian has been shamed for everything from how much North West cries to
having swollen ankles
.) But what’s disappointing is that "Jane the Virgin" is unable to show the empathy for all the choices women have to make about their bodies. The show's pilot was lauded for its pro-choice depiction of a matter-of-fact conversation about abortion when Jane finds out she's pregnant, and later, for a conversation about whether or not Jane would terminate the pregnancy if tests showed severe abnormalities (she wouldn't, and they didn't). But in a recent episode, Rafael’s ex-girlfriend Petra (the fantastic Yael Grobglas) stole a remaining sample of his sperm (spoilers ahead) and drunkenly knocked herself up with a turkey baster. Petra asks his advice, which puts Rafael in a difficult position: Should he encourage her to have it “taken care of” or help his manipulative ex-wife raise a child he doesn’t want? Confusingly, the show emphasizes that it’s Petra’s body and her call, but abortion — in many ways, the least dramatic choice Petra could make here — is a non-starter. The Big A is treated as a dirty word. While the misstep is disappointing, pop culture has long struggled with how to present a woman’s right to choose in ways that are validating and non-dismissive. In the late Adrienne Shelly’s "Waitress," Keri Russell never considers abortion, despite the fact that she’s in an abusive, loveless marriage. "Juno" dismisses the procedure after its titular character gets cold feet during her Planned Parenthood visit, after a pro-life protester tells her that her child has fingernails. In "Knocked Up," Katherine Heigl decides to raise a child with her one-night stand—despite the objections of everyone around her—for reasons that are unclear. In a 2007 editorial for the Huffington Post, Lisa Wade called "Knocked Up" “pro-life ideology disguised by dick jokes”—despite the fact that, like "Juno" screenwriter Diablo Cody, its creator, Judd Apatow, is pro-choice. I wouldn’t say that any of these movies or shows are against a woman’s right to choose, but the issue is that they rarely present it as a realistic option. Cody argued that she intended to show the “human, teenage reasons” that someone might choose not to have an abortion, which is fair, but too rarely do we ever get to see the “human, teenage reasons” that a girl like Juno might choose to terminate her pregnancy. However, a number of recent films have portrayed a woman’s right to choose in ways that are honest and reflect the hard decisions women have to make. Paul Weitz’s recent "Grandma" follows a young woman (Julia Garner)—one not much older than Juno—who asks her estranged grandmother (Lily Tomlin) to fund her abortion; because she can’t afford to help, the pair embark on a "Thelma and Louise"-style road trip to raise the money. Whereas "Grandma" emphasizes the financial burdens of pregnancy, the much-praised "Obvious Child" sets its abortion drama in the plot of a traditional romantic comedy. Giving the buddy comedy and the rom-com a pro-choice twist might not feel revolutionary to some, but these films are incredibly important to women who might be struggling with the stigma of abortion. This is why Amelia Bonow and Lindy West started the #ShoutYourAbortion hashtag in September: to show women that it’s OK to talk about their experiences with the issue. “The fact that even progressive, outspoken, pro-choice feminists feel the pressure to keep our abortions under wraps—to speak about them only in corners, in murmurs, in private with our closest confidantes—means that opponents of abortion get to define it however suits them best,“ West wrote in the Guardian. West is absolutely right: The real danger of silence—whether that’s in TV, movies, or real life—is those against a woman’s right to choose are anything but quiet. In recent months, an ongoing Republican “investigation” into Planned Parenthood (following a number of viral hoax videos on the Internet) has sought to defund women’s health centers across the country, and it has worked. States like Texas and Ohio have already voted to cut taxpayer funding for Planned Parenthood, while states like South Carolina, Arizona, Kansas, Missouri, Louisiana, and Alabama have all considered doing the same. This would leave millions of women without local options for reproductive health. Although I don’t expect "Jane the Virgin" or any other television program to take an explicit stand on that issue (although I wouldn’t complain), the show has a responsibility to show women everywhere that all of the decision they make about their own bodies are important and valid. A recent study found that 99 percent of all women who have terminated a pregnancy don’t regret it, and we need to show that abortions aren’t evil or demonic; for many women, it was simply right for them. If "Jane the Virgin" really wants to get motherhood right, it needs to recognize all the women who choose not to become mothers through abortion — not just theoretically, but for real — and remind us why that’s OK, too.When it debuted in 2014, the "Jane the Virgin" was one of TV’s freshest and most unexpected surprises. The critically acclaimed dramedy stars Golden Globe-winner Gina Rodriguez as an aspiring writer who accidentally gets artificially inseminated after a hospital mix-up—and decides to keep it. This causes obvious tension in her relationship with Michael (Brett Dier) and a romance to blossom with Rafael (Justin Baldoni), the soon-to-be father of her child. If this all sounds ripped from a telenovela, that’s because it is—the CW show was adapted from a Venezuelan program of the same name—but what makes "Jane the Virgin" so extraordinary is the way it treats the daily stresses of pregnancy and motherhood as just as noteworthy as Jane’s neverending love triangle. Last season found Jane struggling to prepare for the responsibilities of parenting, and this season has devoted entire episodes to breastfeeding and getting your baby to blink. This past installment found Jane trying to decide between being a stay-at-home mom and going to grad school, and the show emphasized that, for mothers, there is no wrong choice. It’s an incredibly non-judgmental view of motherhood—in a culture that too often tells women that however you’re raising your child, you’re doing it wrong. (Hell, Kim Kardashian has been shamed for everything from how much North West cries to
having swollen ankles
.) But what’s disappointing is that "Jane the Virgin" is unable to show the empathy for all the choices women have to make about their bodies. The show's pilot was lauded for its pro-choice depiction of a matter-of-fact conversation about abortion when Jane finds out she's pregnant, and later, for a conversation about whether or not Jane would terminate the pregnancy if tests showed severe abnormalities (she wouldn't, and they didn't). But in a recent episode, Rafael’s ex-girlfriend Petra (the fantastic Yael Grobglas) stole a remaining sample of his sperm (spoilers ahead) and drunkenly knocked herself up with a turkey baster. Petra asks his advice, which puts Rafael in a difficult position: Should he encourage her to have it “taken care of” or help his manipulative ex-wife raise a child he doesn’t want? Confusingly, the show emphasizes that it’s Petra’s body and her call, but abortion — in many ways, the least dramatic choice Petra could make here — is a non-starter. The Big A is treated as a dirty word. While the misstep is disappointing, pop culture has long struggled with how to present a woman’s right to choose in ways that are validating and non-dismissive. In the late Adrienne Shelly’s "Waitress," Keri Russell never considers abortion, despite the fact that she’s in an abusive, loveless marriage. "Juno" dismisses the procedure after its titular character gets cold feet during her Planned Parenthood visit, after a pro-life protester tells her that her child has fingernails. In "Knocked Up," Katherine Heigl decides to raise a child with her one-night stand—despite the objections of everyone around her—for reasons that are unclear. In a 2007 editorial for the Huffington Post, Lisa Wade called "Knocked Up" “pro-life ideology disguised by dick jokes”—despite the fact that, like "Juno" screenwriter Diablo Cody, its creator, Judd Apatow, is pro-choice. I wouldn’t say that any of these movies or shows are against a woman’s right to choose, but the issue is that they rarely present it as a realistic option. Cody argued that she intended to show the “human, teenage reasons” that someone might choose not to have an abortion, which is fair, but too rarely do we ever get to see the “human, teenage reasons” that a girl like Juno might choose to terminate her pregnancy. However, a number of recent films have portrayed a woman’s right to choose in ways that are honest and reflect the hard decisions women have to make. Paul Weitz’s recent "Grandma" follows a young woman (Julia Garner)—one not much older than Juno—who asks her estranged grandmother (Lily Tomlin) to fund her abortion; because she can’t afford to help, the pair embark on a "Thelma and Louise"-style road trip to raise the money. Whereas "Grandma" emphasizes the financial burdens of pregnancy, the much-praised "Obvious Child" sets its abortion drama in the plot of a traditional romantic comedy. Giving the buddy comedy and the rom-com a pro-choice twist might not feel revolutionary to some, but these films are incredibly important to women who might be struggling with the stigma of abortion. This is why Amelia Bonow and Lindy West started the #ShoutYourAbortion hashtag in September: to show women that it’s OK to talk about their experiences with the issue. “The fact that even progressive, outspoken, pro-choice feminists feel the pressure to keep our abortions under wraps—to speak about them only in corners, in murmurs, in private with our closest confidantes—means that opponents of abortion get to define it however suits them best,“ West wrote in the Guardian. West is absolutely right: The real danger of silence—whether that’s in TV, movies, or real life—is those against a woman’s right to choose are anything but quiet. In recent months, an ongoing Republican “investigation” into Planned Parenthood (following a number of viral hoax videos on the Internet) has sought to defund women’s health centers across the country, and it has worked. States like Texas and Ohio have already voted to cut taxpayer funding for Planned Parenthood, while states like South Carolina, Arizona, Kansas, Missouri, Louisiana, and Alabama have all considered doing the same. This would leave millions of women without local options for reproductive health. Although I don’t expect "Jane the Virgin" or any other television program to take an explicit stand on that issue (although I wouldn’t complain), the show has a responsibility to show women everywhere that all of the decision they make about their own bodies are important and valid. A recent study found that 99 percent of all women who have terminated a pregnancy don’t regret it, and we need to show that abortions aren’t evil or demonic; for many women, it was simply right for them. If "Jane the Virgin" really wants to get motherhood right, it needs to recognize all the women who choose not to become mothers through abortion — not just theoretically, but for real — and remind us why that’s OK, too.
The most “Hunger Games” thing ever is a “Hunger Games” theme park — and it’s happening
Good news, sadists fans of wholesome family fun: “The Hunger Games,” a series about children brutally slaughtering each other for sport, is getting the theme park treatment. The New York Times reports that, much like Universal’s Harry Potter theme park, Lionsgate is looking to capitalize on the popularity of its young adult mega-franchise by building theme parks in China and the U.S. When chief exec Jon Feltheimer floated the idea, his team was predictably skeptical, given the film’s dark content. But then the studio’s chief brand officer Tim Palen "realized there was a major opportunity — not just to create something smart and captivating that ‘Hunger Games’ fans would love, but to bring all of our franchises alive in new ways.” Along with "Hunger Games," other Lionsgate films like “Step Up,” “Divergent” and “Twilight” could also provide inspiration for rides and attractions. Lionsgate’s approach is to license its film properties to external developers, instead of developing the parks themselves like Disney and Universal. In the works so far is a "Hunger Games"-themed “Avatron Smart Park” in Atlanta, slated for 2019, and a 237,000-square-foot “experience center” in Hengquin, China, that will include rides and shows connected to six major films. There is also Dubai Parks and Resorts’ Motiongate Park, which will feature attractions based on Lionsgate, DreamWorks and Sony Pictures films. Motiongate is slated to open next year, so we have some idea of how this whole thing could look: Per the Times, the Lionsgate area of the park will be mostly "Hunger Games" themed, featuring "a re-creation of the fictional District 12, a mining region where Katniss grew up” including "costumed characters and real-life versions of Peeta Mellark’s bakery and the Hob black market.” (The poverty-stricken, resource-poor bakeries of District 12 -- now with more funnel cake!). Meanwhile “A lavish roller coaster will be designed to resemble the movies’ high-speed Capitol trains,” and “a simulator-style ride, similar to Disney’s well-known Star Tours attraction, will take people on a hovercraft tour of Panem, the post-apocalyptic nation where 'The Hunger Games' takes place.” Palen acknowledged that they initially had some trouble getting studios to bite on the “Hunger Games” concept, but he says that “as we had more discussions with potential partners and the franchise has continued to grow, we uncovered a wealth of opportunities.” Any takers for the post-apocalyptic hovercraft tour, kids?! via GIPHYGood news, sadists fans of wholesome family fun: “The Hunger Games,” a series about children brutally slaughtering each other for sport, is getting the theme park treatment. The New York Times reports that, much like Universal’s Harry Potter theme park, Lionsgate is looking to capitalize on the popularity of its young adult mega-franchise by building theme parks in China and the U.S. When chief exec Jon Feltheimer floated the idea, his team was predictably skeptical, given the film’s dark content. But then the studio’s chief brand officer Tim Palen "realized there was a major opportunity — not just to create something smart and captivating that ‘Hunger Games’ fans would love, but to bring all of our franchises alive in new ways.” Along with "Hunger Games," other Lionsgate films like “Step Up,” “Divergent” and “Twilight” could also provide inspiration for rides and attractions. Lionsgate’s approach is to license its film properties to external developers, instead of developing the parks themselves like Disney and Universal. In the works so far is a "Hunger Games"-themed “Avatron Smart Park” in Atlanta, slated for 2019, and a 237,000-square-foot “experience center” in Hengquin, China, that will include rides and shows connected to six major films. There is also Dubai Parks and Resorts’ Motiongate Park, which will feature attractions based on Lionsgate, DreamWorks and Sony Pictures films. Motiongate is slated to open next year, so we have some idea of how this whole thing could look: Per the Times, the Lionsgate area of the park will be mostly "Hunger Games" themed, featuring "a re-creation of the fictional District 12, a mining region where Katniss grew up” including "costumed characters and real-life versions of Peeta Mellark’s bakery and the Hob black market.” (The poverty-stricken, resource-poor bakeries of District 12 -- now with more funnel cake!). Meanwhile “A lavish roller coaster will be designed to resemble the movies’ high-speed Capitol trains,” and “a simulator-style ride, similar to Disney’s well-known Star Tours attraction, will take people on a hovercraft tour of Panem, the post-apocalyptic nation where 'The Hunger Games' takes place.” Palen acknowledged that they initially had some trouble getting studios to bite on the “Hunger Games” concept, but he says that “as we had more discussions with potential partners and the franchise has continued to grow, we uncovered a wealth of opportunities.” Any takers for the post-apocalyptic hovercraft tour, kids?! via GIPHYGood news, sadists fans of wholesome family fun: “The Hunger Games,” a series about children brutally slaughtering each other for sport, is getting the theme park treatment. The New York Times reports that, much like Universal’s Harry Potter theme park, Lionsgate is looking to capitalize on the popularity of its young adult mega-franchise by building theme parks in China and the U.S. When chief exec Jon Feltheimer floated the idea, his team was predictably skeptical, given the film’s dark content. But then the studio’s chief brand officer Tim Palen "realized there was a major opportunity — not just to create something smart and captivating that ‘Hunger Games’ fans would love, but to bring all of our franchises alive in new ways.” Along with "Hunger Games," other Lionsgate films like “Step Up,” “Divergent” and “Twilight” could also provide inspiration for rides and attractions. Lionsgate’s approach is to license its film properties to external developers, instead of developing the parks themselves like Disney and Universal. In the works so far is a "Hunger Games"-themed “Avatron Smart Park” in Atlanta, slated for 2019, and a 237,000-square-foot “experience center” in Hengquin, China, that will include rides and shows connected to six major films. There is also Dubai Parks and Resorts’ Motiongate Park, which will feature attractions based on Lionsgate, DreamWorks and Sony Pictures films. Motiongate is slated to open next year, so we have some idea of how this whole thing could look: Per the Times, the Lionsgate area of the park will be mostly "Hunger Games" themed, featuring "a re-creation of the fictional District 12, a mining region where Katniss grew up” including "costumed characters and real-life versions of Peeta Mellark’s bakery and the Hob black market.” (The poverty-stricken, resource-poor bakeries of District 12 -- now with more funnel cake!). Meanwhile “A lavish roller coaster will be designed to resemble the movies’ high-speed Capitol trains,” and “a simulator-style ride, similar to Disney’s well-known Star Tours attraction, will take people on a hovercraft tour of Panem, the post-apocalyptic nation where 'The Hunger Games' takes place.” Palen acknowledged that they initially had some trouble getting studios to bite on the “Hunger Games” concept, but he says that “as we had more discussions with potential partners and the franchise has continued to grow, we uncovered a wealth of opportunities.” Any takers for the post-apocalyptic hovercraft tour, kids?! via GIPHY
“HoodsOff 2015″ in full effect as Anonymous publishes the names of KKK members — including four sitting US senators
The ongoing war between the online hacktivist group Anonymous and the Ku Klux Klan took another turn Monday with the release of the identities those infamous hoods are meant to obscure -- a list that includes North Carolina Senator Thomas Tillis, Texas Senator John Cornyn, George Senator John Hardy Isakson, and Indiana Senator Dan Coats. The exact nature of these senators' affiliations was not revealed, and another "unhooded" politician -- Lexington, Kentucky Mayor Jim Gray -- took to Twitter to vigorously deny any association with the racist organization. Knoxville, Tennessee Mayor Madeline Rogero also denied having connections, writing on Facebook that "I’m not even sure this is worth responding to, but for the record: There is a list circulating online purporting to 'out' elected officials as members of the KKK. For reasons unfathomable to me or anyone who knows me, my name is on the list." "Given my background, my interracial family, my public record and my personal beliefs, this would be hilarious except that it is probably being seen by a lot of people who have no idea who I am," she continued. But the person taking credit for generating the list, who goes by "Amped Attacks" on Twitter, told TechCrunch that he "worked for nine days to gather and verify all the information that was gathered before its release," all of which was allegedly stolen from KKK websites and databases. "I went through many emails that was [sic] signed up with these sites and a few of the emails that sparked my interest was [sic] the ones of the politicians in question there would be no reason for them to be signed up on any KKK website unless they supported it or was involved in it." Amped Attack claimed not to belong to the Anonymous collective, but the group has timed its "HoodsOff" offensive to coincide with the release of these names, and it claimed that many KKK-affiliated websites were successfully hacked and taken offline today. "Today we have shut down servers, gotten personal information on members of the KKK, and infiltrated your twitters and websites," Anonymous announced late Sunday. "And this is just the beginning. On November the 4th we will be having a twitter storm, spreading awareness about the operation. And on the 5th we shall release more than 1000 Ku Klux Klan members Names and websites, new and old." For its part, a prominent KKK Twitter account floated the idea of holding an "anti-Anonymous" demonstration to protest the unhooding of its rank-and-file, though it is unclear how they intend to garner sympathy when they write that they would like to "march on #Nov5th along side those faggots #OpKKK." A Twitter account associated with the group replied to the threat, writing: https://twitter.com/YourAnonCentral/s... https://twitter.com/YourAnonCentral/s...
This is what a misogynist pig sounds like: 6 of Donald Trump’s most sexist moments
Donald Trump has a long history of making horrible misogynistic jokes and attacking women, but since making a splash onto the political scene with his June presidential campaign kick-off slamming Mexican immigrants as "criminals" and "rapists," the billionaire mogul has hardly let up on his penchant for making sexist swipes, making at least six controversial statements about women since entering the race. Debbie Wasserman-Schultz Trump's latest sexist dig is directed at the DNC chairwoman. During a weekend interview with"Breitbart News Daily," the leading Republican presidential contender took out his frustration on the three GOP debates by directing misogynistic attacks toward the Florida congresswoman. "You have this crazy Wasserman Schultz — Deborah Wasserman Schultz — who is in there, a highly neurotic woman," Trump said, describing Wassmerman-Schultz. "This is a woman that is a terrible person. I watch her on television. She's a terrible person," Trump continued. "And in all fairness, she negotiated a great deal for Hillary because they gave Hillary all softballs." Megyn Kelly "You could see there was blood coming out of her eyes," Trump said of Fox News host and first GOP debate moderator Megyn Kelly after she pressed the former reality TV star about his past history of misogynistic comments during the first GOP debate. "Blood coming out of her wherever," he added. Trump's lewd comment sparked a short-lived conservative backlash, led by Red State editor Erick Erickson formally rescinding an invitation to his Southern political gathering back in August. Trump also led a Twitter tirade, #BimboBarbie, turning Fox News fans against the onetime star of the network for daring to ask Trump pressing questions: https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/s... Carly Fiorina Trump took another sexist swipe at his only female rival on the Republican side, Carly Fiorina. A September Rolling Stone profile revealed a particularly boorish moment for Trump on the campaign trail. “Look at that face!” he said at a conference table while he and his staff laughed as Fiorina took a question about him on television. “Would anyone vote for that? Can you imagine that, the face of our next president?!” During the second GOP debate when Trump denied he was referring to the former HP executive's face, insisting he was describing her persona, Fiorina delivered a simple debate stage smackdown. "I think women all over this country heard very clearly what Mr. Trump said," she said to wild applause. Hillary Clinton Shortly before announcing his candidacy, Trump got into a bit of hot water for this since-deleted tweet suggesting that Hillary Clinton is unqualified to become president because she "can't satisfy her husband": https://twitter.com/Lennyjacobson/sta... Later, after making his run for president official, Trump again ran into the sexism charge after mocking Clinton during a campaign stop in South Carolina where he raised his voice to mock the former secretary of state. "Hillary, who's become very shrill — do you know the word 'shrill'?" Trump asked the crowd, screeching. "She's become shrill." Trump would later double down on the sexist dis, denying its gendered application. "I think the word 'shrill' doesn't apply to women exclusively," Trump said the next day on MSNBC. "I know many men who've become very loud and obnoxious also," said Trump, adding, "I would call Rand Paul shrill." Ivanka Trump This one is more creepy than it is sexist but nevertheless serves as an example of Trump's casually dismissive attitude toward women's sexuality. In an interview with Rolling Stone, Trump joked that if she wasn't his daughter, he'd date Ivanka Trump. “Yeah, she’s really something, and what a beauty, that one. If I weren’t happily married and, ya know, her father . . . " For her part, Ivanka defended her father's comments during a CNN interview. "Look, my father is very blunt, he is very direct. He is not gender specific in his criticism of people ... I don't think that he is gender targeted at all." Trump even defends the burqa using sexist logic The political neophyte argued at a recent campaign stop in New Hampshire for less U.S. intervention in the Middle East, pointing to cultural differences like the use of full body coverups for women. “They want to” wear burqas, Trump said. “What the hell are we getting involved for?” “In fact, it is easier” to wear a burqa, Trump argued. “You don’t have to put on makeup,” he said, pointing to women in the audience before waving his hand across his face. “Wouldn’t that be easier,” he asked again. “I tell ya, if I was a woman,” Trump continued, signaling a burqa cover with the wave of his hand. “I’m ready, darling, let’s go,” he said, mimicking a woman forgoing makeup for a burqa.Donald Trump has a long history of making horrible misogynistic jokes and attacking women, but since making a splash onto the political scene with his June presidential campaign kick-off slamming Mexican immigrants as "criminals" and "rapists," the billionaire mogul has hardly let up on his penchant for making sexist swipes, making at least six controversial statements about women since entering the race. Debbie Wasserman-Schultz Trump's latest sexist dig is directed at the DNC chairwoman. During a weekend interview with"Breitbart News Daily," the leading Republican presidential contender took out his frustration on the three GOP debates by directing misogynistic attacks toward the Florida congresswoman. "You have this crazy Wasserman Schultz — Deborah Wasserman Schultz — who is in there, a highly neurotic woman," Trump said, describing Wassmerman-Schultz. "This is a woman that is a terrible person. I watch her on television. She's a terrible person," Trump continued. "And in all fairness, she negotiated a great deal for Hillary because they gave Hillary all softballs." Megyn Kelly "You could see there was blood coming out of her eyes," Trump said of Fox News host and first GOP debate moderator Megyn Kelly after she pressed the former reality TV star about his past history of misogynistic comments during the first GOP debate. "Blood coming out of her wherever," he added. Trump's lewd comment sparked a short-lived conservative backlash, led by Red State editor Erick Erickson formally rescinding an invitation to his Southern political gathering back in August. Trump also led a Twitter tirade, #BimboBarbie, turning Fox News fans against the onetime star of the network for daring to ask Trump pressing questions: https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/s... Carly Fiorina Trump took another sexist swipe at his only female rival on the Republican side, Carly Fiorina. A September Rolling Stone profile revealed a particularly boorish moment for Trump on the campaign trail. “Look at that face!” he said at a conference table while he and his staff laughed as Fiorina took a question about him on television. “Would anyone vote for that? Can you imagine that, the face of our next president?!” During the second GOP debate when Trump denied he was referring to the former HP executive's face, insisting he was describing her persona, Fiorina delivered a simple debate stage smackdown. "I think women all over this country heard very clearly what Mr. Trump said," she said to wild applause. Hillary Clinton Shortly before announcing his candidacy, Trump got into a bit of hot water for this since-deleted tweet suggesting that Hillary Clinton is unqualified to become president because she "can't satisfy her husband": https://twitter.com/Lennyjacobson/sta... Later, after making his run for president official, Trump again ran into the sexism charge after mocking Clinton during a campaign stop in South Carolina where he raised his voice to mock the former secretary of state. "Hillary, who's become very shrill — do you know the word 'shrill'?" Trump asked the crowd, screeching. "She's become shrill." Trump would later double down on the sexist dis, denying its gendered application. "I think the word 'shrill' doesn't apply to women exclusively," Trump said the next day on MSNBC. "I know many men who've become very loud and obnoxious also," said Trump, adding, "I would call Rand Paul shrill." Ivanka Trump This one is more creepy than it is sexist but nevertheless serves as an example of Trump's casually dismissive attitude toward women's sexuality. In an interview with Rolling Stone, Trump joked that if she wasn't his daughter, he'd date Ivanka Trump. “Yeah, she’s really something, and what a beauty, that one. If I weren’t happily married and, ya know, her father . . . " For her part, Ivanka defended her father's comments during a CNN interview. "Look, my father is very blunt, he is very direct. He is not gender specific in his criticism of people ... I don't think that he is gender targeted at all." Trump even defends the burqa using sexist logic The political neophyte argued at a recent campaign stop in New Hampshire for less U.S. intervention in the Middle East, pointing to cultural differences like the use of full body coverups for women. “They want to” wear burqas, Trump said. “What the hell are we getting involved for?” “In fact, it is easier” to wear a burqa, Trump argued. “You don’t have to put on makeup,” he said, pointing to women in the audience before waving his hand across his face. “Wouldn’t that be easier,” he asked again. “I tell ya, if I was a woman,” Trump continued, signaling a burqa cover with the wave of his hand. “I’m ready, darling, let’s go,” he said, mimicking a woman forgoing makeup for a burqa.Donald Trump has a long history of making horrible misogynistic jokes and attacking women, but since making a splash onto the political scene with his June presidential campaign kick-off slamming Mexican immigrants as "criminals" and "rapists," the billionaire mogul has hardly let up on his penchant for making sexist swipes, making at least six controversial statements about women since entering the race. Debbie Wasserman-Schultz Trump's latest sexist dig is directed at the DNC chairwoman. During a weekend interview with"Breitbart News Daily," the leading Republican presidential contender took out his frustration on the three GOP debates by directing misogynistic attacks toward the Florida congresswoman. "You have this crazy Wasserman Schultz — Deborah Wasserman Schultz — who is in there, a highly neurotic woman," Trump said, describing Wassmerman-Schultz. "This is a woman that is a terrible person. I watch her on television. She's a terrible person," Trump continued. "And in all fairness, she negotiated a great deal for Hillary because they gave Hillary all softballs." Megyn Kelly "You could see there was blood coming out of her eyes," Trump said of Fox News host and first GOP debate moderator Megyn Kelly after she pressed the former reality TV star about his past history of misogynistic comments during the first GOP debate. "Blood coming out of her wherever," he added. Trump's lewd comment sparked a short-lived conservative backlash, led by Red State editor Erick Erickson formally rescinding an invitation to his Southern political gathering back in August. Trump also led a Twitter tirade, #BimboBarbie, turning Fox News fans against the onetime star of the network for daring to ask Trump pressing questions: https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/s... Carly Fiorina Trump took another sexist swipe at his only female rival on the Republican side, Carly Fiorina. A September Rolling Stone profile revealed a particularly boorish moment for Trump on the campaign trail. “Look at that face!” he said at a conference table while he and his staff laughed as Fiorina took a question about him on television. “Would anyone vote for that? Can you imagine that, the face of our next president?!” During the second GOP debate when Trump denied he was referring to the former HP executive's face, insisting he was describing her persona, Fiorina delivered a simple debate stage smackdown. "I think women all over this country heard very clearly what Mr. Trump said," she said to wild applause. Hillary Clinton Shortly before announcing his candidacy, Trump got into a bit of hot water for this since-deleted tweet suggesting that Hillary Clinton is unqualified to become president because she "can't satisfy her husband": https://twitter.com/Lennyjacobson/sta... Later, after making his run for president official, Trump again ran into the sexism charge after mocking Clinton during a campaign stop in South Carolina where he raised his voice to mock the former secretary of state. "Hillary, who's become very shrill — do you know the word 'shrill'?" Trump asked the crowd, screeching. "She's become shrill." Trump would later double down on the sexist dis, denying its gendered application. "I think the word 'shrill' doesn't apply to women exclusively," Trump said the next day on MSNBC. "I know many men who've become very loud and obnoxious also," said Trump, adding, "I would call Rand Paul shrill." Ivanka Trump This one is more creepy than it is sexist but nevertheless serves as an example of Trump's casually dismissive attitude toward women's sexuality. In an interview with Rolling Stone, Trump joked that if she wasn't his daughter, he'd date Ivanka Trump. “Yeah, she’s really something, and what a beauty, that one. If I weren’t happily married and, ya know, her father . . . " For her part, Ivanka defended her father's comments during a CNN interview. "Look, my father is very blunt, he is very direct. He is not gender specific in his criticism of people ... I don't think that he is gender targeted at all." Trump even defends the burqa using sexist logic The political neophyte argued at a recent campaign stop in New Hampshire for less U.S. intervention in the Middle East, pointing to cultural differences like the use of full body coverups for women. “They want to” wear burqas, Trump said. “What the hell are we getting involved for?” “In fact, it is easier” to wear a burqa, Trump argued. “You don’t have to put on makeup,” he said, pointing to women in the audience before waving his hand across his face. “Wouldn’t that be easier,” he asked again. “I tell ya, if I was a woman,” Trump continued, signaling a burqa cover with the wave of his hand. “I’m ready, darling, let’s go,” he said, mimicking a woman forgoing makeup for a burqa.
John Oliver just brilliantly made this election a matter of life and death
The election might be a year away, but there are several elections in states across the country that are happening tomorrow that John Oliver wants Americans to look at. On Sunday's "Last Week Tonight," Oliver discussed the gubernatorial and legislative elections happening in Kentucky, New Jersey, Virginia and Mississippi. There are also huge local elections, like Pennsylvania's election of three judges, that could determine redistricting in 2020. But the other major outcome of Tuesday's election is it could determine the expansion of Obamacare. When the U.S. Supreme Court upheld "nearly all" of Obamacare in their 2012 decision, that wasn't entirely enough. "Health care is like a pair of gym shorts -- even if it covers nearly all it is supposed to, you’re still left with some problematic gaps and terrible things can happen," Oliver explained. The way states have worked to fix some of those gaps has been to expand Medicaid coverage so for very little money to the states, health insurance is paid for by Medicaid giving the poorest citizens what they need. The SCOTUS struck down the part of the law that would require states to expand Medicaid and 20 states have opted to refuse. Meaning, Tuesday's election could result in treatment or die. In the case of one Texas woman who can't afford treatment for colon cancer, she also can't afford health insurance under Obamacare. But because the state refuses to expand Medicaid, she falls into this terrible middle area that lacks coverage. In at least four states with Republican governors, however, Medicaid was expanded. As Ohio Gov. John Kasich explained, you can hate Obamacare and still want to bring Ohio tax dollars back to the state "to cover the mentally ill, the drug addicted and help the working poor get health insurance." If only he could explain that to the other 20 states who are refusing to expand out of spite. "All he did was see a dump truck full of money backing into his driveway and just not say stop," Oliver explained. Tuesday's election determines whether Mississippi, Kentucky and Virginia expand Medicaid or not, and that will decide whether people stuck in that middle space of making just above poverty wages can have access to health care or not. People will literally die based on the decision voters make on Tuesday. If we don't expand Medicaid in these states to help people, the only real winner is basically a pangolin. You'll understand if you watch the video below: The election might be a year away, but there are several elections in states across the country that are happening tomorrow that John Oliver wants Americans to look at. On Sunday's "Last Week Tonight," Oliver discussed the gubernatorial and legislative elections happening in Kentucky, New Jersey, Virginia and Mississippi. There are also huge local elections, like Pennsylvania's election of three judges, that could determine redistricting in 2020. But the other major outcome of Tuesday's election is it could determine the expansion of Obamacare. When the U.S. Supreme Court upheld "nearly all" of Obamacare in their 2012 decision, that wasn't entirely enough. "Health care is like a pair of gym shorts -- even if it covers nearly all it is supposed to, you’re still left with some problematic gaps and terrible things can happen," Oliver explained. The way states have worked to fix some of those gaps has been to expand Medicaid coverage so for very little money to the states, health insurance is paid for by Medicaid giving the poorest citizens what they need. The SCOTUS struck down the part of the law that would require states to expand Medicaid and 20 states have opted to refuse. Meaning, Tuesday's election could result in treatment or die. In the case of one Texas woman who can't afford treatment for colon cancer, she also can't afford health insurance under Obamacare. But because the state refuses to expand Medicaid, she falls into this terrible middle area that lacks coverage. In at least four states with Republican governors, however, Medicaid was expanded. As Ohio Gov. John Kasich explained, you can hate Obamacare and still want to bring Ohio tax dollars back to the state "to cover the mentally ill, the drug addicted and help the working poor get health insurance." If only he could explain that to the other 20 states who are refusing to expand out of spite. "All he did was see a dump truck full of money backing into his driveway and just not say stop," Oliver explained. Tuesday's election determines whether Mississippi, Kentucky and Virginia expand Medicaid or not, and that will decide whether people stuck in that middle space of making just above poverty wages can have access to health care or not. People will literally die based on the decision voters make on Tuesday. If we don't expand Medicaid in these states to help people, the only real winner is basically a pangolin. You'll understand if you watch the video below:
Donald Trump’s sexist garbage continues: His latest name-calling rant shows exactly how little he thinks of women
Are you a woman who is currently supporting Donald Trump's inane attempt to turn American presidential politics into the world's worst reality show? Do you know any women who are? Are you a man, but like and respect women? Because if you are a woman or care about women and have seriously entertained even the slightest thought of the words "President Trump," we need to do an intervention right now. On Monday, Trump shared a few choice words about DNC Chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz on Breitbart News on Sirius XM radio. Speaking with Stephen Bannon about the debates, Trump noted that "You have this crazy Wasserman Schultz — Deborah Wasserman Schultz — who is in there, a highly neurotic woman. This is a woman that is a terrible person. I watch her on television. She's a terrible person." He added, "And in all fairness, she negotiated a great deal for Hillary because they gave Hillary all softballs." In contrast, he declared Republican National Committee Chairman Reince Priebus "a very good guy." Trump has certainly lobbed the word "crazy" before — in fact, on Monday, he also called CNBC crazy. He's consistently generous with his insults, calling John Harwood "a dope" and "a fool" at an event on Saturday. And in the past, he's suggested that Texas Governor Rick Perry "should be forced to take an IQ test before being allowed to enter the GOP debate." But there was something about Trump's use of the word "crazy" in such close proximity to "neurotic" — especially to describe a 49 year-old woman — that had a particularly familiar ring to it. It was the sound of a nearly 70 year-old man once again not so subtly accusing a female of being "crazy" in a uniquely hysterical lady way. While Trump is unquestionably capable of trolling both men and women, he does have a special way of going after the ladies. They're "shrill" and "can't satisfy" their husbands like Hillary Clinton, or "neurotic" like Wasserman Schultz. Responding to Trump's comments the DNC issued a statement Monday that "The Republican front-runner's misogynistic attacks are sadly representative of the GOP's outdated approach to women and the issues that affect them and their families." They're also typical Trump. In his world, women who run afoul of his good graces are too attractive — you may recall that in August, Trump put down Fox's Megyn Kelley with the assertion that she's a “bimbo” who only got her job for being "sexy." He's also told a female reporter that "We could say politically correct that look doesn't matter, but the look obviously matters. Like you wouldn't have your job if you weren't beautiful." Or they're not attractive enough — in September, he boggled over Carly Fiorina, "Look at that face! Would anyone vote for that? Can you imagine that, the face of our next president?!" Back in 2011, he sent writer Gail Collins a copy of her own column and wrote "The Face of a Dog!" over her photo. He's complained about Bette Midler's "ugly face [and] body" and that Arianna Huffington is "unattractive both inside and out" and that "I fully understand why her former husband left her for a man." He's called Rosie O'Donnell a "fat pig" and a "slob," among other things. And he called a new mother who requested a break to breastfeed pump breast milk "disgusting," a sentiment he appeared to stand by to CNN earlier this year. Even when he's ostensibly being kind, his commentary is degrading. He's boasted that "Women have one of the great acts of all time. The smart ones act very feminine and needy, but inside they are real killers." And of his own daughter he's said, "She's really something, and what a beauty, that one. If I weren't happily married and, ya know, her father …" So, ew. There are plenty of great reasons to say that Donald Trump is the candidate of your racist, climate change-denying uncle from back home. But his outrageously toxic and seemingly nonstop commentary about women — about their appearance, about their shrillness or bimboness or neuroses — is all you should really need to find him loathsome. And every moment his embarrassing shtick endures is another chance for him — under the guise of a serious representative of the Republican party — to say that degrading women is a completely acceptable political tactic.Are you a woman who is currently supporting Donald Trump's inane attempt to turn American presidential politics into the world's worst reality show? Do you know any women who are? Are you a man, but like and respect women? Because if you are a woman or care about women and have seriously entertained even the slightest thought of the words "President Trump," we need to do an intervention right now. On Monday, Trump shared a few choice words about DNC Chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz on Breitbart News on Sirius XM radio. Speaking with Stephen Bannon about the debates, Trump noted that "You have this crazy Wasserman Schultz — Deborah Wasserman Schultz — who is in there, a highly neurotic woman. This is a woman that is a terrible person. I watch her on television. She's a terrible person." He added, "And in all fairness, she negotiated a great deal for Hillary because they gave Hillary all softballs." In contrast, he declared Republican National Committee Chairman Reince Priebus "a very good guy." Trump has certainly lobbed the word "crazy" before — in fact, on Monday, he also called CNBC crazy. He's consistently generous with his insults, calling John Harwood "a dope" and "a fool" at an event on Saturday. And in the past, he's suggested that Texas Governor Rick Perry "should be forced to take an IQ test before being allowed to enter the GOP debate." But there was something about Trump's use of the word "crazy" in such close proximity to "neurotic" — especially to describe a 49 year-old woman — that had a particularly familiar ring to it. It was the sound of a nearly 70 year-old man once again not so subtly accusing a female of being "crazy" in a uniquely hysterical lady way. While Trump is unquestionably capable of trolling both men and women, he does have a special way of going after the ladies. They're "shrill" and "can't satisfy" their husbands like Hillary Clinton, or "neurotic" like Wasserman Schultz. Responding to Trump's comments the DNC issued a statement Monday that "The Republican front-runner's misogynistic attacks are sadly representative of the GOP's outdated approach to women and the issues that affect them and their families." They're also typical Trump. In his world, women who run afoul of his good graces are too attractive — you may recall that in August, Trump put down Fox's Megyn Kelley with the assertion that she's a “bimbo” who only got her job for being "sexy." He's also told a female reporter that "We could say politically correct that look doesn't matter, but the look obviously matters. Like you wouldn't have your job if you weren't beautiful." Or they're not attractive enough — in September, he boggled over Carly Fiorina, "Look at that face! Would anyone vote for that? Can you imagine that, the face of our next president?!" Back in 2011, he sent writer Gail Collins a copy of her own column and wrote "The Face of a Dog!" over her photo. He's complained about Bette Midler's "ugly face [and] body" and that Arianna Huffington is "unattractive both inside and out" and that "I fully understand why her former husband left her for a man." He's called Rosie O'Donnell a "fat pig" and a "slob," among other things. And he called a new mother who requested a break to breastfeed pump breast milk "disgusting," a sentiment he appeared to stand by to CNN earlier this year. Even when he's ostensibly being kind, his commentary is degrading. He's boasted that "Women have one of the great acts of all time. The smart ones act very feminine and needy, but inside they are real killers." And of his own daughter he's said, "She's really something, and what a beauty, that one. If I weren't happily married and, ya know, her father …" So, ew. There are plenty of great reasons to say that Donald Trump is the candidate of your racist, climate change-denying uncle from back home. But his outrageously toxic and seemingly nonstop commentary about women — about their appearance, about their shrillness or bimboness or neuroses — is all you should really need to find him loathsome. And every moment his embarrassing shtick endures is another chance for him — under the guise of a serious representative of the Republican party — to say that degrading women is a completely acceptable political tactic.
Ralph Nader, epic mansplainer, tells Janet Yellen to listen to her husband
Apparently, Ralph Nader is still talking, though in a way that certainly inspires a deep desire to go to Tumblr to find as many "shut up" gifs as one can find. Over the weekend, Nader published a nonsensical piece at the Huffington Post complaining that "humble savers" are getting screwed by the Federal Reserve's unwillingness to raise the interest rate, which Nader seems to think is an elaborate plot to help the rich banks at the expense of working people. As Jordan Weissmann at Slate points out, the entire argument doesn't make a lot of sense, as "relatively few households actually survive on interest income." Most ordinary people would benefit a lot more from a robust economy than a higher interest rate on their savings account, but Nader seems to assume a nation of people living on investments rather than on paychecks, which really undermines his spokesman-for-the-working-class schtick. But this weird piece is notable not just because of its Old Man Simpson half-baked economic crankery, but because he offers a solid dose of sexism to go with it: "Chairwoman Yellen, I think you should sit down with your Nobel Prize winning husband, economist George Akerlof, who is known to be consumer-sensitive," Nader lectures. Yes, clearly interest rates are low because we live in a madcap world where women are not only allowed to run the Federal Reserve, but they are too willful to listen to the wise counsel of their husbands. Akerlof is far from the only man that Nader suggests as the proper figure to slap some sense into this woman someone let run the Fed. Nader also offers up her friend Robert Reich as a male authority figure to tell her what to do. Which is funny, because Reich, as Weissmann points out, opposes hiking the interest rate. But hey, why let little details like that interfere with a neat little story about how a woman is supposedly failing at her job because she is supposedly failing to listen to the men in her life tell her what to do. This bit of jaw-dropping sexism comes just a few months after Nader pulled a similar act with Hillary Clinton, who Nader also faults for not behaving how the thinks women should. On Larry King's show back in June, Nader let loose on Clinton, arguing that she somehow betrayed "the tradition of women of peace" and that Clinton shows a "shocking militarism that is a result of trying to overcompensate for her gender by being more aggressive and macho." Jeb Bush tries to convince us that he eats nails for breakfast, but it's Clinton that is overcompensating. Got it. You would think, listening to him, that Clinton is somehow more hawkish than the Republicans, which is so ridiculous it hardly needs rebutting. But his paranoia over this makes more sense if it's viewed in context of his fairly obvious sexism. Nader isn't comparing Clinton to her male colleagues and competitors. He's comparing her to a female caricature of pacifism in his head. Peacefulness is great---I wish Clinton were less hawkish, myself---but it shouldn't be gendered in this way. Nader's behavior is more about policing women for not being the gentle, submissive souls he expects than about sincere discussion of the issues at hand.Apparently, Ralph Nader is still talking, though in a way that certainly inspires a deep desire to go to Tumblr to find as many "shut up" gifs as one can find. Over the weekend, Nader published a nonsensical piece at the Huffington Post complaining that "humble savers" are getting screwed by the Federal Reserve's unwillingness to raise the interest rate, which Nader seems to think is an elaborate plot to help the rich banks at the expense of working people. As Jordan Weissmann at Slate points out, the entire argument doesn't make a lot of sense, as "relatively few households actually survive on interest income." Most ordinary people would benefit a lot more from a robust economy than a higher interest rate on their savings account, but Nader seems to assume a nation of people living on investments rather than on paychecks, which really undermines his spokesman-for-the-working-class schtick. But this weird piece is notable not just because of its Old Man Simpson half-baked economic crankery, but because he offers a solid dose of sexism to go with it: "Chairwoman Yellen, I think you should sit down with your Nobel Prize winning husband, economist George Akerlof, who is known to be consumer-sensitive," Nader lectures. Yes, clearly interest rates are low because we live in a madcap world where women are not only allowed to run the Federal Reserve, but they are too willful to listen to the wise counsel of their husbands. Akerlof is far from the only man that Nader suggests as the proper figure to slap some sense into this woman someone let run the Fed. Nader also offers up her friend Robert Reich as a male authority figure to tell her what to do. Which is funny, because Reich, as Weissmann points out, opposes hiking the interest rate. But hey, why let little details like that interfere with a neat little story about how a woman is supposedly failing at her job because she is supposedly failing to listen to the men in her life tell her what to do. This bit of jaw-dropping sexism comes just a few months after Nader pulled a similar act with Hillary Clinton, who Nader also faults for not behaving how the thinks women should. On Larry King's show back in June, Nader let loose on Clinton, arguing that she somehow betrayed "the tradition of women of peace" and that Clinton shows a "shocking militarism that is a result of trying to overcompensate for her gender by being more aggressive and macho." Jeb Bush tries to convince us that he eats nails for breakfast, but it's Clinton that is overcompensating. Got it. You would think, listening to him, that Clinton is somehow more hawkish than the Republicans, which is so ridiculous it hardly needs rebutting. But his paranoia over this makes more sense if it's viewed in context of his fairly obvious sexism. Nader isn't comparing Clinton to her male colleagues and competitors. He's comparing her to a female caricature of pacifism in his head. Peacefulness is great---I wish Clinton were less hawkish, myself---but it shouldn't be gendered in this way. Nader's behavior is more about policing women for not being the gentle, submissive souls he expects than about sincere discussion of the issues at hand.
The wingnut myth that refuses to die: The one simple reason why there’s no “liberal media conspiracy”
During the third Republican debate, the winning strategy was not in attacking Hillary Clinton or calling out the absurd policy plans of Donald Trump and Ben Carson, but in slamming the mainstream media as a left wing mouthpiece of the Democratic party. And since the debate, the GOP has gone berserk over CNBC -- a business channel, mind you -- and it’s supposed liberal bias. The Republican National Committee has even suspended its partnership with NBC News for its February debate, because, as RNC Chairman Reince Priebus writes, “CNBC’s moderators engaged in a series of “gotcha” questions, petty and mean-spirited in tone, and designed to embarrass our candidates.” Of course, the GOP candidates who were most vocal about the supposed media bias were really just using it to dodge substantive questions and get easy applauses from the partisan crowd. As Charles Pierce puts it in Esquire:
I have come to the conclusion that it is very easy to be a Republican presidential candidate. First of all, to paraphrase J.R. Ewing, once you give up truth, the rest is a piece of cake. Second, and most important, you really only have to memorize one answer.” (i.e it's the Liberal media!).When confronted about his voting record in the Senate, Marco Rubio (R-FL) was quick to call out the media bias, after mentioning that President Obama had an abysmal voting record during his campaign as well. “This is another example of the double standard that exists in this country between the mainstream media and the conservatives,” he said, to a crowd of cheering conservatives. He even went on to say that Clinton has her very own super PAC in the mainstream media, a point that may have very well won the debate for the young conservative. Seeing the advantage in attacking the much-loathed media, Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) responded to a question on whether his opposition to compromise on the debt limit shows he is not a “problem solver.” “The questions that have been asked so far in this debate illustrate why the American people don’t trust the media,” said Cruz, who would use his time to trash the moderators instead of answering the question, “This is not a cage match.” He went on to mock the Democratic debate as a battle between the “Mensheviks and Bolsheviks,” which seems to imply that the media is not only liberal, but communist. So, is the mainstream media really left-wing, or even liberal, as those on the right love to claim? First of all, it should be noted that the real world tends to have a liberal bias -- at least what Cruz considers a liberal bias. Take climate change, for example. The fact that the climate is warming because of human activity is a completely uncontroversial notion; it is happening, and the vast majority of scientists agree that it will be catastrophic for humanity if nothing is done very soon. That the mainstream media does not contest the issue of climate change, or claim that it is some giant left-wing conspiracy, does not prove it is liberal, but that it is operating in reality. Cruz does not operate in reality, and believes climate change (i.e. science) is a “religion.” But just because Cruz believes this, or his deranged father, Rafael, believes that evolution is a communist lie, does not mean that evolutionary biologists are communists or that climate scientists are religious fanatics -- it means that Rafael Cruz and his son are delusional. Now, before considering whether the mainstream media is really left-wing, one should look at who owns the media. Consider this: In 1983, 90 percent of American media was owned by 50 companies, and by 2011, that number had fallen to six companies: CBS, Time Warner, Viacom, News Corp, Disney and GE, which subsequently sold its media holding, NBC Universal, to cable giant Comcast (which would, in turn, later try to merge with Time Warner Cable, although that deal eventually fell apart). Thus, the media at large has one crucial goal: to make a profit. Not to serve the public, but to make money by selling advertisement spots to other corporations, whether they are selling new cars or tech products or pointless new drugs. All of this profit-making hardly sounds like the socialist media that Republicans would have everyone believe. One has to look no further than the coverage of Donald Trump to see this strategy in action. The Donald and the media have been feeding off of each other over the past few months. Trump loves the attention, and the media loves the “Yooge” ratings that he brings. (The higher the ratings, the more the network can charge for advertising or subscriptions.) CNN, for example, has covered Trump as if he were a natural disaster, and even bumped a 1oth anniversary special for Hurricane Katrina to cover one of Trump’s rambling campaign events. Now consider the media coverage of the democratic socialist Bernie Sanders, who has drawn massive crowds to his campaign events and last month broke a fundraising record. The media largely ignored Sanders, and when it finally came around, after his popularity and poll numbers were too big to ignore, the coverage was full of bias and mischaracterization. As Rima Regas writes in Alternet:
“The most harmful way anti-Sanders media bias has been manifested is by omission. In this respect, the New York Times is joined by the vast majority of the mainstream media in not typically reporting on Sanders, especially on policy. Overall there is a version of a “wall of silence” built by the media when it comes to serious reporting and analysis of his policies; or when analyzing or reporting on the policies of his opponents, a failure to mention Sanders' in contrast, especially when his is the more progressive position.”Why would the media, if it were so left-wing, be so active in its coverage of a right-wing populist like Trump, and so quiet in its coverage of Sanders? The reality is, of course, that the corporate media (a much more appropriate term than mainstream media) is not left-wing. Now, many conservatives argue that the majority of journalists support the Democratic party, which is true. But what does this prove? As Noam Chomsky (a real leftist) has previously pointed out:
“You could find that 99% of the journalists are members of the Socialist Workers Party, or some Maoist group, and that in itself would prove nothing about the media output. The issue is whether the media are free; are the media by their institutional structure free, to allow expression of opinion from whatever source, looking at any topic. If it turned out that 80% of the journalists were from one faction of the business party rather than another faction of the business party, would that tell you anything?”Anyone who knows the history of left-wing politics understands that the media at large is not at all left-wing, but centrist at best. Again, just because the media lives in reality and does not dispute climate change, doesn't mean that it is liberal, but that the conservative faction of the GOP has become increasingly delusional in its extremism. The corporate media runs for a profit, and wouldn’t dare advocate any true socialist policies that woulds inflict pain on its business model. Sure, the media at large supports issues like gay marriage — but again, what does this prove? Is it a plot to destroy America, as Ted Cruz’s cheerful father believes, or is it because America at large is becoming more socially tolerant? Rubio and Cruz did well for themselves in bashing the abhorred media, but what does CNBC care, the ratings were great (though significantly lower than the first two debates), and the network made $250,000 for each 30 second commercial. And this, my fellow comrades, is what the corporate media is all about. Watch the candidates avoid answering debate questions by ripping into “liberal media” [jwplayer file="http://media.salon.com/2015/10/GOP-At..." image="http://media.salon.com/2015/10/ted-cr... "][/jwplayer]During the third Republican debate, the winning strategy was not in attacking Hillary Clinton or calling out the absurd policy plans of Donald Trump and Ben Carson, but in slamming the mainstream media as a left wing mouthpiece of the Democratic party. And since the debate, the GOP has gone berserk over CNBC -- a business channel, mind you -- and it’s supposed liberal bias. The Republican National Committee has even suspended its partnership with NBC News for its February debate, because, as RNC Chairman Reince Priebus writes, “CNBC’s moderators engaged in a series of “gotcha” questions, petty and mean-spirited in tone, and designed to embarrass our candidates.” Of course, the GOP candidates who were most vocal about the supposed media bias were really just using it to dodge substantive questions and get easy applauses from the partisan crowd. As Charles Pierce puts it in Esquire:
I have come to the conclusion that it is very easy to be a Republican presidential candidate. First of all, to paraphrase J.R. Ewing, once you give up truth, the rest is a piece of cake. Second, and most important, you really only have to memorize one answer.” (i.e it's the Liberal media!).When confronted about his voting record in the Senate, Marco Rubio (R-FL) was quick to call out the media bias, after mentioning that President Obama had an abysmal voting record during his campaign as well. “This is another example of the double standard that exists in this country between the mainstream media and the conservatives,” he said, to a crowd of cheering conservatives. He even went on to say that Clinton has her very own super PAC in the mainstream media, a point that may have very well won the debate for the young conservative. Seeing the advantage in attacking the much-loathed media, Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) responded to a question on whether his opposition to compromise on the debt limit shows he is not a “problem solver.” “The questions that have been asked so far in this debate illustrate why the American people don’t trust the media,” said Cruz, who would use his time to trash the moderators instead of answering the question, “This is not a cage match.” He went on to mock the Democratic debate as a battle between the “Mensheviks and Bolsheviks,” which seems to imply that the media is not only liberal, but communist. So, is the mainstream media really left-wing, or even liberal, as those on the right love to claim? First of all, it should be noted that the real world tends to have a liberal bias -- at least what Cruz considers a liberal bias. Take climate change, for example. The fact that the climate is warming because of human activity is a completely uncontroversial notion; it is happening, and the vast majority of scientists agree that it will be catastrophic for humanity if nothing is done very soon. That the mainstream media does not contest the issue of climate change, or claim that it is some giant left-wing conspiracy, does not prove it is liberal, but that it is operating in reality. Cruz does not operate in reality, and believes climate change (i.e. science) is a “religion.” But just because Cruz believes this, or his deranged father, Rafael, believes that evolution is a communist lie, does not mean that evolutionary biologists are communists or that climate scientists are religious fanatics -- it means that Rafael Cruz and his son are delusional. Now, before considering whether the mainstream media is really left-wing, one should look at who owns the media. Consider this: In 1983, 90 percent of American media was owned by 50 companies, and by 2011, that number had fallen to six companies: CBS, Time Warner, Viacom, News Corp, Disney and GE, which subsequently sold its media holding, NBC Universal, to cable giant Comcast (which would, in turn, later try to merge with Time Warner Cable, although that deal eventually fell apart). Thus, the media at large has one crucial goal: to make a profit. Not to serve the public, but to make money by selling advertisement spots to other corporations, whether they are selling new cars or tech products or pointless new drugs. All of this profit-making hardly sounds like the socialist media that Republicans would have everyone believe. One has to look no further than the coverage of Donald Trump to see this strategy in action. The Donald and the media have been feeding off of each other over the past few months. Trump loves the attention, and the media loves the “Yooge” ratings that he brings. (The higher the ratings, the more the network can charge for advertising or subscriptions.) CNN, for example, has covered Trump as if he were a natural disaster, and even bumped a 1oth anniversary special for Hurricane Katrina to cover one of Trump’s rambling campaign events. Now consider the media coverage of the democratic socialist Bernie Sanders, who has drawn massive crowds to his campaign events and last month broke a fundraising record. The media largely ignored Sanders, and when it finally came around, after his popularity and poll numbers were too big to ignore, the coverage was full of bias and mischaracterization. As Rima Regas writes in Alternet:
“The most harmful way anti-Sanders media bias has been manifested is by omission. In this respect, the New York Times is joined by the vast majority of the mainstream media in not typically reporting on Sanders, especially on policy. Overall there is a version of a “wall of silence” built by the media when it comes to serious reporting and analysis of his policies; or when analyzing or reporting on the policies of his opponents, a failure to mention Sanders' in contrast, especially when his is the more progressive position.”Why would the media, if it were so left-wing, be so active in its coverage of a right-wing populist like Trump, and so quiet in its coverage of Sanders? The reality is, of course, that the corporate media (a much more appropriate term than mainstream media) is not left-wing. Now, many conservatives argue that the majority of journalists support the Democratic party, which is true. But what does this prove? As Noam Chomsky (a real leftist) has previously pointed out:
“You could find that 99% of the journalists are members of the Socialist Workers Party, or some Maoist group, and that in itself would prove nothing about the media output. The issue is whether the media are free; are the media by their institutional structure free, to allow expression of opinion from whatever source, looking at any topic. If it turned out that 80% of the journalists were from one faction of the business party rather than another faction of the business party, would that tell you anything?”Anyone who knows the history of left-wing politics understands that the media at large is not at all left-wing, but centrist at best. Again, just because the media lives in reality and does not dispute climate change, doesn't mean that it is liberal, but that the conservative faction of the GOP has become increasingly delusional in its extremism. The corporate media runs for a profit, and wouldn’t dare advocate any true socialist policies that woulds inflict pain on its business model. Sure, the media at large supports issues like gay marriage — but again, what does this prove? Is it a plot to destroy America, as Ted Cruz’s cheerful father believes, or is it because America at large is becoming more socially tolerant? Rubio and Cruz did well for themselves in bashing the abhorred media, but what does CNBC care, the ratings were great (though significantly lower than the first two debates), and the network made $250,000 for each 30 second commercial. And this, my fellow comrades, is what the corporate media is all about. Watch the candidates avoid answering debate questions by ripping into “liberal media” [jwplayer file="http://media.salon.com/2015/10/GOP-At..." image="http://media.salon.com/2015/10/ted-cr... "][/jwplayer]
