The slaying of two journalists in Virginia on Wednesday that played out on live TV and, later, on the killer’s social media feeds, sent shockwaves through the journalism community, including us here at Mic. In response, some outlets got it right with their coverage, while others got it very wrong. In fact, according to Dan Rather, nearly everyone in the media is getting it wrong by not being tough enough on gun violence and supporting reform. Here are a few words on the subject, from a few that got it right: Farhad Manjoo at the New York Times contemplated what happens when murder goes viral (paywall), Joel Achenbach wrote for the Washington Post that this sort of horror has become the new normal, and Jaye Watson’s blog post discussed what every journalist was thinking. The situation has raised new questions: Is it ethical to watch murder caught on tape? It’s important to note that there actually aren’t perfect policies in place to keep this kind of video from hitting your social media feeds again.
“I can only image this is what Hiroshima looked like 60 years ago.”
Then Mississippi Gov. Haley Barbour said these words about the wasteland New Orleans had become in the wake of Hurricane Katrina. Ten years later, President Barack Obama visited a very different New Orleans. The president said Thursday that Hurricane Katrina was in part a “man-made disaster,” and while the city has been rebuilt, it’s not necessarily better.
The U.S. is averaging more than one mass shooting a day in 2015. As of Aug. 26, the 238th day of the year, there had been 247 mass shootings.Wednesday’s deadly shooting of two journalists on live TV reignited the debate over gun control between 2016 presidential candidates, but there is widespread skepticism that renewed conversation will spark meaningful change.
Facebook made history with over a billion users in one day.The social media giant's founder, Mark Zuckerberg, celebrated the milestone in a post that said on Monday "1 in 7 people on Earth used Facebook to connect with their friends and family."
Usain Bolt is still insanely fast.Bolt beat Justin Gatlin in Beijing's World Athletics Championships 200 meter sprint, then was knocked over by a cameraman on a Segway right after he finished the race.
Hillary Clinton Never Supported the Bush/Cheney Invasion of Iraq
"She voted for the war!" "She's an unapologetic hawk!" "She's just another Dick Cheney when it comes to foreign policy!"
These are the charges I've heard over and over again for years...and as a longtime Hillary Clinton supporter who was against the Iraq War from the beginning, it never ceases to bug the hell out of me. My normal reply, which often starts with an audible sigh followed by "Well, actually..." usually does nothing to change these opinions.
But as tiring as it may be, I will keep defending her on this issue because the record and her statements over the past 13 years clearly undermine the misconception that Hillary was "for the war". So brace yourselves, because here is again...the actual truth of the matter:
Hillary Clinton never voted to go to war in Iraq, nor did she support the Bush/Cheney decision to kick out the UN weapons inspectors and invade.
Since some may find that statement to be controversial, let's be crystal clear: Clinton could not have voted to go to war because the United States Congress hasn't officially declared war on any country since 1942. Her vote was on the "Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002", which many other "war as last resort" Democrats like John Kerry, Harry Reid and Tom Harkin also voted for.
Clinton herself has explained the reasoning several times, including during the very speech she gave when casting that vote. Here are a few excerpts from that October 2002 speech:
If we were to attack Iraq now, alone or with few allies, it would set a precedent that could come back to haunt us.
...this course is fraught with danger.
...a unilateral attack...on the present facts is not a good option.
Because bipartisan support for this resolution makes success in the United Nations more likely, and therefore, war less likely, and because a good faith effort by the United States, even if it fails, will bring more allies and legitimacy to our cause, I have concluded, after careful and serious consideration, that a vote for the resolution best serves the security of our nation.
My vote is not, however, a vote for any new doctrine of preemption, or for unilateralism, or for the arrogance of American power or purpose -- all of which carry grave dangers for our nation, for the rule of international law and for the peace and security of people throughout the world. ...
So it is with conviction that I support this resolution as being in the best interests of our nation. A vote for it is not a vote to rush to war; it is a vote that puts awesome responsibility in the hands of our President and we say to him - use these powers wisely and as a last resort.
Does this sound like someone who was standing behind the Oval Office desk with pom-poms cheering on President Bush (or let's be honest, President Cheney) as the decision was being made to kick out the UN weapons inspectors and invade Iraq? No, of course not.
Since that vote, she has further clarified the reasoning behind her decision. On Meet the Press in September 2007, she said:
"I cast a sincere vote based on my assessment at the time, and I take responsibility for that vote. I also said on the floor that day that this was not a vote for pre-emptive war. ... Now, obviously, if I had known then what I know now about what the president would do with the authority that was given him, I would not have voted the way that I did."
As you can see, not only did she ace the answer which recently tripped up Jeb Bush and Marco Rubio, but she did it eight years ago.
On a follow-up appearance on that show in January 2008, she went further by saying that the Bush White House actually lied to her:
Moderator Tim Russert pointed out that the title of the resolution was the "Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002."
Clinton responded saying, "We can have this Jesuitical argument about what exactly was meant. But when Chuck Hagel, who helped to draft the resolution said, 'It was not a vote for war,' What I was told directly by the White House in response to my question, 'If you are given this authority, will you put the inspectors in and permit them to finish their job?' I was told that's exactly what we intended to do."
So if Hillary didn't want to go to war, why did she vote for a resolution with that title? The answer, despite being possibly counter-intuitive at first blush, is that she didn't want to go to war. That same month, during a debate with Barack Obama in California, Clinton explained:
I did an enormous amount of investigation and due diligence to try to determine what if any threat could flow from the history of Saddam Hussein being both an owner of and a seeker of weapons of mass destruction.
The idea of putting inspectors back in -- that was a credible idea. I believe in coercive diplomacy. I think that you try to figure out how to move bad actors in a direction that you prefer in order to avoid more dire consequences.
And if you took it on the face of it and if you took it on the basis of what we hoped would happen with the inspectors going in, that in and of itself was a policy that we've used before. We have used the threat of force to try to make somebody change their behavior.
I think what no one could have fully appreciated is how obsessed this president was with this particular mission. And unfortunately, I and others who warned at the time, who said, let the inspectors finish their work, you know, do not wage a preemptive war, use diplomacy, were just talking to a brick wall.
But you know, it's clear that if I had been president, we would have never diverted our attention from Afghanistan.
As recently as July 2014 during a CNN interview with Fareed Zakaria, Hillary again made the reasoning for her Iraq vote very clear:
ZAKARIA: You've said that you felt that your vote on Iraq was a mistake. What did you learn from that mistake? You know, when you look back at that whole episode.
CLINTON: Yeah.
ZAKARIA: What do you look at and say, gosh, you know, this -- going into the future, here's what I want to have learned.
CLINTON: Well, I've learned to be far more skeptical of what I'm told by presidents, no matter who the presidents are, and also to be much more cautious always in any action or vote that could lead to the use of American military power and most particularly what we call boots on the ground. With respect to that vote, I've thought a lot about it obviously over the years. I had worked closely with President Bush after the attack on 9/11. I supported his efforts to go after bin Laden and al Qaeda and, by extension, the Taliban, which were sheltering them in Afghanistan. And I, frankly, gave him too much of the benefit of the doubt. My view at the time -- and this is still true today -- is that the threat of force can often create conditions to resolve matters, and sometimes what we call coercive diplomacy is necessary. And I thought that that's what the president would do. It turned out not to be the case. And then following the invasion, the decisions that were made, everything from disbanding the military and disbanding, you know, the political structure turned out to be very ill-advised and we ended up with a dangerous situation."
Indeed, "coercive diplomacy" is not at odds with the idea of "smart power" and can be very effective in reaching peaceful solutions with some potentially dangerous countries. However, it only works if you use the threat of military action to get what you want without actually resorting to force. This is precisely what Hillary wanted and thought she was getting in 2003 when it came to dealing with the Saddam Hussein regime.
Unfortunately...very unfortunately...at that time we had an absolutely disastrous administration that went back on their word to a United States Senator and kicked out the UN weapons inspectors before starting a preemptive war of choice. It remains an unforgivable decision that we are still paying for to this day, and it's clear that they would have done it whether Hillary voted for that resolution or not.
Hillary Clinton certainly made a mistake, but it wasn't voting to go to war. Her mistake was believing that George W. Bush didn't want to go to war.
Willie Risher called the streets of New York his home for more than 20 years. But 11 years ago, a social worker connected him to permanent supportive housing and changed his life forever. The data shows the simplest solution to homelessness — that is, offering homeless people a home — works. It certainly helped Risher get back on his feet, and it’s actually more cost effective than letting someone remain homeless. But Mic’s Zeeshan Aleem notes that cities across the country are ignoring the evidence and passing laws essentially criminalizing homelessness. Look at the data, hear the stories of the people that have been given homes, and ask yourself: Is it time to support policies that help our homeless neighbors thrive and alleviate a steep burden from our economy?
The Internet lights up with demands for gun control reform whenever a high-profile shooting occurs, but there are more than 33,000 other gun-related incidents that have occurred in 2015 that we’re not rallying around. Among wealthy, developed countries, the U.S. has the highest gun ownership rates and the highest rate of gun-related deaths — and that’s no coincidence.
Two journalists were fatally shot on live TV.Vester Lee Flanagan II, known professionally as Bryce Williams, shot and killed Alison Parker, 24, and Adam Ward, 27, during an on-air interview in Moneta, Virginia. A third woman injured in the shooting underwent surgery and is recovering. After a police pursuit, the gunman died of a self-inflicted gunshot wound.
Flanagan, described as a disgruntled former employee, faxed a 23-page racially-charged manifesto to ABC News explaining that he was influenced by the Charleston, South Carolina, church shooting and other massacres. He sued Florida news station WTWC-TV in 2000 for racist remarks he said were made by news producers and managers.
The shooter filmed the attack using a GoPro camera and uploaded graphic footage to his social media accounts. If you don’t want to watch it (and really, you shouldn’t), here’s how to stop videos from autoplaying in your social media feeds.
As news of the shooting broke, WDBJ journalists reacted with grace and poise, delivering a moving tribute to their colleagues that traveled across the web.
James Holmes was formally sentenced to life (plus 3,318 years) in prison.The Colorado theater shooter got slammed with 12 life sentences — one for every person he killed during his 2012 shooting spree. The extra years are for 70 attempted murder convictions and an explosives charge.
South Sudan’s president signed a major peace deal.The agreement should end a civil war that has lasted nearly two years, but President Salva Kiir said there remains a bumpy road to peace.
Twelve people have been arrested over the Tianjin explosion. The chairman of Ruihai International Logistics and his senior managers were among those detained in China, and now 11 government and port officials are beingaccused of negligence. Nearly 500 people are still in the hospital recovering from the August 12 explosion that killed 139.
The Islamic State group could have access to chemical weapons. Doctors reported that residents of a Syrian town are suffering from skin lesions and respiratory problems, indicating that the terrorist group may have used mustard gas in a recent attack. It's making everyone a little nervous about the group's chemical warfare capability.
President Barack Obama will visit New Orleans. A decade after Hurricane Katrina devastated the Big Easy, the president will laud the city's "extraordinary resilience" in a speech at a new recreation center in the rebuilt Lower Ninth Ward.
Hillary Clinton’s campaign for President is in massive trouble, according to nearly every major news media outlet on either side of the political aisle. Bernie Sanders is now the democratic party frontrunner instead, according to half those outlets. Joe Biden is going to have to jump into the race to save the democrats because Hillary is no longer electable, according to the other half. The trouble with those narratives: the facts say the precise opposite. In fact, the polls say that if voting were held today,Hillary Clintonwould win in a landslide. Currently, Clinton is leading the democratic primary in either 49 out of 50 states, or in all 50 states, depending on which New Hampshire polls you prefer. In the other early primary state of Iowa, Clinton currently leads the second-place democrat by twenty-seven points, having the support of more than twice as many democratic voters as her closest opponent. Her lead in another primary state, South Carolina, is fifty-seven points. And she leads in every other state as well. So while the primary voting is still several months off, if the democratic primary were held today, Hillary Clintonwould win in such a massive electoral blowout that it’s typically only seen for incumbent Presidents who are running for reelection unopposed. So how about the general election? If the general election were held between Hillary Clintonand current republican frontrunner Donald Trump, Clinton would win by double digits, marking the biggest popular vote differential in a United States Presidential election since Dwight Eisenhower in 1952. Clinton would also win handily over any of the other republican candidates currently running. Even as the media talk continues of how her campaign is in trouble, popular sentiment reflected by the numbers says that she’s still the most popular Presidential candidate in modern history.
