Fox News' Glenn Beck recently aired a video indicating that an ACORN employee shot and killed her husband, without first bothering to verify whether the husband is, in fact, dead. He isn't. The video is, in other words, a fraud. But that didn't stop Beck from calling it evidence of "murder" and perhaps even "premeditated murder." Of a person who is still alive.
Here's a bunch of Fox News "reporters" who are outraged about the murder. Which didn't happen. Because the guy is still alive:
So, given Fox's promotion of this hoax-video ... how did Fox react to the allegedly-forged documents used in a CBS news report about George W. Bush's apparent failure to fulfill his commitments to the Texas Air National Guard?
Here's Hannity, after Rather was replaced as anchor of CBS Evening News:
HANNITY: I'm not as forgiving as you are here, Bernie [Goldberg], and I'll tell you why. This case of forged documents, this was 50 days outside of a political election. If it weren't for brave people like Ben Barnes' daughter and Colonel Killian's wife and Colonel Killian's son, you know something? This could have had an impact, a significant impact, may have even resulted in a different outcome in this election.
This -- this is a disgrace, what went on here, that they ignored all of the exculpatory evidence, Bernie. And the fact is, crimes were even committed, if you believe -- you know, according to reports, forging documents and transmitting them, that's a federal crime, a state crime and a county crime in Texas.
First of all, I want to point out, he's not gone. He's still at "60 Minutes," at least for the time being. So he hasn't gone away here. Secondly...
HANNITY: An article in The New York Observer today revealed some new information about the CBS investigation into the "Memogate" scandal. According to the story, freelance producer Michael Smith, he taped many of his conversations with CBS investigators and executives in the weeks after the scandal broke.
Smith told The Observer that the tapes of his conversations proved that nobody at CBS, quote, "seemed interested in the truth."
You used the word "bias." You used the word "arrogant." You know, based on this story that he broke here, not caring about getting to the truth of the investigation, maybe we can add the words, "elitist," "political," "liberal," "unethical," even? [Fox News Channel, Hannity & Colmes, 3/9/05]
And Fox News Correspondent Rick Leventhal:
LEVENTHAL: Unlike his colleague, Tom Brokaw, who retired with glowing tributes late last year, Rather leaves under the dark clouds of his flawed "60 Minutes Wednesday" report on President Bush's National Guard service that aired last September.
It was based on documents most likely forged. He tried to defend the piece and its questionable source materials, but later, apologized on air. One of his co-workers was fired, three others were asked to resign; Rather and his bosses were not. [3/5/09]
And Fox anchor John Gibson:
GIBSON: Ellis, can you explain why Dan Rather, with all the experience we've been talking about and Rick talked about, would commit the basic errors that went on in Memogate, if there was not a bias behind it?
HENICAN: No. Because he screwed up. He made a mistake as a reporter and got embarrassed. It had so little to do with ideology and so much to do with bad reporting. People in this business make that mistake.
GIBSON: Rich Noyes, Dan Rather obviously made a mistake, but Ellis doesn't seem to be willing to admit that the case you're making, that the reason Rather made the mistake was he was disposed to disliking Bush and he would bend his own rules.
HENICAN: You have no idea whether that's why he made the mistake. That's silly for both of you to say.
GIBSON: Well, I do know, but why?
HENICAN: You have no evidence of that at all! You're against the guy.
GIBSON: His career is the evidence!
HENICAN: No! The guy made a mistake! You have no idea what's in his heart! That's silly!
GIBSON: Rich, isn't that evidence?
GIBSON: Ellis, you don't think that what was going on in this Memogate story, whether Rather was behind it, or it was really Mary Mapes, but Rather went along with, was bring down this President? Rather called himself a big-game hunter! [3/5/09]
Any chance we'll see this level of outrage directed at Glenn Beck for unquestioningly airing an apparently fraudulent tape in order to portray an ACORN employee as a murderer? Beck has, after all, been pretty clear that he is trying to bring ACORN down.
UPDATE: Sean Hannity & Bernie Goldberg, November 23, 2004:
HANNITY: You're way ahead of the curve every time these stories come out.But you know, I met Dan Rather during the convention. He couldn't have been nicer. On a personal level he was a very nice man. And I mean that sincerely. But let's just go down a path for a second here. Imagine, 50 days out of an election, somebody gave me documents, little old radio and TV talk show host Sean Hannity, that turned out to be forged documents about John Kerry, and similarly, they had connections to the Bush campaign. Would I be here tonight talking to you? GOLDBERG: Well, you might be here or you might not be here, but every liberal in America would be all over you and all over Fox.And liberals are, if not defending Dan Rather, they're saying things like, "Well, let's not judge him by that," and things like that. Listen, if Dan Rather got documents from his, quote, "unimpeachable source," and that unimpeachable source was somebody who came from the right instead of the left and was out to bring down John Kerry and his campaign instead of George Bush and his campaign, there's no way Dan would have ever proceeded with that story.
HANNITY: You're missing the point here, though. This is 50 days out of an election. It could be a turning point in the election. And if these are forged documents, that is a crime. That is a corrupting of the news and a betrayal of trust on a level that I don't think we've seen in our lifetime.
HANNITY: I was just thinking to myself, you tell me if I'm wrong here, if Republicans had forged documents or had gotten forged documents and gave it to a news organization, and they turned out to be false, wouldn't this be a much bigger story in the mainstream media?
From the September 14 Investor's Business Dailycolumn:
The crisis had its roots in innocent-sounding changes made to the Community Redevelopment Act during the Clinton administration. Those changes not only encouraged banks to lend to credit-unworthy customers, they basically forced them to do so. Those that didn't meet CRA standards could be denied the right to expand their lending - or even to merge with another company.
The CRA used Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, two government-sponsored enterprises that funded the Democrats' massive homeownership scheme, to boost homeownership among the poor.
Banks would be able to make loans to questionable borrowers, repackage the loans in bundles and resell them to Fannie and Freddie and investors around the globe. Fannie and Freddie got the green light to raise virtually unlimited amounts of money to buy up the iffy mortgages from the banks.
Any bank that didn't take part could find itself in big trouble.
As we wrote about this time last year: "With all the old rules out the window, Fannie and Freddie ... eventually controlled 90% of the secondary market for mortgages. Their total portfolio of loans topped $5.4 trillion - half of all U.S. mortgage lending. They borrowed $1.5 trillion from U.S. capital markets with - wink, wink - an 'implicit' government guarantee of the debts."
The Fannie-Freddie explosion in mortgage lending intensified when the Fed cut interest rates to a then-record-low 1% after 9/11, fearing an economic meltdown. By 2007, subprime mortgage lending hit $1 trillion -- up 2,757% from 1994.
From 2000 to 2008, Republicans in Congress tried repeatedly to rein in Fannie and Freddie. But Democrats -- led by Rep. Barney Frank and Sen. Chris Dodd -- spurned effective reforms. Instead, we got crisis. And unbelievably, the system is still in place today.
Interesting, because the conservative media in recent years has shown an almost allergic reaction to journalism and actual reporting, so I'm curious what its recent claims to fame are.
Politico rolls out the greatest hits:
From birthers to tea parties to town halls and ACORN, the scandal-plagued anti-poverty group — not to mention President Obama's speech last week to school children and the background of former White House aide Van Jones — issues initially dismissed or missed entirely by the national media have burst, if only fleetingly, onto the national agenda after relentless coverage on Fox News, talk radio and in the blogosphere.
Van Jones and ACORN? Fine, those are news stories. But according to Politico, the conservative media have scored "scoops" by relentlessly pressing the phony conspiracy theories that the President of United States is not eligible to serve, and that he was trying to indoctrinate school children with a "socialist" agenda by urging them to excel in the classroom. Also, by they hit a home run by helping turning public town hall forums into hate-fests complete with mini-mob members who showed up with loaded pistols and scores more who paraded around Swastika posters.
That, according to Politico, represents key instances in which the conservative media have been setting the national agenda. The fake birther joke, the fake school address joke and the unhinged mini-mobs stand among its key "scoops" this summer.
Good to know.
It's funny. If liberals had pulled off schemes like that during the Bush years, the Beltway press would have labeled them cranks. But when conservatives do it, Politico chalks the stunts up as "scoops."
Can't anybody on the right play this game. Just once we'd actually love to read a coherent, fact-based critique of the press from the right. We'd actually welcome it. Instead, we're stuck with lame attempts like this one by Media Research Center's Dan Gainor.
He's hitting the same notes all the other far-right pundits are: The media's ignoring the (supposedly) blockbuster ACORN story:
The small scandal showing an embarrassing video of Baltimore ACORN staffers looking like they were giving tax advice on how to set up a brothel, is now national news. -- This story has everything you could ever want – corruption, sleazy actions at tax-funded organizations, firings, government ties, sex, hookers. It is a network news director's dream. Imagine the ratings!
Only almost no one is covering it.
Really? According to Nexis/Lexis, these are mainstream media outlets that, prior to the publication of Gainor's piece, had covered the ACORN story out of Baltimore in the last week: Baltimore Sun, New York Post, Fort Worth Star-Telegram, Grand Rapids Press, Kansas City Star, Newsday, Newark Star-Ledger, Washington Post, Washington Times, CNN.com, Washingtonpost.com.
But aside from that, almost nobody is covering it.
Later, Gainor focuses on the network news coverage of the ACORN story, or the lack of [emphasis added]:
And yet. And yet it's still been ignored by the network news. Nothing on ABC, CBS or NBC. The only thing any one of the three broadcast networks has done appeared in a blog post by ABC's Jake Tapper. It's hardly worth noting except to show that the networks know about what's going on. They just don't care to report it. Only FOX News has bothered to report on the controversy.
See the obvious apples-to-oranges connection? Gainor claims the Big Three nets didn't' cover ACORN; only Fox News did. Of course, Fox News isn't a network and Fox News has about 21 more hours of news programming to fill each day because it's a 24/7 cable news outlet. Yet for some reason Gainor ignores what other 24/7 cable news outlets have done regarding the ACORN story. Why does Gainor play dumb? Because if he reveals the truth, his silly critique collapses.
For the record, here are the days from within the last week, and prior to Gainor's piece, when CNN covered the ACORN story. (I repeated the days on which CNN offered up multiple reports):
Pat Buchanan's web site currently features a column by Paul Craig Roberts of the "white nationalist" VDARE, in which Roberts promotes the 9/11 Truth movement:
The staying power of the Big Lie is the barrier through which the 9/11 Truth Movement is finding it difficult to break. The assertion that the 9/11 Truth Movement consists of conspiracy theorists and crackpots is obviously untrue.
I have asked on several occasions and have never had an answer, which does not mean that there isn't one, how millions of pieces of unburnt, uncharred paper can be floating over lower Manhattan from the destruction of the WTC towers when the official explanation of the destruction is fires so hot and evenly distributed that they caused the massive steel structures to weaken and fail simultaneously so that the buildings fell in free fall time just as they would if they had been brought down by controlled demolition.
What is the explanation of fires so hot that steel fails but paper does not combust?
Why are the tens of thousands of New Yorkers who are demanding a real investigation dismissed as conspiracy theorists? The 9/11 skeptics know far more about the events of that day than do the uninformed people who call them names. Most of the people I know who are content with the government's official explanation have never examined the evidence. Yet, these no-nothings shout down those who have studied the matter closely.
The more distance in time from the actual event, the odder such an assertion seems. Eight years to the day, the official account of 9/11 seems more anemic -and inadequate - than ever. Yet anyone who questions the official story - the narrative of 19 Arab dudes going on what would seem to be a rather quixotic jihad, haphazardly making their way through a strange foreign country on their own, all the while readying themselves for The Day That Changed History - is denounced as a "conspiracy theorist," a crackpot, and worse.
More critical minds, however, will not be deterred, and will certainly home in on the many discrepancies and holes in the official version of events, as well as the central implausibility of the whole affair, which is this: those nineteen hijackers simply could not have pulled it off without outside assistance of some sort, by which I mean to say help from a foreign power acting covertly in this country.
A few weeks after 9/11, I was the first - and, as far as I know, only - writer to draw attention to the fact that, along with the thousand or so Muslims rounded up in the wake of the attacks, as many as 200 Israelis were also taken into custody by then Attorney General John Ashcroft and the feds.
What, I wondered, was the Israeli connection to 9/11?
More than 60 advertisers have reportedly dropped their ads from Glenn Beck's Fox News program since he called President Obama a "racist" who has a "deep-seated hatred of white people." Here are his September 15 sponsors, in the order they appeared:
Conservative bloggers and media continue to insist without the benefit of actual facts that there were millions of tea party protesters on the Mall last Saturday. Here's another data point that makes these claims quite inconvenient.
According to the Washington Metro Area Transportation Authority (WMATA), 437,624 people rode on the Metro Rail system on Saturday, September 12th. How does that day compare to similar Saturdays?
So, was Metro ridership up on the day of the protest? Sure. but the increase in riders could at best be charitably described as modest (and surely some of those riders were participants in the National Black Family Reunion event).
By comparison the Metro ridership for President Obama's inauguration - an event where most counts put the attendee count at above 1 million - was 1,120,000. This was described by WMATA as "the highest ridership day ever in the transit authority's history".
No recent events have been described this way by the Transportation Authority.
For years, Lou Dobbs has been one of the most dangerous hosts on cable news. He benefits enormously from the legitimacy of the CNN brand, which provides him with an unparalleled platform from which to mainstream the hate speech and racially charged conspiracy theories normally relegated to Fox News and other conservative news outlets. Dobbs calls himself an "advocacy journalist," but he doesn't even live up to that ambiguous standard. Good journalism enhances the discussion of serious topics, but Dobbs helps to undermine and debase that discussion, routinely infusing it with misinformation and fear. And when it comes to issues like immigration, he has more in common with birther Orly Taitz than with Anderson Cooper.
If CNN won't drop Dobbs, it's time that his advertisers did. It's time to do more than simply highlight the damage Dobbs does and the threat he poses. We must demand accountability from the advertisers who, by their purchase of airtime on his shows, actively support his hate speech.
Today, 11 organizations, including America's Voice, National Council of La Raza, the Southern Poverty Law Center, and many others, joined together to launch the Drop Dobbs campaign and DropDobbs.com. The effort aims to let companies know that their continued financial support of CNN's Lou Dobbs Tonight makes them complicit in the hate speech and wild conspiracy theories that he promotes.
The hugely successful Glenn Beck advertiser boycott currently under way shows how effective this kind of coordinated pressure can be. In just a matter of weeks, 62 companies have dropped Beck, costing the program 50 percent of its ad dollars. Companies simply don't want to be associated with Beck's on-air hate speech. They should feel the same way about Dobbs.
Dobbs has a long history of spreading hate and paranoia. He has routinely discussed the North American Union conspiracy theory, incorrectly claimed that undocumented immigrants drain social services and don't pay taxes, and repeatedly amplified the falsehood that undocumented immigrants are disproportionately violent. He has been an unrepentant purveyor of hateful attacks, fraudulently claiming, for example, that immigrants are spreading leprosy and seek to reconquer the southwestern United States. And this past summer, he encouraged racially charged paranoia by legitimizing the (thoroughly debunked) birther conspiracy theory concerning the authenticity of President Obama's birth certificate.
Just today, and for the second year in a row, Dobbs was a leading voice at an annual conference of radio personalities hosted by the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR). FAIR was founded by a white supremacist, John Tanton, and has been labeled a "hate group" by the Southern Poverty Law Center. FAIR certainly understands the value of Dobbs' presence at the event. In fact, it is promoting his participation as evidence of the gathering's supposed credibility.
Because of his shockingly long record of extremism and factually inaccurate reporting -- reporting that often directly contradicts the work of other journalists on CNN itself -- the network's reputation has already been dealt a severe blow. The AP even declared Dobbs to be a "publicity nightmare" for CNN. And yet, rather than dropping him, CNN continually makes excuses for its prized anchor. The network is even willing to ignore a recent decision by CNN president Jon Klein that talk-radio hosts will no longer be allowed on the network. In spite of this, Dobbs is permitted to host a vitriolic radio show that he promotes on his CNN program.
Together, we can close this glaring Lou Dobbs loophole. Visit DropDobbs.com and help us bring accountability to "the most trusted name" in hate speech.
I just want to re-iterate the point ColorofChange.org made yesterday in its press release regarding the amount of money Glenn Beck is losing in the wake of the sweeping boycott. A Television program simply cannot lose 60 advertisers in the course of a few weeks and not have its bottom line affected. That's just not possible in today's television industry. So please, let's discard the Fox News spin.
If the boycott continues to gain momentum, Fox News won't be able to avoid writing down losses. Yes, the cabler claims it hasn't lost any money yet because nervous advertisers simply want off Glenn Beck, not off Fox News (i.e. advertisers are still spending money with the network). But the truth is, since Beck called Obama a racist, Beck's advertising base has been cut by 50 willing advertisers,and Fox News' need to find advertisers for the hour-long weekday show has not changed. And I'm guessing it's not having much luck drumming up new Glenn Beck business in this environment.
Honestly, if advertisers continue to abandon Glenn Beck, pretty soon the show's going to be forced to run more than the occasional free public-service announcement. Either that, or the advertisers willing to stick around are going to get some great deals or maybe even some free spots in order to make sure Fox News can fill the inventory.
It's the old supply and demand: Fox News has the same size supply--the same size ad inventory--for Glenn Beck that it did one month ago. But suddenly it's got 60 fewer adertisers willing to pay for the show. And unless Fox News has been able to keep secret all the new advertisers it's bringing in, guess what? Glenn Beck isn't generating the same revenue it was a month ago. It has lost revenue.
Here's the graph Gawker posted to showcase Glenn Beck's recent ad revenue losses:
Our blog section features rapid response fact-checks of conservative misinformation, links to media criticism from around the web, commentary, analysis and breaking news from Media Matters' senior fellows, investigative team, researchers and other staff.
A Media Matters analysis found that PBS NewsHour has far outpaced other broadcast network news programs in covering the consequences of the Supreme Court's dismantling of campaign finance reform. In the past year and a half, PBS thoroughly analyzed the effects of Citizens United and its sequel -- McCutcheon v. FEC -- dedicating more time to the issue than all the other networks combined.