“There is a movement afoot” to bring ousted Fox News CEO and alleged sexual harasser Roger Ailes “more into the process” of Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump’s campaign, according to Washington Post reporter Robert Costa. Ailes, who currently serves as an informal but influential adviser to Trump, reportedly helped the GOP nominee prepare for the first presidential debate.

After Trump’s disastrous debate performance on September 26, Costa tweeted that “top [Republicans] … wonder who, if anyone, can get Trump to fully [prepare] for the [second] debate.” He subsequently tweeted, “There is a movement afoot by at least 2 Trump allies to bring Ailes more into the process.”

BuzzFeed News’ McKay Coppins reported before the debate that Ailes “is playing a much larger backstage role in handling Trump than most people realize.” Other media outlets have highlighted the influential role Ailes is playing in Trump’s debate prep.

After allegations of harassment by more than two dozen women, Ailes settled a sexual harassment and retaliation lawsuit for $20 million which was paid by Fox News’ parent company, 21st Century Fox. Following his firing from Fox News, which included a $40 million severance package, Ailes transitioned almost immediately into the role of informal Trump adviser. The two reportedly “counseled each other in multiple phone calls” during the fallout over Ailes’ alleged sexual harassment, and Trump has said he “would think about” hiring his “friend” Ailes as a campaign consultant, though Ailes is already reportedly offering Trump advertising and leadership guidance.

There is no Donald Trump lie better-documented than his constantly repeated falsehood that he opposed the 2003 U.S. invasion of Iraq. During last night’s debate, he was pummeled on the issue by moderator Lester Holt and numerous fact-checkers. Dutifully doing damage control for the Republican nominee, Fox News is now trying to obscure the record, claiming that “history backs The Donald.”

As numerous fact-checkers have noted, contrary to his claims that he was “totally against the war in Iraq” from the beginning, in 2002, more than six months before the invasion of Iraq, Trump was asked by radio host Howard Stern if he was “for invading Iraq.” He responded, “Yeah, I guess so. You know, I wish the first time it was done correctly.”

Trump struggled to explain why he keeps lying about this during the September 26 debate as Holt repeatedly pointed out that he had originally supported the war. At one point, Trump claimed that he had done “an interview with [Fox News anchor] Neil Cavuto” which he claimed vindicated him.

But the Cavuto interview in question has been reviewed by numerous fact-checkers that concluded it did not support his claims to be against the war. Fox News, on the other hand, is ready and willing to use the interview to clear Trump of a months-long campaign of lies.

An unbylined FoxNews.com article claimed Trump was right, reporting that the January 2003 interview “backs up Trump on Iraq War opposition”:

After all the clamor for moderators to fact-check the candidates during Monday night's presidential debate, Donald Trump flipped the script on Lester Holt by rejecting his assertion Trump backed the war in Iraq - and history backs The Donald.

[...]

Cavuto himself picked up the thread post-debate on Fox Business Network, unearthing the clip Trump referenced, from January 28, 2003 – Nearly two months before the Iraq War began on March 20. In the video, Cavuto asks Trump how much time President Bush should spend on the economy vs. on Iraq.

“Well, I’m starting to think that people are much more focused now on the economy,” Trump said. “They’re getting a little bit tired of hearing ‘We’re going in, we’re not going in.’ Whatever happened to the days of Douglas MacArthur? Either do it or don’t do it.”

Trump continued: “Perhaps he shouldn’t be doing it yet. And perhaps we should be waiting for the United Nations.”

Fox’s article ignores that Trump’s comments came three months after the war was authorized; that Trump did not explicitly say he opposed the invasion during that interview; or that Trump again did not say that he opposed the invasion in a subsequent interview with Cavuto in March 2003, after the war began, when he said that it “looks like a tremendous success from a military standpoint.”

BuzzFeed’s Andrew Kaczynski called the Fox article “embarrassing” and “complete bullshit,” noting that fact-checkers had reviewed the “unearth[ed]” clip and concluded that it did not support Trump’s claims, while Fox had framed it “exactly how Trump wanted you to.” Indeed:

• CNN has reported that Trump “never said [the war] should not be undertaken” during the Cavuto interview, adding, “It wasn't until August 2004 -- 17 months after the invasion began and the war was being widely criticized -- that Trump came out fully against the war.” CNN concluded that Trump had lied about being against the war from the start.

• Factcheck.org noted that Trump “offers no opinion on what Bush should do” during the January 2003 Cavuto interview, concluding that there is “no evidence” Trump fought against the invasion.

• The Washington Post FactChecker blog has repeatedly referenced the Cavuto quote, noting that Trump did not take a position on the invasion during that interview and frequently criticizing Trump’s claims about opposing the war from the beginning as “bogus.”

• PolitiFact pointed out that Trump “didn’t speak against going to war” during the Cavuto interview, concluding that Trump’s claims about opposing the war are false.

Only Fox News is willing to claim that the Cavuto interview “backs The Donald.” That’s not surprising given their months-long campaign in support of Trump.

La Opinión reported on a Media Matters study that found that Latinos made up only a small fraction of guests invited on cable news shows to discuss Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump’s attacks on Judge Gonzalo Curiel’s Mexican heritage. The article featured input from Media Matters Hispanic media researcher Cristina López, who explained that this finding is representative of a larger tendency in the media to marginalize the Latino perspective in their reporting, which could have serious “negative effects” and “perpetuate damaging stereotypes” about Latinos.

The September 21 report focused on a Media Matters quantitative study of guest diversity on CNN, Fox News, and MSNBC that found that only 11.5 percent of guests discussing Trump’s racist attacks against a Latino judge were Hispanic, while the majority of those discussing the topic -- 88.5 percent -- were non-Hispanic. The article cited previous Media Matters studies that confirmed the media’s “broader pattern” of marginalizing Latinos’ voices “even when the [Latino] community is attacked” and often relegating them to the single issue of immigration.

Media Matters’ Cristina López pointed out that a failure to effectively include the Latino perspective on issues that affect them “can have negative effects on the narratives that come out of news shows” and explained that “without the inclusion of Latino voices in the discussion of topics of the day, including those that most affect them, we run the risk of having imprecise information that perpetuates damaging stereotypes.” Translated from the September 21 article (emphasis original):

Latinos are the largest minority in the country and even when the community is attacked, they do not have a voice on cable news networks [to comment] on the electoral bloc’s most pressing topics, according to what a "Media Matters" study reported this Wednesday.

[...]

In statements to this newspaper, researcher Cristina López explained that the low representation of Latinos “can have negative effects on the narrative that come out of news shows.”

“Without the inclusion of Latino voices in the discussion of topics of the day, including those that most affect them, we run the risk of having imprecise information that perpetuates damaging stereotypes” about Hispanics, she said.

For López, it’s urgent that TV producers and executives improve the participation of Latinos and other minorities, especially in a hostile environment in which racist attacks have changed the current of the national dialogue.

“Latinos have demonstrated, with campaigns like #AskMeMás, that they are anxious and capable of discussing issues that affect them most and being part of broader conversations. The ball is in the court of the news channels,” López stated.

According to Media Matters, the lack of inclusion of Latino voices on national programs is not isolated but rather makes up a part of a broader pattern: after the massacre in a gay club in Orlando (Florida), none of the major cable channels included a significant number of Hispanic guests, despite the fact that 90% of the victims were of Latino origin.

And an analysis of Sunday shows, in English and Spanish, left proof that Latinos are only sought out to comment about immigration issues, ignoring the diversity of opinions about other topics of life nationally.

Although much is spoken about the importance of the Latino vote in this election year, the cable channels “rarely include Hispanics” in their news shows, Media Matters said.

On Fox & Friends, Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump continued his defense of stop-and-frisk policing, stating it’s “quite unbelievable” that it’s not being used in Chicago. Neither Trump nor the hosts evidently realized that the Chicago Police Department already employs the tactic. 

Right-wing media have long misrepresented the common American policing practice of stop and frisk, conflating it with New York City’s past version of stop and frisk that was not only ineffective but also found to be unconstitutional, due to the racially discriminatory manner in which it was carried out. 

In fact, after a federal court in August 2013 struck down New York City’s specific application of the practice, the Chicago police superintendent explained that “stop and frisk is a tactic that every department in the country uses” in reporting that the ruling wouldn’t necessarily affect police operations in Chicago. Currently, Chicago is trying to bring its stop-and-frisk policies into constitutional compliance as New York City did, as Chicago’s ABC7 reported in February. 

But in a Fox & Friends interview, both Trump and host Steve Doocy falsely suggested Chicago does not have stop and frisk at all. They tried to walk back Trump’s earlier calls for a nationwide application of the unconstitutional New York version, with Trump claiming that he “was really referring to Chicago with stop and frisk.” From the September 22 edition of Fox News’ Fox & Friends:

STEVE DOOCY (CO-HOST): I read a report that apparently there, in that black church in Cleveland, you were asked what you would do about black-on-black crime, and you said maybe it’s time to bring back stop and frisk. And I saw that you sent out a tweet, “Stop and frisk works. Instead of criticizing New York police chief Ray Kelly, New Yorkers should thank him for keeping New York safe.” Why do you think stop and frisk would work?

DONALD TRUMP: Well Ray Kelly did a great job, and New York was not in a Chicago situation, but it was really in trouble. It was in bad shape, crime-wise. And with all the shootings and everything in it, it really, they -- Rudy Giuliani did a great job as mayor, and they really straightened things out with stop and frisk, and it was used further by the next mayor, Bloomberg. Now, they just -- recently, not so recently, but fairly recently they stopped it. But stop and frisk worked. We had tremendous shootings, numbers of shootings. Now Chicago is out of control. I was really referring to Chicago with stop and frisk. They asked me about Chicago and I was talking about stop and frisk for Chicago, where you had 3,000 shootings so far. 3,000 from January 1. Obviously you can’t let the system go the way it's going, but I suggested stop and frisk and some people think that’s a great idea and some people probably don't like it, but when you have 3,000 people shot and so many people dying, it's worse than some of the places we're hearing about like Afghanistan, you know, the war-torn nations. It's more dangerous. 

DOOCY: It does sound, Mr. Trump, like Chicago's going to add I think I read 1,000 new police officers. So you’ve got more cops on the street, but unless you give them the tools, what are they going to do?

TRUMP: I think Chicago needs stop and frisk. People can criticize me for that or people can say whatever they want, but they asked me about Chicago and I think stop and frisk with good, strong law and order, but you have to do something, can’t continue the way it’s going.

[...]

How it's not being used in Chicago is -- to be honest with you, it's quite unbelievable, and you know the police, the local police, they know who has a gun who shouldn't be having a gun. They understand that. 

DOOCY: Sure, stop and frisk for the most part is where you give cops more power to quiz passersby if there is reasonable suspicion. 

TRUMP: Absolutely. In New York, it took them -- the numbers were unbelievably changed. I don’t mean just a little bit. It was massively changed, and it became a safe city. It went from an unsafe city to a safe city. 

A Media Matters study of guests brought on cable news networks to discuss Donald Trump's attacks on federal Judge Gonzalo Curiel’s Mexican heritage found that Hispanics were critically underrepresented in these discussions, even though Hispanics are disproportionately impacted by the issue. The Republican presidential nominee made repeated racist comments against Judge Curiel between May 27 and June 9, yet Hispanic voices made up a mere 11.5 percent of guests invited to analyze the racially fueled attacks.

On May 27, Judge Gonzalo Curiel, who is presiding over a lawsuit against Trump over his now-defunct real estate seminars, ordered the release of documents related to fraud allegations against Trump University, and Trump responded with unfounded accusations of bias. He claimed that there was a conflict of interest because Trump proposed to build a wall along the U.S.-Mexico border and the judge was “Mexican.” The judge, who is of Mexican heritage, was born in Indiana.

Media and political figures across the political spectrum denounced the racist remarks. Even House Speaker Paul Ryan (R-WI), who endorsed Trump earlier this year, called Trump’s attack “the textbook definition of racism.” Hispanic media figures, in particular, took issue with Trump’s comments. Yet in covering the topic, cable news networks hosted an alarmingly low number of a Latinos to discuss it, omitting important perspective from the Latino community, which has become increasingly concerned about issues of racial discrimination.

A Media Matters review of coverage from CNN, Fox News, and MSNBC primetime shows found that Hispanic voices made up only 11.5 percent of the discussion of the topic, while non-Hispanic voices dominated the conversation, making up 88.5 percent.

The media have a pattern of treating Latinos as a monolithic group focused on the single issue of immigration and excluding them from discussions of issues that may deeply affect their communities. A previous Media Matters study that analyzed the diversity of guests invited to discuss the Pulse Nightclub massacre in Orlando, FL, in which the majority of victims were Hispanic, also confirmed this trend.

Methodology

Media Matters searched the Nexis database using the search terms "trump w/50 (curiel or judge or mexican)" for weekday CNN, Fox News, and MSNBC programs airing between 8 pm ET and 11 pm ET from May 27 through June 9 and reviewed the transcripts for segments about Donald Trump's attacks on Judge Curiel. Segments in which two or more participants discussed Curiel were included, with the exception of packaged or live news reports from correspondents. All guests were coded for ethnicity.

Julie Alderman and Sarah Wasko contributed to this study.

Un estudio de Media Matters sobre las personas que las cadenas noticiosas invitaron para hablar de los ataques de Donald Trump hacia la ascendencia mexicana del juez federal Gonzalo Curiel, reveló que los hispanos fueron subrepresentados de manera crítica en estas discusiones, incluso a pesar de que el tema los afecta de manera directa. El nominado presidencial republicano repetidamente hizo comentarios que muchos calificaron de racistas contra el juez Curiel en los días entre el 27 de mayo y el 9 de junio, pero las voces hispanas constituyeron un mero 11.5 por ciento de los invitados que aparecieron analizando los ataques raciales.

El 27 de mayo, el juez Gonzalo Curiel, quien preside la demanda contra Trump sobre sus ya extintos seminarios de bienes raíces, ordenó hacer públicos los documentos relacionados a las acusaciones de fraude contra Trump University, y Trump respondió acusando al juez de parcialidad sin fundamento alguno. Insistió que era un conflicto de interés ya que Trump ha propuesto construir un muro en la frontera entre EE.UU. y México y el juez es “mexicano.” El juez, que tiene ascendencia mexicana, nació en Indiana.

Medios y figuras políticas a lo largo del espectro político denunciaron los comentarios racistas. Incluso el Presidente de la Cámara de Representantes Paul Ryan (R-WI), quien anunció su apoyo por Trump este mismo año, calificó el ataque de Trump como “la definición de racismo del libro de texto.” Latinos en los medios, en particular, condenaron los comentarios de Trump. Sin embargo, al cubrir el tema, las cadenas noticiosas de cable invitaron a un número alarmantemente bajo de latinos para discutirlo, omitiendo la importante perspectiva importante de la comunidad latina, que ha demostrado una preocupación creciente con la discriminación racial.

El análisis de Media Matters de la cobertura del tema durante los programas en hora estelar de CNN, Fox News, y MSNBC encontró que las voces hispanas constituyeron solo un 11.5 por ciento de las discusiones, mientras que las voces no hispanas dominaron con un 88.5 por ciento.

Los resultados del estudio reflejan el patrón mediático de tratar a los latinos como un grupo monolítico enfocado exclusivamente en el tema migratorio, marginándolos de otros temas que afectan profundamente a sus comunidades. Un estudio previo de Media Matters que analizó la diversidad de invitados invitados a discutir la masacre Pulse Nightclub en Orlando, FL, en que la mayoría de las víctimas fueron hispanas, también confirmó esta tendencia.

Metodología

Media Matters buscó el base de datos Nexis usando los términos de búsqueda “trump w/50 (curiel or judge or mexican)” para los programas durante los días de la semana de CNN, Fox News, y MSNBC entre las 8 pm ET y las 11 pm ET desde el 27 de mayo al 9 de junio y repasó las transcripciones para los segmentos sobre los ataques de Donald Trump hacia el juez Curiel. Se incluyeron los segmentos con dos o más participantes discutiendo Curiel, con la excepción de los segmentos ya empaquetados o informes noticiosos de corresponsales en vivo. Todos los invitados fueron codificados de acuerdo con su identidad étnica.

Julie Alderman y Sarah Wasko aportaron a este estudio.