Megyn Kelly’s exclusive interview with Infowars.com head Alex Jones aired on Sunday night on NBC News, but ultimately faced more criticism than praise.

The much-anticipated interview drew 3.5 million viewers, according to Nielsen ratings, putting it even with a rerun of “America’s Funniest Home Videos” and two million viewers behind a rerun of “60 Minutes.” Kelly’s two previous shows earned 0.7 and 4.9 million viewers respectively.

Kelly and NBC faced plenty of criticism prior to the airing from those upset with the national platform given to Alex Jones, a famous right-wing personality who is often accused of spreading false facts and conspiracy theories. He is perhaps most infamous for claiming that the 2012 shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School was a hoax.

Critics accused Kelly of promoting Jones, a man who many blame for spreading fake news and riling up his angry, right-wing supporters. These complaints were only fueled by the fact that the interview aired on Fathers Day. Many pled with NBC to not air the segment, but only NBC affiliates in Connecticut, where the Sandy Hook shooting occurred, elected not to show the interview.

Kelly, a former Fox News host, has long been under public scrutiny and her transition to NBC has made her more mainstream. Many at NBC put their faith in Kelly, believing she was destined to be a “super star” but one anonymous television executive believes her ceiling is as a “cable star,” according to CNN. So, many were upset that she was using her new platform to normalize Jones and his radical, oftentimes racist, theories.

Plenty of advertisers withdrew their sponsorship in response to the interview, including JPMorgan Chase, according to The Hill. On a local scale, several ads were pulled from the air, according to CNN. JPMorgan Chase CMO Kristin Lemkau “requested that its local and digital ads not be placed adjacent to any broadcast or stream of the segment,” according to Jezebel.

As an advertiser, I’m repulsed that @megynkelly would give a second of airtime to someone who says Sandy Hook and Aurora are hoaxes. Why? https://t.co/luwyCwP7Ti

— Kristin Lemkau (@KLemkau) June 12, 2017

In order to make up for this issue, NBC ran several public service announcements, normally reserved for less desirable time slots, according to Variety. Additionally, there were an unusual number of NBC promotions and repeated advertisements during the broadcast, indicative of the network’s scramble to fill ad breaks.

Those upset with the interview were emboldened when Jones released audio of Kelly promising him that the interview wouldn’t be a “gotcha hit piece” and that it would leave “the left” impressed. But it’s traditionally against journalistic ethics to promise interview subjects that you will make them look as good as possible.

In the end, Kelly’s interview with Jones may have caused more trouble for NBC than it was worth. Now it will matter if these ramifications will have a long term effect. Will big advertisers, like JPMorgan Chase, return to NBC and Kelly’s show specifically? As for Kelly’s ratings, they peaked with her pilot episode and haven’t come close to those levels since.

NBC expected big things out of Kelly when she moved from Fox, but after a tumultuous first month she may be in more trouble than expected. Nowhere to go but up…right?

Josh Schmidt

Josh Schmidt is an editorial intern and is a native of the Washington D.C Metropolitan area. He is working towards a degree in multi-platform journalism with a minor in history at nearby University of Maryland. Contact Josh at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Megyn Kelly’s Interview with Alex Jones Sparks Negative Reactions appeared first on Law Street.

Fox News started making moves to drop its well-known slogan “Fair and Balanced” from programming last year. The network has since instructed producers, hosts, and reporters to only refer to the network’s other slogan: “Most Watched, Most Trusted.” According to a source at the company, a new slogan could be coming soon.

The change was first noted by Roger Ailes’ biographer in a story in New York Magazine. According to the Fox News’ statement on the slogan, the change was not prompted by editorial or a programming decision. Rather, insiders believe the move was made to further distance the company from the legacy of Roger Ailes, who created the iconic slogan back in 1996. Ailes was ousted from Fox News last year after accusations of sexual harassment while working at the company. The network stopped using the phrase shortly after Ailes left his position as CEO of the network.

For Ailes and Fox, the “Fair and Balanced” slogan was a sort of doctrine, and a huge part of company culture. Ailes would host meetings and seminars based around the slogan, and would not hire reporters if he felt they didn’t come across as “fair and balanced” in his eyes. Most importantly, it gave the appearance to those who watched the network that both sides were being heard while still producing conservative-leaning content.

While the phrase may have shaped the modern cable landscape as we see it today, that hasn’t stopped Twitter from having a ball (as per usual) with the fact that Fox News will no longer be calling itself “Fair and Balanced.”

Fox News is apparently ditching the “fair and balanced” bit and going with something more nuanced. pic.twitter.com/xysOUMVlx6

— TK (@TKhatesyou) June 14, 2017

If a fig leaf falls in a forest and no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound? https://t.co/smvjLrKWkZ

— Keith Olbermann (@KeithOlbermann) June 14, 2017

Fox News saying they are no longer “fair and balanced” is like McDonalds saying they are no longer “healthy”.

It was never the case, kids.

— TrumpsTaxes (@TrumpsTaxes) June 14, 2017

James Levinson

James Levinson is an Editorial intern at Law Street Media and a native of the greater New York City Region. He is currently a rising junior at George Washington University where he is pursuing a B.A in Political Communications and Economics. Contact James at staff@LawStreetMedia.com

The post “Fair and Balanced” Slogan Out at Fox News: What’s Next? appeared first on Law Street.

Fox News retracted a story from its website Tuesday afternoon, after a week of conspiracy theory peddling from one of its most popular television hosts, Sean Hannity. The story was about Seth Rich, the 27-year-old DNC staffer who was murdered last July while walking to his home in D.C. The story was also popular on a number of websites, including alt-right Breitbart and the far-right Drudge Report.

Quoting Rod Wheeler, a private investigator who was supposedly looking into the case on behalf of the Rich family, the story claimed that Rich leaked emails and other documents from DNC staffers and Hillary Clinton to WikiLeaks. That would mean the information did not come from Russian operatives, as both the CIA and the FBI have concluded. Fox issued the following statement on its retraction of the story:

On May 16, a story was posted on the Fox News website on the investigation into the 2016 murder of DNC Staffer Seth Rich. The article was not initially subjected to the high degree of editorial scrutiny we require for all our reporting. Upon appropriate review, the article was found not to meet those standards and has since been removed.

Early last week, Wheeler sparked the tinder that would set the “alt-right” media–and Hannity–aflame: he told Fox 5 D.C. he had sources at the FBI that said Rich had released a trove of emails and attachments to WikiLeaks. Rich was assassinated, according to the unfounded conspiracy, as part of an attempt to spread rumors that the Trump campaign colluded with Russia to harm the Clinton campaign by releasing thousands of embarrassing emails.

The FBI, along with the Senate and House intelligence committees, are currently investigating communications between the Trump campaign and the Russian government. Hours after Wheeler’s report, he told CNN that his “information” was in fact “from the reporter at Fox News,” not based on hard evidence or any of his own original findings or sources, including at the FBI. Wheeler later told Fox 5 the false report was due to “miscommunication.”

But that has not stopped Hannity and others on Twitter from fanning the flames:

Congress, investigate Seth Rich Murder! @JulianAssange made comments u need to listen to! If Seth was wiki source, no Trump/Russia collusion https://t.co/QPHZwypU34

— Sean Hannity (@seanhannity) May 22, 2017

 On Sunday’s “Fox and Friends,” Newt Gingrich also parroted Wheeler’s false report, saying: “We have this very strange story now of this young man who worked for the Democratic National Committee, who apparently was assassinated at 4 in the morning, having given WikiLeaks something like 53,000 emails and 17,000 attachments.”

Hannity and others have been able to latch on to Wheeler’s account, and earlier conspiracies swirling around Rich’s murder, because of the investigation’s lack of progress–the case remains unsolved. The investigation is ongoing; D.C. Metropolitan Police have some evidence that the murder was a botched robbery.

Meanwhile, The Daily Beast reported earlier this week that staff members and reporters at Fox News found Hannity’s insistence that this story has merit to be “embarrassing” and “gross.” Wheeler could find himself in court because of his unfounded claims. Rich’s family already sent a “cease-and-desist” letter to Wheeler through their lawyer, Joseph Ingrisano.

“Your improper and unauthorized statements, many of which are false and have no basis in fact, have also injured the memory and reputation of Seth Rich and have defamed and injured the reputation of the members of the family,” Ingrisano wrote.

Wheeler told the Chicago Tribune that he is “exploring all of my legal options and I sincerely hope that one day we find the person who took Seth’s life.”

In a Washington Post op-ed, Mary and Joel Rich, Seth’s parents, pleaded with those who continue to promulgate the falsehoods “to give us peace, and to give law enforcement the time and space to do the investigation they need to solve our son’s murder.” They added: “With every conspiratorial flare-up, we are forced to relive Seth’s murder and a small piece of us dies as more of Seth’s memory is torn away from us.”

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Fox News Retracts Seth Rich Conspiracy Theory appeared first on Law Street.

Fox News Founder Roger Ailes Has Died

Roger Ailes, one of the founders of Fox News, passed away this morning at 77. His cause of death has yet to be released. Fox announced the news and aired a statement from his wife Elizabeth, which read, “I am profoundly sad and heartbroken to report that my husband, Roger Ailes, passed away this morning. Roger was a loving husband to me, to his son Zachary, and a loyal friend to many.”

Ailes was a prominent figure in American media as well as a powerful force in conservative politics, and many expressed their condolences. But many also referenced the sexual harassment controversy that led to his removal from the network he created last summer.

Former Fox News anchor Gretchen Carlson sued him for sexual harassment and at least six other women came forward with similar claims. After Ailes’ ouster, news broke about similar allegations against Bill O’Reilly, who lost his job in April. A lot of people were really not that sorry to hear the news of Ailes’ passing.

Roger Ailes behaved egregiously toward women in his organization and changed our culture for the worse, making people dumber and angrier.

— Josh Barro (@jbarro) May 18, 2017

To all of the women that Roger Ailes hurt, today is going to hurt. We will never forget you and your untold stories.

— Xeni Jardin (@xeni) May 18, 2017

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post RantCrush Top 5: May 18, 2017 appeared first on Law Street.

Welcome to RantCrush Top 5, where we take you through today’s top five controversial stories in the world of law and policy. Who’s ranting and raving right now? Check it out below:

Will the Government Have to Shut Down?

Saturday will mark President Donald Trump’s 100th day in office, and reviews of his performance so far have not been that great. So naturally, Trump responded to media reports with an angry tweet, calling the first 100 days a “ridiculous standard.”

No matter how much I accomplish during the ridiculous standard of the first 100 days, & it has been a lot (including S.C.), media will kill!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) April 21, 2017

But to add to his headache, the 100-day milestone will coincide with the deadline to pass a funding bill. Right now it looks like the government could be headed for a shutdown, as the White House and Congress can’t seem to forge an agreement–Trump wants the bill to include funding for the debated border wall, while Democrats want to make sure contested Obamacare subsidy payments are funded. Senators come back from a two-week recess this evening; the House is back tomorrow. This means they only have three days to reach a compromise.

House Speaker Paul Ryan tells GOP members House will focus on avoiding a government shutdown, not health care vote https://t.co/8LqFqttDdP pic.twitter.com/YLHN2cg0ye

— CBS News (@CBSNews) April 24, 2017

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post RantCrush Top 5: April 24, 2017 appeared first on Law Street.

Bill O’Reilly’s departure from Fox News is being touted as a victory against the vitriolic reporting of the network. After multiple sexual harassment lawsuits against the cable anchorman became public, sponsors began pulling ads from the show to the point that Fox leadership decided to cut their losses and dismiss O’Reilly. But will that move actually change anything about Fox News?

“The O’Reilly Factor” was an incredibly popular program and producers scrambled to fill the profitable 8 p.m. weekday time slot that draws almost 4 million viewers each night. Tucker Carlson has been chosen from the Fox News bench to fill O’Reilly’s shoes. While he might not have the same popularity or fame as O’Reilly, Carlson’s dismissive views of women hardly make him a departure from the O’Reilly Factor era. For those who don’t regularly tune in to Fox News, Carlson is best known for his program “Crossfire”–which Jon Stewart famously tore to pieces in 2004. This year, Carlson replaced Megyn Kelly after her decision to leave Fox–so it would appear that Carlson is making a habit of replacing more popular hosts.

O’Reilly may be leaving Fox in disgrace, but the moral judgment passed on him does not translate into financial ruin. O’Reilly is receiving a $25 million payout upon his exit, a far greater sum than any of the women who sued him received, which is equal to one year of his salary. He will no doubt be invited to speak on cable news shows and on the lecture circuit, and already has a book deal to further augment his income.

Other media outlets might have taken O’Reilly’s departure as an opportunity to demonstrate a commitment to reform. Fox News could have hired outside of its existing anchor network, a true break from tradition. Even once the executives decided to hire in-house, they could have gone with a candidate with more experience with O’Reilly’s viewers–like host Laura Ingraham, who filled in for O’Reilly on multiple occasions. Ingraham tows the party line at Fox so hiring her would guarantee viewer retention while simultaneously serving as a gesture of respect towards female anchors at the network.

After Megyn Kelly’s departure, which O’Reilly reportedly contributed to, Fox had a chance to step back and address the pervasive sexism that female staff have faced at the network–a chance executives did not take. Representative Maxine Waters, who was personally attacked by O’Reilly, went so far as to call Fox News a “sexual harassment enterprise.” By appointing Carlson, the Fox team has only reaffirmed the culture O’Reilly and Roger Ailes built together at Fox. The window dressing might change, but the 8 p.m. weekday slot–and Fox News as a whole–will be the same, whether or not O’Reilly is at the helm.

Jillian Sequeira

Jillian Sequeira was a member of the College of William and Mary Class of 2016, with a double major in Government and Italian. When she’s not blogging, she’s photographing graffiti around the world and worshiping at the altar of Elon Musk and all things Tesla. Contact Jillian at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com

The post Why Bill O’Reilly’s Departure Won’t Change Fox appeared first on Law Street.

Welcome to RantCrush Top 5, where we take you through today’s top five controversial stories in the world of law and policy. Who’s ranting and raving right now? Check it out below:

Aaron Hernandez Found Dead in his Cell

Former New England Patriots tight end Aaron Hernandez was found dead in his cell in a Massachusetts prison early this morning. Hernandez, 27, reportedly hanged himself. He had been sentenced to life in prison without the possibility of parole for the 2013 murder of Odin Lloyd, but had just recently been acquitted of the 2012 fatal shootings of Daniel de Abreu and Safiro Furtad.

Prison officials said that they had no reason to believe that Hernandez was suicidal. If they had, they would have transferred him to the mental health unit, instead of allowing him to remain in his single-occupancy cell. A spokesperson for the Patriots said that the team, which is visiting the White House today to celebrate its Super Bowl win, will not be commenting.

Sports world reacts to former New England Patriots player Aaron Hernandez’s “tragic” death. https://t.co/1f6BFuDF1e pic.twitter.com/dYZz3jFxRK

— USA TODAY (@USATODAY) April 19, 2017

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post RantCrush Top 5: April 19, 2017 appeared first on Law Street.

Welcome to RantCrush Top 5, where we take you through today’s top five controversial stories in the world of law and policy. Who’s ranting and raving right now? Check it out below:

Chemical Attack in Syria Kills Dozens of Civilians

A chemical attack in Syria’s Idlib province has killed at least 58 people, including many children. Human rights groups say either the Syrian government or Russian jets perpetrated the attack. Chemical weapons cause a horrendous and painful death–victims essentially choke to death. According to witnesses, the attack started early in the morning when they saw airplanes flying overhead and a series of loud explosion. Shortly after, civilians on the ground started displaying symptoms of a gas attack.

Horrible pictures of chemical weapons attack in Idlib. The world could have protected these kids years ago, but is still refusing to. #Syria

— James Sadri (@halfiranian) April 4, 2017

The Syrian government and Russia both deny all involvement, but some international leaders have already condemned the move as a war crime. Turkey’s President Recep Erdogan told President Vladimir Putin that this could complicate their upcoming peace talks.

This attack comes just a few days after U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations, Nikki Haley, said that ousting Syria’s President Bashar al-Assad is no longer a priority.

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post RantCrush Top 5: April 4, 2017 appeared first on Law Street.

You might have thought that Bill O’Reilly’s exchange with Maxine Waters was the most racist thing to come out of Fox News yesterday. But, details from a new lawsuit filed by two of the network’s black female employees may have overshadowed O’Reilly’s horrific moment.

According to a report from the New York Times, the two employees–Tichaona Brown and Tabrese Wright, both of whom worked at the network’s payroll department–filed a lawsuit in the New York State Supreme Court, citing that they were subjected to “top-down racial harassment,” from Judith Slater, the Fox comptroller who had worked for the network for almost two decades. Slater was fired after an internal investigation, according to a story first reported by The Wrap. The timeline of Slater’s firing is unclear, but a statement from the network obtained by the Times claims that Slater was fired at the end of February.

Brown and Wright’s lawsuit targets Slater, Fox News, and 21st Century Fox, which owns Fox News. The lawsuit claims that Slater repeatedly made racist and disparaging comments about black people that played into egregious stereotypes, and that the network did not do much to address Slater’s behavior, which made for a hostile work environment. Here are some of the lawsuit’s details as reported by the New York Times:

The women . . .  accused Ms. Slater of making numerous racially charged comments, including suggestions that black men were “women beaters” and that black people wanted to physically harm white people.

They also said that Ms. Slater claimed that black employees mispronounced words, such as ‘mother,’ ‘father,’ ‘month’ and ‘ask,’ and that she urged Ms. Brown to say those words aloud in a meeting. Ms. Wright said Ms. Slater once asked if her three children were all ‘fathered by the same man.’

[…]

The suit also includes allegations that Ms. Slater made disparaging comments about Ms. Wright’s hair and credit score. She and Ms. Brown said Ms. Slater had mocked the Black Lives Matter movement and referred to their majority-black department as the ‘urban’ or ‘Southern’ payroll department.

According to the New York Daily News, the suit also alleges further details of Slater’s racist behavior, including, but not limited to responding to Brown’s goodbyes at the end of the day by raising her hands up in the “Hands Up, Don’t Shoot” movement, referring to her commuter train to New Jersey as the “Bombay Express, expressing her belief that Chinese men have small penises, and asking Brown and Wright to teach her how to beat box.

In a statement reported by the Times, the company said that “there is no place of inappropriate verbal remarks like this at Fox News,” but were disappointed that Wright and Brown filed the lawsuit because the company believes it already took swift and appropriate action to remedy the situation.

Austin Elias-De Jesus

Austin is an editorial intern at Law Street Media. He is a junior at The George Washington University majoring in Political Communication. You can usually find him reading somewhere. If you can’t find him reading, he’s probably taking a walk. Contact Austin at Staff@Lawstreetmedia.com.

The post Fox News Hit With a New Lawsuit Alleging Racial Harassment appeared first on Law Street.

Welcome to RantCrush Top 5, where we take you through today’s top five controversial stories in the world of law and policy. Who’s ranting and raving right now? Check it out below:

Politics at the Oscars: No Surprise There

Last night was the Academy Awards and “La La Land” got a lot of the statuettes. But it didn’t get the most prestigious award–Best Picture–even though it was incorrectly announced as the winner at first. After an embarrassing mix-up, “Moonlight” took home the coveted prize.

This off-camera shot of the cast/crew of Moonlight winning Best Picture pic.twitter.com/uWfxehXRsJ

— Spencer Althouse (@SpencerAlthouse) February 27, 2017

The whole evening was a success for more diverse movies, following last year’s criticism of #OscarsSoWhite. “Moonlight,” which depicts the coming of age story of a young black gay man, was an important victory as debates centering on race, immigration, and LGBT rights are in full swing. “Moonlight” actor Mahershala Ali also became the first Muslim actor ever to win an Oscar. While there’s still a lot more work to be done to increase representation and diversity in Hollywood, the success of “Moonlight” was heartening.

But the politics didn’t stop there. The night saw plenty of jabs at the new president from host Jimmy Kimmel. “I mean, remember last year, when it seemed like the Oscars were racist?” he said.

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post RantCrush Top 5: February 27, 2017 appeared first on Law Street.

If you followed any of the coverage of President Donald Trump’s rally on Saturday in Florida, you may have seen this odd incident:

This is the man Trump brought on stage pic.twitter.com/cHtvop8EYX

— Andrew Hibbard (@andrewhibbard) February 19, 2017

But you may have also seen a ton of confused journalists wondering “what in the world happened in Sweden on Friday night?” Per the Palm Beach Post, Trump said:

Here’s the bottom line. We’ve got to keep our country safe. You look at what’s happening. We’ve got to keep our country safe. You look at what’s happening in Germany, you look at what’s happening last night in Sweden. Sweden, who would believe this. Sweden. They took in large numbers. They’re having problems like they never thought possible. You look at what’s happening in Brussels. You look at what’s happening all over the world. Take a look at Nice. Take a look at Paris. We’ve allowed thousands and thousands of people into our country and there was no way to vet those people. There was no documentation. There was no nothing. So we’re going to keep our country safe.

Well, it turns out that nothing really happened in Sweden. But, thanks to Aftonbladet, a tabloid-like Swedish newspaper, we can read about what really went down on Friday night in Sweden. Publishing a slyly snarky response to President Trump’s remarks, Aftonbladet released a short breakdown of the worst events that took place on Friday night in Sweden–and none of them are any sort of terrorist attack worthy of being compared to the Bastille Day attacks in Nice or 2015 mass shooting in Paris.

Some of the stories are tragic: “8:23 p.m.: A man died in hospital, after an accident in the workplace earlier that day in the city of Borås.” Aftonbladet also captured the mundanity of that Friday night: “6:42 p.m.: The famous singer Owe Thörnqvist had some technical problems during rehearsal for the singing competition ‘Melodifestivalen.’ (However, the 87-year-old singer still managed to secure the victory the very next day.)”

You can check out the full Aftonbladet article here.

So what was Trump even thinking? We now know that Trump’s comments on Sweden were informed by a Fox News segment he watched.

My statement as to what’s happening in Sweden was in reference to a story that was broadcast on @FoxNews concerning immigrants & Sweden.

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) February 19, 2017

We also know that a White House spokeswoman told officials that Trump wasn’t referring to a specific incident, but just rising crime in Sweden in general. Reuters points out that this is not an entirely true statement, as the country’s crime rate has fallen since 2005.

We also know that facts don’t seem to matter anymore.

Sweden? Terror attack? What has he been smoking? Questions abound. https://t.co/XWgw8Fz7tj

— Carl Bildt (@carlbildt) February 19, 2017

Austin Elias-De Jesus

Austin is an editorial intern at Law Street Media. He is a junior at The George Washington University majoring in Political Communication. You can usually find him reading somewhere. If you can’t find him reading, he’s probably taking a walk. Contact Austin at Staff@Lawstreetmedia.com.

The post A Swedish Newspaper Shows Trump What “Really” Happened in Sweden appeared first on Law Street.

Following the sexual harassment scandal that resulted in Roger Ailes’ resignation from Fox News, the network reportedly secretly made a deal with TV personality Juliet Huddy about very similar accusations against its top host Bill O’Reilly. A letter obtained by the New York Times shows that Huddy had complained to Fox News that O’Reilly had persistently pursued a sexual relationship with her in 2011, which she rejected. At the time he had a lot of power over her career and when she kept rejecting him, he tried to sabotage it.

According to the letter, which was sent from Huddy’s lawyers to Fox News, O’Reilly repeatedly called her, invited her to his home, took her out for dinners, tried to kiss her, and once opened the door only wearing underwear. Fox News solved the situation by paying Huddy a six-figure sum in exchange for her silence. But the company also denied that the allegations were true.

Scoop here. Fox News settled sexual harassment allegations against Bill O’Reilly @nytmike https://t.co/Ih9szETS1n pic.twitter.com/orNudBbPbc

— Michael Tackett (@tackettdc) January 10, 2017

Huddy also accused long-time Fox executive Jack Abernethy of similar behavior, and said that he too had punished her professionally when she turned down his advances. But Fox News sided with O’Reilly and Abernethy. “The letter contains substantial falsehoods, which both men have vehemently denied,” said spokeswoman Irena Briganti on Monday. New York Magazine’s Gabriel Sherman tweeted that the network has settled sexual harassment complaints with at least four more women in the past few months.

According to two Fox sources, Fox News has secretly settled sexual harassment complaints with at least 4 women since Ailes left

— Gabriel Sherman (@gabrielsherman) January 10, 2017

Fox News apparently first learned about Huddy’s allegations in August, when her lawyers sent the letter. They agreed to the settlement on September 5, right around the time when they were dealing with Gretchen Carlson’s allegations against Roger Ailes. O’Reilly defended Ailes and called him the “best boss I’ve ever had.” He also claimed that Ailes was the victim, and was being targeted by the women because he was famous. He said: “In this country, every famous, powerful or wealthy person is a target. You’re a target, I’m a target. Anytime, somebody could come out and sue us, attack us, go to the press or anything like that.”

However, Ailes resigned, and Bill O’Reilly stayed on air and has since published two more books. To complicate things further, Roger Ailes is Huddy’s godfather and a good friend of her father, who also used to work at Fox. Her brother is also with the network.

This wasn’t the first time O’Reilly was the subject of sexual harassment accusations. In 2004, producer Andrea Mackris sued him for basically the same kind of behavior that Huddy claimed. He was also involved in a domestic dispute in 2015, when his teenage daughter testified in court that she had seen him choke her mother while he “dragged her down some stairs.”

Bill O’Reilly in November about Megyn Kelly: “You don’t like what’s happening in the workplace, go to human resources or leave.” https://t.co/EnKNJZNlP6

— (((Gabe Rosenberg))) (@GabrielJR) January 10, 2017

Huddy used to have segments on O’Reilly’s show. The letter from her lawyers describes how when she rejected O’Reilly, he started nitpicking her work, berating her, stopped preparing her before going on air, and cancelled a segment that she used to have on his show. Afraid of further retaliation, she didn’t complain. In September, she left the network. A source who Lawnewz talked to does not believe her claims and said that they were just concocted to get money from the network. Huddy has never publicly spoken about her allegations. But considering her close family ties to Ailes and that the settlement came at a time when Fox News was being hit hard in the media, that is likely explained by a confidentiality agreement, or simple loyalty.

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Fox News Secretly Settled Sexual Harassment Allegations Against Bill O’Reilly appeared first on Law Street.

Megyn Kelly has announced a move from Fox News, her home for over a decade, to NBC, where it is rumored she will join the morning talk shows. Her Fox program, “The Kelly File,” was ranked consistently as one of the most popular cable news programs, with over 2.7 million viewers last year. Sources have stated that NBC is giving Kelly a daytime show that will fill the slot currently running the third hour of the “Today” show, as well as an anchor spot on a Sunday night news program. Kelly’s departure leaves a seat open in a critical late-night time slot, and there is already a flurry of speculation over who will replace her. There are also questions about whether her move will inspire Bill O’Reilly, Fox’s most profitable anchor, to jump ship when his contract ends later this year. Fox currently has no female host in prime time, which bodes ill for a network still reeling from a massive sexual harassment lawsuit.

Kelly has stated her decision to leave Fox is focused around the work-life balance available at NBC. Yet it is impossible to ignore her clash with Donald Trump in the wake of his incendiary comments about her after the Republican primary and the environment created by Roger Ailes, who Kelly called out for sexual harassment. In the wake of Trump’s inflammatory comments questioning her journalistic integrity, Kelly became symbolic of a righteous crusade against Trump. She was profiled in numerous magazines, gained more attention for her show and became a symbol of strength in the face of sexism.

However, the positive press that Kelly received after the debate can be largely categorized as beneficial to her personal brand rather than beneficial to women in journalism as a whole. In the rush to lift her up to icon status, the public seemed to forget the often blatantly racist tone of “The Kelly File” and the fact that, until the Republican primary, she produced the same rhetoric that the rest of the Fox News team does. Kelly was a frequent target of “The Daily Show” under Jon Stewart’s reign and was lambasted for holding shouting matches rather than interviews on her show.

So which version of Megyn Kelly did NBC sign up for: the pundit who railed against the “War on Christmas,” and defended racist emails in the Ferguson police department, or the heroine who was, according to some, the only Republican woman to stand up to Trump? Unfortunately, Kelly’s inflammatory statements from her Fox years will probably come with her to NBC–after all, Kelly claiming that Michelle Obama promotes a culture of victimization will get more clicks and comments than a clip of her calmly reporting the news or interviewing an actor on a press tour for their latest film. Kelly may have moved to a new network and a new time slot, but her star power is wrapped up in the persona she built at Fox News–and that persona demands drama.

Jillian Sequeira

Jillian Sequeira was a member of the College of William and Mary Class of 2016, with a double major in Government and Italian. When she’s not blogging, she’s photographing graffiti around the world and worshiping at the altar of Elon Musk and all things Tesla. Contact Jillian at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com

The post What Should We Expect from Megyn Kelly at NBC? appeared first on Law Street.

Journalist Lauren Duca appeared in an interview with Tucker Carlson on Fox News on Friday, discussing the harassment of Ivanka Trump on an airplane, and the conversation soon turned into a heated debate. Carlson had brought Duca on to question her about one of her tweets that seemed to defend the man who shouted at Ivanka Trump. But when asked, Duca explained that she did not defend the action, she just thought that Trump’s children should not be exempt from scrutiny just because they are young, beautiful and, in the case of Ivanka, looks like she “smells good.”

Ivanka Trump is poised to become the most powerful woman in the world. Don’t let her off the hook because she looks like she smells good.

— Lauren Duca (@laurenduca) December 23, 2016

But Carlson seemed to not accept Duca’s assurance that they did have the same opinion about the specific incident. Instead, he kept repeating his stance that Duca approved of shouting at people on airplanes, interrupted her, and talked over her. Finally he said, “stick to the thigh-high boots. You’re better at that,” and ended the segment while Duca was still talking. That last bit was a reference to Duca’s job at Teen Vogue. After the interview aired, many people hailed her as a hero and feminist role model for standing up to the male news anchor. But soon, the online threats started pouring in. Men hiding behind their computer screens started sending her emails and tweets with rape threats.

Messages like this — positioning sexual assault as a means of keeping women in line — make me want to fight even harder. pic.twitter.com/gtvMGQ9cpx

— Lauren Duca (@laurenduca) December 27, 2016

The threats peaked on Christmas Day. Duca said it was especially discouraging that many people, and even websites, claimed that she had defended the man harassing Ivanka, when she had explicitly said the opposite. She said she tried to discuss it with one of them, but he only answered “get raped” and was clearly not interested in a conversation. But she received a whole lot of support, too, and her number of Twitter followers had doubled by Tuesday afternoon, to over 104,000.

OK, good night @GeorgeTakei and everyone else pic.twitter.com/CMKd2zCPNn

— Lauren Duca (@laurenduca) December 27, 2016

The rape threats are truly challenging my faith in humanity, but this makes it all feel worth it. Love trumps hate. pic.twitter.com/DiIZAcFNOQ

— Lauren Duca (@laurenduca) December 25, 2016

And she had a message for the people harassing others online:

Harassment is a theft of social capital via time & energy. It’s exhausting and wholly unethical. It will also never be enough to silence me.

— Lauren Duca (@laurenduca) December 28, 2016

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Lauren Duca Receives Online Threats After Tucker Carlson Interview appeared first on Law Street.

Since his win, President-elect Donald Trump may have tried to calm people who are worried about his presidency by preaching goodwill and by encouraging those inciting violence to stop. But many of his supporters are doing the opposite. On Wednesday night, Trump supporter Carl Higbie appeared on Fox News and cited the Japanese internment camps during World War II as a “precedent” for a Muslim registry, which many Trump supporters have proposed.

Higbie, a former Navy SEAL and spokesman for the pro-Trump Great American PAC, told Megyn Kelly that a registry is perfectly legal–“We did it during World War II with Japanese”–and that we need to protect America. Kelly seemed taken aback at the comment and did her best to challenge him, saying, “That’s the kind of stuff that gets people scared, Carl.”

About 120,000 people of Japanese descent were relocated from their homes to internment camps by force in 1942. Of those, 62 percent were citizens, and taken away based only on their ethnicity. This happened on orders from President Roosevelt, and in 1944 the Supreme Court upheld the order. It still stands, because no similar case has come before the court since then, but it is hard to believe something like that could ever happen again. Late Justice Antonin Scalia has said it was one of the most shameful mistakes in the Court’s history. Justice Stephen G. Breyer has said it has been “so thoroughly discredited” that it is “hard to conceive of any future court referring to it favorably or relying on it.”

Watching people repeat platitudes about “coming together” while Trump representatives are literally referencing Japanese internment camps.

— Cora Harrington (@lingerie_addict) November 17, 2016

Higbie said that people from other countries have no constitutional rights in America. He didn’t seem to understand that when you gain legal permanent residency or citizenship, you do. According to Slate, even an illegal immigrant has basic human rights in the U.S. For example, the right to a just, public and speedy trial, as defined under the Fifth and Sixth Amendments.

.@CarlHigbie: “People outside of this country are not protected under the same constitutional rights as we are in America.” #KellyFile

— Megyn Kelly (@megynkelly) November 17, 2016

However, immigration law is separate from criminal law, that is why immigrants who commit crimes could be deported instead of going jail. But even then, they are entitled to a hearing and a lawyer. Yet Higbie stood by his opinion that immigrants have no rights.

@ryepolisciguy @megynkelly wrong

— Carl Higbie (@CarlHigbie) November 17, 2016

One famous voice who has talked about the atrocities of internment camps for Japanese citizens is George Takei, who held a TED Talk about it.

When @GeorgeTakei was 5 years old, he was taken to a Japanese internment camp. Hear his powerful story: https://t.co/Dkr9DkYAQt

— TED Talks (@TEDTalks) November 17, 2016

Trump himself hasn’t commented on Higbie’s statement or what he thinks about internment camps. But in December of last year he claimed that he didn’t know if he would have opposed to the camps in the U.S., saying “I would have had to be there at the time to give you a proper answer.” This doesn’t sound promising.

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Trump Supporter: Japanese Internment Camps are Precedent For a Muslim Registry appeared first on Law Street.

Both Donald Trump and Eric Trump have made some truly upsetting comments about women and workplace sexual harassment over the last few days–statements that show that neither have any idea about the issues that many women face in the workplace. And it’s worth asking: is this the kind of treatment women can expect in the Trumps’ America?

It all started when Donald Trump was asked about the sexual harassment allegations against Roger Ailes, the head of Fox News, who is stepping down as chairman and CEO. Chuck Todd was interviewing Trump and asked about his thoughts on the allegations against Ailes, and Trump spouted off some routine victim-blamey rhetoric about how women who praised Ailes in the past couldn’t possibly have done so if he had been less than polite to them in any way. Trump said:

Some of the women that are complaining, I know how much he’s helped them…And when they write books….and say wonderful things about him….[N]ow, all of a sudden, they’re saying these horrible things about him.

Trump, is obviously ignoring the fact that oftentimes women have to turn a blind eye to inappropriate behavior or sexual harassment from a boss or higher up at a company if they fear retribution at work in any way.

Then, Kirsten Powers, a journalist for USA Today, followed up with Trump on the topic. She framed it as a more personal issue–how would he feel if his beloved daughter, Ivanka, experienced sexual harassment at work. His answer?

He hopes that she would find a new job.

Let that sink in for a minute.

Trump is advocating that if a woman experiences harassment at work, it should be on her to go out and find a new job. Never mind the fact that she could have to relocate for this new job, could have to give up other work relationships she has cultivated, will have to consider whether she can transfer her benefits, and so many other related issues. Nope, it’s on the woman to leave that environment, not on men to treat women fairly in the workplace.

Then, Trump’s son, Eric Trump, was asked a similar question. He was asked by Charlie Rose whether a woman leaving her job was really the solution his father was advocating for, or whether “perhaps, a better answer would be drawing it to the attention of Human Resources and other things that we can do with regard to sexual harassment in the workplace.” The younger Trump’s response was just as illuminating–he said:

Hey, listen, we all run a company, my father runs a company, we take this – that is an absolute no-go anywhere, and that’s very much the case. I think what he’s saying is, Ivanka is a strong, powerful woman, she wouldn’t allow herself to be objected to it, and by the way, you should take it up with Human Resources, and I think she would as a strong person, at the same time, I don’t think she would allow herself to be subjected to that. I think that’s a point he was making, and I think he did so well.

So while Eric Trump conceded that if someone is being harassed they should take it up with HR, he also managed to imply that only non-strong women “allow” themselves to be subjected to sexual harassment. Again, the younger Trump puts on the onus of sexual harassment on women–not men.

Suppose that Trump does become president. What does this mean for his presidency? What if a woman in say, his cabinet, is sexually harassed, is she supposed to leave that job? Is it because she’s a weak woman? That’s obviously an extreme example, but as we get closer to the general election in November, it’s worth asking–will Trump’s actions speak as loud as his words?

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Let’s Talk About the Trump Family’s WTF Comments on Sexual Harassment appeared first on Law Street.

Donald Trump has many talents: amassing large sums of money, ostensibly writing checks to charities, and provoking confrontations with the media. On Tuesday, at Trump Tower in New York, the presumptive Republican presidential nominee managed to show off all three of those skills in a 40-minute televised speech.

Trump said that he raised $5.6 million during a fundraiser for veterans held in January. He also rattled off the names of the charities that were presented donations from that chunk of change, after he received pressure from the media to reveal where the money raised ended up going. And he also responded to that pressure, spending a bulk of the speech deriding the media as being “unbelievably dishonest” and singling out ABC News’s Tom Llamas as a “sleaze.”

“But what I don’t want is when I raise millions of dollars, have people say, like this sleazy guy right over here from ABC,” Trump said, skirting eye contact with Llamas, but aggressively pointing at him while squinting into the cameras. “He’s a sleaze in my book. You’re a sleaze because you know the facts and you know the facts well.”

The speech was a response to mounting pressure from the press about the particulars of the veterans’ fundraiser, which Trump held in lieu of attending a Fox News debate. The reporters’ questions were simple: how much money was raised, and to whom was it donated?

The confusion about the amount of money that was raised stemmed from contradictory statements by Trump and his campaign manager, Corey Lewandowski. Trump initially announced the event’s haul as being $6 million; Lewandowski told The Washington Post it was $4.5 million. On Tuesday, the real estate mogul cleared up the foggy figure, pinpointing the amount raised as $5.6 million and rising.

He explained the lengthy donation process as a result of making sure the charities poised to receive donations were properly vetted. All of the checks have been sent, he said, save for one to the Project for Patriots, a veteran housing group based in Sioux City, Iowa.

The largest of Trump’s contributions was made to the Marine Corps Law Enforcement Foundation for a purported amount of $1.1 million. A representative told Law Street: “Mr. Trump sent us a check last week for a million dollars.”

Whether that check was signed and sent amid the increased media attention thrust on the issue or after a drawn out vetting process is unclear. But Trump prefers his donations to fly under the radar, a shockingly different philosophy than how he has run his presidential campaign thus far: “I could have asked all these groups to come here and I didn’t want to do that. I’m not looking for credit.”

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Trump Attacks Media, Calls Journalist a “Sleaze” During Tuesday Speech appeared first on Law Street.

Donald J. Trump makes enemies handily and frequently, dispensing insults more often than insight. It may be a smart publicity move–after all, nothing sells tickets like a historic feud. That’s why Trump’s incendiary comments about Fox News anchor Megyn Kelly, paired with his refusal to participate in a Fox News debate, have garnered world-wide attention.

Kelly represented conservative media taking a stand against Trump’s hijacking of the Republican party, which is why it’s so disappointing to see the two kiss and make up after nearly no effort from Trump to reconcile his former behavior.

This event took place on Tuesday, when Trump sat down with Kelly–allegedly to clear the air. Trump even tweeted in anticipation of the pre-taped event that he was hopeful he would be treated fairly.

I look forward to watching @megynkelly tonight, 8 PM ET. It will be interesting to see how she treats me—I think she will be very fair.

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) May 17, 2016

What ensued was a Donald Trump love-fest, in which Trump was offered softball after softball about his family, his love life, and essentially anything but his proposed policies. “Have you been emotionally hurt before?” was actually a question asked to the presumptive GOP nominee, leaving positions such as his “America First” foreign policy undiscussed.

Promoted like a boxing prize fight, the Kelly-Trump interview briefly held Trump accountable for his insulting and demeaning Twitter presence. Trump tried to weasel out of his own words, asking if he had called Kelly a ‘bimbo” before. In one of the special’s rare critical moments, Kelly told him that he had indeed used that word several times.

Trump deflected each criticism lobbed at him, refusing to ever apologize. When asked about his retweet poking fun at Heidi Cruz’s appearance, Trump said “he could have done without it,” but he never let the word “mistake” escape from his mouth.

Kelly, a woman who’d previously held Trump accountable for his misogynistic comments, fell in line with so many other mouthpieces like Ann Coulter, Bill O’Reilly, and Piers Morgan. Essentially she gave Trump free fluff-piece airtime.

I will be live tweeting my interview with @megynkelly on the Fox Network tonight at 8! Enjoy! pic.twitter.com/nlJssZeIWm

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) May 17, 2016

Sean Simon

Sean Simon is an Editorial News Senior Fellow at Law Street, and a senior at The George Washington University, studying Communications and Psychology. In his spare time, he loves exploring D.C. restaurants, solving crossword puzzles, and watching sad foreign films. Contact Sean at SSimon@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Donald Trump Interviewed by Megyn Kelly, Former “Bimbo” appeared first on Law Street.

Republican frontrunner Donald Trump has officially announced that he won’t be participating in the Republican Debate tomorrow, due to his (totally not sexist and unreasonable) dislike for moderator Megyn Kelly. Trump’s decision has been confirmed by both his campaign, as well as Fox News. So, given that the big-mouthed millionaire has been dominating the debates thus far, who will step up to fill the vacuum?

Trump not being present for the debate may change the overall flavor of the night by quite a bit. It certainly could have an impact on disappointing not-so-prodigal son Governor Jeb Bush, who has had many of his most memorable and heated campaign moments while taking jabs at Trump. It also could affect Senator Marco Rubio, who is currently coming in third in most polls, and has been pretty critical of Trump in past debates.

But, it seems like most eyes will be on Senator Ted Cruz, who has been coming in second to Trump in most of the recent polls, although those second place results have been by quite a wide margin. In national polls, including CNN/ORC, Fox News, NBC News, and other leading news outlets, Trump has seen a lead over Cruz that ranges from about 13 percent to 22 percent. However, in Iowa, which will be the first state to caucus next Monday, Trump holds a far slimmer lead–ranging from about 2-11 percent. In New Hampshire–the second primary–the gap between Trump and Cruz looks only slightly smaller than national results. Given that the Iowa caucuses and New Hampshire primaries are so soon, this may Cruz’s last chance to make up some of that ground.

However, Cruz’s success will depend on whether or not he also shows up tomorrow night. He has now challenged Trump to their own, one-on-one debate. However, it could be a mistake for Cruz to sit this one out, given that everyone will be looking to him to see how he handles a Trump-less stage.

So, Law Street readers, what do you think? Will Cruz dominate tomorrow night’s debate? Or will it be a missed opportunity for the man currently in second in most GOP polls?

Cast your vote in the poll below:

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post With Trump Out of the Debate, Who Will Dominate? appeared first on Law Street.

MSNBC and CNN reporters, among others, just entered the apartment of Syed Rizwan Farook and Tashfeen Malik, the alleged San Bernardino shooters, and rifled through their belongings on live TV. Not only is this a gross violation of ethics, it’s also a big problem for the police and FBI.

It’s unclear exactly what happened. According to the news networks, the landlord of the building where Farook and Malik lived allowed them in. According to the landlord, they all rushed past him without permission. The news crews then proceeded to look through the shooters’ personal possessions, showing things like friends’ photos and identifying documents to the cameras.

Screenshots from MSNBC. I added the redout pic.twitter.com/Ttu3zJ0Fjj

— Stephen Miller (@redsteeze) December 4, 2015

MSNBC just doxed Rafia Farook, mother of a terrorist, on live television. I’ve blurred the important bits. pic.twitter.com/VqPwT60yVY

— David Boles (@DavidBoles) December 4, 2015

There are so, so many issues with what just happened that I don’t even know where to begin. For one, these news crews potentially just put the family, friends, and acquaintances of Farook and Malik in serious danger. By releasing things like pictures of drivers’ licenses and other personal information, they could be subject to violence. While I have no sympathy for the shooters, there’s no reason to endanger their families and friends, who may have absolutely no connection to the attacks.

Additionally, this is a big problem for law enforcement–the fact that they didn’t appear to have control over the crime scene is incredibly worrisome. The FBI appears to have had jurisdiction over the apartment at the time that the journalists entered. As CNN’s own panelists, legal analyst Paul Callan, and law enforcement analyst Jonathan Gilliam commented, the fact that the journalists were either allowed in, or not stopped by some form of law enforcement is a huge problem from a legal issue. Even if the two alleged shooters are dead, the scene still needed to be preserved in case they had accomplices, but it’s now been contaminated. Gilliam went so far as to call the incident: “the biggest visible screw-up in investigative history that I think has ever occurred.”

Apparently there were also other media outlets in the area, including FOX News, and at least one reporter from The Sunday Times, but it’s unclear who exactly was inside at any given time. Additionally, there were civilians mulling around–at one point it was reported that someone brought a child into the apartment, and another woman brought a dog.

Twitter users also broadcasted their outrage with CNN and MSNBC’s actions, as well as the lapse in security by law enforcement:

So FBI now investigating as terrorism. They’ll undoubtedly find some CNN and MSNBC fingerprints on the walls. Go get them, guys. — Sarah Kendzior (@sarahkendzior) December 4, 2015

Bang up job reporting from a crime scene by CNN & MSNBC. pic.twitter.com/kmwyMKIbCK

— Gord Macey (@GordMacey) December 4, 2015

Every reporter for @MSNBC, @CNN and other organizations that went in that apartment should be out of work before the day ends.

— Dan Jurgens (@thedanjurgens) December 4, 2015

Overall, it was a pretty shocking show of incompetence, from multiple different sources. Details on how this was allowed to happen was still unclear, but we should all expect some heads to roll.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Too Far: CNN and MSNBC Crews Rifle Through San Bernardino Shooters’ Apartment appeared first on Law Street.

“No more baby parts.” That is what Robert Lewis Dear, the gunman who killed three people and injured several more at a Planned Parenthood in Colorado, allegedly told authorities following his arrest. We can assume that the shooter was referring to the smear campaign of videos released earlier this year by the Center for Medical Progress. These videos have been analyzed multiple times and have been proven to be doctored, falsely claiming that Planned Parenthood sells parts from aborted fetuses for profit.

Planned Parenthood does not sell baby parts. So why did Dear say “no more baby parts”? That is simple: because the slanderous and hateful rhetoric surrounding those videos continued even after they were proven to be fake, and those fake facts were repeated over and over again by the media and by politicians seeking an emotional reaction from their audience and to bolster their numbers. They are by no means to blame for the tragedy that occurred in Colorado, at least not directly. But politicians do–especially those candidates running for president–need to hold themselves accountable for spreading lies.

It is no secret that politicians stretch and manipulate facts to suit their own agendas, but at some point manipulation turns into outright falsehood. The citizens supporting these candidates, though, don’t know that, and are unlikely to research the facts on their own when they are listening to someone they trust. This is great for people making a living from fact-checking debates, but very bad for the future of American policy.

After the shooting in Colorado, Democratic candidates took to social media immediately to show their support for Planned Parenthood.

We proudly #StandWithPP of Colorado Springs and the brave law enforcement personnel who fought to protect it.

— Bernie Sanders (@BernieSanders) November 28, 2015

Today and every day, we #StandWithPP. https://t.co/oifqTQLx1X — Hillary Clinton (@HillaryClinton) November 27, 2015

My thoughts and prayers are with those in Colorado. #StandWithPP

— Martin O’Malley (@MartinOMalley) November 28, 2015

Meanwhile, Republican candidates stayed relatively quiet. Who can blame them, really, when the place where yet another shooting happened was an organization they so vehemently denounce? A few of the GOP presidential candidates, such as Trump, Fiorina, and Huckabee, finally acknowledged the tragic event, but also turned it into an opportunity to mention, once again, the lie that Planned Parenthood sells fetal tissue.

In an interview with “Fox News Sunday,” Carly Fiorina was asked whether she thinks the violent rhetoric towards Planned Parenthood is to blame for actions like those in Colorado, to which she replied:

First, it is not alleged. Planned Parenthood acknowledged several weeks ago they would no longer take compensation for body parts, which sounds like an admission they were doing so. Secondly, this is so typical of the left to immediately demonize the messenger, because they don’t agree with the message…What I would say to anyone who tries to link this terrible tragedy to anyone who opposes abortion or opposes the sale of body parts is, this is typical left-wing tactics.

Here we see a prime example of fact manipulation, as well as blaming the opposition rather than taking responsibility for spreading lies. It would put Fiorina in an awkward position, of course, to contradict what she said in the CNN debate about the Planned Parenthood videos, which turned out to be incorrect. But is it better to hold tightly to false facts, rather than admit to your supporters that you were wrong? Only in a political career. It is extremely saddening to see that politicians, especially the politicians running for the highest office in the United States, are relying on such underhanded tactics to achieve their goal. It certainly does not bode well for us, the American citizens who have to put up with it.

Morgan McMurray

Morgan McMurray is an editor and gender equality blogger based in Seattle, Washington. A 2013 graduate of Iowa State University, she has a Bachelor of Arts in English, Journalism, and International Studies. She spends her free time writing, reading, teaching dance classes, and binge-watching Netflix. Contact Morgan at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Politicians To Blame For Hateful Planned Parenthood Rhetoric appeared first on Law Street.

Earlier this week, Fox News entered into a discussion about the appropriateness of leggings as pants. While that’s a hotly debated topic–particularly when it comes to school dress codes–the way that Fox News approached the conversation can only be described as really yucky.

The discussion was sparked by a viral video made by a Tennessee woman, Jamie Higdon, who ranted about women who wear leggings as pants. One of the “Fox & Friends” hosts, Steve Doocey, moderated the panel. He was joined by the husband of a co-host, Andrew Sansone, as well as “Duck Dynasty” star Willie Robertson, and one of Fox News’ legal analysts, Arthur Aidala.

Here’s the entire uncomfortable interaction, if you want to check it out for yourself:

There are just so many things wrong with this segment that I don’t even know where to begin.

For starters, let’s talk about the fact that as far as I know, none of these men are experts on fashion. Instead, they were qualified to be on the panel because they’re all dads. That’s disturbing, because it sends a clear message–that it’s up to a father to police what his daughters wear. Not a woman herself, because we can’t possibly be trusted to make autonomous decisions about what we can put on our own bodies.

Then there’s the fact that these four men clearly ogle the young women that are paraded out in front of them–and some of the comments they make get downright creepy. For example, Doocy asked one young woman if she had a tattoo in a particularly leering manner. At another point, the men applaud one of the models who turns around to show that her “tail” is covered. They also all comment on the physique of a model named Paige. In perhaps the creepiest moment, Aidala comments “We all took our nitroglycerin pills before she came on the set, just to make sure,” implying that Paige’s ensemble could have given the men heart attacks.

At one point Aidala does point out that dress codes aren’t just an issue for women. He comments on the apparel of young men he sees too, implying that sagging pants aren’t appropriate. But there’s a difference in the rhetoric used when referring to these young men and women–the men aren’t be sexualized. And I would bet you quite a bit of money that if young men were paraded out in front of these panelists wearing saggy pants, this segment would look a lot different. There would be way less clapping, way less leering, and I don’t think anyone would joking about heart attacks.

Overall, the panel just stinks of sexism and creepiness. It’s not a father’s job to police what his daughter wears, and it’s sure as hell was not this panel’s job to leer at and comment on young women’s bodies while doing so. Thanks guys, now I need a shower.

Learn More: School Dress Codes: Are Yoga Pants Really the Problem?

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Fox News Features Cringeworthy Panel of Dads Talking About Leggings appeared first on Law Street.

Sources today are saying that Vice President Joe Biden is about to jump into the race for the Democratic nomination.

Fox News correspondent Ed Henry appears to have broken the story, and has had three separate sources confirm to him that Biden will be throwing his hat into the ring.

Three sources close to @VP telling me he's expected to announce he is running but the sources are all urging caution on 48-hr timeline

— Ed Henry (@edhenry) October 19, 2015

Henry was even more specific about a supposed date and time, tweeting:

The three sources say @vp telling supporters in calls planning to jump in race but not rushing — watch Sat Jefferson Jackson dinner iowa

— Ed Henry (@edhenry) October 19, 2015

Other prominent voices have also come forward to claim that Biden is ready to announce. A Democratic congressman from Pennsylvania, Representative Brendan Boyle, also tweeted that Biden is likely to jump in soon.

I have a very good source close to Joe that tells me VP Biden will run for Prez — US Rep Brendan Boyle (@RepBrendanBoyle) October 19, 2015

Additionally, Senator Chris Coons of Delaware (Biden’s home state), also said earlier today that Biden is expected to “decide about entering the race soon.” While that’s a less definitive statement than those made by Hardy and Boyle, it’s indicative that an announcement is probably coming soon. As expected, there have been a lot of reactions to the most definitive news yet that Biden is going to be jumping into the race.

Breaking: A very good source close to @VP, told me Joe Biden likes Pumpkin Spice latte.

— Ana Navarro (@ananavarro) October 19, 2015

And here comes Joe Biden! pic.twitter.com/tfHJutYzSw — Irv (@thisisIRV) October 19, 2015

Fun Fact: Joe Biden has been considering running for president for 11 weeks, which is how long Canada’s entire election has lasted. — Ryan Teague Beckwith (@ryanbeckwith) October 19, 2015

Overall, this pre-announcement drama isn’t surprising–questions about Biden’s candidacy have been floating around since this spring. Sources leaking that a candidate is going to announce also aren’t new. It allows the buzz about the particular candidate to build in the days before he actual makes an official announcement. That’s exactly what appears to be happening with Biden. 

Given that Biden hasn’t officially announced yet, this is a breaking story, so make sure to check back for updates.

But for now, the waiting time is upon us: 

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Political Rumorville: Joe Biden is in….Maybe? appeared first on Law Street.

Wayne Simmons, a Fox News guest, was just indicted after it was discovered that he was lying about his qualifications. Despite repeatedly appearing as a guest on Fox News programs and proclaiming to be a former CIA agent, it turns out he never worked for the CIA.

Right-wing media’s Benghazi “expert” arrested for falsely claiming he worked for the CIA: http://t.co/UmFjR3T62zpic.twitter.com/VTeVaG6MDu

— Media Matters (@mmfa) October 15, 2015

While Fox News spokesperson Irena Briganti has emphasized that Simmons was never paid, he has appeared as a guest commentator on various Fox News programs, including “Fox & Friends,” and has been interviewed by Sean Hannity and Neil Cavuto. It’s unclear how many times he appeared on the network; his website lists dozens of appearances on various programs. While he technically portrayed himself to Fox as an “outside paramilitary special operations officer” with 23 years of experience, the title he was often given on various shows was “former CIA operative,” most likely for the sake of brevity.

A grand jury just indicted Simmons on a number of different charges, including major fraud against the United States, wire fraud, making false statements to the government, and the fact that he used those fake claims in order to gain security clearances and confidential information. Bizarrely, the indictment also included charges that he was involved in a real estate scheme that scammed an unnamed individual out of $125,000. According to the indictment, he used his fake CIA credentials to bolster his credibility to conduct that endeavor. Federal prosecutors claim that this indictment didn’t come out of the blue, as he allegedly has a:

Significant criminal history, including convictions for a crime of violence and firearms offenses, and is believed to have had an ongoing association with firearms notwithstanding those felony convictions.

It was also noted that he “has a history of acting in an aggressive manner, and is likely aware of the imminent nature of the charges in this case.”

During his varied appearances, Simmons said some pretty incendiary thing–here’s an example of an appearance he made on “Fox and Friends,” in which he was listed as a “former CIA operative”:

In that particular appearance he called Obama “the boy king.” This January he claimed that there were “at least 19 paramilitary Muslim training facilities in the United States.” He also at one point claimed that waterboarding was not torture.

Despite the fact that Fox News apparently never paid the commenter, and he wasn’t officially sanctioned by the network in any way, this still doesn’t look very good. By having him on the show, the network tacitly said that he did have something worth hearing. Just because he wasn’t paid doesn’t mean that his microphone was any less real.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Fox News Guest Indicted on Fraud Charges appeared first on Law Street.

Harris Faulkner, an anchor for the show “Fox Report Weekend” and a cohost for “Fox Outnumbered” is suing toy producer Hasbro. She is claiming that a small toy hamster that Hasbro has also named “Harris Faulkner” is based on her, and wants five million dollars for the trouble.

Faulkner claims that the toy, which is part of Hasbro’s “Littlest Pet Shop” line, used her name, appropriated her on-air appearance and persona, and represented her as a rodent, which was “demeaning.” The lawsuit filed by her team states to this effect:

In addition to its prominent and unauthorized use of Faulkner’s name, elements of the Harris Faulkner Hamster Doll also bear a physical resemblance to Faulkner’s traditional professional appearance, in particular tone of its complexion, the shape of its eyes, and the design of its eye makeup.

Here are a couple pictures of Harris Faulkner the human and Harris Faulkner the toy hamster side-by-side for your own comparison purposes:

Fox News anchor Harris Faulkner sues Hasbro over toy hamster with same name http://t.co/0JPQsjZTV4 pic.twitter.com/1MSPSIKcIy

— ABC 7 Chicago (@ABC7Chicago) September 2, 2015

Also, Harris Faulkner doesn’t like it that Hasbro labels Harris Faulkner as a “CHOKING HAZARD” http://t.co/4pU7jR1cru pic.twitter.com/cn7C21rQXg — M. Alex Johnson (@MAlexJohnson) September 2, 2015

The Littlest Pet Shop line includes a number of small animal figures, many of them with anthropomorphized features. They also connect to online accounts where a child can interact with other characters. Naturally, as they are part of a Hasbro line, they are trademarked. But Faulkner the human also takes issue with that, as she believes it falsely indicates a trademark made in her name. The lawsuit filed by Faulkner’s team states:

By its unlawful actions, Hasbro has implied—falsely—Faulkner’s association with, approval, and endorsement of Hasbro and/or the Harris Faulkner Hamster Doll and has violated Faulkner’s right to control the use of her name and likeness.

According to the lawsuit, Faulkner also objects to the fact that she’s being associated with a small plastic toy that could be considered a choking hazard:

Faulkner is extremely distressed that her name has been wrongly associated with a plastic toy that is a known choking hazard that risks harming small children.

According to Faulkner the “substantial commercial and emotional damage” that has been inflicted upon her by Hasbro’s actions should leave her with a payout of five million dollars.

The entire case is a bit odd–while it seems strange that Hasbro would name a hamster “Harris Faulkner” all of them have kind of weird names. For example, the figure that Harris Faulkner appears to be usually sold with is a Yorkie Terrier character named “Benson Detwyler.” There’s also “Alistair Royal,” a corgi, “Gerry Goldman” a gerbil, and “Roxy Reddington,” a fox, among others. While Hasbro executives probably should have Googled the name “Harris Faulkner” before they emblazoned it on a toy hamster, it also seems farfetched that the company would have chosen a Fox News anchor as a namesake. Either way, Hasbro may now have to pay for the use of the name, whether intentional or not. 

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Fox News Anchor vs. Hasbro: Harris Faulkner Sues Over Toy “Namesake” appeared first on Law Street.

It’s only May 2015 and already the Republican field vying for the 2016 presidential nomination feels awfully crowded. In anticipation of this very crowded field, various outlets that host the presidential debates are already taking steps to limit the number of candidates who will be able to participate in the nationally televised debates. Given the notoriety and celebrity status required to win the nomination in this day and age, this could sink some candidates’ campaigns before they even really begin.

In terms of candidates who have already declared, we have Senators Ted Cruz, Rand Paul, and Marco Rubio. There’s also former Governor Mike Huckabee, Dr. Ben Carson, and former HP CEO Carly Fiorina. It’s also speculated that some combination of former Governor Jeb Bush, former Governor Rick Perry, former Senator Rick Santorum, Governor Scott Walker, Senator Lindsey Graham, Governor Chris Christie, Governor Bobby Jindal, Governor John Kasich, and business mogul Donald Trump will declare at some point relatively soon. At my count that could be well over a dozen candidates, and I’m sure there are at least a few I’m missing or who will come out of the woodwork to declare.

In light of this potentially huge field, both Fox News and CNN, who are hosting debates in August and September, respectively, have declared that they’re only going to allow the top ten candidates on stage to duke it out for the GOP nomination.

Those announcements, of course, raised plenty of questions, because there’s no good way to determine who the “top ten” candidates are before a single vote is even cast. According to Fox News, the candidates have to “place in the top ten of an average of the five most recent national polls, as recognized by Fox News.” CNN has announced that it will be using a slightly different metric:

The first ten candidates—ranked from highest to lowest in polling order from an average of all qualifying polls released between July 16 and September 10 who satisfy the criteria requirements … will be invited to participate in ‘Segment B’ of the September 16, 2015 Republican Presidential Primary Debate.

Either way, Fox and CNN are both taking steps to ensure that the candidates that they allow on stage for the debates are ones who have a fighting chance–although when considering the crowdedness of the field, this may come down to a few percentage points between candidates who make the cut and those who don’t.

With that in mind, apparently CNN has also announced that it’ll give candidates who don’t make the cut for the main debate but who are polling about 1 percent in three national polls the opportunity to speak in a different segment of the September debate.

Given the sheer craziness that was trying to watch the Republican debates in 2012 and the Democratic debates in 2008, both of which had plenty of candidates (although less than 10), it makes sense that the news outlets want to limit the amount of candidates speaking. If they were to go above ten, there would be hardly enough time for each candidate to be able to say anything useful about his or her platform. That being said, missing out on national exposure will end up hurting the lesser-known candidates, and could end up culling the field on the earlier side than past election cycles.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post You’re Not Invited: Republican Candidates Vie for Debate Spots appeared first on Law Street.

The media world is still reeling from Brian Williams’ lies–or severe misremembering, at best–about his helicopter being shot down by Iraqi forces 12 years ago. But round two with Bill O’Reilly has turned out a bit differently. It’s become clear that the Fox News host wasn’t in the thick of the war zone while covering the 1982 Falklands conflict as he’s boasted several times. In fact, he was over a thousand miles away from the heart of the action, sources told Mother Jones.

And O’Reilly, whose criticism of Williams lacked his usual bluster, hasn’t taken this sitting down.

After Mother Jones published its skepticism of O’Reilly’s representation as a “combat-hardened reporter,” O’Reilly immediately hit back, calling the reporters lying “left-wing” “guttersnipes.” When New York Times reporters questioned him soon after, he outright threatened them.

“I am coming after you with everything I have,” O’Reilly told The New York Times over the phone. “You can take it as a threat.”

For years, O’Reilly has backed up his reporting to viewers, readers, and other journalists with claims of reporting for CBS in active war zones in Argentina’s Falkland Islands, the Middle East, and Northern Ireland. He particularly emphasized surviving combat situations and rescuing his photographer during the U.K.’s war with Argentina.

“I was in a situation one time, in a war zone in Argentina, in the Falklands, where my photographer got run down and then hit his head and was bleeding from the ear on the concrete,” O’Reilly said in 2013. “And the army was chasing us. I had to make a decision. And I dragged him off, you know, but at the same time, I’m looking around and trying to do my job, but I figure I had to get this guy out of there because that was more important.”

But reporters and producers from CBS News told Mother Jones that no American correspondent reached the Falklands. Instead, they said, O’Reilly was in Buenos Aires, over a thousand miles from combat. The riots in Buenos Aires were hardly the deadly affair O’Reilly depicted.

“It wasn’t a combat situation by any sense of the word that I know,” retired CBS correspondent told CNN. O’Reilly, he said, “is trying to build it up into a more frightening and deadly situation than it was.”

So far seven former colleagues from CBS have spoken out against O’Reilly’s exaggerated version of events and claims that “many people were killed” in the riots. Newspaper archives from Argentina at the time don’t report any fatalities in Buenos Aires either, according to the Washington Post’s Erik Wemple.

What’s more, former colleagues doubt his photographer was even injured. “Nobody remembers this happening. If somebody got hurt, we all would have known,” a CBS news cameraman who was in Buenos Aires then told CNN.

After investigations into Brian Williams’ work began, NBC suspended its celebrity anchor without pay for six months. But even as allegations of further fabrication arise–O’Reilly may have lied about hearing the suicide of someone involved in President Kennedy’s assassintion–Fox News has stood by its host and his version of events.

The kicker in all this? O’Reilly’s ratings have only risen, giving him his biggest audience since the Ferguson verdict came out.

Aysha Khan

Aysha Khan studies multi-platform journalism and Middle Eastern affairs at the University of Maryland. Contact Aysha at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post As More Questionable Reports Emerge, Bill O’Reilly’s Ratings Increase appeared first on Law Street.

By now we have all heard about the heart-wrenching news that three young people have been killed in Chapel Hill, North Carolina. The three were Deah Shaddy Barakat, 23; Yusor Mohammad, 21; and Razan Mohammad Abu-Salha, 19. Barakat was a student at the University of North Carolina School of Dentistry, and his wife, Yusor Mohammad was to begin her studies there this year. Her younger sister, Razan Mohammad Abu-Salha, was a student at North Carolina State University in nearby Raleigh. They were shot by a man named Craig Stephen Hicks, 46, who is now in police custody.

Victims’ dad says he believes students’ deaths in #ChapelHillshooting are hate crimes. http://t.co/EdxTgmcPEM#wralpic.twitter.com/sRCQxU5lGR

— WRAL NEWS in NC (@WRAL) February 11, 2015

Here’s a picture of Barakat and Mohammad at their recent wedding:

God willing they will spend eternity together #ChapelHillShootingpic.twitter.com/k08A1LHxgm

— rabia chaudry (@rabiasquared) February 11, 2015

The motive of the attack isn’t known yet–police are saying that it might have been over some parking spots. Others, including the family members of the slain, are concerned it was a hate crime. Some are saying that it was terrorism.

I don’t know exactly what happened, and it would be disingenuous to pretend otherwise. That being said, I’m not surprised by this news. Horrified, sure. Disgusted, absolutely. Incredibly saddened, of course. Surprised? Not at all.

This is what happens when we take an entire group of people and stereotype, demean, and dehumanize them for years and years. When we make them the bogeymen for our problems. When we associate them with people who do horrible things just because they happen to share a religion. We use violent rhetoric, and then we’re supposed to be surprised when there’s a violent result.

What violent rhetoric am I talking about? Here are some examples, but they’re only examples–this is by no means anywhere near a full list.

From Fox New’s “Outnumbered:”

The quote that stuck out to me was Andrea Tantaros saying:

If you study the history of Islam. Our ship captains were getting murdered. The French had to tip us off. I mean these were the days of Thomas Jefferson. They’ve been doing the same thing. This isn’t a surprise. You can’t solve it with a dialogue. You can’t solve it with a summit. You solve it with a bullet to the head. Its the only thing these people understand. And all we’ve heard from this president is a case to heap praise on this religion, as if to appease them.

You read that right: “You solve it with a bullet to the head.” Furthermore look at the language she uses…”these people”….”this religion.” This is a piece on ISIS, yes, but it’s one that’s not careful about making any sort of distinctions. “This religion” refers to Islam as a whole, make no mistake.

Or how about the time that Joe Walsh, a man who was actually elected to the United States Congress said that “One thing I’m sure of is that there are people in this country – there is a radical strain of Islam in this country -– it’s not just over there –- trying to kill Americans every week.” Again, there’s a clear message here–Muslims are trying to kill people. There’s no distinction here–Walsh is basically saying that every single one of the roughly three million Muslims in the United States are out to get anyone who adheres to a different religion.

Or what about the time Sean Hannity compared the Qur’an to Mein Kampf?

Muslim extremists exist, of course, but to use violent rhetoric in reference to all Muslims is as inaccurate as it is reprehensible. But that’s exactly why I’m not surprised–if you are constantly inundated by media and leaders who treat a segment of the population as less than, it’s easy to internalize that misinformation as fact.

I’m not necessarily saying that Hicks committed a hate crime–his family keeps repeating that it was over a parking dispute. But it seems incredibly likely–after all the definition of a hate crime is pretty broad. As CNN’s legal analyst Sunny Hostin points out: “To qualify as a hate crime, all that matters is that the crime was motivated, in whole or in part, by the offender’s bias.” Evidence has come out that Hicks was a militant atheist, and that he often decried religion. Again, I don’t know what happened here. But calling it a hate crime, in today’s environment of vitriol, doesn’t seem like it’s too much of a stretch. When there’s so much hate, it’s very hard to imagine that said hate plays no part.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Chapel Hill Shooting: An Environment of Hate appeared first on Law Street.

Actress Lindsay Lohan and her mother Dina filed a defamation lawsuit against Fox News, Sean Hannity, and Hannity’s guest commentator Michelle Fields on February 2 over allegations that the mother and daughter did cocaine together.

The alleged statements occurred on a February 4, 2014 Hannity episode where Fields and Hannity discussed celebrity drug overdoses. Fields can be heard saying, “Lindsay Lohan is doing cocaine with her mother.”

Mediaite.com has a clip of the segment, which you can view here.

The Lohans are seeking compensatory and punitive damages and “will continue to suffer severe mental and emotional distress; embarrassment and humiliation; pain and suffering; and economic loss, including loss of income, entertainment and acting contracts, present and future diminished income and economic opportunities,” according to E!.

Moreover, E! further reports that a Fox News spokesperson issued a statement saying, “We will defend this case to the fullest. The remark about which Lindsay and Dina Lohan complain was made on live television by a guest nearly a year ago. We removed the segment from our archives altogether last February and also apologized on-air. At that time, the Lohans did not make any demands for money, and we are surprised they are doing so now.”

A big issue in the case will likely surround when Fox News took down the segment. Nevertheless, I want to talk about a more elementary, and arguably more interesting, area of defamation law that will have an immediate effect on the case’s outcome.

In slander cases, the first question that needs to be asked is if the statement is true or false. If the statement is true here, then Lohan’s case will not succeed.

If the statement is false, victory or defeat in slander cases comes down to various burdens of proof that a potential plaintiff needs to prove. Burdens of proof in a slander case vary depending on whether the plaintiff is a private citizen or public figure. Since the younger Lohan is a global celebrity, she will likely qualify as a public figure, and in particular a general purpose public figure. Being a general purpose public figure, she will have to prove that Fields’ statement was made with knowledge that the statement was false or that Fields said the statement with a reckless disregard to the statement’s falsity. In other words, Lohan will have to prove that Fields made the statement with actual malice.

Lohan’s mother may classify as a different type of public figure, that is, a limited purpose public figure. A limited purpose public figure is someone who is a private citizen who thrusts herself into a public controversy. Limited purpose public figure must also prove that a defamatory statement was made with actual malice. Nevertheless, an argument can be made that Lohan’s mother is a general purpose public figure because of her Living Lohan fame.

Regardless, given the recent multimillion dollar libel verdict in favor of Jesse Ventura, I doubt that Fox News will want to prolong this issue all the way to trial, despite its statement that it will defend the case to the fullest. I will be surprised if the case is not settled out of court.

Editor’s Note: A previous version of this article referred to Lohan’s suit as libel; the suit is one of defamation.

Joseph Perry

Joseph Perry is a graduate of St. John’s University School of Law whose goal is to become a publishing and media law attorney. He has interned at William Morris Endeavor, Rodale, Inc., Columbia University Press, and is currently interning at Hachette Book Group and volunteering at the Media Law Resource Center, which has given him insight into the legal aspects of the publishing and media industries. Contact Joe at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Lindsay Lohan Sues Fox News Over Cocaine Use Statement appeared first on Law Street.

While you were grinding away last week, you might have missed these three great articles. The #1 story of the week came from Anneliese Mahoney with her take on Fox News guest Steven Emerson’s totally fabricated “facts” about Muslim residents of Birmingham, England; Alexis Evans made her debut with the #2 article of the week–a smart takedown of rapper 2 Chainz debate with TV host Nancy Grace over marijuana policy; and the #3 article of the week came from Morgan McMurray’s coverage of anti-Muslim sentiment on Twitter. ICYMI, check out the best of the week from Law Street.

#1 No Surprise: Fox News Just Makes Up Facts Now

We all know that Fox News interprets the second part of its name very loosely, but it hit a new low this weekend when it allowed guest Steven Emerson to blatantly make stuff up. Read the full article here.

#2 2 Chainz vs. Nancy Grace: Rapper Wins Debate Over Legalizing Pot

Is this real life? HLN viewers were gifted TV comedic gold the other night in the form of a marijuana debate between the always controversial Nancy Grace and “Fed Watching” rapper 2 Chainz. Grace, whose Wikipedia controversy section alone is cause enough for pause, brought 2 Chainz, who was arrested in 2013 for possessing a weed grinder, on her show to discuss the legalization of marijuana. Funnily enough, it was 2 Chainz who upstaged Grace with actual valid points while she rebutted by showing him irrelevant videos of parents forcing toddlers to smoke pot. Read the full article here.

#3 J.K. Rowling Has Perfect Response to Anti-Muslim Tweets

We are now nearly two weeks into the new year and have already had a heavy dose of tragedy. Unless you have been cut off from internet and television over the past few days, you’ve heard about the Charlie Hebdo shootings. Regardless of what your opinion is of that publication, the murder of those people was an act of terror and an infringement on their rights as humans and French citizens. Read the full article here.

Chelsey D. Goff

Chelsey D. Goff was formerly Chief People Officer at Law Street. She is a Granite State Native who holds a Master of Public Policy in Urban Policy from the George Washington University. She’s passionate about social justice issues, politics — especially those in First in the Nation New Hampshire — and all things Bravo. Contact Chelsey at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post ICYMI: Best of the Week appeared first on Law Street.

Update: Europe responds to Fox News’ Fictional Facts

We all know that Fox News interprets the second part of its name very loosely, but it hit a new low this weekend when it allowed guest Steven Emerson to blatantly make stuff up.

This is a clip from “Justice with Judge Jeanine” (A+ alliteration skills, Fox) with Jeanine Pirro, a former New York District Attorney and former Republican nominee for New York Attorney General.

The man in the clip is Steve Emerson and he’s a “terrorism expert.” By that he means he’s an author, writer, and pundit who’s been slammed in the past for his fear-mongering and ability to spread misinformation. He’s well known for repeatedly crying wolf by blaming acts of terror on Islamic extremists, most notably after the 1995 Oklahoma City bombing. He said that that attack had a “Middle East trait” of being “done with the intent to inflict as many casualties as possible.”

So this piece is apparently on “no-go zones.” Fox News and other conservative publications have begun using the moniker to describe fictional places where apparently Muslims have taken over and created their own societies within other countries. According to Fox News these areas are “off-limits to non-Muslims.” Also “many of these areas are governed by Islamic Sharia law, and the state is unable to provide even basic public aid such as police, fire, and ambulance services.”

This alleged breakdown of civil society has apparently gone unnoticed by anyone except Fox News contributors. In fact, I was startled to learn from the clip above that Birmingham, UK, also known as the second largest city in the UK, has apparently been turned into one of these “no-go zones.” According to Emerson it’s “totally Muslim.”

This has come as a complete surprise to everyone, including the city of Birmingham. After all, its own website quotes its religious demographics as follows:

46.1% of Birmingham residents said they were Christian, 21.8% Muslim and 19.3% had no religion.

Exactly what Emerson thinks happened to that almost 80 percent of the population that identifies as something other than Muslim is unclear–did they convert? Have they been run out of town? How has no one noticed? In addition, Emerson basically accuses the French government at the very least, and the British and Swedish governments at large of a) not caring about these supposed “no-go zones” and b) not telling anyone about them.

Pretty much everyone has now called Emerson a complete imbecile, because that’s what happens to you when you make shit up on TV and try to pass it off as fact. British Prime Minister David Cameron said that Emerson is “clearly an idiot.”

It’s also important to recognize that Jeanine Pirro sits idly by practicing her shocked-Muslims-are-out-to-get-us face that I am pretty sure they much teach a class on at Fox News. It’s clear that she doesn’t know enough–or care-to try to ask any real follow-up questions on Emerson’s points, many of which could have been debunked by a simple google search.

As soon as the clip made its way to the internet, the hashtag #FoxNewsFacts started trending. It’s a lot of fun to scroll through, but here are some of my favorites:

All students at @unibirmingham have to wear black burqas to receive their degrees. #foxnewsfacts #Birmingham pic.twitter.com/4GdEODHpfq

— Matthew Ward (@HistoryNeedsYou) January 12, 2015

The Queen is now being forced to wear a hijab by ‘Moslems’ due to the sharia law enforcement in the UK #foxnewsfacts pic.twitter.com/PygydYLBGE

— immortal (@omfgitszoya_) January 12, 2015

 

The Flintstones is a documentary that directly refutes evolution. #foxnewsfacts pic.twitter.com/5Hu1pF8rCD — Kathryn Brusco (@KathrynBruscoBk) January 12, 2015

King Joffrey was a noble and just peacemaker. #FoxNewsFacts

— OhNoSheTwitnt (@OhNoSheTwitnt) January 12, 2015

Emerson, has, of course, had to release an apology for his claims about Birmingham. Here’s his apology in full:

You may quote me on this as I will be posting this and taking out an ad in a Birmingham paper. I have clearly made a terrible error for which I am deeply sorry. My comments about Birmingham were totally in error. And I am issuing an apology and correction on my website immediately for having made this comment about the beautiful city of Birmingham. I do not intend to justify or mitigate my mistake by stating that I had relied on other sources because I should have been much more careful. There was no excuse for making this mistake and I owe an apology to every resident of Birmingham. I am not going to make any excuses. I made an inexcusable error. And I am obligated to openly acknowledge that mistake.

So there you have it, Emerson admitted that he was “totally in error.” But something about this apology doesn’t actually sit that well with me. First of all, his apology only appears to address the facts he made up about Birmingham, not the fact that he makes claims that these “no-go zones” exist all over Europe. That’s misinformation too, even though it’s less visibly egregious, it’s just as dangerous in its own way. The way that Emerson’s apology comes across is that he just got it wrong about Birmingham, not overall.

This kind of fear-mongering is disgusting. Emerson came on that show for one reason only: to sensationalize an inaccurate theory and scare people into listening to him. It’s what Fox News, and in the spirit of fairness, any openly partisan “news” source does on a regular basis. After all, remember the Ebola coverage from earlier this year?

Honestly, Emerson will probably be back on Fox spewing his made-up facts before we know it. Or they’ll find someone else to do the exact same thing, because this is what the network does on a regular basis without seeing consequences. In the exact same show, Pirro claimed that President Obama is going to limit our First Amendment Rights. From Pirro’s earlier “Opening Statement“:

I’m surprised the president hasn’t signed a new executive order that simply says, ‘Don’t offend Muslims.’ And make no mistake. As sure as I’m talking to you, there will be efforts to limit our First Amendment, our free speech, to comply with Sharia blasphemy laws, which call for death to those who slander the prophet Mohammed.

I’m an incredibly strong supporter of the First Amendment. Jeanine Pirro and Steven Emerson should be able to say whatever noxious shit they want. But the fact that they get to do so on TV is terrifying.

Europe responds to Fox News’ fictional facts: After Fox News started to receive a lot of flack for its fictional story about “no-go zones” in parts of Europe, Europe is responding. Anne Hidalgo, Mayor of Paris, is planning to sue Fox News over the story. She told Christine Amanpour: “When we’re insulted, and when we’ve had an image, then I think we’ll have to sue, I think we’ll have to go to court, in order to have these words removed.” Hopefully this will provide a wake up call for Fox News–as much as it makes its money off of sensationalizing fear for the American people, not everyone will play as nice when it comes to made up facts.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post No Surprise: Fox News Just Makes Up Facts Now appeared first on Law Street.

The folks over at Fox and Friends learned a valuable lesson in social media engagement this week–actually, who knows if they’re even paying attention, considering they met the same fate as the NYPD’s failed #myNYPD campaign earlier in 2014 . The morning show hosts tried to build a year-end social media swell with this tweet featuring Survivor contestant turned talk show host Elisabeth Hasselbeck:

2014 has been a year full of things we don’t want to see in the New Year. What are YOU over? Comment with #OverIt2014 pic.twitter.com/FjE8C989d3

— FOX & Friends (@foxandfriends) December 30, 2014

I’m guessing that what ensued isn’t exactly what the team had hoped for. Twitter responded–and continues to do so today–with a barrage of tweets attacking the network for a variety of offenses from homophobia to religious intolerance. Check out some of the responses in the slideshow below.

[SlideDeck2 id=30936 ress=1]

Chelsey D. Goff

Chelsey D. Goff was formerly Chief People Officer at Law Street. She is a Granite State Native who holds a Master of Public Policy in Urban Policy from the George Washington University. She’s passionate about social justice issues, politics — especially those in First in the Nation New Hampshire — and all things Bravo. Contact Chelsey at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Well, That Didn’t Work Out How Fox News Planned #OverIt2014 appeared first on Law Street.

Hey y’all!

Yesterday I was watching The Five on Fox News and one of the topics was this new ad campaign that some former Mitt Romney “ad guru” came up with that has me feeling all kinds of different things. Another one of the writers here at Law Street got her fingers working on the same topic and I will address a little of what Anneliese had to say about the “Republicans Are People Too” campaign.

I get the message they’re trying to get across here, but I think it was done wrong. We all have a misconception of people we do not know or do not associate with, and this often goes along party lines. There have always been certain stereotypes attached to each party. Republicans and conservatives are typically viewed as heartless, racist, homophobic, gun-toting, war-loving, wife-beating, feminist-hating, uncaring-about-the-poor, mean-spirited, greedy, selfish, intolerant, drunk, one-percenters. Democrats and liberals are often viewed as tree-hugging, abortion-loving, gun-hating, politically correct, unpatriotic, lazy, looking-for-a-handout, entitled, big government-loving people who like to stick racism or sexism into every conversation.

These stereotypes are not true of everyone and that was what Vinny Minchillo was trying to put out there for the world in this ad. But I don’t think he did it the right way. And if he spent $60,000 to create that ad then he needs to get his money back because the supposed use of stock photos is just embarrassing. Not to mention the stuff he points out is just petty and shallow.

The one thing I do love about the ad is the moment when it states “Republicans like dogs and cats, but probably dogs a little more than cats.” It was the playful humor of this moment that made me like the ad. But to feel like you need to tell the world that even people with tattoos are Republicans drives me insane. I have 14 tattoos, I don’t drive a Prius, I do love dogs, and I’m a conservative, too!

Greg Gutfeld had an interesting point on The Five: “This commercial is not the answer. You shouldn’t be saying ‘we’re just like them.’ You should be saying why you’re better than them. You need to focus on why you’re right.” I like the point he makes but maybe not so much about being better than anyone else but simply saying why we think that our opinions and views are just as important and should be just as respected as those of another party.

Which brings me to the petty comment that President Obama made the other day in a speech:

While good, affordable health care might seem like a fanged threat to the freedom of the American people on Fox News, it’s working pretty well in the real world.

Delusions of grandeur come to mind.

Why on EARTH, Mr. President, do you feel like you need to take jabs at Fox News? Are you threatened by the idea that you have not been such a great president and things are not actually working out the way you said they would!? Someone actually took the time to include this little jab in his speech. President Obama didn’t just go off the cuff and use his own wit to make this comment, but a speech writer actually wrote it in for him. When you are on your second term and this is what you and your speech writing team are talking about it is time to hang up your hat! Take a page from the fictional President Josiah “Jed” Bartlet of the West Wing and respect the other party, maybe even include them.

Yes, Anneliese, real Republicans actually use Macs. In fact, I am using one to write this right now! I love all things Apple; the iPhone 6, iPad mini, Apple TV and I even have two Mac laptops and a 27″ iMac. But now I have to wonder if me listing all of the Apple products that I own makes you think I am, yet again, your typical elitist Republican because Apple products are not cheap! I appreciate that you appreciate the fact that Republicans are just kind of tired of having a bad rap.

Now, I agree with Anneliese on the other ads she talks about — they are just horrible! But you can’t fault the party for trying. What’s even better is that the more you talk about these ads the longer they stick around and the more people they reach! So even if it is a ridiculous ad, you have given it the momentum to influence someone it may not have reached before. Or at least get someone thinking.

Allison Dawson

Allison Dawson was born in Germany and raised in Mississippi and Texas. A graduate of Texas Tech University and Arizona State University, she’s currently dedicating her life to studying for the LSAT. Twitter junkie. Conservative. Get in touch with Allison at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Republicans Really Are People Too appeared first on Law Street.

On Tuesday, a New York federal district court ruled that TVEyes’ use of Fox News’ video clips is a fair use according to the federal Copyright Act.

Who is TVEyes?

You may not have heard of TVEyes, Inc. before, but you’ve probably heard of some of its subscribers: the White House, 100 members of Congress, the United States Army, MSNBC, ABC, CBS, and the Associated Press.

So your two next questions may logically be: 1) who is TVEyes? and 2) why do portions of the federal government and the country’s major media outlets care about it? The answer is that TVEyes is a for-profit 24/7 media-monitoring service that monitors and records more than 1,400 television and radio broadcasts and transforms the broadcasts into searchable databases. The searchable databases allow TVEyes’ subscribers,like the White House, to see how different television and radio stations from across the country are reporting a particular event.

How Does TVEyes Work?

You may also be wondering how TVEyes is able to record thousands of broadcasts at once, and how subscribers are able to use its database.  According to a New York federal court opinion published on Tuesday, September 9, TVEyes uses closed captioning and speech-to-text technology to record television and radio broadcasts, and then the company creates a database of the recorded content.  Subscribers log onto a Watch List Page, which monitors keywords, tabulates the total number of times a keyword was mentioned by all 1,400 television and radio broadcasts, and organizes keyword search results by day for a 32-day period. From the Watch List Page, subscribers can click on the Results List Page, which shows the number of times a keyword was used on a particular day.  Each result on the Results List Page contains transcripts of the television and radio broadcasts that mention the keyword as well as thumbnail images of that television or radio broadcast that said the keyword. The subscriber can then click the thumbnail image, and a video clip of the broadcast will play alongside a transcript on the Transcript Page, which contains a wealth of information such as the name and location of the broadcast channel, Nielsen Ratings data about the clip, and the publicity value of the clip.

TVEyes also provides the following notable features and pages:

• A Media Stats page that graphically illustrates the number of times a keyword has been used over a period of time;
• A Marketshare page that contains a “heatmap” indicating the geographical locations that use the keyword the most;
• A Broadcast Network page which depicts in a pie chart the breakdown of which broadcast stations use the keyword;
• A Date and Time Search that lets subscribers play a video clip that aired on a specific date and time on a specific television station; and,
• A Media Snapshot featurethat allows subscribers to watch live streams of everything that TVEyes records.

Moreover, subscribers can save, archive, edit, and download an unlimited number of clips, and email clips to anyone, regardless if he or she is a TVEyes subscriber. Once a recipient clicks on the e-mailed clip, he or she is directed to TVEyes’ website and not the content owner’s website (i.e., Fox News’ website).

Copyright Infringement Lawsuit

Fox News sued TVEyes because it believed that TVEyes would divert its viewers to TVEyes’ website. Fox News claimed that TVEyes committed copyright infringement because TVEyes used Fox’ News copyrighted video clips to create content on TVEyes’ website, which its subscribers can play, save, edit, archive, download, and share. Specifically, Fox News alleged that TVEyes copied and infringed 19 one-hour programs on the Fox News Channel and the Fox Business Network, such as two episodes of On the Record with Greta Van Susteren, three episodes of Special Report with Bret Baier, three episodes of The Five, four episodes of The O’Reilly Factor, two episodes of The Fox Report with Shepard Smith, four episodes of Hannity, and one episode of Special Report Investigates: Death & Deceit in Benghazi.

Fair Use Defense

Whenever a plaintiff sues a defendant for copyright infringement, the defendant has certain defenses in the arsenal.  One of those defenses is fair use, which is a doctrine that allows the public to use a copyrighted work without an author’s permission in certain situations.  In this case, TVEyes argued that the features on its database constituted fair use.

The fair use statute, which is listed under 17 U.S.C. 107 in the federal Copyright Act, says that if a defendant uses a copyrighted work for the purposes of criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, or research, there is a strong presumption that the defendant’s use of the work is fair use.  Nevertheless, a court must consider the four factors listed therein:

1. The purpose and character of the work.
2. The nature of the work;.
3. The amount and substantiality of the copyrighted work that the defendant used.
4. The effect the defendant’s use has on the potential market or value of the copyrighted work.

Each factor, however, must be viewed in isolation, and the court uses a balancing test.  No one factor brings about a resolution. Let’s see how the court analyzed the four factors.

Factor 1:  The Purpose and Character of the Work

The court noted that the main reason for looking at the purpose and character of a defendant’s work is to see if it adds something new to the original copyrighted work and is not merely a substitute for the original work. The court’s investigation of whether a work adds something new is referred to as “transformative” use. TVEyes argued that its features providing subscribers with Fox News’ video clips is transformative, but Fox News argued that TVEyes’ copying and disseminating of its copyrighted excerpts, circulations, and summaries is not fair use.

The court held that TVEyes’ features that provide its subscribers with Fox News’ video clips was transformative because the database converted Fox’s copyrighted works into a research tool. Moreover, TVEyes’ subscribers use TVEyes for research, criticism, and comment. Finally, although TVEyes is a for-profit company, and commercialism can sometimes weigh against a finding of fair use, the more transformative a work is, the less significance is placed on commercialism.  Since TVEyes’ work was transformative, factor one favored TV Eyes.

Factor 2:  The Nature of the Work

This factor considers the nature of the copyrighted work because some types of work are closer to the kinds of works that copyright law intends to protect. For example, the type of work at issue in this case (i.e., the news) is not copyrightable because the news contains facts. Facts are not copyrightable because society wants everyone to be able to freely disseminate facts in order to find the truth; however, the creativity in deciding how to portray, film, direct, sequence, communicate the news is copyrightable

Nevertheless, courts may favor fair use for a work that is factual or informational.  Wwhere the work is transformative, however, the second factor has limited value.  Thus, the court said that the second factor does not weigh for or against a finding of fair use in this case.

Factor 3:  The Amount and Substantiality of the Copyrighted Work the Defendant Used

TVEyes concedes that it copied all of Fox News’ content. This factor, however, does not just employ a quantative comparison between the original copyrighted work and the defendant’s work, it also asks whether the defendant copied no more than was necessary for any valid purpose stated in the first factor (i.e., transformative use). Since TVEyes’ business model depends on copying all of Fox News’ content, the court said that TVEyes did not take more than what was necessary to obtain its transformative use; however, like the second factor, the court held that the third factor weighed neither for or against a finding of fair use.

Factor 4:  The Effect of the Defendant’s Use on the Potential Market or Value of the Copyrighted Work

This factor considers the economic injury that the defendant’s work causes and the benefit the public generates from use of the defendant’s work, if any.

• Economic Injury: This part of factor four determines whether the defendant’s use would have an adverse impact on the potential market of the original copyrighted work. Fox News argued that TVEyes’ services decreased its ratings of the 19 individual, hour-long programs it aired between October 2012 and July 2013, and thus diminished the amount of per-subscriber carriage fees that advertisers and cable and satellite providers paid Fox News because TVEyes’ subscribers watched TVEyes’ copies rather than the Fox News Channel or the Fox Business Network.

The court stated, however, that the 19 shows were no longer available for TVEyes’ subscribers, and TVEyes erases its content every 32 days.  Moreover, during the 32-day period in which these programs were available, only 560 video clips played, and 85 percent of those played were less than a minute long. In addition, between 2003-2014, only 5.6 percent of all TVEyes users saw any Fox News content on TVEyes.  In only three instances between March 2003 and December 2014 did TVEyes subscribers access 30 minutes or more of Fox News Channel’s content, and no subscriber accessed any Fox Business Network content. Furthermore, 95 percent of all video clips played on TVEyes are three minutes or shorter. Thus, the court said there was no basis that TVEyes’ subscribers would likely watch ten minute clips sequentially in order to use TVEyes as a substitute for Fox news.

Fox also argued that TVEyes impairs the derivative work market for syndiciation partners like YouTube and Fox News’ exclusive licensing agent, ITN Source and Executive Interviews.  However, Fox could not point out the alleged customers that Executive Interviews lost.  Moreover, Fox’s revenue from syndication partners and licensing clips is a small fraction of Fox News’ overall revenue (i.e., north of $212,000 and $246,000 respectively) and would likely be outweighed by the public’s benefit of using TVEyes’ services.

• Public Benefit: TVEyes argued that it provides a tremendous public benefit because it creates a library of television broadcast content and makes it easy and efficiently text-searchable. It also argued that without TVEyes there would be no way to search 27,000 hours of daily television broadcast programming, most of which isn’t available online or anywhere else.

Moreover, TVEyes argued that subscribers use its service to comment and criticize broadcast news; government bodies use it to assess factually-reported accuracies; political campaigns use it to monitor political advertisement and campaign appearances during elections; financial firms use it to monitor and archive employees’ public statements for regulatory compliance; the White House uses it to evaluate news and to provide the press with feedback; the United States Army uses it to track media coverage about worldwide military operations to ensure national security and troop safety; journalists use it to research, report, compare, and criticize broadcast news coverage; and elected officials use it to conform informational accuracies reported on the news and to correct misinformation.

Thus, after analyzing the economic injury and public benefit factors, the court held that factor four favored a finding of fair use because the public benefit of TVEyes outweighed its minimal possibility of competition to Fox News.

Balance of Four Factors

Since TVEyes captures and indexes broadcasts that would otherwise not be there — and journalists, the White House, the United States Army, financial firms, elected officials, and political campaigns use TVEyes for purposes like criticizing news, correcting misinformation, assessing commercial advertising, evaluating national security risks, and tracking financial regulatory compliance — the court held that copying Fox News’ content for indexing and clipping services for TVEyes’ subscribers was fair use.

Limited Fair Use

The court held that it did not have to decide fair use for the full extent of TVEyes’ services because no sufficient evidence was presented about whether features that allow TVEyes’ users to save, archive, download, email, and share clips of Fox news’ broadcast content were integral to the transformative purpose of indexing and providing Fox News clips or whether they threatened Fox News’ derivative businesses.  Moreover, neither party was entitled to summary judgment on whether the date and time search function because the record failed to show whether the date and time search function was integral to the transformative purpose of TV Eyes’ service. The court said the factual record regarding the date and time search function should be developed further.

What’s Next?

The court scheduled the next court date for October 3, 2014, which will determine the remaining issues stated about in the “Limited Fair Use” case. We will have to wait and see how the court handles those issues.

Joseph Perry

Joseph Perry is a graduate of St. John’s University School of Law whose goal is to become a publishing and media law attorney. He has interned at William Morris Endeavor, Rodale, Inc., Columbia University Press, and is currently interning at Hachette Book Group and volunteering at the Media Law Resource Center, which has given him insight into the legal aspects of the publishing and media industries. Contact Joe at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Fox News Suffers Major Fair Use Defeat to TVEyes appeared first on Law Street.

The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) was caught in the middle of a tug-of-war between Christians and atheists this summer. The Freedom From Religion Foundation (FFRF) sued the IRS for allowing a church to preach about political issues during services. As religious organizations like churches can have tax-exempt status, they are forbidden from making recommendations about political candidates. While the atheists’ suit was settled, the debate remains far from over. The intersection of American religion and politics is complicated to say the least. From personal appeals to Supreme Court cases, it is hard to find more controversial issues than those involving both church and state. But we should not ignore the topic; rather, it should be tackled head on.

Anti-religious sentiment, or at least sentiment against religion in the public sphere, is alive and virulent. David Silverman, the President of the American Atheists, said that the American “political system is rife with religion and it depends too much on religion and not enough on substance. Religion is silly and religion has components that are inherently divisive. …There is no place for any of that in the political system.”

The American Atheists are at least 4,000 members strong; the FFRF has over 19,000 members who subscribe to the belief that “[t]he history of Western civilization shows us that most social and moral progress has been brought about by persons free from religion.” Malcolm X, Muhammad Ali, Betty Friedan, and Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. may disagree. American slavery was countered by devout abolitionists like Sojourner Truth. The movement would not have been the same had it not been for those leaders who saw slavery as simply not Christian. The British colonies in America partially owe their origins to the religious movement of the day. People “free from religion” cannot be called superior in Western progressive movements.

Atheism itself is not the issue. But claiming a moral superiority over religious people based solely on their religiousness is a mistake. This extends to the political sphere. Not because any nation should necessarily adopt theocratic tendencies, but because we should treat religion as a social institution rather than a political taboo. Marriage, education, families, and the economy are each social institutions brought up frequently in political discussions. Beyond that, some of the most popular rhetoric connects different institutions to one another; the White House website says that “President Obama is committed to creating jobs and economic opportunities for families across America.” Republican Marco Rubio’s website claims that “Senator Rubio believes there are simple ideas that Washington should pursue in order to improve education in America and prepare our children for the jobs of tomorrow.” Families, jobs, children, and education are all important in American society. They can also be highly personal and emotional when included in our political discourse; what really makes them so different from religion as a social institution?

To the liberals, even if you don’t buy into the idea that religion is an equally important social institution to others, you cannot deny that it shapes America’s politics, and therefore it deserves discussion. Every American president has been Christian and male, but could any liberal be taken seriously while arguing that we can’t talk about gender discrimination in our politics? Barack Obama is the only Black president of America’s forty four, but what Democrat could claim that we can’t talk about race in our politics? In this way, there is a deep hypocrisy in the liberal canon. Further, if religion in politics is shunned by everyone except for Christian conservatives, then the conversation will be dominated by them alone.

To the conservatives, look at the statistics. The Pew Research center shows that people who fall under the group “Protestant/Other Christian” (distinguished by Pew from Catholics and Mormons) voted for Mitt Romney over Barack Obama at a rate of 57 percent to 42 percent. This disparity is actually wider than it was during the 2008 election in which John McCain received 54 percent of the same group to Obama’s 45 percent. Jews in 2012 voted for Obama over Romney at a rate of 69 percent to 30 percent. The widest gaps are those within the groups “Religiously unaffiliated” and “Other faiths” who voted for Obama-Romney at rates of 70 percent – 26 percent and 74 percent – 23 percent, respectively. Reaching out to Latinos and Blacks is proving to be difficult, but there are plenty of non-Christian groups that the Republican party has largely overlooked.

Religion isn’t entirely absent from the political conversation, but where it is present, its place is static and stale. MSNBC will face off right-wing Christians who lambaste abortion and gay marriage against level-headed leftists. FOX News will pit religious people claiming family values against out-of-touch academics. When liberals eschew religious political discussion and conservatives only make room for their Christian constituents, the discussion doesn’t move anywhere. There is not only a need to have bring religion into the rest of our political discussion — to have faith in politics –but to remove it from its stereotypical and often misrepresentative position. Freedom of speech and religious freedom should flourish together with a substantial discussion that allows America to have faith in our politics.

Jake Ephros

Jake Ephros is a native of Montclair, New Jersey where he volunteered for political campaigns from a young age. He studies Political Science, Economics, and Philosophy at American University and looks forward to a career built around political activism, through journalism, organizing, or the government. Contact Jake at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Having Faith in Politics appeared first on Law Street.

]]> https://legacy.lawstreetmedia.com/blogs/faith-politics/feed/ 4 23714 https://legacy.lawstreetmedia.com/blogs/sarah-palin-has-her-own-tv-channel/ https://legacy.lawstreetmedia.com/blogs/sarah-palin-has-her-own-tv-channel/#comments Wed, 30 Jul 2014 10:33:21 +0000 http://lawstreetmedia.wpengine.com/?p=21748

Sarah Palin is fed up with the Liberal Media bias and is doing something about it. She started an online TV channel called the Sarah Palin Channel that's going to make Fox News look like MSNBC.

The post America, Sarah Palin Has Her Own TV Channel appeared first on Law Street.

]]>

Sarah Palin is fed up with the Liberal Media bias and is doing something about it. She started an online TV channel called the Sarah Palin Channel that’s going to make Fox News look like MSNBC.

I’m scared too, Catelyn.

In the introduction video, Palin says this is going to be a news channel that is going to be a lot more than news: it will get around the “media filter” and “find solutions.” Reading between the lines, Palin is saying, “The media has filtered me out, so I had to start my own channel. And I want to share my solutions that were too crazy for FOX.” In the video Palin also says that her channel will cut through “Washington DC’s phony capitalism.” So I take that to mean she will continue to call Barack Obama a socialist, while refusing to look at the actual definition of socialism.

The channel will also have very engaging guests and while she did not mention any names, a clip of Ted Cruz campaigning was rolling in the background. I thoroughly look forward to their “Who hates Obama more” and “Because the Bible told me so” segments.

Also, there is good news if you were a fan of Sarah Palin’s reality TV show. The channel will also give viewers a glance into her family’s daily life. They are just like any other American family…that has a ton of money. Watching the Palins really allows you to see how she relates to all those average Joes (read: white people) she talks so much about. And I am sure she will argue that because of her close proximity to Russia, she knows better than anyone how to deal with Putin.

Of course, if this channel is going to be more than news, it might be looking for some TV show ideas. Well, the masses have taken to Twitter to help Palin with some ideas for brilliant television. Here are some of the best:

The Big Benghazi Theory #PalinTVShows

— Lizz Winstead (@lizzwinstead) July 28, 2014

I Love Lucy But Deport Ricky #PalinTVShows

— David Corn (@DavidCornDC) July 28, 2014

America’s Funniest Stump Speeches #PalinTVShows

— CC:Indecision (@indecision) July 28, 2014

#palintvshows Everybody Loves Reagan

— James VanLaningham (@jdvanlaningham) July 28, 2014

One of the central themes of the channel, according to Palin, is that it’s about you. But there is one person the site focuses on much more than any other and I doubt that is the “you” Palin was referring to. This person is President Obama, and wow does he seem to be the main focus of the Sarah Palin Channel. Three of the seven stories on the site feature the President, and it even has a clock counting down to the end of the Obama administration. I am guessing it is a countdown to remind Palin when she will lose any relevance she might still have.

I’m laughing too, B-rock.

So in conclusion, Sarah Palin has her own TV channel because being a contributor on FOX News was too constraining for this maverick. The channel is supposedly about you, the viewer, but primarily focuses on Sarah Palin, her family, and Obama. And sadly, just in case you had any hope that this was a joke, this is not Tina Fey parodying Palin — though it can be very hard to tell the difference.

—

Matt DeWilde (@matt_dewilde25) is a member of the American University class of 2016 majoring in politics and considering going to law school. He loves writing about politics, reading, watching Netflix, and long walks on the beach. Contact Matt at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

Featured image courtesy of [eskimojoe via Flickr]

Matt DeWilde

Matt DeWilde is a member of the American University class of 2016 majoring in politics and considering going to law school. He loves writing about politics, reading, watching Netflix, and long walks on the beach. Contact Matt at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post America, Sarah Palin Has Her Own TV Channel appeared first on Law Street.

]]> https://legacy.lawstreetmedia.com/blogs/sarah-palin-has-her-own-tv-channel/feed/ 3 21748 https://legacy.lawstreetmedia.com/blogs/culture-blog/chill-america-cultural-theme-parties-arent-inherently-racist/ https://legacy.lawstreetmedia.com/blogs/culture-blog/chill-america-cultural-theme-parties-arent-inherently-racist/#comments Wed, 04 Jun 2014 17:28:06 +0000 http://lawstreetmedia.wpengine.com/?p=16503

Hey y’all! Greetings from Las Vegas! As I mentioned last week, last week was my birthday so I decided to celebrate it the right way and am spending a few days in Vegas with friends. It’s been a blast so far! I am a creature of habit and no matter how late I stay up […]

The post Chill Out, America! Everything Isn’t a Race Issue appeared first on Law Street.

]]>

Hey y’all!

Greetings from Las Vegas! As I mentioned last week, last week was my birthday so I decided to celebrate it the right way and am spending a few days in Vegas with friends. It’s been a blast so far!

I am a creature of habit and no matter how late I stay up my body and mind are still ready to get the day started at 9am despite any time zone. Part of my morning ritual is to watch Fox News just to see what’s going on in the world. Monday morning I stuck with my routine, flipped on the television and watched whatever program was being aired. In this case it was the afternoon (on the East Coast) show, Outnumbered. This show has a rotating group of hosts but the only consistent thing is that there are four women and a man sitting on a couch talking about topics of the day and not all of it is political, which I kind of enjoyed!

After a couple of segments the host for the day, Pete Hegseth, brought up the new racist claims on a fraternity at the University of California at Irvine. So the story goes that the fraternity, Phi Gamma Delta, recently had a Fiji-themed party at the end of its charity week that has offended certain people. The theme seems reasonable because apparently this particular fraternity has been called “FIJI” since the 1800s. So what’s the problem? Apparently grass skirts and coconut bras are racist in the context of a party. Yep. You can read that again but it is still going to be the same: grass skirts plus coconut bras equal RACISM!

Just hearing about this even being an issue has blown my mind. If anything Phi Gamma Delta is celebrating its nickname and a culture all at once.

I am no stranger to throwing a Hawaiian- or Fiji-themed party from time to time and have never felt like I was doing it in the context of being racist toward a specific group of people. Grass skirts and coconut bras are a certain way for the rest of the world to pay homage to that culture. Let us remember that grass skirts are a part of that culture, coconut bras are not. In fact, Western civilization added the coconut bra because we are too prudish to celebrate our bodies the way that they do. And who doesn’t love the idea of escaping to a paradise where the native people get to walk around in linen clothing by day and celebrate their heritage by night for tourists?

The claim to racism goes beyond grass skirts, coconut bras, UC Irvine, and college campuses. Racism has been a hot topic over the last few weeks. It has been shoved down our throats because of LA Clippers owner Donald Sterling and all of the comments that the sports community has contributed to the issue. Even this week Donald Sterling has been labeled a racist and a sexist by another ex-girlfriend. I’m sick of hearing about it and I am sick of thinking that everything has to be connected with race. Now, on the Donald Sterling front, that is absolutely all about race and the NBA will handle it the best way that it knows how, but to go from Donald Sterling and his extremely racial remarks to a fraternity simply throwing a party with props is ridiculous. Not everything has an ulterior motive. College is a place to celebrate and learn more about other cultures.

We have turned into a culture of political correctness and even the slightest mention of anything about another culture has become some sort of racism. The self-absorbed “everyone is out to get me because I am this” attitude needs to stop! No one is out to get you; no one is bashing your culture just because of grass skirts and coconut bras. We have been celebrating this culture for decades and never has it been an issue until today. It’s sad and it sickens me that we have to walk on eggshells for every little thing. We need stronger backbones again and to realize that not everyone is the same, not everyone is going to agree, not everyone is going to like everyone else. Not everyone is out to get you.

Maybe we should all put on our grass skirts, coconut bras, grab a Mai Tai and chill out!

—

Allison Dawson (@AllyD528) Born in Germany, raised in Mississippi and Texas. Graduate of Texas Tech University and Arizona State University. Currently dedicating her life to studying for the LSAT. Twitter junkie. Conservative.

Featured image courtesy of [1950sUnlimited via Flickr]

Allison Dawson

Allison Dawson was born in Germany and raised in Mississippi and Texas. A graduate of Texas Tech University and Arizona State University, she’s currently dedicating her life to studying for the LSAT. Twitter junkie. Conservative. Get in touch with Allison at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Chill Out, America! Everything Isn’t a Race Issue appeared first on Law Street.

]]> https://legacy.lawstreetmedia.com/blogs/culture-blog/chill-america-cultural-theme-parties-arent-inherently-racist/feed/ 2 16503 https://legacy.lawstreetmedia.com/blogs/crazy-man-named-cliven-bundy-became-talked-figure-politics/ https://legacy.lawstreetmedia.com/blogs/crazy-man-named-cliven-bundy-became-talked-figure-politics/#comments Thu, 24 Apr 2014 19:38:22 +0000 http://lawstreetmedia.wpengine.com/?p=14835

Nevada Rancher Cliven Bundy became a GOP and Tea Party darling recently when he clashed with the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) over cattle grazing rights to federal land. BLM confiscated — and subsequently returned after escalating safety concerns — nearly 400 of Bundy’s cattle because he has allowed them to graze on federal lands without […]

The post Tea Party Darling Cliven Bundy is This Cycle’s Racist Joe the Plumber appeared first on Law Street.

]]>

Nevada Rancher Cliven Bundy became a GOP and Tea Party darling recently when he clashed with the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) over cattle grazing rights to federal land. BLM confiscated — and subsequently returned after escalating safety concerns — nearly 400 of Bundy’s cattle because he has allowed them to graze on federal lands without a permit for many years, racking up an unpaid bill of over $1 million. This led to a standoff between Bundy, his friends, and Federal agents. There’s been a lot of back and forth in the political sphere — for example, Harry Reid called Bundy’s supporters domestic terrorists and everyone freaked out. And the entire incident turned Bundy into a de-facto spokesperson against Federal power, with many high-ups in the GOP supporting him.

And as so often happens — remember Joe the Plumber? — the poorly vetted farmer supported by the GOP as a representation of what is so great about this nation turns out to be pretty racist.

I’m just going to let you read Bundy’s words for yourself, courtesy of Adam Nagourney at the New York Times, because really, they’re too spectacularly offensive to paraphrase:

“I want to tell you one more thing I know about the Negro,” he said. Mr. Bundy recalled driving past a public-housing project in North Las Vegas, “and in front of that government house the door was usually open and the older people and the kids — and there is always at least a half a dozen people sitting on the porch — they didn’t have nothing to do. They didn’t have nothing for their kids to do. They didn’t have nothing for their young girls to do.

And because they were basically on government subsidy, so now what do they do?” he asked. “They abort their young children, they put their young men in jail, because they never learned how to pick cotton. And I’ve often wondered, are they better off as slaves, picking cotton and having a family life and doing things, or are they better off under government subsidy? They didn’t get no more freedom. They got less freedom.”

I don’t think I need to go into how spectacularly disturbing these statements are as a whole, but let’s just be very clear. This man, Cliven Bundy, essentially just said that he thinks that African Americans were better off as slaves. To national press. As someone who has been following politics essentially since I could read, this is probably one of the worst things I’ve ever heard.

First, in my probably futile attempt to interject some logic into Bundy’s statements, it’s clear the guy is a huge hypocrite. Because you know who receives a whole ton of government subsidies? Farmers and ranchers. Including those like Bundy himself.

In fact, that’s kind of what this entire debate is about — Bundy losing access to some of those very valuable subsidies. As a rancher, Bundy was able to graze his cattle on Federal land for about $1.35 per animal, per month. Similar accommodations on private land would run about $8-$23 per animal, per month. Now because of some policy changes, those subsides were going to be a bit less generous and create some other logistical problems, leading to Bundy’s standoff with the government. Yeah, he’s totally just against other people getting government subsidies, and thinks that getting them teaches other people bad lessons.

So how did this crazy man end up supported by some major players in the GOP, including Fox News pundits, Senator Rand Paul, and Senator Dean Heller? (Although to be fair, after the racist statements came out, both Paul and Heller ran away from supporting Bundy as fast as they could.) Well to start, I think there’s something in the Tea Party’s unwavering devotion to the idea of “grassroots politics” that can be scary. The story hit national news, and immediately, the Tea Party and others rallied around him. There was no consideration that the guy in a standoff with Federal Rangers might be insane. There was no consideration that this man, who was being held up as a shining example of the little man, the oppressed farmer, and the patriot, needed to be vetted.

And that’s dangerous. Fox News, and other conservative media picked up this story right away and stuck by the man, giving a voice to the crazy racist who would usually be limited to sending offensive chain emails to his relatives or writing a letter to the editor every single week in his local paper. Now I, of course believe in free speech, and think that Bundy should have the ability to say whatever the hell he wants, even if it is gag-worthy. But the national microphone he’s been given is concerning, because now the rest of us have to listen to his racist drivel. All of this could probably have been solved by just one of those politicians who supported him sending a staffer out with a notepad and asking, “Hey Mr. Bundy, how do you feel about ____.” I have a feeling he’d have been more than willing to share his racist opinions pretty quickly.

Whether or not Bundy is right about his squabble with the Federal Government, which I think is actually at least a legitimate debate, the way in which this entire thing has played out should be incredibly concerning for the GOP. If they want to argue about the use of Federal land, fine, do that through discourse, or legislation, or debate. I’m happy to entertain that conversation. But to use a crazy racist rancher who is probably causing the expenditure of even more tax dollars by dragging the Bureau of Land Management and other agencies into this is just bad politics, plain and simple.

—

Anneliese Mahoney (@AMahoney8672) is Lead Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

Featured image courtesy of [U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service via Wikipedia]

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Tea Party Darling Cliven Bundy is This Cycle’s Racist Joe the Plumber appeared first on Law Street.

]]> https://legacy.lawstreetmedia.com/blogs/crazy-man-named-cliven-bundy-became-talked-figure-politics/feed/ 2 14835 https://legacy.lawstreetmedia.com/blogs/dear-american-underage-drinkers-why-is-butt-chugging-a-thing/ https://legacy.lawstreetmedia.com/blogs/dear-american-underage-drinkers-why-is-butt-chugging-a-thing/#comments Fri, 04 Apr 2014 19:08:31 +0000 http://lawstreetmedia.wpengine.com/?p=14043

College students are kind of stupid. As this groundbreaking and Pulitzer worthy (LOL, just kidding) Fox News piece showed us recently, they like to get drunk and high and occasionally both. Because, you know, Spring Break is a new thing. No one has ever done this exact piece before. Never. And apparently we are constantly […]

The post Dear American Underage Drinkers, Why is Butt Chugging a Thing? appeared first on Law Street.

]]>

Image courtesy of [Jamie McCaffrey via Flickr]

 

College students are kind of stupid. As this groundbreaking and Pulitzer worthy (LOL, just kidding) Fox News piece showed us recently, they like to get drunk and high and occasionally both.

Because, you know, Spring Break is a new thing. No one has ever done this exact piece before. Never.

And apparently we are constantly finding new ways to get messed up. Every couple years there are new, crazy trends to get all screwed up. Now these trends that media outlets inevitably have a mental breakdown over are rarely legitimate or widespread. Instead, they tend to be the product of one or two weird and unfortunate hospitalizations or arrests.

One recent particularly disturbing/amusing/curious trend is “butt chugging.” For those of you who don’t know what that is, it’s exactly what it sounds like. This is much too civilized of a forum for me to go into too much depth, but if you’d like more information, you can read an account of some brave soul attempting butt chugging here. A kid at University of Tennessee was hospitalized with a BAC of .4 after supposedly butt chugging at a Pi Kappa Alpha party. The frat was eventually suspended from campus. If you need a quick laugh, please watch the press conference their lawyer held. It’s hilarious. This poor man with a law degree had to say the word butt chug about 398792 times.

In a similar vein, apparently vodka tampons are a thing. I will not describe the process of this trend, because again, I would assume it’s self-explanatory. Again, also probably not a widespread trend, but it’s still something for our concerned news outlets to get their panties in a proverbial bunch about.

And most recently, teens are apparently smoking coffee, although why anyone would demean my beautiful and vivacious friend coffee that way is unknown. Here’s a first hand account of someone trying it. Unsurprisingly, it didn’t go well because smoking coffee is incredibly stupid.

OK, so some Americans, particularly some young Americans, are incredibly stupid. They make reckless decisions and experiment with dangerous ways to do drugs and drink alcohol. OK. But my question is, does this happen in other countries? Because here’s my logic — you would think this happens in the countries that are similar to us. Canada, right? The UK? Australia? France? Spain? Anywhere?? Does anyone else butt chug?

From what I can tell the answer is no. Now don’t get me wrong, European kids party. They party hard, probably harder in some cases. But they don’t appear to butt chug, or use vodka tampons, or smoke coffee grounds — maybe because they have more respect for the glorious caffeinated mecca that is coffee.

Brb, Starbucks run.

So why are we so stupid? Well, there are a few possible reasons. Let’s start with the least probable.

Possibility #1: We’re dumber than kids in other countries. 

I highly doubt that this could be true. The United States has only been around a couple of centuries, and we’re a melting pot. I don’t think there’s any sort of gene, or lack thereof, that makes American kids look at a beer and say, hey, maybe I’ll shove that up my ass in an attempt to get drunk more quickly.

And if that is the case, Americans are going extinct anyway, so this article is for naught.

Possibility #2: The American culture of consumption. 

As Americans, we consume things. A lot. We are 5 percent of the world’s population, but use 24 percent of its energy. On average, Americans have larger house sizes than Europeans by quite a bit — we average about 2,300 sq. ft.; the French are at about 1,216 sq. ft.; and British houses average 818 sq. ft. We also consume a lot more food than our European friends. In general, we have a culture of consumption in the United States, that isn’t absent from other countries, but is certainly not quite as pervasive.

And that culture of consumption kind of tells that moderation is bad. Think back to that Fox News “expose” on Spring Break goers. Those kids were unabashedly telling the camera that they wanted to get as messed up as physically possible. They were drinking cheap alcohol, obviously not for the taste, but for the pure and unadulterated purpose of getting hammered. They were consuming to excess, because that’s the culture of those Spring Break trips.

But that still doesn’t answer my question. Why does this happen here, but not evidently, other places? I mean obviously Europe has Ibiza, and giant music festivals, but in searching, I can’t find a single example of butt chugging, or vodka tampons, or anything else that ridiculous. I also can’t seem to find any concerned media exposes on young drinking culture.

And that brings to me to my most likely theory:

Possibility #3: It’s a product of the US drinking age. 

Anyone who’s been to Europe can see that drinking is, for the most part, a facet of the culture. Depending on where you are, having a beer or glass of wine with dinner is not uncommon, even if you’re a teen. Teens are eased into it, and allowed to test their limits. Unlike in the US, there’s no awkward period of time between 18-21 when you’re a full adult in every way, except for the ability to order a glass of wine with dinner. Drinking isn’t treated like some secret exclusive club.

I think that’s why ridiculously stupid things like butt chugging happen. Drinking underage in the US emphasizes getting drunk as cheaply and quickly as possible, because there are limited resources. If an underage kid is going to a bar and wants to drink, they know that they will have no access to alcohol there, so they take as many shots as physically possible before going to make sure that they’ll be on the same level as others. There’s no emphasis on learning what you actually enjoy, or learning limits.

Now there is danger in lowering the drinking age, of course. But I think the issue we have is one that resides in the murky intersection between law and culture. Our culture teaches us to consume as much as possible, but our law restricts said consumption until a seemingly arbitrary birthday. I think there’s value in the European approach.

So next time you meet a European, please ask, “Have you ever butt chugged?” I bet you 5 bucks they’ll just look at you like a crazy person, and probably file a restraining order.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Dear American Underage Drinkers, Why is Butt Chugging a Thing? appeared first on Law Street.

]]> https://legacy.lawstreetmedia.com/blogs/dear-american-underage-drinkers-why-is-butt-chugging-a-thing/feed/ 5 14043