Offender: Blogger Erick Erickson

Media Outlet: RedState.com and CNN

The Offense: The conservative blog Red State, of which Erickson is editor-in-chief, ran a piece posted by "The Directors" that said, in relation to the Roe v. Wade decision: ". . . once before, our nation was forced to repudiate the Supreme Court with mass bloodshed. We remain steadfast in our belief that this will not be necessary again, but only if those committed to justice do not waiver or compromise, and send a clear and unmistakable signal to their elected officials of what must be necessary to earn our support." (emphasis added)

NOW's Analysis: We do not find it the least bit surprising that right-wing websites run posts like this, using language like "mass bloodshed." Of course, that doesn't make it acceptable, just sadly predictable. Normally, we wouldn't spend time addressing the content on a conservative blog.

What makes this post relevant, however, is that Erick Erickson is a political contributor on CNN's John King, USA. And NOW believe that a mainstream media outlet like CNN has no business employing a radical propagandist like Erickson.

Let's count the ways in which this quote is scary: First of all, doctors, clinic workers, volunteer escorts, security guards and others have already been killed and injured in the name of protecting the "sanctity of human life." If there's an audience that doesn't need any riling up with allusions to violence, it's anti-abortion rights extremists.

And how about the careful phrasing that claims bloodshed won't be necessary, "but only if..."? The caveat that follows sounds quite difficult to measure. So, if those "committed to justice do not waiver or compromise" (what constitutes a waiver?) and they "send a clear and unmistakable signal to their elected officials" (what qualifies as a clear signal? how many representatives must be signaled?), only then is there no need for "mass bloodshed." Who is going to be measuring whether these conditions are met or not? Is there a time certain for the conditions to be met? If they aren't met, what form will the bloodshed take? Who will be the targets of the bloodshed, and will they be warned that it's about to commence? If this series of questions comes off sounding sarcastic or facetious, it's not meant to be. This is dead serious.

Erickson reportedly will offer analysis during CNN's State of the Union coverage. Imagine a liberal in charge of a website that suggests the terms under which "mass bloodshed" should or should not take place in the U.S. being given a prominent and regular position on a mainstream cable news network. Not likely. Why is it ok for a member of the radical right to be given such a platform? It's not.

Take Action: Tell CNN that Erick Erickson has got to go. NOW. Make sure to put Erick Erickson's name in the box that says "Anchor or reporter's name."

Thanks to our friends at Media Matters for alerting us to this outrage.

National Organization for Women, January 25, 2011

More offenders in : Violence Against Women, Television, Reproductive Rights, Internet, Harassment, Intimidation, Media Hall of Shame

Rank this item with our Misogyny Meter: Currently 2.04/5 1 2 3 4 5 i

Spread the word:

Offender: CBS Executives

Media Outlet: CBS

The Offense: During the Feb. 7 telecast of the Super Bowl, CBS will air an anti-abortion commercial produced and paid for by the ultra-conservative group Focus on the Family.

NOW's Analysis: Focus on the Family has an aggressively anti-abortion, anti-LGBT, anti-woman agenda. This ad reportedly promotes the decision of one woman to go against her doctor's advice to terminate an at-risk pregnancy. While NOW would never disparage any woman's reproductive choice, we believe that all women should be free to make the decision that is right for them. We also believe that this ad could potentially put women's health and lives at risk by promoting ideology over medicine.

NOW President Terry O'Neil told the Associated Press that the planned ad is "extraordinarily offensive and demeaning."

"That's not being respectful of other people's lives," O'Neill said. "It is offensive to hold one way out as being a superior way over everybody else's."

It's important to note that the Super Bowl is the most watched television event each year, with a broad audience spanning all demographics. In the past, CBS has turned down other advocacy ads it deemed controversial, including ads from MoveOn.org and the progressive United Church of Christ.

Women are vastly under-represented in high-level decision making roles at the television networks (and pretty much all media outlets). Despite this disadvantage, NBC managed to make the right decision last year, refusing to run an anti-choice ad during the Super Bowl. Anti-abortion forces are on the offensive. They don't want to help women make informed decisions -- they want to, in the words of Focus on the Family, make abortion "both illegal and unthinkable." We must stand up to their campaign to deny women their fundamental rights.

Thanks to our friends at the Women's Media Center for alerting us to this outrageous move by CBS.

Take Action: Write to CBS and tell them what you think about their decision to air the Focus on the Family ad.

Lisa Bennett, NOW Communications Director, January 26, 2010

More offenders in : Advertising, Television, Reproductive Rights, Media Hall of Shame

Rank this item with our Misogyny Meter: Currently 2.40/5 1 2 3 4 5 i

Spread the word:

Offender: Law & Order episode "Dignity"

Media Outlet: Aired 10/23/09 on NBC

Offense: Law & Order presented a physician who performs abortions as a murderer and advanced anti-reproductive rights propaganda.

NOW's Analysis: Law & Order loves to do "ripped from the headlines" stories, and this episode was clearly based on the recent assassination of Dr. George Tiller. The show outrageously implied that physicians like Dr. Tiller may be culpable in their own murders because they themselves are baby killers. The episode might have been titled "Dignity," but it did little to acknowledge the dignity of women and the service providers who risk their lives to provide safe and legal abortions.

The episode was loaded with anti-abortion sentiment and propaganda. Several of the supposedly pro-choice characters on the show were guilted into questioning their values. The plotline that included the doctor killing a baby after birth was purposely inflammatory -- an assault on Dr. Tiller's memory and quite possibly a provocation to zealots who need little encouragement to view all abortion providers as murderers.

You only need look at the comments on the NBC website to see that Law & Order hit the mark with the anti-choice crowd.

Take Action: Tell NBC what you think about the "Dignity" episode of Law & Order.

Lisa Bennett, NOW Communications Director, October 27, 2009

More offenders in : Television, Reproductive Rights, Media Hall of Shame

Rank this item with our Misogyny Meter: Currently 2.78/5 1 2 3 4 5 i

Spread the word: