laura ingraham bak

=tag 1219 ingrmwith tucker and hannity hold base together?see Lifezette1118=her basic schtick is grievance, inversion of true victims (white xian)
=<div>===</div><div>
</div><div>women for thomas --> IWF (funded by old white MEN]</div><div>
</div><div>...The

IWF’s Elizabeth Larson, in the organization’s Women’s Quarterly

magazine, called sexual harassment an issue drummed up by “a growing

number of women, many spurred on by Anita Hill’s example … [who] find it

more profitable to litigate than to work.” After the 1994 passage of

the Violence Against Women Act—spearheaded by then-Sen. Joe Biden in

what was widely seen as atonement for his mishandling of the Thomas

hearings—the IWF argued that the legislation should be repealed or

receive zero funding; IWF spokeswoman (and ’90s right-wing It Girl) Laura Ingraham referred to VAWA as feminist “pork” with a “tear-jerker” title. The

group also took on affirmative action, headlining a Women’s Quarterly

article on the topic “That’s No White Male, That’s My Husband”—a phrase

that revealed a lot about IWF constituents’ racial identities and

loyalties. (“You can’t have white guys saying you don’t need affirmative

action,” Ledeen told the Washington Post when asked why the

anti-feminist IWF had organized as women in the first place.)....
</div><div>
</div><div>===</div><div>
</div><div> News’ Laura Ingraham has drawn widespread rebuke following a racist

anti-immigrant rant on the August 8 edition of her Fox show. During her

far-from-subtle <a href="https://www.mediamatters.org/video/2018/08/08/laura-ingraham-massive-demographic-changes-have-been-foisted-upon-american-people-and-they-are/220944" style="text-decoration-line:none;">diatribe</a>,

Ingraham bemoaned “massive demographic changes, … changes that none of

us ever voted for, and most of us don't like,” and complained, “In some

parts of the country, it does seem like the America that we know and

love doesn't exist anymore.” Later in the program, she <a href="https://www.mediamatters.org/video/2018/08/08/laura-ingraham-black-black-crime-bigger-problem-community-just-racism-you-claim-criminal-justice/220945" style="text-decoration-line:none;">questioned</a>

whether “Black-on-Black” crime is a larger issue for the Black

community than the racism that infects the criminal justice system. Her

comments are a nearly <a href="https://www.mediamatters.org/blog/2018/08/09/laura-ingrahams-anti-immigrant-rant-ripped-white-supremacists/220951" style="text-decoration-line:none;">perfect parallel</a> of the rhetoric used by white supremacists and were <a href="https://www.thedailybeast.com/david-duke-praises-laura-ingrahams-anti-immigrant-rant-one-of-the-most-important-monologues-in-history" style="text-decoration-line:none;">embraced</a> and commended by former KKK leader David Duke. Outside of white supremacist circles, however, <a href="https://twitter.com/SenDuckworth/status/1027600770861092867" style="text-decoration-line:none;">politicians</a>, <a href="https://twitter.com/slpng_giants/status/1027414717126594561" style="text-decoration-line:none;">activist groups</a>, and <a href="https://twitter.com/JohnJHarwood/status/1027906462503395330" style="text-decoration-line:none;">other</a> <a href="https://twitter.com/jemelehill/status/1027555830454001664" style="text-decoration-line:none;">media</a> <a href="https://twitter.com/mattdpearce/status/1027400249612988417" style="text-decoration-line:none;">figures</a> <a href="https://twitter.com/search?q=https%3A%2F%2Ftwitter.com%2Fndrew_lawrence%2Fstatus%2F1027380439420420101%20filter%3Averified&src=typd&lang=en" style="text-decoration-line:none;">widely condemned</a> the rant.

<div>[david duke praise retweet]
</div>

Following the criticism, Ingraham <a href="https://www.mediamatters.org/video/2018/08/09/laura-ingraham-claims-her-racist-warning-about-demographic-changes-had-nothing-do-race-or-ethnicity/220956" style="text-decoration-line:none;">defended</a>

her comments, arguing that the goal of her monologue was “to point out

that the rule of law, meaning secure borders, is something that used to

bind our country together.” Ingraham’s deflection, however, is <a href="https://twitter.com/AdamSerwer/status/1027922493032554496" style="text-decoration-line:none;">disingenuous</a> and undermined by her history of racist commentary and anti-immigrant rhetoric. Her Fox News show, The Ingraham Angle, is <a href="http://press.foxnews.com/2017/09/laura-ingraham-to-host-the-ingraham-angle-weeknights-at-10pmet-on-fox-news-channel/" style="text-decoration-line:none;">less than</a> a year old, but Ingraham has already turned it into a racist, extremist cesspool.

</div>

It isn’t difficult to find examples of Ingraham’s boundless hostility

toward immigrants and her obvious apathy towards non-white communities.

Here are just a few highlights from over the years (seriously, there

are many more):

Ingraham has spent years demonizing and mocking immigrants.

On The Ingraham Angle, she <a href="https://www.mediamatters.org/video/2018/04/27/laura-ingraham-dismisses-asylum-claims-hondurans-fleeing-violence-its-not-our-problem/220064">dismissed</a> asylum claims from Hondurans fleeing violence because, according to her, “it’s not our problem.”

</li><li>

She <a href="https://www.mediamatters.org/video/2018/08/01/laura-ingraham-children-not-yet-reunited-families-are-being-protected-trump-their-drug-abusing-child/220886">claimed</a>

that children torn from their parents as a result of the Trump

administration policies and who were not yet reunited with their

families were being protected by the administration because, “due to

domestic or drug abuse, many of these parents are now deemed unfit to

care for their children or dangerous for their children.” [many more]

</li></ul></div><div>-----
</div><div>2019
</div><div>
</div><div><a href="https://www.mediamatters.org/laura-ingraham/hate-lies-and-misinformation-laura-ingraham">https://www.mediamatters.org/laura-ingraham/hate-lies-and-misinformation-laura-ingraham</a></div><div>
</div>ingraham has a long history of spreading hate speech, from her <a href="https://www.mediamatters.org/research/2017/09/11/what-you-need-know-about-laura-ingraham-who-fox-news-reportedly-giving-show-prime-time/217908" style="text-decoration-line:none;">prime-time</a> Fox News show, former radio show, and, now, <a href="https://www.mediamatters.org/research/2019/02/25/laura-ingrahams-new-podcast-total-disaster/222957" style="text-decoration-line:none;">new podcast</a>. Ingraham has made scores of <a href="https://www.mediamatters.org/blog/2018/08/10/Here-are-52-examples-of-Laura-Ingrahams-racism/220966" style="text-decoration-line:none;">racist</a> and <a href="https://www.mediamatters.org/blog/2019/03/12/video-years-laura-ingraham-s-anti-immigrant-commentary/223057/" style="text-decoration-line:none;">anti-immigrant statements</a>, including <a href="https://www.mediamatters.org/blog/2018/08/09/laura-ingrahams-anti-immigrant-rant-ripped-white-supremacists/220951" style="text-decoration-line:none;">echoing</a> white supremacists. On numerous occasions, she <a href="https://www.mediamatters.org/blog/2019/04/30/how-fox-news-tries-mainstream-white-supremacist-conspiracy-theory/223586" style="text-decoration-line:none;">has propagated</a>

the popular white nationalist “replacement theory,” wherein non-white

citizens “replace” white citizens. More recently, Ingraham came under

fire for <a href="https://www.mediamatters.org/blog/2019/05/31/laura-ingrahams-history-promoting-hate-and-white-supremacy/223843" style="text-decoration-line:none;">defending white nationalist</a> Paul Nehlen. In the past, advertisers <a href="https://www.mediamatters.org/video/2018/04/09/after-20-advertisers-remove-ads-following-her-attacks-parkland-student-laura-ingraham-calls-boycott/219897" style="text-decoration-line:none;">have fled</a> from her show after Ingraham mocked a Parkland school shooting survivor and when she <a href="https://www.mediamatters.org/video/2018/08/08/laura-ingraham-massive-demographic-changes-have-been-foisted-upon-american-people-and-they-are/220944" style="text-decoration-line:none;">attacked the concept of diversity</a>,

saying, “Massive demographic changes have been foisted upon the

American people, and they are changes that none of us ever voted for,

and most of us don't like.”

        
          
            <figure class="image"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">&nbsp;</font><figcaption><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Melissa Joskow / Media Matters</font></figcaption>

</figure>

<h3>Racism, race-baiting, and other race-based statements</h3>

Ingraham called Planned Parenthood “butchers” responsible for what her guest termed a “Black holocaust”

<blockquote>LAURA INGRAHAM (HOST): We are calling you on the

hypocrisy of saying “Black Lives Matter,” when many in your leadership

do not believe that, because they countenance what Planned Parenthood

has done, in selling this lie of abortion to the African American

community. Selling this, as some type of solution, when it's ended up

slaughtering African Americans who could be leading great lives today.

So, when people say “Black Lives Matter” -- you bet, you bet they

matter. So, why allow these -- these butchers into your communities? Why

let them do this to you? Of course, why -- white people -- why, any of

these people? Big money. It's about big money in politics, and their

PACs, their political action groups, all -- they rake in money.

RAYMOND ARROYO (AUTHOR) A lot of Black pastors will tell you they are

incensed by this. There is an awakening in the Black community,

particularly in the Black churches in the inner city, and they are

outraged that other leaders in the past have not only been embraced by

Planned Parenthood, but embraced them back, and actually supported their

work in the community.

And now they realize what -- what many of these Black pastors have

told me, is a Black holocaust. They see this as a Black holocaust in

their community, a Black genocide. [<a href="https://www.mediamatters.org/video/2019/04/04/laura-ingraham-and-co-host-call-planned-parenthood-butchers-responsible-black-holocaust/223345" style="text-decoration-line:none;">4/4/19</a>]

</blockquote>

</li><li>

Ingraham claimed former Rep. Stacey Abrams (D-GA) called out racism against her because of her “entitlement mentality”

<blockquote>LAURA INGRAHAM (HOST): Stacey Abrams was on Morning Joe, and she's claiming now that people dismiss her for one reason.

…

It's not about the issues, it's about “Look at me, this is me, my

truth” -- it's that same thing with “my truth.” It's a -- well, a kind

of -- it's a -- you know, it's an attempt at coming across as confident,

but underneath that is an insecurity, in my view.

…

That's entitlement. That's an entitlement mentality.

…

“I'm a -- I'm a Black woman with a sturdy build” -- I literally don't think anyone I know even cares about that, at all. <a href="https://www.mediamatters.org/video/2019/04/04/laura-ingraham-and-co-host-claim-stacey-abrams-entitlement-mentality-reason-she-called-out-racism/223344" style="text-decoration-line:none;">[4/4/19</a>]

</blockquote>

</li><li>

Ingraham told Democrats to concentrate on white voters

<blockquote>LAURA INGRAHAM (HOST): Wages for most Americans are going

up now, not because of government mandates, but because of Trump's

policies. What are they? Lower taxes, less regulation, pressure on China

trade cheating, and a tighter labor market for all working people. So,

the Democrats' answer is higher taxes, more regulations, more low-wage

laborers flooding into America.

That's exactly the opposite of what most working-class voters want.

Oh, oh, for those liberals who put all their hopes in being saved by

changing demography, well, here's a news flash: This is the percentage

of white non-college graduate voters in a handful of key states.

In Iowa, they make up 62% of the population. In Michigan, 54% of the

population, Ohio, 55%, Pennsylvania, 51%, and Wisconsin, 58%.

Trump does really well with that group, obviously.

...

Today's radicalized Democrat Party has moved further away from the

voters they need to win in 2020. They still have no clue. It's

unbelievable, really -- how to speak to the working-class white voters,

let alone how to get their votes. They look down their elitist noses at

all working people of all backgrounds. And their values? Come on. [<a href="https://www.mediamatters.org/video/2019/04/08/laura-ingraham-mocks-democratic-outreach-minority-voters-suggests-they-concentrate-white-voters/223377" style="text-decoration-line:none;">4/8/19</a>]

</blockquote>

</li><li>

Ingraham asked if the cast of Hamilton is guilty of cultural appropriation for playing white people

<blockquote>LAURA INGRAHAM (HOST): Is that not that culturally

appropriating the other race? Like if it’s, if it’s just about cultural

appropriation, does it only go one way? That's interesting. I didn't

think about that Hamilton thing until just now. I love Hamilton. See, I think it's fine, I think it's all cool. [<a href="https://www.mediamatters.org/video/2019/02/07/laura-ingraham-asks-if-cast-hamilton-guilty-cultural-appropriation-playing-white-people/222800" style="text-decoration-line:none;">2/7/19</a>]

</blockquote>

</li><li>

Ingraham: “Because you're a minority, you get special standards, special treatment”

<blockquote>LAURA INGRAHAM (HOST): This is what was referenced as

minority privilege last week by yours truly. What do I mean by that?

That because you're a minority, you get special standards, special

treatment in the eyes of some. And it's not fair to other people. [<a href="https://www.mediamatters.org/video/2019/01/23/laura-ingraham-because-youre-minority-you-get-special-standards-special-treatment/222619" style="text-decoration-line:none;">1/23/19</a>]

</blockquote>

</li><li>

Ingraham said America is plagued by “white-aphobia”

<blockquote>LAURA INGRAHAM (HOST): Well, back to the collectivism

mindset. But she forgot Christophobia and I guess white-aphobia -- we're

running out of phobias and isms here, Dr. Steele. I'll let you take a

swing at that one. So you can't talk about identity politics -- another

way for them to shut conservatives up.

SHELBY STEELE (AUTHOR): They're on the defensive because identity

politics are inherently racist. They divide us up by color, by

ethnicity, by gender and so we're automatically set at odds. I mean,

identity politics is every bit as divisive as segregation was, as racism

of old was. [<a href="https://www.mediamatters.org/video/2019/02/28/laura-ingraham-says-america-plagued-white-aphobia/223014" style="text-decoration-line:none;">2/28/19</a>]

</blockquote>

</li><li>

Ingraham mocked and imitated Rep. Ilhan Omar's (D-MN) accent, claiming she “doesn't sound like Minnesota”  ...[many more]
</li></ul><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">=</div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><a href="https://www.alternet.org/2020/03/fox-news-is-a-fascist-network-propping-up-an-incompetent-buffoon-of-a-leader-coronavirus-proved-it/">https://www.alternet.org/2020/03/fox-news-is-a-fascist-network-propping-up-an-incompetent-buffoon-of-a-leader-coronavirus-proved-it/</a></div><div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">no lnx</div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">
</div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">Fox News is a fascist network propping up an incompetent buffoon of a leader. Coronavirus proved it</div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">
</div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">Written by Hunter / Daily Kos March 17, 2020</div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">Only hours after Donald Trump on Friday gave a press conference begrudgingly admitting the scope of the COVID-19 pandemic he had been insisting was “under control” for nearly a month, Fox News’ most toxic hosts revised their own previously denial-heavy rhetoric to match. Once again, it demonstrates the status of the network as “state news” operation devoted near-exclusively to the needs of conservative propaganda.</div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">
</div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">If the line from Dear Leader is that alarm over the virus is a “hoax” intended to damage him, that is what Sean Hannity will also say—even knowing that his words will kill some of the network’s own viewers. If the line from Dear Leader is that alarm over the virus is now warranted, Sean Hannity is himself freed to declare that alarm is warranted. But this, too, will be used primarily as a launching point for further praise of the self-promoting, incompetent Dear Leader.</div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">
</div><div>Here is Sean Hannity on Friday, the evening after Trump shifted tone from sneering at administration critics to declaring a national emergency, while still sneering at administration critics. “Tonight, we are witnessing what will be a massive paradigm shift in the future of disease control and prevention. A bold, new precedent is being set, the world will once again benefit greatly from America’s leadership. It will give us reason to be proud as a country. The federal government, state governments, private businesses, top hospitals all coming together, under the president’s leadership, to stem the tide of the coronavirus.”</div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">
</div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">Note the use of the word “bold,” one of the otherwise near-illiterate president’s favorite adjectives. It is Dear Leader’s “leadership” that has allowed the United States to finally do what it has done in every similar crisis; declaring a national emergency is now not a longstanding designation allowing our or any government to take specific, defined steps to combat a new threat but a “bold new precedent” from Dear Leader, for the “benefit” of the world.</div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">
</div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">Sean Hannity spent weeks lying about the virus, downplaying its dangerousness and its spread. Now that the game is up and members of his audience will, with near-certainty, be dying in large part due to Dear Leader’s inaction and Sean Hannity’s teleprompter, Sean Hannity will now spend weeks praising Dear Leader’s “boldness” with a North Korean polish and a distinctly Fox News sneer. The Washington Post notes that Hannity was matched in this new revision of state propaganda by Laura Ingraham, among others. Go only so far as Dear Leader himself is willing to; follow Dear Leader as Dear Leader meanders his mental way through each new moment of revelation. No further.</div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">
</div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">Devil-among-us Jerry Falwell Jr., a frequent Fox guest, was on the network Friday morning telling the Fox & Friends couch that his Liberty University would not be shuttering during the crisis, displaying the trademark Fox sneer while downplaying virus scares as “hype,” and saying “maybe now this is their next attempt to get Trump.” After Trump’s Friday declaration, Falwell changed his own tune to acknowledge the severity of the crisis—sort of. In practice, he defended his original decision but said that the Virginia governor’s ban on gatherings of 100 or more people “left us no practical choice.”</div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">
</div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">This week, after a “somber” Trump once again bowed to realities his advisers had never before been able to drill into his skull, Fox News hosts matched his new rhetoric as well. Useful network idiot Jesse Watters changed his tune over the weekend. Not because of the presidential about-face, certainly not. It was “mom.”</div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">
</div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">“She is suspicious that I might have coronavirus. I wore the gloves all afternoon in the house. That’s what it is. I didn’t take the social distancing that seriously Friday, Saturday, and Sunday night, I went out to dinner here in the city. And I woke up this morning I realized that was not the right move.”</div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">
</div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">Do we really believe that Watters had not noticed that the world outside the Fox News studio was incongruent with the reports from inside until a morning revelation? Or was Monday morning the first moment in which it was safe to note it without penalty?</div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">
</div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">I am tired of this. I am very, very tired of the pretense that anything this scabby sore of a network does revolves around anything but propping up the most narrow and most radical of agendas; demonization of Dear Leader’s enemies and maudlin praise for Dear Leader’s boldness. It is a fascist network using the bog-standard rhetorical tools of fascism to prop up a fascist, incompetent buffoon of a leader. They will attack anyone on Dear Leader’s behalf. They will let their audience die—they will provide the crematory, if needed—if Dear Leader needs to just one more evening of adulation to get him through the next day without full-on emotional collapse.</div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">
</div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">Sean Hannity goads his viewers into support for ignoring even a pandemic until the moment it can no longer be ignored. He will goad his viewers again, this time into believing it was Dear Leader who limited the deaths to whatever horrific number they may rise to. Very, very rich men who want just a bit more money than they already have will watch him do it, and allow him to do it, and will pay him to do it.</div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">
</div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">They will, if anything, order that more flags be added to the network graphics.</div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">
</div></div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><h2 class="entry-title grid-title" open="Open" sans="Sans" sans-serif="sans-serif" letter-spacing="letter-spacing" px="px" style="box-sizing: border-box; outline: none; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">=</h2></div>=1219 an
<table style="color: rgb(29, 34, 40); font-family: " helvetica="Helvetica" neue="Neue" arial="Arial" sans-serif="sans-serif" font-size="font-size" px="px" background-color="background-color" rgb="rgb" margin="margin" auto="auto" width="550"><tbody><tr><td width="5"> </td><td width="410" valign="top"><a rel="nofollow" target="blank" href="http://click1.e.alternet.org/essphvqjqkdfdhwwftyqqfqwwtfwjbzcpkqdyrvysqrd_fhjsdyrywdjgjyydyys.html?a=&b=3195&c=21989&d=2" style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">Former NSA lawyer debunks Laura Ingraham’s bogus claim that Adam Schiff used the agency to obtain Devin Nunes’ phone records: ‘Not how the law works’</a><p style="font-family: Georgia, " times="Times" new="New" roman="Roman" serif="serif" font-size="font-size" px="px" font-style="font-style" italic="italic" color="color" rgb="rgb" margin="margin" padding="padding"> Throughout the Ukraine scandal and the impeachment inquiry against President…</td></tr></tbody></table><div>=</div><div>1219 mma</div><div>l<a href="https://www.mediamatters.org/laura-ingraham/laura-ingrahams-podcast-was-bigoted-propagandistic-and-grift-if-its-finished-it-wont" rel="bookmark" class="teaserlink" style="box-sizing: border-box; background: rgb(255, 255, 255); text-decoration-line: none; outline: 0px; display: inline !important;" /><div class="teasercontent" style="box-sizing: border-box; flex: 1 1 0%; flex-direction: column; justify-content: center; display: inline !important;"><a href="https://www.mediamatters.org/laura-ingraham/laura-ingrahams-podcast-was-bigoted-propagandistic-and-grift-if-its-finished-it-wont" rel="bookmark" class="teaserlink" style="box-sizing: border-box; background: rgb(255, 255, 255); text-decoration-line: none; outline: 0px; display: inline !important;"></a><a href="https://www.mediamatters.org/laura-ingraham/laura-ingrahams-podcast-was-bigoted-propagandistic-and-grift-if-its-finished-it-wont" rel="bookmark" class="teaserlink" style="box-sizing: border-box; background: rgb(255, 255, 255); text-decoration-line: none; outline: 0px; display: inline !important;" /><h2 class="teasertitle" style="box-sizing: border-box; line-height: 1; margin: 0px 0px 0.57143em; display: inline !important;"><a href="https://www.mediamatters.org/laura-ingraham/laura-ingrahams-podcast-was-bigoted-propagandistic-and-grift-if-its-finished-it-wont" rel="bookmark" class="teaserlink" style="box-sizing: border-box; background: rgb(255, 255, 255); text-decoration-line: none; outline: 0px; display: inline !important;"></a><a href="https://www.mediamatters.org/laura-ingraham/laura-ingrahams-podcast-was-bigoted-propagandistic-and-grift-if-its-finished-it-wont" rel="bookmark" class="teaserlink" style="box-sizing: border-box; background: rgb(255, 255, 255); text-decoration-line: none; outline: 0px; display: inline !important;"></a><a href="https://www.mediamatters.org/laura-ingraham/laura-ingrahams-podcast-was-bigoted-propagandistic-and-grift-if-its-finished-it-wont" rel="bookmark" class="teaserlink" style="box-sizing: border-box; background: rgb(255, 255, 255); text-decoration-line: none; outline: 0px; display: inline !important;">aura Ingraham's podcast was bigoted, propagandistic, and a grift. If it's finished, it won't be missed.</a></h2></div></div><a href="https://www.mediamatters.org/laura-ingraham/laura-ingrahams-podcast-was-bigoted-propagandistic-and-grift-if-its-finished-it-wont" rel="bookmark" class="teaserlink" style="box-sizing: border-box; background: rgb(255, 255, 255); text-decoration-line: none; display: flex; outline: 0px;" /><div class="teasercontent" style="box-sizing: border-box; display: flex; flex: 1 1 0%; flex-direction: column; justify-content: center;"><a href="https://www.mediamatters.org/laura-ingraham/laura-ingrahams-podcast-was-bigoted-propagandistic-and-grift-if-its-finished-it-wont" rel="bookmark" class="teaserlink" style="box-sizing: border-box; background: rgb(255, 255, 255); text-decoration-line: none; display: flex; outline: 0px;"></a><a href="https://www.mediamatters.org/laura-ingraham/laura-ingrahams-podcast-was-bigoted-propagandistic-and-grift-if-its-finished-it-wont" rel="bookmark" class="teaserlink" style="box-sizing: border-box; background: rgb(255, 255, 255); text-decoration-line: none; display: flex; outline: 0px;" /><a href="https://www.mediamatters.org/laura-ingraham/laura-ingrahams-podcast-was-bigoted-propagandistic-and-grift-if-its-finished-it-wont" rel="bookmark" class="teaserlink" style="box-sizing: border-box; background: rgb(255, 255, 255); text-decoration-line: none; display: flex; outline: 0px;" /><a href="https://www.mediamatters.org/laura-ingraham/laura-ingrahams-podcast-was-bigoted-propagandistic-and-grift-if-its-finished-it-wont" rel="bookmark" class="teaserlink" style="box-sizing: border-box; background: rgb(255, 255, 255); text-decoration-line: none; display: flex; outline: 0px;" /><a href="https://www.mediamatters.org/laura-ingraham/laura-ingrahams-podcast-was-bigoted-propagandistic-and-grift-if-its-finished-it-wont" rel="bookmark" class="teaserlink" style="box-sizing: border-box; background: rgb(255, 255, 255); text-decoration-line: none; display: flex; outline: 0px;" /><a href="https://www.mediamatters.org/laura-ingraham/laura-ingrahams-podcast-was-bigoted-propagandistic-and-grift-if-its-finished-it-wont" rel="bookmark" class="teaserlink" style="box-sizing: border-box; background: rgb(255, 255, 255); text-decoration-line: none; display: flex; outline: 0px;" /><a href="https://www.mediamatters.org/laura-ingraham/laura-ingrahams-podcast-was-bigoted-propagandistic-and-grift-if-its-finished-it-wont" rel="bookmark" class="teaserlink" style="box-sizing: border-box; background: rgb(255, 255, 255); text-decoration-line: none; display: flex; outline: 0px;" /><a href="https://www.mediamatters.org/laura-ingraham/laura-ingrahams-podcast-was-bigoted-propagandistic-and-grift-if-its-finished-it-wont" rel="bookmark" class="teaserlink" style="box-sizing: border-box; background: rgb(255, 255, 255); text-decoration-line: none; display: flex; outline: 0px;" /><a href="https://www.mediamatters.org/laura-ingraham/laura-ingrahams-podcast-was-bigoted-propagandistic-and-grift-if-its-finished-it-wont" rel="bookmark" class="teaserlink" style="box-sizing: border-box; background: rgb(255, 255, 255); text-decoration-line: none; display: flex; outline: 0px;"></a><a href="https://www.mediamatters.org/laura-ingraham/laura-ingrahams-podcast-was-bigoted-propagandistic-and-grift-if-its-finished-it-wont" rel="bookmark" class="teaserlink" style="box-sizing: border-box; background: rgb(255, 255, 255); text-decoration-line: none; display: flex; outline: 0px;" /><a href="https://www.mediamatters.org/laura-ingraham/laura-ingrahams-podcast-was-bigoted-propagandistic-and-grift-if-its-finished-it-wont" rel="bookmark" class="teaserlink" style="box-sizing: border-box; background: rgb(255, 255, 255); text-decoration-line: none; display: flex; outline: 0px;" /><a href="https://www.mediamatters.org/laura-ingraham/laura-ingrahams-podcast-was-bigoted-propagandistic-and-grift-if-its-finished-it-wont" rel="bookmark" class="teaserlink" style="box-sizing: border-box; background: rgb(255, 255, 255); text-decoration-line: none; display: flex; outline: 0px;" /><a href="https://www.mediamatters.org/laura-ingraham/laura-ingrahams-podcast-was-bigoted-propagandistic-and-grift-if-its-finished-it-wont" rel="bookmark" class="teaserlink" style="box-sizing: border-box; background: rgb(255, 255, 255); text-decoration-line: none; display: flex; outline: 0px;" /><a href="https://www.mediamatters.org/laura-ingraham/laura-ingrahams-podcast-was-bigoted-propagandistic-and-grift-if-its-finished-it-wont" rel="bookmark" class="teaserlink" style="box-sizing: border-box; background: rgb(255, 255, 255); text-decoration-line: none; display: flex; outline: 0px;" /><a href="https://www.mediamatters.org/laura-ingraham/laura-ingrahams-podcast-was-bigoted-propagandistic-and-grift-if-its-finished-it-wont" rel="bookmark" class="teaserlink" style="box-sizing: border-box; background: rgb(255, 255, 255); text-decoration-line: none; display: flex; outline: 0px;" /><a href="https://www.mediamatters.org/laura-ingraham/laura-ingrahams-podcast-was-bigoted-propagandistic-and-grift-if-its-finished-it-wont" rel="bookmark" class="teaserlink" style="box-sizing: border-box; background: rgb(255, 255, 255); text-decoration-line: none; display: flex; outline: 0px;"><svg viewbox="0 0 24 24" class="icon icon--article" aria-labelledby="icon-label--article"><use xlink:href="#article" xmlns:xlink="xlink"><svg id="article" viewbox="0 0 24 24" /></use></svg><path d="M0 1h24v4H0zm0 6h24v4H0zm0 6h24v4H0zm0 6h18v4H0z" fill="inherit" fill-rule="evenodd" /><time datetime="2019-12-04T09:01:18-0500" style="box-sizing: border-box;">12/04/19 9:01 AM EST</time></a></div><div></div><div>1119 </div><div><a href="https://www.mediamatters.org/laura-ingraham/laura-ingraham-attempted-bribery-isnt-constitution" rel="bookmark" class="teaserlink" style="box-sizing: border-box; background: rgb(255, 255, 255); text-decoration-line: none; display: flex; outline: 0px;" /><div class="teasercontent" style="box-sizing: border-box; display: flex; flex: 1 1 0%; flex-direction: column; justify-content: center;"><a href="https://www.mediamatters.org/laura-ingraham/laura-ingraham-attempted-bribery-isnt-constitution" rel="bookmark" class="teaserlink" style="box-sizing: border-box; background: rgb(255, 255, 255); text-decoration-line: none; display: flex; outline: 0px;" /><a href="https://www.mediamatters.org/laura-ingraham/laura-ingraham-attempted-bribery-isnt-constitution" rel="bookmark" class="teaserlink" style="box-sizing: border-box; background: rgb(255, 255, 255); text-decoration-line: none; display: flex; outline: 0px;" /><a href="https://www.mediamatters.org/laura-ingraham/laura-ingraham-attempted-bribery-isnt-constitution" rel="bookmark" class="teaserlink" style="box-sizing: border-box; background: rgb(255, 255, 255); text-decoration-line: none; display: flex; outline: 0px;" /><a href="https://www.mediamatters.org/laura-ingraham/laura-ingraham-attempted-bribery-isnt-constitution" rel="bookmark" class="teaserlink" style="box-sizing: border-box; background: rgb(255, 255, 255); text-decoration-line: none; display: flex; outline: 0px;" /><a href="https://www.mediamatters.org/laura-ingraham/laura-ingraham-attempted-bribery-isnt-constitution" rel="bookmark" class="teaserlink" style="box-sizing: border-box; background: rgb(255, 255, 255); text-decoration-line: none; display: flex; outline: 0px;" /><a href="https://www.mediamatters.org/laura-ingraham/laura-ingraham-attempted-bribery-isnt-constitution" rel="bookmark" class="teaserlink" style="box-sizing: border-box; background: rgb(255, 255, 255); text-decoration-line: none; display: flex; outline: 0px;" /><a href="https://www.mediamatters.org/laura-ingraham/laura-ingraham-attempted-bribery-isnt-constitution" rel="bookmark" class="teaserlink" style="box-sizing: border-box; background: rgb(255, 255, 255); text-decoration-line: none; display: flex; outline: 0px;" /><a href="https://www.mediamatters.org/laura-ingraham/laura-ingraham-attempted-bribery-isnt-constitution" rel="bookmark" class="teaserlink" style="box-sizing: border-box; background: rgb(255, 255, 255); text-decoration-line: none; display: flex; outline: 0px;" /><a href="https://www.mediamatters.org/laura-ingraham/laura-ingraham-attempted-bribery-isnt-constitution" rel="bookmark" class="teaserlink" style="box-sizing: border-box; background: rgb(255, 255, 255); text-decoration-line: none; display: flex; outline: 0px;" /><a href="https://www.mediamatters.org/laura-ingraham/laura-ingraham-attempted-bribery-isnt-constitution" rel="bookmark" class="teaserlink" style="box-sizing: border-box; background: rgb(255, 255, 255); text-decoration-line: none; display: flex; outline: 0px;" /><a href="https://www.mediamatters.org/laura-ingraham/laura-ingraham-attempted-bribery-isnt-constitution" rel="bookmark" class="teaserlink" style="box-sizing: border-box; background: rgb(255, 255, 255); text-decoration-line: none; display: flex; outline: 0px;" /><a href="https://www.mediamatters.org/laura-ingraham/laura-ingraham-attempted-bribery-isnt-constitution" rel="bookmark" class="teaserlink" style="box-sizing: border-box; background: rgb(255, 255, 255); text-decoration-line: none; display: flex; outline: 0px;" /><a href="https://www.mediamatters.org/laura-ingraham/laura-ingraham-attempted-bribery-isnt-constitution" rel="bookmark" class="teaserlink" style="box-sizing: border-box; background: rgb(255, 255, 255); text-decoration-line: none; display: flex; outline: 0px;" /><h2 class="teasertitle" style="box-sizing: border-box; line-height: 1; margin: 0px 0px 0.57143em;"><a href="https://www.mediamatters.org/laura-ingraham/laura-ingraham-attempted-bribery-isnt-constitution" rel="bookmark" class="teaserlink" style="box-sizing: border-box; background: rgb(255, 255, 255); text-decoration-line: none; display: flex; outline: 0px;" /><a href="https://www.mediamatters.org/laura-ingraham/laura-ingraham-attempted-bribery-isnt-constitution" rel="bookmark" class="teaserlink" style="box-sizing: border-box; background: rgb(255, 255, 255); text-decoration-line: none; display: flex; outline: 0px;" /><a href="https://www.mediamatters.org/laura-ingraham/laura-ingraham-attempted-bribery-isnt-constitution" rel="bookmark" class="teaserlink" style="box-sizing: border-box; background: rgb(255, 255, 255); text-decoration-line: none; display: flex; outline: 0px;" /><a href="https://www.mediamatters.org/laura-ingraham/laura-ingraham-attempted-bribery-isnt-constitution" rel="bookmark" class="teaserlink" style="box-sizing: border-box; background: rgb(255, 255, 255); text-decoration-line: none; display: flex; outline: 0px;" /><a href="https://www.mediamatters.org/laura-ingraham/laura-ingraham-attempted-bribery-isnt-constitution" rel="bookmark" class="teaserlink" style="box-sizing: border-box; background: rgb(255, 255, 255); text-decoration-line: none; display: flex; outline: 0px;" /><a href="https://www.mediamatters.org/laura-ingraham/laura-ingraham-attempted-bribery-isnt-constitution" rel="bookmark" class="teaserlink" style="box-sizing: border-box; background: rgb(255, 255, 255); text-decoration-line: none; display: flex; outline: 0px;" /><a href="https://www.mediamatters.org/laura-ingraham/laura-ingraham-attempted-bribery-isnt-constitution" rel="bookmark" class="teaserlink" style="box-sizing: border-box; background: rgb(255, 255, 255); text-decoration-line: none; display: flex; outline: 0px;" /><a href="https://www.mediamatters.org/laura-ingraham/laura-ingraham-attempted-bribery-isnt-constitution" rel="bookmark" class="teaserlink" style="box-sizing: border-box; background: rgb(255, 255, 255); text-decoration-line: none; display: flex; outline: 0px;" /><a href="https://www.mediamatters.org/laura-ingraham/laura-ingraham-attempted-bribery-isnt-constitution" rel="bookmark" class="teaserlink" style="box-sizing: border-box; background: rgb(255, 255, 255); text-decoration-line: none; display: flex; outline: 0px;" /><a href="https://www.mediamatters.org/laura-ingraham/laura-ingraham-attempted-bribery-isnt-constitution" rel="bookmark" class="teaserlink" style="box-sizing: border-box; background: rgb(255, 255, 255); text-decoration-line: none; display: flex; outline: 0px;" /><a href="https://www.mediamatters.org/laura-ingraham/laura-ingraham-attempted-bribery-isnt-constitution" rel="bookmark" class="teaserlink" style="box-sizing: border-box; background: rgb(255, 255, 255); text-decoration-line: none; display: flex; outline: 0px;" /><a href="https://www.mediamatters.org/laura-ingraham/laura-ingraham-attempted-bribery-isnt-constitution" rel="bookmark" class="teaserlink" style="box-sizing: border-box; background: rgb(255, 255, 255); text-decoration-line: none; display: flex; outline: 0px;" /><a href="https://www.mediamatters.org/laura-ingraham/laura-ingraham-attempted-bribery-isnt-constitution" rel="bookmark" class="teaserlink" style="box-sizing: border-box; background: rgb(255, 255, 255); text-decoration-line: none; display: flex; outline: 0px;">Ingraham: “Attempted bribery isn't in the Constitution”</a></h2><svg viewbox="0 0 24 24" class="icon icon--video" aria-labelledby="icon-label--video"><use xlink:href="#video" xmlns:xlink="xlink"><svg id="video" viewbox="0 0 25 24" /></use></svg><path d="M0 24h24V0H0zM9 7l8 5-8 5z" fill="inherit" fill-rule="evenodd" /><time datetime="2019-11-14T22:34:14-0500" style="box-sizing: border-box;">11/14/19 10:34 PM EST</time></div></div><div>=<a href="https://www.mediamatters.org/laura-ingraham/laura-ingraham-calls-impeachment-revenge-globalists">https://www.mediamatters.org/laura-ingraham/laura-ingraham-calls-impeachment-revenge-globalists</a><cite style="box-sizing: border-box;"> October 22 edition of Fox News' The Ingraham Angle:</cite><div class="block-quote__quote" style="box-sizing: border-box; padding: 1.5rem;">LAURA INGRAHAM (HOST):   I want to get back to what I stated in the -- in that mini Angle at the top. I really believe in reading this, Ambassador Taylor -- I don't know him. I mean, he's a career diplomat, he was with the Bush administration, but they despise his -- the president's style, his distrust for the global elite, and they are the global elite.But isn't -- I mean, I hate to say it so, just, crassly, but it seems like it's the revenge of the globalists here. They -- they're so angry that he has been successful on so many levels, and his success reflects badly on them. I think it's actually a very prideful way of going about things.</div></div><div><a href="https://www.mediamatters.org/blog/2019/06/27/anti-abortion-ad-aired-democratic-debate-was-fueled-right-wing-media-talking-points/224077">https://www.mediamatters.org/blog/2019/06/27/anti-abortion-ad-aired-democratic-debate-was-fueled-right-wing-media-talking-points/224077</a>
no lnx
Anti-abortion ad aired before Democratic debate was fueled by right-wing media talking pointsBlog ››› June 27, 2019 5:12 PM EDT ››› JULIE TULBERTMelissa Joskow / Media MattersMSNBC aired an ad from the anti-choice group March for Life Action before the first Democratic presidential debate that repeated inaccurate right-wing media talking points about abortion, alleging Democratic candidates are “extreme” for supporting abortion access. In reality, the ad cited polling data that was not only commissioned by an anti-abortion group, but that has also been soundly criticized by other polling experts as misleading.March for Life Action, the political arm of the anti-abortion group March for Life, ran a “six-figure ad-buy” starting on June 26 to promote a common right-wing media talking point that “the American pro-life consensus, and even the pro-life consensus among Democrats, contrasts sharply with the official position of every Democratic candidate involved in the debate.” In the ad, March for Life Action relied on February polling from the Marist Institute for Public Opinion commissioned by the anti-abortion group Knights of Columbus to claim that “8 in 10 Americans agree abortion should have” legal restrictions and that “6 in 10 pro-choice Americans support limiting [abortion] to at most the first trimester.”These anti-abortion talking points match the messaging strategy being deployed by right-wing media and prominent conservatives ahead of the 2020 election to paint Democrats and those who support abortion rights as “extreme” and out of touch with voters -- despite considerable evidence showing support for affirmative abortion polices. Right-wing media and other outlets have cited polling commissioned by Knights of Columbus in the past to criticize or draw attention to the Democratic Party’s stance on abortion. The March for Life Action ad also received substantial right-wing media attention, with Fox News host Laura Ingraham airing excerpts from the ad and interviewing March for Life President Jeanne Mancini during a segment with this chyron:Knights of Columbus has previously faced significant pushback on the claims made by their abortion-related polling due to the explicit anti-choice stance of the organization -- something that is often reflected in the framing of their polling questions. In particular, the February poll garnered criticism from pollsters and data analysts who pointed to the ideological bent of the Knights of Columbus, the relative stability of voters’ views on abortion, and the fact that the findings of the February poll in particular seemed to be an outlier when compared to similar assessments.Despite general attitudes about abortion legality remaining relatively stable from poll to poll, critics have argued that the results of abortion-related polling are highly dependent on the language used in framing or asking the questions. For example, polling firm PerryUndem replicated a question asked in the February Knights of Columbus poll to demonstrate the impact that question framing can have on results. When initially using the Knights of Columbus language, PerryUndem’s results showed a similar level of support for abortion restrictions. However, when “asked a follow up to clarify” if “voters want lawmakers to pass new laws that reflect their responses” on the legality of abortion, the firm found that “a majority of voters (68%) think it’s better if lawmakers stay out of the issue” -- contradicting the Knights of Columbus results and the explanations of the data's meaning by right-wing media.It’s not surprising that March for Life Action would run an anti-abortion ad, or that the group would want to target Democratic debate viewers. But those viewers should know that the data behind this poll -- and the widespread deployment of its findings by right-wing media -- are part of a larger effort by abortion opponents to inaccurately suggest that support for abortion access is “extreme” when there is substantial evidence to the contrary.</div><div></div><div>
</div><div>619 random week in dumb mma</div><div>
</div><div><table class="yiv0781195531stylingblock-content-wrapper" style="min-width: 100%;" width="100%" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0"><tbody><tr><td class="yiv0781195531stylingblock-content-wrapper yiv0781195531camarker-inner" style="border-collapse: collapse; padding: 0px 10px;"><div style="line-height: 31px;">week, Fox News’ Laura Ingraham dedicated an entire podcast episode to <a rel="nofollow" target="blank" href="http://click.e.mediamatters.org/?qs=4d9fb779fb83efcecbe06e1d5de2943419c82914a12df031edea04735d2d58a63706835833b1f5b98a7e93acbcb9f755eefafa8f20dc041f" title="extreme anti-LGBTQ rhetoric" style="">extreme anti-LGBTQ rhetoric</a> -- including saying advocates are trying to lower the age of consent for children -- and misinformed her audience about trans people.Ingraham has <a rel="nofollow" target="blank" href="http://click.e.mediamatters.org/?qs=4d9fb779fb83efcefa843d53f78714c99ab2ce86c231957d18468f03bd56ebfc3a9e4107c94a32e69f11da1d75601fd10fc96ce7870f9293" title="pushed" style="">pushed</a> anti-LGBTQ misinformation for years. But the podcast this week stood out in how hateful it was.On the June 12 edition of her podcast:<ul><li style="margin-bottom: 1em;">Ingraham claimed that teaching kids about gender identity “is about lowering the age of consent.”</li><li style="margin-bottom: 1em;">Ingraham and Donohue said that being LGBTQ should still be classified as a mental illness.</li><li style="margin-bottom: 1em;">Another of Ingraham's guests, Walt Heyer, lied that “between three and 15 years after they transition, sometimes 20 years,” transgender people “regret it deeply.” Narratives about detransitioning are often <a rel="nofollow" target="blank" href="http://click.e.mediamatters.org/?qs=4d9fb779fb83efce7798c8e0c84efa597005d19f051e585711c01cf65f9f33b70831a7d21458254ad03dda80a346c11a80c128c65d17e362" title="pushed" style="">pushed</a> by right-wing and <a rel="nofollow" target="blank" href="http://click.e.mediamatters.org/?qs=4d9fb779fb83efcef37fff7b174788a5673c310372c0d2dd28ae88e9b9799d1ff1a41751096ec81b408a79b39b56f285a22ddd47a26ca9c1" title="evangelical" style="">evangelical</a> media to undermine the affirmation and inclusion of trans folks.</li><li style="margin-bottom: 1em;">Ingraham cited right-wing psychiatrist Paul McHugh’s quote calling trans people “counterfeits or impersonators.” McHugh, a Johns Hopkins University professor, has <a rel="nofollow" target="blank" href="http://click.e.mediamatters.org/?qs=4d9fb779fb83efcec96be1cd021bc489c1c27efb5b8bcdc4e101cea11f47924958d8e3be693404fec0298cb1e00bf5e1c0059b1054b89a7d" title="peddled" style="">peddled</a> anti-trans myths and junk science for years.</li></ul></div></td></tr></tbody></table>
<table class="yiv0781195531stylingblock-content-wrapper" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); min-width: 100%;" width="100%" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0"><tbody /></table><table class="yiv0781195531stylingblock-content-wrapper" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); min-width: 100%;" width="100%" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0"><tbody><tr><td class="yiv0781195531stylingblock-content-margin-cell" style="border-collapse: collapse; padding: 0px 10px;"><table class="yiv0781195531stylingblock-content-wrapper" style="background-color: transparent; min-width: 100%;" width="100%" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0"><tbody><tr><td class="yiv0781195531stylingblock-content-wrapper yiv0781195531camarker-inner" style="border-collapse: collapse; padding: 0px;"><h2 style="line-height: 1;">This Week In Dumb</h2></td></tr></tbody></table></td></tr></tbody></table><table class="yiv0781195531stylingblock-content-wrapper" style="min-width: 100%;" width="100%" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0"><tbody><tr><td class="yiv0781195531stylingblock-content-wrapper yiv0781195531camarker-inner" style="border-collapse: collapse; padding: 0px 10px;"><div style="line-height: 31px;"><ul><li>Pro-Trump media <a rel="nofollow" target="blank" href="http://click.e.mediamatters.org/?qs=4d9fb779fb83efce252fc79a46cc774035fb0da3e1a16b5dd332c1e8e6cc3cf27f97a2c8487cc6fc42257aaedff5a66dea8a5293afe4a8ce" title="predictably excused" style="">predictably excused</a> Trump saying that he would accept election interference from foreign governments, saying that Trump was just "playing."</li><li>A Fox & Friends host <a rel="nofollow" target="blank" href="http://click.e.mediamatters.org/?qs=4d9fb779fb83efcecc9418759c8f5bd2904b614492270c4eb7317b3632400ac771bd08d2de0223d34b2ec063369a608a118daa1eeb5635b9" title="wondered" style="">wondered</a> why a candidate contacted by a foreign government would ever alert the FBI: "What's the FBI going to do?"</li><li>Utility companies and their fossil fuel company allies <a rel="nofollow" target="blank" href="http://click.e.mediamatters.org/?qs=4d9fb779fb83efce7d605bb19aa5da6666d99622f3c76384042e464f4f8852237ead2bc7b481a73b2273308cb93e73d7ec1af6a24d833733" title="are trying to" style="">are trying to</a> use local media and Facebook ads to push bogus claims about rooftop solar power.</li><li>Lou Dobbs told Trump <a rel="nofollow" target="blank" href="http://click.e.mediamatters.org/?qs=4d9fb779fb83efceeb3079ca0be8a55c6629578b269a21deec799dcd932dfb4c171e7e17eb9a11ccd8b30e1fcb27427d8f603715bf174b3f" title="to not allow" style="">to not allow</a> any subpoenas from Congress to be honored.</li><li>Without any evidence, a Fox Business host <a rel="nofollow" target="blank" href="http://click.e.mediamatters.org/?qs=64473aba2f0c93065a1f1aca4e1a1064898e7e71e52c7896c6091a449046e7752cf66c1fe56cf08cc0717bdd7746aef94782f5d23d133af4" title="suggested that" style="">suggested that</a> attacks on oil tankers in the Persian Gulf could be "a false flag" by "rogue elements" within Iran.</li><li>NRA spokesperson <a rel="nofollow" target="blank" href="http://click.e.mediamatters.org/?qs=64473aba2f0c93067ad4209a7c71cba790abdeef8c65b4d9e262afe44e5f047877dbc1d2622138e4bd032fe416a36e350afce3128f926b1c" title="Dana Loesch" style="">Dana Loesch</a>: People convicted of a violent misdemeanor hate crime should be allowed to buy a gun.</li><li>Government officials in San Antonio conclusively debunked far-right rumors of Ebola among refugees. Laura Ingraham <a rel="nofollow" target="blank" href="http://click.e.mediamatters.org/?qs=64473aba2f0c93062eb3dd26185259c769dc12ec912ebd34ace7cd163fcc74e4df22a185cbdecac31ccc86335020174912a2e2128c1e58fa" title="had fearmongered about it the night before" style="">had fearmongered about it the night before</a>.</li><li>Tucker Carlson's guest <a rel="nofollow" target="blank" href="http://click.e.mediamatters.org/?qs=64473aba2f0c9306a98f9d0dc8ffabb4f178ed810e2b8582749a05527246aa850def1051bed0a346e4df253020034f1759e75bbc00066eae" title="pushed" style="">pushed</a> the white nationalist conspiracy theory that Democrats want Latinos to come to the United States and replace white people.</li><li>A Fox News contributor <a rel="nofollow" target="blank" href="http://click.e.mediamatters.org/?qs=64473aba2f0c9306f280acb26e2c8b9f657cf7629e3c3f08f4ffa21b1a7228415a1628736ac3bd0564789804ef1ea364f6dd816db881088e" title="admitted to Congress" style="">admitted to Congress</a> that he had not read the entire Mueller report.</li><li>While defending Trump, Fox & Friends <a rel="nofollow" target="blank" href="http://click.e.mediamatters.org/?qs=64473aba2f0c93068fff18e459e9a4e50ffb3baf6aca845529bc96e0ea11e7acebcea9a2f4836d830d145c9a7cd5b028172e3cfecd30b2d2" title="criticized" style="">criticized</a> John Dean for tweeting too much: "Almost 1,000 tweets ... Who has time for that?"</li></ul></div></td></tr></tbody></table></div><div>NEW 3/18 history</div><div>
</div><div><a href="https://www.mediamatters.org/blog/2019/03/12/video-years-laura-ingraham-s-anti-immigrant-commentary/223057">https://www.mediamatters.org/blog/2019/03/12/video-years-laura-ingraham-s-anti-immigrant-commentary/223057</a></div><div>
</div><div>In the fall of 2017, Fox News <a href="https://www.mediamatters.org/blog/2017/10/28/fox-s-new-prime-time-lineup-breitbart-tv/218360" style="box-sizing: border-box; background-color: transparent; text-decoration-line: none; outline: none; font-weight: 700; border-bottom: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204);">announced</a> it was giving its prime-time 10 p.m. slot to longtime conservative commentator Laura Ingraham, who has a <a href="https://www.mediamatters.org/blog/2018/08/10/Here-are-52-examples-of-Laura-Ingrahams-racism/220966" style="box-sizing: border-box; background-color: transparent; text-decoration-line: none; outline: none; font-weight: 700; border-bottom: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204);">history</a> of vile, racist, and anti-immigrant commentary. The choice has proven costly for Fox; Ingraham’s time slot was <a href="https://www.thewrap.com/tucker-carlson-and-laura-ingraham-boycotts-have-cost-millions-in-ad-losses-data-shows-exclusive/" style="box-sizing: border-box; background-color: transparent; text-decoration-line: none; outline: none; font-weight: 700; border-bottom: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204);">reportedly</a> “down at least $16 million in ad revenue in 2018.”Ingraham has spent years demonizing and mocking immigrants. In an August rant that <a href="https://www.mediamatters.org/blog/2018/08/09/laura-ingrahams-anti-immigrant-rant-ripped-white-supremacists/220951" style="box-sizing: border-box; background-color: transparent; text-decoration-line: none; outline: none; font-weight: 700; border-bottom: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204);">directly echoed</a> white supremacist talking points, Ingraham <a href="https://www.mediamatters.org/video/2018/08/08/laura-ingraham-massive-demographic-changes-have-been-foisted-upon-american-people-and-they-are/220944" style="box-sizing: border-box; background-color: transparent; text-decoration-line: none; outline: none; font-weight: 700; border-bottom: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204);">warned</a>, “Massive demographic changes have been foisted upon the American people, and they are changes that none of us ever voted for, and most of us don't like. From Virginia to California, we see stark examples of how radically, in some ways, the country has changed. Now, much of this is related to both illegal and, in some cases, legal immigration that, of course, progressives love.” She <a href="https://www.mediamatters.org/video/2018/04/27/laura-ingraham-dismisses-asylum-claims-hondurans-fleeing-violence-its-not-our-problem/220064" style="box-sizing: border-box; background-color: transparent; text-decoration-line: none; outline: none; font-weight: 700; border-bottom: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204);">dismissed</a> asylum claims from Hondurans fleeing violence because, according to her, “it’s not our problem.” She <a href="https://www.mediamatters.org/video/2018/06/18/laura-ingraham-calls-child-detention-centers-essentially-summer-camps/220472" style="box-sizing: border-box; background-color: transparent; text-decoration-line: none; outline: none; font-weight: 700; border-bottom: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204);">referred</a> to <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/18/us/immigrant-children-detention-center-audio.html" style="box-sizing: border-box; background-color: transparent; text-decoration-line: none; outline: none; font-weight: 700; border-bottom: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204);">detention centers</a> for migrant children as “essentially summer camps.” She <a href="https://www.mediamatters.org/video/2016/04/29/laura-ingraham-trumps-claim-mexico-sending-rapists-true/210143" style="box-sizing: border-box; background-color: transparent; text-decoration-line: none; outline: none; font-weight: 700; border-bottom: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204);">defended</a> then-candidate Donald Trump’s claim that Mexico is sending rapists to the United States and <a href="https://www.mediamatters.org/video/2016/03/04/laura-ingraham-mexicans-have-come-here-to-murde/209025" style="box-sizing: border-box; background-color: transparent; text-decoration-line: none; outline: none; font-weight: 700; border-bottom: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204);">argued</a> that Mexicans “have come here to murder and rape our people.” She <a href="https://www.mediamatters.org/video/2013/08/16/ingraham-a-lot-of-recent-immigrants-have-wreake/195452" style="box-sizing: border-box; background-color: transparent; text-decoration-line: none; outline: none; font-weight: 700; border-bottom: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204);">claimed</a> that a lot of immigrants “have wreaked havoc upon communities.”And there’s so much <a href="https://www.mediamatters.org/people/laura-ingraham" style="box-sizing: border-box; background-color: transparent; text-decoration-line: none; outline: none; font-weight: 700; border-bottom: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204);">more</a>.Video]</div><div>
</div><div></div><div>filter bubble fail?</div><div>Once again proving they probably don't realize <a href="https://www.commondreams.org/news/2018/08/01/debunking-pundits-and-corporate-democrats-new-poll-finds-unabashedly-left-agenda" style="text-decoration-line: none;">just how popular such ideas have become</a>, Fox News on Tuesday tried to ridicule and discredit key platform planks that progressive Democrats successfully ran on this election cycle but ended up just reminding people that these ideas actually make a lot of sense.In a segment titled "<a href="https://video.foxnews.com/v/5966650393001/?#sp=show-clips" style="text-decoration-line: none;">Freshman Insurrection</a>" on Tuesday night, right-wing host Laura Ingraham presented newly-elected House members—namely Ayanna Pressley of Massachusetts, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez of New York, Rashida Tlaib of Michigan, and Ilhan Omar of Minnesota—as a cabal of nutty radicals hell-bent on upending Nancy Pelosi's leadership as they advocate for "wacky" ideas like providing every, single person in the United States access to healthcare and saving the planet's natural systems from destruction while providing quality, high-paying jobs to millions of people as the country makes a rapid transition to a renewable energy system.As the left-leaning group People for Bernie [Sanders] pointed out:<blockquote data-lang="en" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">This is the best agenda Fox News has promoted all week. <a href="https://t.co/p8FXqMCtTu" style="text-decoration-line: none;">pic.twitter.com/p8FXqMCtTu</a><interaction data-token="5b96855f8198b4e625350260" data-context="true" data-tags="" data-fallback="true">— People For Bernie (@People4Bernie) <a href="https://twitter.com/People4Bernie/status/1062554108471652353?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw" style="text-decoration-line: none;">November 14, 2018</a></interaction></blockquote><blockquote data-lang="en" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">Weird how the right says "nothing is free" but then give the Left wonderful free advertising like this.— Giovanni Torre (@GiovanniTorre) <a href="https://twitter.com/GiovanniTorre/status/1062562597231190016?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw" style="text-decoration-line: none;">November 14, 2018</a></blockquote>"Fox really makes the best pro-progressives graphics," <a href="https://twitter.com/Statistar30/status/1062552168501313537" style="text-decoration-line: none;">said</a> another as screenshots of Ingraham's segment began to make the rounds on social media. The outlet has been caught doing the same multiple times in the last year (<a href="https://www.commondreams.org/views/2018/06/28/fox-news-reminds-us-alexandria-ocasio-cortezs-platform-ispretty-reasonable" style="text-decoration-line: none;">here</a>, <a href="https://www.commondreams.org/news/2018/07/24/watch-right-wing-reporter-describes-how-uncomfortable-she-felt-ocasio-cortez-rallied" style="text-decoration-line: none;">here</a>, and <a href="https://www.commondreams.org/news/2018/08/01/fox-friends-poll-designed-discredit-medicare-all-explodes-their-face" style="text-decoration-line: none;">here</a>).As it turns out, an increasing number of Americans support bold climate action, a Medicare for All plan, student loan forgiveness and tuition-free higher education, and <a href="https://www.commondreams.org/news/2018/06/25/heeding-immigrant-rights-activists-demands-democratic-lawmaker-joins-growing-call" style="text-decoration-line: none;">a more humane immigration system</a>.Meanwhile, Parker Malloy, editor-at-large for Media Matters for America, offered Fox News her graphic design skills so "wacky" Republicans in the House (albeit less of them in the coming Congress) do not feel left out:...</div><div></div>capt 11/16<a href="http://mediamatters.org/blog">http://mediamatters.org/blog</a>=new 818With the rise of President Donald Trump, Fox News has drifted toward advocating even more explicitly for a white supremacist ideology. In her latest tirade against immigration Wednesday night, host Laura Ingraham delivered one of the most patently anti-immigrant and racist screeds from the network yet."It does seem like the America we know and love doesn't exist anymore," she said. "Massive demographic changes have been foisted on the American people. And they are changes that none of us ever voted for, and most of us don't like. From Virginia to California, we see stark examples of how radically, in some ways, the country has changed. Now, much of this is related to both illegal and legal immigration, that of course progressives love."While it's true that the size of the immigrant population in the United States has grown in recent decades, there's simply no evidence that it's causing the kinds of problems Republicans like to imagine and stir up outage about with their fear-mongering. And a large immigrant population is nothing new in American history — the country had similar levels of <a href="https://www.census.gov/newsroom/pdf/cspan_fb_slides.pdf" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); text-decoration-line: none;">immigration</a> in the late 19th century.  And despite Ingraham's claims to the contrary, most Americans have no problem with the level of immigration in the country. According to <a href="https://www.people-press.org/2018/06/28/shifting-public-views-on-legal-immigration-into-the-u-s/" style="text-decoration-line: none;">Pew</a> <a href="https://www.people-press.org/2018/06/28/shifting-public-views-on-legal-immigration-into-the-u-s/" style="text-decoration-line: none;">Research Center</a>, 38 percent of Americans want to see immigration continue at present levels, while 32 percent actually want to see immigration increased.Only 24 percent of Americans desire less immigration to the U.S. — down from 53 percent in 2001.Of course, that's not what Ingraham and her ilk would like you to think. They'd like you to think everyone is as terrified of immigrants as they are. And despite what you hear from politicians like Trump, unauthorized entry into the country is not a growing problem. There are fewer undocumented immigrants in the United States now than there were in 2009, and the rate of <a href="https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2017/04/27/5-facts-about-illegal-immigration-in-the-u-s/" style="text-decoration-line: none;">net illegal immigration</a> has been about zero for a decade."Fox used to just be sort of the country club style of racism, which is extremely awful....but they've crossed the threshold now. Just straight up white nationalism every single night," tweeted Andrew Lawrence, a senior researcher for Media Matters who first discovered the clip.Watch the clip below:not good score:<a href="http://www.politifact.com/personalities/laura-ingraham/">http://www.politifact.com/personalities/laura-ingraham/</a><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><a href="https://www.gq.com/story/spygate-conspiracy-theory-explained" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; outline: none;">https://www.gq.com/story/spygate-conspiracy-theory-explained</a></div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">
</div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">escalator</div><div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">no many lnx</div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">
</div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">Spygate: How Right-Wing Media Creates a Conspiracy Theory Out of Thin Air</div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">
</div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">BY JAY WILLIS</div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">
</div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">This is how conservative media transformed a small news item into a full-blown conspiracy theory that the president (apparently) believes to be true.</div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">
</div><div>The plot goes like this: During the summer of 2016, on the clandestine orders of then-president Barack Obama, the FBI and CIA hatched an ambitious plan to topple the Trump campaign from the inside. In a scandal of unprecedented scope, Democratic politicians commandeered American counterintelligence resources to spy on their primary political opponent and boost Hillary Clinton's chances of winning the election. The Russia investigation that has dominated headlines for nearly two years is, in fact, a desperate smokescreen conjured up by terrified Deep State actors to conceal evidence of their own wrongdoing, and to frame the president for heinous crimes he didn't commit.</div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">
</div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">On May 8, The Washington Post reported on the White House's decision to back the Justice Department's withholding of information from House Intelligence Committee chairman Devin Nunes, on the grounds that disclosure would expose the identity of "a U.S. citizen who has provided information to the FBI and CIA." The authors added, though, that the individual had been a source of information used by the special counsel's office—and that it was unclear whether Trump knew this "key fact" when his administration chose to side with law enforcement.</div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">
</div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">It didn't take long for him to find out. Almost immediately, the right-wing-media ecosystem began laundering and repackaging this news item, weaving its constituent elements together with Trumpian talking points until a full-blown conspiracy theory worthy of the president's tweets emerged on the other side. This metamorphosis is what would happen if a word cloud sourced from a Trump rally were used in a giant game of telephone—but one in which the gibberish end result were then broadcast as news to hundreds of millions of recipients.</div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">
</div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">How did this happen?</div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">
</div><div>May 10</div><div>Two days after the initial report, citing "the Washington Post's unnamed law-enforcement leakers," The Wall Street Journal publishes an analysis by conservative commentator Kim Strassel. "[W]e might take this to mean that the FBI secretly had a person on the payroll who used his or her non-FBI credentials to interact in some capacity with the Trump campaign." Such a development, she writes, "would amount to spying, and it is hugely disconcerting." Strassel continues (all emphasis mine):</div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">
</div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">[W]hen precisely was this human source operating? Because if it was prior to that infamous Papadopoulos tip, then the FBI isn’t being straight. It would mean the bureau was spying on the Trump campaign prior to that moment. And that in turn would mean that the FBI had been spurred to act on the basis of something other than a junior campaign aide’s loose lips.</div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">
</div><div>This is at once cautious and bold, introducing the salacious vocabulary of espionage to a detail about an intelligence source—but only, she clarifies, if the allegations are true. Strassel does not offer a reason for entertaining her hypothetical, other than her characterization of the players' accounts of the investigation as "suspiciously vague."She is, in the classic style of well-compensated public intellectuals filling up column inches, just asking questions.</div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">
</div><div>That night, other journalists are happy to offer answers. On Sean Hannity's Fox News show, journalist Sara Carter, citing Strassel, tells listeners of “concern that the FBI actually had a spy within the Trump campaign.” Hannity is dumbfounded: “What? What?” he splutters. "Yes," replies Carter. Blogs like Gateway Pundit kick off the breathless hyperbole category. "Now we know why the Deep State has been working so hard to take down President Trump and the republic," said the post, linking to and block-quoting Strassel. "OBAMA DEEP STATE HAD A SPY INSIDE THE TRUMP CAMPAIGN!"</div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">
</div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">
</div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">
</div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">May 11</div><div>The baton is passed to Fox News, which syndicates Strassel's article and changes the headline from “About that FBI ‘source’” to “Did the FBI place a mole inside the 2016 Trump campaign?” On Fox & Friends, the president's morning program of choice, Pete Hegseth weighs in, hesitantly at first. "Did the FBI have a spy in the Trump campaign? Just asking the question. There’s an op-ed in The Wall Street Journal about it." Ainsley Earhardt quotes at length from the column before positing that it means the FBI and DOJ had someone "paid to go and spy on President Trump."</div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">
</div><div>On his radio show, Rush Limbaugh picks up the thread, encouraging the conflation of the FBI and President Obama. Strassel's article mentions Obama only once, and only in passing. But this is Rush Limbaugh, not a major newspaper; he can say things like this without fear of repercussions.</div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">
</div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">When I say “the FBI,” I mean the Obama administration. They infiltrated the Trump campaign with a spy, and while they had that spy implanted, they were unmasking and leaking and obtaining FISA spying warrants and conducting criminal investigations of Trump advisers. This is a big deal...For our purposes, folks, the important thing is that the Obama administration infiltrated the Trump campaign with a spy.</div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">
</div><div>The buzz grows louder online. "Did the FBI have a spy in the Trump campaign?" asks Andrew McCarthy, praising Strassel's column as "essential reporting," in a National Review article that published early the next morning. Right-wing blog ZeroHedge makes an affirmative statement—“WSJ: The FBI Hid a Mole in the Trump Campaign”—out of his question. Also citing Strassel, Tucker Carlson refers to a "government spy" and a "mole" sent by "the Obama administration." His guest, NRATV personality Dan Bongino, reveals that he believes there to have been more than one spy, referring to "reporting." He does not elaborate on-air.</div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">
</div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">
</div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">May 14</div><div>The week begins with lawmakers joining the fray. On Fox & Friends, GOP congressman Ron DeSantis calls for a follow-up investigation into the matter. "I know that we’re actively trying to get the underlying documents that would tell us: Did they spy on the Trump campaign or not?” he asks, implicitly treating the premises of that query as if they were beyond dispute. To Lou Dobbs on Fox Business Network, Matt Gaetz expresses unease with "reports" he'd heard "about potential human intelligence being collected on a rival presidential campaign."</div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">
</div><div>These men are egged on by, among others, Rush Limbaugh, who asserts he knows the identity of the spy that the FBI "put in the Trump campaign," and Hannity, whose radio guest David Limbaugh—Rush's younger brother—opines that "an official policy inserting a confidential source into a presidential campaign" would be "unprecedented" and "worse than Watergate." Like DeSantis, he includes a soft qualifier, though: "If it happened! We have to get to the bottom of it."</div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">
</div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">May 15</div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">Nunes appears on the Fox & Friends set, hinting that the campaign might have been "set up" by the FBI. “I believe they never should have opened a counterintelligence investigation into a political party,” he explains. And although he at first avoids using the word "spy," his hosts are happy to put it in his mouth. Steve Doocy suggests that Nunes's narrative implies that Trump was "framed," while Earhardt adds that "it makes it sound like there was a spy."</div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">
</div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">
</div><div>Some 12 hours later, Hannity is again agape at the "possibility of an FBI mole that was inside the Trump campaign." He runs snippets of the "stunning" Nunes interview, scarcely able to believe his ears. "The powerful tools of intelligence used to spy on an opposition party candidate, and those powerful tools used against Americans?" he muses. "No, that can't happen here."</div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">
</div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">May 16</div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">On Laura Ingraham's show, Rudy Giuliani at once broaches the subject of the FBI "possibly placing a spy in the Trump campaign" while admitting that he doesn't know if the gossip is true. The next morning, on Fox & Friends, he’ll again dip his toes in the water before retreating to solid ground. "That would be the biggest scandal in the history of this town—at least, involving law enforcement," Giuliani warns.</div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">
</div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">
</div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">He's intrigued by the possibility, though. "Maybe two spies!" he wonders aloud.</div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">
</div><div>Meanwhile, outside the MAGAsphere, a New York Times article helps breathe new life into the conspiracy theory. The authors of that report—an account of the 2016 law-enforcement inquiry into the Trump campaign—note that “at least one government informant met several times with Mr. Page and Mr. Papadopoulos.” Referring to the preceding week of innuendo, they characterize this detail as a “politically contentious point, with Mr. Trump’s allies questioning whether the F.B.I. was spying on the Trump campaign or trying to entrap campaign officials.”</div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">
</div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">As noted by USA Today's Brad Heath, FBI guidelines allow agents to use informants, among many other methods of information-gathering, when assessing whether a matter warrants a full criminal investigation. The Bureau's partial reliance on a "source" here isn't especially remarkable.</div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">
</div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">Furthermore, given their knowledge of the Kremlin's election-meddling efforts, it isn't difficult to understand why the intelligence community might have an interest in a campaign's ties to Russia, regardless of the candidate's political affiliation. Marco Rubio—a man not known for being fond of Hillary Clinton—said as much after reviewing the underlying evidence along with the rest of the members of the Senate Intelligence Committee, which found no secret political motivation for opening the inquiry. “There was a growing body of evidence that a foreign government was attempting to interfere in both the process and the debate surrounding our elections, and their job is to investigate counterintelligence,” he reasoned in comments cited by the Times. “That’s what they did.”</div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">
</div><div>It doesn't matter. One little opening is all it takes. Breitbart, mentioning the May 8 Post story and Strassel's follow-up, proclaims that the Times report "confirmed" that the FBI ran a "spy operation on the Trump campaign that involved government informants, secret subpoenas, and possible wiretaps." (The article itself mentions only the FISA warrant on Page, but the headline's plural form—"wiretaps"—does its job of making things sound especially ominous.)</div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">
</div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">May 17</div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">Other right-wing outlets aggregating the Times report draw the same conclusions Breitbart did. “FBI officials admit they spied on the Trump campaign,” blares The Federalist, which justifies its assertion with a helpful explanatory aside.</div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">
</div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">This paragraph [in the Times report] is noteworthy for the way it describes spying on the campaign—“at least one government informant met several times with Mr. Page and Mr. Papadopoulos”—before suggesting that might not be spying. The definition of spying is to secretly collect information, so it’s not really in dispute whether a government informant fits the bill.”</div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">
</div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">Note that the write-up does not actually suggest that the FBI "planted" anyone in the campaign. But by setting out an expansive definition of "spying," articles like this one allow other publications—ones that might not so carefully define their terms—to use the word in that more specific (and more nefarious) context.</div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">
</div><div>It is the National Review's coverage—assisted by cable news—that finally allows this story to reach the hallways of the Executive Residence. "With the blessing of the Obama White House," writes Andrew McCarthy, again attributing the actions of law-enforcement officials to affirmative decisions of the then-president, the FBI "took the powers that enable our government to spy on foreign adversaries and used them to spy on Americans—Americans who just happened to be their political adversaries."He continues:</div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">
</div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">Obviously, Russia was trying to meddle in the election, mainly through cyber-espionage—hacking. There would, then, have been nothing inappropriate about the FBI’s opening up a counterintelligence investigation against Russia. Indeed, it would have been irresponsible not to do so. That’s what counterintelligence powers are for.</div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">
</div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">But opening up a counterintelligence investigation against Russia is not the same thing as opening up a counterintelligence investigation against the Trump campaign.</div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">
</div><div>This is the thrust of his argument, and it is nonsensical. McCarthy seems to assume that counterintelligence investigations "against Russia" and counterintelligence investigations "against the Trump campaign" must be mutually exclusive propositions, and that under no circumstances could a Russia-related intelligence probe look at the activities of Russia-related Trump officials. (His analysis is aided by a gross oversimplification of a key provision of FISA.) It would be "irresponsible," he urges, not to investigate what Russia may have been doing. But by virtue of their affiliation with a politician, everyone on the campaign should be insulated from any attendant scrutiny.</div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">
</div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">Before his column publishes, McCarthy hops on Fox & Friends to promote it. “There’s probably no doubt that they had at least one confidential informant in the campaign,” he says in a strange moment of confidence and timidity. (In a fun, incestuous right-wing-media aside, while listing McCarthy's credentials, F&F co-host Brian Kilmeade adds, "Hopefully a Fox News contributor soon.") Not long afterward, Trump takes to Twitter to express his outrage, shouting out McCarthy by name for a job well done.</div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">
</div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">
</div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">Donald J. Trump</div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">?</div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">@realDonaldTrump</div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"> Wow, word seems to be coming out that the Obama FBI “SPIED ON THE TRUMP CAMPAIGN WITH AN EMBEDDED INFORMANT.” Andrew McCarthy says, “There’s probably no doubt that they had at least one confidential informant in the campaign.” If so, this is bigger than Watergate!</div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">
</div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">...</div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">
</div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">Law-enforcement pushback begins in earnest. Sources tell CNN that, no, the source was not placed within the Trump campaign. The Times provides even more details about the timeline, affirming that the informant spoke to campaign members only after the FBI learned of their dubious contacts with Russia. "No evidence has emerged," it reiterates, "that the informant acted improperly when the F.B.I. asked for help in gathering information on the former campaign advisers, or that agents veered from the F.B.I.’s investigative guidelines and began a politically motivated inquiry, which would be illegal."</div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">
</div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">It's too late. Because Donald Trump is president of the United States, the content of his tweets becomes breaking news regardless of its accuracy. "Trump: Justice Department planted spy in 2016 campaign," declares an AP headline that runs, among other places, in The Washington Post and U.S. News & World Report. The body text notes that Trump's "own lawyer" has said that the allegation "might not be true." But for readers inclined to believe what Donald Trump says, or for those who only saw the headline as they scrolled through their social feeds, it might as well have been proven beyond a reasonable doubt.</div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">
</div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">Epilogue: May 18–20</div><div>The next day, the president tweets again, and again, with grateful acknowledgements for the hard work put in by Fox News personalities Lou Dobbs, David Asman, and Gregg Jarrett.</div></div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">
</div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"></div><a href="https://www.splcenter.org/hatewatch/2008/06/10/laura-ingraham-right-wing-radios-high-priestess-hate">https://www.splcenter.org/hatewatch/2008/06/10/laura-ingraham-right-wing-radios-high-priestess-hate</a>excerpt from <a href="https://www.alternet.org/books/9/Shock+Jocks%3A+Hate+Speech+and+Talk+Radio+/" style="text-decoration: none;">Shock Jocks: Hate Speech and Talk Radio</a> by Rory O'Connor with Aaron Cutler (AlterNet Books, 2008).

Laura Ingraham is ... different. Not only is Ingraham younger than many other conservative radio personalities (at 45, she's more than a decade from Limbaugh's cohort), and the only female among them, but she also brings to the airwaves a snarky brand of aggressive humor fused with an attack-dog sensibility that she expresses with a chalk-on-gravel voice. Her goal is not to assert her own glory, but to rip apart her enemies, which include everyone from liberals and "elites" to, from time to time, even President George W. Bush and presidential hopeful John McCain. Her style of argumentation is bare-bones simple; in a 1997 piece for Salon.com, Eric Alterman wrote that Ingraham just laughed in response to a position he took on television during the 1996 election. How could he counter that?

Ingraham often uses laughter as a weapon. One of her show's most popular parodies, "But ... Monkey," interposes the sound of a screeching monkey over a sound bite from a political figure. Victims have included Democratic senators Harry Reid and Barbara Boxer as well as conservative gurus like columnist Charles Krauthammer. Other regular segments include "Deep Thought of the Day" and "Lie of the Day." Ingraham also makes great use of pop culture clips (she plays the theme song from the television show "Flipper" when discussing John Kerry), and her production values are generally superb. Like many other successful hosts, she is often very funny, and her rapid-fire pacing and easy banter with her younger male producers (all three are in their early 20s) has more in common with the liberal "Stephanie Miller Show" than the hard-line commentary sometimes heard on conservative talk shows. At a deeper level, however, despite the comedy, Ingraham takes what she does quite seriously.

The rabid nature of her assault against immigration reform is a good example. Ingraham has perhaps been more strongly anti-immigration than any other talk personality except Michael Savage. Her show even features a regular segment called "The Illegal Immigration Sob Story" alert, in which she reads news pieces she feels are biased toward illegal immigrants. When she had White House spokesman Tony Snow on her program, she began by asking him why the Bush administration was dragging its heels on immigration reform. After sarcastically apologizing for interrupting his talking points, she said, "69 percent of Americans, 85 percent of the GOP, 55 percent of the Democrats want the border enforced. Does that affect you guys, or do you guys just blow it off?"

In the two-for-one combination that all too often serves conservative radio well, Ingraham once claimed that the immigration bill was an attempt by the mainstream media to make more people liberals. Anyone who still wonders whether talk radio had an influence on the bill's defeat should look at Ingraham's numbers; with more than 5 million weekly listeners, she is tied with Glenn Beck as the fourth most listened to radio talk show host in America. Alterman wrote that Ingraham's popularity is due to her having "something more important than knowledge or experience. ... She has star quality." She is also fearless: She once confronted CNN host John Roberts for calling her "outspoken," saying, "Do you guys introduce liberal commentators that way?"

She's more aggressive than Limbaugh, more blatant than Hannity, and more rational than Beck or Savage, and although she often supports many of them (erroneously stating, for example, that Limbaugh never claimed the Clintons murdered Vince Foster), she is equally willing to call them out. She walked out of a "Hannity & Colmes" installment after the Don Imus "nappy-headed ho's" controversy was twisted into a discussion of Democratic vices, and once asked on her radio program after an appearance on "The O'Reilly Factor," "Why is Bill O'Reilly afraid of George Soros?" (In the same broadcast, Ingraham accused columnist Helen Thomas of working for Hezbollah, which has been identified by the U.S. government as a terrorist group.)

Ingraham was born and raised among the wealthy in Glastonbury, Conn., one of the state's richest suburbs, although her mother worked as a maid to support the family. She went to Dartmouth University and became the first female editor of the conservative Dartmouth Review, where conservative author Dinesh D'Souza, a former boyfriend, also worked. While there, she secretly sent a reporter with a tape recorder to a campus gay students association meeting; she then outed the students in print and sent tapes of the meetings to the students' parents. In the magazine she called association members "cheerleaders for latent campus sodomites." (In 1997, more than a decade later, she wrote an article in the Washington Post detailing how she had changed her views in light of her brother Curtis' coming out as gay.)

After graduating from Dartmouth, she went to work for the White House as a speechwriter; like her peers, conservative radio talkers Mark Levin and Hugh Hewitt, Ingraham began her professional career as a Reagan employee. She also obtained a law degree from the University of Virginia and clerked for Justice Clarence Thomas. In 1995 she appeared on the cover of the New York Times Magazine -- wearing a friend's hip, leopard-print miniskirt -- to illustrate an article about rising young conservatives. She then became both a regular MSNBC pundit and a commentator on the "CBS Evening News," where she once asked Israeli Prime Minister Shimon Peres if the United States should bomb Libya or Syria in retaliation for a TWA flight explosion whose cause was unknown. Ingraham argues politics the way lawyers argue cases, as if there can be no possible interpretation other than her own. She is a class-A schmoozer who understands and exploits her verbal gifts to the fullest. Her skill for networking, along with her willingness to go for the jugular, has allowed her to break into the boys' club of conservative radio.

In the late 1990s, she briefly hosted her own MSNBC cable television show, "Watch It!" (17 months and three time slots later, she joked that it should have been called "Watch It Get Canceled!"), and then, in 2001, launched "The Laura Ingraham Show" on radio. Ingraham's particular blend of humor and argument apparently translated more effectively on radio than on television, and the Talk Radio Network now syndicates her show on nearly 325 terrestrial stations (it's also available on Sirius and XM satellite radio). She has survived both a breast cancer scare and a broken wedding engagement, and continues to mock the establishment sardonically for three hours daily.

Ingraham has made more than her share of controversial comments, with frequent guest appearances on television affording her as much prominence as her radio work (for someone whose own television show was relatively short-lived, she spends a tremendous amount of time on other people's programs). She's no Neal Boortz, but she's certainly more outrageous than, say, Hugh Hewitt. In one of her most famous incidents, on Election Day 2006 Ingraham encouraged listeners to jam the phone line of a toll-free Democratic Party service for reporting voting problems. No tangible consequences came of it (the Democrats won anyway), but it did put Democratic Senator Patrick Leahy up in arms.

Perhaps the greatest controversy of Ingraham's career, however, came from comments she made about the Iraq War. In March of 2006, Ingraham went on a six-day tour of Iraq, visiting hospitals, orphanages and Iraqi villages. Upon returning to the United States, she appeared on NBC's "Today Show" to criticize the mainstream American media for its unwillingness to report "the truth" of the Iraq situation. She said that NBC had focused on programming "Where in the World is Matt Lauer?" and that "to do a show from Iraq means to talk to the Iraqi military, to go out with the Iraqi military, to actually have a conversation with the people instead of reporting from hotel balconies about the latest IEDs going off."

Washington Post writer Jonathan Finer later reported that Ingraham "rarely, if ever, spent a moment outside the protection of U.S. forces or a night outside a military base." Finer compared her experience with that of the Iraq-stationed journalists she criticized, "almost all of whom operate without military protection." While the National Review's Tim Graham applauded Ingraham for bringing out the "facts the media self-defense teams ignore," MSNBC host Keith Olbermann said on his show "Countdown" that Ingraham had dishonored the memory of the 80 American journalists killed and others kidnapped in Iraq, and that her comment "was not only unforgivable of her, it was desperate and it was stupid."

Ingraham's stance on women's issues is divided at best; around the time of Clarence Thomas' Supreme Court appointment, she joined with a conservative group called Independent Women's Forum that formed a committee to attack and discredit Anita Hill's sexual harassment testimony against Thomas. (Independent Women's Forum's other activities included testifying in Congress for defunding the Violence Against Women Act and against affirmative action.) While she has criticized Fox for gratuitous, sexually explicit programming and helped lead a media campaign against the misogynistic rapper Akon, she also co-hosted a three-part PBS special on "the gender wars," which explored "whether the advancement of women in virtually all areas of society can be achieved without a retreat, in some way, on the part of men." One need not guess where Ingraham, a convert to Roman Catholicism, stands on a woman's right to choose.

Among prominent female political figures, Hillary Clinton in particular provokes Ingraham's ire. Her first book, The Hillary Trap, tried hard to make the case that Clinton was actually setting women's rights back by arguing for special status for them. "The complaints of Western feminists look like petty self-absorption when you line them up against human rights abuses in Third World military dictatorships," Ingraham wrote.

Ingraham also argues that a vocal minority -- the "elites" -- is threatening American values, and they should pipe down for the majority's sake. Elites include anti-war demonstrators and university professors ("It's well known that in the 1960s, leftists conquered the academies"). There is also no love lost between Ingraham and Europeans, who she believes fail to understand and appreciate America's love for "God, guns and the death penalty."

Ingraham's third book, Power to the People, was released on Sept. 11, 2007. The patriotic timing was deliberate; the book is partly memoir but is mostly devoted to annihilating what she calls the "pornification" of America, an increasing cultural tendency toward flaunted sexuality and the loss of traditional values. She calls the book "a rallying cry for common sense and good old-fashioned American ideals of patriotism, family, faith and country," one that encourages people to take matters into their own hands. In its first week, the book ranked third on the Amazon.com best-seller list.

"We are the government," Ingraham said in an interview promoting the book. Controlling people by telling them how to think for themselves is a nice piece of demagogic trickery, though hardly original among the conservative bloc that crowds talk radio today. Ingraham has proved to be a master at such trickery -- and like her or not, she's every bit as funny, as appealing and as dangerous as each of her male peers and friends.<div wibbitz="embed-main-player" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><div class="bio-new body_media-culture" style="width: 630px; font-style: italic; line-height: 22px; height: auto; border-top: 3px solid rgb(223, 223, 218); clear: both;"><div class="field field-name-field-bio field-type-text-long field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even">Filmmaker and journalist Rory O'Connor is the author of <a href="https://www.alternet.org/books/9/Shock+Jocks%3A+Hate+Speech+and+Talk+Radio+/" style="text-decoration: none;">Shock Jocks: Hate Speech and Talk Radio</a> by Rory O'Connor with Aaron Cutler (AlterNet Books, 2008). O'Connor also writes the <a href="http://www.roryoconnor.org/" style="text-decoration: none;">Media Is a Plural</a> blog.</div></div></div></div>http://www.rightwingwatch.org/people/laura-ingraham/<li class="full-image" style="box-sizing: border-box; transition-duration: 0.2s; transition-property: background-color, border-color, box-shadow, color, opacity, text-shadow, transform, -webkit-transform; transition-timing-function: linear; background-image: initial; background-position: initial; background-size: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; border: 1px solid rgb(239, 243, 243); list-style: none; margin-bottom: 1em; padding: 1em 1em 0.5em;"><a href="http://www.rightwingwatch.org/post/right-wing-round-up-63016/" title="Right Wing Round-Up – 6/30/16" style="box-sizing: border-box; transition-duration: 0.2s; transition-property: background-color, border-color, box-shadow, color, opacity, text-shadow, transform, -webkit-transform; transition-timing-function: linear; background-color: transparent; outline-offset: 0.111111em; text-decoration: none;"></a><p class="date" style="box-sizing: border-box; transition-duration: 0.2s; transition-property: background-color, border-color, box-shadow, color, opacity, text-shadow, transform, -webkit-transform; transition-timing-function: linear; margin: 0px 0px 0.5em; font-weight: bold; text-transform: uppercase; line-height: 1;"><a href="http://www.rightwingwatch.org/post/right-wing-round-up-63016/" title="Right Wing Round-Up – 6/30/16" style="box-sizing: border-box; transition-duration: 0.2s; transition-property: background-color, border-color, box-shadow, color, opacity, text-shadow, transform, -webkit-transform; transition-timing-function: linear; background-color: transparent; outline-offset: 0.111111em; text-decoration: none;">JUNE 30, 2016 5:39 PM</a>Right Wing Round-Up – 6/30/16</li><li class="full-image" style="box-sizing: border-box; transition-duration: 0.2s; transition-property: background-color, border-color, box-shadow, color, opacity, text-shadow, transform, -webkit-transform; transition-timing-function: linear; background-image: initial; background-position: initial; background-size: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; border: 1px solid rgb(239, 243, 243); list-style: none; margin-bottom: 1em; padding: 1em 1em 0.5em;"><a href="http://www.rightwingwatch.org/post/right-wing-round-up-62416/" title="Right Wing Round-Up – 6/24/16" style="box-sizing: border-box; transition-duration: 0.2s; transition-property: background-color, border-color, box-shadow, color, opacity, text-shadow, transform, -webkit-transform; transition-timing-function: linear; background-color: transparent; outline-offset: 0.111111em; text-decoration: none;"></a><p class="date" style="box-sizing: border-box; transition-duration: 0.2s; transition-property: background-color, border-color, box-shadow, color, opacity, text-shadow, transform, -webkit-transform; transition-timing-function: linear; margin: 0px 0px 0.5em; font-weight: bold; text-transform: uppercase; line-height: 1;"><a href="http://www.rightwingwatch.org/post/right-wing-round-up-62416/" title="Right Wing Round-Up – 6/24/16" style="box-sizing: border-box; transition-duration: 0.2s; transition-property: background-color, border-color, box-shadow, color, opacity, text-shadow, transform, -webkit-transform; transition-timing-function: linear; background-color: transparent; outline-offset: 0.111111em; text-decoration: none;">JUNE 24, 2016 5:32 PM</a>Right Wing Round-Up – 6/24/16</li><li class="full-image" style="box-sizing: border-box; transition-duration: 0.2s; transition-property: background-color, border-color, box-shadow, color, opacity, text-shadow, transform, -webkit-transform; transition-timing-function: linear; background-image: initial; background-position: initial; background-size: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; border: 1px solid rgb(239, 243, 243); list-style: none; margin-bottom: 1em; padding: 1em 1em 0.5em;"><a href="http://www.rightwingwatch.org/post/cpacs-tough-questions-for-republicans-why-do-you-love-america/" title="CPAC’s ‘Tough’ Questions For Republicans: ‘Why Do You Love America?’" style="box-sizing: border-box; transition-duration: 0.2s; transition-property: background-color, border-color, box-shadow, color, opacity, text-shadow, transform, -webkit-transform; transition-timing-function: linear; background-color: transparent; outline-offset: 0.111111em; text-decoration: none;"></a><p class="date" style="box-sizing: border-box; transition-duration: 0.2s; transition-property: background-color, border-color, box-shadow, color, opacity, text-shadow, transform, -webkit-transform; transition-timing-function: linear; margin: 0px 0px 0.5em; font-weight: bold; text-transform: uppercase; line-height: 1;"><a href="http://www.rightwingwatch.org/post/cpacs-tough-questions-for-republicans-why-do-you-love-america/" title="CPAC’s ‘Tough’ Questions For Republicans: ‘Why Do You Love America?’" style="box-sizing: border-box; transition-duration: 0.2s; transition-property: background-color, border-color, box-shadow, color, opacity, text-shadow, transform, -webkit-transform; transition-timing-function: linear; background-color: transparent; outline-offset: 0.111111em; text-decoration: none;">FEBRUARY 26, 2015 4:40 PM</a>CPAC’s ‘Tough’ Questions For Republicans: ‘Why Do You Love America?’</li><li class="full-image" style="box-sizing: border-box; transition-duration: 0.2s; transition-property: background-color, border-color, box-shadow, color, opacity, text-shadow, transform, -webkit-transform; transition-timing-function: linear; background-image: initial; background-position: initial; background-size: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; border: 1px solid rgb(239, 243, 243); list-style: none; margin-bottom: 1em; padding: 1em 1em 0.5em;"><a href="http://www.rightwingwatch.org/post/chris-christie-courageously-refuses-to-read-the-new-york-times/" title="Chris Christie Courageously Refuses To Read The New York Times" style="box-sizing: border-box; transition-duration: 0.2s; transition-property: background-color, border-color, box-shadow, color, opacity, text-shadow, transform, -webkit-transform; transition-timing-function: linear; background-color: transparent; outline-offset: 0.111111em; text-decoration: none;"></a><p class="date" style="box-sizing: border-box; transition-duration: 0.2s; transition-property: background-color, border-color, box-shadow, color, opacity, text-shadow, transform, -webkit-transform; transition-timing-function: linear; margin: 0px 0px 0.5em; font-weight: bold; text-transform: uppercase; line-height: 1;"><a href="http://www.rightwingwatch.org/post/chris-christie-courageously-refuses-to-read-the-new-york-times/" title="Chris Christie Courageously Refuses To Read The New York Times" style="box-sizing: border-box; transition-duration: 0.2s; transition-property: background-color, border-color, box-shadow, color, opacity, text-shadow, transform, -webkit-transform; transition-timing-function: linear; background-color: transparent; outline-offset: 0.111111em; text-decoration: none;">FEBRUARY 26, 2015 3:00 PM</a>Chris Christie Courageously Refuses To Read The New York Times</li><li class="full-image" style="box-sizing: border-box; transition-duration: 0.2s; transition-property: background-color, border-color, box-shadow, color, opacity, text-shadow, transform, -webkit-transform; transition-timing-function: linear; background-image: initial; background-position: initial; background-size: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; border: 1px solid rgb(239, 243, 243); list-style: none; margin-bottom: 1em; padding: 1em 1em 0.5em;"><a href="http://www.rightwingwatch.org/post/cpac-superheroes-whos-the-hulk/" title="CPAC Superheroes: Who’s The Hulk?" style="box-sizing: border-box; transition-duration: 0.2s; transition-property: background-color, border-color, box-shadow, color, opacity, text-shadow, transform, -webkit-transform; transition-timing-function: linear; background-color: transparent; outline-offset: 0.111111em; text-decoration: none;"></a><p class="date" style="box-sizing: border-box; transition-duration: 0.2s; transition-property: background-color, border-color, box-shadow, color, opacity, text-shadow, transform, -webkit-transform; transition-timing-function: linear; margin: 0px 0px 0.5em; font-weight: bold; text-transform: uppercase; line-height: 1;"><a href="http://www.rightwingwatch.org/post/cpac-superheroes-whos-the-hulk/" title="CPAC Superheroes: Who’s The Hulk?" style="box-sizing: border-box; transition-duration: 0.2s; transition-property: background-color, border-color, box-shadow, color, opacity, text-shadow, transform, -webkit-transform; transition-timing-function: linear; background-color: transparent; outline-offset: 0.111111em; text-decoration: none;">JANUARY 29, 2015 2:49 PM</a>CPAC Superheroes: Who’s The Hulk?</li><li class="full-image" style="box-sizing: border-box; transition-duration: 0.2s; transition-property: background-color, border-color, box-shadow, color, opacity, text-shadow, transform, -webkit-transform; transition-timing-function: linear; background-image: initial; background-position: initial; background-size: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; border: 1px solid rgb(239, 243, 243); list-style: none; margin-bottom: 1em; padding: 1em 1em 0.5em;"><a href="http://www.rightwingwatch.org/post/five-crazy-conspiracy-theories-about-ebola-that-conservatives-actually-believe/" title="Five Crazy Conspiracy Theories About Ebola That Conservatives Actually Believe" style="box-sizing: border-box; transition-duration: 0.2s; transition-property: background-color, border-color, box-shadow, color, opacity, text-shadow, transform, -webkit-transform; transition-timing-function: linear; background-color: transparent; outline-offset: 0.111111em; text-decoration: none;"></a><p class="date" style="box-sizing: border-box; transition-duration: 0.2s; transition-property: background-color, border-color, box-shadow, color, opacity, text-shadow, transform, -webkit-transform; transition-timing-function: linear; margin: 0px 0px 0.5em; font-weight: bold; text-transform: uppercase; line-height: 1;"><a href="http://www.rightwingwatch.org/post/five-crazy-conspiracy-theories-about-ebola-that-conservatives-actually-believe/" title="Five Crazy Conspiracy Theories About Ebola That Conservatives Actually Believe" style="box-sizing: border-box; transition-duration: 0.2s; transition-property: background-color, border-color, box-shadow, color, opacity, text-shadow, transform, -webkit-transform; transition-timing-function: linear; background-color: transparent; outline-offset: 0.111111em; text-decoration: none;">OCTOBER 29, 2014 12:30 PM</a>Five Crazy Conspiracy Theories About Ebola That Conservatives Actually Believe</li><li class="full-image" style="box-sizing: border-box; transition-duration: 0.2s; transition-property: background-color, border-color, box-shadow, color, opacity, text-shadow, transform, -webkit-transform; transition-timing-function: linear; background-image: initial; background-position: initial; background-size: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; border: 1px solid rgb(239, 243, 243); list-style: none; margin-bottom: 1em; padding: 1em 1em 0.5em;"><a href="http://www.rightwingwatch.org/post/paranoia-rama-obamas-ebola-plot-and-the-gay-isis-recruitment-strategies/" title="Paranoia-Rama: Obama’s Ebola Plot And The Gay-ISIS Recruitment Strategies" style="box-sizing: border-box; transition-duration: 0.2s; transition-property: background-color, border-color, box-shadow, color, opacity, text-shadow, transform, -webkit-transform; transition-timing-function: linear; background-color: transparent; outline-offset: 0.111111em; text-decoration: none;"></a><p class="date" style="box-sizing: border-box; transition-duration: 0.2s; transition-property: background-color, border-color, box-shadow, color, opacity, text-shadow, transform, -webkit-transform; transition-timing-function: linear; margin: 0px 0px 0.5em; font-weight: bold; text-transform: uppercase; line-height: 1;"><a href="http://www.rightwingwatch.org/post/paranoia-rama-obamas-ebola-plot-and-the-gay-isis-recruitment-strategies/" title="Paranoia-Rama: Obama’s Ebola Plot And The Gay-ISIS Recruitment Strategies" style="box-sizing: border-box; transition-duration: 0.2s; transition-property: background-color, border-color, box-shadow, color, opacity, text-shadow, transform, -webkit-transform; transition-timing-function: linear; background-color: transparent; outline-offset: 0.111111em; text-decoration: none;">OCTOBER 3, 2014 12:45 PM</a>Paranoia-Rama: Obama’s Ebola Plot And The Gay-ISIS Recruitment Strategies</li><li class="full-image" style="box-sizing: border-box; transition-duration: 0.2s; transition-property: background-color, border-color, box-shadow, color, opacity, text-shadow, transform, -webkit-transform; transition-timing-function: linear; background-image: initial; background-position: initial; background-size: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; border: 1px solid rgb(239, 243, 243); list-style: none; margin-bottom: 1em; padding: 1em 1em 0.5em;"><a href="http://www.rightwingwatch.org/post/right-wing-round-up-92914/" title="Right Wing Round-Up – 9/29/14" style="box-sizing: border-box; transition-duration: 0.2s; transition-property: background-color, border-color, box-shadow, color, opacity, text-shadow, transform, -webkit-transform; transition-timing-function: linear; background-color: transparent; outline-offset: 0.111111em; text-decoration: none;"></a><p class="date" style="box-sizing: border-box; transition-duration: 0.2s; transition-property: background-color, border-color, box-shadow, color, opacity, text-shadow, transform, -webkit-transform; transition-timing-function: linear; margin: 0px 0px 0.5em; font-weight: bold; text-transform: uppercase; line-height: 1;"><a href="http://www.rightwingwatch.org/post/right-wing-round-up-92914/" title="Right Wing Round-Up – 9/29/14" style="box-sizing: border-box; transition-duration: 0.2s; transition-property: background-color, border-color, box-shadow, color, opacity, text-shadow, transform, -webkit-transform; transition-timing-function: linear; background-color: transparent; outline-offset: 0.111111em; text-decoration: none;">SEPTEMBER 29, 2014 5:35 PM</a>Right Wing Round-Up – 9/29/14</li><li class="full-image" style="box-sizing: border-box; transition-duration: 0.2s; transition-property: background-color, border-color, box-shadow, color, opacity, text-shadow, transform, -webkit-transform; transition-timing-function: linear; background-image: initial; background-position: initial; background-size: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; border: 1px solid rgb(239, 243, 243); list-style: none; margin-bottom: 1em; padding: 1em 1em 0.5em;"><a href="http://www.rightwingwatch.org/post/pat-buchanan-immigrants-a-greater-threat-than-isis/" title="Pat Buchanan: Immigrants A Greater Threat Than ISIS" style="box-sizing: border-box; transition-duration: 0.2s; transition-property: background-color, border-color, box-shadow, color, opacity, text-shadow, transform, -webkit-transform; transition-timing-function: linear; background-color: transparent; outline-offset: 0.111111em; text-decoration: none;"></a><p class="date" style="box-sizing: border-box; transition-duration: 0.2s; transition-property: background-color, border-color, box-shadow, color, opacity, text-shadow, transform, -webkit-transform; transition-timing-function: linear; margin: 0px 0px 0.5em; font-weight: bold; text-transform: uppercase; line-height: 1;"><a href="http://www.rightwingwatch.org/post/pat-buchanan-immigrants-a-greater-threat-than-isis/" title="Pat Buchanan: Immigrants A Greater Threat Than ISIS" style="box-sizing: border-box; transition-duration: 0.2s; transition-property: background-color, border-color, box-shadow, color, opacity, text-shadow, transform, -webkit-transform; transition-timing-function: linear; background-color: transparent; outline-offset: 0.111111em; text-decoration: none;">SEPTEMBER 9, 2014 10:33 AM</a>Pat Buchanan: Immigrants A Greater Threat Than ISIS</li><li class="full-image" style="box-sizing: border-box; transition-duration: 0.2s; transition-property: background-color, border-color, box-shadow, color, opacity, text-shadow, transform, -webkit-transform; transition-timing-function: linear; background-image: initial; background-position: initial; background-size: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; border: 1px solid rgb(239, 243, 243); list-style: none; margin-bottom: 1em; padding: 1em 1em 0.5em;"><a href="http://www.rightwingwatch.org/post/right-wing-round-up-82914/" title="Right Wing Round-Up – 8/29/14" style="box-sizing: border-box; transition-duration: 0.2s; transition-property: background-color, border-color, box-shadow, color, opacity, text-shadow, transform, -webkit-transform; transition-timing-function: linear; background-color: transparent; outline-offset: 0.111111em; text-decoration: none;"></a><p class="date" style="box-sizing: border-box; transition-duration: 0.2s; transition-property: background-color, border-color, box-shadow, color, opacity, text-shadow, transform, -webkit-transform; transition-timing-function: linear; margin: 0px 0px 0.5em; font-weight: bold; text-transform: uppercase; line-height: 1;"><a href="http://www.rightwingwatch.org/post/right-wing-round-up-82914/" title="Right Wing Round-Up – 8/29/14" style="box-sizing: border-box; transition-duration: 0.2s; transition-property: background-color, border-color, box-shadow, color, opacity, text-shadow, transform, -webkit-transform; transition-timing-function: linear; background-color: transparent; outline-offset: 0.111111em; text-decoration: none;">AUGUST 29, 2014 5:34 PM</a>Right Wing Round-Up – 8/29/14</li><a href="https://boingboing.net/2016/11/26/trumps-presidential-hires-an.html" style="text-decoration: none; font-weight: bold; outline: none;">https://boingboing.net/2016/11/26/trumps-presidential-hires-an.html</a>Floyd Brown invented the Reagan-era Willie Horton lie, helped create the Citizens United group, and now owns Liftable Media, including sites like Conservative Tribune (50th most-trafficked site in the USA) and Western Journalism (81st), whence came fake news stories like the lie that Obama had altered the White House logo to include a white flag of surrender (the logo change came from GWB's White House); the lie that Muslims had been "ordered" to vote for Hillary; the lie that Obama had encouraged millennial non-citizen Latin@s to vote without fear of reprisals; the lie that Clinton had a Vegas "drug holiday" before the debate; the lie that Obama's birth certificate was not accepted by experts as genuine -- Brown's sites are all included in Facebook's verified news sources.Brown is a Trump advisor, also identified by Trump's spokesperson as "a close friend."Laura Ingraham is another Trump ally who's been tapped to be his presidential secretary: she owns the Ingraham Media Group, including sites like Lifezette, which produced the hoax video "Clinton Body Count," which accused the Clintons of conspiring to crash John F Kennedy, Jr's airplane and of complicity with many other deaths, a video that was shared 14,000,000 times after its successful viral debut on Facebook.Lifezette also produced a viral hoax video about George Soros buying a voting machine company whose products were widely used in counting US ballots (Soros didn't invest in the company, nor does that company supply US ballots). Other Lifezette hoaxes include a story asserting that a Wikileaks-published document linked Clinton to occult rituals.Most significant of all, though, is Trump's presidential chief strategist Steve Bannon, whose Breitbart News is a font of hoaxes and slanders:<blockquote style="box-sizing: border-box; border-left: 4px solid rgb(153, 153, 153); padding-left: 1em; margin: 1em;">Breitbart News blends commentary and journalism with inflammatory headlines, in many cases producing fake stories sourced from online hoaxes. The site once attempted to pass off a picture of people in Cleveland celebrating the Cavaliers as a massive Trump rally. The site furiously defended Trump’s false claim that “thousands” of Muslims in New Jersey were “cheering” the 9/11 attacks, a claim that multiple fact-checking organizations have thoroughly debunked.</blockquote><a href="https://theintercept.com/2016/11/26/laura-ingraham-lifezette/" style="text-decoration: none; font-weight: bold; outline: none; box-sizing: border-box;">Some Fake News Publishers Just Happen to Be Donald Trump’s Cronies</a>[Lee Fang/The Intercept]THE EXTRAORDINARY PHENOMENON of fake news spread by Facebook and other social media during the 2016 presidential election has been largely portrayed as a lucky break for Donald Trump.By that reckoning, entrepreneurial Macedonian <a href="https://www.buzzfeed.com/craigsilverman/how-macedonia-became-a-global-hub-for-pro-trump-misinfo?utm_term=.xymy3QKRv#.dqyJ0KO57" style="text-decoration: none; font-weight: bold; outline: none; box-sizing: border-box;">teenagers</a>, <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/25/world/europe/fake-news-donald-trump-hillary-clinton-georgia.html" style="text-decoration: none; font-weight: bold; outline: none; box-sizing: border-box;">opportunists in Tbilisi</a> and <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/for-the-new-yellow-journalists-opportunity-comes-in-clicks-and-bucks/2016/11/20/d58d036c-adbf-11e6-8b45-f8e493f06fcd_story.html" style="text-decoration: none; font-weight: bold; outline: none; box-sizing: border-box;">California millennials</a> have exploited social media algorithms in order to make money — only incidentally leading to the viral proliferation of mostly anti-Clinton and anti-Obama hoaxes and conspiracy theories that thrilled many Trump supporters. The Washington Post published a <a href="https://theintercept.com/2016/11/26/washington-post-disgracefully-promotes-a-mccarthyite-blacklist-from-a-new-hidden-and-very-shady-group/" style="text-decoration: none; font-weight: bold; outline: none; box-sizing: border-box;">shoddy report</a> on Thursday alleging that Russian state-sponsored <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/russian-propaganda-effort-helped-spread-fake-news-during-election-experts-say/2016/11/24/793903b6-8a40-4ca9-b712-716af66098fe_story.html?hpid=hp_hp-top-table-main_propaganda-8pm%3Ahomepage%2Fstory" style="text-decoration: none; font-weight: bold; outline: none; box-sizing: border-box;">propagandists</a> were seeking to promote Trump through fabricated stories for their own reasons, independent of the candidate himself.But a closer look reveals that some of the biggest fake news providers were run by experienced political operators well within the orbit of Donald Trump’s political advisers and consultants.Laura Ingraham, a close Trump ally currently <a href="http://money.cnn.com/2016/11/14/media/laura-ingraham-press-secretary/" style="text-decoration: none; font-weight: bold; outline: none; box-sizing: border-box;">under consideration</a> to be Trump’s White House press secretary, owns an online publisher called Ingraham Media Group that runs a number of sites, including LifeZette, a news site that frequently posts articles of dubious veracity. One <a href="https://www.facebook.com/LifeZette/videos/356164274715005/" style="text-decoration: none; font-weight: bold; outline: none; box-sizing: border-box;">video</a> produced by LifeZette this summer, ominously titled “Clinton Body Count,” promoted a conspiracy theory that the Clinton family had <a href="http://www.businessinsider.com/laura-ingraham-lifezette-hillary-clinton-bill-2016-10" style="text-decoration: none; font-weight: bold; outline: none; box-sizing: border-box;">some role</a> in the plane crash death of John F. Kennedy, Jr., as well as the deaths of various friends and Democrats.
imgAnother LifeZette <a href="https://www.facebook.com/LifeZette/videos/394720544192711/" times="Times" new="New" roman="Roman" font-size="font-size" large="large" letter-spacing="letter-spacing" em="em" box-sizing="box-sizing" border-box="border-box" outline="outline" none="none" color="color" rgb="rgb" text-decoration="text-decoration" style="text-decoration: none; font-weight: bold; outline: none;">video</a>, picking up false claims from other sites, claimed that voting machines “might be compromised” because a voting machine company called Smartmatic, allegedly providing voting machines “in sixteen states,” was purchased by the liberal billionaire George Soros. Soros <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-intersect/wp/2016/10/24/what-was-fake-on-the-internet-this-election-george-soross-voting-machines/" times="Times" new="New" roman="Roman" font-size="font-size" large="large" letter-spacing="letter-spacing" em="em" box-sizing="box-sizing" border-box="border-box" outline="outline" none="none" color="color" rgb="rgb" text-decoration="text-decoration" style="text-decoration: none; font-weight: bold; outline: none;">never purchased</a> the company, and Smartmatic did not provide voting machines used in the general election.The video, published on Facebook from LifeZette’s verified news account, garnered over 400,000 shares and 14 million views.One LifeZette article <a href="http://www.snopes.com/un-backs-secret-obama-takeover-of-police/" style="text-decoration: none; font-weight: bold; outline: none; box-sizing: border-box;">misleadingly</a> <a href="http://www.snopes.com/un-backs-secret-obama-takeover-of-police/" style="text-decoration: none; font-weight: bold; outline: none; box-sizing: border-box;">claimed</a> that the United Nations backed a “secret” Obama administration takeover of local police departments. The article referenced Justice Department orders that a select few police departments address patterns of misconduct, a practice that, in reality, long predates the Obama presidency, is hardly secret, and had no relation to the United Nations.Another LifeZette article, which <a href="http://www.mediaite.com/online/drudge-hannity-and-ingraham-push-claim-that-john-podesta-practices-occult-magic/" style="text-decoration: none; font-weight: bold; outline: none; box-sizing: border-box;">went viral</a> in the week prior to the election, falsely claimed that Wikileaks had revealed that a senior Hillary Clinton campaign official had engaged in <a href="https://www.lifezette.com/polizette/wikileaks-podesta-practices-occult-magic/" style="text-decoration: none; font-weight: bold; outline: none; box-sizing: border-box;">occult rituals</a>. Ingraham’s site regularly receives links from the Drudge Report and other powerful drivers of Internet traffic.But LifeZette, for all its influence, pales in comparison to the sites run by Floyd Brown, a Republican consultant close to Trump’s inner circle of advisers. Brown gained notoriety nearly three decades ago for his role in helping to produce the “Willie Horton” campaign advertisement, a spot criticized for its use of racial messaging to derail Michael Dukakis’s presidential bid. Brown is also the political mentor of David Bossie, an operative who went to work for Trump’s presidential campaign this year after founding the Citizens United group. In an interview this year, Brown called Trump campaign manager Kellyanne Conway a “<a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4m3Ww0qdOrM" style="text-decoration: none; outline: none; box-sizing: border-box;">longtime friend</a>.”Brown now produces a flow of reliably pro-Trump Internet content through a company he owns called Liftable Media Inc., which operates a number of high-impact, tabloid-style news outlets that exploded in size over the course of the election. One of Brown’s sites, Western Journalism, is the 81st largest site in the U.S. with <a href="https://prod01-cdn07.cdn.firstlook.org/wp-uploads/sites/1/2016/11/westernjournalism.png" style="text-decoration: none; font-weight: bold; outline: none; box-sizing: border-box;">13 million</a> monthly unique page views, according to rankings maintained by the site Alexa. Another, called Conservative Tribune, is the <a href="https://prod01-cdn07.cdn.firstlook.org/wp-uploads/sites/1/2016/11/conservativetribune.png" style="text-decoration: none; font-weight: bold; outline: none; box-sizing: border-box;">50th largest site</a> with over 19 million monthly unique visitors.
As the fact-checking website Snopes was quick to <a href="http://www.snopes.com/white-house-logo-change/" times="Times" new="New" roman="Roman" font-size="font-size" large="large" letter-spacing="letter-spacing" em="em" box-sizing="box-sizing" border-box="border-box" outline="outline" none="none" color="color" rgb="rgb" text-decoration="text-decoration" style="text-decoration: none; font-weight: bold; outline: none;">note</a>, it was no signal of surrender and the bleached white version of the White House logo, complete with a white flag, was not even an Obama creation. The white logo dates back to as early as <a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20030919050031/http://www.whitehouse.gov/homeland/progress/progress_report_0903.pdf" times="Times" new="New" roman="Roman" font-size="font-size" large="large" letter-spacing="letter-spacing" em="em" box-sizing="box-sizing" border-box="border-box" outline="outline" none="none" color="color" rgb="rgb" text-decoration="text-decoration" style="text-decoration: none; font-weight: bold; outline: none;">2003</a>, under the Bush administration, which used it for official documents.Brown’s sites churn out bombastic headlines with little regard to the truth. One viral piece shared by Brown’s news outlets <a href="https://archive.fo/7RwN4" style="text-decoration: none; font-weight: bold; outline: none; box-sizing: border-box;">claimed</a> that President Obama had redesigned the White House logo to change the American flag to a white flag, “a common symbol for surrender, which has many people wondering if Obama was trying to secretly signal to America’s enemies that he was surrendering.” The Facebook post <a href="https://www.facebook.com/WesternJournalism/posts/10154472465718984" style="text-decoration: none; font-weight: bold; outline: none; box-sizing: border-box;">touted</a> the article with the line, “We all know Obama hates the United States, but what he just did to the White House logo is beyond the pale.”The Conservative Tribune and Western Journalism provide a steady stream of similarly deceptive, eye-catching headlines.“BREAKING: Muslims Ordered to Vote Hillary,” is the headline for one election <a href="http://conservativetribune.com/american-muslims-given-orders/" style="text-decoration: none; font-weight: bold; outline: none; box-sizing: border-box;">post</a> that grossly mischaracterized a <a href="https://www.thenews.com.pk/print/162819-Pakistani-American-Muslims-make-final-push-for-Hillary" style="text-decoration: none; font-weight: bold; outline: none; box-sizing: border-box;">mundane</a> article about a Pakistani American activist going to door to door to help Clinton’s campaign. “Obama Urges Illegal Immigrants to Vote Without Fear of Getting Caught,” <a href="http://www.westernjournalism.com/obama-urges-illegal-immigrants-vote-without-fear-getting-caught/" style="text-decoration: none; font-weight: bold; outline: none; box-sizing: border-box;">blared</a> Western Journalism, claiming that President Obama had suggested in an interview on issues facing Latino millennial voters that noncitizens could vote and “will never get caught if they do.” The article <a href="http://www.snopes.com/obama-encouraged-illegal-aliens-to-vote/" style="text-decoration: none; font-weight: bold; outline: none; box-sizing: border-box;">left out</a> the part of the Obama interview in which he said noncitizens “can’t legally vote, but they’re counting on you to make sure that you have the courage to make your voice heard.”The hits go on, with posts on a regular basis making claims ranging from the assertion that Clinton went on a “<a href="http://conservativetribune.com/debate-hillary-vanishes-expert/" style="text-decoration: none; font-weight: bold; outline: none; box-sizing: border-box;">drug holiday</a>” before the Las Vegas presidential debate to <a href="http://www.westernjournalism.com/criminal-complaint-details-birth-certificate-forgery/?utm_source%3DFacebook%26utm_medium%3DPostTopSharingButtons%26utm_content%3D2016-08-16%26utm_campaign%3Dwebsitesharingbuttons" style="text-decoration: none; font-weight: bold; outline: none; box-sizing: border-box;">rumors</a> that Obama’s birth certificate is under serious scrutiny.Thanks to views sourced largely to referrals from Facebook, Brown’s websites now outrank web traffic going to news outlets such as the Wall Street Journal, CBS News, and NPR, according to data compiled by Alexa. Both Western Journalism and Conservative Tribune are certified by Facebook as bonafide news providers.Trump’s relationship with one particularly influential online news site with a history of fabricated stories couldn’t be much closer. Steve Bannon, the chairman of Breitbart News, took a leave of absence from the organization to become the chief executive officer of Trump’s presidential campaign and has been tapped to serve as Trump’s chief strategist in the White House. Trump himself regularly promoted Breitbart stories, including a <a href="https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/226019096460918784" style="text-decoration: none; font-weight: bold; outline: none; box-sizing: border-box;">tweet</a> used to justify his campaign to prove Obama was not born in the U.S.Breitbart News blends commentary and journalism with inflammatory headlines, in many cases producing <a href="http://www.snopes.com/2015/06/14/breitbart-pear-flag/" style="text-decoration: none; font-weight: bold; outline: none; box-sizing: border-box;">fake stories</a> sourced from <a href="http://www.snopes.com/2016/08/07/breitbart-duped-by-fake-news-again/" style="text-decoration: none; font-weight: bold; outline: none; box-sizing: border-box;">online hoaxes</a>. The site once attempted to <a href="http://wonkette.com/605169/breitbart-and-stupidest-man-on-internet-cant-stop-posting-fake-ass-trump-rally-pictures" style="text-decoration: none; font-weight: bold; outline: none; box-sizing: border-box;">pass off</a> a picture of people in Cleveland celebrating the Cavaliers as a massive Trump rally. The site furiously <a href="http://www.breitbart.com/big-journalism/2015/12/02/trump-100-vindicated-cbs-reports-swarms-on-roofs-celebrating-911/" style="text-decoration: none; font-weight: bold; outline: none; box-sizing: border-box;">defended</a> Trump’s false claim that “thousands” of Muslims in New Jersey were “cheering” the 9/11 attacks, a claim that <a href="http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2015/dec/02/new-information-doesnt-fix-donald-trumps-911-claim/" style="text-decoration: none; font-weight: bold; outline: none; box-sizing: border-box;">multiple</a> <a href="http://www.snopes.com/2015/11/22/donald-trump-cheering-911/" style="text-decoration: none; font-weight: bold; outline: none; box-sizing: border-box;">fact-checking</a>organizations have <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2015/11/22/donald-trumps-outrageous-claim-that-thousands-of-new-jersey-muslims-celebrated-the-911-attacks/" style="text-decoration: none; font-weight: bold; outline: none; box-sizing: border-box;">thoroughly</a> debunked.Other conservative content farms, including WorldNetDaily, maintained ties to the Trump election effort. Campaign finance records show that Great America PAC, a Trump-backing Super PAC, <a href="http://docquery.fec.gov/cgi-bin/forms/C00608489/1098788/se" style="text-decoration: none; font-weight: bold; outline: none; box-sizing: border-box;">paid</a> WND, known as the largest purveyor of Obama birth certificate conspiracy theories, for “online voter contact.”The surge of fake news has been much commented on in the mainstream media — and its effect on Trump’s election victory has been widely debated — with little mention of the purveyors close to the Trump campaign.A <a href="https://www.buzzfeed.com/craigsilverman/how-macedonia-became-a-global-hub-for-pro-trump-misinfo" style="text-decoration: none; font-weight: bold; outline: none; box-sizing: border-box;">Buzzfeed News article</a> that came out shortly before the election famously traced more than 100 pro-Trump websites to young entrepreneurs in a single town in the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, who discovered that the best way to generate clicks — at a fraction of a penny per click in ad revenue — is to get their politics stories to spread on Facebook. After the election, New Yorker editor David Remnick <a href="http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2016/11/28/obama-reckons-with-a-trump-presidency" style="text-decoration: none; font-weight: bold; outline: none; box-sizing: border-box;">described</a> President Obama as “talking obsessively” about that article, and quoted him bemoaning its significance. “[T]he capacity to disseminate misinformation, wild conspiracy theories, to paint the opposition in wildly negative light without any rebuttal, ” Obama said, “that has accelerated in ways that much more sharply polarize the electorate and make it very difficult to have a common conversation.”The Washington Post <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-intersect/wp/2016/11/17/facebook-fake-news-writer-i-think-donald-trump-is-in-the-white-house-because-of-me/" style="text-decoration: none; font-weight: bold; outline: none; box-sizing: border-box;">interviewed Paul Horner</a>, the “impresario of a Facebook fake-news empire,” who sounded somewhat aghast when he said, “I think Trump is in the White House because of me. His followers don’t fact-check anything — they’ll post everything, believe anything.”Another <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/for-the-new-yellow-journalists-opportunity-comes-in-clicks-and-bucks/2016/11/20/d58d036c-adbf-11e6-8b45-f8e493f06fcd_story.html" style="text-decoration: none; font-weight: bold; outline: none; box-sizing: border-box;">Washington Post story</a> described two Southern California slackers turning their website of made-up pro-Trump clickbait in a virtual goldmine. The New York Times <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/25/world/europe/fake-news-donald-trump-hillary-clinton-georgia.html?r=1" style="text-decoration: none; font-weight: bold; outline: none; box-sizing: border-box;">profiled</a> a fake news operation run by three brothers in Tbilisi, Georgia, who experimented with a variety of content, sometimes lifted from other sites, at other times made up from whole cloth, finding that pro-Trump material was the most popular, and therefore the most profitable.Finally, a Washington Post <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/russian-propaganda-effort-helped-spread-fake-news-during-election-experts-say/2016/11/24/793903b6-8a40-4ca9-b712-716af66098fe_story.html" style="text-decoration: none; font-weight: bold; outline: none; box-sizing: border-box;">story</a> this week alleged a Russian government role in spreading fake news to help Trump. But its <a href="http://fortune.com/2016/11/25/russian-fake-news/" style="text-decoration: none; font-weight: bold; outline: none; box-sizing: border-box;">sources were not remotely credible.</a> For instance, it cited a <a href="http://www.propornot.com/p/the-list.html" style="text-decoration: none; font-weight: bold; outline: none; box-sizing: border-box;">list</a> that characterized as “routine peddlers of Russian propaganda” a number of well-established and well-respected websites including Truthdig, a site published by award-winning journalist and long-time Los Angeles Times columnist Robert Scheer, Naked Capitalism, and Truth Out.The growth of fake news isn’t confined to Trump or to conservative sites. A number of left-wing political sites have trafficked in demonstrably false stories, including deceptive pieces stoking fear about vaccines. Earlier this year, when critics called for Clinton to release the transcripts of her three paid speeches to Goldman Sachs, as well as to other interest groups, Daily News Bin, a new liberal website specializing in viral hits, <a href="http://www.dailynewsbin.com/opinion/when-hillary-clinton-gave-a-speech-to-goldman-sachs-the-topic-was-female-entrepreneurship/23763/" style="text-decoration: none; font-weight: bold; outline: none; box-sizing: border-box;">published</a> a piece titled, “Video surfaces of Hillary Clinton’s paid speech to Goldman Sachs, and it’s completely harmless.” The video embedded in the piece, however, was not one of Clinton’s paid speeches; it was a public event sponsored by Goldman Sachs. The article was shared over 120,000 times.“We live in a time when people don’t care about facts,” said Judy Muller, professor of journalism at the University of Southern California.During the last three months of the campaign, Buzzfeed News found that the top 20 best-performing hoax stories related to the election <a href="https://www.buzzfeed.com/craigsilverman/viral-fake-election-news-outperformed-real-news-on-facebook?utm_term=.cdRmmroD7#.agdJJdz9O" style="text-decoration: none; font-weight: bold; outline: none; box-sizing: border-box;">had more Facebook engagement</a> than the 20 best-performing stories from major news outlets.Facebook has <a href="https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-11-23/facebook-s-quest-to-stop-fake-news-risks-becoming-slippery-slope" style="text-decoration: none; font-weight: bold; outline: none; box-sizing: border-box;">responded</a> to the recent outcry over fake news websites with promises to crack down on obvious phony sites. Many critics are still worried that Facebook is not doing enough to counter outright lies promoted by the platform; meanwhile, others are concerned that such efforts risk suppressing critical information.Muller said that if Ingraham is nominated by Trump to be his spokesperson to the press, she will have to distance herself from her growing Facebook content empire.But the demand for fake news is unlikely to subside.A recent study by Stanford University researchers found that students have <a href="http://www.wsj.com/articles/most-students-dont-know-when-news-is-fake-stanford-study-finds-1479752576" style="text-decoration: none; font-weight: bold; outline: none; box-sizing: border-box;">difficulty</a> discerning between fake content, corporate sponsored advertorial content posing as journalism, and legitimate news.“People only care about opinions that support their own biases,” said Muller. “So they’re not reading other people’s facts, they’re not checking the facts, and they don’t want to know — and that’s the scariest development to me.”<a href="http://www.alternet.org/media/how-misinformed-tweet-was-manufactured-major-right-wing-news" style="text-decoration: none; outline: none;">http://www.alternet.org/media/how-misinformed-tweet-was-manufactured-major-right-wing-news</a> <a href="https://www.buzzfeed.com/craigsilverman/viral-fake-election-news-outperformed-real-news-on-facebook?utm_term=.fyovdvW932#.hqPXYXMjLo" style="text-decoration: none; outline: none;">Buzzfeed News</a> analysis found that the top 20 fake political news stories in circulation during the election got more clicks, views, shares and reactions on Facebook than the top 20 real news stories. The vast majority of those fake stories—all but three—were “overtly pro-Donald Trump or anti-Hillary Clinton,” meaning they pinged around the conservative webosphere, where they were accepted without question by millions and then passed to the next gullible consumer.Paul Horner, among the most prolific and successful fake news writers, recently told the <a href="http://www.alternet.org/media/fake-news-writer-feels-guilty-helping-put-trump-white-house" style="text-decoration: none; font-weight: bold; outline: none;">Washington Post</a> that Trump voters and other “right-wing Republicans” were almost single-handedly responsible for the $10,000 he pulls in every month, because they “post everything, believe anything,” and continue to share fake news even when they find out it isn't true. That might explain why so many fake news stories seem specially tailored for the conservative news reader.One of Horner’s most popular stories was a fabricated interview with a made-up person who said he’d been paid to protest Trump ahead of the election. During the campaign, multiple members of <a href="http://www.alternet.org/media/fake-news-writer-feels-guilty-helping-put-trump-white-house" style="text-decoration: none; font-weight: bold; outline: none;">Trump’s team</a> retweeted the story, even though many sources pointed out it wasn't true. The ludicrous idea that anti-Trump demonstrators are each paid thousands of dollars by billionaire George Soros—who plays a starring role in pretty much every right-wing conspiracy—has now become conservative gospel.Eric Tucker, a marketer in Austin, Texas, was probably very familiar with this rumor when he recently sent an erroneous tweet that launched a viral right-wing story. The <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/20/business/media/how-fake-news-spreads.html?mc=aud_dev&mcid=fb-nytimes&mccr=NovHighMC&mcdt=2016-11&subid=NovHighMC&ad-keywords=AudDevGate&r=0" style="text-decoration: none; font-weight: bold; outline: none;">New York Times</a> decided to examine how Tucker's tweet became a major topic of conservative discussion, following its online travels step by step. On the evening of November 9, just as protests against President-elect Trump were erupting all over the country, Tucker tweeted the photo and message below to his tiny group of 40 followers. ...=<a href="http://www.alternet.org/election-2016/laura-ingraham-right-wing-anti-latino-pundit-front-runner-trump-press-secretary">http://www.alternet.org/election-2016/laura-ingraham-right-wing-anti-latino-pundit-front-runner-trump-press-secretary</a>tells hannity immoral not to vote for trump mmaABC News announced that it <a rel="nofollow" target="blank" href="http://action.mediamatters.org/r?u=http%3A%2F%2Fmm4a.org%2F1m0k2aq&utm_campaign=417weekly2&n=14&e=2fd18ded548fce9ef66e074aaf01da3d5df1923b&utm_source=mediamatters&utm_medium=email" style="line-height: 15.6px; outline: none;">has hired</a> right-wing radio host Laura Ingraham as a contributor. She regularly uses inflammatory rhetoric to be a voice for the fringe:<a rel="nofollow" target="blank" href="http://action.mediamatters.org/r?u=http%3A%2F%2Fmm4a.org%2F1m0k2aq&utm_campaign=417weekly2&n=15&e=2fd18ded548fce9ef66e074aaf01da3d5df1923b&utm_source=mediamatters&utm_medium=email" style="line-height: 15.6px; outline: none;">http://mm4a.org/1m0k2aq</a> Related:Laura Ingraham is one of the right-wing radio hosts whose shows have deep financial ties to the tea party: <a rel="nofollow" target="blank" href="http://action.mediamatters.org/r?u=http%3A%2F%2Fpoliti.co%2FQr0ApD&utm_campaign=417weekly2&n=16&e=2fd18ded548fce9ef66e074aaf01da3d5df1923b&utm_source=mediamatters&utm_medium=email" style="line-height: 15.6px; outline: none;">http://politi.co/Qr0ApD</a>Conservative radio host and Fox News contributor Laura Ingraham attacked the speakers at the 50th anniversary of Martin Luther King, Jr.'s "I Have A Dream" speech, at one point using the sound of a gunshot to cut off a sound bite of civil rights leader Rep. John Lewis (D-GA) -- a man whose skull was infamously fractured by a state trooper on "Bloody Sunday" in Selma, AL, in 1965. Ingraham used the speech's anniversary to race-bait about black-on-white crime statistics and hosted Pat Buchanan to bemoan the idea that minorities face any higher level of adversity in America 50 years later.Tens of thousands of people gathered in Washington, DC over the weekend to commemorate and recreate Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.'s 1963 March on Washington, an event originally dedicated to calling for civil and economic rights for African Americans. CBS News <a href="http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-250_162-57599979/march-on-washingtons-50th-anniversary-commemoration-draws-tens-of-thousands/" style="outline: none; font-weight: 700; text-decoration: none; border-bottom: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204);">reported</a> that the 50th anniversary event -- part of a week-long build-up to Wednesday's anniversary -- "was sponsored by the Rev. Al Sharpton's National Action Network, Martin Luther King III and the NAACP, featured a roster of speakers, including King, Sharpton, Attorney General Eric Holder, Newark Mayor Cory Booker and Rep. John Lewis, D-Ga. They spoke from the steps of the Lincoln Memorial, where 50 years ago this month King delivered his famous 'I Have A Dream' speech."On her August 26 radio broadcast, Ingraham criticized the event and its speakers, saying the goal "was to co-opt the legacy of Martin Luther King into a modern-day liberal agenda," and scoffing at the topics speakers supposedly discussed: "From gay marriage, to immigration -- amnesty, was thrown in for good measure. We talked about the Voting Rights Act."Ingraham ran through a list of African-American crime rates before hosting Pat Buchanan, a prominent racist with <a href="http://mediamatters.org/research/2011/07/29/the-bigotry-of-pat-buchanan/186810#longhistory" style="outline: none; font-weight: 700; text-decoration: none; border-bottom: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204);">white nationalist</a> ties. Buchanan dismissed the idea that minorities suffer any disadvantages in contemporary America, calling the idea "absurd" because "black folks excel and are hugely popular figures in everything from sports to entertainment to athletics to politics. Everywhere you go ... So the progress has been enormous."At one point during her broadcast, Ingraham began playing a clip of Lewis' speech from the 50th anniversary rally, before interrupting the playback of his comments with the sound of a loud gunshot.<a href="http://www.nbcnews.com/id/26315908/vp/51837416#51824772">http://www.nbcnews.com/id/26315908/vp/51837416#51824772</a> (ingram question inhofe on ammo wacko theory)=
Of course Fox News contributor Laura Ingraham  <a href="http://mediamatters.org/blog/2013/04/16/the-worst-conservative-reactions-to-the-boston/193638">used the terror</a> attacks[in boston] to push her partisan agenda about immigration reform. (This, before she knew anything about the suspects.) Of course chronic Obama critics like Fox News host Oliver North  <a href="http://mediamatters.org/blog/2013/04/18/foxs-oliver-north-attacks-obama-over-visit-to-b/193682">attacked</a> the president for traveling to Boston to attend a prayer service for the terror victims; to try to help comfort the rattled city. And of course Fox News couldn't wait more than five minutes after that prayer service concluded before inviting Stephen Hayes on to criticize Obama for how he'd handled the issue of gun legislation.=
hypocrit: <a href="http://mediamatters.org/blog/2012/12/05/laura-ingrahams-newsletter-doesnt-remember-when/191698">http://mediamatters.org/blog/2012/12/05/laura-ingrahams-newsletter-doesnt-remember-when/191698</a> The December 5 edition of conservative pundit Laura Ingraham's newsletter attacked President Obama for <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/12/04/obama-rachel-maddow-al-sharpton_n_2240011.html?utm_hp_ref=politics">recently meeting</a> with MSNBC personalities, claiming that "if Fox News hosts and conservative personalities had stopped by the Bush White House to discuss policy" the press "would have been rightly outraged." But President Bush did meet with a group of Fox News and conservative personalities at the White House -- including Laura Ingraham.  defends alec on b'o<a href="http://www.prwatch.org/node/11445">http://www.prwatch.org/node/11445</a>
 =
 ---
 AGW: fox touted false claims for CTT eg heritage.House Clean Energy and Security Act, SHanity said util bill upo 3K and lise 2.5 mil jobs.  3k from MIT study that some of its own authors walked back from  170. CBO said 80 to 175/familyboosted climategate12/08/09 bill s memo , 4 days before 29 sci open ltr to congress2007 Murdoch said news corp carbon neutral by 2010 (son too?]  b/c of 10 yr Aus drought, and hottest yearNews corp hired Luntz on msg (sustainablebusiness.org jan 20) clear maj want gov't action, bo and mccain votersFox Ingraham manipulated video to maker it seem like Gore profiting from GW action, leaving out bit where he said all profit going to ngo to fight 174
 3 weeks later Bo'R flogs segment 177 =https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laura_IngrahambsLaura Anne Ingraham (born June 19, 1963) is an American <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk_radio" title="Talk radio" style="text-decoration: none; background: none;">radio talk show host</a>, author, and <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservatism_in_the_United_States" title="Conservatism in the United States" style="text-decoration: none; background: none;">conservative</a> <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_commentator" class="mw-redirect" title="Political commentator" style="text-decoration: none; background: none;">political commentator</a>.<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laura_Ingraham#cite_note-WhoWho-1" style="text-decoration: none; background: none;">[1]</a> Her <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radio_syndication" class="mw-redirect" title="Radio syndication" style="text-decoration: none; background: none;">nationally syndicated</a> talk show, <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Laura_Ingraham_Show" title="The Laura Ingraham Show" style="text-decoration: none; background: none;">The Laura Ingraham Show</a>, airs throughout the United States on Courtside Entertainment. Ingraham is also the official guest host on <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fox_News_Channel" class="mw-redirect" title="Fox News Channel" style="text-decoration: none; background: none;">Fox News Channel</a>'s <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_O%27Reilly_Factor" title="The O'Reilly Factor" style="text-decoration: none; background: none;">The O'Reilly Factor</a> and a contributor on <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/This_Week(ABC_TV_series)" title="This Week (ABC TV series)" style="text-decoration: none; background: none;">This Week</a> on <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ABC" class="mw-disambig" title="ABC" style="text-decoration: none; background: none;">ABC</a>.Laura Anne Ingraham is a potential candidate for <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/President-elect" class="mw-redirect" title="President-elect" style="text-decoration: none; background: none;">President-elect</a> <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donald_Trump" title="Donald Trump" style="text-decoration: none; background: none;">Donald Trump</a> cabinet to serve as <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_House_Press_Secretary" title="White House Press Secretary" style="text-decoration: none; background: none;">White House Press Secretary</a>.<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laura_Ingraham#cite_note-uofsc-2" style="text-decoration: none; background: none;">[2]</a><div id="toc" class="toc" style="border: 1px solid rgb(170, 170, 170); background-color: rgb(249, 249, 249); padding: 7px; display: table; zoom: 1;"><div id="toctitle" style="direction: ltr; text-align: center;"><h2 style="background: none; margin: 1em 0px 0.25em; overflow: hidden; padding: 0px; border: none; display: inline; line-height: 1.3;">Contents</h2>  [<a role="button" tabindex="0" id="togglelink" style="background: none; cursor: pointer;">hide</a>] </div><ul style="list-style-type: none; margin: 0.3em 0px; padding: 0px; list-style-image: none;"><li class="toclevel-1 tocsection-1" style="margin-bottom: 0.1em;"><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laura_Ingraham#Early_life_and_career" style="text-decoration: none; background: none;">1Early life and career</a><ul style="list-style-type: none; margin: 0px 0px 0px 2em; padding: 0px; list-style-image: none;"><li class="toclevel-2 tocsection-2" style="margin-bottom: 0.1em;"><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laura_Ingraham#Radio_show_host" style="text-decoration: none; background: none;">1.1Radio show host</a></li><li class="toclevel-2 tocsection-3" style="margin-bottom: 0.1em;"><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laura_Ingraham#Books" style="text-decoration: none; background: none;">1.2Books</a></li></ul></li><li class="toclevel-1 tocsection-4" style="margin-bottom: 0.1em;"><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laura_Ingraham#Personal_life" style="text-decoration: none; background: none;">2Personal life</a></li><li class="toclevel-1 tocsection-5" style="margin-bottom: 0.1em;"><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laura_Ingraham#References" style="text-decoration: none; background: none;">3References</a></li><li class="toclevel-1 tocsection-6" style="margin-bottom: 0.1em;"><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laura_Ingraham#External_links" style="text-decoration: none; background: none;">4External links</a></li></ul></div><h2 style="background-image: none; background-position: initial; background-size: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; font-weight: normal; margin: 1em 0px 0.25em; overflow: hidden; padding: 0px; border-bottom: 1px solid rgb(170, 170, 170); line-height: 1.3;">Early life and career[<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Laura_Ingraham&action=edit&section=1&editintro=Template:BLP_editintro" title="Edit section: Early life and career" style="text-decoration: none; background: none;">edit</a>]</h2>Ingraham grew up in a middle-class family in <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glastonbury,Connecticut" title="Glastonbury, Connecticut" style="text-decoration: none; background: none;">Glastonbury, Connecticut</a>, where she was born to Anne Caroline (née Kozak) and James Frederick Ingraham III.<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laura_Ingraham#cite_note-3" style="text-decoration: none; background: none;">[3]</a> Her maternal grandparents were Polish immigrants, while her paternal grandfather was of English and her paternal grandmother was of Irish ancestry.<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laura_Ingraham#cite_note-4" style="text-decoration: none; background: none;">[4]</a> She was graduated from <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glastonbury_High_School" title="Glastonbury High School" style="text-decoration: none; background: none;">Glastonbury High School</a> in 1981.Ingraham earned a B.A. degree at <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dartmouth_College" title="Dartmouth College" style="text-decoration: none; background: none;">Dartmouth College</a> in 1985 and a <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Juris_Doctor" title="Juris Doctor" style="text-decoration: none; background: none;">Juris Doctor</a> degree at the <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/University_of_Virginia_School_of_Law" title="University of Virginia School of Law" style="text-decoration: none; background: none;">University of Virginia School of Law</a> in 1991. As a Dartmouth undergraduate, she was a staff member of the independent conservative newspaper, <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Dartmouth_Review" title="The Dartmouth Review" style="text-decoration: none; background: none;">The Dartmouth Review</a>. In her senior year, she was the newspaper's editor-in-chief,<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laura_Ingraham#cite_note-5" style="text-decoration: none; background: none;">[5]</a> its first female editor. She wrote several controversial articles during her tenure, notably an article alleging racist and unprofessional behavior by Dartmouth music professor <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Cole(musician)" title="Bill Cole (musician)" style="text-decoration: none; background: none;">Bill Cole</a>, who later sued Ingraham for $2.4 million. The college paid his legal costs. The suit was settled in 1985.<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laura_Ingraham#cite_note-6" style="text-decoration: none; background: none;">[6]</a> <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeffrey_Hart" title="Jeffrey Hart" style="text-decoration: none; background: none;">Jeffrey Hart</a>, the faculty adviser for The Dartmouth Review described Ingraham as having "the most extreme anti-homosexual views imaginable", claiming "she went so far as to avoid a local eatery where she feared the waiters were homosexual."<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laura_Ingraham#cite_note-Carlson-7" style="text-decoration: none; background: none;">[7]</a> In 1997, she wrote an essay in the <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Washington_Post" class="mw-redirect" title="Washington Post" style="text-decoration: none; background: none;">Washington Post</a> in which she stated that she changed her views on homosexuality after witnessing "the dignity, fidelity, and courage" with which her gay brother Curtis and his partner coped with <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AIDS" class="mw-redirect" title="AIDS" style="text-decoration: none; background: none;">AIDS</a>. Ingraham has stated that she supports <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_unions" class="mw-redirect" title="Civil unions" style="text-decoration: none; background: none;">civil unions</a>, but still believes that marriage "is between a man and a woman."<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laura_Ingraham#cite_note-8" style="text-decoration: none; background: none;">[8]</a>In the late 1980s, Ingraham worked as a speechwriter in the <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ronald_Reagan" title="Ronald Reagan" style="text-decoration: none; background: none;">Ronald Reagan</a> administration for the Domestic Policy Advisor.<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laura_Ingraham#cite_note-9" style="text-decoration: none; background: none;">[9]</a> She also briefly served as editor of The Prospect, the magazine issued by <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concerned_Alumni_of_Princeton" title="Concerned Alumni of Princeton" style="text-decoration: none; background: none;">Concerned Alumni of Princeton</a>. After <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_school_in_the_United_States" title="Law school in the United States" style="text-decoration: none; background: none;">law school</a>, in 1991, she served as a <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_clerk" title="Law clerk" style="text-decoration: none; background: none;">law clerk</a> for Judge <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ralph_K.Winter,Jr." class="mw-redirect" title="Ralph K. Winter, Jr." style="text-decoration: none; background: none;">Ralph K. Winter, Jr.</a>, of the <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S.Court_of_Appeals_for_the_Second_Circuit" class="mw-redirect" title="U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit" style="text-decoration: none; background: none;">U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit</a>, in New York and subsequently <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_law_clerks_of_the_Supreme_Court_of_the_United_States" title="List of law clerks of the Supreme Court of the United States" style="text-decoration: none; background: none;">clerked</a> for <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S.Supreme_Court" class="mw-redirect" title="U.S. Supreme Court" style="text-decoration: none; background: none;">U.S. Supreme Court</a> Justice <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clarence_Thomas" title="Clarence Thomas" style="text-decoration: none; background: none;">Clarence Thomas</a>. She then worked as an attorney at the New York-based law firm <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skadden,Arps,Slate,Meagher%26_Flom" title="Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom" style="text-decoration: none; background: none;">Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom</a>.<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laura_Ingraham#cite_note-10" style="text-decoration: none; background: none;">[10]</a> In 1995, she appeared on the cover of <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_New_York_Times_Magazine" title="The New York Times Magazine" style="text-decoration: none; background: none;">The New York Times Magazine</a> in a leopard-print miniskirt in connection with a story about young conservatives.<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laura_Ingraham#cite_note-11" style="text-decoration: none; background: none;">[11]</a>In 1996, she and Jay P. Lefkowitz organized the first Dark Ages Weekend in response to <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renaissance_Weekend" title="Renaissance Weekend" style="text-decoration: none; background: none;">Renaissance Weekend</a>.<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laura_Ingraham#cite_note-12" style="text-decoration: none; background: none;">[12]</a>Ingraham has had two stints as a cable television host. In the late 1990s, she became a <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CBS" title="CBS" style="text-decoration: none; background: none;">CBS</a> commentator and hosted the <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MSNBC" title="MSNBC" style="text-decoration: none; background: none;">MSNBC</a> program Watch It!.<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laura_Ingraham#cite_note-13" style="text-decoration: none; background: none;">[13]</a> Several years later, Ingraham began campaigning for another cable television show on her radio program. She finally got her wish in 2008, when Fox News Channel gave her a three-week trial run for a new show entitled <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Just_In" title="Just In" style="text-decoration: none; background: none;">Just In</a>.<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laura_Ingraham#cite_note-14" style="text-decoration: none; background: none;">[14]</a><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laura_Ingraham#cite_note-15" style="text-decoration: none; background: none;">[15]</a>Her most recent book, <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Of_Thee_I_Zing&action=edit&redlink=1" class="new" title="Of Thee I Zing (page does not exist)" style="text-decoration: none; background: none;">Of Thee I Zing</a>, was released in July 2011. In August 2013, conservative <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newsmax" title="Newsmax" style="text-decoration: none; background: none;">Newsmax</a> magazine named Ingraham among the "25 most influential women in the GOP."<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laura_Ingraham#cite_note-16" style="text-decoration: none; background: none;">[16]</a><h3 style="background-image: none; background-position: initial; background-size: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; margin: 0.3em 0px 0px; overflow: hidden; padding-top: 0.5em; padding-bottom: 0px; border-bottom: none; line-height: 1.6;">Radio show host[<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Laura_Ingraham&action=edit&section=2&editintro=Template:BLP_editintro" title="Edit section: Radio show host" style="text-decoration: none; background: none;">edit</a>]</h3><div class="thumb tleft" style="float: left; clear: left; margin: 0.5em 1.4em 1.3em 0px; width: auto;"><div class="thumbinner" style="min-width: 100px; border: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); padding: 3px; background-color: rgb(249, 249, 249); text-align: center; overflow: hidden; width: 212px;"><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Laura-in-2012.jpg" class="image" style="text-decoration: none; background: none;"><img alt="" src="https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/e/ef/Laura-in-2012.jpg/210px-Laura-in-2012.jpg" class="thumbimage" srcset="//upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/e/ef/Laura-in-2012.jpg/315px-Laura-in-2012.jpg 1.5x, //upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/e/ef/Laura-in-2012.jpg/420px-Laura-in-2012.jpg 2x" data-file-width="5616" data-file-height="3744" style="border: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); vertical-align: middle; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);" width="210" height="140" /></a><div class="thumbcaption" style="border: none; line-height: 1.4em; padding: 3px; text-align: left;"><div class="magnify" style="float: right; margin-left: 3px; margin-right: 0px;"><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/XM_Satellite_Radio" title="XM Satellite Radio" style="text-decoration: none; background: none;">XM Satellite Radio</a>. It was originally syndicated by <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Westwood_One(1976%E2%80%932011)" title="Westwood One (1976–2011)" style="text-decoration: none; background: none;">Westwood One</a>, but moved to <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk_Radio_Network" title="Talk Radio Network" style="text-decoration: none; background: none;">Talk Radio Network</a> in 2004. Ingraham is also the official guest host of <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_O%27Reilly_Factor" title="The O'Reilly Factor" style="text-decoration: none; background: none;">The O'Reilly Factor</a> on Fox News Channel and a weekly contributor with her segment, "The Ingraham Angle."[<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Citation_needed" title="Wikipedia:Citation needed" style="text-decoration: none; background: none;">citation needed</a>]In 2012, Ingraham was rated as the No. 5 radio show in America, by <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talkers_Magazine" title="Talkers Magazine" style="text-decoration: none; background: none;">Talkers Magazine</a>.<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laura_Ingraham#cite_note-17" style="text-decoration: none; background: none;">[17]</a> In November 2012, she announced her departure from <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk_Radio_Network" title="Talk Radio Network" style="text-decoration: none; background: none;">Talk Radio Network</a>, declining to renew her contract with TRN after nearly a decade of being associated with the network. She said, in jest, that she had decided to "pursue my first loves – modern dance and the xylophone."<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laura_Ingraham#cite_note-18" style="text-decoration: none; background: none;">[18]</a> She was the second major host from TRN's lineup to leave the network that year: TRN's other major program, <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Savage_Nation" title="The Savage Nation" style="text-decoration: none; background: none;">The Savage Nation</a>, left TRN two months earlier. Her new program, syndicated by Courtside Entertainment Group, began on January 2, 2013.<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laura_Ingraham#cite_note-19" style="text-decoration: none; background: none;">[19]</a><h3 style="background-image: none; background-position: initial; background-size: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; margin: 0.3em 0px 0px; overflow: hidden; padding-top: 0.5em; padding-bottom: 0px; border-bottom: none; line-height: 1.6;">Books[<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Laura_Ingraham&action=edit&section=3&editintro=Template:BLP_editintro" title="Edit section: Books" style="text-decoration: none; background: none;">edit</a>]</h3><ul data:image="data:image" svg="svg" xml="xml" c="C" fxml="Fxml" version="version" d="D" encoding="encoding" utf-8="UTF-8" f="F" e="E" a="A" csvg="Csvg" http="http" fwww.w3.org="Fwww.w3.org" f2000="F2000" fsvg="Fsvg" width="width" height="height" ccircle="Ccircle" cx="cx" cy="cy" r="r" fill="fill" background-color="background-color" rgb="rgb" style="margin: 0.3em 0px 0px 1.6em; padding: 0px; list-style-image: url(" xmlns="xmlns" xmlns:data="data"><li style="margin-bottom: 0.1em;">The Hillary Trap: Looking for Power in All the Wrong Places, first published June 2000, while Ingraham was a talk show host on <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MSNBC" title="MSNBC" style="text-decoration: none; background: none;">MSNBC</a>, was updated and reissued in paperback December 25, 2005. It analyzes and reinterprets <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hillary_Clinton" title="Hillary Clinton" style="text-decoration: none; background: none;">Hillary Clinton</a> as a faux <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feminist" class="mw-redirect" title="Feminist" style="text-decoration: none; background: none;">feminist</a>,<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laura_Ingraham#cite_note-20" style="text-decoration: none; background: none;">[20]</a> whose "<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberalism" title="Liberalism" style="text-decoration: none; background: none;">liberal</a> feminism has created a culture that rewards dependency, encourages fragmentation, undermines families, and celebrates victimhood."<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laura_Ingraham#cite_note-21" style="text-decoration: none; background: none;">[21]</a></li><li style="margin-bottom: 0.1em;"><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shut_Up%26_Sing:How_Elites_from_Hollywood,Politics,and_the_UN_Are_Subverting_America" title="Shut Up & Sing: How Elites from Hollywood, Politics, and the UN Are Subverting America" style="text-decoration: none; background: none;">Shut Up & Sing: How Elites from Hollywood, Politics, and the UN Are Subverting America</a>, published October 25, 2003, decries liberal elites in politics, the media, academia, arts and entertainment, business, and international organizations, on behalf of disrespected Middle Americans, whom the author praises as "the kind of people who are the lifeblood of healthy democratic societies."<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laura_Ingraham#cite_note-22" style="text-decoration: none; background: none;">[22]</a></li><li style="margin-bottom: 0.1em;"><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Power_to_the_People(book)" title="Power to the People (book)" style="text-decoration: none; background: none;">Power to the People</a>, a <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_New_York_Times" title="The New York Times" style="text-decoration: none; background: none;">New York Times</a> number one best seller,<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laura_Ingraham#cite_note-Arave-23" style="text-decoration: none; background: none;">[23]</a><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laura_Ingraham#cite_note-Clapp-24" style="text-decoration: none; background: none;">[24]</a> published September 11, 2007, focuses on what Ingraham calls the "pornification" of America and stresses the importance of popular participation in culture, promoting conservative values in family life, education and patriotism.<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laura_Ingraham#cite_note-25" style="text-decoration: none; background: none;">[25]</a></li></ul><ul data:image="data:image" svg="svg" xml="xml" c="C" fxml="Fxml" version="version" d="D" encoding="encoding" utf-8="UTF-8" f="F" e="E" a="A" csvg="Csvg" http="http" fwww.w3.org="Fwww.w3.org" f2000="F2000" fsvg="Fsvg" width="width" height="height" ccircle="Ccircle" cx="cx" cy="cy" r="r" fill="fill" background-color="background-color" rgb="rgb" style="margin: 0.3em 0px 0px 1.6em; padding: 0px; list-style-image: url(" xmlns="xmlns" xmlns:data="data"><li style="margin-bottom: 0.1em;"><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Obama_Diaries" title="The Obama Diaries" style="text-decoration: none; background: none;">The Obama Diaries</a>, a New York Times number one bestseller,<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laura_Ingraham#cite_note-26" style="text-decoration: none; background: none;">[26]</a> published July 13, 2010. The book is a fictional collection of diary entries purportedly made by <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barack_Obama" title="Barack Obama" style="text-decoration: none; background: none;">Barack Obama</a>, which Ingraham uses satirically to criticize Obama, his family, and <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Obama_administration" class="mw-redirect" title="Obama administration" style="text-decoration: none; background: none;">his administration</a>.<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laura_Ingraham#cite_note-27" style="text-decoration: none; background: none;">[27]</a></li><li style="margin-bottom: 0.1em;">Of Thee I Zing, a New York Times best seller,<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laura_Ingraham#cite_note-28" style="text-decoration: none; background: none;">[28]</a> published July 12, 2011. The book is a collection of humorous anecdotes meant to point out the decline of American culture, from muffin tops to body shots.<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laura_Ingraham#cite_note-29" style="text-decoration: none; background: none;">[29]</a></li></ul><h2 style="background-image: none; background-position: initial; background-size: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; font-weight: normal; margin: 1em 0px 0.25em; overflow: hidden; padding: 0px; border-bottom: 1px solid rgb(170, 170, 170); line-height: 1.3;">Personal life[<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Laura_Ingraham&action=edit&section=4&editintro=Template:BLP_editintro" title="Edit section: Personal life" style="text-decoration: none; background: none;">edit</a>]</h2>She has dated broadcaster <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keith_Olbermann" title="Keith Olbermann" style="text-decoration: none; background: none;">Keith Olbermann</a> <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laura_Ingraham#cite_note-30" style="text-decoration: none; background: none;">[30]</a> and former <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Jersey" title="New Jersey" style="text-decoration: none; background: none;">New Jersey</a> <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_Party_(United_States)" title="Democratic Party (United States)" style="text-decoration: none; background: none;">Democratic</a> <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Senate" title="United States Senate" style="text-decoration: none; background: none;">Senator</a> <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Torricelli" title="Robert Torricelli" style="text-decoration: none; background: none;">Robert Torricelli</a>.<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laura_Ingraham#cite_note-31" style="text-decoration: none; background: none;">[31]</a> In April 2005, she announced her engagement to businessman James V. Reyes, and that she had undergone <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breast_cancer" title="Breast cancer" style="text-decoration: none; background: none;">breast cancer</a> surgery. In May 2005, Ingraham told listeners that her engagement to Reyes was canceled, citing issues regarding her diagnosis with breast cancer. Despite the breakup, she maintained that they remain good friends and told listeners she was in good health.<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laura_Ingraham#cite_note-32" style="text-decoration: none; background: none;">[32]</a>She is a convert to <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_Catholicism" class="mw-redirect" title="Roman Catholicism" style="text-decoration: none; background: none;">Roman Catholicism</a>.<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laura_Ingraham#cite_note-33" style="text-decoration: none; background: none;">[33]</a>In May 2008, Ingraham adopted a young girl from <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guatemala" title="Guatemala" style="text-decoration: none; background: none;">Guatemala</a>, whom she has named Maria Caroline.<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laura_Ingraham#cite_note-34" style="text-decoration: none; background: none;">[34]</a> In July 2009 she adopted a 13-month-old boy, Michael Dmitri, and two years later in June 2011 she announced the adoption of her third child, 13-month-old Nikolai Peter. Both of the boys were from Russia, a nation where Ingraham has spent considerable time.<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laura_Ingraham#cite_note-35" style="text-decoration: none; background: none;">[35]</a> ===conway boyfriend hunting p 300, she hooked him up with matt drudge Executive summary: The Hillary TrapLaw clerk for <a href="http://www.nndb.com/people/906/000024834/">Clarence Thomas</a>, 1992-93. Wore a leopard-print miniskirt on the cover of The New York Times Magazine. An occasional caller to the <a href="http://www.nndb.com/people/922/000023853/">Don Imus</a> radio show, her show Watch It! once followed the Imus telecast on MSNBC, but was moved and then cancelled for failing to interest Imus viewers.Boyfriend: <a href="http://www.nndb.com/people/810/000049663/">Dinesh D'Souza</a> (broken engagement)
Boyfriend: <a href="http://www.nndb.com/people/065/000049915/">Robert Torricelli</a> (1999)
Boyfriend: James V. Reyes (broken engagement)
Brother: Curtis Ingraham
     University: <a href="http://www.nndb.com/edu/853/000068649/">BA Russian and English, Dartmouth College (1985)</a>
    Law School: <a href="http://www.nndb.com/edu/551/000068347/">JD, University of Virginia School of Law (1991)</a>
     <a href="http://www.nndb.com/gov/374/000123005/">Law Clerk</a> for <a href="http://www.nndb.com/people/906/000024834/">Clarence Thomas</a> (1992-93)
    <a href="http://www.nndb.com/media/001/000055833/">The Dartmouth Review</a> Editor-in-Chief
    <a href="http://www.nndb.com/org/064/000123692/">Family Security Matters</a> Board of Advisors
    <a href="http://www.nndb.com/org/493/000049346/">Hoover Institution</a> Media Fellow (2003)
    <a href="http://www.nndb.com/org/687/000051534/">Independent Women's Forum</a> Advisory Board
    <a href="http://www.nndb.com/event/930/000084678/">Converted to Catholicism</a>
    <a href="http://www.nndb.com/lists/724/000206106/">Global Warming Skeptics</a>
    <a href="http://www.nndb.com/lists/937/000043808/">Polish Ancestry</a></div></div></div></div></div>