Judge Brett Kavanaugh testifies during the Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on his nomination be an associate justice of the Supreme Court of the United States, focusing on allegations of sexual assault by Kavanaugh against Christine Blasey Ford in the early 1980s. (Photo: Tom Williams-Pool/Getty Images)
US Supreme Court Nomination Debates Are Dangerous
Under pressure to serve up "balance" in their coverage, producers and editors look for pundits to attack the most moderate and to defend the most extreme nominees.
Justice Breyer has announced his resignation from the Supreme Court and a Biden/Harris pick is expected to win confirmation. The Democrats' choice is unlikely to shift the court's balance, we're told, but the media's milquetoast reassurance misses the point that when it comes to balance it's not just the court, it's also the public debate that's shifted dramatically to the right. And nomination fights have a nasty habit of playing a big role in that.
Formed in 1992, the IWF's been spouting anti-government, anti-union, pro-incarceration talking points ever since.
Under pressure to serve up "balance" in their coverage, producers and editors look for pundits to attack the most moderate and to defend the most extreme nominees. For years, one ubiquitous source of those pundits has been The Independent Women's Forum and their political arm, Independent Women's Voice. They were vocal supporters of all of Donald Trump's nominations, playing up their gender to attack the women who accused Kavanaugh of abuse, and their "independent" label to defend Neil Gorsuch's embrace of very partisan Republican de-regulatory politics.
To the media, the IWF offer a convenient bit of "balance." To the Koch brothers and their network of profit-minded funders, they are an effective, female face of right-wing backlash.
The group got its start as "Women for Judge Thomas." In 1991, when the Senate was hearing testimony about Clarence Thomas's misogyny and worker-abuse, members of NOW, then a mass membership organization representing hundreds of thousands of dues-paying members, would show up outside the building and talk to reporters. As the story got bigger, and the media attention grew, a tiny clutch of "Women for Judge Thomas" suddenly appeared too, and instantly became media darlings.
Seeking "balance" money media gave IWF equal air time, in spite of the fact that they represented a view held by a tiny minority of women. And with air time, comes opportunity.
Formed in 1992, the IWF's been spouting anti-government, anti-union, pro-incarceration talking points ever since. Need women to argue against affirmative action and pay equity; for war and for harsher policing? Tune in cable news and you were bound to see IWF speakers casting feminist opponents of Amy Coney Barrett's forced childbearing views as "anti-woman." Or most recently, with other dark money groups pushing Trump's "big Lie" while still claiming to be "non-partisan."
Right now, the IWF is no doubt casting about for the most media-genic African American conservative to attack whomever President Biden picks. I could name names right now, but that would only do their work for them.
You'd think they'd have a problem not tripping over their own talking points around women who oppose women, but don't count on it. In the IWF, the mainstream media long ago found an activist women's group to love and they're unlikely to break off the romance now. At least, if you're in the media today and must have them on, name IWF's funders, and don't let them get away with this "independent" baloney.
For a full dossier of IWF's positions, funders, and influence, check out the excellent work by True North Research on Substack. And catch my conversation with Beth Richie and Suzanne Pharr who've been working together for a multi-racial, cross class, radical abolition feminism, for more than 40 years- with virtually no mainstream media airtime. You can find that on The Laura Flanders Show on public TV and community radio. Or subscribe to the free podcast wherever you get your podcasts.
Urgent. It's never been this bad.
Dear Common Dreams reader, It’s been nearly 30 years since I co-founded Common Dreams with my late wife, Lina Newhouser. We had the radical notion that journalism should serve the public good, not corporate profits. It was clear to us from the outset what it would take to build such a project. No paid advertisements. No corporate sponsors. No millionaire publisher telling us what to think or do. Many people said we wouldn't last a year, but we proved those doubters wrong. Together with a tremendous team of journalists and dedicated staff, we built an independent media outlet free from the constraints of profits and corporate control. Our mission from the outset was simple. To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. Building Common Dreams was not easy. Our survival was never guaranteed. When you take on the most powerful forces—Wall Street greed, fossil fuel industry destruction, Big Tech lobbyists, and uber-rich oligarchs who have spent billions upon billions rigging the economy and democracy in their favor—the only bulwark you have is supporters who believe in your work. But here’s the urgent message from me today. It’s never been this bad out there. And it’s never been this hard to keep us going. At the very moment Common Dreams is most needed and doing some of its best and most important work, the threats we face are intensifying. Right now, with just four days to go in our Spring Campaign, we are not even halfway to our goal. When everyone does the little they can afford, we are strong. But if that support retreats or dries up, so do we. Can you make a gift right now to make sure Common Dreams not only survives but thrives? There is no backup plan or rainy day fund. There is only you. —Craig Brown, Co-founder |
Justice Breyer has announced his resignation from the Supreme Court and a Biden/Harris pick is expected to win confirmation. The Democrats' choice is unlikely to shift the court's balance, we're told, but the media's milquetoast reassurance misses the point that when it comes to balance it's not just the court, it's also the public debate that's shifted dramatically to the right. And nomination fights have a nasty habit of playing a big role in that.
Formed in 1992, the IWF's been spouting anti-government, anti-union, pro-incarceration talking points ever since.
Under pressure to serve up "balance" in their coverage, producers and editors look for pundits to attack the most moderate and to defend the most extreme nominees. For years, one ubiquitous source of those pundits has been The Independent Women's Forum and their political arm, Independent Women's Voice. They were vocal supporters of all of Donald Trump's nominations, playing up their gender to attack the women who accused Kavanaugh of abuse, and their "independent" label to defend Neil Gorsuch's embrace of very partisan Republican de-regulatory politics.
To the media, the IWF offer a convenient bit of "balance." To the Koch brothers and their network of profit-minded funders, they are an effective, female face of right-wing backlash.
The group got its start as "Women for Judge Thomas." In 1991, when the Senate was hearing testimony about Clarence Thomas's misogyny and worker-abuse, members of NOW, then a mass membership organization representing hundreds of thousands of dues-paying members, would show up outside the building and talk to reporters. As the story got bigger, and the media attention grew, a tiny clutch of "Women for Judge Thomas" suddenly appeared too, and instantly became media darlings.
Seeking "balance" money media gave IWF equal air time, in spite of the fact that they represented a view held by a tiny minority of women. And with air time, comes opportunity.
Formed in 1992, the IWF's been spouting anti-government, anti-union, pro-incarceration talking points ever since. Need women to argue against affirmative action and pay equity; for war and for harsher policing? Tune in cable news and you were bound to see IWF speakers casting feminist opponents of Amy Coney Barrett's forced childbearing views as "anti-woman." Or most recently, with other dark money groups pushing Trump's "big Lie" while still claiming to be "non-partisan."
Right now, the IWF is no doubt casting about for the most media-genic African American conservative to attack whomever President Biden picks. I could name names right now, but that would only do their work for them.
You'd think they'd have a problem not tripping over their own talking points around women who oppose women, but don't count on it. In the IWF, the mainstream media long ago found an activist women's group to love and they're unlikely to break off the romance now. At least, if you're in the media today and must have them on, name IWF's funders, and don't let them get away with this "independent" baloney.
For a full dossier of IWF's positions, funders, and influence, check out the excellent work by True North Research on Substack. And catch my conversation with Beth Richie and Suzanne Pharr who've been working together for a multi-racial, cross class, radical abolition feminism, for more than 40 years- with virtually no mainstream media airtime. You can find that on The Laura Flanders Show on public TV and community radio. Or subscribe to the free podcast wherever you get your podcasts.
Justice Breyer has announced his resignation from the Supreme Court and a Biden/Harris pick is expected to win confirmation. The Democrats' choice is unlikely to shift the court's balance, we're told, but the media's milquetoast reassurance misses the point that when it comes to balance it's not just the court, it's also the public debate that's shifted dramatically to the right. And nomination fights have a nasty habit of playing a big role in that.
Formed in 1992, the IWF's been spouting anti-government, anti-union, pro-incarceration talking points ever since.
Under pressure to serve up "balance" in their coverage, producers and editors look for pundits to attack the most moderate and to defend the most extreme nominees. For years, one ubiquitous source of those pundits has been The Independent Women's Forum and their political arm, Independent Women's Voice. They were vocal supporters of all of Donald Trump's nominations, playing up their gender to attack the women who accused Kavanaugh of abuse, and their "independent" label to defend Neil Gorsuch's embrace of very partisan Republican de-regulatory politics.
To the media, the IWF offer a convenient bit of "balance." To the Koch brothers and their network of profit-minded funders, they are an effective, female face of right-wing backlash.
The group got its start as "Women for Judge Thomas." In 1991, when the Senate was hearing testimony about Clarence Thomas's misogyny and worker-abuse, members of NOW, then a mass membership organization representing hundreds of thousands of dues-paying members, would show up outside the building and talk to reporters. As the story got bigger, and the media attention grew, a tiny clutch of "Women for Judge Thomas" suddenly appeared too, and instantly became media darlings.
Seeking "balance" money media gave IWF equal air time, in spite of the fact that they represented a view held by a tiny minority of women. And with air time, comes opportunity.
Formed in 1992, the IWF's been spouting anti-government, anti-union, pro-incarceration talking points ever since. Need women to argue against affirmative action and pay equity; for war and for harsher policing? Tune in cable news and you were bound to see IWF speakers casting feminist opponents of Amy Coney Barrett's forced childbearing views as "anti-woman." Or most recently, with other dark money groups pushing Trump's "big Lie" while still claiming to be "non-partisan."
Right now, the IWF is no doubt casting about for the most media-genic African American conservative to attack whomever President Biden picks. I could name names right now, but that would only do their work for them.
You'd think they'd have a problem not tripping over their own talking points around women who oppose women, but don't count on it. In the IWF, the mainstream media long ago found an activist women's group to love and they're unlikely to break off the romance now. At least, if you're in the media today and must have them on, name IWF's funders, and don't let them get away with this "independent" baloney.
For a full dossier of IWF's positions, funders, and influence, check out the excellent work by True North Research on Substack. And catch my conversation with Beth Richie and Suzanne Pharr who've been working together for a multi-racial, cross class, radical abolition feminism, for more than 40 years- with virtually no mainstream media airtime. You can find that on The Laura Flanders Show on public TV and community radio. Or subscribe to the free podcast wherever you get your podcasts.