Media Matters for America

Adam Shah: How Much Can Dick Morris Get Wrong About Sea Treaty In Three Minutes?

Adam Shah — Tue, 22 May 2012 00:50:00 EDT

On Hannity, Dick Morris returned to fearmongering over potential Senate ratification of the Law of the Sea Treaty. Morris previously suggested that the treaty was part of a plot by the Obama administration to create "one world government." Tonight his anti-Law of the Sea Treaty push took the form of a series of falsehoods about the treaty.

For instance, Morris suggested that the Law of the Sea Treaty would harm our Navy's control over the high seas. But the Navy actually supports the relevant treaty provisions and has done so since 1983.

Morris claimed: "This treaty basically sets up a judicial arbitration tribunal appointed by the United Nations to resolve disputes about sea lanes. Now, currently the dispute resolution mechanism is the U.S. Navy that goes out and polices the world's waterways because we're incomparably the world's greatest naval power and keeps the sea lanes open. But this would give the UN a veto over our Navy's decisions."

The reality is: The Navy strongly supports the provisions discussed by Morris. In 2003, Admiral Mike Mullen stated: "Since 1983, the Joint Chiefs and the combatant commanders have supported the navigational provisions of the convention because of the core belief that a comprehensive, widely accepted, and stable legal basis for the world's oceans is essential to U.S. national security."

Morris claimed: "[O]nce it's passed, a treaty is forever. You can't repeal it. It has the force under the Supremacy Clause of a constitutional amendment. ... And nobody is talking about this."

The reality is: Morris just made this up out of thin air. The Law of the Sea Treaty itself allows nations to repeal it. From the treaty: "A State Party may, by written notification addressed to the Secretary-General of the United Nations, denounce this Convention and may indicate its reasons. ... The denunciation shall take effect one year after the date of receipt of the notification, unless the notification specifies a later date."

Furthermore, if treaties were really "forever" and couldn't be repealed, this would come as news to former President George W. Bush. In late 2001, Bush announced that the White House was withdrawing from the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty. If Morris were correct, the ABM Treaty would still be in effect.

Morris' constitutional interpretation is also pure fantasy. The Supremacy Clause of the Constitution states: "This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land." If Morris' interpretation were correct, all federal laws would also have the force of constitutional amendments since the Supremacy Clause makes no distinction between "laws of the United States" and treaties.

Media Matters staff: Fox "Straight News" Host Bream Interrupts Dem Party Official To Say: "We Know You Don't Like Mitt Romney, Clearly"

Media Matters staff — Tue, 22 May 2012 00:32:34 EDT

From the May 21 edition of Fox News' America Live:

Mike Burns: Reminder To Fox: Martin Luther King Jr. Praised Planned Parenthood

Mike Burns — Tue, 22 May 2012 00:25:20 EDT

Fox is hyping comments by former RNC chairman Michael Steele in which he criticized the NAACP for "signing up with an organization like Planned Parenthood," which he said had worked in the past to "eliminate and limit" African Americans and other minorities. Guest hosting for Bill O'Reilly, Fox News contributor Laura Ingraham aired Steele's comments, which were made earlier today on Ingraham's radio show. Steele's comments were also touted by Fox Nation.

Unmentioned by Ingraham and Fox Nation, however, is that fact that Martin Luther King Jr. accepted an award from Planned Parenthood and praised the organization for its dedication to family planning.

During a discussion of Planned Parenthood on Ingraham's radio show, Steele stated: "I have yet to understand how when you look at something like the NAACP signing up with an organization like Planned Parenthood that has a part of its history and its charter and its existence, you know, the use of abortion to eliminate and limit the number of African American and other minorities in this country, I -- to me, it's just beyond the pale."

Tonight on The O'Reilly Factor, after discussing the NAACP's recent endorsement of same-sex marriage with Fox's Juan Williams and Mary Katherine Ham, Ingraham said: "I interviewed Michael Steele on my radio show this morning about the views of black voters on the issue of abortion and abortion in the Democratic Party." She then aired Steele's comments:

Steele's comments were also hyped by Fox Nation, which linked to a Mediaite article on the comments with the headline "Michael Steele: Planned Parenthood Used Abortion To 'Limit' African-Americans."

But neither Ingraham nor Fox Nation mentioned Martin Luther King Jr.'s praise of Planned Parenthood for its dedication to family planning or the fact that he accepted an award from the organization.

Andy Newbold: Fox's Special Report Continues To Treat Birther Conspiracy Theories Seriously

Andy Newbold — Mon, 21 May 2012 22:40:38 EDT

Fox News' flagship "straight news" program, Special Report, dedicated a segment to Arizona's secretary of state Ken Bennett saying that he might remove President Obama from the Arizona presidential ballot because he "has been asking for two months for Hawaii officials to prove President Obama was born there" but hasn't received an answer that satisfies him.

BRET BAIER (host): Arizona's Secretary of State Ken Bennett says he has been asking for two months for Hawaiian officials to prove President Obama was born there. Hawaiian officials won't budge until Bennett satisfies a number of requirements, and both sides disagree about whether he has actually done it.

Bennett says he might remove President Obama from the ballot in Arizona if the proof doesn't arrive from Hawaii soon, a move Democratic critics say is politically calculated and aimed at capturing support from a fridge group of Republicans as Bennett weighs a run for governor. Bennett says he is not quote "a birther" but wants to clear up the issue for concerned Arizonans.

Baier did not mention that Obama made his birth certificate public four years ago, and as FactCheck.org noted, it "meets all of the requirements from the State Department for proving U.S. citizenship." Nor did Baier mention that, in the midst of a relentless birther attack by Baier's network, the White House also released Obama's long-form birth certificate.

In January Baier also gave undo credence to birther conspiracy theories. On January 7 Baier did a segment highlighting birther arguments saying some in the birther movement call Obama's birth certificate "a fake" and "others say the real issue is that he's not a natural-born citizen." Less than a month later, Baier updated the story, again giving credence to the birther movement.

In addition, Baier's report comes on the heels of a Wall Street Journal article that similarly treated birtherism as one legitimate side in a factual dispute.

Both the Journal and Fox News are owned by News Corp.

Media Matters staff: Fox's McFarland: "We Should Eventually Take Our Troops Out Of Europe And Put Them On The Mexican Border"

Media Matters staff — Mon, 21 May 2012 20:37:21 EDT

From the May 21 edition of Fox Business' Lou Dobbs Tonight:

Previously:

Fox Hosts Sheriff Babeu To Call For "6,000 Armed Soldiers" To Be Deployed To U.S./Mexico Border

Media Matters staff: Boehlert Tells Current's Stephanie Miller That Rove Is "Powerless" In Face Of Right-Wing Noise Machine

Media Matters staff — Mon, 21 May 2012 19:49:35 EDT

From the May 21 edition of Current's Talking Liberally with Stephanie Miller:

Previously:

Here We Go Again. Breitbart: NY Times "Ignored" Rev. Wright Story

Media Matters staff: Boehlert On Current's Talking Liberally : Right-Wing Media Have To "Pretend" MSM Ignored Rev. Wright In 2008

Media Matters staff — Mon, 21 May 2012 19:39:19 EDT

From the May 21 edition of Current's Talking Liberally with Stephanie Miller:

Previously:

Here We Go Again. Breitbart: NY Times "Ignored" Rev. Wright Story

Media Matters staff: Bolling And Gutfeld Agree: At A Certain Point, The G8 Leaders "Have To Embrace Austerity, Everybody Knows That"

Media Matters staff — Mon, 21 May 2012 18:49:49 EDT

From the May 21 edition of Fox News' The Five:

Previously:

Fox Touts Failed Fiscal Austerity Measures

Media Matters staff: Gutfeld: We Know How Obama Feels About Marriage But Not Abortion; Is It Because "Gays Have Deeper Pockets Than Fetuses?"

Media Matters staff — Mon, 21 May 2012 18:33:28 EDT

From the May 21 edition of Fox News' The Five:

Terry Krepel: Campbell Brown Distorts Obama Speech To Claim He's "Condescending" To Women

Terry Krepel — Mon, 21 May 2012 18:17:10 EDT

In a New York Times op-ed, former CNN anchor Campbell Brown wrote that Obama "made reference to how women are smarter than men" in his Barnard College commencement speech, saying he "sometimes sounds too paternalistic for my taste." In fact, Obama said that "founding mothers" were likely "whispering smarter things" to the Founding Fathers about whether a woman should sign the Constitution.

Brown: Obama "Made Reference To How Women Are Smarter Than Men" In Barnard Speech

Brown: Obama Using "A Cheap Applause Line." From Brown's New York Times op-ed, headlined "Obama: Stop Condescending to Women":

WHEN I listen to President Obama speak to and about women, he sometimes sounds too paternalistic for my taste. In numerous appearances over the years -- most recently at the Barnard graduation -- he has made reference to how women are smarter than men. It's all so tired, the kind of fake praise showered upon those one views as easy to impress. As I listen, I am always bracing for the old go-to cliché: "Behind every great man is a great woman."

Some women are smarter than men and some aren't. But to suggest to women that they deserve dominance instead of equality is at best a cheap applause line.

[...]

I have always admired President Obama and I agree with him on some issues, like abortion rights. But the promise of his campaign four years ago has given way to something else -- a failure to connect with tens of millions of Americans, many of them women, who feel economic opportunity is gone and are losing hope. In an effort to win them back, Mr. Obama is trying too hard. He's employing a tone that can come across as grating and even condescending. He really ought to drop it. Most women don't want to be patted on the head or treated as wards of the state. They simply want to be given a chance to succeed based on their talent and skills. To borrow a phrase from our president's favorite president, Abraham Lincoln, they want "an open field and a fair chance."

In the second decade of the 21st century, that isn't asking too much. [The New York Times, 5/20/12]

What Obama Actually Said: "Founding Mothers" Were Likely "Whispering Smarter Things In The Ears Of The Founding Fathers"

Obama Noted That "No Woman's Signature Graced The Original Document." From Obama's speech at Barnard College:

It's been said that the most important role in our democracy is the role of citizen. And indeed, it was 225 years ago today that the Constitutional Convention opened in Philadelphia, and our founders, citizens all, began crafting an extraordinary document. Yes, it had its flaws -- flaws that this nation has strived to protect (perfect) over time. Questions of race and gender were unresolved. No woman's signature graced the original document -- although we can assume that there were founding mothers whispering smarter things in the ears of the founding fathers. (Applause.) I mean, that's almost certain.

What made this document special was that it provided the space -- the possibility -- for those who had been left out of our charter to fight their way in. It provided people the language to appeal to principles and ideals that broadened democracy's reach. It allowed for protest, and movements, and the dissemination of new ideas that would repeatedly, decade after decade, change the world -- a constant forward movement that continues to this day. [WhiteHouse.gov, 5/14/12]

Obama Joked In Speech That Praising Women At A Women's College Was "A Cheap Applause Line." From Obama's speech at Barnard College:

We know these things to be true. We know that our challenges are eminently solvable. The question is whether together, we can muster the will -- in our own lives, in our common institutions, in our politics -- to bring about the changes we need. And I'm convinced your generation possesses that will. And I believe that the women of this generation -- that all of you will help lead the way. (Applause.)

Now, I recognize that's a cheap applause line when you're giving a commencement at Barnard. (Laughter.) It's the easy thing to say. But it's true. It is -- in part, it is simple math. Today, women are not just half this country; you're half its workforce. (Applause.) More and more women are out-earning their husbands. You're more than half of our college graduates, and master's graduates, and PhDs. (Applause.) So you've got us outnumbered. (Laughter.)

After decades of slow, steady, extraordinary progress, you are now poised to make this the century where women shape not only their own destiny but the destiny of this nation and of this world. [WhiteHouse.gov, 5/14/12]

Obama Encouraged Graduates To 'Make A Difference," "Fight For Your Seat At The Table." From Obama's speech at Barnard College:

After decades of slow, steady, extraordinary progress, you are now poised to make this the century where women shape not only their own destiny but the destiny of this nation and of this world.

But how far your leadership takes this country, how far it takes this world -- well, that will be up to you. You've got to want it. It will not be handed to you. And as someone who wants that future -- that better future -- for you, and for Malia and Sasha, as somebody who's had the good fortune of being the husband and the father and the son of some strong, remarkable women, allow me to offer just a few pieces of advice. That's obligatory. (Laughter.) Bear with me.

My first piece of advice is this: Don't just get involved. Fight for your seat at the table. Better yet, fight for a seat at the head of the table. (Applause.)

[...]

So whether it's starting a business, or running for office, or raising a amazing family, remember that making your mark on the world is hard. It takes patience. It takes commitment. It comes with plenty of setbacks and it comes with plenty of failures.

But whenever you feel that creeping cynicism, whenever you hear those voices say you can't make a difference, whenever somebody tells you to set your sights lower -- the trajectory of this country should give you hope. Previous generations should give you hope. What young generations have done before should give you hope. Young folks who marched and mobilized and stood up and sat in, from Seneca Falls to Selma to Stonewall, didn't just do it for themselves; they did it for other people. (Applause.)

That's how we achieved women's rights. That's how we achieved voting rights. That's how we achieved workers' rights. That's how we achieved gay rights. (Applause.) That's how we've made this Union more perfect. (Applause.)

And if you're willing to do your part now, if you're willing to reach up and close that gap between what America is and what America should be, I want you to know that I will be right there with you. (Applause.) If you are ready to fight for that brilliant, radically simple idea of America that no matter who you are or what you look like, no matter who you love or what God you worship, you can still pursue your own happiness, I will join you every step of the way. (Applause.)

Now more than ever -- now more than ever, America needs what you, the Class of 2012, has to offer. America needs you to reach high and hope deeply. And if you fight for your seat at the table, and you set a better example, and you persevere in what you decide to do with your life, I have every faith not only that you will succeed, but that, through you, our nation will continue to be a beacon of light for men and women, boys and girls, in every corner of the globe. [WhiteHouse.gov, 5/14/12]

Campbell Brown Is Married To Romney Adviser

Brown Discloses That Her Spouse Is A Romney Adviser, Says She Has "No Involvement With Any Campaign." From Brown's New York Times op-ed:

But Mitt Romney will never be confused with Rick Santorum on these issues, and many women understand that. (I should disclose here that my husband is an adviser to Mr. Romney; I have no involvement with any campaign, and have been an independent journalist throughout my career.) [The New York Times, 5/20/12]

Chelsea Rudman: Cable Networks Covered "Reparative" Gay Therapy Study -- Will They All Cover Author's Retraction?

Chelsea Rudman — Mon, 21 May 2012 17:57:40 EDT

Fox News, CNN, and MSNBC all covered a 2001 study by psychiatrist Dr. Robert Spitzer that purported to show that a "change in one's sexual orientation was possible." Anti-gay groups claiming homosexuality is a choice have repeatedly cited the study. Last month, Spitzer retracted the study, and while MSNBC covered Spitzer's retraction, neither CNN nor Fox has done so, according to the Nexis database.

Spitzer: "I Believe I Owe The Gay Community An Apology"

Truth Wins Out Publishes Letter From Spitzer. On April 25, the LGBT nonprofit group Truth Wins Out printed a letter from Spitzer apologizing for the study:

Several months ago I told you that because of my revised view of my 2001 study of reparative therapy changing sexual orientation, I was considering writing something that would acknowledge that I now judged the major critiques of the study as largely correct. After discussing my revised view of the study with Gabriel Arana, a reporter for American Prospect, and with Malcolm Ritter, an Associated Press science writer, I decided that I had to make public my current thinking about the study. Here it is.

[...]

The Fatal Flaw in the Study -- There was no way to judge the credibility of subject reports of change in sexual orientation. I offered several (unconvincing) reasons why it was reasonable to assume that the subject's reports of change were credible and not self-deception or outright lying. But the simple fact is that there was no way to determine if the subject's accounts of change were valid.

I believe I owe the gay community an apology for my study making unproven claims of the efficacy of reparative therapy. I also apologize to any gay person who wasted time and energy undergoing some form of reparative therapy because they believed that I had proven that reparative therapy works with some "highly motivated" individuals.

Robert Spitzer. M.D.
Emeritus Professor of Psychiatry,
Columbia University [Truth Wins Out, 4/25/12, emphasis original]

Spitzer Published Study In 2001 Concluding People Can "Change" From "Homosexual" To "Heterosexual"

American Prospect: Study Concluded That For "Highly Select Group Of Motivated Individuals," "Change In One's Sexual Orientation Was Possible." From an April 11 American Prospect article by Gabriel Arana titled, "My So-Called Ex-Gay Life":

In 2001, the year I started college, the ex-gay movement's claims received a significant boost. In 1973, Columbia professor and prominent psychiatrist Robert Spitzer had led the effort to declassify homosexuality as a mental illness. Four years after Stonewall, it was a landmark event for the gay-rights movement. But 28 years later, Spitzer released a study that asserted change in one's sexual orientation was possible. Based on 200 interviews with ex-gay patients -- the largest sample amassed -- the study did not make any claims about the success rate of ex-gay therapy. But Spitzer concluded that, at least for a highly select group of motivated individuals, it worked. What translated into the larger culture was: The father of the 1973 revolution in the classification and treatment of homosexuality, who could not be seen as just another biased ex-gay crusader with an agenda, had validated ex-gay therapy.

An Associated Press story called it "explosive." In the words of one of Spitzer's gay colleagues, it was like "throwing a grenade into the gay community." For the ex-gay movement, it was a godsend. Whereas previous accounts of success had appeared in non-peer-reviewed, vanity, pay-to-publish journals like Psychological Reports, Spitzer's study was published in the prestigious Archives of Sexual Behavior. [The American Prospect, 4/11/12]

NY Times: Spitzer Wrote That "Majority Of Participants" Reported Change From "Homosexual Orientation Before Therapy" To "Heterosexual Orientation." From a May 18 New York Times article:

Reparative therapy, sometimes called "sexual reorientation" or "conversion" therapy, is rooted in Freud's idea that people are born bisexual and can move along a continuum from one end to the other. Some therapists never let go of the theory, and one of Dr. Spitzer's main rivals in the 1973 debate, Dr. Charles W. Socarides, founded an organization called the National Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality, or Narth, in Southern California, to promote it.

By 1998, Narth had formed alliances with socially conservative advocacy groups and together they began an aggressive campaign, taking out full-page ads in major newspaper trumpeting success stories.

"People with a shared worldview basically came together and created their own set of experts to offer alternative policy views," said Dr. Jack Drescher, a psychiatrist in New York and co-editor of "Ex-Gay Research: Analyzing the Spitzer Study and Its Relation to Science, Religion, Politics, and Culture."

To Dr. Spitzer, the scientific question was at least worth asking: What was the effect of the therapy, if any? Previous studies had been biased and inconclusive. "People at the time did say to me, 'Bob, you're messing with your career, don't do it,' " Dr. Spitzer said. "But I just didn't feel vulnerable."

He recruited 200 men and women, from the centers that were performing the therapy, including Exodus International, based in Florida, and Narth. He interviewed each in depth over the phone, asking about their sexual urges, feelings and behaviors before and after having the therapy, rating the answers on a scale.

He then compared the scores on this questionnaire, before and after therapy. "The majority of participants gave reports of change from a predominantly or exclusively homosexual orientation before therapy to a predominantly or exclusively heterosexual orientation in the past year," his paper concluded.

The study -- presented at a psychiatry meeting in 2001, before publication -- immediately created a sensation, and ex-gay groups seized on it as solid evidence for their case. This was Dr. Spitzer, after all, the man who single-handedly removed homosexuality from the manual of mental disorders. No one could accuse him of bias. [The New York Times, 5/18/12]

"Ex-Gay" Groups Used Spitzer's Study To Hype Reparative Therapy -- Which APA Says Doesn't Work And Can Be "Harmful"

American Prospect: "Spitzer's Study Is Still Cited By Ex-Gay Organizations As Evidence That Ex-Gay Therapy Works." From The American Prospect:

Spitzer's study is still cited by ex-gay organizations as evidence that ex-gay therapy works. The study infuriated gay-rights supporters and many psychiatrists, who condemned its methodology and design. Participants had been referred to Spitzer by ex-gay groups like [the National Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality] and Exodus, which had an interest in recommending clients who would validate their work. The claims of change were self-reports, and Spitzer had not compared them with a control group that would help him judge their credibility. [The American Prospect, 4/11/12]

AP: In 2009, "American Psychological Association Declared" That "Mental Health Professionals Should Not Tell Gay Clients They Can Become Straight Through Therapy." From an August 5, 2009, Associated Press article:

The American Psychological Association declared Wednesday that mental health professionals should not tell gay clients they can become straight through therapy or other treatments.

In a resolution adopted by the association's governing council, and in an accompanying report, the association issued its most comprehensive repudiation of so-called reparative therapy, a concept espoused by a small but persistent group of therapists, often allied with religious conservatives, who maintain that gay men and lesbians can change.

No solid evidence exists that such change is likely, says the resolution, adopted by a 125-to-4 vote. The association said some research suggested that efforts to produce change could be harmful, inducing depression and suicidal tendencies.

Instead of seeking such change, the association urged therapists to consider multiple options, which could include celibacy and switching churches, for helping clients live spiritually rewarding lives in instances where their sexual orientation and religious faith conflict.

The association has criticized reparative therapy in the past, but a six-member panel added weight to that position by examining 83 studies on sexual orientation change conducted since 1960. Its report was endorsed by the association's governing council in Toronto, where the association's annual meeting is being held this weekend. [Associated Press, 8/5/09, via The New York Times]

CNN: "According To The American Psychiatric Association, The Potential Risk Of Reparative Therapy Is Great." On May 12, CNN aired a segment on a California bill that would ban reparative therapy for minors. Anchor Randi Kaye interviewed a man who had undergone reparative therapy and cited experts' reports to note that "the potential risk of reparative therapy is great, including depression, anxiety and self-destructive behavior." From the broadcast:

KAYE: This week, President Obama came out in support of same-sex marriage, but some people think that being gay is a choice. And when people see their children showing so-called feminine traits, they hope something called reparative therapy will cure them. This week, California may become the first state to actually ban this type of therapy. The vote is Tuesday.

I spoke recently with someone who grew up dealing with this therapy about how it affected him.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

KAYE (voice-over): When Ryan Kendall was 13, his mother read his diary and discovered he was gay. That was the beginning of the most painful years of his life.

RYAN KENDALL, WENT THROUGH "REPARATIVE THERAPY" FOR BEING GAY: For years I thought God hated me because I was gay.

KAYE: Ryan says his parents were determined to change him. They signed him up for what's called reparative therapy with the National Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality, otherwise known as NARTH. Reparative therapy aimed at changing sexual orientation has been used for decades as a way to turn potentially gay children straight.

KENDALL: Every day, I would hear, this is a choice. This can be fixed.

KAYE: And did you believe that?

KENDALL: I never believed that. I know I'm gay just like I know I'm short and I'm half Hispanic. I've never thought that those facts would change. It's part of my core fundamental identity. So the parallel would be sending me to tall camp and saying, if you try very hard, one day you can be six foot one.

KAYE: Ryan says he was treated by Joseph Nicolosi, a clinical psychologist who today is still associated with NARTH.

[...]

KAYE (on camera): According to the American Psychiatric Association, the potential risk of reparative therapy is great, including depression, anxiety and self-destructive behavior. The association says therapists' alignment with societal prejudices against homosexuality may reinforce the self-hatred already felt by patients.

(voice-over): Dr. Nicolosi says his therapy isn't harmful and he only treats people who want to change. Not true, says Ryan Kendall.

KENDALL: It led me to periods of homelessness, to drug abuse, to spending a decade of my life wanting to kill myself. It led to so much pain and struggle. And I want them to know that what they do hurts people. It hurts children. It has no basis in fact. And they need to stop. [CNN, CNN Saturday Morning News, 5/12/12]

April 2012: Spitzer Retracts, Apologizes For "Reparative" Therapy Study

Spitzer Asks American Prospect Writer To "Print A Retraction Of His 2001 Study." In an interview with Arana, Spitzer said that he now admits "the critiques [of my study] are largely correct" and asked Arana to "print a retraction of his 2001 study." From the article:

This spring, I visited Spitzer at his home in Princeton.

[...]

I asked about the criticisms leveled at him. "In retrospect, I have to admit I think the critiques are largely correct," he said. "The findings can be considered evidence for what those who have undergone ex-gay therapy say about it, but nothing more." He said he spoke with the editor of the Archives of Sexual Behavior [the journal where the study was published] about writing a retraction, but the editor declined. (Repeated attempts to contact the journal went unanswered.)

Spitzer said that he was proud of having been instrumental in removing homosexuality from the list of mental disorders. Now 80 and retired, he was afraid that the 2001 study would tarnish his legacy and perhaps hurt others. He said that failed attempts to rid oneself of homosexual attractions "can be quite harmful." He has, though, no doubts about the 1973 fight over the classification of homosexuality.

"Had there been no Bob Spitzer, homosexuality would still have eventually been removed from the list of psychiatric disorders," he said. "But it wouldn't have happened in 1973."

Spitzer was growing tired and asked how many more questions I had. Nothing, I responded, unless you have something to add.

He did. Would I print a retraction of his 2001 study, "so I don't have to worry about it anymore"? [The American Prospect, 4/11/12]

NY Times: "Psychiatry Giant Sorry For Backing Gay 'Cure.' " A May 18 New York Times article described Spitzer writing a letter of apology for the study:

Dr. Robert L. Spitzer, considered by some to be the father of modern psychiatry, lay awake at 4 o'clock on a recent morning knowing he had to do the one thing that comes least naturally to him.

[...]

Now here he was at his computer, ready to recant a study he had done himself, a poorly conceived [2001] investigation that supported the use of so-called reparative therapy to "cure" homosexuality for people strongly motivated to change.

What to say? The issue of gay marriage was rocking national politics yet again. The California State Legislature was debating a bill to ban the therapy outright as being dangerous. A magazine writer [Arana] who had been through the therapy as a teenager recently visited his house, to explain how miserably disorienting the experience was.

And he would later learn that a World Health Organization report, released on Thursday, calls the therapy "a serious threat to the health and well-being -- even the lives -- of affected people."

Dr. Spitzer's fingers jerked over the keys, unreliably, as if choking on the words. And then it was done: a short letter to be published this month, in the same journal where the original study appeared.

"I believe," it concludes, "I owe the gay community an apology." [The New York Times, 5/18/12]

Fox News, CNN, And MSNBC All Covered Spitzer's Study ...

Fox News Covered Study At Least Once, In 2001. According to a search of the Nexis database, Fox News covered Spitzer's study at least once, on the May 9, 2001, broadcast of Fox News' Special Report. On the show, Fox News correspondent Rick Leventhal interviewed Spitzer about his study:

[BRIT HUME, ANCHOR]: For years, people have argued whether homosexuality is an issue of nature or nurture. That is whether people are born gay or if they become gay as a product of their environment. Now a study suggests that lifestyle may be a matter of choice rather than genetics.

Fox News Correspondent Rick Levanthal explains.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

RICK LEVANTHAL, FOX CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): Lots of folks say they're gay and proud, but what if gays would rather be straight? A new study suggests switching teams is not only possible, it's already happening.

DR. ROBERT SPITZER, HOMOSEXUAL STUDY AUTHOR: Whether somebody decides to make that effort is a personal choice, and my study doesn't certainly say that people should try to make that change. What it does say is that the conventional wisdom that making that effort is always doomed to failure is just not accurate.

LEVANTHAL: Dr. Robert Spitzer says reparative therapy works if subjects are highly motivated. His study examined 200 gays seeking help to change their sexual orientation, finding two-thirds of the men and almost half the women achieved good heterosexual functioning, which means they were in loving and emotionally satisfying heterosexual relationships for a full year.

But gay and lesbian groups call the research snake oil, not science, saying this was no random sample but a deck stacked with recruits from anti-homosexual ministries and the Dr. Laura show, changing because of pressure, not therapy.

JOAN GARY, GLAAD EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR: Many of the participants of this sample of these 200 phone calls are people who were recruited by anti-gay organizations. But I think the important point shouldn't be missed here, which is the why of sexual orientation is not relevant to whether people get treated fairly or not.

LEVANTHAL: Critics say real results can be found in another just- released study claiming 97 percent of people in reparative therapy ultimately return to their gay and lesbian lifestyle.

(on camera): Neither of the [studies] has been published or submitted for peer review. So there are many unanswered questions, and there's a lot at stake here, including the gay community's political clout. If homosexuality is a choice or a condition that could be reversed, it could be harder convincing people that gays need special protection and legal rights.

In New York, Rick Levanthal, Fox News.

(END VIDEOTAPE) [Fox News, Special Report with Brit Hume, 5/9/01, via Nexis]

CNN Anchors And Guests Have Covered Or Cited Spitzer's Study At Least Five Times Since 2001. According to a Nexis search, CNN has featured segments covering or citing Spitzer's study at least five times since it was published in 2001, including one segment in 2010.

May 9, 2001: CNN Covers Spitzer's Study Twice. On May 9, 2001, CNN aired two segments covering Spitzer's study. On CNN's since-discontinued morning show, Live At Daybreak, then-CNN anchor Carol Lin interviewed Robert Spitzer live. From the show:

LIN: I hope you're bracing yourself for the response to this study, because already it is the buzz of our newsroom: How do you change from gay to straight?

SPITZER: Well, first of all, I'm not sure the term "gay" is correct. Many of these people that I studied -- I studied over 200 -- were never gay in the sense of being comfortable with their homosexual feelings. Some had been, but most were never comfortable with their homosexual feelings.

Through a variety of change efforts -- some with standard psychotherapy, some in "ex-gay ministries" -- over many years, and usually in a very gradual process, they did change their sexual feelings.

This is not something that they were able to choose. It's not a question of choosing one's feelings. It's a question of making an effort through a particular program.

[...]

LIN: Was this voluntary behavior, or did religion somehow play a role in this conversion?

SPITZER: First of all, I wouldn't use the word "conversion." I would use the words "increasing one's heterosexual potential and diminishing homosexual potential."

Many of these people were motivated, certainly, by religious conflict, but that was not the only reason that they sought to change. Many of them sought to change because they were not satisfied with what they regarded as the gay lifestyle, which they found emotionally unsatisfying. Many of them were married and felt that their marriage could only be saved if they changed their feelings. And many of them wanted to get married but were unable to have opposite-sex feelings until they experienced this change.

LIN: So on the bottom line here, are you saying that a homosexual can choose to be straight?

SPITZER: No, I'm certainly not saying that. I would be very concerned if that's the way this study -- it's not a question of choosing. One doesn't choose to become heterosexual or homosexual. One can choose to resist an impulse. One can choose to make an effort by joining some kind of a program. These are not people who chose to change. They chose to make an effort to change. Some were successful, to varying degrees.

LIN: Dr. Spitzer, I only have a few seconds left with you, but it sounds to my ear like there is a potential here for someone to make the argument that homosexuality can be treated in the same manner that alcoholism is treated?

SPITZER: I don't know if it's in the same manner, and I don't know what the success rate is, but I do think the evidence is, as I said before, that some homosexuals who want to change can change. But it's not an easy process, and it's not choosing to change: It's choosing to make the effort.

LIN: It'll be interesting to see how people, after they hear your report, make that distinction. [CNN, Live at Daybreak, 5/9/01, via Nexis]

CNN covered Spitzer's report again that night on CNN Wolf Blitzer Reports:

[WOLF BLITZER, HOST]: Can gays go straight? Should they? We'll hear about the latest research, and then a debate. I'll speak live with the Reverend Jerry Falwell, who says he can convert gays. And Elizabeth Birch, of the Human Rights Campaign, who says Falwell is wrong.

[...]

BRIAN PALMER, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): Nearly 30 years ago the American Psychiatric Association declared it would no longer consider homosexuality as a mental disorder. This year, the APA debates a controversial study by a psychiatrist who supported that 1973 decision. Dr. Robert Spitzer says some lesbians and gays have been made heterosexual through psychotherapy and religious counseling.

DR. ROBERT SPITZER, COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY: Many of these people that I studied -- I studied over 200 -- were never gay in the sense of being comfortable with their homosexual feelings. Some have been, but most were never comfortable with their homosexual feelings, and through a variety of change efforts, some with standard psychotherapy, some in ex-gay ministries, over many years, and usually a very gradual process, they did change their sexual feelings.

PALMER: Critics denounced Spitzer's study, saying he practiced bad science, basing his conclusions on short phone interviews with subjects, 66 percent of whom were referred by so-called "gay-to- straight" conversion programs.

[...]

PALMER (voice-over): Spitzer's report got a lot of attention. But also presented at the conference: A five-year study by two New York psychologists of gay men and lesbians who have undergone so- called "conversion therapies." Its findings: 88 percent say the treatments did not work. [CNN, Wolf Blitzer Reports, 5/9/01, via Nexis]

May 12, 2001: CNN's Take Five Debates Spitzer's Study:

[JAKE TAPPER, CO-HOST]: This week, you couldn't miss reports of a new study that says gays who are "highly motivated" to turn straight, can.

Columbia University Psychiatry Professor Robert Spitzer based his report on a phone survey of people who said they changed their sexual orientation with therapy. Gay rights groups are calling the study "snake oil" and "not science."

Michelle, where's the truth? Spitzer or the gay groups?

[MICHELLE COTTLE, CO-HOST]: Not with this study. Whatever your beliefs on the origins of homosexuality, there's serious questions to be asked about this.

For starters, the volunteers were referred by these ex-gay ministries, which are based on the belief that homosexuality is an abomination in God's eyes, and your only chance of salvation is to reject the lifestyle. So, already, you're looking at serious cherry- picking of respondents.

Second, during these phone interviews, the vast majority of people said that they still had fantasies and same sex urges. And the doctor trumpets the fact that even these people have achieved a high degree of heterosexual functionality through hard work. He's taught them to perform heterosexually. And I'm not sure how it differs from cult indoctrination to some degree. [CNN, Take Five, 05/12/01, via Nexis]

July 2, 2001: Guests On CNN's Crossfire Debate Spitzer's Study. On the July 2, 2001, edition of Crossfire, co-host Bill Press discussed the Spitzer study with guest and conservative radio talk show Janet Parshall:

PRESS: John, I tell you what has me outraged is this -- the constant theme we hear from people like you is that homosexuality is like a light switch. You can turn it on and turn it off. Either you can be gay on weekends and straight during the week, if you want to. I mean, it's that easy. In his report, Dr. Satcher says there is no valid scientific evidence to support this reversibility of homosexuality. Are you finally ready to admit that it's a way some people are born and some people are not?

PARSHALL: Absolutely no evidence whatsoever that someone is born that way. And you need to talk to Dr. Robert Spitzer and get his opinion on this and why in fact, he now says that people can indeed change people, engage in sexual behavior. That could be defined as heterosexual or homosexual. They're not born homosexual. [CNN, Crossfire, 7/2/01]

April 6, 2010: Guests On CNN Newsroom Cite Spitzer Study During Discussion Of CA Law. On April 6, 2010, during a segment on CNN Newsroom about a California law dating from 1950 that required "health experts" to "seek a cure to homosexuality," guests cited Spitzer's study:

[KYRA PHILLIPS, ANCHOR]: Homosexuality. Is it a problem in need of a cure? It grabs your attention, doesn't it? And as you probably know, California is one of the most liberal states in the country, but wait until you hear about this law. Since 1950, health experts have been required to seek a cure to homosexuality. Lawmakers are in the process of repealing it, but some are saying not so fast.

Richard Cohen is a psychotherapist and an author. He's also a husband, father, and self-described former homosexual. Bonnie Lowenthal is a California assemblywoman. She wrote the bill to erase the law.

[...]

PHILLIPS: And Richard, let me ask you. Do you think that your homosexuality was a mental disorder?

RICHARD COHEN, PSYCHOTHERAPIST, INTERNATIONAL HEALING FOUNDATION: I think that we should keep this bill, the 8050 in California for two reasons. One, it says let's do research why sexual predators abuse children, and I am a survivor of sexual abuse. So, to do research to find out why predators do this is excellent.

[...]

COHEN: I actually had a partner, a male partner for three years. But in my heart I had a passionate desire to marry a woman and create a family. I went to several therapists and they said, you're born this way, accept it. I knew that wasn't true for me, so it took so many years to figure out why I had homosexual feelings and then come out straight.

For 20 years now as a psychotherapist, I've helped, as I said, hundreds in therapy and thousands of healing seminars. Changeispossible.com. That's our Web site because we know that change from the inside, not just behavioral change, Kyra, this is internal change.

And Dr. Robert Spitzer of Columbia University did a study published in 2002, Archives of Sexual Behavior showing 200 men and women who reversed from homosexual to heterosexual and change their orientation. [CNN, CNN Newroom, 4/6/10, via Nexis]

MSNBC Covered Spitzer's Study At Least Once, In 2001. According to a Nexis search, MSNBC covered Spitzer's study at least once, excluding the times it has since covered his retraction. From the May 9, 2001, broadcast of Hardball:

[CHRIS MATTHEWS, HOST]: Well, this is going to be interesting. Today there are two new studies out seeking to shed light on a controversial question with political implications, one by Dr. Robert Spitzer of Columbia University offers examples of gay men and women who say they were made straight through psychotherapy and religious counseling. Another study suggests that people cannot change their sexual orientation, even if they want to.

Dr. Spitzer interviewed about 200 gay men and women who reported they had become heterosexual. He writes, quote, "The subjects' self-reports of change appear to be, by and large, valid rather than gross exaggerations, brainwashing, or wishful thinking."

[...]

MATTHEWS: We're also going to be joined right now from San Francisco by an old friend, Elizabeth Birch of the Human Rights Campaign.

Why to me, I'm not gay, I'm straight, I just have a question. Why is this such a hot issue, this question of whether you can through counseling and whatever change your orientation? Why is it a political question?

ELIZABETH BIRCH, HUMAN RIGHTS: Well, Chris, I think that what's important about this is that these studies can be very dangerous if they're not done correctly. And the fact is, is, none of it matters, because truly public policy should really be based on whether we're treating every American in a fair and equal way and with a lot of self-esteem.

But this particular study seems to me to be enormously flawed, in that the pool of people from which Dr. Spitzer drew from, it was in a highly religiously charged atmosphere. He basically had these people supplied by a couple of right-wing organizations. And in fact, this study has not been subjected at all to peer review, which is an absolute basic step in research.

These researchers had an opportunity to subject it to peer review and opted not to. [MSNBC, Hardball, 5/9/01, via Nexis]

... But Only MSNBC Has Covered Spitzer's Retraction

MSNBC's Maddow Covered Spitzer's Retraction Twice. On her MSNBC show, host Rachel Maddow covered Spitzer's retraction twice in April. From the April 18 broadcast of her show:

MADDOW: In 2001, this came out. Can some gay men and lesbians change their sexual orientation?

This was not published in some quack, fringe, wishful thinking anti- gay publication. It was not a vanity publishing thing. This was published in a well-regarded peer-reviewed medical journal called "The Archives of Sexual Behavior". And this piece was not published by some anti-gay true believer who was trying and failing to pull on the guise of scientific authority to justify being super anti-gay.

Look at the author of this. Look, Robert L. Spitzer. That would be the same Dr. Robert L. Spitzer who had been so instrumental in delisting homosexuality as a mental disorder in 1973. In 2001, 28 years after, Dr. Spitzer told the country that being gay doesn`t make you sick, he published this, this study, which says he studied a couple hundred patients and he found that you could, in some instances, pray away the gay! You could get rid of your homosexuality through therapy or something. He said some gay people, essentially, could be turned straight.

The anti-gay groups, "the being gay is a choice" people, the you can be cured of your homosexuality folks, they were over the moon. Look at this press release from a pray away the gay group called NARTH, the National Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality. Their press release, prominent psychiatrist announces new study results. Some gays can change!

Ever since this study came out in 2001, 11 years ago, Dr. Robert Spitzer`s work has been cited as proof that if you want it enough, you can turn yourself from gay to straight. The "cure the gay" people have spent that last 11 years moving to the center of anti-gay politics in the United States. They have become as mainstream as you can get in the anti-gay political world.

When President George W. Bush urged Congress in 2006 to amend the United States constitution, to make it anti-gay marriage, the Bush White House made sure that a contingent of people who specialize in supposedly curing gay people were in attendance at the White House announcement.

[...]

MADDOW: [L]ast week Dr. Robert Spitzer made it known that he would please like to take that study back from 2001. He would like to retract it. It does not mean what people think it means and he wishes it would not have published.

Last week, the "American Prospect" magazine published a remarkable piece of reporting, including the explosive revelation that Dr. Spitzer is renouncing this 2001 study that changed gay politics in America ever since. Dr. Spitzer says he wishes he could retract the study from the journal in which it was originally published. He says that efforts to cure gay people of homosexuality, quote, "can be quite harmful"; acknowledging that he did not study a representative sample of people, but instead counted on people sent to him from anti-gay groups.

Dr. Spitzer now says, quote, "The findings can be considered evidence for what those who have undergone ex-gay therapy say about it, but nothing more."

Dr. Spitzer essentially saying that study was not science, it was just a series of anecdotes. He's sorry it was published. He wants to take it back. [MSNBC, The Rachel Maddow Show, 4/18/12, via Nexis]

Maddow covered Spitzer's letter of apology on the April 26 broadcast of her show. She also discussed the impact Spitzer's retraction might have on the legal status of Proposition 8 in California, since its proponents have cited Spitzer's study previously. Her guest Kenji Yoshino, a law professor, said, "I think it's a big deal":

MADDOW: Dr. Roberts Spitzer, the aforementioned Dr. Robert Spitzer, that prominent psychiatrist quoted there in the Prop 8 trial whose work is supposed to prove that gay people can change themselves into straight people, as we reported last week, Dr. Robert Spitzer recently revealed to the American Prospect he would like to retract his study, the one cited in that Prop 8 trial. He says he regrets it, he'd like to retract it and the he basically does not think it qualifies as science.

His study was published in this journal "The Archives of Sexual Behavior." The journal's editor says that it will not formally retract the study, but they are going to publish this letter to the editor from Dr. Spitzer.

Kudos and thanks to truthwinsout.org for being the first to publish the content of Dr. Spitzer's letter. It is kind of astonishing. Dr. Spitzer writes that there's no way to determine if the people in his study who said they turned ex-gay were credible when they said it. There's no way to determine if they were credible when they said they had been cured of the gay.

[...]

MADDOW: The fact that this study from the early 2000s, the fact it no longer exists for the anti-gay rights side in the Prop 8 case, how do you think that will affect the case going forward?

YOSHINO: I think it's a big deal. So, first of all, the reason immutability is important is because under the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment, there's a standard called heightened scrutiny. And there are certain classifications like race, national origin, sex, nonmarital parentage, lineage that get that scrutiny.

The $64,000 question of this case is whether or not sexual orientation is going to be added to that list. And one of the criteria that's been looked at to determine whether or not a group gets heightened scrutiny is immutability, as you mentioned.

So, the fact that Spitzer retracting this and the fact that the testimony in the Prop 8 trial was overwhelming for the fact that sexual orientation is very hard to change could figure into that analysis. [MSNBC, The Rachel Maddow Show, 4/26/12, via Nexis]

Neither CNN Nor Fox Has Covered Spitzer's Retraction. According to searches of Nexis, since Arana's American Prospect article was published on April 11, CNN has repeatedly covered "reparative" therapy in the context of a proposed California bill that would ban such therapy for minors; host Soledad O'Brien even interviewed Arana about his own experience with "reparative" therapy on the May 11 broadcast of Starting Point. However, CNN has not covered Spitzer's retraction of his 2001 study. Neither has Fox News.

Media Matters staff: Limbaugh Caller: "I'm 14, And I'm Not Sure If I'm Qualified To Be A Rush Baby Or A Rush Babe"; Rush: "You're Both"

Media Matters staff — Mon, 21 May 2012 16:40:00 EDT

From the May 21 edition of Premiere Radio Networks' The Rush Limbaugh Show:

LIMBAUGH: Let's go to Katie, Island Park, Idaho. Glad you called, great to have you on the program. Hello.

CALLER: Hi, Rush. Yeah, my name is Katie, and I'm 14, and I'm not sure if I qualify to be a Rush baby or a Rush babe. What do you think?

LIMBAUGH: You're 14?

CALLER: I'm 14.

LIMBAUGH: You're four-- you're both. You are Rush baby and a Rush babe both. We'll count you both.

CALLER: All righty.

LIMBAUGH: Have you signed up at our Facebook page?

CALLER: Yes, I just did this morning.

LIMBAUGH: Well, then you're a Rush babe. That's it.

CALLER: All righty.

LIMBAUGH: Fourteen. Well, thanks very much, Katie, I appreciate it.

CALLER: Thanks. Thanks, Rush.

LIMBAUGH: See, folks, this program has no boundaries. We have people from all three sexes, we have people from all religions, we have people from all genders, all demographics, all ages. A 14-year-old Rush babe. By the way, I've got audio sound bites coming up in the next hour. Fox News went to the NAGs' protest. Wait till you hear it.

Previously:

Rush Limbaugh Launches "Rush Babes For America"

61+ Women Rush Limbaugh Has Labeled "Babe"

Rush Limbaugh's Decades Of Sexism And Misogyny

Media Matters staff: CNN's Dana Loesch: "Sites Like The Soros And SEIU-Funded Media Matters ... They've Turned Into Birther Sites"

Media Matters staff — Mon, 21 May 2012 16:22:41 EDT

From the May 21 edition of KFTK's The Dana Show:

Previously:

CNN's Dana Loesch Calls Birtherism "Stupid" ... But Urges Listeners To Check Out Birther Story

Vet The Literary Agents: The Breitbart Birther Tease

Right-Wing Media's Latest Embarrassment: Obama Lied About Birthplace To Get Ahead

Jocelyn Fong: How The Press Is Hurting U.S. Energy Security

Jocelyn Fong — Mon, 21 May 2012 16:00:00 EDT

Are lawmakers pursuing a "fundamentally misguided" goal when it comes to U.S. energy security? That's the concern voiced by a group of retired military officers and business leaders in a recent report warning that strategies focused on reducing imports of "foreign oil" are missing "the true nature of the problem." This spring, when average U.S. gasoline prices jumped 70 cents, the news media had an opportunity to clarify which policies and candidates actually stand to improve energy security. On the whole, they failed.

The report from the Energy Security Leadership Council (ESLC) says the notion of "energy independence" is "widely misunderstood" in a way that "misdiagnoses the problem as one characterized largely by import levels," when in fact "energy security is almost entirely a function of the importance of oil consumption in the domestic economy." In other words, it's how much oil we need that makes us vulnerable, not where the oil is produced.

After all, countries like Canada and Norway, which have long been net oil exporters, saw the same debilitating price volatility that Americans have faced in recent years. The report, echoed by a subsequent analysis from the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, says expanded domestic oil production benefits the trade deficit and employment, but not energy security -- contrary to the claims of industry, politicians, and commentators. Instead, it is vehicle fuel economy standards that the panel identified as "the most important energy security accomplishment in decades."

CONNECTING THE DOTS

While experts agree that policies reducing oil consumption do more to protect Americans from price shocks than policies increasing oil production, this fact has not been clearly communicated by the news media. Our analysis of news coverage of rising gasoline prices earlier this year found that only 2% of broadcast coverage, 4% of cable coverage, and 13% of print coverage mentioned fuel economy standards. Out of 69 print items on gas prices, only three acknowledged that reducing oil consumption is the most effective solution. Instead, the coverage often discussed domestic oil production or the Keystone XL pipeline. There are persuasive arguments in favor of both of these, but energy security and gas prices are not among them. (Unfortunately, energy security and gas prices are two of the arguments used most frequently by proponents and relayed uncritically by reporters.)

David Lyle: On Judicial Nominations, Media Should Focus On Vacancy Crisis, Not Thurmond "Rule"

David Lyle — Mon, 21 May 2012 15:29:39 EDT

The Senate is scheduled to consider the nomination of Paul Watford, one of President Obama's stalled judicial nominees, on May 21. Journalists covering the debate on the nomination would do well to consider the judicial vacancy crisis that is denying many Americans their day in court, Watford's record, and the bipartisan support his nomination has received. They need not, however, devote much attention to the so-called "Thurmond Rule." The "rule," which some have argued is a reason for the Senate to slow or even halt the confirmation of judges during a presidential election year, turns out to have been so inconsistently applied over the years that it is less a rule than a free-floating excuse for obstruction. In the face of a judicial vacancy crisis, such a vague and standard-free "rule" deserves little weight.

There is a real judicial vacancy crisis in the federal courts, with more than more than 75 judgeships currently vacant. Over 30 "judicial emergencies" exist, in which vacancies leave courts so understaffed that cases pile up and people and businesses seeking justice are faced with lengthy delays in having their cases heard. The crisis is in large part the result of unprecedented obstruction President Obama's nominees have faced. Presidents Clinton and Bush had just over 200 lower court judges confirmed during their first terms, but after three and a half years of the Obama presidency, the Senate has confirmed only 145 of his judicial nominees. The vacancy crisis will persist, and deepen as a result of additional retirements, unless the Senate picks up the pace.

The vote on Paul Watford's nomination could say a lot about whether it will do so. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid has broken a threatened filibuster of Watford's nomination, and a vote will take place today. Journalists covering the vote might want to look into to Watford's record as a former Supreme Court clerk and the endorsements he has received from leading conservative and libertarian lawyers, including leaders of the Federalist Society.

Some have also raised the so-called Thurmond Rule (attributed to former Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Strom Thurmond) as a factor to consider regarding nominations. Already in January 2012 Senator Charles Grassley, the ranking minority member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, invoked the rule as a justification for an even slower pace by the Senate on judicial confirmations. Journalists need not, however, spend much time puzzling over the so-called rule in trying to understand either Watford nomination or the Senate's broader role in the nominations process.