From the October 24 edition of Fox News' Fox & Friends:
Loading the player reg...
Fox host Greta Van Susteren claimed that recently released State Department emails prove that the Obama administration knew the attack in Benghazi, Libya, was an act of terrorism as it was happening and that it was "ridiculous" for the administration to link the attack to an anti-Islam video. Yet the emails show only that the State Department was aware that an Islamist militia had taken credit for the attack, and other reporting has indicated that the anti-Islam video did, in fact, play a role in the attack.
Fox News anchor Jon Scott promoted the debunked claim that Secretary of State Hillary Clinton accused certain women of "whining." In fact, Clinton was actually talking about the character Holden Caulfield from the novel The Catcher in the Rye.
Scott's false claim originated from an interview between Clinton and Marie Claire writer Ayelet Waldman. After Marie Claire released excerpts of the interview, some outlets reported that Clinton was attacking a large percentage of women, or former State Department employee Anne-Marie Slaughter. In response, the State Department released a portion of the interview transcript that clarified what she had said.
Fox News contributor Julie Roginsky corrected Scott on Happening Now, saying, "It turns out, what the Clinton folks are saying is that she wasn't talking about women, she was actually responding to a question about The Catcher in the Rye, and about the protagonist, Holden Caulfield."
This didn't stop Scott from doubling down. Later in the segment, Scott said, "Julie, let me read you some more of this quote from Secretary Clinton, because it sure doesn't sound like she's talking about Catcher in the Rye."
From the October 16 edition of Fox News' America's Newsroom:
Loading the player reg...
From the October 11 edition of Premiere Radio Networks' The Rush Limbaugh Show:
Loading the player reg...
The Washington Post today reported at length on former Vice President Al Gore's investments in clean energy companies, but in lending credence to cronyism claims from Republicans, the Post ignored that Gore said he donated "every penny" he made on green investments to his nonprofit organization and exaggerated the amount of stimulus money available to the clean energy firms Gore invested in.
In a front-page article, the Post cited a 2009 exchange between Gore and Rep. Marsha Blackburn (R-TN) during testimony before the House Energy and Commerce Committee:
One of the rare times Gore addressed the questions, at a congressional hearing in 2009, Republicans had suggested that Obama's agenda appeared destined to help him become the nation's first "carbon billionaire."
Gore bristled when Rep. Marsha Blackburn (R-Tenn.) asked if he stood to profit from his investments and political connections.
"I believe that the transition to a green economy is good for our economy and good for all of us, and I have invested in it," he said. "And, congresswoman, if you believe that the reason I have been working on this issue for 30 years is because of greed, you don't know me."
BLACKBURN: So you're a partner in Kleiner Perkins. OK. Now, they have invested about a billion dollars in 40 companies that are going to benefit from cap-and-trade legislation. So is the legislation that we are discussing here today, is that something that you are going to personally benefit from?
GORE: I believe that the transition to a green economy is good for our economy and good for all of us, and I have invested in it. But every penny that I have made, I have put right into a nonprofit, the Alliance for Climate Protection, to spread awareness of why we have to take on this challenge.
And Congresswoman, if you're -- if you believe that the reason I have been working on this issue for 30 years is because of greed, you don't know me.
The Post's cropped quote left out crucial context for their readers, and mirrored the selective editing that O'Reilly Factor guest host Laura Ingraham used in 2009.
Reuters is running the headline: "More US coal plants to retire due to green rules-study." But the group that authored the study says the additional expected retirements are "Due To Low Natural Gas Prices," not Environmental Protection Agency rules.
Economists at the Brattle Group project in a new report that "59 GW to 77 GW (for lenient versus strict [regulatory] scenarios, respectively) of coal plant capacity are likely to retire" by 2016 -- more than previously forecast. But as David Roberts at Grist first noted, the report attributed this change primarily to "changing market conditions, not environmental rule revisions, which have trended toward more lenient requirements and schedules."
The Chicago Tribune and Scientific American are running the Reuters report with versions of its inaccurate headline. And Roberts noted that another mainstream media outlet is making this mistake: a Christian Science Monitor guest blog titled "Study: EPA regulations squelch US coal industry." (UPDATE 10/10/12: The Christian Science Monitor has removed this post, redirecting readers to an article from September that noted "some experts" say coal plant closures are "coming less from the Obama administration than from natural gas.")
These inaccurate reports feed into the conservative myth that long overdue clean air and water regulations constitute a "war on coal," even though many experts say that the primary reason for declining coal generation is the low price of natural gas.
A Fox News special on President Obama's "green agenda" presented a one-sided discussion of Environmental Protection Agency rules that distorted the intention and impact of regulations, downplayed the threat of climate change, and ignored the public health threats of coal use.
Fox's hour-long special painted a one-sided picture of environmental regulations, featuring 18 critics and only 1 supporter of EPA clean air and water rules. Fox interviewed three Republican politicians, an industry executive, a radio host, and five coal miners, but not a single scientist, Democratic member of Congress, or environmental group to discuss the threats of air pollution and global warming.
Fox focused the first segment of its special on former regional EPA administrator Al Armendariz, who resigned after a political firestorm erupted over an analogy he made in 2010 comparing his environmental enforcement strategy to Roman crucifixion. Although he clearly stated that he was referring only to companies that were "not compliant with the law," Fox once again took his comments out of context to suggest that the EPA targets oil and gas companies unnecessarily.
While Fox suggested that Armendariz's comments revealed the EPA's "radical" intentions, many in the industry have praised the EPA under the Obama administration for its restraint and recognized that the agency is legally required to implement many overdue rules.
In a segment on the EPA's supposed "mission creep," the host of the special, Bret Baier, questioned whether global warming is a "real problem":
It took less than ten minutes after the Bureau of Labor Statistics released new jobs numbers this morning for Fox to start promoting conspiracy theories about the reported drop in unemployment.
Commenting on the jobs report as the numbers first came in this morning, Fox Business host Charles Payne speculated that "some people will be very cynical that a government number will come out this great on the eve of the election." Indeed, "some people" at Fox -- including Payne himself -- have subsequently spent much of the day trying to cast doubt on the numbers, with several Fox personalities and guests openly speculating that the BLS may have cooked the books to bolster Obama's chance at reelection.
In fact, much of Fox's coverage today has focused on the "questions" surrounding the supposedly "fishy" and "convenient" jobs report that the New York Times described as "unexpected good news" for President Obama.
Veteran economics journalists have dismissed these conspiracies as "implausible" and "unfounded."
The media declared one of the top "zingers" of last night's debate to be Mitt Romney's line, "I had a friend who said, you don't just pick the winners and losers; you pick the losers." But that line is based on a blatantly false claim that Romney made later in the debate, that "about half" of the Obama administration's investments in green energy have gone to bankrupt companies.
As even the Romney campaign has reportedly acknowledged, Romney got it completely wrong: a large chunk of that money went to projects like energy efficiency, and within the green energy loan guarantee program the vast majority of projects are still up and running.
The claim that "half" of the $90 billion spent on various clean energy projects went to bankrupt companies made easy fodder for solid fact-checks. But some ignored this blatant falsehood to push Romney's anti-green energy claims. Fox News seized on Romney's "pick the losers" line to declare that all the investments in green energy amounted to a "$90 Billion Boondoggle." And USA Today purported to ask "Are Obama green-energy loans really 'losers'?" but highlighted three of Romney's selective examples instead.
But of the $90 billion that Fox declared a "Boondoggle," nearly one-third was for energy efficiency measures, including retrofits in low-income neighborhoods, and another $10 billion went to electric grid modernization.
Even if Romney was referring only to the clean energy loan program funded under the stimulus, he still got it completely wrong. The New York Times called it "a gross overstatement," noting that "of nearly three dozen recipients of loans under the Department of Energy's loan guarantee program, only three are currently in bankruptcy." In fact, over 87 percent of the funds for the Department of Energy's 1705 loan guarantee program went to low-risk power generation projects, which are required to secure contracts with power purchasers before receiving a loan guarantee, virtually eliminating the risk of default. Congress anticipated that not all companies would succeed, and a Bloomberg Government analysis suggests they set aside more than enough to cover losses -- $2.47 billion, not $90 billion:
Two Fox News Sunday panelists suggested that Susan Rice, the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, did not properly emphasize the fact that there is an ongoing investigation into the attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, Libya. In fact, in the interview that they were referring to, and throughout her appearances on the Sunday talk shows, Rice repeatedly noted that the investigation was ongoing and that its results would ultimately reveal what happened.
This suggestion feeds into the right-wing conspiracy theory that the Obama administration has been purposefully deceptive in its public statements about the investigation.
Today on Fox News Sunday, Christian Science Monitor reporter Liz Marlantes questioned why Rice, during a September 16 appearance on Fox News Sunday, didn't simply say, "We're investigating, we don't really know very much yet." Later, Fox News contributor Laura Ingraham similarly asked why Rice didn't say, "We have an ongoing investigation, and I'm really not going to say anything more. We're going to learn more."
But in her September 16 appearance, Rice stressed the fact that it was important not to jump to conclusions before the investigation was completed, but shared the administration's "best current assessment" (emphasis added):
RICE: Well, first of all, Chris, we are obviously investigating this very closely. The FBI has a lead in this investigation. The information, the best information and the best assessment we have today is that in fact this was not a preplanned, premeditated attack. That what happened initially was that it was a spontaneous reaction to what had just transpired in Cairo as a consequence of the video. People gathered outside the embassy and then it grew very violent and those with extremist ties joined the fray and came with heavy weapons, which unfortunately are quite common in post-revolutionary Libya and that then spun out of control.
But we don't see at this point signs this was a coordinated plan, premeditated attack. Obviously, we will wait for the results of the investigation and we don't want to jump to conclusions before then. But I do think it's important for the American people to know our best current assessment.
In her appearances throughout September 16, Rice repeatedly emphasized that the investigation was ongoing and would provide the definitive answer to what happened. Her statements mirrored those of other administration officials.
Conservative media have claimed that the Obama administration is waging a "war" on "cheap," "clean" coal that will cause blackouts and massive layoffs. In fact, the Obama administration has simply implemented long overdue and legally required clean air regulations to protect public health without hurting electric reliability or employment, and much of the transition away from coal is due to the rise of cheaper, cleaner natural gas.
Fox News continues to attack the Obama administration over welfare reform by claiming that the waiver provision it recently proposed is "illegal" and beyond the scope of President Obama's executive power. In fact, as the Department of Health and Human Services makes clear, there is nothing illegal in the decision; moreover, past presidents have used such authority.
Major news networks have largely ignored Republican obstruction of a regulation addressing the recent resurgence of black lung, a disease caused by coal mine dust. By contrast, media coverage of the Republican narrative about "job-killing regulations" has been abundant, indicating that news outlets let the Republican Party define the media discourse about regulation of the coal industry.
Lou Dobbs last night conducted a fawning interview with Mike Vanderboegh and David Codrea, two bloggers who recently filed a complaint against Attorney General Eric Holder with the District of Columbia's Office of Bar Counsel. At no point did Dobbs note that Vanderboegh is an ex-militia conspiracist who has urged his readers to commit vandalism against Democrats and allegedly inspired a terrorist plot to kill federal employees.
On his Fox Business show, Dobbs said to Vanderboegh, "You guys are considered in some quarters rather dangerous. You're fans of the Constitution, you seek truth, what has been the reaction to your activism?"
Vanderboegh's record of extremism includes: