Electionscivil Videos

During the August 15 edition of Fox News The O Reilly Factor, host Bill O Reilly read an email from Cindi Creager of the Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation that criticized him for "erroneously report[ing] that a poll found most Americans would not vote for a presidential candidate endorsed by a gay rights organization." Indeed, as Media Matters for America and the blog News Hounds noted, on the August 13 edition of the program, O Reilly asserted that "a new poll" -- which he said was issued by "Pew Research or something like that" -- "says that most Americans won t vote for you if you get an endorsement by a gay rights group." In fact, an August 6-8 Quinnipiac Poll of voters in Florida, Ohio, and Pennsylvania found that a majority of voters in each state responded that support for a presidential candidate by "gay rights groups" would not affect their level of support for the candidate. While O Reilly noted that the poll was taken "in a few states," not nationally as he had earlier suggested, he did not acknowledge that his original assertion that the result applied to a "majority" of respondents was false. Rather, he simply cited the Quinnipiac poll results from Florida -- which found that 28 percent of respondents would be "less likely" to support a candidate endorsed by a gay rights group, while 60 percent said it "would make no difference," and 10 percent said it would make them "more likely" to support such a candidate -- and added, "That s what I was referring to." As Media Matters for America has documented, O Reilly frequently misrepresents the results of polls, often either to cast the results more negatively for Democrats and progressives or more positively for Republicans. For instance, during the July 12, 2004, edition of his radio show, O Reilly cited poll results showing that a majority of Americans opposed gay marriage to support his claim that "Far Left" senators were thwarting the will of the people by not passing a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage. In fact, numerous polls at the time showed that while the public did oppose same-sex marriage, a majority opposed amending the Constitution in order to ban it. From the August 15 edition of Fox News The O Reilly Factor: O REILLY: Cindi Creager, Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation, New York City: "Bill, you erroneously reported that a poll found most Americans would not vote for a presidential candidate endorsed by a gay rights organization. We expect your program to do a better job living up to its no-spin promise." OK. Here is the Quinnipiac poll question that was asked in a few states, Florida being this example. "If a candidate is supported by a gay rights group, would you be more likely to vote for the candidate, less likely, or it doesn t make a difference?" Ten percent, more likely; 28 percent, less likely; doesn t make a difference, 60 percent. That s what I was referring to.

During the August 13 edition of Fox News The O Reilly Factor, discussing the recent Democratic presidential candidates appearance on the gay and lesbian-oriented cable channel Logo, host Bill O Reilly claimed that "a new poll" -- which he said was issued by "Pew Research or something like that" -- "says that most Americans won t vote for you if you get an endorsement by a gay rights group." In response, Fox News correspondent Kirsten Powers asserted, "I have to say I find that very difficult to believe. Maybe if they re asked that question in a poll, but most Americans don t have any idea who s endorsing candidates." O Reilly responded: "OK, but say a gay -- the question posed, If a gay rights organization endorses you, would that make you more or less likely to vote? [sic] And most Americans said less likely." A Media Matters for America search turned up no Pew Research Center poll on the topic nor any poll asking a nationwide sample whether respondents would be more or less likely to vote for a candidate endorsed by a gay rights organization. However, as the News Hounds blog noted in response to O Reilly s claim, an August 6-8 Quinnipiac Poll of voters in Florida, Ohio, and Pennsylvania found that a majority of voters in each state responded that support for a presidential candidate by "gay rights groups" "doesn t ... make a difference" in their level of support for the candidate. From the Quinnipiac Poll: FLOH PA More likely 10% 10% 11% Less likely 28 34 28 Doesn t make a diff 60 54 59 DK/NA 2 2 2 As Media Matters for America has documented, O Reilly has on numerous occasions misrepresented the results of polls, often either to cast the results more negatively for Democrats or progressives or more positively for Republicans. For instance, during the July 12, 2004, edition of his radio show, O Reilly cited a poll and said that the majority of Americans oppose gay marriage and that "Far Left" senators are thwarting the will of the people by not passing a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage. In fact, numerous polls at the time showed that the public largely opposed the Federal Marriage Amendment. From the August 13 edition of Fox News The O Reilly Factor: O REILLY: Now, a new poll says that most Americans won t vote for you if you get an endorsement by a gay rights group. Did you know that? POWERS: No, I didn t -- O REILLY: Ah! What is that poll? Pew Research or something like that. But anyway -- POWERS: I find that -- I have to say I find that very difficult to believe. Maybe if they re asked that question in a poll, but most Americans don t have any idea who s endorsing candidates. They are not paying attention to that. O REILLY: OK, but say a gay -- the question posed, "If a gay rights -- POWERS: Yes. O REILLY: -- organization endorses you, would that make you more or less likely to vote? POWERS: Right. O REILLY: And most Americans said less likely. POWERS: Yeah. O REILLY: Was that a smart move for -- POWERS: Well, I think that -- yeah. O REILLY: -- the Logo channel? POWERS: The -- within the Democratic Party, this is a very important constituency. And they re certainly constituents -- they give a lot of money. They re very influential.

During the 6 a.m. ET and 8 a.m. ET hours of the July 18 edition of MSNBC s Morning Joe, commentator John Ridley said he was "curious" about syndicated columnist Robert D. Novak s July 15 assertion during a panel discussion on NBC s Meet the Press that, as Media Matters for America documented, "Republicans are very pessimistic about 2008. When you talk to them off the record, they don t see how they can win this thing. And then they think for a minute, and only the Democratic Party, with everything in their favor, would say that, OK, this is the year either to have a woman or an African-American to break precedent, to do things the country has never done before. " During the 6 a.m. ET hour of the show, Ridley -- who wrote about Novak s comments in a July 17 post on the Huffington Post blog -- quoted Novak s statement and said: "I m actually curious. I hope that Mr. Novak will clarify this." Ridley continued: "So are the Republicans hopeful for change? Or are they hopeful that when you have a black or a woman running on the Democratic ticket, a majority of Americans will go, Nah. I ain t voting for that. " Novak was scheduled to appear during the 8 a.m. ET hour of the show. During the 8 a.m. ET hour, before the interview with Novak, Ridley again quoted Novak s statement and said: "And so I was curious, just hopefully he could elaborate, what he means by hope." Ridley then stated, "By the way, if he is talking about a Wilder effect, here, referencing [former Virginia] Governor Doug Wilder [D], I don t necessarily disagree with that." The "Wilder effect" refers to the theory that African American candidates sometimes do better in pre-election polling than they do in the actual election because some voters tell pollsters that they will vote for the African American candidate but choose a white candidate instead on Election Day. After mentioning the Wilder effect, Ridley then asked: "[I]s he saying that the Republicans only hope come November is hoping that there is some latent bigotry in America who -- that wouldn t vote for a man of color or a woman for president?" As Media Matters noted, neither Meet the Press host Tim Russert nor any of Novak s fellow panelists, Bloomberg News Washington managing editor Al Hunt, Republican strategist Mike Murphy, and Democratic strategist Bob Shrum -- all of whom are, like Novak, white men -- commented on or challenged Novak s assertion. As Media Matters has also documented, a breakdown of the guests on Meet the Press from 2005 to 2006 shows that 76 percent of the guests on the program were white men. During the interview -- which, according to Scarborough, occurred later in the broadcast than expected due to "some mix-up" -- Novak was not asked about his comments on Meet the Press. Scarborough did state, however, that Novak would return at 7:30 a.m. ET on the July 19 edition of MSNBC s Morning Joe to continue the conversation. From the 6 a.m. ET hour of the July 18 edition of MSNBC s Morning Joe: SCARBOROUGH: So John Ridley has a -- your Huffington Post. RIDLEY: On Huffington. SCARBOROUGH: And you ve written this column saying that the only thing the Republicans have going for them, according to Bob Novak, are that they re white. RIDLEY: Well, it was interesting. They had the roundtable discussion with Tim Russert on Meet the Press. Everybody was, you know, galvanized by the [Sen. Jim] Webb [D-VA]-[Sen. Lindsey] Graham [R-SC] cage fight. But there was something that he said. Republicans, right now, as you probably know, are a little pessimistic. I think you had something interesting yesterday that 21 percent of the people -- they still don t know who they re gonna vote for. SCARBOROUGH: Unknown is leading on the Republican side. RIDLEY: Unknown leads the pack for the Republicans. SCARBOROUGH: So what s the Republicans hope? RIDLEY: Well, as -- and I want to -- I m actually curious. I hope that Mr. Novak will clarify this, but he was talking about, that this year -- and this is a quote from him -- "the Democrats will either have a woman or an African-American to break precedent, to do things the country has never done before, and it gives the Republicans hope." So are the Republicans hopeful for change? Or are they hopeful that when you have a black or a woman running on the Democratic ticket, a majority of Americans will go, "Nah. I ain t voting for that." SCARBOROUGH: Well, I think it s the latter. I really do. I think a lot of people will stop and think -- I think it s a little different with Hillary because Hillary s been around for a long time. She has her sort of own identity. Barack Obama, though, I think for a lot of people out there that, again, have not followed these candidates as much as anybody else are thinking: "Hey, he s that young black guy that s really energetic and exciting." And so it s going to be very interesting. From the 8 a.m. ET hour of the July 18 edition of MSNBC s Morning Joe: SCARBOROUGH: Now, you had concerns with Bob Novak -- who s supposed to be calling in -- about Novak and what he said this weekend on Meet the Press. RIDLEY: Well, more curiosity because I don t -- SCARBOROUGH: And this, by the way, this is on the top of Huffington Post right now. RIDLEY: Yeah. This is Huffington Post. I wrote about it. Look, it was a heck of a show on Meet the Press on Sunday. Something happened -- SCARBOROUGH: Oh. Great show. RIDLEY: Yeah. You had the Webb-Graham cage match. But at the roundtable, Tim Russert was talking to some other individuals about how the Republican Party is disenfranchised at this point. They re not raising money, they don t know who they want their front-runner to be. And Mr. Novak said something regarding the Democrats that -- and this is a quote -- "This is a year either to have a woman or an African-American to break precedent, do things the country has never done before, and it gives the Republicans hope." And so I was curious, just hopefully he could elaborate, what he means by hope. And, by the way, if he is talking about a Wilder effect here, referencing Governor Doug Wilder, I don t necessarily disagree with that. But is he saying that the Republicans only hope come November is hoping that there is some latent bigotry in America who -- that wouldn t vote for a man of color or a woman for president? SCARBOROUGH: Well, I think it s -- I think it is obviously something that s never been done before. So -- MIKA BRZEZINSKI [news anchor]: And the question is, are the times right, is the historic moment here? RIDLEY: It is, but the bigger question for me is, is that what he s saying the Republicans -- that s what they re running on? They can t run on the war, they can t run on national security, they can t run on family values. SCARBOROUGH: You know what they can run on? RIDLEY: What can they run on? SCARBOROUGH: They can run on the fact that they ve got a president that, every time he opens his mouth, makes history. You see, [late-night talk show host David] Letterman has these things -- great moments in presidential speeches. RIDLEY: Yeah. SCARBOROUGH: Had another one last night. [...] SCARBOROUGH: All right, hey, Bob, we ve got to go because we, unfortunately, we had some mix-up -- NOVAK: Sorry, but I look forward to talking to you tomorrow. SCARBOROUGH: I ll see you tomorrow morning at 7:30. NOVAK: Terrific. Thank you, Joe.

During a panel discussion of the 2008 presidential election on the July 15 edition of NBC s Meet the Press, syndicated columnist Robert Novak asserted: "Republicans are very pessimistic about 2008. When you talk to them off the record, they don t see how they can win this thing. And then they think for a minute, and only the Democratic Party, with everything in their favor, would say that, OK, this is the year either to have a woman or an African-American to break precedent, to do things the country has never done before. And it gives the Republicans hope." Neither host Tim Russert nor any of Novak s fellow panelists, Bloomberg News Washington managing editor Al Hunt, Republican strategist Mike Murphy, and Democratic strategist Bob Shrum -- all of whom are, like Novak, white men -- commented on or challenged Novak s assertion. As Media Matters for America documented, the four Sunday-morning talk programs on the broadcast networks, Meet the Press, ABC s This Week, CBS Face the Nation, and Fox Broadcasting Co. s Fox News Sunday, feature guest lists that are overwhelmingly white and overwhelmingly male. A breakdown of the guests on Meet the Press from 2005 to 2006 shows that 76 percent of the guests on the program were white men. From the July 15 edition of NBC s Meet the Press: RUSSERT: Bob Novak, there also seems to be a rather subtle message -- subliminal, nonetheless real, in the [Sen.] Barack Obama [D-IL] message, and that is, it s time to turn the page. Twenty-eight years of two families controlling the presidency. NOVAK: Absolutely. And that is something that everybody talks about. And, you know, talk about nostalgia -- it s hard for a lot of these people to believe this, but there s not that much nostalgia for Bill Clinton. I just find people who aren t Democratic professional politicians, who are -- you know, are sorry that they ve had eight years of Republicans, they don t really yearn for Bill Clinton. But the thing -- RUSSERT: But he does -- he s very popular in all the polls. NOVAK: A lot of people don t want him back, though, for a third term. And I think it s very dangerous to call this a third term of Bill Clinton. There s one other thing: the morale of the Republicans -- RUSSERT: Who s done that? Who s called it the third term? NOVAK: Me. [laughter] SHRUM: It s dangerous, and that s why he s doing it. RUSSERT: Nice try, Novak. NOVAK: There s a -- RUSSERT: Consider the source. NOVAK: Republicans are very pessimistic about 2008. When you talk to them off the record, they don t see how they can win this thing. And then they think for a minute, and only the Democratic Party, with everything in their favor, would say that, "OK, this is the year either to have a woman or an African-American to break precedent, to do things the country has never done before." And it gives the Republicans hope. HUNT: You know, I have a different take. I don t think the Bill Clinton thing is that big a deal at this time. I think if you look at these two front-runners, and you look at over the last six months, and they both have probably exceeded expectations. Go back to January 15. If you said, "Six months from now, Hillary Clinton will have minimized her Iraq problem, she will have raised over 50 million dollars, she would have done better than probably anyone in the joint forums, she would be cleaning up with political endorsements," you would say, "It s all over. She s won."