The New York Times legitimized a discredited study from the Progressive Policy Institute claiming that net neutrality could cost American consumers up to $15 billion annually -- a claim that has been widely debunked for relying on "fuzzy math" and "significant factual error[s]."
In a February 20 Bits blog, The New York Times reported that a bipartisan group of senators "presented legislation that would permanently ban taxes on high-speed Internet service to American homes," under the Internet Tax Freedom Act of 1998.
The Times blog cited research from the Progressive Policy Institute (PPI) to claim that implementing the stricter net neutrality rules proposed by FCC chairman Tom Wheeler to protect consumers from paid prioritization of Internet access would cost "$15 billion a year," and the recently presented bipartisan legislation would lower the cost to $11 billion.
Buried in a single paragraph at the bottom of the blog, the Times noted that FCC spokesperson Kim Hart has asserted Wheeler's plan "'does not raise taxes or fees. Period.'" Left unsaid was the fact that PPI's net neutrality cost estimate has been thoroughly discredited. In a January 16 blog, The Washington Post's Fact Checker shattered PPI's net neutrality cost estimate, awarding the claim that utility-style net neutrality regulation could cost $15 billion "Three Pinnochios," for what it called "significant factual error[s] and/or obvious contradictions." And as the nonpartisan Internet advocacy group Free Press pointed out, PPI's claim is based on a critically flawed methodology that overstates the worst-case scenario tax burden by nearly 75 percent.
Furthermore, Congress passed a moratorium last year banning states from imposing new taxes on internet access through October 2015, regardless of any new FCC regulations.
Media are recycling old news that The Clinton Foundation accepts foreign donations when neither Bill nor Hillary Clinton hold political office to fearmonger over "ethical concerns" surrounding the donations, ignoring the fact that it is not unusual for foundations to receive foreign donations and that Clinton's record as Secretary of State makes clear that she was not politically influenced by previous donations to the Foundation.
In 2014, weekday evening cable news programs featured significantly more male than female guests and commentators to discuss foreign affairs and national security stories, with women making up merely 22 percent of the total featured guests and commentators across the three networks.
Weeknight television news programs have given little attention to the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), a sweeping trade agreement between the United States, Canada, and 10 nations from the Asia-Pacific region. Although the nations involved in the negotiations create a huge amount of economic activity, only PBS and MSNBC have devoted any significant coverage to the TPP since August 2013.
Coverage of the economy on weeknight television news shows during the last six months of 2014 continued to focus heavily on policies meant to boost job creation and economic growth, but discussions overwhelmingly lacked input from actual economists. Additionally, a Media Matters analysis uncovered a relative decline in the number of segments promoting the conservative media myths that Obamacare and increasing the minimum wage hurt the labor market.
The Washington Post's Fact Checker debunked the claim that net neutrality protections could cost American consumers $15 billion in additional taxes and fees -- a favorite conservative argument against net neutrality and one parroted by multiple media outlets -- concluding the estimate contains "significant factual error[s] and/or obvious contradictions."
Conservative media outlets amplified a misleading study from the anti-immigrant Center for Immigration Studies, which claimed that "all net employment growth has gone to immigrants" between November 2007 and November 2014. But data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics shows that job growth among the native-born has far outpaced job growth among immigrants during the economic recovery.
Conservative media figures hid statements from President Obama and New York Mayor Bill de Blasio condemning violent protests. Instead, they misleadingly suggested the politicians were to blame for December 20 murder of two New York City police officers by a gunman, who was reportedly retaliating against the deaths of Eric Garner and Michael Brown at the hands of police.
Fox News is moving the goalposts on how President Obama should respond to terrorist attacks, complaining that the White House's statement on a deadly attack on a Pakistani school did not mention "the Taliban." The network had previously attacked Obama for not using the words "terrorist" and "terrorism," two words that appear in the president's statement.
On the December 17 edition of Fox News' Fox & Friends, correspondent Ainsley Earhardt reported on the global reaction to a deadly attack on a school in Peshawar, Pakistan carried out by members of the terrorist group Tehrik-e Taliban Pakistan. Earhardt highlighted that the president's statement did not mention the Taliban:
EARHARDT: Brand new information about one of the worst terrorist attacks in Pakistan's history: Pakistani Taliban insurgents storming an army school in Peshawar, killing more than 140 people, most of those young school children. Leaders across the globe condemning those brutal attacks, but the White House not mentioning the Taliban, at all. President Obama's statement reads this, quote "by targeting students and teachers in this heinous attack, terrorists have once against shown their depravity."
Similarly, on-screen text during the December 17 edition of Fox & Friends First declared Obama's response was "Not A Full Statement" because the president did not mention the Taliban:
Media coverage of an omnibus spending bill that rolled back key financial services regulations ignored the amount of money the financial services industry spent helping elect members of Congress in 2014. In fact, the industry lobbying to eliminate the regulation spent $436 million on federal candidates during the midterm elections.