Connect with us

U.S.

Gayle King Criticized for Kobe Bryant Rape Case Interview Question

Published

on

  • Gayle King of CBS This Morning is facing harsh criticism after including a question about Kobe Bryant’s sexual assault case in her interview with former WNBA player Lisa Leslie.
  • Among the backlash was an explicit video from rapper Snoop Dogg, who addressed King directly and told her she was “way out of pocket.” 
  • On Thursday, King posted a video of herself on her social channels, expressing anger at CBS for including the clip in a way that was “out of context.” 
  • She said that she intended no disrespect to the late basketball legend.

Controversial Interview Question

CBS This Morning co-host Gayle King said she is “very angry” with her own network for posting a clip of her discussing Kobe Bryant’s rape case less than two weeks after the basketball star’s death — a move that has resulted in harsh criticism for the TV personality. 

The clip was from King’s interview with Lisa Leslie, a former WNBA player and long-time friend of Bryant’s. CBS This Morning posted parts of the interview on their social channels on Feb. 5. In addition to discussions on Kobe’s influence and daughter, King posed a controversial question.

“It’s been said that his legacy is complicated because of [the] sexual assault charge which was dismissed in 2003, 2004,” she said. “Is it complicated for you as a woman, as a WNBA player?” 

“It’s not complicated for me at all,” Leslie replied.

“I just have never seen him being the kind of person that would do something to violate a woman or be aggressive in that way. That’s just not the person that I know,” Leslie added. 

King did not end the dialogue there.

“But Lisa, you wouldn’t see it though. As his friend, you wouldn’t see it,” King said. 

“And that’s possible,” Leslie conceded. “I just don’t believe that. And I’m not saying things didn’t happen. I just don’t believe that things didn’t happen with force.”

In her follow-up question, King acknowledged the sensitivity and mixed feelings on the matter in the wake of the NBA legend’s passing.

“Is it even a fair question to talk about it, considering he’s no longer with us and that it was resolved, or is it really part of his history?” the host asked Leslie.

“I think that the media should be more respectful at this time,” Leslie said. “It’s like, if you had questions about it, you had many years to ask him that. I don’t think it’s something that we should keep hanging over his legacy.”

Bryant faced a sexual assault accusation in 2003 from a 19-year-old hotel employee. The case was moved to court but was dropped in 2004 when the accuser refused to testify. The accuser later filed a civil suit, which Bryant settled outside of court. Since his death, the case has been brought up several times and prompted hostile reactions from some who believe it is inappropriate to discuss at this time. 

Backlash

King faced reactions akin to these herself when the CBS interview was made public. One of the most prominent people to call her out was 48-year-old rapper Snoop Dogg, who dedicated an explicit Instagram video to the matter. 

“Gayle King,” he said in the post. “Out of pocket for that s***. Way out of pocket. What do you gain from that?” 

He then seemed to imply that King was setting a racially-charged double standard by asking those questions about Bryant and not somebody like Harvey Weinstein. 

“We expect more from you Gayle. Don’t you hang out with Oprah? Why you all attacking us? We your people,” Snoop Dogg said. “You ain’t coming after f****** Harvey Weinstein asking them dumb ass questions.” 

Snoop Dogg ended his video by cussing out the TV personality.

“How dare you try to torch my motherf**** homeboy’s reputation, punk motherf*****,” he said to the camera. “Respect the family and back off, b****, before we come get you.” 

//www.instagram.com/embed.js

Similar criticisms of King were posted across the internet. “Very disappointed that you would bring this up at this difficult time Gayle…Very distasteful,” someone wrote in a comment on the CBS video.

“If you weren’t bold enough to ask Kobe while he was still here, don’t do it when he’s no longer here to speak on it and defend himself,” another said. “This is so distasteful and disrespectful! Props to Leslie for defending Kobe’s character.”

Tweets directed at her were just as unforgiving. 

“I hate to say it but I’m not surprised by Gayle King pushing the Kobe Bryant accusation,” one user wrote. “She is Oprah’s minion and this is what these 2 do….go after black men – even more so if they have died and can’t defend themselves.”

King’s Response

On Thursday morning, in the wake of the backlash, King posted a video on her social channels explaining her perspective on the Lisa Leslie interview and the controversial question she asked. 

She expressed her disappointment in the way the clips were cut and framed.

“I know that if I had only seen the clip that you saw, I’d be extremely angry with me too. I am mortified, I am embarrassed, and I am very angry,” King said. “Unbeknownst to me, my network put up a clip from a very wide-ranging interview, totally taken out of context, and when you see it that way it’s very jarring.”

King went on to say that she had been advised to say nothing and let the controversy blow over, but that was not “good enough for [her].” She described the interview as “wide-ranging,” and said they discussed many topics, including Kobe’s career, passion, sense of humor, and role as a mentor, among other things.

“And yes we talked about that court case because that court case has also come up,” King said. “And I wanted to get Lisa’s take on it as a friend who knew him well.” 

King said she thought it was “very powerful” when Leslie told her that it was time for the media to leave discussions of Bryant’s sexual assault allegations alone. She added that she “insisted” that part of the interview be included in the final cut because she thought that “it put a nice button on that part of the conversation.” 

She added that she believes Leslie was okay with the interview as a whole, and went on to condemn CBS once again.

“So for the network to take the most salacious part when taken out of context and put it up online for people who didn’t see the whole interview is very upsetting to me and that’s something I’m going to have to deal with with them. And there will be a very intense discussion about that,” she said.

She concluded her posts by talking about her encounters with Bryant and the kindness she experienced from him. 

“I too am mourning his loss just like everybody else,” she said. “I still am shocked by it. It’s tragic and untimely and the last thing I would want to do is disparage him at this particular time. I hope people understand that.”

“No disrespect intended,” she added. 

Despite King’s explainer videos, she still received hate from people online. Many still maintained the opinion that the question was wrong to ask at all just after his death.

“You’ve had enough time to ask that question when Kobe retired,” one user wrote. “Respect the family. It’s a time and place for everything. Kobe and his daughter haven’t been put to rest yet and you are still asking that question. Do better.” 

“Damage control. You wouldn’t have to make this video this morning if you would have never asked to begin with,” another said.

See what others are saying: (USA Today) (Los Angeles Times) (NBC)

Advertisements

U.S.

Employers Can Opt-Out of Birth Control Coverage, SCOTUS Rules

Published

on

  • In a Wednesday ruling, the Supreme Court decided 7-2 that employers can opt-out of birth control coverage on religious grounds.
  • Under the Affordable Care Act, employers have been required to cover cost-free contraception to their employees. Exceptions had initially been made to houses of worship, but a 2018 Trump Administration rule expanded that to include most employers, ranging from large public businesses to universities.
  • The court sided with Trump, ruling that his administration had the authority to provide religious exemptions.
  • Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Sonia Sotomayor cast the two dissenting votes, claiming it could harm healthcare access for women in the workforce.

SCOTUS Ruling

The Supreme Court sided with the Trump administration on Wednesday morning, ruling that employers can opt-out of providing birth control coverage on religious and moral grounds

Under the Affordable Care Act, employers have been required to cover cost-free contraception to their employees, though exemptions were made for houses of worship who could refuse for religious reasons. Exemptions grew in 2014 when Hobby Lobby won a Supreme Court case ruling that certain closely held corporations, like family businesses, could also refuse birth control coverage if it contradicted their religious beliefs. 

Wednesday’s ruling pertained to a 2018 Trump administration policy that would allow most employers – ranging from small private businesses, to universities, to large public companies – to opt-out of contraception coverage for religious reasons. That rule was challenged by the states of New Jersey and Pennsylvania, which claimed they would have to cover contraception costs to those who lost coverage under the Trump administration. 

The court’s decision responded to two cases: Little Sisters of the Poor v. Pennsylvania and Trump v. Pennsylvania. In a 7-2 ruling, they sided with Trump. The two dissenting votes came from Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Sonia Sotomayor. 

Justice Clarence Thomas, who wrote the opinion, said that the Trump administration “had the authority to provide exemptions from the regulatory contraceptive requirements for employers with religious and conscientious objections.”

“It is clear from the face of the statute that the contraceptive mandate is capable of violating the [Religious Freedom Restoration Act],” he added.

Justice Samuel Alito, who wrote a concurring opinion, claimed that the administration was “required by RFRA to create the religious exemption (or something very close to it).”

Ginsberg’s Dissent

This could leave as many as 126,000 women without access to contraception within a year. According to Planned Parenthood, nine out of ten women will seek access to contraception at some point in their lives. While birth control is often used as a contraceptive, it is also used for a variety of other health reasons, including regulating menstrual cycles, lowering risks for various forms of cancer, and managing migraines, endometriosis and other ailments. 

“This Court leaves women workers to fend for themselves, to seek contraceptive coverage from sources other than their employer’s insurer, and, absent another available source of funding, to pay for contraceptive services out of their own pockets,” Ginsberg wrote in the dissent. 

Ginsberg claimed that the court’s usually balanced approach of not allowing “the religious beliefs of some to overwhelm the rights and interests of others who do not share those beliefs” was thrown away. 

“Today, for the first time, the Court casts totally aside countervailing rights and interests,” she added.

Responses to Ruling

She was not alone in critiquing the rulings. The National Women’s Law Center called it “invasive, archaic, and dangerous.” The Center fears the ruling could have a larger impact on low wage workers, people of color, and LGBTQ people. 

Dr. Daniel Grossman, the head of a research group at the University of California, San Francisco called Advancing New Standards in Reproductive Health also condemned the decision.

“No employer is welcome into the exam room when I talk to patients about their contraception options, why should they be able to dictate the method from their corner office?” he asked. 

On the other side, Tony Perkins, the President of the Family Research Council applauded the Supreme Court. 

“It should be common sense to allow a religious group to conduct themselves according to their religious convictions, and yet government agents have tried to punish them with obtuse fines for doing just that,” Perkins said in a statement. “We are pleased to see the Supreme Court still recognizes religious freedom.”

See what others are saying: (NPR) (Associate Press) (New York Times)

Advertisements
Continue Reading

U.S.

Tech CEO Apologizes After Racist Rant Against Asian-American Family Goes Viral

Published

on

  • Viral video shows a man in a California restaurant spewing racist remarks at an Asian American family, including “Trump’s gonna f–k you…You f–kers need to leave,” and “Asian piece of sh-t.”
  • Many have expressed support for the family and praised a restaurant employee who immediately demanded that the man leave the premises. 
  • The man was later identified as a San Francisco tech CEO named Michael Lofthouse, and big names even shared his identity including Chrissy Teigen and Patton Oswalt. 
  • Lofthouse has apologized, saying he “lost control” and will work to better understand inequality.

Viral Video 

A California tech CEO apologized Tuesday after he was caught on camera making racist and offensive remarks towards an Asian American family.

“Woah, okay, say that again,” the person recording the now-viral video says. “Oh, now you’re shy? Say it again.

In response, the man at a table a short distance away raises his middle finger to the camera, adding, “That’s what I’m saying.”

As people off camera tell him that he needs to leave the restaurant, he says, “Trump’s gonna f–k you…You f–kers need to leave.”

“Asian piece of sh-t,” he adds as he gets up from the table to put on his jacket.

“You do not talk to our guests like that. Get out now!” a restaurant staff member shouts at him. 

“Who are these f–kers?” the man asks, to which the staff member responds, “They are valued guests.”

The employee then repeatedly screams at him to leave, saying he’s never allowed to enter the restaurant again. The man continues to make remarks, laughing while gathering his belongings before the clip ends. 

What Prompted the Incident? 

That video was recorded by one of the family members, Jordan Chan, on the Fourth of July at the Lucia Restaurant & Bar in Carmel Valley.

Chan later posted the video to her Instagram, writing in the caption that her family was there celebrating a birthday. She called the incident “unprovoked, unwarranted, and unconscionable,” explaining that her family was just singing “Happy Birthday” and taking pictures when the man started spewing his remarks. 

She also said more vulgar and racist language was not captured on film, including comments like, “Go back to whatever f–king Asian country you’re from.”

In the remainder of her post, she went on to talk about racism in America, criticizing President Donald Trump for amplifying “voices of hate.” However, she ultimately ended her post by calling for change and encouraging people to vote in the upcoming election. 

View this post on Instagram

❗️❗️❗️SHARE THIS POST❗️❗️❗️ Trigger warning: Racism, Vulgar Language (FYI he had a LOT more to say after I stopped recording) This is the face of the man who relentlessly harassed my family and I completely UNPROVOKED, UNWARRANTED, and UNCONSCIONABLE. We were celebrating my tita’s birthday, literally just singing happy birthday to her and taking pictures, when this white supremacist starts yelling disgusting racist remarks at us. (“Fuck you Asians” “Go back to whatever fucking Asian country you’re from” “You don’t belong here”) It is no coincidence that this man has the audacity to showcase such blatant racism on the 4th of July. White supremacy has a notorious habit of masquerading as patriotism! The fact that Donald Trump is our president (i.e. THE MOST POWERFUL MAN IN THE WORLD) gives racists a platform and amplifies voices of hate. The surfacing of racists is so prevalent right now, even in such an ethnically/culturally diverse and liberal state like California, because Trump HIMSELF uses his position to incite racial tension and to promote aggression towards POC, foreigners, and immigrants. We need change! PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE VOTE THIS UPCOMING RE-ELECTION. PROTECT ALL PEOPLE REGARDLESS OF SKIN COLOR AND ETHNIC ORIGIN. ✊🏻✊🏼✊🏽✊🏾✊🏿

A post shared by @ jordanlizchan on

Chan’s recording spread like wildfire, especially after she asked one of her friends share it on Twitter. 

Responses to Family and Restaurant Employee 

In response, a ton of people online began praising the family and the employee for how they handled the situation.

Singer Kelly Clarkson, for instance, tweeted, “THANK YOU SO MUCH to this woman for speaking up and throwing this trash out! …Keep calling hate out! It’s unacceptable, ignorant, and disgusting! Change won’t happen if we’re sittin’ down so keep standing!”

According to the San Francisco Chronicle, some even sent flowers and letters to the restaurant employee. A spokesperson for the Bernardus Lodge and Spa, where the restaurant is located, also said that others have even offered to pay for meals or lodgings for the family.

In an emailed statement to an ABC affiliate station, the vice president and general manager of the Lodge also said he was proud of his staff for keeping in line with the company’s core values. He noted that the man was “escorted off the property without further escalation,” and extended an apology to the family.  

Man Identified as Tech CEO Michael Lofthouse 

The reactions to the man in the video haven’t been as kind. Many, of course, began trying to figure out who the man was, and eventually, several journalists identified him Tuesday as Michael Lofthouse, CEO of Solid8, a cloud computing firm based in San Francisco.

Once people got that information, they continued to share it. Comedian Patton Oswalt, for example, did so by sarcastically writing, “Could everyone PLEASE stop sharing this video of Michael Lofthouse? He’s the founder & CEO of Solid8, a tech company based in San Francisco. If it goes viral it could hurt Michael Lofthouse and Solid8, his company. Let’s all be nice to Michael Lofthouse and Solid8.”

Model Chrissy Teigen retweeted a photo of his LinkedIn profile, simply writing, “Oops.”

Then people began bombarding Lofthouse with comments on his personal and company social media profiles.

On Monday night, Chan uploaded a screenshot of a response Lofthouse allegedly wrote to one user who called him “a trash human being” who deserves every bad thing that happens to him. 

That comment reads: “Great food [sic] for u – leave out planet. Asian f–k 

Come near me or my people a u r f–king dead

Do not start

U fucking piece of shot [sic]” 

However, no media outlets have confirmed whether or not that post is real and as of now, it appears that Lofthouse’s accounts were set to private or deleted.

Lofthouse Apologizes 

After all the backlash, Lofthouse and issued an apology to a local ABC station on Tuesday, saying: “My behavior in the video is appalling. This was clearly a moment where I lost control and made incredibly hurtful and divisive comments.”

“I would like to deeply apologize to the Chan family. I can only imagine the stress and pain they feel. I was taught to respect people of all races, and I will take the time to reflect on my actions and work to better understand the inequality that so many of those around me face every day.”

But the family doesn’t seem to be totally buying it. Chan’s uncle, Raymond Orosa, who was also there for the incident said, “He’s just saving face. I think he really meant what he said and what he did.”

“I don’t believe his words because his actions speak louder than the words he’s saying,” he added, pointing to the social media comment allegedly written by Lofthouse. 

Still, he told reporters, “I can’t say what he did was acceptable or right, it isn’t, because a lot of people will probably disagree with me for saying I forgive him… but I do.”

See what others are saying: (The Washington Post) (ABC 7) (Heavy)  

Advertisements
Continue Reading

U.S.

Judge Orders Dakota Access Pipeline to Shut Down Pending Environmental Review

Published

on

  • The Dakota Access Pipeline must suspend operations pending an environmental review, according to orders from a U.S. District Court.
  • A judge claimed that while this may cause disruption to oil industries, the Army Corps of Engineers did not provide a needed environmental impact statement. They must now draft one and undergo a review process that could last 13 months.
  • This order is a big win for environmental groups and the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe, who have been fighting for four years to shut down the pipeline. The tribe has long claimed that the pipeline is a threat to their main water supply in the Missouri River,
  • However, Energy Transfer Partners, which runs the pipeline, is vowing to appeal the ruling. 

Pipeline Ordered to Shut Down

A U.S. District Court in Washington D.C. ordered on Monday that the Dakota Access Pipeline must halt operations within 30 days, pending an environmental review. 

The pipeline runs for over 1,100 miles between North Dakota and Illinois, transporting 570,000 barrels of oil per day. It has faced opposition from environmental activists and members of the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe for several years over pollution concerns. Monday’s order is a victory for the pipeline’s critics. 

In his order, United States District Judge James E. Boasberg wrote that the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, which permitted the Dakota Access Pipeline, had violated the National Environmental Policy Act when it allowed a portion of the pipeline to be built under part of the Missouri River. 

“This was because the Corps had failed to produce an Environmental Impact Statement despite conditions that triggered such a requirement,” Boasberg wrote. 

The Standing Rock Sioux Tribe is located just under a mile from the pipeline, and gets much of its water supply from the Missouri River. They feared that having a pipeline under their water source could lead to contamination should there ever be a leak or spill. 

The court acknowledged the potential consequences of shutting the pipeline down, including a disruption of North Dakota’s oil industry, as well as the oil industries of other states. However, Boasberg believed that the best path forward in this case was to shut the pipeline down.

“Yet, given the seriousness of the Corps’ [National Environmental Policy Act] error, the impossibility of a simple fix, the fact that Dakota Access did assume much of its economic risk knowingly, and the potential harm each day the pipeline operates, the Court is forced to conclude that the flow of oil must cease,” Judge Boasberg wrote. 

The court is asking the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to reassess the environmental impacts of the pipeline and to prepare an impact statement. Judge Boaberg first ordered a review back in March. Per Monday’s ruling, the pipeline must shut down pending the review, a process that is expected to last 13 months. 

Responses to Order

The ruling could be appealed and only closes the pipeline temporarily. Still, it was cause for celebration for members of the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe and other activists who had been protesting against the Dakota Access Pipeline since 2016.

“Today is a historic day for the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe and the many people who have supported us in the fight against the pipeline,” Mike Faith, Chairman of the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe said in a statement. “This pipeline should have never been built here. We told them that from the beginning.”

“It took four long years, but today justice has been served at Standing Rock,” said Jan Hasselman, an Earthjustice attorney representing the tribe. “If the events of 2020 have taught us anything, it’s that health and justice must be prioritized early on in any decision-making process if we want to avoid a crisis later on.”

Youth activist and founder of Fridays for Future Greta Thunberg also applauded the court’s decision on Twitter.

On the other hand, however, the decision was met with swift criticism from Energy Transfer Partners, which controls the pipeline. The company has promised legal action, and according to Hasselman, has already filed for an appeal. 

In a statement, Energy Transfer said the order is “not supported by the law or the facts of the case.”

“Furthermore, we believe that Judge Boasberg has exceeded his authority in ordering the shutdown of the Dakota Access Pipeline, which has been safely operating for more than three years,” it said. 

Energy Transfer claims that billions of dollars of tax and royalty revenue will be lost by local and tribal governments in several states. 

“The economic implications of the Judge’s order are too big to ignore and we will do all we can to ensure its continued operation,” the company stated, before maintaining that the Dakota Access Pipeline is environmentally safe and responsible. 

See what others are saying: (Axios) (Associated Press) (Wall Street Journal)

Advertisements
Continue Reading