Fox News' Megyn Kelly worried that the network's extensive live coverage of the House Oversight Committee hearings on Benghazi was providing "lopsided" airtime to questions from Democrats -- though Fox had actually devoted over twice as much airtime to Republican questions.
Three State Department officials testified today before the House Oversight Committee about the September 11, 2012 attacks on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, Libya. Fox afforded live coverage to the hearing, beginning when the three witnesses testifying, Gregory Hicks, Mark Thompson, and Eric Nordstrom, were sworn in.
For over an hour, Fox stayed live on the hearings without a single interruption. During this time, the network showed 32 minutes of Republican committee chairman Rep. Darrell Issa's (CA) questions and witness responses. But when Issa yielded the floor to the ranking Democratic committee member, Rep. Elijah Cummings (MD), for his turn to question witnesses, Fox cut to commercial, breaking live footage for the first time.
Rather than immediately returning live to Cummings' questions after the commercial break, Happening Now host Jon Scott instead spoke to Fox contributor John Bolton about the hearing, while a split-screen showed the hearing and Cummings' questioning continue. In total, Fox aired only two minutes of Cummings' questions and witness responses before returning to commercial break.
Fox favored Republican questioning right from the start of the hearing, yet Kelly implied that the network's coverage had been lopsided in favor of Democrats.
Approximately two hours into Fox's hearing coverage, during questioning from Republican Rep. John Mica (FL), America Live host Megyn Kelly broke in and expressed concern that, "We're getting a little lopsided in terms of the Democrats versus the Republicans, so we're going to try to rectify that for you after the break, and play more of Mr. Mica right after this quick commercial break." Fox continued airing what was left of Mica's questions upon returning from break. But then as Democratic Rep. Stephen Lynch (MA) took the floor, Fox halted live coverage so that Kelly could speak to another Fox correspondent. As she skipped the Democrat's question period, Kelly stated, "And so we're going to try to even it out. We're going to try to get on the same number of Democrats and Republicans as we watch this coverage."
At the time of Kelly's remark, eleven politicians -- six Republicans and five Democrats -- had asked questions of the Benghazi witnesses. And despite Kelly's suggestion, during this time Fox devoted 46 minutes of live coverage to Republicans' questions and answers, airing only 19 minutes of Democrats' questions and answers.
This post has been updated to correct the number of congressmen who posed questions prior to Kelly's remarks.
Fox News is launching a new round of smears against the Obama administration over the September 11 attack on the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi, Libya, using old, long-debunked falsehoods as ammunition.
The day after the Benghazi attack, on September 12, President Obama spoke from the White House Rose Garden about Benghazi, saying, "No acts of terror will ever shake the resolve of this great nation, alter that character, or eclipse the light of the values that we stand for. Today we mourn four more Americans who represent the very best of the United States of America." Obama referred to Benghazi twice more as an "act of terror" on September 13, two days after the attack.
But Fox spent months pretending Obama never labeled Benghazi as an act of terror, omitting his statements in video montages, and claiming that Obama was referencing the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks instead. Fox so successfully omitted Obama's words that even presidential candidate Mitt Romney believed Obama delayed calling Benghazi an "act of terror."
Fox also conducted a witch-hunt against United Nations Ambassador Susan Rice, who appeared on five Sunday news shows on September 16 and reported that the intelligence community's best current assessment of the attack was that a small number of extremists appeared to have taken advantage of a larger protest at the compound over an anti-Islam video made in the U.S. Fox twisted Rice's remarks and accused her of altering the intelligence community's original talking points in order to cover up its belief that Al Qaeda played a role in the attack. In reality, as The Weekly Standard's Steve Hayes inadvertently pointed out, the CIA's original talking points draft read that a spontaneous protest in Benghazi evolved into the consulate attack, just as Rice reported.
Eight months later, Fox is back to parroting these same untruths to reprise their Benghazi smear campaign.
On May 6's Happening Now, host Jon Scott spoke with anchor Bret Baier about upcoming congressional hearings on Benghazi. Fox again ignored Obama's declaration that Benghazi was an "act of terror," airing this graphic during Baier's interview:
Fox News host Jon Scott identified all retirees as those "who could be working" in order to disparage the labor force participation rate from April's positive jobs report.
The Bureau of Labor Statistics' (BLS) May 3 jobs report determined that the economy added 165,000 jobs in April, while the unemployment rate fell from 7.6 to 7.5 percent. BLS also reported that the labor force participation rate remained unchanged at 63.3 percent.
On Happening Now, Scott wondered of the labor force participation: "So, if this participation rate is at 63 percent, that leaves, what? Thirty-seven percent of the country who could be working, not working?" Doug Holtz-Eakin, former director of the Congressional Budget Office under President George W. Bush, responded, "Yeah. If you look at the ratio of the number of people in the United States who are working, to the number in the United States, that's a low number. We're not taking advantage of the skills of our population."
BLS determines the unemployment rate after conducting the Current Population Survey, a monthly sample of approximately 60,000 households where people are asked about the labor force status of household members.
The labor force participation rate that Scott referenced is the percentage of the civilian noninstitutional population who identified as either employed or actively looking for work. But here's where he dropped the ball -- the civilian noninstitutional population, as BLS defines it, includes all people 16 years of age and older, who are neither institutionalized (in a penal or mental institution) nor active duty military. So the 37 percent of people who self-identified as "not in the labor force" includes retirees and stay-at-home spouses, not generally groups "who could be working" or want to work.
Holtz-Eakin's claim was even more extreme, comparing the civilian labor force to the total population of the nation, which of course includes children.
Fox News and Rush Limbaugh are teaming up to demonize the Food and Drug Administration's decision to lower the age requirement for access to over-the-counter emergency contraception, ignoring both the science behind the drug and the FDA's assessment that younger women can handle the responsibility of taking the medication.
On America's Newsroom, Fox's senior managing editor for health news, Dr. Manny Alvarez, attacked the FDA's decision to allow 15-year-olds to purchase the medication. He claimed emergency contraception decisions should be left up to the parents because, "Since when is a 15-year-old child a woman? Now give me a break."
Alvarez went on to claim that a 15-year-old is unable to understand the possible side effects of Plan B. Host Martha MacCallum stated, "Look at the list of warnings on this thing," prompting Alvarez to argue:
It reads like the Constitution. There's so many, you know, possibilities, probabilities, percentages. You're going to tell me a 15-year-old girl -- and who could even buy it and give it to a 14-year-old or 13-year-old -- is going to understand all the potential side effects? And what they should do after if they have any of the symptoms?
Later, MacCallum fearmongered over whether Plan B could result in long-term fertility problems, wondering, "Who knows what the long-lasting implications of using it in that way are? When this girl decides she wants to have a baby a few years down the road?" Alvarez did not take the bait, telling MacCallum: "I'm not arguing that this has some mild to moderate side effects -- not terrible side effects."
Aside from the fact that the "children" seeking emergency contraception are of reproductive age, Alvarez's allegations have been explicitly discredited by FDA research. The agency conclusively determined that a 15-year-old is able to understand the side effects and consequences of Plan B after conducting research on this question when determining whether to make the drug available to this age group without a prescription. FDA commissioner Margaret Hamburg, MD explained (emphasis added):
The Center for Drug Evaluation and Research (CDER) completed its review of the Plan B One-Step application and laid out its scientific determination. CDER carefully considered whether younger females were able to understand how to use Plan B One-Step. Based on the information submitted to the agency, CDER determined that the product was safe and effective in adolescent females, that adolescent females understood the product was not for routine use, and that the product would not protect them against sexually transmitted diseases. Additionally, the data supported a finding that adolescent females could use Plan B One-Step properly without the intervention of a healthcare provider.
Rush Limbaugh expressed disgust that his homophobic views aren't treated with tolerance during a rant over a male professional athlete coming out as gay.
This week NBA center Jason Collins became the first male openly gay player in a major American sport, revealing in an April 29 Sports Illustrated story:
I'm a 34-year-old NBA center. I'm black. And I'm gay.
On his radio program April 30, Limbaugh bemoaned the fact that Collins' sexual preference was even a topic of conversation, as people have "gay-news fatigue." He asked repeatedly, "Why does [being gay] have to be rammed down our throats?":
LIMBAUGH: Folks, I grew up in a family where people's sexual orientation preferences, whatever, weren't even discussed. Why - why can't - why can't everybody just put your sexual preferences on Facebook and call it a day? What do we need to stop everything and have a national day of celebration - or mourning, depending on your view - recognition, or whatever, about this.
If you're like everybody else, they're sick of hearing this. They've got gay-news fatigue. Alright, we got it. Just put it up on Facebook and forget it. Why does it have to be rammed down our throats, figuratively speaking? Why does this have to be thrust at us?
Limbaugh then launched into a heated tirade about society's intolerance of his homophobic views. He complained that just because he's "not big on that" -- people identifying as gay -- he's labeled a bigot, racist, extremist, and a homophobe:
LIMBAUGH: And this tolerance, you know, it only goes one way. So, Person X of some national stature announces his sexual orientation is gay. And, applause. 'Great day for America. We're really taking giant leaps ahead.' If anybody says, 'You know, I'm not big on that.' 'You bigot! You - You - You racist! You - you extremist! You - you - you homophobe!' There is no tolerance at all here. Not only do these people have to publicly announce, everybody else has to applaud and accept it. My point the other day about how it's only us conservatives who are divisive. You know, I'm one of the most loving, unifying, want everybody to do well, like everybody, hope everybody has a great life-kind of guy you'll ever run into. But because I'm not a liberal, I'm called divisive. Liberals are never divisive. You know why that is? 'Cause to them, liberalism is just status quo. Anything that's not liberal is divisive. So, liberals believe this country has been racist, sexist, bigoted, homophobic, and now we're making great strides.
At the close of his program, Limbaugh expressed his respect for ESPN's Chris Broussard, a reporter who called homosexuality an "open rebellion" against God when he was asked during an appearance on ESPN about his views on Collins. Limbaugh told a caller, "I really respect him for saying it."
Listen to more of Limbaugh's rant on Collins' announcement:
Fox News' Brit Hume is continuing the network's effort to rehabilitate the Bush family name by lavishing praise on Jeb Bush, a potential 2016 presidential nominee.
Fox spent the week of the George W. Bush Presidential Library dedication lionizing Bush's tenure and whitewashing the effects of his policies; several hosts even bragged that Bush "kept the country safe" from terrorists after the September 11 attacks. From Fox & Friends to America's Newsroom, Fox uncritically allowed former Bush officials to spin Bush's record on fiscal discipline as probably "the best track record of any modern president," and to falsely claim that he helped grow the economy despite "inheriting a recession." According to a Media Matters review, 71 percent of Fox's guest appearances about President Bush's library and legacy were by former Bush White House personnel.
Now Fox's senior political analyst Hume is turning the Bush rehabilitation effort toward President Bush's younger brother and former Florida governor Jeb Bush.
Appearing on Fox News Sunday on April 28, Hume discussed whether Jeb Bush should run for president in 2016, remarking, "The country may indeed be ready for another Bush." The next day on America's Newsroom, host Martha MacCallum asked Hume about his comment. Hume responded by lavishing praise on the younger Bush, saying, "a great many political observers had identified Jeb as ... the most gifted natural politician among the lot of them." He continued:
HUME: I think it is the fact that Jeb Bush is an especially gifted political figure. He's a disarming personality. He's highly articulate. He's deeply versed in policy, especially domestic policy. He has a connection to the Hispanic community. His wife is Hispanic. He speaks the language. He showed that when he was governor of Florida. He was a successful and generally popular governor of Florida. So he's got a lot going for him.
Rush Limbaugh is criticizing Vice President Joe Biden for praising Americans for their resilience in the face of terrorism after the tragic Boston marathon bombings.
Speaking at Time magazine's 100 gala, Biden stated:
If the purpose of terror is to instill fear, you saw none of that in Boston ... [T]he only way terrorism wins is if we change our way of life, if we yield ... Our message to terrorists is you cannot break us, you can't change us. We will never yield. We will not be intimidated.
During his April 24 radio broadcast, Limbaugh attacked Biden for these comments, calling them "typical Biden" and wondering if the vice president was drunk. Limbaugh suggested that Biden's praise was misplaced because police put Boston and surrounding communities on lockdown during the manhunt for suspected bomber Dzhokhar Tsarnaev:
LIMBAUGH: Was the vice president a little overindulgent in adult beverages or was he joking? ... We watched a major American metropolitan area of more than one million people on lockdown. A million people were told to stay home from work, stay home from school. To shelter in place. Do not go outside. Boston's subways, buses, cabs, even Amtrak service was halted. They cancelled a Bruins game. They cancelled a Red Sox game. I saw a lot of lives change. What was Biden watching? They shut down an entire city! They had the - these two terrorists had the city fathers telling everybody, 'Don't go outside. Stay in there - Don't you dare go outside. Don't answer the door. Stay right -' They had people cowering in fear in the corners of their own homes. And the vice president says, 'The only way terrorism wins is if we change our way of life, if we yield. And we didn't yield. And we didn't change our way of life. And they didn't break us. And they didn't change us. And they can't, and we will never yield.' What was he watching? I saw a lot of lives being changed.
Rush Limbaugh claimed that the government only arrested suspect Paul Kevin Curtis for allegedly sending ricin-tainted letters to government officials because he was a white southerner. But the letters were signed with Curtis' initials and catch phrase.
Curtis, who is from Mississippi, was arrested last week for allegedly mailing letters containing the poison ricin to President Obama, Sen. Roger Wicker (R-MS), and Lee County, Mississippi Justice Court judge Sadie Holland. Though his case is still pending, Curtis was released from federal custody on bond after investigators failed to find evidence of ricin in Curtis' possession.
Limbaugh interpreted his release as evidence that authorities merely arrested Curtis because they wanted the ricin suspect to be a white southerner. He told listeners, "You know the ricin letters that were sent? The drive-bys so desperately wanted the culprit to be a hayseed, hick southerner, so they went out and found this poor guy from Mississippi and they accused him of it," and concluded, "They really wanted the ricin guy to be a white southern guy and not a dark-skinned something-or-other."
Details of Curtis' release are still unclear, but court documents reveal the FBI followed credible evidence -- not based on his skin color -- to connect Curtis with the tainted letters.
As the AP reported, FBI agent Brandon Grant explained at Curtis' hearing:
Grant testified Friday that authorities tried to track down the sender of the letters by using a list of Wicker's constituents with the initials KC, the same initials in the letters. Grant said the list was whittled from thousands to about 100 when investigators isolated the ones who lived in an area that would have a Memphis, Tenn., postmark, which includes many places in north Mississippi. He said Wicker's staff recognized Curtis as someone who had written the senator before.
According to the criminal complaint against Curtis, as ABC News reported, each ricin letter was signed "This is KC and I approve this message," a phrase Curtis frequently used in internet postings and other letters.
Hours after it was debunked, Glenn Beck continued to beat the drum of a conspiracy theory that the Obama administration is deporting a Saudi national who was behind the tragic bombings at the Boston marathon.
The conspiracy theory arose when Steve Emerson, a guest on Fox News' Hannity, accused the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) of preparing to deport a Saudi national "person of interest" in the bombings at the Boston marathon. Right-wing blogs like Glenn Beck's The Blaze, Breitbart.com, WND, and Infowars quickly latched on to the story, alleging President Obama wishes to cover up Saudi Arabian and Al Qaeda ties to the attack.
The myth pretends that a Saudi national who was hospitalized after sustaining injuries in the bombing -- initially reported to be a "person of interest," though he never was -- is the same man DHS is allegedly in the process of deporting for visa violations.
DHS soundly discredited the conspiracy theory this afternoon, explaining to CNN's Jake Tapper that the rumors are confusing two very different men.
Still, hours later, Beck continued to run with the debunked conspiracy on his television program, claiming his "sources" knew better (emphasis added):
We at the Blaze know that this Saudi national is a bad, bad, bad man ... This administration is playing an extraordinarily dangerous game. They have very little regard for what it takes to be a citizen. Before the sequester cuts happened, they opened the prison and let illegals out. Who does that? Remember also, the Saudi national that was -- is about to get on a plane -- involved in blowing the legs off of American citizens, being held in protective custody or being protected, at least, by our administration. He will be put in protective custody and the plans are to deport him.
Beck's claims, of course, are far from true.
When confronted with the fact that a majority of the nation's gun owners support expanded background checks for gun purchases, Fox anchor Bret Baier hid behind the National Rifle Association (NRA) to allege that such support does not exist.
The NRA has lobbied aggressively against a bipartisan proposal in the Senate that would have expanded background checks on gun show and online gun purchases. Among other efforts, they spent $500,00 in one day -- the day the Senate voted on the bill -- on ads calling the proposal "Obama's gun ban," according to the New York Times.
The background check proposal failed to pass the Senate, a result Fox contributor Juan Williams lamented on Special Report, stressing how even "gun owners say, 'Yes, it's a good thing' ":
WILLIAMS: It's like a tragedy ... the U.S. Senate can't take action on simple background checks that overwhelmingly the American people, in poll after poll, say that it's a good idea, it would be a good thing. Gun owners say, 'Yes, it's a good thing.' But again, the power of big money, the NRA, and the gun manufacturers has carried the day. So let's look at the record then--
BAIER: Well, hold on. Gun owners overall don't say that. You mentioned the NRA. They say this. (emphasis added)
Baier then read the NRA's statement opposing the Senate bill, which asserts that "[e]xpanding background checks, at gun shows or elsewhere, will not reduce violent crime or keep our kids safe in schools."
Despite Baier's claim, the NRA's view are contrary to that of the majority of gun owners on this issue. In February 2013, the Pew Research Center determined that gun owners overwhelmingly support expanded background checks. Pew found the number to be:
The vast majority of gun owners have repeatedly expressed their approval of more background checks. At the beginning of the year, a Quinnipiac University poll showed 91 percent of gun owners were in support; in March, they found that number to be little changed, with 85 percent of gun owners in favor of universal background checks.