A Washington Times editorial that advocated drilling in the Alaskan Arctic National Wildlife Refuge exaggerated estimates of the refuge's oil reserves and the amount of daily oil production that could be achieved through exploration there.
In his Time magazine column, Joe Klein advocated drilling for oil in Alaska's Arctic National Wildlife Reserve (ANWR) as a means of lowering gasoline prices. Contrary to Klein's suggestion, however, a U.S. Department of Energy study found that oil production in ANWR would have a relatively insignificant impact upon crude oil prices.
On Fox News' The Journal Editorial Report, Wall Street Journal editorial board member Stephen Moore falsely claimed that "in the outer continental shelf," the United States has "more oil available than Saudi Arabia." Similarly, the New York Post claimed in an editorial that drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) "could eventually produce close to what America now imports from Saudi Arabia" -- a claim also contradicted by U.S. Department of Energy estimates.
MSNBC's Norah O'Donnell failed to challenge Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist's (R-TN) suggestion that drilling for oil in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) is necessary to reduce America's "60 percent dependen[ce]" on foreign oil. In fact, according to the Department of Energy, drilling in ANWR would reduce projected U.S. dependence on oil imports by only 4 percent over the next 20 years, from 68 percent in 2025 to 64 percent.
Fox News' Neil Cavuto failed to challenge House Homeland Security committee chairman Peter King's (R-NY) misleading claim that "Democrats voted" for a provision in the House immigration reform bill that makes illegal presence in the U.S. a felony. Cavuto also left unchallenged King's false claim that Alaska's oil reserves are "equivalent" to those of Saudi Arabia.
On Fox News' Special Report with Brit Hume, Weekly Standard executive editor Fred Barnes said he was "tired of hearing" the complaints of people who are "so upset about gas costing too much." Barnes said: "[I]f it costs a lot to fill up the tanks and they don't like that, well, demand that the supply increase. Demand that oil be drilled offshore, in ANWR [the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge], and so on." He added: "Otherwise, look, shut up."
Loading the player leg...
An article by Time magazine's Mike Allen and Karen Tumulty highlighted Sen. Jim Talent as one of the incumbent GOP candidates in the 2006 midterm elections "point[ing] out their differences with the president." However, Allen and Tumulty failed to note that Talent's voting record in the Senate has largely been in sync with the Bush administration's energy policy and the interests of oil companies.
The New York Times reported without challenge Sen. Ted Stevens's (R-AK) claim that in 1980, the Senate promised to open the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) for oil drilling. In fact, the 1980 law creating ANWR only said that it would be up to Congress to decide whether to give permission to drill.
On NPR's Morning Edition, host Renée Montagne reported that "Democrats" criticized Sen. Ted Stevens's (R-AK) effort to attach a provision allowing oil drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) to a defense appropriations bill. In fact, Stevens's tactic received bipartisan criticism, including from at least five GOP senators and two House Republicans.
In recent days, USA Today and the Los Angeles Times misrepresented the facts underlying the debate over whether to drill for oil in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. Both newspapers overstated the amount of oil that would be gained by drilling, and USA Today understated the area of land that would be affected by drilling.
The New York Times falsely suggested that only Senate Democrats have "assailed" Sen. Ted Stevens's (R-AK) proposed move to ensure passage of a provision to drill in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) by attaching it to the 2006 Senate defense bill. In fact, Sen. John McCain (R-AZ), a Republican and one of the conferees on the defense bill, is strongly opposed to the plan.