Fox News has repeatedly made the false claim that liberal states lose billions of dollars due to tax flight, but tax flight is a well-debunked myth, and the most recent study Fox cited only showed that income tax and state-to-state migration were correlated factors.
From the February 28 edition of Fox News' Happening Now:
Loading the player reg...
Bill O'Reilly dismissed the significance of the gender wage gap, saying he isn't "buying this inequality business," and claiming that women can overcome wage inequality simply by working hard. However, O'Reilly ignores the true impact and scope of the gender wage gap, which plagues women at all stages of their careers regardless of education or experience level.
On the February 27 edition of Fox News' The O'Reilly Factor, O'Reilly criticized President Obama's 2014 State of the Union statements on the importance of closing the gender wage gap. During a conversation with Fox Business host Maria Bartiromo, O'Reilly initially acknowledged that the wage gap exists even after accounting for career and life choices. However, soon after he resorted to mocking the gap, saying, "I'm not buying this inequality business," and dismissing pay inequality as a mere political maneuver, "not a reality." O'Reilly concluded that Bartiromo's successful experience in the stock exchange was sufficient evidence that motivation and hard work can eliminate the gender wage gap, a message O'Reilly says he hopes "gets out to other women that, look, [the gender pay gap is] not perfect but it's good."
Fox News distorted comments by Democratic congressional candidate Alex Sink about the need for immigration reform, completely misinterpreting the meaning of her remarks to cast them as outrageous and beyond the pale. In fact, as the Miami Herald noted, Republican lawmakers have made similar comments in the past without the hint of the conservative outrage Sink's comments have received. Moreover, the comments broadcast by Fox were not Sink's full remarks on the topic.
During a candidate forum in Florida hosted by the Chamber of Commerce, Sink addressed the need for immigration reform by stressing the fact that coastal communities rely heavily on immigrant labor and that without reform, employers are put "in a position of hiring undocumented and illegal workers":
SINK: Immigration reform is important in our country. It's one of the main agenda items of the beaches' Chamber Of Commerce for obvious reasons. Because we have a lot of employers over on the beaches that rely upon workers, and especially in this high-growth environment, where are you going to get people to work to clean our hotel rooms or do our landscaping? And we don't need to put those employers in a position of hiring undocumented and illegal workers.
Discussing those comments on Fox & Friends, guest host Clayton Morris twisted the meaning of those words, claiming what Sink really said was "we need immigration reform so we can have illegal immigrants doing landscaping and cleaning hotels." Co-host Elisabeth Hasselbeck added: "Because what would we do without that, she's saying." Morris continued: "How would our hotels be cleaned?"
Co-host Brian Kilmeade also stated: "She was winning by 2 points prior to those remarks. I don't know if this is going to send her numbers south."
In fact, Sink was making the opposite point: We need immigration reform so that employers, particularly those in high-growth areas like coastal communities, don't resort to hiring unauthorized labor. For a network that has been stridently opposed to immigration reform because of the impact such labor has on the workforce, Sink's comments should have been greeted favorably.
Coverage of Social Security in three major national print outlets relied on reporting figures in raw numbers devoid of relevant context -- such as previous years' figures -- that could provide a more accurate picture of the program's finances. These findings, calculated since July 2013, are consistent with a previous Media Matters analysis of print media's coverage of Social Security.
The Wall Street Journal published an op-ed by Phil Gramm and Mike Solon pushing "pro-growth tax reform" and criticizing "regulatory burden" and "antibusiness bias." The Journal did not disclose that the authors are partners of an anti-regulation lobbying firm, and that Solon is frequent business lobbyist.
Gramm is a former Republican Senator, and Solon worked as a Gramm Senate staffer for over a decade. They run Gramm Partners, a D.C. lobbying firm. The firm's website states that it works "on the issues that matter most to financial companies" and has "a track record of delivering major accomplishments -- and stopping bad deals in their tracks." The two also run US Policy Metrics, "an economic and public policy research firm serving asset managers, hedge funds and the investor community."
According to 2013 data (the most recent available), Solon has lobbied for a variety of clients including the "lobby giant" Akin Gump, Fidelity, American Express, Mortgage Insurance Companies of America, Exxon Mobil, and US Chamber of Commerce. In addition to heading a lobbying firm, Gramm gained notoriety during the 2008 campaign because he co-chaired Sen. John McCain's presidential campaign and was also a "lobbyist for a Swiss bank at the center of the housing credit crisis." Gramm does not appear to have registered as a lobbyist since 2007. Gramm Partners' lobbyist registration form states it is lobbying on behalf of Akin Gump on issues that include budget and taxes.
The Journal's identification of Gramm and Solon simply states: "Mr. Gramm, a former chairman of the Senate Banking Committee, is senior partner of US Policy Metrics and a visiting scholar at the American Enterprise Institute. Mr. Solon was a policy adviser to Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell and is a partner at US Policy Metrics."
Gramm and Solon's op-ed complains that Democrats won't lower tax rates and have a "misplaced perception of the importance of the inequality debate." They added: "A pro-growth tax reform will not undo this administration's doubling of the federal debt held by the public, its tax increases, increased regulatory burden or antibusiness bias. But it would be a major movement in the right direction."
Media Matters has documented how the Journal has repeatedly failed to disclose relevant ties about writers in its editorial page.
From the February 21 edition of Fox News' America's News HQ:
Loading the player reg...
Fox News remains focused on attacking the idea of raising the minimum wage, a move that would boost incomes for more than 16 million Americans. Ever since President Obama pushed the widely popular initiative to the forefront of his agenda during his State of the Union address last month, Fox commentators have robotically trashed the policy move. And done so from all angles.
They've fretted that raising the minimum rate would mean "higher wages for workers." (That's kind of the whole point.) They've belittled the issue as being unimportant by claiming few people are affected by a national wage increase. (Wrong.) They've derided it as a jobs killer that would doom big business. (Not quite.) And they've dismissed an income boost as nothing more than a "transfer of wealth from some low- income earners to other low-income earners." (Also false. The Congressional Budget Office projects a wage increase would boost net income by $2 billion.)
The attacks have become something a cornerstone to Fox's program in early 2014. This, while Republicans stand firmly opposed to Obama's wage proposal, to the point where it's unlikely to come to a vote, just as Republicans earlier this month filibustered an effort to extend unemployment insurance for U.S. workers.
Here's what's interesting and what helps put into perspective the radical turn that not only Fox News has taken in recent years, but the entire conservative movement in America: In early 2007, after Democrats had gained control of both the House and the Senate, one of their top legislative priorities was passing a bill to raise the minimum wage from $5.15 to $7.25. The two-plus dollar boost was the first in a decade.
And you know what the collective Fox News reaction was to the prospect of an increased minimum wage in 2007? Nobody seemed that upset. Based on a review of Fox News' nighttime transcripts via Nexis, the issue was mostly dealt with -- when dealt at all -- in news updates as Democratic and Republicans negotiated the Fair Minimum Wage Act's certain approval.
There wasn't endless hand wringing, condemnations, or predictions of economic doom. For instance, in January of 2007, Fox contributor Mara Liasson described passing the minimum wage as "low-hanging fruit" for Democrats since the idea wasn't at all "controversial." (Indeed, 26 Republican House members had previously urged party leaders to schedule a minimum wage vote.)
Recent profiles of successful individuals illustrate how the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) -- formerly known as "food stamps" -- helps disadvantaged people achieve success, delivering a blow to common right-wing narratives about the program cultivating laziness among recipients.
On February 19, social networking giant Facebook purchased WhatsApp -- a messaging application for smartphones -- for $19 billion. The move made WhatsApp Inc. co-founder Jan Koum a billionaire overnight, with a projected net worth of $6.8 billion.
WhatsApp co-founder, Jan Koum, 37, was born in Ukraine. He arrived in the U.S. when he was just 16 years old and his family struggled. They lived on food stamps, venture capitalist Jim Goetz revealed in a blog post.
In fact, Koum's family picked up their food stamps only a couple of blocks away from WhatsApp's offices in Mountain View, Calif., reports Wired's David Rowan.
Koum is not the only prominent person making headlines who has relied on SNAP at some point in their life. On the February 17 edition of MSNBC's NOW, host Alex Wagner profiled Olympic speed skater Emily Scott. In June 2013, Scott, who had been working at a medical supply company while training 8 hours per day in preparation for Sochi, was forced to apply for food stamps when her monthly Olympic stipend was cut to just $600. As Wagner noted, Scott is the second ranked American speed skater and will compete in the speed skating quarterfinals on February 21.
The success of these two individuals -- one now a billionaire and the other competing in the 2014 Sochi Winter Olympics -- helps dispel common myths about food stamp recipients.
In recent years, right-wing media have rushed to demonize food stamp recipients, often portraying them as lazy, dependent, or unwilling to work. Conservative radio host Rush Limbaugh has even gone so far as to suggest that children facing hunger should dumpster dive as an alternative to government assistance.
This distorted depiction of the program's beneficiaries culminated in a wildly misleading Fox News report on Jason Greenslate, "a California surfer and aspiring musician." In the report, Fox described Greenslate as "the new face of food stamps," a blatant attempt to portray his lifestyle as characteristic of all food stamp recipients.
Of course, right-wing media's view of those that rely on food stamps is out of touch with reality -- most food stamp recipients stay on the program for short periods of time, 41 percent of them live in a house with earnings, and a majority of recipients are either children or elderly. Furthermore, the program keeps millions out of poverty every year.
On the heels of the Facebook's purchase of WhatsApp, the Huffington Post profiled a number of prominent people who have had to rely on food stamps, ranging from musician Bruce Springsteen to right-wing media darling Dr. Ben Carson.
Hopefully these SNAP success stories making headlines will push right-wing media to tone down the toxic and inaccurate rhetoric about the program and its recipients.
Image via Hubert Burda Media under a Creative Commons License
A Wall Street Journal article omitted the positive economic news in recent Congressional Budget Office (CBO) reports, misleadingly framing the reports as having challenged and "chipped away" at White House economic policies.
In a February 19 post, the Wall Street Journal characterized two recent reports from the CBO on the economic effects of the Affordable Care Act (ACA) and a proposal to raise the minimum wage as the "biggest challenges to the Obama administration's economic policy in the past month," which the Journal claimed "chipped away at two pillars of President Barack Obama's economic policy." The Journal failed to report the positive aspects of the CBO findings or describe the reports' many nuances, and made no move to identify the CBO's "complex and layered projections" that supported its thesis beyond this general line:
The budget office calculated earlier this month that the health law would lead some people to leave their jobs or ratchet back their work hours, and it said this week that raising the federal minimum wage to $10.10 an hour from $7.25 could lead 500,000 people to lose their jobs.
Yet the Journal's framing of the reports as 'chipping away' at Obama's economic policies is undermined by the CBO's actual determinations, which contained positive economic news.
In its study released this week on the effects of a minimum wage increase, the CBO determined that such an increase would lift 900,000 Americans out of poverty, 16.5 million workers would see their wages increased, and notably, "Once the increases and decreases in income for all workers are taken into account, overall real income would rise by $2 billion." The New York Times offers some perspective:
Tuesday's report from the budget office, a federal nonpartisan agency, was almost entirely positive about the benefits of raising the minimum wage to $10.10 by 2016, as President Obama and Congressional Democrats have proposed.
More than 16 million low-wage workers, now making as little as $7.25 an hour, would directly benefit from the increase, the report said. Another eight million workers making slightly more than the minimum would probably also get raises, because of the upward "ripple effect" of an increase. That would add $31 billion to the paychecks of families ranging from poverty level to the middle class, significantly increasing their spending power and raising the nation's economic output and overall income.
In fact, the report said, 900,000 people would be lifted from poverty with a wage increase. The income of those below the poverty line would increase by a total of $5 billion, or 3 percent, at no cost to the federal budget.
And in its Budget and Economic Outlook for 2014-2024, the CBO found that the ACA could free 2.5 million workers from being forced to keep their current jobs because of a need to maintain employer-sponsored health coverage. While the Journal attempts to portray this as a negative, the Economic Policy Institute (EPI) called it "an unambiguously good thing":
Not surprisingly, the CBO finds that, all else equal, people are less likely to work and will work fewer hours under the ACA. They find, and I quote, "The estimated reduction stems almost entirely from a net decline in the amount of labor that workers choose to supply, rather than from a net drop in business' demand for labor" (page 117).
These are purely voluntary labor supply decisions, not people being laid off from jobs they'd rather keep, or people looking for work and being unable to find it. Working-age adults can now choose, without regard to their need to secure health insurance, whether they wish to supply labor and how much labor they wish to supply to the labor market. This is unabashedly a good thing for them.
Opponents of the ACA will try to paint these CBO estimates as evidence that the ACA has "killed jobs" or something like it. That's flat wrong. What the ACA has done is expand the menu of options available to Americans about how to obtain decent health insurance without having their income fall to poverty levels. That menu used to include one option--"go to work for a large employer." The fact that it's broader now is an unambiguously good thing.
What's more, the report suggested that the ACA could increase job opportunities for currently unemployed workers. The CBO pointed out that "[i]f changes in incentives lead some workers to reduce the amount of hours they want to work or to leave the labor force altogether, many unemployed workers will be available to take those jobs," and reported that the law will have the stimulative effect of "raising overall demand in the economy." In a congressional testimony following the report's release, CBO director Douglas Elmendorf noted that the ACA "would reduce unemployment over the next few years."
The New York Times improved its standards for budget reporting over the past four months, providing readers with more adequate context to understand the size and scope of federal programs, budget deficits, and policy proposals.
On October 18, 2013, New York Times public editor Margaret Sullivan issued a statement affirming the paper's commitment to improving its numbers-based reporting. Sullivan's comments came in response to mounting criticism over how print media's reliance on reporting large numbers devoid of context often confuses and unintentionally misleads readers.
Ongoing Media Matters analysis of print media budget reporting standards confirms that the Times has begun to address these concerns, and now leads two other prominent print outlets -- The Washington Post and The Wall Street Journal -- in providing context when reporting numbers.
The Times was less likely than other selected outlets to rely on raw numbers for budget reporting from October 19, 2013 -- the day after Sullivan's statement -- to February 14, 2014. The paper was also more likely than the other newspapers analyzed to provide relevant context. Furthermore, the Times was the most likely to present figures in percentage terms relative to the size of the budget or the size of the economy.*
These results show a deviation from past practices. Media Matters research through the first half of 2013 revealed that the Times relied on out-of-context raw numbers for nearly 67 percent of its reporting concerning the federal budget, the debt and deficit, and spending programs. This reflected roughly the average style of reporting among the three outlets examined.
Despite recent improvement, the paper still relies on out-of-context figures for a majority of its coverage. Sullivan acknowledged in her October 18 statement that "[i]t won't be easy to make these changes happen consistently" across the newspaper's entire staff, but that change is coming "and the sooner, the better."
Hopefully other major outlets follow suit.
Image via Flickr user Frank Sheehan using a Creative Commons License.
Fox News gave Sen. Bob Corker (R-TN) an uncritical platform to continue pushing anti-labor falsehoods about a recent attempt to unionize a Volkswagen (VW) plant in Chattanooga, TN.
On February 14, the VW plant in Chattanooga voted against joining the United Auto Workers (UAW) union by a vote of 712-626. Prior to the vote, Corker and third party anti-labor groups like Grover Norquist's Center for Worker Freedom (CWF) waged an anti-UAW publicity campaign that threatened workers with claims that unionizing would hurt jobs and the economy of Tennessee. Days after stating that he believed it was not "appropriate" to make public statements about the unionizing effort, Corker issued one anyhow, telling workers that if they rejected the union, VW would reward the plant with a new product line:
I've had conversations today and based on those am assured that should the workers vote against the UAW, Volkswagen will announce in the coming weeks that it will manufacture its new mid-size SUV here in Chattanooga.
But VW AG rebuffed statement, saying "There is no connection between our Chattanooga employees' decision about whether to be represented by a union and the decision about where to build a new product for the U.S. market."
On the February 19 edition of Fox News' America's Newsroom, co-host Bill Hemmer interviewed Corker, who repeated the claim that the vote to unionize was tied to decisions about new product lines for the plant. Remarkably, Hemmer failed to push Corker on this point or even note that VW directly rejected his accusations.
CNN's Carol Costello shot down conservative talking points disparaging the minimum wage, correctly noting that raising it would increase incomes and decrease poverty.
On February 18, the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO) released estimates of the economic impacts of proposals to lift the minimum wage to $9.00 and $10.10, respectively. Among the report's summary conclusions was the revelation that the $10.10 option would raise the wages of 16.5 million workers while lifting up to 900,000 Americans out of poverty. Ignoring these positive side-effects, conservative media have focused heavily on estimates that increasing the minimum wage to such levels could reduce full-time employment by approximately 0.3 percent, the equivalent of roughly 500,000 positions.
On the February 19 edition of CNN Newsroom, host Costello was joined by Wall Street Journal editorial board member and Heritage Foundation chief economist Stephen Moore to discuss the CBO report. Moore, a prominent right-wing media figure, rehearsed standard talking points about the alleged disastrous impacts of increasing the minimum wage for low-skilled and entry-level workers.
Despite Moore's efforts, Costello checked his spin at every turn, continually pointing to the positive impacts of increasing the minimum wage.
Costello's strong reporting highlights the important role of media in sifting through misinformation to present unbiased results. While the median estimate of a $10.10 per hour minimum wage was decreased full-time employment, the CBO's projection also concludes that job loss could be "very slight" -- a fact highlighted by Costello. She also noted the positive income effects of increasing the federal minimum wage -- effects that are being ignored in media coverage of the CBO report -- and argued that many Americans would accept marginal job loss in exchange for lifting hundreds of thousands more out of poverty.
Costello's coverage of the minimum wage hopefully reflects a mainstream media trend of actually analyzing policy news, rather than allowing right-wing media to spin the narrative.
Three major national print outlets were more likely to report economic figures in terms of raw numbers devoid of relevant and necessary context, such as previous years' numbers or monthly figures that would give readers an accurate depiction of the economy. These findings, calculated since halfway through 2013, are consistent with a previous Media Matters analysis of print media.
Media coverage of a new Congressional Budget Office (CBO) report on the economic effects of raising the minimum wage has largely missed the finding that a $10.10 minimum wage would generate net income gains of $2 billion, Ezra Klein pointed out.
This month President Obama signed an executive order raising the hourly minimum wage to $10.10 for federal contract workers. According to a CBO study released February 18, the increase could reduce total employment by about 500,000 workers, but would also raise wages for 16.5 million workers and raise 900,000 people out of poverty. The report concluded: "Once the increases and decreases in income for all workers are taken into account, overall real income would rise by $2 billion."
MSNBC political analyst Ezra Klein explained how this significant finding -- $2 billion in net income gains as a result of the minimum wage increase -- has been "mostly missed" amidst the media's focus on job losses during an appearance on Morning Joe:
KLEIN: There's a headline number in this report that I think is getting mostly missed, which is $2 billion. Which is, after you account for everything -- any jobs you think you might lose, all the income gains you think you might have -- you have a net real income gain to workers of 2 billion. So the net result here is positive.