Sean Hannity exaggerated the number of jobs created under Ronald Reagan, asserting that "21 million new jobs" were created, and falsely claimed that Reagan "doubl[ed] the income for the federal government" and oversaw the "longest peacetime -- period of peacetime economic growth in history." In fact, the number of jobs increased by 16 million; federal revenue increased 15 percent; and the longest period of peacetime economic growth occurred between March 1991 and March 2001.
MSNBC repeatedly aired a campaign advertisement from Sen. John McCain's campaign attacking Sen. Hillary Clinton's support for a $1 million earmark for a museum at the site of the 1969 Woodstock Festival in New York, and other media outlets noted the ad. But none of these outlets reported that McCain had skipped the vote on removing the earmark.
On MSNBC Live, Amy Robach and Alex Witt separately aired a campaign ad from Republican presidential candidate John McCain attacking Sen. Hillary Clinton's support for a $1 million earmark for a museum at the site of the 1969 Woodstock Festival in New York. But Robach, Witt, NBC News White House correspondent Kelly O'Donnell and Congressional Quarterly's Jonathan Allen all failed to note that McCain had skipped the vote on removing the earmark. Robach and Witt also falsely referred to the advertisement as "new."
In articles on President Bush's December 20 press conference, the Associated Press, the Los Angeles Times, The New York Times, The Washington Post, and USA Today uncritically reported Bush's criticism of Congress for passing all but two of the fiscal year 2008 appropriations bills as a single omnibus appropriations bill "at the last minute, nearly three months after the end of the fiscal year." But none of the articles noted that during his seven years in the White House, Bush has never signed all of Congress' appropriations bills into law before the beginning of the fiscal year, and has on two occasions signed omnibus spending bills on dates later than that on which the fiscal year 2008 bill passed.
A Politico article suggested that the Republican-led 109th Congress was responsible for a decrease in the number of earmarks approved in 2006 (for the 2007 fiscal year) relative to previous years. But the article did not mention that following the Democratic victories in the 2006 midterm elections, the GOP leadership declined to pass nine of 11 annual appropriations bills and that in order to fund the federal government for the remainder of fiscal 2007, Democrats placed a one-time moratorium on earmarks.
The Washington Post's Michael Fletcher asserted that President Bush "is generally against tax increases as he believes they stifle economic growth. So his idea is to pay for the war by cutting back elsewhere in the budget." In fact, inflation-adjusted non-defense discretionary outlays have risen each year since Bush took office; Bush has actually paid for the war by deficit spending.
During a CNN interview about the effect of Karl Rove's resignation, Suzanne Malveaux did not challenge Tom DeLay's claim that "[t]he president held the line on spending," despite the fact that, even though President Bush assumed office with a $125.3 billion surplus, the Bush administration has run a deficit in every fiscal year of the Bush presidency. Additionally, Malveaux did not note Rove's reported assertion that his "biggest error" of the 2006 election cycle was "not working soon enough to replace Republicans tainted by scandal," or point out that DeLay himself remained in the House for several months following his indictment on money laundering and conspiracy charges.
Both The New York Times and the Los Angeles Times reported President Bush's claim that his administration had achieved its goal of cutting the 2004 budget deficit in half (as a percentage of gross domestic product) by 2009. But neither newspaper noted that the 2004 deficit figure Bush claims to have halved was a possibly inflated projection that the deficit never reached. When compared to the actual 2004 deficit, the 2006 shortfall remains above the halfway point.
Few media reports on new, lower federal budget deficit projections by the Bush administration pointed out that critics have accused the administration of inflating its original deficit predictions to be able to later tout the actual, less dire, figures.