On his radio show, Bill O'Reilly falsely claimed that Democrats took campaign contributions from former Washington lobbyist Jack Abramoff. When a caller noted his false claim, O'Reilly stated: "So you are a Kool-Aid drinker who is blinded by whatever neurosis you have, because that's just insane." As Media Matters for America has documented, only Republicans received direct contributions from Abramoff.
A January 18 Associated Press article reported that "Democrats tried to link [indicted Republican lobbyist Jack] Abramoff to Republicans." However, the article failed to discuss numerous ties between the GOP and Abramoff.
News outlets reported that the Republican-sponsored ethics reform package would ban lobbyist-paid travel. But the proposed reform measure would still allow lobbyist-paid meals and trips as long as they were offered as campaign fundraising activities.
A Time magazine article wrongly stated that Congress eliminated funding once earmarked for a mile-long, 200-foot-high bridge connecting Ketchikan, Alaska, to a sparsely populated island and regional airport. In fact, while the earmark was removed from the budget, the money remained, now available for use by the state of Alaska for any reason state officials deem fit -- including for the so-called "Bridge to Nowhere."
Covering the nomination hearing of Supreme Court nominee Samuel A. Alito Jr., NBC News correspondent Pete Williams asserted that "Alito himself told the senators this week that a president does not have the power to disregard a law." But Williams based this on only a part of a response Alito gave on the issue of presidential power. In fact, Alito's entire response on the issue constitutes a legal truism that tells senators nothing about his views on presidential power versus congressional power -- that the president cannot disregard a law that is constitutional. Simply put, Alito told the committee that the president has to follow the law except when he doesn't have to.
In an interview with Rep. Roy Blunt, Fox News Sunday host Chris Wallace let Blunt make several false and misleading claims in defense of his ethical record.
Hotline editor-in-chief Chuck Todd defended Supreme Court nominee Samuel A. Alito Jr.'s membership in the Concerned Alumni of Princeton by saying former Sen. Bill Bradley also was a member. Todd neglected to mention that Bradley resigned his membership in the first year after the organization was formed because of its stance on women and minorities.
On NPR's All Things Considered, NPR national political correspondent Mara Liasson interviewed five Republicans and no Democrats during a segment host Michele Norris described as a "look at how Republicans in Congress are dealing with the fallout from the Abramoff affair." The all-GOP format of Liasson's report gave one of the Republicans a chance to launch unanswered attacks on Democrats.
Deborah Howell, the Washington Post ombudsman, falsely asserted twice that Democrats received contributions from Jack Abramoff.
On ABC's World News Tonight, George Stephanopoulos cropped a clip from Supreme Court nominee Judge Samuel A. Alito's nomination hearing to suggest Alito had "backed away from past statements suggesting a supremely powerful president." But contrary to Stephanopoulos's assertion, the entirety of Alito's response illustrated that he has not, in fact, "backed away" from earlier views on executive power.
The Washington Post used false and misleading comparisons to report that, during his recent Supreme Court nomination hearings, Samuel A. Alito Jr. "did not embrace some of the most controversial legal views" of conservative Supreme Court justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas.
Fox News' Neil Cavuto remarked that Democratic senators drove Martha-Ann Alito -- the wife of Supreme Court nominee Samuel Alito -- to tears during Alito's nomination hearing. Cavuto further proclaimed that the Democrats were "villains" for "literally driving [Alito's] wife to tears ... after repeatedly trying to paint Alito as a bigot." During these segments, onscreen text called Democrats "vicious" and "clueless."
Loading the player leg...
The Wall Street Journal's Daniel Henninger falsely claimed in his January 13 column that Democrats had "deliver[ed] yet another innovation" in their use of the filibuster to block Bush judicial nominees. In fact, as Media Matters for America has previously noted, Republicans have used the filibuster and other tactics to block Democratic nominees.
A New York Times article covering the third day of Samuel A. Alito Jr.'s Supreme Court nomination hearing ignored an example presented by Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) to Alito to highlight what she characterized as an apparent contradiction in Alito's explanation for why he would not discuss his assessment of Roe v.Wade -- the Supreme Court case that legalized abortion -- but had no apparent reservations about discussing another principle relevant to a case that is currently before the court: "one man, one vote."
Despite the fact that Supreme Court nominee Samuel A. Alito Jr.'s wife's emotional response did not come during the Democrats' questioning, but during Sen. Lindsey Graham's characterization of the Democrats' questioning, numerous media outlets pounced on the incident to raise the question of whether Democrats on the committee "took this a step too far."