About us Login Get email updates
Columns
Print

Media Matters: Fox News' ever-expanding ethics nightmare

April 23, 2010 6:33 pm ET

Another week, another handful of ethical scandals that should permanently sink Fox's claim of being a legitimate news organization.

To recap: Last week, they gave us twin scandals starring Fox News stalwarts Bill O'Reilly and Sean Hannity. "Furious" Fox News execs pulled Sean Hannity from his planned show filming/fundraiser for the Cincinnati Tea Party after numerous news veterans and watchdogs called foul.

O'Reilly spent last week reminding us of his willful ignorance by repeatedly falsely asserting that "no one" on Fox promoted the falsehood that "jail time" was a penalty for not buying insurance under the health care reform bill. He was outrageously wrong.

Though Howard Kurtz reported that Fox plans to "keep a tighter rein on Hannity and others" in the wake of the tea party scandal, we remain skeptical. Fox has a long history of promising change in the wake of damaging ethics scandals, then failing to deliver on those promises.

Indeed, despite cancelling Hannity's tea party event, Fox News has yet to cancel a planned appearance by Fox Business host John Stossel at a paid event for a nonprofit organization with very close ties to the energy industry. If history is any indicator, Fox will hold its breath and hope that everyone forgets about the Stossel fundraiser.

Of course, this being Fox News, Stossel's planned fundraiser wasn't even the cable channel's biggest ethics scandal this week.

While a great deal of attention has deservedly been given to Rupert Murdoch's statement that Fox News "shouldn't be promoting the tea party," the rest of his comment -- "or any other party" -- is equally notable. So, how's Fox's supposedly frowned-upon promotion of that "other party" -- the GOP -- going? In a word: lucratively.

As we detailed last week, Fox News hosts and contributors have raised millions of dollars for Republican candidates and causes using PACs, 527s, and 501(c)(4) organizations.

In a follow-up report this week, we detailed the massive scope of Fox's fundraising for the GOP:

In recent years, at least twenty Fox News personalities have endorsed, raised money, or campaigned for Republican candidates or causes, or against Democratic candidates or causes, in more than 300 instances and in at least 49 states. Republican parties and officials have routinely touted these personalities' affiliations with Fox News to sell and promote their events.

In their defense, they did miss Wyoming.

Were Fox an actual news organization that cared about journalistic standards, all of these ethics scandals would be excellent fodder for its weekly media criticism show, Fox News Watch. Unfortunately, as we noted last weekend, they ignored the O'Reilly and Hannity scandals in favor of such pressing stories as media coverage of the new Oprah bio. Forthcoming coverage of the Fox Newsers' fundraising seems unlikely.

Media Matters reporter and senior editor Joe Strupp pointed out that while Fox News Watch was once a source of legitimate media criticism, the show has increasingly transformed into yet another megaphone for GOP talking points. Strupp quoted former Fox News Watch host Eric Burns (no relation to Media Matters President Eric Burns) saying: "The show was getting to be more and more of a struggle to do fairly. There was a progression of interference to try to make the show more right-wing. I fought very hard against it."

As Media Matters President Eric Burns pointed out on MSNBC this week, "When you have a famed, well known Republican hitman -- Roger Ailes -- running a news network, this is what you're going to get."

Fox News has a slightly different take, however. As Fox News Watch put it in the promo for its segment on Ailes' new ratings high, "Fairness plus balance equals success."

Take note, CNN.

Other stories this week

If dishonesty won't derail financial reform, maybe denial will

Right-wing story time this week -- brought to you by Frank Luntz -- centered around the claim that financial reform legislation would encourage perpetual and permanent taxpayer bailouts. The genesis of this particular tall tale is Luntz's January memo that advised opponents of financial regulatory reform to tie the issue to big bank bailouts. Message received. Driving the clown car was Glenn Beck, who appeared on Fox & Friends to decry the "insane" idea of using $50 billion to save failing firms; Michelle Malkin claimed the bill would "institutionalize and make permanent financial bailouts"; Fox Business' Charles Gasparino said the bill contained a "slush fund" of "$50 billion to bail you out." Actually, the $50 billion fund would be paid for by the financial services industry and would cover the costs of the orderly liquidation of failing firms, quite clearly the opposite of a bailout. No worries. The Wall Street Journal's John Fund tried to argue that the bill was bad because it would bail out firms and because it let the government liquidate them. Rush Limbaugh complained that it was "a bailout bill, or a destroy 'em bill." Neat trick.

Not content to distort the bill to push their talking points, media conservatives also trumped up the completely baseless allegation that the Obama administration colluded with the Securities and Exchange Commission to sue Goldman Sachs over alleged fraud, all to create a villain in the financial reform narrative. Now that would be big -- bigger even than, say, allegedly failing to disclose to investors that the creator of a fund you were selling them is betting on its failure. And so it was, without a scintilla of evidence, that CNN contributor Erick Erickson claimed on his blog that the administration was "colluding to destroy Goldman Sachs." Big Government said Obama was "in need of a villain to serve as a political piñata," and Fox News aggressively pushed the baseless accusation, which SEC officials and the White House strongly denied.

Right-wing media figures also sweated to the oldies while attacking financial reform this week, dragging out a greatest hits collection of anti-progressive attacks to criticize yet another reform bill. Karl Rove and Fox News claimed health care financial reform meant the government would soon by spying on individual bank accounts with a research office actually charged with analyzing risk across the financial sector. Fox News figures tried to undermine support for the stimulus financial reform by aggressively pushing the canard that affordable housing initiatives caused the housing crisis. Limbaugh whined that "the same people that gave you the DMV" will "be running our health care financial system." (Sound familiar?)

Dishonesty, distortion, baseless allegations and yesterday's attacks. Wouldn't it be easier to just bury their heads in the sand and pretend there is no "real crisis" at all?

Fox News rallies for religious bigotry

In October 2001, evangelical preacher Franklin Graham delivered remarks while dedicating a chapel in North Carolina, during which he touched on the September 11 attacks and the newly spawned war on terrorism: "We're not attacking Islam but Islam has attacked us. The God of Islam is not the same God. He's not the son of God of the Christian or Judeo-Christian faith. It's a different God, and I believe it is a very evil and wicked religion." Graham's stance on Islam has not softened over the years, and he told CNN's Campbell Brown just last December: "[T]rue Islam cannot be practiced in this country. You can't beat your wife. You cannot murder your children if you think they've committed adultery or something like that."

Smearing the world's second-largest faith as "very evil and wicked" and condemning that faith for the worst terrorist attack in American history is inflammatory and wildly offensive. So it should come as a surprise that Fox News rallied to Graham's defense when religious freedom organizations protested Graham's invitation to the Pentagon's National Day of Prayer ceremonies this year. It should come as a surprise because for most, defending Graham's religious bigotry would be unthinkable. But, unfortunately, Fox News does not operate under such standards of propriety, and has added yet another chapter to its long and undistinguished record of smearing the Islamic faith.

Fox's first stab at defending Graham backfired pretty badly, as the Fox & Friends crew invited Graham on to defend himself. He promptly counseled the Muslims that "they don't have to die in a car bomb, don't have to die in some holy war to be accepted by God."

Fox News personalities then turned to the role of apologists, and chief among them was legal analyst Peter Johnson Jr., who for two days running tried desperately to explain away Graham's "evil and wicked" comments, including this excuse: "After 9-11, a lot of folks were making those statements." He also offered this gem: "No one is out to make any excuses for the statements that Franklin Graham made. And they were made nine years ago, in the wake of 9-11. In the wake of 3,000 deaths. He doesn't need excuses."

Johnson certainly wasn't alone in the excuse-making department. Sean Hannity offered a full-throated defense of Graham, falsely claiming that he was only talking about "radical Islam" and going so far to accuse Graham's critics of being "afraid to take on radical Islam." After Graham was disinvited by the Pentagon from a National Prayer Day event, Fox News contributor Sarah Palin wrote: "Nation suffers ... as Mr. Graham is uninvited to speak." Fox News "Culture Warrior" Margaret Hoover felt that the Pentagon's decision was "unfortunate."

So what, if anything, have we learned from all this? We've learned that there's really no smear against Muslims or the Islamic faith that's too outrageous or offensive to find a home at Fox News.

This weekly wrap-up was compiled by Ben Dimiero, Jeremy Holden, and Simon Maloy.

Expand All Expand 1st Level Collapse All Add Comment
    • Author by Bulletproof Air (April 23, 2010 7:47 pm ET)
      26 4
      Besides the fact that anybody capable of individual thought can see right through Fox's whining prejudices, what REALLY upsets me are the people that actually BELIEVE this stuff....

      I've had argument upon argument (because you can't have an honest debate with these people) with multiple Fox-watching right-wingers and despite the fact that they can't defend what they believe nor elaborate on their position, they manage to hold the naked opinions passed down to them from Fox anyway...

      In my eyes, anybody claiming Obama to be a "socialist" immediately loses all credibility. Anything this person will say obviously has no roots in personal logic or reasoning.

      Any other time in history, people like Palin or Bachmann would have been LAUGHED and ridiculed out of town...and if they weren't, they would've been DRIVEN out of town followed by a mob with pitchforks and torches...

      If some of these people actually had ideas, whether they are good or bad, it would be an improvement upon the current situation.

      Fox has taken this beyond smears, this is straight up LYING and intentional misleading for a political purpose.

      Fox has lost ALL journalistic integrity. It seems all their stories are derived (then exaggerated or added upon) STRAIGHT from right-wing bloggers. I refuse to label these right-wing extremists "conservatives."
      Report Abuse
      • Author by cugagcmu805031 (April 24, 2010 12:58 am ET)
        11 3
        Good post. It is obvious to any sane individual that Fuchs Noose, rw bloggers, rw radio entertainers, and rw politicians have no integrity and are waging an endless campaign of censorship and propaganda meant to influence public opinion in their favor. Their viewers/listeners have no idea of what government policies mean or are intended to do. They have been convinced that "someone" is out to get them when, in reality, no one is out to get them, and those that they are listening to only want their money and their votes.
        Report Abuse
      • Author by punkin (April 24, 2010 10:26 am ET)
        10 1
        what if.....
        somewhat recently it was suggested that the Sunday morning talk shows have comments (talking points) fact checked. From this has come further rumblings of not just fact check that is broadcast later in the week but instant fact check. hallelujah!! now THAT would make these Sunday programs worth watching! and guests would start thinking twice about what they say.
        Sooooo. . . would Fox participate in something like this? HE]] NO!!!
        so, now, my "what if" is: what if every network (except Fox of course) has a staff of fact checkers for all news programs and the truth is scrolled across the bottom of the screen.
        the new generation of news broadcast - truth rather than talking points and blatant lies!!
        Report Abuse
        • Author by buddtee (April 26, 2010 8:15 am ET)
          4 1
          Their is absolutely nothing wrong with a political pundit having a opinion that why we watch them for their opinions .It just that Fox political pundits opinions are baseless with out any facts
          Death Panels ,Jail time ,government take over of health care..Sorry but those are not opinions,what they are is simple regurgitated GOP campaign sound bites .
          Fox has become the WWE of the New
          It over the top scripted and the the matches are all fixed to point of laughable In the WWE just like in fox The house favorite(GOP) always wins .
          And you can bet two chicken a painted house and some vegetables on that.
          Report Abuse
    • Author by diamonds (April 24, 2010 1:17 am ET)
      3 21
      Hey, I just thought, maybe this is because they are all -- wait for it -- commentators! That's right, they have a life/jobs outside Fox News, you know. They are paid for exactly what you are criticizing them for! That's a good thing, that's their job. Some of them work for other news agencies (ABC, NPR, the Washington Post, and commentary sources like The Weekly Standard)! Some of them are even former politicians! And it's completely lost on you that it's a good thing, and that MSNBC, CNN do the same thing? I mean, what, commentators aren't supposed to have an opinion?!? Ha, News to me!
      Report Abuse
      • Author by marco21 (April 24, 2010 5:25 am ET)
        13 2
        Which is why they're called the Fox Opinion Network? Nice fail, diamonds.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by diamonds (April 24, 2010 10:22 pm ET)
          2 11
          For a full left-wing opinion/commentary line up look no further than MSNBC. Seriously what newspaper or TV network doesn't have opinion sections? Nice fail, marco21.
          Report Abuse
          • Author by fantagor (April 25, 2010 6:55 am ET)
            7 1
            Bigger fail, rough diamond. Joe Scarborough served as a GOP congressman.

            So, how many ex-Democratic congressmen work for Fox and still identify with the Democratic Party as strongly as Scarborough identifies with the GOP?

            See how easy it is to count to ZERO.

            Randy
            Report Abuse
          • Author by open_mind (April 25, 2010 6:02 pm ET)
            8 1
            Seriously what newspaper or TV network doesn't have opinion sections?
            Well I can tell you which one doesn't seem to have a news section.
            Report Abuse
      • Author by Sharpe (April 24, 2010 7:10 am ET)
        9 3
        What other commentators outside of fox news are raising millions of dollars for politicians? Name a network, name a single commentator, journalist, reporter, ideologue in the media that is outside of fox news but is currently helping to raise money for politicians on either side? Im waiting... There is a difference between an opinion on a news network and actively trying to raise money for politicians on that network or using the networks name to promote congressmen/women.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by diamonds (April 24, 2010 10:28 pm ET)
          2 4
          That's a rather narrow criteria you have, I can't name any "commentators" anywhere who "are raising millions of dollars for politicians," personally, at least from a nonpartisan or scientific source. But that's the wrong question to be asking, even if I could, does it matter? Read what I wrote again. They are commentators. It's why they were hired.
          Report Abuse
      • Author by Sharpe (April 24, 2010 7:12 am ET)
        8 2
        And most networks try to balance it out - like morning joe and pat buchanan on the right balance out ed schultz and keith olbermann on the left ... Is that lost on you diamonds?
        Report Abuse
        • Author by diamonds (April 24, 2010 10:20 pm ET)
          3 6
          I'm not gonna pretend that FNC has anything but conservative commentaries (the same way MSNBC has mostly liberal commentary programs), but to say there is no balance is just incorrect. Alan Colmes is still a contributor and on Fox News Radio, there are at least a few liberal reporters running around (but those are reporters), some commentators ("contributers" rather) I hear include Juan Williams, Kirsten Powers, and at least a few other regulars who you could probably search for.
          Report Abuse
          • Author by open_mind (April 25, 2010 6:09 pm ET)
            5 3
            Lol. So the mighty Alan Colmes is the first example you come up with? Why would you even mention "Reporters"? Don't you know that reporters are actually held to journalistic standards? Journalists are ethically bound to be fair whether they are personally liberal or conservative. Journalists are actually expected to make corrections when they say something that is untrue. You actually have the nerve to compare journalists with pundits or "commentators" - who have no real ethical restrictions whatsoever - even according to your own arguments on this thread! Juan Williams is a journalist and I don't even know who the heck Kirsten Powers is. Does anybody?

            You are apparently in deep denial if you think Fox is really worried about "balance" beyond protecting their trademark.
            Report Abuse
      • Author by Sharpe (April 24, 2010 7:27 am ET)
        9 2
        Furthermore, there is a big difference between having an opinion about the news and purposely lying, distorting or horribly misinforming your audience on a daily basis. Beck and hannity continue to repeat a notorious lie that almost won the lie of the year award on politifact.com nearly a year later.

        http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2009/dec/09/vote-now-lie-year/

        http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2009/jul/29/glenn-beck/glenn-beck-claims-science-czar-john-holdren-propos/

        Other notorious claims repeated multiple times on fraud news as facts that are so clearly fiction and mostly completely detached from reality:

        http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2009/jun/25/michele-bachmann/michelle-bachmann-claims-constitution-only-require/

        http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2009/oct/27/bill-oreilly/oreilly-accuses-media-not-following-foxs-lead-anit/

        http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2009/dec/07/glenn-beck/beck-says-labor-leader-most-frequent-white-house-v/

        http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2009/dec/02/glenn-beck/beck-says-less-10-percent-obama-cabinet-members-ha/

        http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2009/oct/15/glenn-beck/beck-says-45-percent-physicians-would-quit-if-heal/

        http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2009/jun/05/bill-oreilly/bill-oreilly-called-george-tiller-baby-killer/

        http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2009/sep/21/national-right-life-committee/national-right-life-committee-claims-under-Baucus-/

        http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2009/sep/30/steve-doocy/beck-and-others-repeat-claim-white-house-political/

        http://www.politifact.com/texas/statements/2010/mar/12/gretchen-carlson/gretchen-carlson-says-state-board-education-consid/


        This isnt even most of them....

        Report Abuse
        • Author by diamonds (April 24, 2010 9:55 pm ET)
          2 7
          I'm not defending them (at least in all cases, Politifact has greatly distorted many facts that Glenn told, John Holdren for instance, and most other times it's just arguments over semantics and it doesn't affect the actual point being made).

          Read what I said again. The story wasn't about them being correct, it was about FNC supposedly having an "ethics nightmare" over things that are completely normal for commentators. FNC might have problems with commentators using their resources for certain things, but there is no problem with things that the commentators themselves do.
          Report Abuse
          • Author by open_mind (April 25, 2010 2:55 pm ET)
            4 1
            "I mean, we've got czars now," Beck said during his July 22, 2009, program. "Czars like John Holdren, who has proposed forcing abortions and putting sterilants in the drinking water to control population."--Politifact
            Just exactly how is politifact's quote of Glenn Beck taken from the link above "greatly distorted"? Do you even critically evaluate Beck's supposed attempts at rebuttal? Are you claiming that the context of Holdren's original remarks indicate an actual "proposal" by any stretch? Is that "just arguments over semantics" you are referring to? Seriously?
            Report Abuse
          • Author by open_mind (April 25, 2010 5:56 pm ET)
            4 2
            ...most other times it's just arguments over semantics and it doesn't affect the actual point being made
            Ummm...examples please? That's the most full of crap statement I have seen in a while. I am dying to read you support that argument beyond a mere assertion! Besides semantic differences aren't nearly as trivial as it seems you would hope. The difference between killing someone and murdering them can be arguably a semantic difference, but I am quite sure most people would object to saying Laura Bush murdered someone as opposed to saying she killed someone - which is an unfortunate fact.
            Report Abuse
      • Author by Sharpe (April 24, 2010 7:29 am ET)
        8 2
        politifact actually does beck a great service by selectively choosing what they refute that comes out of that guys mouth. If they covered all of his lies, they would have to make an entirely new website dedicated just to beck.
        Report Abuse
      • Author by Sharpe (April 24, 2010 7:37 am ET)
        6 1
        last i checked, even being an opinion network and not a news network (they might want to take the news out of fox news by the way and perhaps, change their fair and balanced slogan that now just serves as the definition of irony) does not give you free reign to lie to your audience at will - obviously mistakes happen on the air but when you lie, get called out on it repeatedly and continue to perpetrate and promote the lie again and again, it becomes obvious that the truth means very little to these people.
        Report Abuse
    • Author by Sharpe (April 24, 2010 7:08 am ET)
      6 1
      kurtz is not exactly honest abe over there, who is he to tell us fox has learned the err of their ways...
      Report Abuse
    • Author by gamphd2081 (April 24, 2010 8:34 am ET)
      1 8
      What nobody on either side seems to be addressing is that it should not be the business of the government to require people to participate in market-based scams. The government should be eliminating those scams, thereby helping to prevent fraud and economic collapses!
      Report Abuse
      • Author by latichever (April 24, 2010 9:52 am ET)
        6 1
        "Fox News 'Culture Warrior' Margaret Hoover felt that the Pentagon's decision was "unfortunate.'"

        -------------------

        What!? They didn't call the Pentagon a bunch of Commies? C'mon man up! Joe McCarthy (who they are also trying to revive) would have had no problem with that.

        And I'll raise this question yet again: Why doesn't NPR fire Mara Liasson and Juan Williams who violate its code of ethics by working for a political party?
        Report Abuse
      • Author by DellDolly (April 24, 2010 11:15 am ET)
        7 3
        What are you talking about?

        What government is forcing what people to participate in WHAT market-based scams?
        Report Abuse
      • Author by So Fain (April 24, 2010 4:24 pm ET)
        2  
        Huh??
        Report Abuse
    • Author by jmh (April 24, 2010 3:43 pm ET)
      4  
      i've gotta say, as much as I despise this Hannity guy,
      that mmfa front page graphic shows that this development is actually a rather recent one.... not that I'm defending Hannity...
      Off With His Head! um, Hey Sean? Before yourself get into another tizzy feelin' all threatened and martyred-like n'stuff
      that is meant _figuratively_, not to mention it's Shakespeare,
      dude.
      you jerk,... that was meant literally, ....
      Report Abuse
      • Author by buddtee (April 26, 2010 8:47 am ET)
        1 1
        If you cut off his head. Beware, 2 heads will grow back .And little Nixon and Rove demons will form out his blood ..
        Report Abuse
        • Author by jmh (April 26, 2010 11:35 am ET)
          1 1
          From Tragedy to Sci-Fi !
          and thanks for the warning
          ... came so close.
          But "seriously" a Nixon/Rove Monster... Cool, ;o)
          Report Abuse
    • Author by MsYellowDog (April 24, 2010 8:07 pm ET)
      5 2
      Tonight Glenn Beck is making a paid appearance at the Oil Palace in Tyler,Texas,billing it as a "Town Hall." Also appearing will be Rick Perry,Governor of Texas, and Louis Gohmert,US Rep from this area. No Democrats at all will be on the dais, at least none have been announced. How does Faux News continue to get away with this obvious preference for Rightwingers? And then to have the gall to pretend they tell "both sides?" I don't think so.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by buddtee (April 26, 2010 10:52 am ET)
        1 1
        They will have 2 democrats or maybe even a third democrat on to show the "Democratic point of view ".It will be some JR.Ombudsman form Whathchamecallit TX pop 1100 and the other will be democrat who is THE tax officer sheriff and water clerk from Lost Plains Tx..pop 1130..The third choice will be Demarcate /Independent and closet Republican , I love to flip flop Joe Lieberman and a Fox favorite .
        Report Abuse
      • Author by iNova (April 26, 2010 5:56 pm ET)
           
        There is no ethics nightmare here. Fox has no intention of telling anyside but their own(Right Wing). Fox does not care about following any ethical guidelines at all. Fox does not want to waste time on iviting democrats to participate in these discussions. Just like when Anthony Weiner was on Bill O' Reilly. Bill never responded to anything Anthony said. he just talked over him and refused to acknowledge anything.
        Report Abuse