The stories you want. The opinions that matter.
No, thanks
{{ site.specific_data.Twitter }}
No, Hannity: Trump’s North Korea Deal Is Weaker Than Clinton’s 1994 Framework

No, Hannity: Trump’s North Korea Deal Is Weaker Than Clinton’s 1994 Framework

Reprinted with permission from MediaMatters.

 

For months, Fox News host Sean Hannity has falsely disparaged the Agreed Framework of 1994, a deal brokered under President Bill Clinton to freeze North Korea’s nuclear program, as an example of the U.S. “sucking up and bribing world dictators.” Now, experts are criticizing the terms of President Donald Trump’s agreement with North Korea dictator Kim Jong Un for conceding more than the 1994 agreement did and for being weaker on denuclearization. But, as expected, Hannity has been praising Trump and the agreement he signed with Kim, saying their summit “exceeded all … expectations.”

The joint statement that Trump and Kim signed on Tuesday fell short of the U.S. demands going into the summit; the deal does not include standards for complete, verifiable, and irreversible denuclearization as the U.S. hoped, and Trump offered a concession to the North Koreans by suspending U.S. military exercises with South Korea.

A number of experts have criticized the deal, saying it provides even weaker terms than did previous deals, including the Agreed Framework, which, unlike the joint statement signed today, required wide-ranging inspections but ultimately fell apart when North Korea was suspected of cheating.

Wendy Sherman, a top negotiator with North Korea in the Clinton and Obama administrations, told The New Yorker, “The document not only doesn’t break new ground—it is less than previous documents, including the 1992 Joint Declaration, the Agreed Framework of 1994, and the September, 2005, Joint Statement of the Six-Party Talks.” Ex-CIA officer Bruce Klingner, who is now a Northeast Asia senior research fellow at the conservative think tank the Heritage Foundation, wrote on Twitter, “This is very disappointing. Each of the four main points was in previous documents with NK, some in a stronger, more encompassing way. The denuke bullet is weaker than the Six Party Talks language. And no mention of CVID, verification, human rights.”

Even Fox News contributor Ari Fleischer bemoaned the deal’s similarities to the Agreed Framework. But The Washington Post’s Glenn Kessler aptly noted that the U.S. did not suspend military exercises in South Korea under that deal. The Wall Street Journal’s Mary Kissel also categorized Trump’s concession as a misstep compared to the terms of the Agreed Framework.

But these details have been lost on Trump sycophant Sean Hannity, who has said in the months leading up to the summit that Trump is “not naive like Bill Clinton” and would therefore not be “duped” into appeasement:

And this morning, Hannity’s astounding propaganda was again on full display. He insisted that the summit “had exceeded all of their expectations” and compared Trump’s deal to the Agreed Framework, saying, “The president gave up nothing. There wasn’t a penny paid like Bill Clinton when he made a deal with Kim Jong Un’s father.” The latter statement, which Hannity has breathlessly repeated, is misleading at best; the 1994 agreement did not include payments to North Korea, though it did state that the U.S. would build two light-water reactors in North Korea in order to make it harder for the country to produce weapons-grade material.

And this is not the first example of Hannity’s agenda-driven hypocrisy on North Korea talks. Earlier this year, Media Matters documented the contrast between Hannity’s fawning coverage over the announcement that Trump would meet with the North Korean dictator and his impassioned condemnation of President Barack Obama when he was considering meeting with Kim Jong Il.

Trumpist Media Ignores Struggle Over Net Neutrality

Trumpist Media Ignores Struggle Over Net Neutrality

Reprinted with permission from MediaMatters.

 

Today, senators voted on a resolution to undo a 2017 move by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to end net neutrality regulations, but major television and print media outlets have devoted little more than a few mentions to the issue.

This dearth of coverage may stem in part from the distraction of President Donald Trump, as since his election, media outlets have been laser-focused on his statements and actions. Several significant Trump–related stories did break today, but it’s nonetheless obvious that media outlets have done little to address their Trump obsession and prioritize the many other issues that matter to Americans.

Net neutrality requires internet service providers (ISPs) like Comcast, AT&T, and Verizon to give their users equal access to all internet content. Upending these rules means that, for a fee, ISPs can prioritize certain websites, allowing them to load more quickly on their users’ devices, and slow down or even block other sites. As Wired’s Klint Finley explained, “Well-established services from deep-pocketed companies like Google, Facebook, and Microsoft will likely remain widely available. But net-neutrality advocates argue that smaller companies that don’t have the money to pay for fast lanes could suffer. In other words, protecting net neutrality isn’t about saving Netflix but about saving the next Netflix.”

The FCC, led by Trump-nominated Ajit Pai, decided last year to end net neutrality rules in a move that voters across the political spectrum largely opposed. Leading up to the FCC’s vote, though, many media outlets were shockingly silent on the repercussions of upending consumer protections on internet access.

As Democratic senators made a last-ditch effort to salvage net neutrality rules — which passed in the Senate — coverage by many media outlets is still nowhere to be found.

Today on national cable news, MSNBC Live with Stephanie Ruhle and Fox Business’ FBN AM mentioned the net neutrality vote in brief headline segments. Fox News aired two segments on The Daily Briefing with Dana Perino and Shepard Smith Reporting, and CNN has not mentioned the vote at all.

Fox Business and One American News Network, a decidedly pro-Trump outlet known for pushing conspiracy theories, aired full reports of the net neutrality vote. Both of the reports recited Chairman Pai’s debunked talking point that the deregulation will encourage investment in broadband infrastructure and disparaged Democrats for insisting upon the vote at all.

Additionally, a Nexis search for “net neutrality” produced zero results among the nation’s top newspapers, including The New York Times, The Washington Post, The Wall Street Journal, the Los Angeles Times, the Chicago Tribune, the New York Post, and USA Today.

Header image by Dayanita Ramesh / Media Matters

As ‘Fox & Friends’ Ignores Pruitt Scandals, So Does Trump

As ‘Fox & Friends’ Ignores Pruitt Scandals, So Does Trump

Reprinted with permission from MediaMatters.

Fox News’ morning show Fox & Friends continues to cover up the growing number of scandals plaguing Environmental Protection Agency chief Scott Pruitt, giving the story less than two minutes of coverage throughout the week.

Pruitt’s ethics problems have been steadily mounting in his short time as EPA administrator. In the past couple of weeks, it was revealed that the EPA head paid a below-market price to rent a condominium co-owned by the wife of an energy lobbyist, had his taxpayer-funded 24/7 security detail accompany him on personal trips to Disneyland and the Rose Bowl, looked into leasing a private jet for an exorbitant cost, exploited a loophole to bypass the White House’s rejection of massive pay raises for two close aides, may have violated ethics rules by having his staff carry out personal tasks for him, and abused a loophole in the Safe Drinking Water Act to hire loyalists and ex-lobbyists. And just yesterday, news broke that Pruitt reassigned or demoted at least four officials who raised concerns about his behavior, had not provided ethics officials with the full details of his living arrangement, and lied about his landlord’s lobbyist husband having clients with business before the EPA.

The new reports have thrust Pruitt into the spotlight, but Fox & Friends did not mention Pruitt once on Friday. The morning show granted just one minute and 53 seconds of coverage to Pruitt’s ethics scandals from April 2 to April 6, relegating the story mostly to short headlines segments.

Notably, the day after Fox News aired a wide-ranging interview with Pruitt, Fox & Friends spent a mere minute and a half covering the story while rival networks covered the interview extensively throughout the day.

Today, a day after news broke of more scandals, President Donald Trump’s favorite morning show ignored the story entirely, opting instead to attack rapper Jay-Z for his comments on racial justice and recycle Trump’s lies about immigrants voting. Fox & Friends even interviewed two Trump administration officials, Mercedes Schlapp and Peter Navarro, and failed to ask them about Pruitt. In fact, throughout the week, six Trump administration officials appeared on Fox & Friends; none of them were asked to comment on Pruitt’s likely ethics violations.

Header image by Sarah Wasko / Media Matters

Sessions Campaigns To Undermine Police Reform

Sessions Campaigns To Undermine Police Reform

Reprinted with permission from MediaMatters.

As President Donald Trump’s attacks on football players protesting police brutality continue to grip the news cycle, Attorney General Jeff Sessions has taken to conservative talk radio to advocate for policing tactics that would exacerbate the very problem the protesters are seeking to resolve.

During a September 22 rally for then-candidate Luther Strange’s Senate campaign, Trump attacked NFL players for kneeling during the national anthem in protest of racial injustice — specifically police brutality — saying, “Wouldn’t you love to see one of these NFL owners, when somebody disrespects our flag, to say, ‘Get that son of a bitch off the field right now, he’s fired?’” Trump continued his crusade against the predominantly African-American protesters with a number of tweets throughout the weekend defending his comments.

The president’s diatribe against the peaceful protesters consumed the news cycle for the days following, during which time Sessions appeared on at least two nationally syndicated conservative talk radio shows to tout new statistics showing an increase in violent crime for the second consecutive year. Sessions used the data and the platform to push for policies that could undermine further relations between minority communities and law enforcement.

Appearing on the September 27 edition of The Laura Ingraham Show, Sessions claimed that “we’ve gotten away from principles of law enforcement that work,” alluding to the shift away from law enforcement policies spearheaded in the 1980s and early 1990s, when, according to U.S. News & World Report, “blacks were five times more likely to be arrested for drugs than whites were.” Sessions continued, “You’ve got to effectively stop and have sufficient punishment to deter people from committing crime,” presumably referencing his May 10 memo outlining a plan to increase mandatory minimums and beef up drug sentencing.

On the September 26 edition of The Sean Hannity Show, Sessions proposed police departments reinstitute the law enforcement strategy of former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani, a Republican who became notorious for proliferating stop-and-frisk policies that unconstitutionally targeted minorities. In 2013, a New York judge’s review of the city’s stop-and-frisk policies concluded that “the city’s highest officials have turned a blind eye to the evidence that officers are conducting stops in a racially discriminatory manner.”

Sessions also told Hannity’s audience that the Department of Justice should focus on “respecting,” “working with,” and “supporting … not undermining” local police departments. To Sessions, that involves rolling back consent decrees, reform agreements between the Department of Justice and local police departments that are meant to address pervasive problems, such as use of excessive of force, at the local level. Sessions spoke out against the agreements in the spring and ordered a review of them, and experts criticized him for it. A federal judge in Baltimore, MD, even rejected Sessions’ attempt to torpedo the consent decree with the city’s police force.

From sentencing to police oversight, criminal justice experts have lambasted nearly every policy Sessions has implemented as attorney general, highlighting the detrimental effects they could have on minorities and urging Sessions to take an evidence-based approach to law enforcement policy. Comprehensive studies have shown that “incarceration has little or no effect on crime.” Improper stop and frisk also has not been shown to reduce crime; instead, it tends to create animosity between minority communities and law enforcement, and can be unconstitutional racial discrimination.

Consent decrees offer solutions for police departments struggling with civil rights concerns. And while tough policing policies may have played a role in the lowering crime rates in the 1980s and 1990s, the yield was limited, and any benefits came with a significant civil rights cost.

Sessions watched as journalists outside of the conservative media sphere grilled Trump surrogates over the president’s racially charged attacks on civil rights protesters. Perhaps it’s for that reason he is relying on friendly talk radio hosts to help him push policies that will further inflame tensions between minorities and police.



Header image by Sarah Wasko / Media Matters

After Charlottesville, Black Voices Provide Perspective On Racism In America

After Charlottesville, Black Voices Provide Perspective On Racism In America

Reprinted with permission from MediaMatters.

After a white supremacist, neo-Nazi rally in Charlottesville, VA, left one person dead and many others injured, black voices in the media conveyed a powerful and unequivocal rebuke of the resurgence of emboldened white nationalism in America.

Black voices took to Sunday news shows to share the pain felt by them and their community and rebuke the argument that “many sides” were to blame for the white supremacist rally. The “Unite the Right” demonstration on August 12 was designed to be “one of the largest gatherings of white nationalists in recent times, attracting groups like the Ku Klux Klan and neo-Nazis and movement leaders like David Duke and Richard Spencer,” according to The New York Times. The rally prompted counterprotesters to turn out en masse to collectively denounce the hateful demonstrations, and clashes between the sides quickly ensued. One 20-year-old who stood with white nationalists at the rally and has been described as a Nazi sympathizer drove his car through a crowd of counterprotesters, killing one woman and leaving 19 injured. President Donald Trump has received widespread criticism for personally failing to denounce white supremacy or call it out by name following the incident and instead condemning “violence on many sides.”

On CNN’s State of the Union, Van Jones bluntly noted that “an American citizen was assassinated in broad daylight by a Nazi” who “the day before had been marching with torches down American streets … this is not a time to talk about both sides.” Jones said that it was “almost painful” that he had to point out the distinction, adding that “people watching this show gave their lives to stop Nazism. Dr. King gave his life to stop the Klan.” Jones also admonished the president for sending “a signal to people that this is all right” by decrying “many sides, many sides.” From the August 13 episode:

Another guest on the panel, Nina Turner, communicated the deep pain felt by African Americans, asking, “Do you understand the pain? My heart is skipping beats right now to think about all that my foreparents went through to get to this point in time in America’s history. … People are in pain, having flashbacks. In the 21st century, we shouldn’t be going through this.” From the episode:

NBC’s Joy Reid noted that Trump’s response marked an “extraordinary” moment in history, saying, “The idea that a president of the United States cannot unambiguously denounce Nazism is extraordinary, and Donald Trump has placed himself in a history. There is no way that I think the American people could have contemplated that their president could not unequivocally condemn David Duke and Nazis. And he couldn’t, and he didn’t.” From the August 13 edition of Meet the Press:

And on CBS’ Face the Nation, as the panel debated the motives behind Trump’s ambiguous condemnation of violence at the rally, Slate’s Jamelle Bouie highlighted that “in the context of an event that was held to defend Confederate statues in Charlottesville, VA, to say we need to ‘cherish our history,’ to me, sounds like a dog whistle to the ‘Unite the Right’ demonstrators.” From the August 13 episode:

Politicians and media figures from across the political spectrum have come together to denounce the racism, anti-Semitism, and outright bigotry exhibited at the rally, despite Trump’s failure to call out the racism by name. But it was black voices that shined through with important perspective and historical context.

Cable News Completely Ignores The Economic Benefits Of DACA

Cable News Completely Ignores The Economic Benefits Of DACA

Reprinted with permission from Media Matters for America.

After President-elect Donald Trump pledged during his presidential run to rescind an executive action on immigration that protects from deportation thousands of undocumented immigrants brought to the U.S. as minors, cable news outlets routinely discussed the program as a political tool without explaining how it benefits Americans and the American economy.

The 2012 executive action known as Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, or DACA, allows almost 800,000 people to study, work, and live their lives in the United States without fear of deportation. As a result of not being forced to live in the shadows, DACA recipients have generated more government revenue in the form of sales and property taxes, and created new jobs through increased consumer spending and boosted wages. The program has benefited the entire economy, but cable news coverage of DACA depicts the program as if it impacts only those who it protects from deportation.

Media Matters reviewed how evening news programs on Fox News, CNN, and MSNBC covered DACA from August 31 — when Trump announced he would put an end to the program — to December 15. Of the 20 qualifying segments on DACA during that time period, its economic impact was mentioned only once. Even then, the discussion failed to provide many facts on the scope of the program’s benefits.

Meanwhile, new reports investigating the effect of rescinding DACA conclude that doing so would do more harm than good for all Americans, not just the thousands of undocumented immigrants protected by the program. On December 13, Univision reported on a study from the Immigrant Legal Resource Center, which found that ending DACA would reduce contributions to Social Security and Medicare by $19.9 billion and $4.6 billion, respectively, over 10 years. On December 15, Telemundo reported that if approximately 3.4 million undocumented immigrant homeowners, many of whom are protected under DACA, lost protections from deportation, the resulting mass deportation “could hit the housing market, causing losses of up to $9.3 billion.” Additionally, a November 18 report by the Center for American Progress estimated that “ending DACA would wipe away at least $433.4 billion from the U.S. gross domestic product” over the next 10 years.

Cable news networks’ failure to connect the dots on how anti-immigration policies would negatively affect the economy is a disservice to voters whose decisions at the polls were guided by a desire for a strong economy.

Methodology

Media Matters conducted a Nexis search of transcripts from Fox News, CNN, and MSNBC using the search terms “allcap(DACA) or dreamer or Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals” for programs airing between 5 p.m. and 11 p.m. from August 31 through December 15. We reviewed the transcripts for segments discussing the economic impact of DACA. This included reports from correspondents and guest panels and excluded brief mentions of DACA that did not generate meaningful discussion between hosts or guests.