FEED Validator

for Atom and RSS and KML

Congratulations!

This is a valid RSS feed.

Recommendations

This feed is valid, but interoperability with the widest range of feed readers could be improved by implementing the following recommendations.

Your feed appears to be encoded as "US-ASCII", but your server is reporting "utf-8" [help]
line 27, column 0: description should not contain data-href attribute (2 occurrences) [help]
```
<a href="https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&amp;rct=j&amp;q=&amp;esrc=s&a ...
```
line 70, column 0: description should not contain link attribute (6 occurrences) [help]
```
<description><![CDATA[ The Washington Post&nbsp;Fact Checker clari ...
```
line 70, column 0: description should not contain vlink attribute (6 occurrences) [help]
```
<description><![CDATA[ The Washington Post&nbsp;Fact Checker clari ...
```
line 89, column 0: description should not contain data-lang attribute [help]
```
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en">
```
line 399, column 0: description should not contain iframe tag (2 occurrences) [help]
```
<description><![CDATA[ From the April 6 edition of NBC's&nbsp;The Elle ...
```
line 535, column 0: Missing atom:link with rel="self" [help]
```
</channel>
```

Source: http://feeds.mediamatters.org/mediamatters/latest?format=xml

<?xml version="1.0" encoding="US-ASCII"?>
<rss version="2.0"
xmlns:blogChannel="http://backend.userland.com/blogChannelModule"
>
<channel>
<title>Media Matters for America - Latest Items</title>
<link>http://mediamatters.org</link>
<description>Media Matters for America default feed</description>
<language>en-US</language>
<copyright>Copyright 2016, Media Matters for America</copyright>
<item>
<title>On MSNBC, Ex-GOP Staffer Details How The Purpose Of Voter ID Laws Is To "Take People's Constitutional Rights Away"</title>
<link>http://mediamatters.org/video/209825</link>
<description><![CDATA[ From the April 7 edition of MSNBC's All In with Chris Hayes:<blockquote>
TODD ALLBAUGH: I've been a Republican for a long time. It was at that moment, Chris, in that room in the senate Republican caucus when I heard people, a Party I had fought for for over 30 years of my life, actually giddy and happy and talking about how we can take people's Constitutional rights away, or at least impede them, in order to hang onto power.
<div class="adL">
[...]
Now, you have a group of people in the state legislature, particularly in the senate Republican caucus, who want to impede peoples' voting rights. That's the point where I said "I can't do it anymore." I can't be a Republican, I can't keep going to caucuses because this Party no longer represents me and what I believe in. 
[...]
Republicans used to fight for voting rights, and here they were taking them away. So, yes, the point is, this was a poignant point in my life. I remember it clearly and certainly the point in that room that day was how do we do this quickly because there was a lot of recalls going on in Wisconsin at that time. How do we do it quickly so that we can make sure we hang onto power in the future.
</div>
</blockquote>
Previously:
<a href="https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=2&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwjO-vTA8P3LAhUHtRoKHTNGAh8QqQIIHzAB&url=http%3A%2F%2Fmediamatters.org%2Fvideo%2F2016%2F04%2F07%2Fwatch-seth-meyers-call-out-the-discriminatory-a%2F209802&usg=AFQjCNFNXFGM2F5II4UQ6rY7Tovfgx18bQ&bvm=bv.119028448,d.amc" data-href="http://mediamatters.org/video/2016/04/07/watch-seth-meyers-call-out-the-discriminatory-a/209802">Watch Seth Meyers Call Out The Discriminatory And "Deeply Dysfunctional" Impact Of Voter ID Laws</a>
<a href="https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=3&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwjO-vTA8P3LAhUHtRoKHTNGAh8QqQIIITAC&url=http%3A%2F%2Fmediamatters.org%2Fvideo%2F2016%2F04%2F05%2Fmsnbc-shows-how-wisconsin-voter-id-laws-disenfr%2F209776&usg=AFQjCNFR6X7sEpcx-xdMxJC8DIL4VLFfRQ&bvm=bv.119028448,d.amc" data-href="http://mediamatters.org/video/2016/04/05/msnbc-shows-how-wisconsin-voter-id-laws-disenfr/209776">MSNBC Shows How Wisconsin Voter ID Laws Disenfranchised College Students</a>
<a href="http://mediamatters.org/research/2016/04/06/right-wing-media-use-wisconsin-primary-turnout/209791">Right-Wing Media Use Wisconsin Primary Turnout To Dismiss Discriminatory Impact Of Voter ID Laws</a>]]></description>
<guid isPermaLink="false">http://mediamatters.org/video/209825</guid>
<pubDate>Thu, 07 Apr 2016 09:46:16 EDT</pubDate>
</item>
<item>
<title>Trump Adviser To MSNBC's Chris Hayes: "I Admire The Passion" In Stone's Threat To Disclose Delegate's Hotel Rooms</title>
<link>http://mediamatters.org/video/209824</link>
<description><![CDATA[ From the April 7 edition of MSNBC's All In with Chris Hayes:<blockquote>
CHRIS HAYES (HOST): Let me get your reaction first to something Roger Stone said. Now, he's not officially part of the campaign at all. In fact he left it early on. He is an ally of Donald Trump. This was his strategy for persuading unbound delegates. Take a listen.
[...]
What do you think of that idea?
BARRY BENNETT: Probably not a very good idea, but I admire the passion.
HAYES: Okay. Would you send a message to supporters, we don't want you going to the hotel rooms of unbound delegates to, quote, persuade them about who they should vote for?
BENNETT: We've talked to our delegates regularly as they get appointed across the country so I don't think there's much chance of that happening.
</blockquote>
Previously: 
<a href="http://mediamatters.org/video/2016/04/05/trump-ally-roger-stone-we-will-disclose-the-hot/209750">Trump Ally Roger Stone: "We Will Disclose The Hotels And The Room Numbers" Of Anti-Trump Delegates At GOP Convention</a>
<a href="http://mediamatters.org/video/2016/03/31/trump-allies-roger-stone-and-alex-jones-say-the/209651">Trump Allies Roger Stone And Alex Jones Say They'll Help Lead Pro-Trump Protests During GOP Convention</a>
<a href="http://mediamatters.org/blog/2016/03/01/roger-stone-sells-himself-as-trumps-inside-man/208893">Roger Stone Sells Himself As Trump's Inside Man To Gathering Of Conspiracy Theorists</a>]]></description>
<guid isPermaLink="false">http://mediamatters.org/video/209824</guid>
<pubDate>Thu, 07 Apr 2016 09:33:31 EDT</pubDate>
</item>
<item>
<title>Bill O'Reilly Says Ted Cruz Is Right About New York City Values</title>
<link>http://mediamatters.org/video/209821</link>
<description><![CDATA[ From the April 7 edition of Fox News' The O'Reilly Factor:<blockquote>
BILL O'REILLY (HOST): The disadvantage for Mr. Cruz is the New York values debate. You will remember that in January, the senator said this. 
[...]
O'REILLY: Now, the truth is, Cruz is right, New York City values are very left wing. But the rest of the state lines up fairly conservative, although not at the level of Senator Cruz. However, as in any state, New Yorkers are sensitive folks, look at me. So the senator has to overcome his initial New York values comments, valid or not. Now I, your humble correspondent, am a born and raised New Yorker, but I have lived all over the country, Dallas, Denver, Portland, Oregon, Boston and Miami. I can tell you New York is a different kind of a place, especially because there are nearly 20 million people in the Big Apple metropolitan area.
With that many folks, you have to be more aggressive even to get a hot dog. And some around the country consider that aggressiveness to be rude. On the political front, the Democratic Party firmly in control of New York state, very similar to California. Even though Donald Trump is likely to win the Republican primary here, he will have a very tough time in New York state up against Hillary Clinton in the general election, if he gets there. As Talking Points reported last night, New York is a machine state, and the Democrat machine dominates.
As for Ted Cruz, he is a conservative Texan who now has to convince jaded New Yorkers that he is not denigrating them, that he was simply pointing out Donald Trump's past history of giving donations to people like Hillary Clinton and Governor Andrew Cuomo. But as we pointed out, Mr. Trump did that as a real estate guy and in this city, business people have to spread the money around if they want to get anything done. Talking Points believes that Donald Trump is now a conservative, although not nearly as right wing as Mr. Cruz is. Bottom line, if Ted Cruz wants to keep Donald Trump below 50 percent in New York, he has got a lot of hard work to do. And that's the memo.
</blockquote>
Previously:
<a href="http://mediamatters.org/video/2016/01/15/bill-oreilly-on-new-york-city-values-whos-the-m/208021">Bill O'Reilly On New York City Values: "Who's The Mayor? Mao Zedong"</a>
<a href="http://mediamatters.org/video/2016/01/15/hannity-i-live-in-new-york-so-i-know-what-its-l/208017">Hannity: I Live In New York So I Know "What It's Like To Live Under Communism"</a>]]></description>
<guid isPermaLink="false">http://mediamatters.org/video/209821</guid>
<pubDate>Thu, 07 Apr 2016 08:35:15 EDT</pubDate>
</item>
<item>
<title>How The Wash. Post Kicked Off The "Qualified" Argument Between Clinton And Sanders</title>
<link>http://mediamatters.org/research/209818</link>
<description><![CDATA[ The Washington Post Fact Checker clarified an article written by other Post reporters whose headline falsely suggested that Hillary Clinton called Bernie Sanders unqualified to be president. Before the Fact Checker had weighed in, the misrepresentation spread to other outlets, and Sanders reportedly cited it as justification for questioning Clinton's credentials in response.<div lang="EN-US" link="blue" vlink="purple">
<h2>Wash. Post Says Clinton Questioned Whether Sanders "Is Qualified To Be President"</h2>
</div>
<div lang="EN-US" link="blue" vlink="purple">
Wash. Post: Clinton "Questioned" Sanders' Qualifications Following His NY Daily News Interview. An April 6 Washington Post article reported in its headline and lead that Hillary Clinton had questioned whether her rival Bernie Sanders "is qualified to be president" during an April 6 appearance on MSNBC's Morning Joe. During the segment, Clinton said Sanders may not have "done his homework" for his interview with the New York Daily News editorial board, which she said "raise[s] a lot of questions" about whether he understands certain issues. Under the headline "Clinton questions whether Sanders is qualified to be president," the Post wrote:
</div>
<div lang="EN-US" link="blue" vlink="purple">
<blockquote>
Former secretary of state Hillary Clinton on Wednesday questioned whether her rival in the Democratic presidential primary, Sen. Bernie Sanders (Vt.), is qualified to be president.
"I think he hadn't done his homework and he'd been talking for more than a year about doing things that he obviously hadn't really studied or understood," Clinton said in an interview on MSNBC's "Morning Joe," just one day after losing the Wisconsin primary to Sanders, "and that does raise a lot of questions."
Clinton's comments follow a New York Daily News interview with Sanders that critics say revealed his inability to explain specifically how he would accomplish goals such as breaking up the biggest banks. [The Washington Post, <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2016/04/06/clinton-questions-whether-sanders-is-qualified-to-be-president/">4/6/16</a>]
</blockquote>
</div>
Morning Joe Panel: Clinton "Clearly Did Not Say Bernie Sanders Was Not Qualified To Be President." On the April 7 edition of MSNBC's Morning Joe, co-host Joe Scarborough disputed the Post's characterization of Clinton's comments. He said that during the April 6 interview, "I tried to get Hillary Clinton four times -- three or four times -- to say that Bernie Sanders was unqualified to be president of the United States," and "I gave up because she was not going to say the words 'He is unqualified to be president of the United States.'" MSNBC contributor Mike Barnicle agreed, noting, "She clearly did not say that Bernie Sanders was not qualified to be president." [MSNBC, Morning Joe, <a href="http://mediamatters.org/video/2016/04/07/morning-joe-panel-hillary-clinton-clearly-did-n/209808">4/7/16</a>]
<div lang="EN-US" link="blue" vlink="purple">
<h2>Sanders Campaign Cited Post Article For False Claim That Clinton "Said [Sanders] Wasn't Qualified" </h2>
</div>
<div lang="EN-US" link="blue" vlink="purple">
Sanders Points To Post Article To Justify Calling Clinton's Qualifications Into Question. At a campaign rally on April 6, Sanders said "[Clinton] has been saying lately that she thinks I am quote-unquote not qualified to be president. Let me just say in response to Secretary Clinton, I don't believe that she is qualified..." The Sanders campaign reportedly said "Sanders was referring to this WP story when he said HRC said he wasn't qualified," according to ABC journalist Liz Kreutz, who linked to the Washington Post article claiming Clinton questioned Sanders' qualifications. [The Washington Post, <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2016/04/07/sanders-rips-clinton-as-not-qualified-and-the-dem-race-goes-nuclear/">4/6/16</a>]
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en">
Sanders camp says Sanders was referring to this WP story when he said HRC said he wasn't qualified <a href="https://t.co/DtSB81gxiw">https://t.co/DtSB81gxiw</a> <a href="https://twitter.com/maryaliceparks">@maryaliceparks</a>
-- Liz Kreutz (@ABCLiz) <a href="https://twitter.com/ABCLiz/status/717900557499953153">April 7, 2016</a></blockquote>
[Twitter.com, <a href="https://twitter.com/ABCLiz/status/717900557499953153">4/6/16</a>]
CNN's Chris Cuomo: "Sanders Was Responding To Being Told That ... The Clinton Campaign Said He Was Unqualified." On the April 7 edition of CNN's New Day, co-host Chris Cuomo pointed out that Sanders' attack on Clinton was a response "to being told that the campaign, the Clinton campaign said he was unqualified. That's why he is holding qualified in quotes":
<blockquote>
CHRIS CUOMO (CO-HOST): Senator Sanders was responding to being told that the campaign, the Clinton campaign said he was unqualified. That's why he is holding qualified in quotes. He is taking what they said about him and then returning it on the merits of what he said. I just don't think he deserves that much of a black eye for raising this. Fair point?  REP. ADAM SCHIFF: Well I'm not sure that the Clinton campaign ever said that.  CUOMO: But that's what he says. "They're saying that I'm not qualified. Well I don't think Secretary Clinton is qualified," and that's where that came from. It's not like he just initiated this. Fair point? [CNN, New Day, <a href="http://mediamatters.org/embed/clips/2016/04/07/45826/cnn-newday-20160407-cuomoclinton">4/7/16</a>]
</blockquote>
<h2>Media Repeat False Characterization, Claim Clinton Said Sanders "Isn't Qualified"</h2>
Fox's Brian Kilmeade: "Hillary Clinton Says Bernie Sanders Isn't Qualified For The White House." On the April 7 edition of Fox News' Fox & Friends, co-host Brian Kilmeade said, "Hillary Clinton says Bernie Sanders isn't qualified for the White House. But Bernie says, right back at ya." [Fox News, Fox & Friends, <a href="http://mediamatters.org/embed/clips/2016/04/07/45827/fnc-ff-20160407-clintonsanders">4/7/16</a>]
CNN's Don Lemon: "She's Saying Basically He's Not Qualified." On the April 6 edition of CNN Tonight, CNN's Don Lemon said, "At first they were very cordial, but I mean, they're going back and forth with each other now. She had an interview with our Chris Cuomo this morning, basically again saying that, you know, Bernie Sanders is.... She's saying basically he's not qualified." [CNN, CNN Tonight with Don Lemon, <a href="http://mediamatters.org/embed/clips/2016/04/07/45828/cnn-cnntonight-20160406-lemonqualified">4/6/16</a>]
</div>
<div lang="EN-US" link="blue" vlink="purple">
<h2>Wash. Post Fact  Checker Addresses Original Article Headline </h2>
Wash. Post Fact Checker Clarifies That "The Post Headline Or Article Did Not Quote Clinton As Saying Sanders Was Unqualified." On April 7, The Washington Post's Fact Checker blog called headline writing "an imperfect art," saying that the "editor often has to summarize the meaning of a complex and nuanced article in just a few words." The fact check clarified that "In this case, however, The Post headline or article did not quote Clinton as saying Sanders was unqualified," and ultimately said, "The Washington Post article appropriately noted she raised questions about his qualifications, but certainly never said or suggested she said Sanders was unqualified":
<blockquote>
The Washington Post article had this headline: "Clinton questions whether Sanders is qualified to be president."
The CNN report included this sentence: "The campaign's deputy communications director, Christina Reynolds, argued that Sanders is unqualified." The sentence appeared before a description of a campaign missive that Reynolds had written, drawing attention to a problematic interview that Sanders had with the editorial board of the Daily News.
[...]
The art of headline writing is an imperfect art. The editor often has to summarize the meaning of a complex and nuanced article in just a few words. Many Washington-based reporters have experienced the frustration of having an accurate article denied by an agency spokesman because of a headline that went a little far off the mark.
In this case, however, The Post headline or article did not quote Clinton as saying Sanders was unqualified. Instead, it drew attention to an interview on MSNBC's "Morning Joe" in which Clinton sidestepped questions about whether Sanders was qualified.
[...]
Those kinds of answers certainly give license to reporters to offer an interpretation that Clinton is raising questions about her rival's qualifications. Clinton, after all, is a former secretary of state and is adept at signaling messages without actually saying the words out loud. But it's not the same as "quote unquote" saying Sanders is unqualified. [The Washington Post, Fact Checker, <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2016/04/07/sanderss-incorrect-claim-that-clinton-called-him-not-qualified-for-the-presidency/">4/7/16</a>]
</blockquote>
</div>]]></description>
<guid isPermaLink="false">http://mediamatters.org/research/209818</guid>
<pubDate>Thu, 07 Apr 2016 07:06:51 EDT</pubDate>
</item>
<item>
<title>Fox's Bolling Criticizes Paid Family Leave: "Socialism Is Spreading Across America"</title>
<link>http://mediamatters.org/video/209819</link>
<description><![CDATA[ From the April 7 edition of Fox News' The Five:<blockquote>
ERIC BOLLING (CO-HOST): Socialism is spreading across America, starting from California. Ten to fifteen -- Upping to $10 to $15 minimum wage is the first way. Remember Seattle tried that. Restaurant owners flocked away from Seattle. That's failing -- in the process of failing in Seattle. California wants to do it now too, knock yourself out. Free everything. Free health care, free tuition. You don't even have to be a citizen of California or the United States to get most of the free things now too. You can just come across the border and get it. It's awful. They're not going to -- California's not going to be able to pay for it. Business aren't going to be able to pay for all these--
JUAN WILLIAMS (CO-HOST): So you think this is going to implode?
BOLLING: It has to implode. It's a house of cards. But Dana makes a very important point, that this should happen, but it should come because businesses choose to do it because they don't want to lose good workers. Not mandated to do it.
</blockquote>
Previously:
<a href="http://mediamatters.org/video/2014/04/15/foxs-bolling-we-should-emulate-china-with-no-la/198904">Fox's Bolling: We Should Emulate China With No Labor Laws Or Minimum Wage</a>
<a href="http://mediamatters.org/blog/2015/08/25/latest-seattle-jobs-numbers-disprove-foxs-minim/205155">Latest Seattle Jobs Numbers Disprove Fox's Minimum Wage Misinformation</a>
<a href="http://mediamatters.org/blog/2015/01/05/foxs-bolling-omits-important-statistic-in-attac/202019">Fox's Bolling Omits Important Statistic In Attack On Minimum Wage Increases</a>]]></description>
<guid isPermaLink="false">http://mediamatters.org/video/209819</guid>
<pubDate>Thu, 07 Apr 2016 06:20:54 EDT</pubDate>
</item>
<item>
<title>Latest CMP Video Deceptively Attacks Planned Parenthood's Patient Consent Process</title>
<link>http://mediamatters.org/research/209816</link>
<description><![CDATA[ On April 5, the Center For Medical Progress (CMP) released its 14th deceptive video -- this one featuring sections of footage from the first hearing of Congress' Select Panel on Infant Lives, which Republicans established in response to CMP's baseless allegations against Planned Parenthood. This latest video attacks Planned Parenthood's patient consent process and demonstrates the dangerous feedback loop operating between CMP and anti-choice lawmakers on the select panel.<h2>CMP's New Video Claims Congressional Hearing Proved Planned Parenthood Isn't Getting Proper Consent For Fetal Tissue Donations</h2>
Latest Video Claims Planned Parenthood Gains Women's Consent To Donate Tissue Improperly. In this latest video, the Center for Medical Progress (CMP) used decontextualized footage from the Select Panel on Infant Lives' first hearing to allege that Planned Parenthood's consent form -- given to women when they are considering donating fetal tissue -- is misleading because it states that donated tissue "has been used to treat and find a cure for such diseases as diabetes, Parkinson's disease, Alzheimer's disease, cancer, and AIDS." CMP notes, "No cures for these diseases are currently available, and no current therapies for them utilize aborted fetal tissue." From CMP's blog post:
<blockquote>
The Planned Parenthood form promises pregnant women considering abortion that aborted fetal tissue "has been used to treat and find a cure for such diseases as diabetes, Parkinson's disease, Alzheimer's disease, cancer, and AIDS." No cures for these diseases are currently available, and no current therapies for them use aborted fetal tissue.
[...]
"Planned Parenthood's baby parts trafficking scheme cannot stand up to independent scrutiny. When a Planned Parenthood supporter and baby parts customer admits under oath that Planned Parenthood has been fraudulently inducing patient consent, it discredits all of Planned Parenthood's assurances that their baby parts scheme has operated legally and above-board," notes David Daleiden, CMP Project Lead. "Law enforcement in Planned Parenthood-friendly jurisdictions should stop wasting taxpayer resources to assist Planned Parenthood in harassing citizen journalists, and should stop ignoring the evidence of real fraud, baby body parts trafficking, and criminal abortion practices right in their own backyard." [Center for Medical Progress, <a href="http://www.centerformedicalprogress.org/blog/">4/5/16</a>]
</blockquote>
<h2>Edited Video Makes False, Misleading Claims About Planned Parenthood's Patient Consent Form</h2>
1. CLAIM: CMP Uses Medical Researcher's Testimony To Mislead On The Value of Fetal Tissue Research. The 14th video focuses on a portion of testimony from Dr. Laurence Goldstein regarding Planned Parenthood's consent form. The footage shows Rep. Bonnie Watson Coleman (D-NJ) asking Goldstein whether the form is misleading because it says that fetal tissue is used "to treat and find a cure" for major disease and Goldstein replying that if the consent form explicitly states that "therapies for diseases such as Alzheimer's and all the rest have already been found, I agree, that's an inappropriate statement." [The Center for Medical Progress,<a href="https://youtu.be/1b3tuZhZeZw?t=147"> 4/5/16</a>]
FACT: In Overall Testimony, Goldstein Describes Fetal Tissue Research As "Ethical, Valuable, and Vital." While Goldstein says it's true that fetal tissue research has not yet found cures for the diseases in question, he also highlights the "vital role" fetal tissues play in research that is searching for cures and treatments. In his opening statement, Goldstein describes fetal tissue research as "ethical, valuable, and vital" to medical progress. According to Goldstein, fetal tissue "cannot be easily replaced" by other other types of stem cells, and it plays a "vital role in modern, cutting-edge biomedical research" such as the work his lab does on Alzheimer's disease. Goldstein does not parse the specific language of the consent form in question. But in this fuller context, it is clear Goldstein believes fetal tissue research can play a role in developing therapies for the diseases listed on the consent form. From Dr. Goldstein's statement (emphasis added):
<blockquote>
LAWRENCE GOLDSTEIN: I have been a practicing scientist for 40 years, most recently using all types of stem cells to understand and treat Alzheimer's Disease, spinal cord injury, ALS, and more recently, kidney disease.
[...]
My message is very simple. Fetal tissue and cells that would otherwise be discarded play a vital role in modern, cutting-edge biomedical research. These fetal tissue and cells cannot easily be replaced by embryonic stem cells, reprogrammed stem cells, or adult stem cells. Let me give you three examples.
In the first example, we are using fetal astrocytes in the study of Alzheimer's disease. This devastating disease affects 5.3 million Americans and costs us in excess of $200 billion to $300 billion a year. It killed my own mother. This number doesn't reflect the real and terrible hardship that families face. We don't have a cure. No cure is obviously in sight and we really do have to find a way to treat this terrible disorder.
Now, in my own lab, the approach we are taking is to use reprogrammed stem cells to make Alzheimer's-type brain cells in the dish. That is, to generate Alzheimer's disease in a dish and to try to understand what is going wrong and to develop drugs that curtail the problems that happen biochemically.
Now, a type of cell that is very valuable in this work is called an astrocyte. And this is a type of cell that is a support cell in the brain. We use fetal astrocytes, which are vital to these investigations. These fetal astrocytes provide growth factors that keep the nerve cells healthy, that help them establish connections, and to be honest, they produce factors that we do not yet have fully defined that help maintain the viability of these cultures and are proving important to us to make new discoveries.
[...]
So, let me close by stating once again, that in my opinion, research with fetal tissue and cells that would otherwise be discarded is ethical, valuable, and vital to ongoing biomedical research projects. [Statement of Dr. Lawrence Goldstein, Hearing for the Select Panel On Infant Lives, <a href="http://docs.house.gov/meetings/IF/IF04/20160302/104605/HHRG-114-IF04-Transcript-20160302.pdf#page=108">3/2/16</a>]
</blockquote>
2. CLAIM: CMP Uses Rep. Vicky Hartzler's Statements To Argue That Women Experience "Undue Influences" From Planned Parenthood To Donate, In Violation Of Federal Rules. During the select panel's first hearing, Rep. Vicky Hartzler (R-MO) argued that a patient consent form -- ostensibly from Planned Parenthood, although all identifying information was redacted -- was misleading and thus that Planned Parenthood exerts "undue influences" to coerce women to donate tissue. The form's first sentence states: "research using the blood from pregnant women and tissue that has been aborted has been used to treat and find a cure for such diseases as diabetes, Parkinson's disease, Alzheimer's disease, cancer, and AIDS." According to Hartzler, because these diseases have not been cured, the statement is a false promise meant to unjustly persuade "vulnerable" women. She concluded that Planned Parenthood was violating the Belmont Report -- a Department of Health and Human Services report outlining subject consent guidelines for researchers. [Center for Medical Progress,<a href="https://youtu.be/1b3tuZhZeZw?t=54"> 4/5/16</a>]
FACT: CMP's Reading Of The Belmont Report Is Incorrect -- Planned Parenthood Doesn't Exert "Undue Influences" On Women When Gaining Consent For Donation. CMP and Hartzler's selective reading of the Belmont Report guidelines regarding informed consent and "undue influences" oversimplifies the document. According to the Belmont Report, "undue influence" occurs when "persons in a position of authority ... urge a course of action for a subject" either through the use of "possible sanctions" or the offer of an "improper reward" to the subject. The consent form explicitly states that provision of services is not dependent on an agreement to donate and that there will be no financial profit from donation -- meaning the statement does not "sanction" or "improper[ly] reward" women for their decision. The Belmont Report also explains that in seeking informed consent, those regulating biomedical research have a responsibility to not only "protect against the risk of harm to subjects" but also to consider "the loss of the substantial benefits that might be gained from research. Planned Parenthood should thus consider the benefits fetal tissue donation would have for research into those diseases described in the consent form. [The Belmont Report,<a href="http://www.fda.gov/ohrms/dockets/ac/05/briefing/2005-4178b_09_02_Belmont%20Report.pdf"> Accessed 4/5/16</a>]
3. CLAIM: Video Includes Footage From Old CMP Video To Allege Planned Parenthood Intentionally Misleads Women To Gain Consent For Tissue Donation. In CMP's description of its 14th video, the group claims that Planned Parenthood has been "fraudulently inducing patient consent." The video then cherry-picks previously debunked footage of Dr. Deborah Nucatola saying that women "respond most" to the chance to donate when presented with "the types of outcomes that [donation] might contribute to." [Center for Medical Progress,<a href="https://youtu.be/1b3tuZhZeZw?t=124"> 4/5/16</a>]
FACT: Previous CMP Videos Using Footage Of Nucatola Have Already Been Debunked And Proved To Include Selective Edits That Undermine Their Validity. The full footage of Nucatola's comments about the consent process not only reflect a described willingness by patients to donate, but also show that Planned Parenthood is extremely careful not to coerce or mislead women when describing the fetal tissue donation process. In the full footage, Nucatola says that many women who come to the clinic "are asking about it [donation] from the start" and that "most patients are very motivated." In instances where they don't raise the issue, she said, affiliates follow a set of strict guidelines and "feel strongly that the conversation [about donating] shouldn't be had until after they've [the patient has] made their decision to terminate." Furthermore, Nucatola notes that Planned Parenthood is sensitive to "concerns too about kind of coercion" and so employees "make sure they've [the patient has] made their decision, to actually have the procedure" before the employees mention consent for donation. From the full footage (emphasis added):
<blockquote>
DEBORAH NUCATOLA: At the end of the day, they want to offer this service [tissue donation] because patients ask about it.
CMP ACTOR: I think that's what's most important to me is the patient and how can we serve them, and how can we make -- just the whole experience, well this is just my passion for the patient. So can you give me an idea of, what is that like for the patient? I get them on the other end, after, but doing that, is there some way -- delicate way so that --
NUCATOLA: Yeah, I mean, there are obviously the patients who come in, who are asking about it from the start, so it's easy to talk about. But the others, I mean, honestly, there's not going to be one thing that works for every patient, because every patient experiences a whole wide range of emotions about the experience in general, and so you don't know where they're coming at from there. But I think every one of them is happy to know that there's a possibility for them to do this extra bit of good in what they do.
And I think the patients respond most to knowing the types of outcomes that it might contribute to, so, for example, they say Parkinson's research, Alzheimer's research things like that. I think most of these patients have some experience with one of these conditions or another. I think the ones that come in asking are the ones who have already had the experience, which is why they come in asking.
But, I actually think it's an easier conversation to have, than just consenting them for the procedure in general because at this point, I mean, I think it's more important when you have the conversation. I think that a lot of people feel strongly that the conversation shouldn't be had until after they've made their decision to terminate, they know how far along they are, and they know what's going to happen, and then when all of that is said and done, and they've had time for all of that to sink in, then to basically say, this is how we normally handle the tissue, but if you would be interested, there's another opportunity to contribute to research, contribute to science, donate your tissue. Most patients, like I said, are very, very motivated.[Center for Medical Progress,<a href="https://youtu.be/H4UjIM9B9KQ?t=1077"> 7/14/15</a>]
</blockquote>
<h2>Latest Video Proves Congressional Panel Is Still Carrying Water For CMP's Attacks On Planned Parenthood</h2>
The Select Panel Is Relying On "Evidence" Pulled Directly From CMP's Website. Previous Media Matters research found that during its first hearing, the select panel presented "evidence" of wrongdoing pulled directly from CMP's website and previous videos. For example, when Vicky Hartzler (R-MO) introduced exhibit A3, she presented a form that she described as "the consent form that is used in some of these [abortion] clinics." This same form was listed on CMP's website as a "Planned Parenthood fetal tissue donation form." In the latest video, CMP confirmed that its document was the source of exhibit A3 by transposing the forms on top of one another and removing the redaction bars -- indicating that the two were identical. [Media Matters,<a href="http://mediamatters.org/research/2016/03/07/in-planned-parenthood-investigation-republicans/209056"> 3/7/16</a>]
NY Times Editorial Board: Select Panel Is "A Showcase For Fallacious Attacks" And Is "Continuing The Campaign Against ... Reproductive Rights That CMP Began." After the select panel's first hearing, the New York Times editorial board wrote that CMP attempted to "stir up opposition to abortion rights by concocting a controversy over fetal tissue research," and now "Republicans in the House are doing much the same thing." In particular, the editorial board called out the first hearing for operating as "a showcase for fallacious attacks on fetal tissue research" and using video and documents from CMP as evidence. The Times concluded that Republicans were "continuing the campaign against fetal tissue research and reproductive rights that the Center for Medical Progress began" (emphasis added):
<blockquote>
With its hidden-camera videos that took aim at Planned Parenthood, the Center for Medical Progress tried to stir up opposition to abortion rights by concocting a controversy over fetal tissue research. Now Republicans in the House are doing much the same thing.
Initially convened in response to the videos, the Select Investigative Panel on Infant Lives, a part of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, pledges to "get the facts about medical practices of abortion service providers and the business practices of the procurement organizations who sell baby body parts."
Its first hearing last Wednesday was a showcase for fallacious attacks on fetal tissue research. In her opening statement, Representative Marsha Blackburn, a Tennessee Republican who heads the panel, talked about the Tuskegee syphilis experiment and the forced sterilization of people with intellectual disabilities as a prelude to discussing fetal tissue research. She went on to claim that the Center for Medical Progress's videos showed "something very troubling is going on related to fetal tissue and research," even though multiple investigations of Planned Parenthood have found no evidence of wrongdoing.
[...]
Since the panel's goals are so broad, its future direction is unclear. What is clear is that by pursuing their baseless investigation into "baby body parts," Republicans are continuing the campaign against fetal tissue research and reproductive rights that the Center for Medical Progress began. [The New York Times, <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/07/opinion/republicans-baseless-abortion-investigation.html?_r=0">3/7/16</a>]
</blockquote>]]></description>
<guid isPermaLink="false">http://mediamatters.org/research/209816</guid>
<pubDate>Thu, 07 Apr 2016 04:21:53 EDT</pubDate>
</item>
<item>
<title>A Look Back At Fox News' Interviews With Obama Ahead Of His Sunday Network Appearance</title>
<link>http://mediamatters.org/research/209815</link>
<description><![CDATA[ Chris Wallace will interview President Obama on Fox News Sunday April 10, marking Obama's first interview with the network since 2014. In past interviews, Fox figures including Wallace, Bret Baier and Bill O'Reilly have focused on Obama's ties to "radical" figures, hyped supposed scandals, lectured Obama on race, and interrupted him repeatedly.<h2>President Obama To Appear On Fox News Sunday</h2>
Fox News Interview Marks Obama's First Interview With Network Since 2014. CNN's Brian Stelter reported on April 6 that Fox News host Chris Wallace will interview President Barack Obama on Sunday, April 10, marking the president's first interview on the network since 2014. Stelter reported that the booking is "newsworthy" because "Fox is viewed inside the White House as a kind of hostile territory":
<blockquote>
For the first time in more than two years, President Obama is granting an interview to the Fox News Channel.
The president will tape an interview with Chris Wallace, the moderator of "Fox News Sunday," for broadcast on Sunday morning.
It will take place while the president is in Chicago this week.
Fox said in a press release Wednesday morning that "the interview will cover an array of topics, including the pending Supreme Court nomination, the 2016 election and Obama's presidential legacy."
Wallace has interviewed Obama three times before, including twice as president. But Fox is viewed inside the White House as a kind of hostile territory, so this week's booking is newsworthy.
Obama has not been interviewed by anyone at Fox since the beginning of 2014, when his usual pre-Super Bowl TV interview was conducted by Fox News prime time host Bill O'Reilly.
While the network draws a bright red line between news hosts like Wallace and opinion hosts like O'Reilly, Fox as a whole has been a home for the opposition to the administration's agenda.
At the daily briefing on Wednesday, White House press secretary Josh Earnest said, "Mr. Wallace has a well-established reputation for asking tough questions, so I don't think anybody's expecting a softball interview here. But I also think there are some important issues to talk about." [CNN.com, <a href="http://money.cnn.com/2016/04/06/media/president-obama-fox-news/index.html?iid=Lead">4/6/16</a>]
</blockquote>
<h2>In Previous Interviews, Fox Hosts Have Focused On Obama's Purported Ties To Controversial Figures And Supposed Scandals</h2>
2008: Chris Wallace Questions Obama About Rev. Wright, His Former Pastor. Fox News Sunday host Chris Wallace asked about Obama's alleged ties to the Rev. Jeremiah Wright during an April 27, 2008, interview on Fox News Sunday, asking if Obama thought Wright, who had drawn criticism for making controversial statements, was "the target of a smear campaign":
<blockquote>
CHRIS WALLACE (HOST): I wasn't sure whether I was even going to ask you about your former pastor, Jeremiah Wright, but he made it easy for me because he's now begun this ...
BARACK OBAMA: Right.
WALLACE: ... public campaign to redeem his reputation. The other night he said to Bill Moyers that he has been the target of a smear campaign.
[...]
WALLACE: Question: Do you think that Reverend Wright is just the victim here?
OBAMA: No. I think that people were legitimately offended by some of the comments that he had made in the past. The fact he's my former pastor I think makes it a legitimate political issue. So I understand that. [Fox Broadcasting Co., Fox News Sunday, <a href="http://www.foxnews.com/story/2008/04/28/transcript-barack-obama-on-fox-news-sunday.html">4/28/08</a>]
</blockquote>
2008: Bill O'Reilly Asks Obama About William Ayers And Rev. Wright. During a September 2008 interview on Fox News' The O'Reilly Factor, host Bill O'Reilly asked Obama about alleged ties to the Rev. Jeremiah Wright and Weather Underground "radicals" including William Ayers and claimed that Obama has "some pretty bad friends." Obama disagreed with the premise, saying that "there's a whole bunch of stuff said on FOX about me that is completely biased," although he added, "I still don't mind coming on your show":
<blockquote>
BILL O'REILLY (HOST): I'm sitting here and I'm an American. I'm sitting there in Bismarck, North Dakota, I'm sitting there in Coral Springs, Florida, and I'm seeing Reverend Wright, I'm seeing Father Pfleger, who thinks Louie Farrakhan's a great guy, I'm seeing Bernadette (sic) Dohrn and Bill Ayers, Weather Underground radicals, who don't think they bombed enough, I'm seeing MoveOn.org, who says "General Betray Us," and I'm seeing you go to a Daily Kos convention. And this week Daily Kos came out and said that Sarah Palin's Down syndrome baby was birthed by her 15-year-old with no proof. They put that on there. And I'm going, gee, that Barack Obama, he's got some pretty bad friends.
[...]
BARACK OBAMA: Hold on a second. I mean, there's a whole bunch of stuff said on FOX about me that is completely ...
O'REILLY: Correct the record.
OBAMA: ...biased. Well, but I still don't mind coming on your show. Just because there are a whole bunch of things that may be said on this network that I completely disagree with, I don't sort of assume that you have to take responsibility for everything that is said on FOX News, any more than I would expect you to take responsibility for everything that's said on Daily Kos. Think about it. [Fox News, The O'Reilly Factor,<a href="http://www.foxnews.com/story/2008/09/10/part-3-obama-discusses-rev-wright-bill-ayers-daily-kos-with-oreilly.html"> 9/10/08</a>; The New York Times, <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/05/us/politics/05watch.html?_r=0">9/5/08]</a>
</blockquote>
2009: Obama To Wallace: "I Don't Always Get My Most Favorable Coverage On Fox." Obama told Wallace during a February 3, 2009, interview for Fox News Sunday, "I think it's fair to say that I don't always get my most favorable coverage on Fox":
<blockquote>
CHRIS WALLACE (HOST): Let me throw another one at you and you tell me whether this is an exact quote. You were widely quoted, when you met with the House GOP caucus, saying, go ahead, (inaudible) I'll watch Fox News and feel bad about myself.
BARACK OBAMA: That one I did say.
WALLACE: Is perhaps -- let me just raise the possibility -- are you a trifle thin-skinned?
OBAMA: No, no, no. I said it in good humor. I think everybody understood that that was a joke.
No, I think, Chris -- I think it's fair to say that I don't always get my most favorable coverage on Fox, but I think that's part of how democracy is supposed to work. You know, we're not supposed to all be in lock step here, and you've always been very gracious to me. [Fox Broadcasting Co., Fox News Sunday, <a href="http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/02/03/transcript-chris-wallace-interviews-president-obama.html">2/3/09</a>]
</blockquote>
2009: Fox News Conducts "Lightning Round" Interview With President Obama. In a November 17, 2009, interview with Fox News, former Fox News reporter Major Garrett asked the president to "indulge yourself, if you will, in short answers" as he was trying to ask as many questions as possible:
<blockquote>
MAJOR GARRETT: Very good. Ah, we have a lot of ground to cover, kind of a lightening-round nature to this, I'll have short questions, indulge yourself, if you will, in short answers. A couple on health care. [Fox News.com,<a href="http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/11/18/major-garrett-interviews-president-obama-transcript.html">11/18/2009</a>]
</blockquote>
2010: Fox Host Bret Baier Frequently Interrupts President Obama During Interview. The Huffington Post criticized Fox News host Bret Baier for repeatedly interrupting President Obama during a May 17, 2010, interview on Fox News' Special Report, with Newsweek calling the interview an "interrupt-a-thon." Baier later acknowledged and apologized for the interruptions, saying, "I tried to get the most for our buck here." The Huffington Post wrote:
<blockquote>
Fox News' Bret Baier interrupted President Obama so many times during Wednesday's interview that Newsweek described the encounter as a "interrupt-a-thon."
Baier acknowledged his repeated interjections at the end of the interview, by interrupting the president once more to apologize. Baier told Obama "I apologize for interrupting you, sir. I tried to get the most for our buck here."
MSNBC's Lawrence O'Donnell said that he could not recall a reporter ever questioning or interrupting an American president in such an aggressive way. Certainly, O'Donnell argued, Fox News never took that approach with former President George W. Bush. [The Huffington Post, <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/03/17/obama-fox-news-interview_n_503521.html">5/17/10</a>; Fox News, Special Report, <a href="http://www.foxnews.com/story/2010/03/17/president-barack-obama-talks-to-bret-baier-about-health-care-reform-bill.html">3/17/10</a>]
</blockquote>
2011: Bill O'Reilly Asks Obama If He Is Trying To "Redistribute Wealth" Through Policies Including The Affordable Care Act. On the February 6, 2011, edition of Fox News' The O'Reilly Factor, host Bill O'Reilly repeatedly asked Obama if he was seeking to "redistribute wealth" through his policies:
<blockquote>
BILL O'REILLY (HOST): Wall Street Journal painting you as a pretty left-wing guy. You're going to draw the line.
[...]
Do you deny their assessment? Do you deny that you're a man who wants to redistribute wealth?
BARACK OBAMA: Oh absolutely. Absolutely.
O'REILLY: You deny that?
OBAMA: Absolutely. Bill, I didn't raise taxes once. I lowered taxes over the last two years. I lowered taxes for the last two years.
O'REILLY: But the entitlements that you champion do redistribute wealth in the sense that they provide insurance coverage for 40 million people who don't have it. [Fox News, The O'Reilly Factor, <a href="http://video.foxnews.com/v/4526781/bill-oreilly-interviews-president-obama/?#sp=show-clips">2/6/11</a>]
</blockquote>
2011: Fox Nation Questions Obama's Decision To Not Wear A Tie During His Interview. After his February 6, 2011, interview on The O'Reilly Factor, Fox News' Fox Nation posted a picture online questioning Obama's attire during the network appearance. [Media Matters, <a href="http://mediamatters.org/blog/2011/02/07/fox-nations-takeaway-from-obama-oreilly-intervi/176038">2/5/11</a>]
2013: Wallace Asks Obama About His Approach In Syria. Fox News host Chris Wallace pressed Obama about whether he would seek congressional action over the conflict in Syria during a September 9, 2013, interview on Special Report, asking if he would "delay a congressional vote ... until you see where this goes":  
<blockquote>
CHRIS WALLACE (HOST): So would you delay a Congressional vote...
BARACK OBAMA: (INAUDIBLE).
WALLACE: -- until you see where this goes?
[...]
WALLACE: -- but, sir...
OBAMA: But I...
WALLACE: We have limited time.
OBAMA: (INAUDIBLE).
WALLACE: I just want to ask, will you delay a vote?
[...]
WALLACE: But you think...
OBAMA: -- several days...
WALLACE: -- that's going to go over a couple of weeks?
OBAMA: Uh, I do believe that it's going to take some time. Look, uh, you know, Chris, you a -- you guys have polls and, uh, you do head counts. And right now the American...
WALLACE: (INAUDIBLE).
OBAMA: -- right -- right now, the American people are not persuaded. Right now, members of Congress, who are just getting back, still have questions. [Fox News, Special Report, <a href="http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/09/09/transcript-president-obama-interview-with-fox-news-chris-wallace.html">9/9/13</a>]
</blockquote>
2014: O'Reilly Lectures Obama On Race During Super Bowl Interview. During his February 2, 2014, interview of Obama, O'Reilly told  Obama how to fix "the culture" of African-Americans:
<blockquote>
Despite President Obama's efforts to address problems that plague the African-American community, Fox host Bill O'Reilly insisted Obama never addressed the problems explicitly and lectured him on how save the black community. In his interview with the president, O'Reilly continued his condescending effort to attribute historic problems in the black community to what he called "the culture."
On the February 3 edition of his Fox News show, O'Reilly played unaired portions of his interview with Obama. During the interview, O'Reilly asked the president why he and first lady Michelle Obama never "explicitly" address problems in the black community, citing statistics about families[.]
[...]
Unfortunately for O'Reilly, President Obama has been consistent about his message to the African-American community. In a June 2008 speech in in one of the largest black churches in Chicago, Obama sharply criticized absent black fathers, explaining, "[w]e need fathers to realize that responsibility does not end at conception." [Media Matters, <a href="http://mediamatters.org/blog/2014/02/02/a-super-bowl-of-foxs-phony-scandals-the-obama-o/197890">2/2/14</a>, <a href="http://mediamatters.org/blog/2014/02/04/oreilly-forgets-to-fact-check-before-lecturing/197904">2/4/14</a>]
</blockquote>
2014: Obama Calls Out O'Reilly For Making Misleading Statements On Benghazi. During the same February 2, 2014, interview, O'Reilly told Obama that his "detractors believe that you did not tell the world" the attack in Benghazi, Libya, "was a terror attack because your campaign didn't want that out." Obama countered that people believe that claim because "folks like you are telling them that":
<blockquote>
Fox News deflected from its role manufacturing scandals about the Benghazi attack by complaining that President Obama pointed to the network as a source of misinformation during a Super Bowl interview with Bill O'Reilly. [Media Matters, <a href="http://mediamatters.org/blog/2014/02/03/obama-calls-out-fox-propaganda-machine-fox-spin/197893">2/3/14</a>] 
</blockquote>]]></description>
<guid isPermaLink="false">http://mediamatters.org/research/209815</guid>
<pubDate>Thu, 07 Apr 2016 03:54:39 EDT</pubDate>
</item>
<item>
<title>Fox Host Claims That America Has "Helped Enough" With Syrian Refugee Crisis</title>
<link>http://mediamatters.org/video/209814</link>
<description><![CDATA[ From the April 7 edition of Fox News' Outnumbered:<blockquote>
HARRIS FAULKNER (CO-HOST): The first Syrian refugee family is now arriving in Kansas City, Missouri. They got here under a program which brings them into the United States in a very fast time. A husband, who is being resettled with his wife and five children, says he is thankful to Jordan for taking them in for three years when they fled Syria's civil war. Since October, one thousand refugees have moved to the United States from Jordan. And that number could grow dramatically with President Obama setting a target of bringing in 10,000 Syrian refugees by end of this September. And this is important. A spokesperson for the U.S. Embassy in Jordan says, the number is "a floor, not a ceiling." Adding that while the resettlement process usually takes up to two years, this so-called surge operation will reduce the time to three months. So, Doctor, I want to start with you, with this idea that, you know, we don't really have a firm grasp on what the exact numbers are going to be,but this family coming in, some demographics, 45-year-old dad, five children. He and his wife coming here. They came through on this fast, fast, program. We know something about them. They have been vetted, but we've told that vetting them is going to be the problem.
MARC SIEGEL: Harris, I want to look at it from the health point of view, I have to tell you I worry that we wouldn't be equipped to handle their healthcare needs here. Having said that, I want you to know that before I came here I gave a talk, coincidentally, with a Chinese-American woman physician who was over there with Doctors Without Borders in the refugee camps. First of all, because she was a woman and because she was Chinese, she was completely mistreated by the Muslim community. She couldn't swim in same swimming pool that the men swam in, she couldn't sit at the same tables. So there is a cultural issue. The medical issue was that inside the refugee camps, there's people having heart attacks, people having problems with diabetes, people with rampant infections. They don't have thefacilities to take care of them. All they have is their stethoscope. So, there is a real health care emergency over there. My heart goes out to them. I don't think we're the solution, but I think that maybe we could send more aid.
[...]
ANDREA TANTAROS (CO-HOST): So, there's not just medical concerns, there's security concerns and even, economic concerns. And even though the president says women and children, we know that over 70 percent of the population of refugees are Muslim, military-aged men. And all you have to do is look at Europe. Now, his own administration, the president's as you point out, Sandra, they say 18 to 24 months. So my question is, why the rush? Why a surge of refugees that we can't vet when there is all these concerns? And not just that, there is a cease-fire in Syria currently that happens to be working. It looks like President Obama's goal of getting Assad out isn't going to happen. So if we can't set up camps there, why not rely on Saudi Arabia? We just gave them $89 million.
FAULKNER: It's an excellent question.
TANTAROS: Eighty-nine million dollars, we've pumped over 100 million into to the refugee crisis. We've given them so much money in aid. We've helped enough. And I think that there's things we can do to help them stay in their home country close to their families, since we can't vet them.
</blockquote>
Previously: 
<a href="http://mediamatters.org/blog/2015/11/24/fox-anchor-dismisses-guest-who-accurately-expla/207066">Fox Anchor Dismisses Guest Who Accurately Explained Gun Violence Poses Greater Threat To Americans Than Syrian Refugees</a>
<a href="http://mediamatters.org/blog/2015/11/20/ebola-syrian-refugees-and-fox-news-annual-hyste/207000">Ebola, Syrian Refugees, And Fox News' Annual Hysteria Over Dark, Invading Forces</a>
<a href="http://mediamatters.org/video/2015/11/23/watch-john-oliver-slam-anti-refugee-rhetoric-by/207028">Watch John Oliver Slam Anti-Refugee Rhetoric By Explaining The Thoroughness Of The Refugee Vetting Process</a>]]></description>
<guid isPermaLink="false">http://mediamatters.org/video/209814</guid>
<pubDate>Thu, 07 Apr 2016 01:51:18 EDT</pubDate>
</item>
<item>
<title>Wash. Post Reporter: "It's Pretty Remarkable" That Cable News Channels Have Shunned Trump Ally Roger Stone</title>
<link>http://mediamatters.org/blog/209812</link>
<description><![CDATA[<div>
<div>
A Washington Post reporter said it's "remarkable" that Trump ally Roger Stone has been "blacklisted" from two major cable news channels over his history of sexist and racially offensive comments. 
Roger Stone -- a <a href="http://mediamatters.org/blog/2016/04/05/trump-ally-roger-stones-scrubbed-tweets-stupid/209761">notorious</a> "<a href="http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2008/06/02/the-dirty-trickster">dirty trickster</a>" -- has a terrible track record of <a href="http://mediamatters.org/research/2015/09/03/anti-clinton-author-robert-morrow-posted-bizarr/205294">violent, sexist remarks</a> against the Clintons, <a href="http://mediamatters.org/blog/2016/04/05/trump-ally-roger-stones-scrubbed-tweets-stupid/209761">racist</a> tweets, and <a href="http://mediamatters.org/research/2015/11/13/anti-clinton-authors-dedicated-their-book-to-a/206837">dedicating</a> a book he co-wrote to a Holocaust denier. In February, <a href="http://mediamatters.org/blog/2016/02/23/cnn-trump-supporter-roger-stone-will-no-longer/208751">CNN</a> banned Stone from appearing as a guest, following his series of <a href="http://mediamatters.org/blog/2015/08/04/trump-adviser-roger-stone-calls-hispanic-and-bl/204753">incendiary tweets</a> against the network's personalities. <a href="http://mediamatters.org/blog/2016/04/05/msnbc-removes-trump-ally-roger-stone-from-its-a/209758">MSNBC</a> has also banned Stone from their network, something Stone <a href="http://mediamatters.org/blog/2016/02/26/trump-ally-roger-stone-claims-msnbc-has-also-ba/208844">blamed</a> Media Matters for.
</div>
<div>
In an April 7 <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/04/07/why-is-former-donald-trump-adviser-roger-stone-being-blacklisted-by-the-media/?postshare=2701460033348860&tid=ss_tw">blog post</a> for the Washington Post's The Fix, Callum Borchers wrote, "it's pretty remarkable" that Stone, a vocal Trump ally with a "regular television presence," has been banned from major cable news networks. Borchers noted that Stone still appears as a guest on Fox News:
</div>
</div>
<blockquote>
With many big-name conservative commentators vigorously opposed to -- or, at least, highly skeptical of -- Donald Trump, cable news channels have looked to the end of the bench for articulate, telegenic supporters of the Republican presidential front-runner.
[...]
A good Trump surrogate -- or at least one who won't send a TV segment careening off the rails -- can be hard to find. Media outlets aren't really in a position to scratch names off an already-short list.
So it's pretty remarkable that two of the three major cable news channels have blacklisted Roger Stone, the veteran Republican strategist who is one of Trump's most vocal allies and who had been a regular television presence.
CNN banned Stone in February, after he tweeted sexist, racist comments about two of the network's on-air personalities. On Monday, MSNBC edited out a Stone interview that was part of that day's episode of "With All Due Respect," a weekday program that airs earlier on Bloomberg TV. The Stone interview was included in Bloomberg's broadcast but cut from MSNBC's. The liberal press watchdog group Media Matters was first to flag the edit.
An MSNBC spokesman said in an email to The Fix that "Roger Stone will not be a guest on MSNBC because of his now very well-known offensive comments."
Fox News Channel has not banned Stone, according to a spokeswoman; he was a guest on "Mornings with Maria" on Fox Business Network on Monday. The Washington Post also does not have a policy against quoting Stone.
[...]
Now two cable news channels have decided to run him off their air. The search for Trump backers who are suitable for television continues.   
</blockquote>]]></description>
<guid isPermaLink="false">http://mediamatters.org/blog/209812</guid>
<pubDate>Thu, 07 Apr 2016 01:37:03 EDT</pubDate>
</item>
<item>
<title>Mississippi Newspapers Criticize State Legislature For Passing Anti-LGBT Law</title>
<link>http://mediamatters.org/research/209813</link>
<description><![CDATA[ Mississippi newspapers spoke out against state legislation that allows individuals, businesses, religious organizations, the state government, and its employees to refuse service to LGBT people, as well as those who have extramarital sex, based on "religious belief or moral convictions." Gov. Phil Bryant claimed he was "protecting religious freedom" in signing the bill, but state newspaper editorials and publishers called the measure "unnecessary," said it was harmful to the state's image and reputation, and dubbed it the state's "latest Jim Crow law."<h2>Mississippi Gov. Phil Bryant Signs Anti-LGBT Bill Into Law Under Guise Of "ReligiousFreedom"</h2>
Associated Press: "Mississippi Gov. Signs Law Allowing Service Denial To Gays." On April 5, the Associated Press reported that Mississippi Gov. Phil Bryant signed legislation into law that would permit anti-LGBT discrimination by "allowing religious groups and private businesses to deny service to gay and transgender people":
<blockquote>
Mississippi's governor signed a law Tuesday allowing religious groups and private businesses to deny services to gay and transgender people -- echoing attempts made in other states with varying levels of success following last year's Supreme Court ruling that effectively legalized gay marriage nationwide.
Saying he was protecting religious freedom, Republican Gov. Phil Bryant signed the bill without hesitation or fanfare just hours after it cleared its final legislative obstacle Monday, and before opponents could try to talk him out of it. In addition to opposition from gay-rights activists, two leading state business associations and a number of large corporations in recent days had come out against the bill, which allows religious groups and some private businesses to refuse service to lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people based on religious beliefs.
It was unclear whether opponents would continue to marshal their forces in an attempt to repeal the measure as they are doing in North Carolina, however, where the Republican governor signed a law limiting bathroom options for transgender people and prohibiting local communities from enacting anti-discrimination ordinances. The Mississippi law also prohibits local communities from passing their own ordinances. The law is slated to take effect on July 1.
[...]
The law would, for example, allow a church group to decline housing or adoption services to gay couples. A hotel could refuse to rent a ballroom for a same-sex marriage and a jeweler could refuse to sell rings to a gay couple. Any employer or school could refuse to allow a transgender person to use the bathroom of their choice.
Among government employees, individual clerks could refuse to issue marriage licenses and judges could refuse to marry gay couples. In both cases, governments are supposed to take steps to make sure that the license and marriage are "not impeded or delayed," although it was not clear how that would work if all clerks or judges in a county filed paperwork to opt out. [Associated Press, <a href="http://bigstory.ap.org/article/acd0016ed25d47e99f4ce38bc90fadfc/mississippi-gov-signs-law-allowing-service-denial-gays">4/5/16</a>]
</blockquote>
<h2>Mississippi Newspaper Editorial Boards, Publishers Rebuke State Government For Passing The Law</h2>
The Clarion-Ledger: With The Governor's Signature, Mississippi "Welcomed Its Latest Jim Crow Law." In an April 6 editorial, The Clarion-Ledger voiced opposition to the law and expressed frustration that its "unnecessary existence" is "another permanent stain on [Mississippi's] disturbing record with civil rights." The editorial called the measure the state's "latest Jim Crow Law," saying it "displayed a sign for the world to see: Welcome to Mississippi. No gays allowed":
<blockquote>
The pen is mightier than the sword. And on Tuesday, it was infinitely more destructive.
That's the day Gov. Phil Bryant announced he signed House Bill 1523 -- the Protecting Freedom of Conscience from Government Discrimination Act -- into law with the support of most of the Mississippi Legislature as well as several religious organizations and many constituents.
Yet many businesses, along with other legislators, religious organizations and constituents opposed the measure, citing it as a form of legal discrimination against the LGBT community.
We fall in the latter group, opposing this law based on its unnecessary existence and mean-spirited intent to segregate Mississippians based on their beliefs.
There are two main flaws with the new law.
The first glaring issue is the truth that existing state and federal law already offer the protections this bill claims are needed for Mississippians to exercise their religious rights and to ensure their churches aren't forced by the government to conduct ceremonies that conflict with their religious beliefs.
[...]
The second huge flaw is every single page of the law.
By signing this, Gov. Bryant delivered Mississippi another permanent stain on its disturbing record with civil rights. By allowing businesses and public officials legal rights to deny service to LGBT residents, the Magnolia State is reinforcing a stereotype of prejudice and injustice.
[...]
Through the swish of a pen, Bryant signed away the rights of families, ignored the pleas of residents and businesses, and wrote another page in the state's history that future generations will be shocked, even embarrassed, to read.
With a final stroke of that pen, Mississippi welcomed its latest Jim Crow law and displayed a sign for the world to see: Welcome to Mississippi. No gays allowed.
Mississippi and its citizens deserve better than this unconscionable law. [The Clarion-Ledger, <a href="http://www.clarionledger.com/story/opinion/editorials/2016/04/06/governor-veto-hateful-bill/82652136/">4/6/16</a>]
</blockquote>
Jackson Free Press President And Publisher: Gov. Bryant "Stands Squarely On The Wrong Side Of History With The Bigoted Governors Of Mississippi's Past." In an April 6 column, Todd Stauffer, president and publisher of the Jackson Free Press, wrote that Gov. Bryant "stands squarely on the wrong side of history" for signing the anti-LGBT bill into law and lamented that he "locked arms with the forces of fear, judgement and isolationism":
<blockquote>
Gov. Phil Bryant, in signing HB 1523, has cemented his legacy.
He stands squarely on the wrong side of history with the bigoted governors of Mississippi's past, firm in his determination to uphold the "freedom" of his perceived constituency to act publicly upon their biases and discomfort instead of showing guts and leadership by protecting the lawfully held civil rights of a minority in his state.
And he has locked arms with the forces of fear, judgment and isolationism that have driven Mississippi's "best and brightest" from the state in search of more welcoming places that champion mutual respect, support self-expression and encourage understanding.
Bryant's decision is wrong. It's bad for people, and it's bad for business.
First, let's be brutally clear about what the "Protecting Freedom of Conscience from Government Discrimination Act" does: It codifies protections for citizens (let's call them "first-class citizens") who desire to discriminate against certain other citizens (call them "second-class citizens") because the first-class citizens hold a "belief or conviction" that the second-class citizen (a) is lawfully married to the wrong person, (b) is lawfully having sex with the wrong person or (c) doesn't identify appropriately with their "immutable biological sex" they were noted to have "at the time of birth."
The act allows government workers to refuse to fulfill their sworn duty to serve American citizens in this state because that worker feels uncomfortable doing so based on a personal opinion of the citizen he or she is asked to serve.
Likewise, people who provide an accommodation through a business that is open to the public will be able to do the same thing--deny that accommodation because they're uncomfortable with the individual customer in question.
We've been down this road before--in 1963, President Kennedy called for legislation "giving all Americans the right to be served in facilities which are open to the public--hotels, restaurants, theaters, retail stores, and similar establishments," a goal realized in the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Despite white people's "strongly held convictions" that people of color shouldn't be served in their stores and restaurants, acting on such "convictions" was determined to be unlawful and unconstitutional. [Jackson Free Press, <a href="http://www.jacksonfreepress.com/news/2016/apr/06/phil-bryant-and-mississippi-gop-bad-business/">4/6/16</a>]
</blockquote>
The Commercial Dispatch: Law Is An "Embarrassing Solution Looking For A Problem That Does Not Exist." In an April 6 editorial, The Commercial Dispatch said it had hoped Gov. Bryant would have the "courage and wisdom" to veto the anti-LGBT legislation. Instead, the paper wrote, he threw "the first punch in what is, quite simply, an unnecessary fight." The editorial called the law "a loud, embarrassing solution" to "a problem that does not exist":
<blockquote>
We, among many, hoped the Governor would see the reasons, both moral and practical, to veto this bill and that he would have the courage and wisdom to do so. Bryant was not equal to the task.
The law attracted immediate attention in the national media. The governors of Washington, Vermont and New York announced travel bans to Mississippi, a symbolic gesture, certainly, but one that hints at the disdain that will rain down on our state in the weeks ahead.
Meanwhile, the business community, both inside and outside the state, has been uniform in opposition the bill. Historically, Mississippi has struggled to bring new jobs to our state as virtually all the economic measurables affirm. The last thing we need is yet another reason business should not come to Mississippi.
We are throwing the first punch in what is, quite simply, an unnecessary fight.
In Mississippi, LGBT people are not a protected class. Although the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in June that same-sex couples have a Constitutional right to marry, they can be lawfully discriminated against in many areas -- jobs, housing, even basic services. The infamous attack on the Christian florist who refuses to bake a wedding cake for a gay couple is a myth here: There are no state laws that compel that baker to perform that service.
This is, then, a loud, embarrassing solution looking for a problem that does not exist. Bryant himself acknowledged this new law does not supersede any federal anti-discrimination laws. By his own admission, the new law achieves absolutely nothing -- except, of course, further damage the reputation of our state and its people. [The Commercial Dispatch,<a href="http://www.cdispatch.com/opinions/article.asp?aid=49361"> 4/6/16</a>]
</blockquote>
Sun Herald: "Mississippi's Stand On Same-Sex Marriage Is Simply Wrong." In an April 1 editorial, the Sun Herald pointed out that the anti-LGBT law will not only "cost taxpayers dearly" in losing court battles, but also tarnish the state's image:
<blockquote>
There is a serious disconnect between a state Legislature dominated by the central and northern reaches of the state and the tourism-dependent Mississippi Coast.
The latest result of that unhappy marriage is House Bill 1523, which in our opinion discriminates against gays and lesbians. Its provisions are sure to be challenged in court, which will cost taxpayers dearly. And the state is sure to lose.
But its biggest cost is the damage to Mississippi's image.
The highest court in the land has ruled: Same-sex couples have a right to marry that is guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution.
We could have accepted the wisdom of that decision and moved on, leaving matters of love and marriage to the individuals involved.
Instead, we followed the lead of House Speaker Phil Gunn of Clinton, one of the authors of HB1523, into a legal, moral and ethical swamp.
[...]
They should be working to roll out the welcome mat, not backing laws that tell folks they'd be better off vacationing, or moving, elsewhere. [Sun Herald, <a href="http://www.sunherald.com/opinion/editorials/article69588822.html">4/1/16</a>]
</blockquote>]]></description>
<guid isPermaLink="false">http://mediamatters.org/research/209813</guid>
<pubDate>Thu, 07 Apr 2016 01:23:11 EDT</pubDate>
</item>
<item>
<title>Charles Barkley: "The NBA Should Move The All-Star Game From Charlotte" Due To Anti-LGBT Law</title>
<link>http://mediamatters.org/video/209809</link>
<description><![CDATA[ From the April 3 edition of CNN's Newsroom:<blockquote>
FREDRICKA WHITEFIELD: You've also made some strong comments about say, Indianapolis last year, what many people call the anti-gay legislation. And now it's North Carolina that's under the microscope. 
CHARLES BARKLEY: I think the NBA should move the All-Star Game from there next year. You know, as a black person, I'm against any form of discrimination -- against whites, Hispanics, gays, lesbians, however you want to phrase it. It's my job, with the position of power that I'm in, and being able to be on television, I'm supposed to stand up for the people who can't stand up for themselves. So, I think the NBA should move the All-Star Game from Charlotte. And we can figure it out, I know Atlanta wants to host it. But they should move it out of Charlotte.
</blockquote>
Previously: 
<a href="http://mediamatters.org/research/2016/03/24/north-carolina-editorials-slam-republican-reckl/209518">North Carolina Editorials Slam Republican "Recklessness And Foolishness" In Rolling Back LGBT Nondiscrimination Protections</a>
<a href="http://mediamatters.org/blog/2016/03/31/north-carolinas-anti-lgbt-law-borrows-the-work/209657">North Carolina's Anti-LGBT Law Borrows The Work Of An Extreme Legal Group</a>
<a href="http://mediamatters.org/blog/2016/03/25/ny-times-editorial-board-republican-led-effort/209543">NY Times Editorial Board: Republican-Led Effort To Roll Back LGBT Nondiscrimination Protections "Makes North Carolina Pioneer In Bigotry"</a>]]></description>
<guid isPermaLink="false">http://mediamatters.org/video/209809</guid>
<pubDate>Thu, 07 Apr 2016 01:01:54 EDT</pubDate>
</item>
<item>
<title>Ellen DeGeneres: Mississippi's Anti-LGBT Bill Is The "Definition Of Discrimination"</title>
<link>http://mediamatters.org/video/209810</link>
<description><![CDATA[ From the April 6 edition of NBC's The Ellen DeGeneres Show:<iframe width="575" height="324" src="http://mediamatters.org//widgets.ellentube.com/videos/0_0wrxm7u9/" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0"></iframe>
<blockquote>
ELLEN DEGENERES (HOST): So if you don't know, the governor of the state signed a religious freedom bill which might sound good, because it has the word freedom is in it, but here's what it means. Under the law, if you say for religious reasons, you can deny gay people marriage, adoption, and foster care services; fire or refuse to employ them and decline to rent or sell them property. Now I'm not a political person, I'm really not, but this is not politics, this is human rights. And I mean, and when I see something wrong, I have to talk about it.
[...]
So this issue is very personal for me, obviously. I'm disappointed for several reasons. First of all, Mississippi is the only state I know how to spell. Second of all, that is the definition of discrimination. It is also something that the Supreme Court already ruled on when they made marriage a right for everyone. Everyone.
[...]
So if you're in Mississippi, or North Carolina or anywhere, and you're saddened by the fact that people are judging you based on who you love, don't lose hope. I was fired for being gay, and I know what it feels like, I lost everything. But look at me now.
[...]
There's already so much inequality in the world, women's rights, gender pay gap, racism. I think we need to remember we're more similar than we are different. And we all want the same things, love, acceptance, kindness.
[...]
So I advocate for less hate and more love, less tearing apart and more coming together.
</blockquote>
Previously:
<a href="http://mediamatters.org/video/2016/04/06/cnn-correspondent-highlights-backlash-against-m/209784">CNN Correspondent Highlights Backlash Against Mississippi's Extreme New Anti-LGBT Law</a>
<a href="http://mediamatters.org/video/2016/04/06/cnn-highlights-the-extraordinary-and-extreme-br/209792">CNN Highlights The "Extraordinary" And "Extreme" Breadth Of Anti-LGBT Mississippi Law</a>
<a href="http://mediamatters.org/video/2016/03/31/seth-meyers-destroys-nc-bathroom-bill-no-eviden/209649">Seth Meyers Destroys NC "Bathroom Bill": "No Evidence" Anyone "Exploited Equal Rights Laws To Commit Crimes In Bathrooms"</a>]]></description>
<guid isPermaLink="false">http://mediamatters.org/video/209810</guid>
<pubDate>Thu, 07 Apr 2016 12:19:02 EDT</pubDate>
</item>
<item>
<title>The Fox Primary For March: Trump Widens His Airtime Lead</title>
<link>http://mediamatters.org/blog/209785</link>
<description><![CDATA[As the Republican presidential field shrunk to three candidates in March, front-runner Donald Trump again led his competitors in interview airtime on Fox News. Fox News hosted the businessman for 6 hours and 15 minutes, compared to Texas Sen. Ted Cruz's 5 hours and 18 minutes and Ohio Gov. John Kasich's 3 hours and 44 minutes.
<img src="http://cloudfront.mediamatters.org/static/uploader/image/2016/04/06/marchfoxprimarycandidates.png" width="650" height="760" />
Florida Sen. Marco Rubio and former neurosurgeon Ben Carson both ended their campaigns in March -- their airtime totals from before they dropped out are listed, but they will not be included in future editions.
Trump's lead in Fox interview time comes amid ongoing tension between him and the conservative network. Mid-month, Trump <a href="http://money.cnn.com/2016/03/16/media/donald-trump-republican-debate-fox/">declined to participate</a> in a Fox News-hosted debate, leading Kasich to drop out as well. Fox canceled the event in response.
Overall, Trump's numbers on Fox News since Media Matters began tracking interview time last May have remained well above those of all the other Republican candidates. Since May, he has logged 41 hours and 12 minutes on the network, more than double Cruz's 19 hours and 26 minutes and nearly triple Kasich's 13 hours and 57 minutes.
<img src="http://cloudfront.mediamatters.org/static/uploader/image/2016/04/06/marchfoxprimarycandidatesoverall.png" width="650" height="1993" />
Hannity was again the Fox show that devoted the most time to the Republican candidates, with 5 hours and 38 minutes total in March. The Kelly File followed in a distant second with 2 hours and 49 minutes, and Fox & Friends' weekday edition was third with 2 hours and 16 minutes.
<img src="http://cloudfront.mediamatters.org/static/uploader/image/2016/04/07/fox-primary-shows-march-2016-1.png" width="650" height="1758" />
Since last May, Hannity has amassed 43 hours and 44 minutes of interview time for all of the Republican candidates past and present in this election cycle. The Kelly File and Fox & Friends' weekday edition followed far behind with just over 20 hours each.
<img src="http://cloudfront.mediamatters.org/static/uploader/image/2016/04/07/fox-primary-shows-march-2016-overall-1.png" width="650" height="2664" />
<h2>The Numbers</h2>
Most Total Airtime In March: Donald Trump (6 hours and 15 minutes)
Most Total Appearances In March: Donald Trump (28 appearances)
Fox Show With The Most Total Candidate Airtime In March: Hannity (5 hours and 38 minutes)
Fox Show With The Most Candidate Appearances In March: Hannity (17 appearances)
Softball Question Of The Month: On the March 29 edition of Hannity, host Sean Hannity questioned Trump about an altercation between his campaign manager, Corey Lewandowski, and conservative journalist Michelle Fields -- for which Lewandowski had just been charged with simple battery -- by first telling viewers that he didn't agree with Fields' description of the incident:
<blockquote>
HANNITY: All right, let me ask one other question that made a lot of news today. And in full disclosure, I'm friendly with both parties here. I know your campaign manager, Corey Lewandowski, very well. I know Michelle Fields. She's been a guest on this program a lot over the years.
And I got to be honest, I looked at this tape at least 100 times today to try and see -- and I have her original statement here that she was, quote, "jolted backwards and somebody grabbed me tightly by the arm, yanked me down. I almost fell to the ground."
Now, I'm showing the tape. I don't see that. I've -- I've looked at it 100 times. 
</blockquote>
Most Total Airtime Since May 1, 2015: Donald Trump (41 hours and 12 minutes)
Most Total Appearances Since May 1, 2015: Donald Trump (216 appearances)
Fox Show With The Most Total Candidate Airtime Since May 1, 2015: Hannity (43 hours and 44 minutes)
Fox Show With The Most Candidate Appearances Since May 1, 2015: Hannity (252 appearances)
<h2>Previous Fox Primary Reports</h2>
<a href="http://mediamatters.org/blog/2015/06/03/the-fox-news-primary-for-may-huckabee-takes-an/203850">May 2015</a>
<a href="http://mediamatters.org/blog/2015/07/06/the-fox-news-primary-for-june-donald-trump-take/204252">June 2015</a>
<a href="http://mediamatters.org/blog/2015/08/05/the-fox-news-primary-for-july-trump-holds-comma/204757">July 2015</a>
<a href="http://mediamatters.org/blog/2015/09/03/the-fox-news-primary-for-august-trumps-feud-wit/205355">August 2015</a>
<a href="http://mediamatters.org/blog/2015/10/05/the-fox-news-primary-for-september-even-with-bo/205963">September 2015</a>
<a href="http://mediamatters.org/blog/2015/11/04/the-fox-news-primary-for-october-trump-still-le/206598">October 2015</a>
<a href="http://mediamatters.org/blog/2015/12/04/the-fox-primary-for-november-trump-leads-rubio/207240">November 2015</a>
<a href="http://mediamatters.org/blog/2015/12/23/the-2015-fox-primary-its-trump-and-then-everyon/207659">2015 Overview</a>
<a href="http://mediamatters.org/blog/2016/02/03/the-fox-primary-for-january-new-year-same-trump/208344">January 2016</a>
<a href="http://mediamatters.org/blog/2016/03/04/the-fox-primary-for-february-trump-sets-new-int/209018">February 2016</a>
<h2>Methodology</h2>
For this study, we <a href="http://www.foxnews.com/politics/elections/2016/presidential-candidate-watchlist">used</a> FoxNews.com's "2016 Presidential Candidate Watch List." Jim Gilmore's inclusion in the study began after his formal announcement on July 30. The following candidates' data collection stopped when they each ended their respective campaigns: Rick Perry (September 11), Scott Walker (September 22), Bobby Jindal (November 17), Lindsey Graham (December 21), George Pataki (December 29), Mike Huckabee (February 1), Rand Paul (February 3), Rick Santorum (February 3), Chris Christie (February 10), Carly Fiorina (February 10), Jim Gilmore (February 12), Jeb Bush (February 20), Ben Carson (March 4), and Marco Rubio (March 15). These candidates will not be included in future reports.
Media Matters searched the Nexis database and our internal video archive for all guest appearances on Fox News Channel between 6 a.m. and 11 p.m. and Fox News Sunday for the five presidential candidates current for March: Ben Carson, Ted Cruz, John Kasich, Marco Rubio, and Donald Trump.
This study includes all original appearances between May 1, 2015, and March 31, 2016. Repeat appearances were counted if they aired on a new day. Appearances during early morning post-debate specials were counted.
Charts by Oliver Willis. Additional research by Media Matters' research staff.]]></description>
<guid isPermaLink="false">http://mediamatters.org/blog/209785</guid>
<pubDate>Thu, 07 Apr 2016 11:18:55 EDT</pubDate>
</item>
<item>
<title>Morning Joe Panel: Hillary Clinton "Clearly Did Not Say Bernie Sanders Was Not Qualified To Be President"</title>
<link>http://mediamatters.org/video/209808</link>
<description><![CDATA[ From the April 7 edition of MSNBC's Morning Joe:<blockquote>
MIKA BRZEZINSKI (CO-HOST): Late last night, Clinton's press secretary Brian Fallon responded to [Sanders'] remarks on Twitter saying quote "Hillary Clinton did not say Bernie Sanders was 'not qualified.' But he has now - absurdly - said it about her. This is a new low." He added "Bernie Sanders, take back your words about Hillary Clinton." Sanders did no such thing. His campaign released a statement that began quote "Responding to Hillary Clinton's attempt to portray him as unqualified for the White House, Senator Sanders linked her to a trade pact exploited by wealthy individuals and profitable corporations to avoid paying taxes." And then went on to spell out the rest of Senator Sanders, the senator's quotes from Philadelphia. That statement linked readers to a Washington Post article with the headline "Clinton questions whether Sanders is qualified to be president," which cited Secretary Clinton's remarks on Morning Joe. Both candidates have news conferences scheduled for 9:00 this morning right after Morning Joe. I feel like I'm in trouble. And Bernie Sanders will join us on set in New York tomorrow morning.
JOE SCARBOROUGH (CO-HOST): OK so Mike Barnicle, you were there with us. I tried to get Hillary Clinton four times -- three or four times to say that Bernie Sanders was unqualified to be president of the United States and just like my interview with Rick Santorum, you know, I start asking a question, I keep going until I get an answer or give up. And after three or four attempts with Secretary Clinton I gave up because she was not going to say the words "He is unqualified to be president of the United States." Was that your takeaway from the interview as well or am I missing something?
MIKE BARNICLE: No, she clearly did not say that Bernie Sanders was not qualified to be president and under Senator Sanders' logic in his comeback, is John Kerry qualified to be secretary of state? Because he, too, voted for many of the things that Hillary Clinton has cited in Senator Sanders' indictment. This is going to be a 12-day tension convention here in New York state between Senator Sanders and Secretary Clinton.
</blockquote>
Previously: 
<a href="http://mediamatters.org/video/2016/02/19/morning-joe-hosts-boast-that-theyve-humiliated/208694">Morning Joe Hosts Boast That They've "Humiliated" The Rest Of The Media With Their Trump Coverage</a>
<a href="http://mediamatters.org/video/2016/02/03/bob-woodward-and-joe-scarborough-attack-hillary/208346">Bob Woodward And Joe Scarborough Attack Hillary Clinton's "Style And Delivery" Because "She Shouts"</a>
<a href="http://mediamatters.org/video/2016/03/01/joe-scarborough-responds-to-criticisms-of-morni/208914">Joe Scarborough Responds To Criticisms Of Morning Joe's Donald Trump Coverage: "We Saw The Viability Here. Nobody Else Did"</a>]]></description>
<guid isPermaLink="false">http://mediamatters.org/video/209808</guid>
<pubDate>Thu, 07 Apr 2016 11:11:53 EDT</pubDate>
</item>
<item>
<title>Jessica Williams And Transgender Activists Debunk The "Bathroom Predator" Myth On The Daily Show</title>
<link>http://mediamatters.org/video/209804</link>
<description><![CDATA[ From the April 6 edition of Comedy Central's The Daily Show:<iframe width="512" height="288" src="http://www.hulu.com/embed.html?eid=AVpdqZZX1HqaiOxu1CvCJQ" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" scrolling="no"></iframe>
<blockquote>
<div>
<div class="im">
JESSICA WILLIAMS: Because of discrimination and profiling, at least 47 percent of black trans people will have at some point in their lives been incarcerated.
[...]
You'd think there'd be laws to correct this. But instead, this year alone, state legislatures have introduced 175 anti-trans bills. Many make it legal to discriminate based solely on religious beliefs. And then you have these bathroom bills.
[...]
Just listen to Colorado represenative and Elmer Funn lookalike Gordon Klingenschmitt.
[BEGIN VIDEO]
WILLIAMS: Should we fear the transgender community?
GORDON KLINGENSCHMITT: Well, they not only want to be confused about their own identity, but they want the rest of us to be confused with them. Now they want the government to join them in that pretense? They're making us into liars.
WILLIAMS: Wow.
[END VIDEO]
WILLIAMS: OK, I met with these so-called liars to find out what their evil intentions are.
TRANSGENDER ACTIVIST: There's a notion that trans people are perpetrators in some way. That we're sneaking and trying to trick you for the purposes of having sex with you.
TRANSGENDER ACTIVIST: And that's not the case at all.
TRANSGENDER ACTIVIST: People just want to see male and female, like it has to fit into one of those two boxes. And if it doesn't, it makes people uncomfortable.
TRANSGENDER ACTIVIST: It's surely not a choice.
TRANSGENDER ACTIVIST: That's all you need to know.
WILLIAMS: Well, not according to Klingenschmitt, who thinks we're all going to get attacked in the bathroom.
[BEGIN VIDEO]
KLINGENSCHMITT: A man can go into a ladies room and assault you and your little girl.
[END VIDEO]
[...]
TRANSGENDER ACTIVIST: There's no reported incidences of any trans person ever raping or assaulting anyone in any bathroom, ever.
TRANSGENDER ACTIVIST: If anything, trans people are the ones getting assaulted.
[...]
WILLIAMS: The transgender community is more pressed than I could have ever imagined. So why does Gordon feel so threatened?
[BEGIN VIDEO]
WILLIAMS: Have you ever been attacked by a transgender person? Is that why this is happening?
KLINGENSCHMITT: No.
WILLIAMS: Have you ever had a traumatic experience with a trans person?
KLINGENSCHMITT: I wouldn't call it traumatic, no.
WILLIAMS: Devastating?
KLINGENSCHMITT: Yeah, no.
WILLIAMS: You haven't?
[END VIDEO]
[...]
WILLIAMS: Unfortunately, a lot of people think like Gordon. So how can we end this transphobic epidemic?
</div>
</div>
TRANSGENDER ACTIVIST: Hopefully they can understand that we are striving toward becoming more of an authentic version of ourselves after a lot of soul searching and a lot of thought and sometimes a lot of trauma and tragedy.
TRANSGENDER ACTIVIST: Passing these bills is absolutely going to just add fuel to the fire and ignite trans panic.
</blockquote>
Previously:
<a href="http://mediamatters.org/research/2014/03/20/15-experts-debunk-right-wing-transgender-bathro/198533">15 Experts Debunk Right-Wing Transgender Bathroom Myth</a>
<a href="http://mediamatters.org/video/2016/04/05/watch-a-transgender-activist-debunk-the-bathroo/209760">Watch A Transgender Activist Debunk The "Bathroom Predator" Myth On CNN</a>
<a href="http://mediamatters.org/video/2016/03/31/seth-meyers-destroys-nc-bathroom-bill-no-eviden/209649">Seth Meyers Destroys NC "Bathroom Bill": "No Evidence" Anyone "Exploited Equal Rights Laws To Commit Crimes In Bathrooms"</a>]]></description>
<guid isPermaLink="false">http://mediamatters.org/video/209804</guid>
<pubDate>Thu, 07 Apr 2016 11:06:40 EDT</pubDate>
</item>
</channel>
</rss>

If you would like to create a banner that links to this page (i.e. this validation result), do the following:

Download the "valid RSS" banner.
Upload the image to your own server. (This step is important. Please do not link directly to the image on this server.)
Add this HTML to your page (change the image src attribute if necessary):

<a href="http://www.feedvalidator.org/check.cgi?url=http%3A//feeds.mediamatters.org/mediamatters/latest%3Fformat%3Dxml"><img src="valid-rss-rogers.png" alt="[Valid RSS]" title="Validate my RSS feed" /></a>

If you would like to create a text link instead, here is the URL you can use:

http://www.feedvalidator.org/check.cgi?url=http%3A//feeds.mediamatters.org/mediamatters/latest%3Fformat%3Dxml

Home · About · News · Docs · Terms