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.

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.

Despite Donald Trump’s comments about Saturday Night Live, its writers are still going after the President-elect…hard. In last night’s cold open, Alec Baldwin reprised his fantastic Trump impression, and was visited by Beck Bennett as Vladimir Putin and John Goodman as Rex Tillerson. The SNL skit was incredibly entertaining, but certainly not subtle:

One highlight from the sketch was Putin’s gift of an “elf on a shelf” to Trump–telling him he should keep it out year-round and put it right next to his internet router. Putin and Tillerson also called each other the pet names “Pootie” and “Rexy,” showed off a secret handshake, and talked about oil while Trump asked if they could take out Vanity Fair. The message was clear: SNL was attacking Trump for his relationship with Russia.

And of course, the writers were just making fun of Trump generally. For example, they referenced Trump’s new word “unpresidented” which he has received plenty of flak for tweeting, given that it’s not an actual word.

It took Trump and his team 87 minutes to fix the word “unpresidented.” pic.twitter.com/Bz7NxSqwlo

— Kyle Griffin (@kylegriffin1) December 17, 2016

Trump hasn’t tweeted about the show yet, but that doesn’t mean he won’t. Most of the previous SNL sketches featuring Baldwin’s impression have drawn Trump’s wrath.

SNL hasn’t forgotten about Hillary Clinton either. Kate McKinnon once again reprised her role as Clinton, to star in a timely “Love Actually” sketch that also took some jabs at Trump.

Clinton shows up at an elector’s door to ask her to vote for anyone else on December 19, presenting a very, very long list of reasons why Trump should not be president.

Regardless of Trump’s feelings about the comedy show, it seems likely that SNL will continue to have some good fodder for sketches for the next four years.

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 SNL Still Isn’t Pulling Any Punches When it Comes to Donald Trump appeared first on Law Street.

Actress Lena Dunham hit the mark with her 2016 Halloween Costume, seemingly inspired by quotes from Republican nominee Donald Trump. She dressed as a surprised cat with two plastic hands attached to her, portraying a “grabbed p***y.” She posted a picture on her Instagram on Monday evening. “Happy Halloween! With love from a Grabbed P—y,” she wrote.

@LenaDunham sassily takes aim at Donald Trump with her Halloween costume https://t.co/znoJ4dogVF pic.twitter.com/0oUufCP6lL

— Daily Mail Celebrity (@DailyMailCeleb) November 1, 2016

Dunham’s inspiration came from the audio recording that was leaked earlier in October when Trump was heard saying, “when you’re a star they let you do it. You can do anything. Grab them by the p—y. You can do anything,” to TV personality Billy Bush, who has since been sacked by NBC. And ironically the tape might have still been a secret if Bush himself hadn’t bragged about having had that conversation with Trump while in Rio covering the Olympics. Someone at NBC then thought it would be funny to dig up the old tape and release it, which Bush probably hadn’t counted on.

Dunham is a Clinton supporter and spoke out against Trump in People Magazine after the audiotape was released:

To hear someone in a position of power, in the race for the highest office in the land, to say something that is so distinctly violent, and so distinctly abusive — I think it creates a lot of fear and a lot of sort of pain in the public consciousness that we’re going to be dealing with for a long time.

Over the weekend and on Monday, she campaigned for Clinton in North Carolina and has been urging people on Twitter to go vote early.

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 Lena Dunham Took a Shot at Trump with Bold Halloween Costume appeared first on Law Street.

The “Today Show’s” Billy Bush faced extreme backlash from network executives and the public after an audio recording surfaced of the television host having a lewd conversation with Donald J. Trump.

The compromising recording from 2005–in which Trump brags about groping women–quickly became the business mogul’s most pressing issue to date as Republican officials unendorsed their party’s nominee. The GOP presidential nominee posted a statement on social media, telling voters that he is not a “perfect person” and that the words captured in 2005 “don’t reflect who I am.”

In the recording, Bush also exchanged lewd and misogynistic remarks about women. Bush, known as the nephew of former President George H. W. Bush and the cousin of former President George W. Bush and Jeb Bush, worked for Access Hollywood at the time.

Bush issued a statement on Friday evening saying, “Obviously I’m embarrassed and ashamed. It’s no excuse, but this happened 11 years ago–I was younger, less mature, and acted foolishly in playing along. I’m very sorry.”

Everyone hasn’t been so quick to accept the apology.

Noah Oppenheim, the NBC executive in charge of “Today,” wrote in a memo to his staff members on Sunday that “I know we’ve all been deeply troubled by the revelations of the past 48 hours.”

“Let me be clear–there is simply no excuse for Billy’s language and behavior on that tape,” he said. “NBC has decided to suspend Billy, pending further review of this matter.”

Bush co-hosts the third hour of the “Today Show” and has remained off-air since Monday. This isn’t his first time coming under fire during his brief stint on the show. Bush, was the first to report the debunked Ryan Lochte robbery scandal and it led to questions about his journalistic approach.

The leak leads to larger questions about journalism ethics. The 44-year-old television host withheld knowledge of a presidential nominee admitting to sexual assault.

“Late Night” TV host Seth Meyers unleashed on Donald Trump and his performance in Sunday night’s debate. Meyers referred to him as “the pervert on the bus” and said that there is “currently a higher standard for the third hour of the “Today Show” than there is for the Republican nominee for president.”

Bush’s future remains unclear. A variety of media sources have speculated that his official departure is only a matter of time.

Sources: Billy Bush’s departure from NBC matter of “when,” not “if” — @brianstelter reports https://t.co/d9B2PW78Hohttps://t.co/lO8dviqF9n

— CNN Newsroom (@CNNnewsroom) October 12, 2016

Bush worked on “Access Hollywood,” NBC’s entertainment news show, for nearly 15 years before being promoted to “Today” in August, after contributing to the network’s coverage of the 2016 Olympic Games in Brazil.

Bryan White

Bryan is an editorial intern at Law Street Media from Stratford, NJ. He is a sophomore at American University, pursuing a Bachelor’s degree in Broadcast Journalism. When he is not reading up on the news, you can find him curled up with an iced chai and a good book. Contact Bryan at BWhite@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post NBC’s “Today” Show Has Higher Standards Than the GOP appeared first on Law Street.

Sports, particularly the Olympic Games, have the potential to give us some awesome gifs. Remember McKayla Maroney’s not impressed face from four years ago?

Or this synchronized swimmer rising from the water in a particularly derptastic fashion?

Or Ashley Wagner’s “bullshit” gif from the most recent winter games?

Well unfortunately we won’t have access to as many awesome gif moments from this year’s Rio Olympic Games. Per the International Olympic Committee (IOC):

Internet and Mobile Platforms Notwithstanding any other applicable limitation included in these NARs, Olympic Material must not be broadcast on interactive services such as ‘news active’ or ‘sports active’ or any other related Video on Demand services, which would allow the viewer to make a viewing choice within a channel and to thereby view Olympic Material at times and programs other than when broadcast as part of a News Program as set out in Clause 1 above. Additionally, the use of Olympic Material transformed into graphic animated formats such as animated GIFs (i.e. GIFV), GFY, WebM, or short video formats such as Vines and others, is expressly prohibited.

Rules for people attending the games include:

Video or audio content taken from within Olympic venues … must only be for personal use and must not be uploaded or shared on any website, blog, social media page, photo or video-sharing sites, or other mobile application. Broadcasting images via live-streaming applications (e.g. Periscope, Meerkat) is prohibited inside Olympic venues.

This announcement shouldn’t really come as a surprise, given that the IOC hinted at strict prohibitions in May when it disclosed that only its rights holders could share Olympic content. NBC, and its international counterparts who also have the rights to Olympic footage have paid hefty prices for those rights, and the IOC understandably wants to protect them. However, it does appear that NBC is still going to be making its own gifs, so all is not lost.

But a lot of people are wondering if the prohibition on gifs will even be possible, or wise. While it’s one thing to ban media organizations from making gifs or short videos, it’s going to be a lot harder to prevent the internet as a whole from doing so. Remember that time that Beyonce wanted photos taken down from the internet?

So, all gif hope isn’t lost, but it’s doubtful we’ll have quite as many as in 2012 or 2014.

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 Bad News: We Won’t Have Many Olympic Gifs appeared first on Law Street.

This week, NBC made the controversial decision not to air the opening ceremonies of the Rio Summer Olympics live. For many fans of the Olympics, this decision was a shock, letting down viewers who had hoped to see the spectacle in real time. As of now, the news network is planning on showing the ceremonies at 8 PM Eastern time, an hour after they actually begin in Rio, on the east coast. The Mountain and Pacific timezones of the U.S., however, could see even later coverage than that.

While it may make sense to air a ceremony from the other side of the planet at a delay, for the convenience of viewers, Rio is only an hour ahead of the east coast. Many disgruntled viewers are frustrated to have to watch the ceremonies behind schedule when it could be broadcast live relatively easily. Several people have expressed their opinions that, with today’s technology, we should watch historic moments like these in real time.

BREAKING: NBC still doesn’t understand how the internet works. https://t.co/5iFAHHVWhO

— Matt Haze (@MattHaze) July 12, 2016

Decision by @NBCOlympics not to broadcast Rio’s opening ceremony live ridiculous. Do they think it’s 1996?https://t.co/JfubCgZ09O

— Nancy Armour (@nrarmour) July 12, 2016

The reasoning NBC gave for this upsetting delay was stated by several executives in the company. NBC Sports Group Chairman Mark Lazarus had the following to say about the company’s decision to delay the ceremonies by an hour:

We are not going to stream the Opening Ceremonies live. Those will be curated and will air one hour after they occur, as will take place with us on NBC broadcast network as well. We think it’s important to give the context to the show. These Opening Ceremonies will be a celebration of Brazilian culture, of Rio, of the pageantry, of the excitement, of the flair that this beautiful nation has. We think it’s important that we’re able to put that in context for the viewer so that it’s not just a flash of color. So we will air that on a one-hour delay…

They will both [television and online] be on a simultaneous hour delay. That’s consistent with what we did in London [at the 2012 Summer Olympics] and what we did in Sochi [at the 2014 Winter Olympics]…

The question, I would say, is: If we were to air it live, and we were going to put commercials in the Games – because we are a public company and have duties to our shareholders – which parts would they like us to cut out?

The 2010 ceremonies for the Winter Games in Vancouver were the last opening ceremonies that were live streamed. However, the company hasn’t shown a live opening ceremonies during the summer Olympics since the 1996 games in Atlanta. While some people are enraged that they can’t watch along with the fans in the stands, NBC does have some pretty sound reasoning for delaying the coverage. It could be unfair to cut out bits and pieces of the ceremony for commercials–that could damage the cultural significance of the event or leave countries out of the coverage. There’s really no pleasing everybody in this situation, so the company made its own judgment call.

Fortunately, all other Olympic happenings should be streamed live throughout the games. So, for all you diehard Olympics fans out there, even if you won’t be seeing the opening festivities in Rio live, the rest of the games should be just the way you want them. Though, if we’re being totally honest, there are probably more pertinent concerns than the timeliness of NBC’s coverage when it comes to the Rio Olympics.

Alexandra Simone

Alex Simone is an Editorial Senior Fellow at Law Street and a student at The George Washington University, studying Political Science. She is passionate about law and government, but also enjoys the finer things in life like watching crime dramas and enjoying a nice DC brunch. Contact Alex at ASimone@LawStreetmedia.com

The post NBC Refuses to Air Olympic Opening Ceremonies Live appeared first on Law Street.

Injustice in Baltimore dominated the news cycle last week, and Law Street was no exception. The number one article of the week, by Jennifer Polish, is a provocative look at race and justice; number two, from Anneliese Mahoney, follows the latest developments in Brian Williams’ future at NBC; and number three is an interesting account of two gangs coming together amid the turmoil in Baltimore. ICYMI, check out the best of the week from Law Street.

#1 Hey Fellow White People: We Need to Shut Up About Baltimore

Hey, fellow white people. If you’re not going to be in support of people rising up against racism in Baltimore–and elsewhere–then shut up about it. And listen (or read, or watch. There are plenty of sources that aren’t from white people–like the ones cited throughout this piece–that we can tune into). Read full article here.

#2 Brian Williams’ Troubles at NBC Continue

The trouble isn’t quite over yet for Brian Williams. Williams, who headed up “NBC Nightly News,” was suspended for six months by NBC this winter. The suspension came in light of the revelation that Williams had not been truthful about an instance in which he claimed to have been in a military helicopter that took fire during the early days of the Iraq War. Now it has come to light that there were other instances in which Williams lied or embellished aspects of his reporting–at least ten have been reported so far. Read full article here.

#3 Crips and Bloods: Unlikely Allies in Baltimore Riots

Continuing protests over the death of Freddie Gray erupted into Ferguson-like riots yesterday evening following his funeral in Baltimore, Maryland, where cries of “black lives matter” have echoed since last year. But this time it was the city’s most notoriously violent groups who aligned for peace while groups of rioting Baltimoreans burned and looted the city against the Gray family’s wishes, even injuring officers and other protesters. Read 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.

The trouble isn’t quite over yet for Brian Williams. Williams, who headed up “NBC Nightly News,” was suspended for six months by NBC this winter. The suspension came in light of the revelation that Williams had not been truthful about an instance in which he claimed to have been in a military helicopter that took fire during the early days of the Iraq War. Now it has come to light that there were other instances in which Williams lied or embellished aspects of his reporting–at least ten have been reported so far.

The current investigation is being conducted internally at NBC, and is said to have five different journalists working on it. The investigators are being led by NBC News senior executive producer Richard Esposito. Given that Williams’ suspension will technically end in August, NBC is under pressure to figure out whether or not they’ll reinstate him to the position. Lester Holt is currently manning the news desk while Williams’ fate remains up in the air.

However, the new discoveries of deception don’t bode particularly well for Williams. Anonymous sources with knowledge of the inquiry told The New York Times about the nature of the new findings, stating:

The episodes under review included details of the incident in Iraq in 2003; statements Mr. Williams made about a missile attack while he was traveling in another helicopter over northern Israel in 2006; and the circumstances under which he received a fragment of a helicopter that crashed during the mission to kill Osama bin Laden in 2011.

According to the Washington Post, there was also an inconsistency in his reporting of events during the Arab Spring uprisings. Williams claimed on “The Daily Show” that he saw certain events of the uprisings firsthand in Cairo’s Tahrir Square, but now it’s unclear if he was actually reporting from the location.

Whether or not the exact details of what Williams was not truthful about will be released to the public remains unknown. If he is, in fact, let go from his position at NBC, executives may need to keep those accusations secret in light of some sort of severance agreement.

According to inside reports, high-ups at NBC are currently meeting to determine Williams’ future. These top players include NBC Universal chief executive Steve Burke, NBC News chairman Andrew Lack, and NBC News president Deborah Turness. While NBC hasn’t confirmed much of this, and this information appears to have mainly come from anonymous sources, it’s clear that matters are on the move. Right now, it doesn’t seem like it would be a particularly good idea to bet on Williams keeping his job, particularly if more instances of exaggeration or untruthfulness come to light.

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 Brian Williams’ Troubles at NBC Continue 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.

This past weekend “50 Shades of Grey” actress Dakota Johnson showcased her comedic roots while hosting “Saturday Night Live” for the first time. However, it’s not Johnson’s acting range that everyone is talking about now, but rather a controversial skit she appeared in poking fun at the Islamist terror group ISIS.

In the skit Johnson and SNL cast member Taran Killam parody a tear jerking Toyota Camry ad, where a father drops his daughter off at the airport to presumably join the military. SNL’s version had a twist, though, as this time the daughter’s ride was none other than a truck full of armed ISIS members. Their arrival is followed by this hilarious exchange:

Father: “You be careful, ok.”

Daughter: “Dad, it’s just ISIS.”

Father (Looks at ISIS member): “You take care of her.”

ISIS Member whispers:  “Death to America.”

The truck then pulls away with guns blazing while the slogan “ISIS. We’ll take it from here, Dad” appears in the lower right corner.

If you haven’t yet seen the skit in question check out the video below.

It singlehandedly became the most talked-about skit of the night, with many people debating whether the comedy was offensive or not. Below are a few tweets from people on both sides of the debate.

Absolutely floored that anyone would find the #SNL ISIS skit funny. Nothing funny about it, it was tasteless.Desensitized much? #OrangeRoom

— Rebecca (@becca76) March 1, 2015

I’m still sick to my stomach about that ISIS skit. God I hope friends/family of those burned alive or decapitated weren’t watching. #SNL

— JayhawkMama (@JHawkintheSouth) March 1, 2015

Thought the ISIS skit on #SNL was funny as hell. We’ve mocked terror and evil throughout history. Remember this? pic.twitter.com/HurKEvhdqF

— Obnoxious Boston Fan (@realOBF) March 2, 2015

Seriously? SNL is being criticized for mocking Isis, and the people who join it? There’s no group more deserving of ridicule. Thumbs up #SNL

— Katherine Morrison (@kmorrison) March 1, 2015

By turning ISIS into a punch line, SNL openly challenged the group’s ideology. As it turns out, it seems like more people did like it than find it offensive. This morning, the “Today Show” decided to ask its viewers if they thought SNL went too far with the skit. So far the poll has over 12,500 votes, with over half of the voters (54 percent) picking “no.”

Some found the faux ad particularly distasteful after the recent death of 26-year-old American aid worker Kayla Mueller, who was kidnapped and held ransom by ISIS members in August 2013. However, the skit wasn’t mocking Mueller, it was mocking ISIS as an organization and the people who choose to join it.

Personally, I found the skit funny and wasn’t at all offended. SNL has parodied several controversial American enemies in the past including Osama Bin Laden and Saddam Hussein, making this terrorist-themed joke neither its first nor most likely its last. There’s something to be said about the ability to take something tragic and scary and find humor in it, thus alleviating its power. As SNL celebrates its 40th anniversary, here’s to hoping they continue to push the envelope and keep us all laughing.

Alexis Evans

Alexis Evans is an Assistant Editor at Law Street and a Buckeye State native. She has a Bachelor’s Degree in Journalism and a minor in Business from Ohio University. Contact Alexis at aevans@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post SNL’s ISIS Skit: Insensitive or Hilarious? appeared first on Law Street.

Thursday night, President Obama announced an executive action that will protect millions of undocumented immigrants and restructure the United States’ priorities when it comes to immigration enforcement. And he used some fighting words. Obama stated:

The actions I’m taking are not only lawful, they’re the kinds of actions taken by every single Republican president and every Democratic president for the past half century. And to those members of Congress who question my authority to make our immigration system work better, or question the wisdom of me acting where Congress has failed, I have one answer: Pass a bill.

Obama’s speech–just weeks after the Democrats basically got trounced in the midterms–was powerful, and regardless of how both his political allies and opponents are acting on the Hill, will make a real difference in the lives of millions of people who call America home.

But if you were interested in watching this speech, you may have had a hard time finding it. The big TV networks–ABC, NBC, FOX, and CBS–chose not to air the speech. Instead, CBS presented an episode of The Big Bang Theory; Fox network viewers saw Bones; and viewers tuning to NBC were able to enjoy The Biggest Loser: Glory Days.

While cable stations like Fox News, CNN, and Univision carried it, the big four networks chose not to and opted for their regular programming instead. That was their choice. When the President is giving an important speech, the White House can put in an official request that the speech be carried. In this case, the White House did not, apparently after hearing from networks that they weren’t too enthusiastic to postpone their normal programming. At one point, a supposed network insider called the speech too “overtly political.”

Obviously, this choice on the networks’ part wasn’t just about politics–it was about money. In today’s epoch of pretty predictable political apathy, you get more viewers when you show beloved shows like Shonda Rhimes’ Grey’s Anatomy than when you show the same President Obama speech on immigration that every other network has access to. And when you get more viewers your advertisers are happy. And then you make more money. It’s a pretty simple equation.

The story gets more complicated than that though. You see, stations like FOX, NBC, ABC, and CBS are national, but each place has their local affiliate that actually controls what that locale sees. That’s why I, living in D.C., can watch NBC but see a different morning news team than my parents living in Connecticut. There is some flexibility, apparently, because a few local affiliates gave a big middle finger up to their national stations, and showed the speech anyway. POLITICO found that:

A quick look at some major media markets found that the NBC affiliates in New York, Washington, Atlanta, Chicago, Dallas and Phoenix; the ABC affiliates in Washington, Chicago, Boston and Kansas City; the Fox affiliates in Boston, Chicago, Dallas and Miami all aired the speech live. CBS affiliates were less likely to air the speech when it fell during the hit show “The Big Bang Theory,” though several of their affiliates outside the East Coast did air it live.

There seems to be fodder for an interesting internal struggle here–networks balked at the idea of showing Obama’s speech for presumably centrally financial reasons. But not everyone was willing to play ball, and the places where the speech ended up being shown are certainly illuminating. With a few exceptions, it seems like channels that showed the speech were in either more liberal areas, or areas like Dallas and Miami, known for larger immigrant populations. As strategic as the call was to not show the speech by big networks, the local stations took their own strategies into account.

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 Where Could You Watch Obama’s Speech? Depends Where you Live appeared first on Law Street.

Bill Cosby has, to many, gained the sort of “elder statesman” distinction in the acting world. For all intents and purposes, things were going well for him this year. He signed up to do a new show on NBC and announced a Netflix standup special. Then a comedian named Hannibal Buress did a bit in which he accused Cosby of being a rapist.

Buress was of course not the first person to accuse Cosby of rape. In fact, many of his alleged victims had come forward over the years, starting roughly a decade ago. But because of Cosby’s celebrity status, the allegations had never really stuck. Buress’ point in the video is dead right–many people continue to defend Cosby because of his role in American consciousness as “America’s dad,” or just think that the many, many young women who have come forward with rape allegations are looking for their 15 minutes of fame. In fact, it took another man–Buress–repeating those allegations to even make it into national news.

That’s really just the tip of the iceberg. More and more women are coming forward with their stories–and they all sound pretty similar. Similar enough to make it clear that Cosby used the same M.O. with these women.

These women are finally widely getting support…mostly. Of course, this is America, so we still have a nicely cultivated culture of treating rape victims like shit. I found all of the tweets below by searching “Cosby” on Twitter. It only took me about five minutes. This is why women don’t go forward, and why it’s so essential to stand by the women who have. Because when you come forward you become a walking target for all of this.

Victim Blaming

Maybe women who don't want Bill Cosby's pudding pop in their vajayjays shouldn't be doing drugs naked in his hotel room. Just a thought.

— Todd Kincannon (@Todd__Kincannon) November 20, 2014

Mr. Kincannon, doing drugs does not mean you consent to sexual activity. Furthermore, there is significant evidence that Cosby roofied or drugged at least some of these women. A man who doesn’t want to type out the word “vagina” shouldn’t be commenting on matters that require maturity and thoughtfulness, anyway.

Accusations of fame-seeking

I don't believe Bill Cosby'd rape anyone. My hunch is these women are trying to link their names w/ a consistently successful entertainer.

— R. Deniston (@Obolerfan) November 20, 2014

Most of Bill Cosby's victims refuse to even go to the press, please tell me how all these women are just lying for fame?

— Kill Darren Wilson (@kim_tastiic) November 19, 2014

That’s why so many people have gotten famous through rape allegations. Really, it’s pretty much the way to get discovered now, along with America’s Got Talent and posting videos on YouTube. Never mind that some of these women–such as Janice Dickinson–are pretty well-known and wealthy in their own rights.

There have been a whole bunch of speculative pieces written about how we’ve all been able to ignore these rape allegations for so long. The most convincing argument I’ve heard is that Cosby isn’t the first powerful man, the first powerful cultural figure to face a case like this. Woody Allen and Jerry Sandusky are both good examples. People ignore the allegations out of a mixture of distrust of the victims and respect for the accused.

For those of you who still don’t believe that rape culture exists, well that’s it right there. Rape culture is a well-respected man being given a pass because it’s inconvenient and upsetting to take his 15-plus victims seriously.

Now, Netflix has postponed the standup special, NBC has cancelled the possible sitcom project, and TV Land has stopped showing reruns of the Cosby show. They probably shouldn’t be applauded too much–I highly doubt that any of the networks are doing this because they are convinced that Cosby is a rapist, but rather because they don’t want the bad publicity. And that’s one more good example of rape culture right there–when a woman comes forward with her story of being sexually assaulted, she’s accused of doing it for publicity’s sake; when networks pull the projects of rapists, they get applause.

Things are getting better in the United States. Our attitudes toward rape and sexual assault are changing, bit by incremental bit. But rape culture is still alive and well–just ask Bill Cosby.

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 Bill Cosby Allegations: A Striking Example of Rape Culture appeared first on Law Street.

On Thursday, October 23, 2014, NBCUniversal agreed to pay $6.4 million to settle claims that it violated labor laws over its unpaid internship program.  NBCUniversal’s decision to settle is pivotal because it marks a huge step toward eliminating unpaid internship programs completely.

The lawsuit against NBCUniversal began when Monet Eliastam, the lead plaintiff of the lawsuit, interned at Saturday Night Live for 25 hours per week or more and did not receive compensation. She and other unpaid interns filed a class-action lawsuit and sued NBCUniversal. Elisastam claimed, according to the Hollywood Reporter, that NBCUniversal “misclassified its workers as unpaid interns and thus denied them benefits like a minimum wage salary, overtime pay, social security contributions, and unemployment insurance.”

The Hollywood Reporter further reports that a United States District Court will have to approve the settlement, but if it stands, $1.18 million of the total $6.4 million will go to plaintiffs’ attorneys, Elliastam will receive a $10,000 service payment, and five other plaintiffs will receive service payments of $5,000 and $2,000 rewards. The rest will go to NBCUniversal interns, and the average settlement payment to interns will be $505 for those who interned in New York since July 3, 2007, in California since February 4, 2010, and in other states since February 4, 2011.

Unpaid interns have filed cases against Fox, Sony, Warner Brothers, and Viacom, and companies like Conde Nast have also settled unpaid internship cases. Unpaid internship cases are thus becoming the norm, which it should be.

As a law student, I have had my fair share of unpaid internships. One summer, I worked 35-40 hours per week at an entertainment company and did not receive a dime. Instead, I received credit and had to take an externship class. On the surface, that may not seem terrible because I got to apply three more credits to my total needed to graduate. However, I had to pay a few thousand dollars to take the externship class because the minimum amount of credits that my loan would pay for was six, and my externship class was only three.

It doesn’t take much to realize how unfair that is. Not only did I give the company free labor, but I was out a few thousand dollars in order to get that free labor. Where is the logic in that? There is none.  The unpaid internship system is designed to take total advantage of students just so the student can put that company’s name on his or her resume. The school makes money, and the company gets free labor.

Even for students who take internships or externships during the school year and do not have the student loans issue that I did, no one wants to take a class in addition to interning.  Especially in law school, students are so busy that externship classes take a back seat to a student’s more substantive school work, internships, law journals, and/or moot court.

Moreover, the entertainment companies exist in, not surprisingly, the most expensive cities in the country. Students can’t live on unpaid internships — not when your average lunch in New York City, for example, is around $10 or more. It’s simply not feasible. Yes, you can argue that students can live on student loans, but that misses the point.  Students want to be compensated for their work and be valued as integral employees. It’s as simple as that.

Fortunately, companies are starting to pay interns because companies do not want to be victims, which has been echoed to me in several legal internship interviews.

Hopefully interns will finally begin to get paid for their work across the board, and students will not have to experience what I and millions of other students have.

—

Joseph Perry (@jperry325) is a 3L at St. John’s University 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.

Featured image courtesy of [Knot via Flickr]

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 NBCUniversal Settles With Unpaid Interns for $6.4 Million appeared first on Law Street.

The FCC is on the verge of allowing internet fast lanes that would allow content providers to pay for faster access for their customers. Read on to learn why this proposal has generated so much controversy.

What is an internet  fast lane?

When commentators say “fast lane,” they are usually referring to paid prioritization. This is when an Internet Service Provider (ISP), such as Comcast or Time Warner, charges a content provider, such as Google or Facebook, an extra fee for faster “lanes” of bandwidth. Effectively, the ISPs would be allowing content providers to pay for easier access to customers.

Netflix recently agreed to pay Comcast for faster access to its customers. This is the first deal of its kind.

Netflix is not happy about the deal at all. In a blog post, CEO Reed Hastings referred to the fee as an “arbitrary tax” and expressed concerns that escalating fees could continue to be charged to Netflix and other content providers. Netflix may have agreed to pay this fee not to gain an advantage but to gain download speeds they once had. This graphic from the Washington Post shows that Netflix’s download speeds on Comcast tanked during the negotiations and then suddenly spiked once Netflix agreed to pay the fee:

Why are ISPs allowed to create fast lanes?

ISPs like Comcast are allowed to charge content providers for faster access because of a recent court decision that struck down the Federal Communications Commission’s (FCC) rules regarding net neutrality. The FCC is the federal agency in charge of regulating communications over mediums such as radio and television.

Net neutrality is the concept that all data on the Internet should be treated equally. You should be able to load a Netflix page just as fast as you can load a YouTube page. This video from Mashable provides a clear visualization of the concept.

The FCC created regulatory rules in 2010 that would enforce net neutrality. Cable companies and other ISPs immediately cried foul and filed lawsuits.

On January 14, 2014, a U.S. appeals court overruled the new rules. The reason? Broadband Internet is classified by the government as an information service. The FCC does not have the authority to regulate information services. The Internet used to be classified as a telecommunications service until a 2005 Supreme Court ruling. The FCC is allowed to strictly regulate telecommunications services.

What is the FCC doing about fast lanes?

In the wake of the court ruling, the FCC is in the process of writing a new set of Internet rules that allow for fast lanes. For the past few months, the FCC has allowed public comment on its website on one main question: should the new rules allow fast lanes?

There is a possibility that these rules would permit only some heavily regulated fast lanes to exist. The FCC says that the rules would require these lanes be “commercially reasonable,” but that’s a vague requirement that could be exploited.

There’s also a possibility that the FCC could go in the opposite direction and ban prioritization. The FCC would do this by reclassifying broadband Internet as a telecommunications service, giving it the power to strictly regulate ISPs. This reclassification would almost certainly face a legal challenge by ISPs, as well as a challenge from Congress.

How have people reacted to this proposal?

The FCC received more than one million online comments about the proposed rule change in the span of five months. That is the most comments the agency has ever received, and almost topped the number of complaints the Commission received after Janet Jackson’s “wardrobe malfunction” at the Super Bowl.

Activists and content providers alike are not happy that the FCC is even considering legalizing fast lanes.

The Internet Association, an industry group that represents companies like Amazon, Google, and Uber, submitted a lengthy comment to the FCC’s website arguing, in part, that “charging for enhanced or prioritized access […] undermines the Internet’s level playing field.”

The association also expressed concern that ISPs might provide prioritization to their own content. For example, Comcast owns NBC Universal. A fast lane rule would allow Comcast to prioritize access to NBC television streaming over the quality of other network streaming services.

John Oliver, host of HBO’s Last Week Tonight With John Oliver, took a more cynical view in this widely shared segment. Oliver accused the FCC and Chairman Tom Wheeler, who used to be a lobbyist for cable companies, of corruption. He also called on Internet trolls to flood the FCC with comments.

MoveOn, the liberal activism website, released this television ad encouraging viewers to call the FCC in support of network neutrality.

MoveOn’s lead campaign director Victoria Kaplan also released a statement saying that “MoveOn members strongly support Net Neutrality and are calling on the FCC to scrap proposed rules that would undermine an open Internet.”

ISPs, for the most part, are issuing vague statements about how they support an “open Internet.” For example, Comcast released a statement saying that “we support the FCC putting in place legally enforceable rules to ensure that there is a free and open Internet, including transparency, no blocking, and anti-discrimination rules.” This doesn’t really say anything specific. Comcast argued later in the statement against a reclassification of broadband Internet, but never argued why they should be allowed to charge for fast lanes.

In stunning contrast, AT&T provided a robust defense of fast lanes in its FCC comment. The whole document is definitely worth a read, but here’s the most important quote:

“In no other area of the economy does the government ban voluntary market transactions (here, for example, quality-of-service enhancements) specifically in order to prevent those with superior resources from offering better services to their own customers.”

The line AT&T concluded the paragraph with is equally important to understanding the company’s argument:

“In short, the theoretical basis of this rationale for a strict nondiscrimination rule is thoroughly unsound and anathema to a market economy.”

AT&T’s argument is pretty unique. It is essentially saying that not allowing content providers to pay for a fast lane or not allowing ISPs to offer such an “upgrade” goes against the very foundation of a capitalist economy.

What’s important about this argument is the claim by AT&T that the fast lane would only amount to an “enhancement” in service for some companies and not a downgrade in service for companies that do not pay the fee.

Many activists doubt this will be the case. Instead, the “free” lane would be significantly slower. As John Oliver put it in the previously embedded segment, “if we let cable companies offer two speeds of service, it won’t be Usain Bolt and Usain Bolt on a motor bike. They’ll be Usain Bolt and Usain Bolted To An Anchor.”

Conclusion

Soon, the FCC will create a new set of rules governing the Internet. It will either allow fast lanes to exist and face harsh public criticism or it will fight for net neutrality and face a barrage of lawsuits and challenges from ISPs and Congress. This is an issue you will want to keep an eye on if you use the Internet regularly.

Resources

Primary

FCC: FCC Launches Rulemaking On How To Protect The Open Internet

FCC: Comment: AT&T

FCC: Internet Association: Comment

Additional

Netflix CEO: The Case for Net Neutrality

Wall Street Journal: Court Tosses Out Open Internet Rules

CNET: 2005: FCC Changes Internet Classification

Hill: Former FCC Chairman on Net Neutrality

NPR: One Million FCC Comments Filed

Comcast: Comment

Guardian: Welcome to the Age of Digital Discrimination

MoveOn: Keep Internet Open

NextGov: The FCC is Getting Serious

Geeksided: MLB Speaks Out Against Fast Lanes

Eric Essagof

Eric Essagof attended The George Washington University majoring in Political Science. He writes about how decisions made in DC impact the rest of the country. He is a Twitter addict, hip-hop fan, and intramural sports referee in his spare time. Contact Eric at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Internet Fast Lanes Will Change How You Use the Web appeared first on Law Street.

In 2012, a new company called Aereo launched. It offered a revolutionary new way to watch TV. Essentially, Aereo provides subscribers with a small antenna about the size of a dime that receives TV signals. The dime is kept in a remote local area and then streams TV to any device in the house with Internet access such as a computer, tablet or smartphone. In addition, it’s possible to send the content to an actual TV if you have the correct cables or a streaming device such as Apple TV. Aereo also includes a DVR feature. All of this is extremely cheap–it costs about $1 a day, plus some DVR storage charges. Aereo began in New York City, and now includes Atlanta, Dallas, Denver, Detroit, Houston, Miami, and Salt Lake City. They have plans to expand to most other major cities in coming years. Aereo mostly streams basic channels and public access–not cable. For some more background on the company from the Intellectual Property side, check this out. 

Aereo is a great solution at a time when more and more people, mainly young people, can access most of their TV needs online. Services like Netflix and Hulu+ are cheaper than a traditional cable plan. Itunes allows you buy a subscription to one show for a season, which is convenient when you only want one show on a given cable network. I don’t have a TV or cable package–people are always shocked when I tell them this, but a combination of Netflix, inviting myself to watch shows at friends’ houses, and other internet sources work just fine for me. Earlier this year, a tech reporter for HuffPost reviewed Aereo and was pretty happy with the convenience for a cheap price.

Almost as soon as Aereo started, it received ire from the largest broadcasting companies. ABC, NBC, CBS, and FOX are officially involved in lawsuits, while other networks, such as Univision, have voiced their support for their fellow networks. The case has gone through a few series of appeals, and as on Friday, the Supreme Court announced their decision to take the case. On every appeal, the courts have so far sided with Aero.

The legal argument made by the broadcasting companies boils down to the fact that they are not receiving compensation for Aereo’s services, the way they do from a company such as Verizon or a local provider. Aereo also doesn’t have a license to show any of this content. Paul Clement, a lawyer for the network stated the case raised issues in copyright law that, “profoundly affect, and potentially endanger, over-the-air-broadcast television.”

Aereo’s response is that they do not create public performances, which law prevents, but because they just send individual signals, that is not the case. They just access the signals that the TV channels have broadcasted, and that consumers have always had the right to use antennas to access TV. The court has sided with Aereo twice on that argument so far, but the start-up still encouraged the Supreme Court to take the case.

The case does have some interesting potentially implications. For example, if Aereo wins, some broadcasting companies may move towards subscription streaming (FOX has already threatened this), which would be costly and difficult.

The ultimate question at issue here is, as it seems to be so often these days, the intersection between law and technology–technology has clearly outpaced the law. But is that a bad thing? The Supreme Court will shed some light on that topic in coming months.

[ABC News]

—

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 [Miguel Pires da Rosa 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 TV Streaming Makes it to Supreme Court appeared first on Law Street.

Good morning folks! Did you all survive the polar vortex? It’s on its way out now, thank goodness.

But! If you’re a Fox News watcher or a conservative talk radio show listener, you might think that the polar vortex was just a magical fantasy, invented by the Left to promote a global warming agenda.

Seriously. That’s what Rush Limbaugh is telling his gazillion listeners.

What a douche. I can personally attest to the reality of the polar vortex. Walking to and from work this week has been physically painful. My wife begged me to take a sick day on Tuesday, because the news was warning that the temperatures outside could actually burn exposed flesh.

On my street, there are potholes and flower boxes two-feet deep, filled with water from last week’s snow and rain — and that water is frozen solid. These are mini skating rinks, people. Yesterday, I saw a guy break a sheet of ice out on the sidewalk (where the fuck did he get that?! Beats me, you guys), and all of the individual chunks of ice DID NOT MELT.

So now, there are just blocks of ice, chilling on the sidewalk, not melting. Not even softening. They could be glass, for all anyone knows. You could put an ice sculpture on my fire escape and it would remain completely intact. The polar vortex is not a political myth. I promise you.

This guy promises, too.

Also this guy.

Seriously, the polar vortex is a real thing. This is not up for debate, Rush, you ass hat.

And Al Roker — my all-time favorite weather man, who is never allowed to retire — agrees with me! He shut Rush down in the most awesome way ever. So now he’s even MORE my favorite, if that’s possible.

First, he started with this awesome tweet.

For all the doubters who say the media "created" the Polar Vortex: From the 1959 AMS Glossary of Meteorology pic.twitter.com/x2Nyw0jx3j

— Al Roker (@alroker) January 7, 2014

Then, he followed up with this even more awesome tweet.

Rush Limbaugh claims the Polar Vortex is a creation of a left-wing, liberal media conspiracy. It's Meteorology 101. No political agenda

— Al Roker (@alroker) January 7, 2014

And then, he told Rush to “stuff it” on the Today Show.

I fucking love you, Al Roker.

But, Al Roker-loving aside, why do we care about this? Here’s why: global warming is a real thing, people. Climate change is happening. The way that humans are using the Earth right now is dangerous. We need to get that shit under control.

And when douche-nozzles like Rush Limbaugh convince millions of people that global warming is some kind of big, ridiculous joke, it’s dangerous. He’s asking listeners to use and abuse the planet with reckless abandon. He’s telling them to fuck recycling, fuck sustainable resources, fuck clean energy sources — because who gives a shit? They’re not harming anyone.

But that’s a lie. And it allows the cycle of harm to continue. Which, obviously, is not a good thing.

But it’s more than that. When Rush Limbaugh tells his listeners to forget about climate change and to just carry on as if it’s not a real thing, what he’s really saying is, “Your actions have no consequences.”

That’s a sentiment that’s rampant among conservatives, even the semi-moderate ones that aren’t total Right-wing loony tunes. For all their talk about personal responsibility, they often fail to see how their own actions affect other people.

Like, when Republicans vote to make food stamps harder to access, they’re causing more people to go hungry. When they advocate for decreased access to safe abortions, they’re causing more women to subject themselves to unsafe procedures and unwanted pregnancies. When they fight to eliminate Obamacare (which is a watered down, disappointing substitute for universal healthcare, to be sure), they’re sentencing more people to suffer through illness and injury without medical attention. And when they pretend global warming isn’t real, they’re dooming species — including our own, someday — to extinction.

But, Right-wingers don’t really see it that way. They tend to look at how their actions affect themselves, personally — I don’t want an abortion, so who cares if I can’t access one? — while ignoring how their actions affect the wider world.

It’s narcissistic. And at the end of the day, it’s really harmful. The polar vortex is real, people. And so are a whole mess of other things the Right would like to ignore.

So, let’s put an end to this, shall we? We can start by joining StopRush, which is successfully pressuring advertisers to pull funding from Rush Limbaugh’s radio show. But that’s not enough. We’ve got to engage with one another, with our communities, and with the nation to encourage more empathy. More compassion. Less personal responsibility and more community responsibility.

So, whatdya think? Can we Flush Rush?

—

Hannah R. Winsten (@HannahRWinsten) is a freelance copywriter, marketing consultant, and blogger living in New York’s sixth borough. She hates tweeting but does it anyway. She aspires to be the next Rachel Maddow.

Featured image courtesy of [Elipongo via Wikipedia]

Hannah R. Winsten

Hannah R. Winsten is a freelance copywriter, marketing consultant, and blogger living in New York’s sixth borough. She hates tweeting but does it anyway. She aspires to be the next Rachel Maddow. Contact Hannah at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post My Face is Frozen and Rush Limbaugh’s an Ass Hat appeared first on Law Street.

Last Thursday, Aereo requested that a federal court in Manhattan rule that its business offers legal services. The gist of Aereo, founded in New York, is to transmit local TV broadcasting to pai subscribers of the service over the internet. As a Comcast customer who’s consistently unsatisfied with my service features to monthly payment ratio, I can envision the untapped market that Aereo is attempting to reach. Consumers still want their daily intake of local news, and occasionally some Grey’s Anatomy and Scandal, but don’t want to be obligated to pay $80 a month for additional channels that their schedule doesn’t permit them to enjoy.

The service is $8 per month and enables customers who don’t want to pay ridiculous amounts for cable television to access local broadcasting.  Broadcasters have asked the U.S. Supreme Court to chime in and voice their perspective on Aereo’s services. This is long overdue as Aereo has already been subjected to suits in New York, Boston, and now Utah by major broadcasters such as ABC, NBC, and CBS. Broadcasters argue that their copyrights are being violated because Aereo is taking their signals without their permission and showcasing them to online viewers. Conversely, Aereo points out that it is already legal for viewers to use their own antennas and pick up local tv broadcasts. Additionally, viewers can legally record these broadcasts and replay them at a later time. The Aereo method is to rent out tiny antennas, capture free content in the public airwaves, and stream the content to your internet-enabled devices. So essentially, Aereo only utilizes tools that are legal, making broadcasters throughout the nation cause an uproar in our judicial system because the service has found a way to circumvent their licensing fees.

Federal courts in New York and Boston have allowed Aereo to continue to operate throughout the pending lawsuits, noting that broadcasters have not shown a high probability of winning their cases to warrant an injunction. The service launched a year ago, and there are already (approximately) 90,000-135,000 subscribers of the Aereo service in New York alone.

There is no copyright infringement here, ABC. That’s why injunctions have been denied, and the service has been upheld in different locales for over a year now. The real reason that the broadcasters are experiencing mood-changing-panty-bunching is because Aereo is threatening to interrupt the television system that brings them billions of dollars each year. Cable companies, such as Comcast  (I HATE YOU, COMCAST!), charge us a shit-ton to view local broadcasting, such as NBC and ABC, because they pay these broadcasters billions in retransmission fees to include their shows in subscriptions. And what does Aereo pay? Nothing.

Perhaps this is why Comcast was so eager to haggle with me when I threatened to cancel my service a few weeks ago. Makes sense.  If cable companies don’t begin offering better prices, sooner rather than later Netflix, Apple TV, and now Aereo will replace them faster than DVD players won over VCR owners. And I’ll be the first to go.

I either need to cancel my service, get a hanger and try to reel in some news stations for myself or practice what I preach and join Aereo when it arrives in D.C.

Gena.

—

Featured image courtesy of [Pablo Menezo via Flickr]

Gena Thomas

Gena Thomas, a recent graduate of Howard University School of Law, was born and raised in Lafayette, Louisiana. A graduate of The University of Texas at Austin, she enjoys watching scary movies and acquiring calories from chocolates of all sorts. Contact Gena at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Kicking Broadcast and Taking Names: The Aereo Method appeared first on Law Street.