On Wednesday morning, writers’ rooms were probably frantically trying to re-write many of their planned monologues and sketches in line with election night’s unexpected results. Many of them probably struggled with what tone to approach the news with, as the man who had been their main source of comedic material for the past 18 months is not a joke anymore–he’s now our president-elect. While these hosts were more somber than usual, they still brought the laughs, and demonstrated that not all hope was lost.

If the election results have you stressed, hopefully these late night hosts can offer you the comedic comfort food your soul needs.

“Last Week Tonight” with John Oliver

John Oliver’s last show of the year issued some pretty serious messages and dire warnings in between its laughs. John Oliver urged viewers to “actively stand up for one another” by supporting organizations such as The Trevor Project, Planned Parenthood, the International Refugee Assistance Project, and a myriad of others. He also advised that we constantly remind ourselves that “this is not normal” with regard to a Trump presidency. Oh, and he also “blew up” 2016 at the end, because this year has been all-around awful.

“The Daily Show” with Trevor Noah

This election cycle was seriously missing the voice of Jon Stewart, but Trevor Noah delivered on Wednesday with material that could make a viewer want to laugh and cry at the same time. Particularly moving was a bit by Hasan Minhaj, in which he almost broke down in tears while telling the story of his mother, who is currently abroad and can’t return to the U.S. until February, but wasn’t entirely sure whether she’d be let back in under Trump’s confusing and ever-changing “Muslim ban.” He needs her…and she also owes him $300.

Another moving moment from this week’s show was when correspondent Michelle Wolf also simultaneously laughed and cried as she discussed the absurdity of Trump’s win and its depressing implications for American women.

In the 2016 election, 42% of women voted for Donald Trump. @MichelleIsAWolf responds: https://t.co/lU43mqpyPz pic.twitter.com/BJZCxetT5s

— The Daily Show (@TheDailyShow) November 10, 2016

“Late Night” with Seth Meyers

Seth Meyers just might be the man to blame for a Trump presidency: in 2011, he delivered scathing jabs at Trump for his “birther” comments about President Obama. He also laughed off Trump’s interest in a campaign for the presidency at the time, while cameras showed Trump was in the audience silently seething and accepting the challenge.

Despite that, Meyers received praise for his election coverage, with his “Closer Look” segments. His post election remarks were somber, hopeful, and humorous at the same time, and had Meyers himself on the verge of tears.

“Full Frontal with Samantha Bee”

The central message of Bee’s show? We need to get to work. Bee was definitely angry with the results, blaming the large white voter base that voted for Trump. Bee also shushed white people who didn’t vote for him, and said “if Muslims have to take responsibility for every member of their community, so do we.”

But Bee wasn’t just angry, she was also hopeful for the “nasty women” of the future that need to step up so that we can have more and more women representing us in office.

“The Late Show” with Stephen Colbert

Another character who was sorely missed this election cycle was Stephen Colbert’s “Colbert Report” persona. But even though we didn’t get to hear from his alter ego, the man himself was there to support us through the tough Election Night and into the next day.

Stephen Colbert’s live election night coverage on Showtime ended before Trump’s victory was announced, but at that point it was already clear that a Clinton win was unlikely, so the night ended on a somber and uncertain note. But the next morning, after it was official, Colbert captured the nausea-ridden hangover that overcame much of the country the day after the election. Colbert was blunt about his feelings (“This suuuucks”), but if you’re feeling down, I guarantee that watching Colbert put on cat ears and pretend to be a “sexy kitty” will definitely improve your day.

Mariam Jaffery

Mariam was an Executive Assistant at Law Street Media and a native of Northern Virginia. She has a B.A. in International Affairs with a minor in Business Administration from George Washington University. Contact Mariam at mjaffery@lawstreetmedia.com.

The post Here’s How Late Night Hosts Reacted to the Election Results appeared first on Law Street.

A recent study found that male birth control injections could be up to 96 percent effective in preventing pregnancy. If this research were to be successful in creating a viable new form of birth control, it could be potentially groundbreaking for women, who have largely held the burden of being responsible for contraception.

But don’t get too excited yet; the study was halted prematurely because too many men dropped out due to adverse effects such as “change in mood,” as well as “acne, pain or panic at first injection, palpitations, hypertension, and erectile dysfunction.”

News of this development drew a collective eye roll from women across the internet. Typical side effects of hormonal birth control for women vary greatly depending on individuals and method used, but for the pill, the most common form of contraception, they include headaches, weight gain, mood changes and nausea–just to name a few. Certain types of pills have also been known to increase a woman’s , a dangerous and potentially fatal possible side effect. Other common forms of contraception, including IUDs,  the vaginal ring, and injectable birth control, also carry serious risks.

As might be expected, the reaction online was not sympathetic:

Men will experience mood swings with male birth control shots ..

Women: pic.twitter.com/ofcGHCoHOn

— SUNNI (@SunniAndTheCity) October 31, 2016

Successful male birth control trials ending due to side effects like depression, mood swings, and acne is LITERALLY A JOKE

— jess white (@jesssswhiiite) November 1, 2016

Male birth control trial canceled after they learn it causes mood swings and depression.

Meanwhile. pic.twitter.com/gO7CLLdndh

— Carina MacKenzie (@cadlymack) November 1, 2016

when u hear male birth control was discontinued cause it was causing them weight gain, acne and mood swings. pic.twitter.com/n7Ih8DlF0v

— brenna (@brennaacasey) November 1, 2016

The Daily Show also delivered a harsh takedown of the men who dropped out. In response to the fact that the side effects of female birth control were potentially much more serious than those that the men suffered from, correspondent Michelle Wolf quipped, “side effects are the only area where women earn more than men.”

However, as Vox notes, the internet criticism toward the study’s participants may be misguided: the rate of side effects was high enough that the safety of the study was put into question. And while it may seem like mood swings and acne aren’t severe enough to end a study, the rate of side effects were allegedly higher than the rate of side effects in female hormonal birth control. In the rush to judgment, it seems that people overlooked the fact that the men who dropped out were not directly responsible for the research ending early.

The study still led to discoveries that could open the door for viable forms of male birth control in the future, by showing that an effective contraceptive for males is indeed possible. Also, “despite the adverse effects, more than 75 percent of participants reported being willing to use this method of contraception at the conclusion of the trial.” (So, not all men are weak).

The hope is still alive for finding some usable form of male birth control sooner rather than later.

Mariam Jaffery

Mariam was an Executive Assistant at Law Street Media and a native of Northern Virginia. She has a B.A. in International Affairs with a minor in Business Administration from George Washington University. Contact Mariam at mjaffery@lawstreetmedia.com.

The post A Study On Male Birth Control Ended Early Because There Were Too Many Side Effects appeared first on Law Street.

Yes, you read the title right.

On Monday’s episode of “The Daily Show” Trevor Noah sat down with Democratic National Conference (DNC) chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz to discuss the current presidential primary race from the Democratic side.

In between discussing the RNC’s Republican “clown car” and her party’s use of superdelegates, the conversation turned a little PG13 when Noah asked Wasserman Schultz if the DNC is conspiring to prevent Bernie Sanders (I-VT) from securing the nomination against Hillary Clinton. Noah asked,

A lot of people feel that Bernie Sanders … is being cockblocked by the DNC. Is there any merit to this?

The question comes after Wasserman Schultz has repeatedly faced scrutiny over the low number of debates the Democrats have had during this campaign cycle, and accusations that she’s acted more in the interest of Clinton due to biased favoritism.

Now my guess is, it isn’t very often that Wasserman Schultz finds herself being questioned on whether or not she’s “cockblocking” someone. That being said, she managed to handle the question pretty well firing back,

You know, as powerful as that makes me feel, I’m not doing a very good job of rigging the outcome or… “blocking” anyone from being able to get their message out.

She added,

The reality is that I have a job as national party chair that is one that requires a thick skin. It requires me to be able to absorb the body blows so our candidates can stay above the fray.

Watch the full clip below

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 Trevor Noah Asks DNC’s Chair if She is ‘C*ckblocking’ Sanders appeared first on Law Street.

“The Daily Show’s” new host, Trevor Noah, has made an enemy: Jeff Kaufmann, the chairman of the Republican Party of Iowa. Kaufmann denied “The Daily Show” press credentials to attend the Iowa Growth and Opportunity Party, and in the process, inspired Noah’s comedic wrath. In fact, Noah pretty much lambasted him on the show last night–check out the full clip below:

Then, “The Daily Show” correspondent who would have been the one covering the event joined Noah to poke fun at Kaufmann.

The reason that Kaufmann gave for the denial of “The Daily Show’s” press credentials was that he was concerned the comedy news show would make fun of the state of Iowa. But Noah’s attack accused him of a more duplicitous motive, stating that Kaufmann:

Shouldn’t hide behind Iowa when the things you really don’t want people to make fun of are pretty obvious here. You don’t want people making fun of your terrible candidates and your ridiculous event.

But, as Noah pointed out, not inviting “The Daily Show” won’t keep the satirical show from poking fun. In fact, Noah delivered some blistering jokes about the event, including a jab about a Hillary Clinton scarecrow that was on display.

Trevor Noah on Iowa Hillary scarecrow: “If you want a fake empty Hillary Clinton you should just use Carly Fiorina.” pic.twitter.com/tZFCES32tJ

— Ryan Adams (@filmystic) November 4, 2015

Noah also created a mocking event on Facebook–“The Daily Show’s Official Jeff Kauffman-less Blowout.” The event description includes the following:

The Daily Show with Trevor Noah is having a party, and everyone but Jeff Kaufmann is invited!
That’s right, anybody can come! As long as you aren’t Iowa GOP Chairman Jeff Kaufmann. If you are Jeff Kaufmann, you will be asked to leave.

Party schedule:
6pm – 7pm: Eating all Jeff Kaufmann’s favorite foods
7pm – 11pm: Talking smack about Jeff Kaufmann
11pm – 12am: All Jeff Kaufmann’s most embarrassing stories, told by Jeff Kaufmann’s friends and family

“The Daily Show” is certain to continue to make fun of the GOP field, and the GOP as a whole, through the 2016 campaign. But on Kaufmann’s part, denying the press credentials was probably a bad move, because it gave Noah especially easy and hilarious fodder.

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 “The Daily Show” Barred From Iowa GOP Event: Trevor Noah Fights Back appeared first on Law Street.

South African comedian Trevor Noah really seems to be coming into his own as the new host of the “Daily Show.” Fresh faced and full of “millennial approved” banter, Noah has confidently revamped the hit satirical news show, while frequently paying homage to his famed predecessor, silver fox Jon Stewart.

However, during last night’s show Noah managed to outdo himself by perfectly tackling two heated issues currently center stage in American politics–abortion and gun control. In the video clip below, Noah criticized “pro-life” GOP primary candidates that fail to fight for gun control, which is also another potentially life-saving measure.

Noah said that “when it comes to restricting access to abortion, they’re killing it.” And he’s right, they are. Despite abortion being legal, anti-abortionists have managed to impose intrusive mandates in some states, such as forced vaginal ultrasounds and mandatory three-day waiting times, that aim to make obtaining an abortion more difficult.

Noah goes on to say,

It’s truly amazing how much the pro-lifers have been able to accomplish in the anti abortion fight. Just imagine what they could do with an issue where the facts are actually on their side?

 

At this point the segment truly came to life. Noah began by presenting scenarios where pro-lifers negatively addressed efforts to promote gun violence, and then asked “imagine if we could bring some of that pro-life passion into being more pro-life.” He then started swapping in pro-life soundbites from the same candidates as appropriate alternative responses to mass shootings.

Noah’s newscast ended on a somber note with this powerful closing message:

The point is, if pro-lifers would just redirect their power towards gun violence, the amount of lives they could save would reach superhero levels. They just need to have superheros’ total dedication to life, because right now they’re more like comic book collectors–human life only holds value until you take it out of the package and then its worth nothing.

However, not everyone was crazy about the clip. Vox argued that Noah’s segment fails by oversimplifying GOP ideals when it comes to gun control. Vox reporter German Lopez writes,

The fault of Noah’s critique of pro-life conservatives who oppose gun control lies in the fact that they don’t believe gun control can save lives. In fact, many gun rights advocates genuinely believe that gun control can get people killed — since without guns, they won’t be able to, for instance, defend themselves from home invaders.

While his point is valid, it doesn’t make Noah’s point any less so. As a comedian on the “Daily Show,” he’s allowed some leeway when it comes to using hyperbolic statements in order to make a point about a current issue at hand. In a little over a week in Stewart’s former chair, he’s making waves by doing just that. As the presidential race continues to heat up, it will be interesting to see what else Trevor Noah has to say.

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 Trevor Noah Points Out Huge Hypocrisy of Pro-Lifers on Gun Control 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.

I was heartbroken last month to hear that Jon Stewart would be leaving his seat on “The Daily Show” for presumably bigger and better things after an impressive 16 plus years as the show’s host. Even though I was so sure that my girl Jessica Williams was primed to take Stewart’s spot, I was both impressed and excited when Comedy Central announced yesterday that South African comedian Trevor Noah had been awarded the coveted position. The world appeared to be geared up to embrace Noah and his international spin on politics, until fans of the show began to comb through his Twitter account and found some old tweets that have been deemed offensive to both women and Jews.

.@Trevornoah, new ‘Daily Show’ host, faces criticism for tweets http://t.co/K7QeoYNGQz pic.twitter.com/CWa34wcgI2

— CNN Politics (@CNNPolitics) March 31, 2015

Some of the tweets in question include:

South Africans know how to recycle like israel knows how to be peaceful. — Trevor Noah (@Trevornoah) June 2, 2010

So she gets fat? RT @missdanibagel: When a woman is loved correctly, she becomes 10 times the woman she was before

— Trevor Noah (@Trevornoah) July 18, 2014

Almost bumped a Jewish kid crossing the road. He didn’t look b4 crossing but I still would hav felt so bad in my german car! — Trevor Noah (@Trevornoah) September 18, 2009

This one is a gem.

A hot white woman with ass is like a unicorn. Even if you do see one, you’ll probably never get to ride it.

— Trevor Noah (@Trevornoah) November 28, 2011

His comments have been called both anti-semitic and anti-feminist, but we need to take a second to remember one thing–Trevor Noah is a comedian. He’s not a politician, school principal, or “real” news correspondent. He makes a living telling jokes and making people laugh, and while humor is in fact subjective, these tweets appear to have been intended as jokes.

He’s not the first comedian to have his social media taken out of context, and he won’t be the last. As a top source for televised comedy, Comedy Central likely understands this and doesn’t seem to be putting too much stock in the controversy. I doubt Noah will lose his new position over this, but how he handles the situation will be telling.

Noah seemingly acknowledged the controversy Tuesday, sending out a tweet just before 9 a.m. Eastern time that read, “Twitter does not have enough characters to respond to all the characters on Twitter.” The tweet was deleted shortly after. Maybe he’s already learned his first social media lesson, at the very least: don’t fuel the Twitter trolls.

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 Trevor Noah: First and Foremost a Comedian appeared first on Law Street.

It’s been two-and-a-half years since Hurricane Sandy last dominated headlines, but recently the storm has been pulled back into the media. From the 60 Minutes special “The Storm After the Storm,” to this funny yet poignant spot on “The Daily Show with Jon Stewart,” and an article in last week’s edition of The New York Times have all described problems along the road to recovery.

Some residents of the New York/New Jersey area who received the brunt of the hurricane’s wrath are still waiting to receive full compensation for their damaged homes and businesses. Daily Show correspondent Jordan Klepper created a satirical news package that brought to light the struggles of one Staten Island neighborhood. The spot revealed that victims of Hurricane Sandy are still waiting to receive money to rebuild their destroyed houses. One woman explained that she was frustrated because organizations such as “Build It Back” lose paperwork and do not do enough to help affected communities.

The coverage on “60 Minutes” attributed the delayed or missing compensation to intentionally doctored paperwork, claiming there is evidence that insurance and engineering companies often falsified reports. In one example, a company claimed that the damage caused by the storm was long-term damage that existed before the hurricane rolled into town, even though paperwork from a previous visit to the home determined the damage was due to the storm. The resident maintained that the damage was indeed caused by the events of Hurricane Sandy, producing evidence of the paperwork from the original visit.

How is FEMA reacting to all this hoopla? Well, the organization will be reviewing every flood insurance claim filed by homeowners affected by Hurricane Sandy. FEMA’s message was announced by Senators Charles Schumer and Kirsten Gillibrand of New York, along with Senators Robert Menendez and Cory Booker, Tweeter Extraordinaire, of New Jersey. (Seriously though, check out Senator Booker’s on-point Twitter account here).

Along with reviewing every flood insurance claim, FEMA will also be launching its own internal inquiry. While all of these reviews and inquiries sound great in theory, there is still not a concrete plan of attack as to when (or how) Sandy victims will be compensated. Steve Mostyn, the lead lawyer representing New York homeowners, remained cautiously optimistic:

We are happy that FEMA now agrees to reopen all Sandy claims. However, that process has not been worked out and the details of that process will determine if it is real or just window dressing.

Hurricane Sandy caused 117 deaths and more than $60 billion worth of damage, second only to Hurricane Katrina in 2005. If America does not improve its process for addressing national disasters, what will happen to homeowners seeking compensation in the future? How many years will they have to wait to rebuild? Is the United States ill-equipped to handle the aftermath of the next deadly tornado in Nebraska, or future large-scale fire in California? Hurricane Sandy might have been an East Coast problem, but fair–and timely–post-storm compensation is a national issue.

Corinne Fitamant

Corinne Fitamant is a graduate of Fordham College at Lincoln Center where she received a Bachelors degree in Communications and a minor in Theatre Arts. When she isn’t pondering issues of social justice and/or celebrity culture, she can be found playing the guitar and eating chocolate. Contact Corinne at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Hurricane Sandy Recovery Drags on For Devastated Communities appeared first on Law Street.

Jon Stewart chose to break my heart just a few days shy of Valentine’s Day when he announced Tuesday that he would be leaving his post on “The Daily Show” after over 16 years as its host. First Colbert leaves and now Stewart–come on Comedy Central, this is too much!

Stewart let it slip that he would be retiring during Tuesday’s show taping, and the network was quick to confirm, writing a touching farewell that can be read below. The message hinted that this isn’t the end for “The Daily Show.”

JUST IN: @ComedyCentral says Daily Show host #JonStewart to step down at end of year pic.twitter.com/caKNLrzCg7

— WTTE FOX 28 (@fox28columbus) February 10, 2015

Before I put a countdown in my iPhone to track Stewart’s remaining shows as they tick down down to zero, let’s take a minute to reflect on what made us fall in love with Stewart in the first place. Maybe it was his perfectly coiffed salt and pepper locks or his piercing blue eyes. But in all seriousness it was probably his sharp edged political commentary laced with hilarity that had us hooked. Stewart said what we were all thinking, and we thanked him for it.

He was also among the first to make that type of satirical commentary big before others like Stephen Colbert, Larry Wilmore, and John Oliver hopped on the funny news wagon. Many millennials even regard Stewart’s show as real news, with more Americans — 8 percent — saying they trust the fake news program than MSNBC. In January, fellow Law Streeter Noel Diem wrote a piece on where Americans are getting their news and found that:

His [Stewart] show averages 2.3 million viewers per episode, putting him far ahead of others news outlets in not only viewers, but also in that 25-54 range. In fact, The Daily Show is consistently ranked the top late-night news show among the key demographic.

So, who will replace Stewart?

Since the world has already begun speculating on potential Daily Show replacements, I might as well tell you who my top two front runners are–both of them having the last name Williams was not a requirement but just a weird coincidence.

Jessica Williams –She’s clearly mine and many others’ number one choice! Williams has been a correspondent on “The Daily Show” since 2012, and applies her youthful, sassy, and sharp-witted comedy to topics like feminism, racial equality, and youth culture. When I read in Wired’s January 2015 issue that she wants to create a smart gossip site with cultural celebrity critiques, I couldn’t help but think that this girl is exactly what comedy needs. The type of site she’s envisioning could be exactly the kind of fresh new vision “The Daily Show” will require after Stewart’s departure. Bonus point: she also already looks pretty good in his chair based on the pic below.

RT if you think Jessica Williams should be given Jon Stewart’s job after he leaves! #TheDailyShowWithJessicaWilliams pic.twitter.com/Gqdx2Z4h34

— Bhavik Lathia (@bhaviklathia) February 11, 2015

Brian Williams–Brian might be currently shopping for a “fake news” gig, especially after his reporting ethics were called into question after repeated misrepresentation of events surrounding his coverage of the Iraq war. The controversy resulted in him being suspended from the “Nightly News'” for six months without pay. I don’t know who I’m sadder to see leaving the air: Williams or Stewart. Who knows though, Stewart’s departure could all be one big Illuminati plot to get him back in the anchorman chair. At least Stewart’s still on Williams’ side:

Most important picture today: #JonStewart on Brian #Williams. pic.twitter.com/aURDuavPUY

— King سميرة (@SamiraaSR) February 11, 2015

Even though Jon Stewart adamantly swore during his 16 year career at the helm of “The Daily Show” that what he did wasn’t journalism, his absence will still leave a void in the realm of news. Whoever Comedy Central ends up picking has big shoes to fill.

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 Jon Stewart is Stepping Down: Who Will Take Over The Daily Show? appeared first on Law Street.

There’s a new weird feud in the political sphere. This time it’s between Governor Mike Huckabee–former and possibly future Republican Presidential hopeful–and people who like Beyoncé.

In his new book, Huckabee had a few things to say about Jay Z and Beyoncé’s performance at the 2014 Grammys. He stated:

My reaction: Why? Beyoncé is incredibly talented — gifted, in fact. She has an exceptional set of pipes and can actually sing. She is a terrific dancer — without the explicit moves best left for the privacy of her bedroom. Jay Z is a very shrewd businessman, but I wonder: Does it occur to him that he is arguably crossing the line from husband to pimp by exploiting his wife as a sex object?

Then, last week, Huckabee took his comments further and slammed the Obamas for letting Malia and Sasha listen to Beyoncé. In an interview about his new book, in which he calls Beyoncé’s music “mental poison,” he said:

I don’t understand how on one hand they can be such doting parents and so careful about the intake of everything – how much broccoli they eat and where they go to school and making sure they’re kind of sheltered and shielded from so many things – and yet they don’t see anything that might not be suitable for either a preteen or a teen in some of the lyrical content and choreography of Beyoncé, who has sort of a regular key to the door [of the White House].

Then, Jimmy Carter weighed in, because apparently we now listen to his take on parenting? He said that he thinks President Obama is doing a good job parenting his two daughters. The fact that he got involved in this whole controversy seems more odd than anything else.

Back to Huckabee though. Some people have pointed out that he is being a little hypocritical given his close ties to constant provocateur Ted Nugent, whose lyrics are often a bit off-color.

Jon Stewart had Huckabee on his show, and the whole Beyoncé-hating thing came up; he actually illustrated the Nugent point quite well in addition.

The clip is below, but highlights include Huckabee basically saying that Beyoncé makes girls want to grow up and get on stripper poles. And in response to the Nugent juxtaposition, Huckabee claims that the song in question wasn’t as popular as Beyoncé’s, nor as widely and publicly performed, and that it was created for adults. While it’s fair that Nugent is less of a prominent figure, to be sure, that argument seems semantical at best. Huckabee has had him on his show and promoted him. It seems tough to argue that he’s such a niche performer that we can’t compare his lyrics to Beyoncé’s. At the end, Stewart’s main point appears to be that Huckabee doesn’t like Beyoncé because she’s not part of the culture that Huckabee is used to, whereas Nugent’s values line up more clearly with Huckabee’s own. Stewart stated: “You can’t single out a corrosive culture and ignore the one that you live in because you’re used to it.”

It really does seem like a case of Huckabee severely simplifying a lot of what Beyoncé’s music is about. While she has some more risqué lyrics, many are about love, power, and feminism. No one is a perfect role model, but she’s better than most.

Also, Huckabee should watch out. The Beygency (the very real group dedicated to taking down those who don’t love Beyoncé) could come after him.

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 New Political Parties: Huckabee vs. Everyone Who Likes Beyoncé appeared first on Law Street.

With the end of the Colbert Report, so ended an era. Facebook and Twitter were full of people lamenting the end of Stephen Colbert and his late night character, saying things like, “Where am I going to get the news now?” and “Who can I trust to tell the truth once he’s gone?” Surely, it’s a good mix of people who understood the characters Colbert played and those who honestly felt like his show was reality. Where exactly are Americans getting their news, and what impact does it have?

When it comes to politics, Americans watch CNN, MSNBC, and Fox News more often than they watch traditional or local news. But what does it mean for the future of comedy news, news in general, and the way we react to it?

Where do we get our news?

Even at a time when television viewing numbers are falling due to an increase in streaming sites and a general lack of traditional watchers, most Americans get their news from television or television-backed news sites.  Pew Research Center analyzed Nielson data and its findings showed a lot about the television landscape, but even more about the people who watched it. These are the findings:

Almost three out of four U.S. adults (71 percent) watch local television news and 65 percent view network newscasts over the course of a month, according to Nielsen data from February 2013. While 38 percent of adults watch some cable news during the month, cable viewers—particularly the most engaged viewers—spend far more time with that platform than broadcast viewers do with local or network news.

While it is interesting to note how many people watch the news, it is more poignant to look at what news people watch, as simply watching news doesn’t mean too much in the age of bias and deep-pocketed politicians. Take a look at that study for a more in-depth view of what exactly people are watching.

Cable

Fox News

Fox News has been getting a great deal of negative publicity in the last few years, even more so than before with the growing popularity of internet memes and altered videos. As such, Fox News attracted an average of 264,000 primetime viewers in that key 25-54-year-old demographic, a number so low that the network hasn’t seen it since 2001. One of the biggest draws to the station is Bill O’Reilly, host of The O’Reilly Factor as well as an author, syndicated columnist, and political commentator. His audience remains at over 2.1 million viewers per episode, but once again, the number skews toward the older crowd.  Still, the Daily Kos points out that, “every Fox program in primetime dropped by double-digits, with Bill O’Reilly taking the deepest dive. Sean Hannity posted some of his lowest numbers ever in his new 10:00 pm time slot.” Things are not looking good for the company unless it can swing in some newer, fresher hosts and programming.

According to the Daily Mail, the average viewers at MSNBC and CNN are 60, and the average is 62-64 for the broadcast networks; however, the average viewer of Fox News is not quite the rich, white, Rush-Limbaugh loving man that the liberal bias would have many believe. In Frank Rich’s New York Magazine article, he paints a clearer picture of the typical Fox News viewer:

The million or so viewers who remain fiercely loyal to the network are not, for the most part, and as some liberals still imagine, naïve swing voters who stumble onto Fox News under the delusion it’s a bona fide news channel and then are brainwashed by Ailes’s talking points into becoming climate-change deniers. They arrive at the channel as proud, self-selected citizens of Fox Nation and are unlikely to defect from the channel or its politics until death do them part.

So what does watching Fox News say about you? You lean conservative, you are probably older, and you are typically from a middle-to-upper class household. Still, the station has an audience–maybe not entirely from that coveted advertising swath, but it has one, which is more than some other stations can boast.

CNN

If Fox News is drowning, CNN is already dead in the water when it comes to that key demographic, with only 99,000 viewers in the 25-54 sector in May 2014, according to Politico. Anderson Cooper 360 is still the top program on CNN with an average of 452,000 total viewers, and 145,000 in the key range.

The average CNN viewer, however, isn’t the type of person who will tune in for nightly news broadcasts or scheduled programming. Instead, it is becoming the go-to for hot topics and current events that interest people, such as the recent social justice protests, Ferguson special reports, Ebola, weather emergencies, and presidential addresses.

Still, the station has been doing some reshaping lately to help its numbers and push forward into the next era of broadcast. Brian Stetler explained:

Now, there is some overall shrinking going on. But the better word for what’s happening in media today is “reshaping.” Through layoffs, through cuts, through new investments, “reshaping” for the digital future that really feels more like the digital present. It’s already here. None of this context makes it any easier to say goodbye to our colleagues. In fact, it may make it even harder, because the fact of media, THE fact of media in 2014, is that reshaping of all kinds is going to continue.

So the viewership of CNN is changing, but it’s typical audience remains the same. Mostly liberal, younger but not too young, and transient people who don’t often sit and watch the news on a nightly basis. Still, take a walk around your local mall, sit at the dentist, or walk through an airport, and it is the station you are most likely to see.

MSNBC

MSNBC is one of the newer news channels, founded in 1996, and dedicated to broadcasting news programs 24 hours a day. It is owned by NBC Universal (82 percent) and Microsoft (18 percent), and its sister channels range from CNBC to The Weather Channel. What you see on MSNBC, however, is very different from what you see on the other stations.

One of the more famous programs, The Rachel Maddow Show, is seeing some pretty low ratings this season. The push now is to bring in younger viewers to round out the audience that is growing older fairly quickly. Still, it is considered the go-to network for those who consider themselves politically progressive.

MSNBC is constantly changing, more so than many of the other news stations. It works with viewers, though stays pretty close to its ideals, which many critics say lean too left. Some say that the network is setting itself up as the antithesis of Fox. Most recently, the network has taken a bit of a tumble in the ratings. According to the Huffington Post, MSNBC was down across the board, including declines in the key viewing demographic of nearly 20 percent, and president Phil Griffin vowed to make changes in 2015.

Still, shows like Morning Joe and Hardball with Chris Matthews finished ahead of their time slot competitors on CNN.

News Competitions

Another interesting revelation from Pew:

In one finding that may seem counterintuitive in an era of profound political polarization, significant portions of the Fox News and MSNBC audiences spend time watching both channels. More than a third (34%) of those who watch the liberal MSNBC in their homes also tune in to the conservative Fox News Channel. The reverse is true for roughly a quarter (28%) of Fox News viewers. Even larger proportions of Fox News and MSNBC viewers, roughly half, also spend time watching CNN, which tends to be more ideologically balanced in prime time.

So what does this viewing mean? Here are just a few more statistics from that study to keep in mind as we delve deeper into the individual stations:

• “More than one-quarter (28 percent) of the people who watch Fox News also tune in to MSNBC. An even higher number (34 percent) of MSNBC viewers turn on Fox News.”
• “There is even more crossover viewing when it comes to CNN. Slightly more than half (54 percent) of MSNBC viewers watch CNN, while 44 percent of Fox News viewers tune in to CNN. Healthy segments of the CNN audience also watch Fox News (39 percent) and MSNBC (38 percent).”
• “Overall, five percent of the adult American population watches both MSNBC and Fox News. That is slightly lower than the percentage that watches both CNN and Fox (8 percent) or CNN and MSNBC (also 8 percent).”
• “Despite some crossover, there are also viewers who watch only one of the three cable channels: Fox News Channel narrowly has the largest singularly dedicated audience. About one-quarter of American adults (24 percent) watch only Fox News, 23 percent watch only CNN and 15 percent watch only MSNBC.”

What about local news?

Local news, whether it is for a region or a smaller community, has also taken the backseat when it comes to key viewers. Airtime is a big factor in these problems–local news is often shown when people are coming home from work or sitting down to eat dinner. Fewer people are tuning into these broadcasts–even entertainment ones–choosing instead to watch reruns of other popular shows that air at the same time. Local news, as a rule, reports more on local activities and not just big political events, so those who are tuning in to see that information will go to bigger channels.

News Through Comedy: The Daily Show and Beyond

It may seem obvious that a “replacement” news source for Stephen Colbert would come from his “rival” and the person who preceded his time slot. In fact, he needs no introduction, as Jon Stewart is one of the most trusted faces in media, and his program, The Daily Show, is where Stephen Colbert got his start in the genre. His style takes a bit of getting used to, but give him a second chance before leaving Comedy Central. His ratings are higher than most of the other news outlets, and he does it all with a little bit of humor that “real” news stations cannot get away with. According to the Daily Mail, his show averages 2.3 million viewers per episode, putting him far ahead of others news outlets in not only viewers, but also in that 25-54 range. In fact, The Daily Show is consistently ranked the top late-night news show among the key demographic.

In 2012, a study even found that people who watch The Daily Show are more informed than people who watch Fox News. This could be because the face of The Daily Show isn’t the only person who reports on the show–there are a bevy of people who do humorous investigations. The Daily Show viewers tend also to be more educated, younger, and far more liberal than the audiences of other news sources.

There are other similar shows that have been picking up momentum lately. Most notably, Last Week with John Oliver on HBO has been breaking boundaries and bringing in more and more viewers. Of course, Oliver was a correspondent on The Daily Show, so his segments sometimes emulate Stewart’s, somewhat like Stephen Colbert’s did. In fact, Matthew Jacobs of the Huffington Post named Oliver’s program as 2014’s best television show, stating: “The year’s most surprising contribution to television is a show that bucked conventional formats, left us buzzing and paved the way for a burgeoning dynasty.” Gawker’s Jordan Sargent claimed Last Week Tonight is “the new Daily Show,“ while simultaneously criticizing The Daily Show for abandoning those “who have moved on from caring about Fox [News] and Republicans.”

So what can take the place of Stephen Colbert? Not much. When Stephen signed off, he wasn’t just leaving Comedy Central and satirical news behind, he was leaving behind a character that informed us while making us laugh. Time will only tell; so few thought that Jay Leno could be replaced, but his successor, Jimmy Fallon, has hit his stride to great success.

Conclusion

To get a well-rounded view of any political or social topic, it pays to do the research, find the facts from a variety of sources, and make your own decisions. Don’t shy away from Fox News, but also tune in to The Daily Show. The most important thing is that we consume news and current events through some medium. Sure, we have to understand the biases and we have to contemplate the “spin” on each story; however, it’s important to tune into news on television, as it is often the best way for us to visually learn about any given topic. How we receive our news has changed drastically, but now you can get it at the drop of a hat from many different sources.

Resources

Primary

Pew: How Americans Get TV at Home

Additional

New York Magazine: Stop Beating a Dead Fox

Daily Kos: Fox News Suffers Worst Ratings In Thirteen Years – And That’s Not Their Big Problem

CNN: Reshaping at Major Companies

The Wire: Fox Viewership is Getting Even Older

Politico: May Cable Ratings Spare No One

Media Bistro: October 2014 Ratings

Daily Mail: The average age of Fox News Viewers is 68 and a Majority of Them are Politically Conservative and White

Editor’s Note: This post has been revised to credit select information to Pew. 

Noel Diem

Law Street contributor Noel Diem is an editor and aspiring author based in Reading, Pennsylvania. She is an alum of Albright College where she studied English and Secondary Education. In her spare time she enjoys traveling, theater, fashion, and literature. Contact Noel at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Comedy or Cable: Where Do Americans Get Their News? appeared first on Law Street.

Folks, have you been watching the news lately?

I’m guessing yes, because you’re all socially conscious, politically engaged legal mavericks, right?

Awesome! So you’ve heard about ISIS, then, I’m sure.

In case you haven’t been watching the news lately — because sunshine and summer weather — ISIS is an extremist Muslim terrorist group that currently controls a significant chunk of northern Iraq and parts of rebel Syria. Not coincidentally, their territory overlaps a TON with important oil sources. Once a part of al-Qaeda, ISIS split off as its own separate entity earlier this year.

Why?

Because their ideology was too extreme even for bin Laden’s cronies. That says a lot.

ISIS — which stands for The Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant – made news this week after the Washington Post translated its “Contract of the City,” a document that was distributed to citizens of the Iraqi province of Nineveh. Folks, it’s pretty cray.

The contract essentially reads like a list of rules, a dos and don’ts guideline, if you will, for the people of Nineveh. It lists limb amputation as a suitable punishment for stealing, allows for the crucifixion of criminals, and essentially bans women from leaving their homes.

This is really not cool. But! Before you get all hawk-eyed and demand American intervention in Iraq to save all the poor, downtrodden Iraqi victims, let’s all take a moment and listen to Jon Stewart.

I fucking love this man.

Folks, here’s the deal: Groups like al Qaeda, and its increasingly violent offshoot, ISIS, are awful and dangerous and need to be stopped. They totally need to stop existing. We are all in agreement there.

Not only do they pose a threat to the Iraqi people as a whole — who are at risk of getting their limbs chopped off willy nilly if they break a rule on their way to work — but they also pose a threat to the larger global community. Their ideology is depressingly common, and the more power groups like theirs seize, the more hostile the world becomes to people who don’t fit into their agenda.

Namely women, queer people, trans people, disabled people, and people of different races, ethnicities, and religious backgrounds.

This is a group that sees women as inherently less than. They’re required to wear “modest dress,” which essentially means they’ll be punished for wearing anything other than a full burqa. They can’t leave their homes. They are bought and sold like property from fathers to husbands. And wife beating? Totally cool.

ISIS doesn’t see women — or anyone else who isn’t a straight, masculine-presenting, Muslim man — as people. They’re not human beings. It’s a really, really bad situation.

And because of that, along with obvious national security concerns, many Americans want to rush our military right back into Iraq. John McCain, as the always entertaining Jon Stewart reminds us, is one of those folks. But there’s a huge hole in that plan.

Groups like ISIS exist because of Western intervention in the Middle East. They are a direct result of Western imperialism. Al Qaeda formed in the late 1980s as a reaction to Russia’s occupation of Afghanistan — a move that subjected the Afghan people to extreme violence and poverty. It formed as a resistance movement, an answer to the injustices Afghanistan faced at the hands of European, imperialist oppressors.

And they only gained traction as the West continued to insert itself into a corner of the world where it ultimately didn’t belong. Violence and living conditions worsened for civilians. Coups were staged, leaders were deposed, and corrupt figureheads were set up in their place. (Remember Saddam Hussein? The U.S. and Great Britain put him there).

The political problems that plague the Middle East are largely our fault. But instead of taking responsibility for the consequences of misguided power-grabbing and oil pursuit, the U.S. likes to paint a different picture. A pretty racist one, in fact, where Iraqi is a confused, childlike nation, unable to govern itself without making a huge mess. And Americans? We’re painted as the concerned father figure, stepping in to calm the commotion.

But folks, it’s not true. This story is a lie.

The U.S. isn’t a soothing father figure. It’s more like an instigator. And the sexist, xenophobic ideology of groups like ISIS and Al Qaeda isn’t the product of an unsophisticated, backward, childlike nation. The ideology of our conservative leaders is chillingly similar, if more palatably phrased and with Jesus, not Allah, at its helm.

The white savior narrative that war hawks like John McCain are spewing was created by an elite group of politicians and corporate powerhouses who crave money, power, and oil. They don’t care what it costs.

But I hope that you do.

Let’s come up with a more innovative solution to warmongering in Iraq. A solution that doesn’t rely on lies, racism, and increased violence. A solution that creates real, positive change for the people living under ISIS’ tyranny.

Show the comments what you’ve got.

Featured image courtesy of [United States Forces Iraq via Flickr]

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 PLEASE STOP: How Warhawks Are Perpetuating Violence and Racism appeared first on Law Street.