ThinkProgress Home
ThinkProgress
ThinkProgress Logo

Stories tagged with “CNN

Alyssa

Why CNN Suspended Liberal Roland Martin For Offensive Comments But Not Conservative Dana Loesch

Roland Martin has been suspended from CNN after tweeting that, “If a dude at your Super Bowl party is hyped about David Beckham’s H&M underwear ad, smack the ish out of him! #superbowl.” He then insisted that, rather than making a joke about violence against men who are attracted to men, he really just hates soccer: “@DrMChatelain @notjustsexuality well that shows how ignorant you are. I rip on soccer all of the time. Learn to pay attention!”

It’s the second time in a month that CNN commentators have come under fire for controversial comments: Dana Loesch recently cheered reports of members of the United States Marine Corps urinating on the bodies of dead Afghans and suggested that had she been present, she would have joined in. But while Martin apologized and will experience an indefinite suspension, CNN and Loesch refused to apologize for her remarks, and she’s remained on the air.

The clear difference between the two cases? A sense that CNN’s audience was offended. GLAAD, which keeps a careful eye on defamation against gays and lesbians in the media, moved quickly to call for Martin’s dismissal and to track the network’s response to the incident. CNN got the message that its own constituents were upset, and that it would suffer consequences — or at least a lot of annoyance — if it failed to act.

Loesch’s comments on the other hand, offended human rights advocates and decent people everywhere. But that’s not the same as running afoul of an organization with a well-established plan to respond to these kinds of events and a well-worn path to media outlets who would cover and amplify their response. While Loesch’s comments were reprehensible, there was also no organized group who was likely or able to hold CNN accountable for her words, and for continuing to let her appear on-air without penalty.

Taken together, the way CNN handled Martin’s and Loesch’s comments makes it look like CNN has no consistent internal values, and no internal standard for how to respond when it commenters express sentiments that are an anathema to those values. I’m glad to know, per CNN’s statement, that “Language that demeans is inconsistent with the values and culture of our organization, and is not tolerated.” But why should it take several days of consideration for CNN to arrive at that conclusion? If the network’s truly committed to the proposition that violence against gay people is no joking matter, that’s something it should know in advance, and CNN should have a personnel policy in place to determine what the appropriate penalty is when someone violates their standards. Similarly, whether Loesch’s comments violate CNN’s internal values shouldn’t be something that’s determined by the level of outrage outside the network’s headquarters.

Update

[By Zack Ford] As reported by AMERICAblog Gay, Martin’s wife, Jacquie Hood Martin, has responded angrily to news of his suspension, suggesting that GLAAD is somehow racist and has misused the history of the civil rights movement:

She also attacked CNN, saying it has no “brand” and doesn’t deserve to be in business:

Update

Jacquie Hood Martin has deleted her entire Twitter account.

LGBT

Gay Disabled Veteran Sues For Spousal Benefits: ‘My Wife Will Not Be Taken Care Of’ If I Die

Iraq War Veteran Tracey Harris discussed her fight to obtain veterans’ disability benefits for her wife Maggie on CNN this afternoon. Harris — who is on disability and receiving treatment for PTSD and multiple sclerosis — has filed suit against the Veterans Affairs administration for failing to provide spousal benefits, charging that the department is infringing on her constitutional right to equal protection under the law. Currently, the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act prevents federal agencies from recognizing same-sex relationships and Title 38 of the United States Code defines spouses as a person of the opposite sex.

“We are trying to seek the same exact benefits that other spouses of disabled veterans are receiving,” Harris told host Ashleigh Banfield. “These benefits include burial benefits in any veterans cemetery. They also include survivor’s benefits for the widowed or widower’s spouse”:

BANFIELD: So should the worst case scenario prevail and you have to prepare for the reality end of life. Your wife gets nothing?

HARRIS: That is correct.

BANFIELD: And she can’t be buried alongside of you in an official cemetery?

HARRIS: That is correct… So even though I am a veteran, I served for 12 years and I was honorably discharged and am receiving disability benefits from the Veterans Administration, they consider me a single spouse. So if something should happen to me, my wife will not be taken care of as a spouse of a similarly situated spouse of a veteran who has died.

Watch it:

According to the complaint, as a single veteran rated 80 percent disabled, Tracey receives $1,488 less in disability compensation every year — almost a full month’s worth of support — because the government does not recognize her marriage. In the event of Tracey’s death, her wife Maggie will not be entitled to a minimum survivor’s benefits of $1,195.

Economy

CNN’s Wolf Blitzer Bungles Foreclosure Question, Allows GOP Candidates To Escape Without Offering Housing Plans

American homes have lost $7 trillion in value over the last five years and four million homeowners are either behind on their payments or in foreclosure, but thus far, the Republican Party’s leading presidential candidates have offered little in the way of solutions for the housing crisis that is holding back the economic recovery. Few states have been hit harder than Florida, where prices have dropped 45 percent since 2006, half of recently-sold homes are in default, and 23 percent of of homes are delinquent or in foreclosure.

That made last night’s debate, which was held in Jacksonville, the appropriate place to ask the remaining Republican candidates how they would address the crisis. Voters, in fact, were waiting to hear the candidates’ answers.

Unfortunately, the debate’s moderator, CNN anchor Wolf Blitzer, bungled his opportunity, turning to a submitted question that couldn’t have possibly led to substantive answers from the candidates. And then, after Newt Gingrich and Mitt Romney gave answers littered with falsehoods and turned the discussion toward each others’ investment portfolios, Blitzer failed to press them for actual plans to deal with housing:

BLITZER: We have a very important subject: housing. Not only here in Florida, foreclosures really, really bad, but all over the country. A lot of people are wondering if the federal government contributed to the housing collapse in recent years. We got a question that came into us. Let me put it up there and I’ll read it to you: How would you phase out Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac? Does the private mortgage industry need additional regulation?

Watch it:

Blitzer’s original question focused on what the candidates would do with Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the government-sponsored mortgage firms that have been targets of Republican ire since the crisis began. But it was private industry, not Fannie and Freddie, that sparked the crisis. More than 84 percent of the subprime loans in 2006 were issued by private lenders, including 83 percent of the loans that went to low- and moderate-income borrowers.

Blitzer could have asked Republicans to address the misconception that Fannie and Freddie sparked the housing crisis. He could have pressed Romney on what seemed like a change of position on housing in Florida. He could have asked where the candidates stood on the plan President Obama put forward in his State of the Union address to refinance mortgages, or asked what the candidates would do about the rampant fraud and abuse that private lenders perpetuated during both the housing boom and its subsequent bust. And yes, he could have pressed Romney to find out how much he knew about his investments into funds that profited off of Florida foreclosures.

But he didn’t. The result, as Reuters noted today, were soft outlines of policies that “could prolong the pain for years,” aren’t supported by market data, and showed little understanding of how the crisis happened in the first place. The Republican candidates continue to dodge questions about what, specifically, they plan to do about the housing crisis. Unfortunately for voters, questions like Blitzer’s only make it easier for those dodges to continue.

Politics

Gingrich Falsely Claims He Was Completely Exonerated In Ethics Investigtion

The 1997 House ethics investigation into then-Speaker Newt Gingrich has resurfaced on the campaign trail, but Gingrich told CNN’s Candy Crowley that all information relevant to the scandal was already public. Gingrich said the $300,000 penalty he was ordered to pay by the House Ethics Committee was a reimbursement for the cost of the investigation, and that “on every single count, I was exonerated.” He added that many House Republicans to vote “yes” on the ethics charges against Gingrich in order to put it behind them more quickly, rather than because they believed he had done anything wrong. Watch Gingrich’s explanation here:

As Gingrich himself admitted later in the interview, he was not exonerated on every count. While most of the initial charges against him were dropped, he was sanctioned on one count of flouting tax laws relating to a college course he taught that received non-profit status even though it was political in nature.

And contrary to Gingrich’s claim that House Republicans voted to reprimand him simply to move on, many said at the time that they were very disturbed by Gingrich’s actions. “Newt has done some things that have embarrassed House Republicans and embarrassed the House,” said Rep. Peter Hoekstra (R-MI) at the time. “If [the voters] see more of that, they will question our judgment.” Even Rep. Lamar Smith (R-Tex.), who cast the lone dissenting vote on the ethics committee against charging Gingrich, said the Speaker made “real mistakes but they shouldn’t be hanging offenses.”

NEWS FLASH

Romney: Obama Is ‘Biggest Impediment To Job Growth’ Because He Rejected Keystone XL | At last night’s CNN debate, former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney blasted President Obama on the Keystone XL pipeline. In response to a question about creating jobs, Romney called Obama “the biggest impediment to job growth,” with his decision to reject the pipeline. “With regards to energy, because he has to bow to the most extreme members of the environmental movement, he turns down the Keystone pipeline, which would bring energy and jobs to America.” In reality, the entire environmental movement was joined by unions, farmers, and faith leaders in opposition to the tar sands boondoggle. The economically risky tar sands pipeline would actually export foreign oil to foreign markets, would increase the cost of Canadian oil imported to the United States, and wouldn’t strengthen the American economy.

LGBT

Gingrich Argues Adoption Services Should Be Allowed To Take Taxpayer Money While Discriminating Against Gays

During an appearance on CNN this morning, Newt Gingrich defended his false claim that same-sex marriage laws have forced Catholic Charities and other religious institutions to shut down their adoption services. CNN’s Soledad O’Brien tried to fact-check the former House speaker. “Isn’t what really happened that if the church decided it was going to continue to take federal funds and have access to those foster children that they couldn’t discriminate against gay couples who wanted to adopt, they weren’t really forced to close, they made the decision,” the CNN host asked. “No, no. they were forced to close,” Gingrich responded:

GINGRICH: Because you’re saying to religious group, give up your religion. That’s absurd. The idea that the state would impose its secular values on a religious organization is an absurdity.

O’BRIEN: If you want funding. Isn’t that if you want funding.

GINGRICH: No. No. In Massachusetts.

O’BRIEN: You can do whatever you want but if you want funding.

GINGRICH: No, that’s not true. That’s not true. There are states now, including the District of Columbia, which essentially adopt laws that say you can’t offer an adoption service unless you meet the secular standards of the state. They are in effect saying the secular standards of the state are more important than religious freedom. I think it is inherently anti-Christian and anti-Jewish. It is in favor of a secular model, that I think is wrong. And I think that it’s wrong for the government to impose its values on religion. That’s the whole point of the First Amendment, is to not have the government imposing values on religion.

Watch it:

O’Brien is right, of course: religious adoption services have a right to believe whatever they want under the First Amendment, but they cannot use tax payer funding to treat gay and lesbian couples like second-class citizens. DC Catholic Charities — which received government funding — voluntarily shut down rather than provide adoption services to same-sex couples and Catholic Charities in Massachusetts “refused to place children with same-sex couples as required by Massachusetts law. After a legislative struggle — during which the Senate president said he could not support a bill ‘condoning discrimination’ — Catholic Charities pulled out of the adoption business in 2006.”

NEWS FLASH

CNN Ignores Durban Climate Summit | CNN has failed to report on the Durban climate summit or the agreement reached there during any of its U.S. television broadcasts, Media Matters finds. “Meanwhile, the Durban conference has been covered by NBC, CBS, MSNBC and even Fox News — although much of Fox’s coverage has been deeply flawed.” However, “the story is considered newsworthy by CNN International, which has devoted 6 segments to the UN summit since it began on November 28, and has mentioned it on several other occasions.”

Security

Rick Perry: Israeli Settlements Are Legal ‘And I Support Them’

Republican Presidential hopeful Texas Gov. Rick Perry broke with more than 40 years of bipartisan U.S. policy and issued a statement of blanket support for Israeli settlements in the Occupied Palestinian Territories. Perry also broke with more than 60 years of U.S. policy and declared that, among his first acts as president, he would move the U.S. embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem.

CNN’s Wolf Blitzer asked Perry about the topics during an interview:

BLITZER: Since ’67, every U.S. president, Democrat and Republican, have called Israeli settlement activity in the occupied territories, in the West Bank, illegal under international law. Would you continue that activity?

PERRY: …No I wouldn’t. I consider the Israeli settlements to be legal, from my perspective, and I support them.

BLITZER: Even if they’re in the West Bank?

PERRY: Where there is arrangements that have been made, where the Israeli’s are clearly on Israel’s land that they have hard fought to win and to keep, absolutely.

Watch the video:

It’s not the first time Perry has endorsed the settlements. In September, he said Israel should build more. His views put Perry out of step with every administration from both parties since the occupation of Palestinian territories in 1967, who unanimously viewed the settlements as a violation of the Geneva Conventions’ provisions against moving civilians into occupied territories.

Blitzer also asked if Perry would move the U.S. embassy in Israel, which is currently located in Tel Aviv, to Jerusalem. “Absolutely,” replied Perry. “As soon as I could. I would clearly say, if you want to work for the State Department of the United States, you need to be packing your bags and move to Jerusalem as soon as you can.”

The CNN host accurately pointed out that, since 1948, no administration has agreed to move the embassy. In 1995, Congress passed a law forcing the embassy move, but every president since then has exercised a waiver to keep the mission in Tel Aviv. Palestinians want to have East Jerusalem, which was occupied by Israel during the 1967 Six Day War, as the capital of their future state — a move that could be imperiled by the presence of an embassy in the city, which is technically internationalized according to international law. The embassy’s presence would be tantamount to recognizing Israel’s disputed sovereignty over all of Jerusalem.

Another GOP candidate, Mitt Romney, also said he would move the embassy. At that time, ThinkProgress interviewed Jerusalem expert Daniel Siedemann, who expounded on the pitfalls of moving the embassy:

Were an American President be actually so irresponsible as to move the U.S. embassy to Jerusalem outside of the context of a comprehensive permanent status agreement, such a President would contribute nothing to legitimizing Jerusalem as Israel’s capital. Instead he would be following Israel into abject isolation, and the United States into an weakened and marginal regional and global role.

When Blitzer pointed out that all presidents had avoided the move, Perry responded, “There may not have been a president of the United States that feels as strongly about Israel as I do.” In the past, Perry has said, “My faith requires me to support Israel.”

Security

CNN National Security Debate: The Return Of The Neocons

After the conclusion of Tuesday night’s GOP national security and foreign policy debate, CNN Democratic political analyst Donna Brazile remarked that the debate seemed like a bad flashback:

This was like retro debate. I felt like we were going back into the past. The neocons — it was like the last hurrah, celebration of the past. Not looking at the current threats and the way the president has handled them and perhaps how we handle future threats to this country.

Brazile is right: Despite the rise of the Tea Party, with its disdain for government, and libertarian non-interventionist Rep. Ron Paul’s (R-TX) primacy in important Republican races, the GOP seems inextricably wedded to the foreign policy ethos that defined the first George W. Bush term.

Last night’s debate was hosted by two think tanks with close links to the personnel and ideology of the Bush Administration. Most of the “audience questions” came from scholars from the organizations, the American Enterprise Institute (AEI) and the Heritage Foundation. The latter, though not as renown for militaristic neoconservatism as the former, nonetheless advocates many similar positions, such as robust defense spending levels, continuing large-scale military commitments in the Middle East and Central Asia, hawkishness on Iran and unflinching support for Israeli government policies.

The Bush foreign policy era connections were on full display last night, despite the fact that Bush himself was barely mentioned. The former president’s unpopularity in the waning days of his administration may be the reason he’s barely been mentioned. In the ten previous debates, Bush one came up only 19 times, most of them critical mentions, according to an analysis by Michael Cohen. Last night, Bush got two shout-outs, both of them from “audience questions” from top former Bush administration officials.

Those officials, and the think tankers that cheered on the administration, featured prominently in the debate. Here’s a quick run-down of some of the most controversial ones and what they asked about:

DAVID ADDINGTON: The Heritage staffer, former top aide to Vice President Dick Cheney and co-author of the infamous “torture memos,” asked about Syria and what the candidates thought constituted U.S. interests, and “what would you do to protect them.”

DANIELLE PLETKA: The vice president of foreign policy and defense studies at AEI and wife of Romney campaign staffer Stephen Rademaker, Pletka held to her longstanding hawkishness on Iran, positing that “Iran is probably less than a year away from getting a nuclear weapon” and wondering if sanctions could bring an end to Iran’s nuclear program.

EDWIN MEESE III: The former Reagan administration Attorney General and Heritage fellow asked, “Shouldn’t we have a long range extension of the investigative powers contained in [the Patriot Act]?”

MARC THIESSEN: A speechwriter for the Bush White House and Donald Rumsfeld‘s Defense Department who advocates relentlessly for permissive interrogation guidelines — ie. torture — the AEI fellow asked what national security issue the candidates thought was going unmentioned but that loomed on the horizon.

PAUL WOLFOWITZ: The AEI scholar and, at the Bush Pentagon, a key architect of the Iraq war, asked if the foreign development aid levels of the Bush administration were possible to attain in the age of austerity.

FRED KAGAN: The AEI scholar and Iraq war dead-ender asked: “Do you think that an expanded drone campaign in Pakistan would be sufficient to defeat al-Qaeda and to secure our interests in Pakistan?”

The Washington Post ThinkTanked blog wondered yesterday if two think-tanks which are closely affiliated with some of the candidates and their hawkish advisers can host an unbiased debate. But journalist Max Blumenthal asked if the bigger issue wasn’t whether a “news network… has handed control over its campaign coverage” to ideological neoconservatives. It seems, though, from watching the debate, that the GOP also acquiesces to a strong neoconservative influence over its foreign policies. If the party retakes the presidency, which controls foreign affairs, the U.S. seems likely to return to the aggressive policies of the first Bush term.

Green

Oil Lobbyist On CNN: ‘There Are No Loopholes’

Appearing on CNN’s State of the Union, American Petroleum Institute lobbyist Marty Durbin claimed “there are no loopholes” for the massively profitable oil industry. CNN’s Candy Crowley asked the lobbyist, after showing one of API’s ads that claim that removing oil subsidies would kill jobs, how the industry can tell Americans to suffer massive cuts while the top five oil companies have already made $100 billion in profits this year on high gas prices. Durbin said that Crowley just got her facts wrong:

CROWLEY: Six big oil companies piled up $36 billion maybe be profits at the end of this year $100 billion. Can you see how people go we need to help the oil industry?

DURBIN: Part of problem is that the facts aren’t out there. There are no loopholes. These are basic tax deductions that every industry is allowed to use.

Watch it:

In fact, there are tens of billions of dollars of special tax breaks and programs that are special to the fossil fuel industry. Here is a short list of such loopholes, with their ten-year cost on the federal budget:

$12.6 billion in percentage depletion for oil and natural gas wells and hard mineral fossil fuels
$12.9 billion in expensing of intangible drilling costs for oil and gas and expensing of exploration and development costs for coal
$18.7 billion domestic manufacturing deduction for oil, gas, and coal production
$0.4 billion in capital gains treatment for coal royalties
$0.2 billion exemption to the passive loss limitation for working interests in oil and natural gas properties
$0.1 billion deduction for tertiary injectants
$2.5 billion in federal tax subsidies to coal companies
$1.3 billion tax credit for refineries
$9.5 billion in royalty-free oil and gas leases

The big oil lobbyist is partly telling the truth, however. There are massive tax loopholes that are also used by other industries in addition to big oil, although they especially advantage the oil industry:

$52 billion in “last in, first out” accounting for inventories, a tax credit that disproportionately helps the oil and gas industry
$10.5 billion dual capacity tax credit, which also largely benefits oil and gas companies

Federal tax policy and programs subsidize the oil industry in other ways that add up to billions of dollars of taxpayer money a year, from oil defense to oil spill liability caps. The biggest oil loophole may be the free pollution of greenhouse gases that have an estimated cost to society of $100 a ton. The American Petroleum Institute is willing to spend millions running ads on CNN and sponsoring its presidential debates.

Marty Durbin is Sen. Dick Durbin’s (D-IL) nephew. Sen. Durbin has called for the end to oil subsidies worth $4 billion a year.

Older

Switch to Mobile