When Scott Brown has a campaign proposal he needs to roll out, the Republican Senate candidate has a reliable partner in Fox News, which has produced numerous segments tailored around his campaign's initiatives.
Fox's collusion with Brown on campaign initiatives is the latest ethics failure in its efforts to help the former paid Fox contributor in his race against incumbent Democratic Sen. Jeanne Shaheen. Brown previously used his Fox News employment as a launching pad for his long-discussed run for Senate, with the network's apparent approval. He's said that working for Fox News "really charged me up to" run for office again.
In recent months, Fox News has repeatedly helped Scott Brown promote campaign proposals related to border security, ISIS, Obamacare, and veterans affairs. For example:
Fox News hosted Brown for a softball interview on September 10 following his Republican primary victory the night before.
A rundown of how Fox News helps amplify Brown's campaign messaging is below.
A new report from discredited investigative journalist Sharyl Attkisson baselessly suggested State Department staff removed damaging documents on Benghazi instead of turning them over to the Accountability Review Board (ARB) for investigation. But Attkisson's claims have been denied by the State Department and are based solely on speculations from a disgruntled employee after he was disciplined for his "lack of leadership" and engagement by the ARB.
In a September 15 report for The Daily Signal, a publication of the conservative Heritage Foundation, Attkisson reported that a former State Department diplomat alleges that "Hillary Clinton confidants were part of an operation to 'separate' damaging documents before they were turned over to the Accountability Review Board investigating security lapses surrounding the Sept. 11, 2012, terrorist attacks on the U.S. mission in Benghazi, Libya." The Daily Signal described this as a "Benghazi Bombshell."
Attkisson reported that the diplomat, Raymond Maxwell, a former deputy assistant secretary responsible for North Africa, says that in late 2012 he observed an "after-hours session" at which a State Department office director "close to Clinton's top advisers" directed staff to separate out Benghazi documents "that might put anybody in the Near Eastern Affairs front office or the seventh floor in a bad light" from "boxes and stacks of documents." Attkisson notes that "'seventh floor' was State Department shorthand for then-Secretary of State Clinton and her principal advisors." Maxwell told Attkisson that while he was present, Clinton Chief of Staff Cheryl Mills and Deputy Chief of Staff Jake Sullivan "appeared to check in on the operation and soon left."
Speculating that potentially missing, possibly damaging documents made it impossible for the ARB's investigation to be thorough, Attkisson reported that Maxwell said "he couldn't help but wonder if the ARB--perhaps unknowingly--had received from his bureau a scrubbed set of documents with the most damaging material missing."
Fox News' America's Newsroom quickly reported Attkisson's claims, calling them a "bombshell development" and a "smoking gun of a potential cover-up":
Fox News lambasted local Texas schools' implementation of Meatless Mondays as anti-scientific "propaganda" that won't improve the environment. But several scientific studies show that reducing meat from the average diet brings considerable environmental benefits.
Texas Commissioner of Agriculture Todd Staples has been railing against the implementation of "Meatless Mondays" in several Texas elementary schools as "agenda-driven propaganda," and he continued his campaign on Fox News' September 15 edition of Fox & Friends. The lunch programs, taking place in several Texas and California schools, will serve vegetarian meals on Mondays, giving students the option of bringing their own non-vegetarian lunch as well. Staples berated the program as an "agenda-driven campaign" that's "really not sound science," and co-host Elisabeth Hasselbeck agreed, wondering, "Why should our children be subjected to such propaganda?" And when co-host Steve Doocy asked Staples if Meatless Mondays are "brainwashing," Staples answered: "Clearly, it is," suggesting that it will not be "better for the environment":
Far from "brainwashing," the idea that eating less meat is better for the environment is based on sound science. Many studies show that meat production places a substantial burden on land and water use and contributes substantially to the greenhouse gas emissions driving climate change. A United Nations agency determined in 2013 that the agricultural sector is the third greatest contributor to global warming, largely due to livestock production. A 2014 study of over 50,000 United Kingdom residents found that switching to a meatless diet can cut an individual's diet-related carbon footprint in half. A study published in Climatic Change also found that greenhouse gas emissions for meat-eaters are substantially higher, meaning that "if agricultural emissions are not addressed ... meeting the climate target [is] essentially impossible" according to science news website Phys.org. Moreover, according a study published in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, a non-vegetarian diet uses "2.9 times more water, 2.5 times more primary energy, 13 times more fertilizer, and 1.4 times more pesticides," as a vegetarian diet, concluding that "[f]rom an environmental perspective, what a person chooses to eat makes a difference."
Fox News' months-long effort to criticize President Obama's response to the Islamic State extremist group while ignoring the steps he's taken to combat the group culminated in a confused segment claiming that the U.S. has both taken and not taken military action against ISIS.
On the September 15 edition of America's Newsroom, Fox News contributor Pete Hegseth pushed for American ground troops to be sent to the Middle East to combat Islamic State forces there. Hegseth criticized Obama's response thus far, saying that allies are seeing "American ambivalence."
A more striking ambiguity took place on screen, where Fox News' text suggested simultaneously that:
The disjointed segment is representative of Fox's overall coverage of the president's response. On September 9, the hosts of Fox & Friends criticized Obama for doing too little to fight the Islamic State before pivoting to attacks on Obama for requesting funding to continue airstrikes against the group.
Fox News joined at least five networks that announced they would stop or minimize airing a video released by TMZ showing former Baltimore Ravens player Ray Rice striking his then-fiancée Janay Palmer. On the same day, Fox's The Five broke that promise by airing the video twice during the program.
The Associated Press reported on Thursday (emphasis added):
At least six television networks said Thursday they plan to stop or minimize airings of video showing Baltimore Ravens running back Ray Rice striking his then-fiancee and knocking her unconscious, footage that has called into question how the NFL disciplines players involved in domestic violence.
The move comes after the video from a casino elevator showing Janay Palmer crumbling to the floor after a punch has already been seen many times on TV since TMZ released it Monday. The news value of the video also is decreasing over time.
ESPN, CNN, ABC, NBC, Fox News Channel and Fox Sports all said Thursday they would no longer show the video unless there are compelling news reasons to bring it back.
"The video has been seen enough for viewers to clearly know what happened, and make their own judgments about what should happen next," said Michael Clemente, executive vice president at Fox News. "Our judgment is that continuing to show it is simply overdoing it for shock value, and not for journalistic reasons."
During the 7 a.m. EDT news hour on Tuesday, the video clip aired 37 times on ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, Fox News Channel and MSNBC, according to a count by Media Matters for America. In addition, the networks aired an old video showing Palmer outside of the elevator nine times, the group said.
Fox News' The Five broke Clemente's promise on the same day by playing the video twice, the second time in slow-motion:
UPDATE: Fox News' Special Report aired the video during a report on the NFL launching an investigation into how the league handled the incident and when it received the video. Watch:
Fox News host Eric Bolling speculated that House Democrats' letter to the NFL commissioner demanding transparency on the League's knowledge of Ray Rice's domestic assault was simply part of a political effort to prop up a "war on women" narrative.
Following NFL running back Ray Rice's suspension and subsequent dismissal from the Baltimore Ravens for a domestic assault incident that was caught on camera, questions are now swirling as to whether the NFL had seen the full, graphic tape of the assault when it initially decided to suspend Rice only for two games. While NFL commissioner Roger Goodell claimed the league had not seen the full footage prior to the suspension, the Associated Press reported on September 10th that law enforcement may have given the Rice tape to the NFL several months earlier, in April.
In response, twelve Democrats on the House Judiciary Committee sent a letter to Goodell demanding "greater transparency" on what access the NFL had to the tape and urging the commissioner to address the epidemic of domestic violence among professional athletes.
News of the letter from House Democrats didn't sit well with Outnumbered co-host Eric Bolling, who called the letter "convenient," adding, "They love to perpetrate this war on women so the Democrats feel like they're taking the side of women when they do this":
Bolling didn't mention another congressional letter to Goodell, one signed by both Democratic and Republican female senators and calling for a "zero-tolerance" policy on domestic violence in the NFL. The senators wrote that they were "shocked and disgusted" at reports that the NFL may have had the tape for months prior to Rice's two-game suspension.
Conservative media are claiming that unemployed Americans are "lazy" because they supposedly spend too much time "shopping" and not enough time working or looking for work. But the data they cite includes the activities of stay-at-home parents, students, people with disabilities, and retirees who are "not employed."
On September 8, fringe conservative website CNS News published an article claiming "an unemployed American is more likely to be shopping ... than to be looking for a new job. " The article ostensibly cited data from the American Time Use Survey (ATUS), an annual survey conducted by the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS). CNS claimed that "only 18.9 percent of Americans who were unemployed" engaged in job searches or job interviews on "an average day." Meanwhile, according to CNS, 22.5 percent of the "unemployed" engaged in shopping "for items other than groceries" on "an average day."
Unfortunately, CNS did not link to its internal data or provide methodology for its reporting, leaving readers to take the website's claims at face value.
Digging into the technical notes of the ATUS reveals that the BLS does not categorize individuals as "unemployed," but rather as "not employed." This distinction is important, as it includes individuals who fit the classification of being unemployed -- not working but actively looking for work -- as well as individuals who are "not in the labor force" for other reasons, including retirement, educational pursuit, and disability. So-called "discouraged workers," the small percentage of the population who involuntarily leave the labor force due to a lack of opportunity, would also count as "not employed" by ATUS classification.
CNS' insinuation that the so-called "unemployed" spend too much time engaged in non-work activities like "shopping" is based on a fatally skewed statistical error. But that fact has not stopped right-wing media outlets from using CNS' assumptions to fuel their campaign against the unemployed.
The newly-released 13 Hours: The Inside Account of What Really Happened in Benghazi documents the experience on the ground the night of the September 2012 terrorist attacks, effectively debunking a number of old media myths surrounding the tragedy.
The book, written by journalist Mitchell Zuckoff and five former CIA contractors who defended the diplomatic post and nearby CIA annex during the assault, is an interesting eyewitness portrayal of the attacks and the heroism the men displayed. But while the book has received ample media attention, outlets are largely ignoring several key points from 13 Hours' narrative that undermine false media narratives about the attacks.
On CNN's The Lead, host Jake Tapper interviewed three of the authors and specifically focused on what he called the "biggest point of contention" between the authors and administration officials, which is their description of the so-called "stand down" order. According to the contractors, though they were ready to leave the CIA annex to defend the diplomatic post almost immediately following the initial distress call, they were asked to wait for approximately 20 minutes as their CIA base chief attempted to contact local a Libyan militia for assistance and develop a plan. They disagreed with the delay and wanted to move in more quickly.
This disagreement was eventually politicized and inflated by media and political figures, who insisted that members of the Obama administration, or then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, had ordered rescue efforts to "stand down" permanently and leave Americans to die. But as the contractors explained to Tapper, though they believe they could have done more to save American lives that night had they been allowed to leave immediately, they did not view the decision as one of "malice" towards Americans, nor did they place the blame for the decision on anyone higher up than the base chief.
As the New York Times noted, their story "fits with the publicly known facts and chronology" we already knew about the non-existent "stand down" order. For example, the Associated Press reported last year on the disagreement between CIA leaders and security contractors about the delay to try to gather support from militia allies, citing Republican Rep. Lynn Westmoreland pointing to the disagreement as a possible source of the "stand down" myth.
The "stand down" order dispute has defined the majority of media coverage on the book. Fox News, which produced a special based on the book, has used the "stand down" reporting in 13 Hours to suggest they've been right all along about it. But Fox figures are moving the goalposts -- they network's obsession with a "stand down" order has revolved around the idea that the administration ordered a forces to not respond that night, which does not resemble the story laid out in the book.
While media have been focused on whether the contractors were ordered to "stand down," 13 Hours actually debunks other myths surrounding the attacks.
A Republican activist, attorney, and key player in the Benghazi hoax accused a former congressional staffer of harassing Benghazi eyewitnesses during congressional testimonies before going to work for Hillary Clinton -- but the staffer in question actually left Congress months before the interviews of those eyewitnesses took place. The false claim is just the latest in a long line of fictions from the Benghazi hoaxster, who has been discredited by Republicans members of the House Intelligence Committee and Benghazi CIA contractors alike.
Victoria Toensing appeared on the September 9 edition of Fox News' Fox & Friends to aid the network in reviving the myth of a "stand down" order in Benghazi. Going even further, Toensing claimed that Michael Allen, former chief of staff for the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, orchestrated the harassment of three CIA contractors giving their eyewitness testimony on the Benghazi attacks before Congress, even speculating that Allen purposefully prohibited the Committee from getting answers before leaving to join a "Hillary organization":
STEVE DOOCY (co-host): When these three operators and the others came back and they testified behind closed doors to the House Intel Committee, I understand they were harassed by the House Intel Committee that we thought were trying to get all the answers. What was up with that?
TOENSING: Republicans. And they were told, they were accused that they were not telling the truth. They were threatened with "the committee is not going to pay your travel expenses," which committees always do for witnesses who come in from out of town, "because you're writing a book and you're going to make money, and by the way, you shouldn't be writing a book."
Now you say why would that happen with the Republican-dominated House Intelligence Committee? Well, that chief of staff, the head of that staff that harassed these three brave men, a few months later went to work for Beacon Global Strategies. That is a Hillary organization.
National Review Online misinformed about an amendment that would reinstate the ability of Congress to regulate campaign finance and counter Citizens United -- the infamous Supreme Court decision that opened the door for the super-rich and corporations to drown out average Americans in the political debate with unlimited sums of money.
On September 8, the Senate voted to debate the proposed constitutional amendment, which would re-establish campaign finance laws that the conservative justices of the Supreme Court struck down in Citizens United in 2010. That decision overturned part of the McCain-Feingold Act -- much-needed bipartisan campaign finance reforms instituted to prevent corruption of the political process and level the playing field between small donors and the wealthy -- and effectively eliminated limits for independent corporate spending in federal elections. Specifically, Citizens United radically rewrote First Amendment precedent and expanded the legal concept of "corporate personhood," with the court ultimately deciding that the political spending by corporations was constitutionally equivalent to the free speech of actual human voters. The conservative justices chipped away at campaign finance limits even further this year in McCutcheon v. FEC, which abolished direct contribution limits that worked to control the corrupting influence of multimillion-dollar donations.
Although the proposed amendment is intended to restore the First Amendment to its pre-Citizens United interpretation, right-wing media are already denouncing the Senate's attempts to stem the explosion of unregulated high-dollar donations with wild exaggerations. In a September 9 editorial, NRO complained that Democrats were planning to "repeal the First Amendment" by proposing the Citizens United amendment -- which the editorial board called "an attack on basic human rights, the Constitution, and democracy itself" -- and suggested the move would "censor newspapers and television reports." From the editors:
Senate Democrats are on the precipice of voting to repeal the First Amendment.
That extraordinary fact is a result of the increasingly authoritarian efforts of Democrats, notably Senate majority leader Harry Reid of Nevada, to suppress criticism of themselves and the government, and to suffocate any political discourse that they cannot control.
The Supreme Court in recent years has twice struck down Democratic efforts to legally suppress inconvenient speech, citing the free-speech protections of the First Amendment in both cases. Senator Reid's solution is to nullify the first item on the Bill of Rights.
The Democrats are not calling this a repeal of the First Amendment, though that is precisely what it is. Instead, they are describing the proposed constitutional amendment as a campaign-finance measure. But it would invest Congress with blanket authority to censor newspapers and television reports, ban books and films, and imprison people for expressing their opinions. So long as two criteria are met -- the spending of money and intending to influence an election -- the First Amendment would no longer apply.
The amendment that Democrats are putting forward is an attack on basic human rights, the Constitution, and democracy itself. If those who would criticize the government must first secure the government's permission to do so, they are not free people.