About us Login Get email updates
Research
Print

Misinformer of the Year: ABC

December 22, 2006 6:07 pm ET
image

18 Comments

In October 24 appearances on Fox News' The O'Reilly Factor and Hannity & Colmes, ABC News political director Mark Halperin claimed that the "old media" -- broadcast news outlets and major newspapers -- were "biased against conservatives; there's no doubt about it." He stated, "I think we've got a chance in these last two weeks [before the then-upcoming midterm elections] to prove to conservatives that we understand their grievances. We're going to try to do better." But if "try[ing] to do better" to not appear "biased against conservatives" meant offering viewers conservative misinformation, Halperin shouldn't have worried; a review of dozens of items by Media Matters for America identifying and correcting conservative misinformation from ABC suggests that Halperin's network was "try[ing] to do better" throughout 2006.

This year saw ABC air The Path to 9/11, a two-part miniseries that placed the blame for the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks on the Clinton administration and whitewashed some of the Bush administration's failures leading up to the attacks. Additionally, the network's news coverage frequently reported Republican spin as fact, passed on falsehoods propagated by conservatives, and missed numerous opportunities to challenge or question the administration's actions during solo interviews with Bush and key members of his administration.

These examples, and many more, earned ABC the distinction of being named Media Matters' Misinformer of the Year for 2006. The selection of an entire network for the honor represents a change from previous years, when individual media figures -- Fox News' Bill O'Reilly in 2004 and MSNBC's Chris Matthews in 2005 -- received the award. But a look at some of its most flagrant examples of conservative misinformation confirms that ABC won the Misinformer of the Year the old-fashioned way: The network earned it.

The Path to 9/11

On September 10 and 11, ABC aired The Path to 9/11, a miniseries the network initially claimed was based primarily on the 9-11 Commission report but which many Democrats and even several conservatives criticized as "inaccurate" and even "defamatory." The principal controversy revolved around several fabricated scenes that depicted former Clinton administration officials undermining efforts to capture Osama bin Laden in the years prior to 9-11. As Media Matters documented, ABC gradually backed off its original claim that the film was an "epic" and "historic" "dramatization of the events detailed in The 9/11 Commission Report" that "absolutely ... get[s] it right."

Two weeks before its broadcast, however, various members of the right-wing media had begun promoting the "docudrama," including radio talk show host Rush Limbaugh (subscription required) and websites FrontPageMag.com and Human Events Online.

In conjunction with the miniseries, Scholastic Inc. and ABC released a "Discussion Guide for the Classroom" aimed at high school teachers nationwide to "[e]ncourage your students and their families to watch The Path to 9/11 and use the accompanying" discussion guide as part of their lesson plan. But a Media Matters review of the material found it to be rife with conservative misinformation. The material omitted critical information regarding the Bush administration's pre-Iraq war weapons of mass destruction claims; falsely suggested a tie between Iraq and 9-11; gave upbeat accounts of reportedly dire conditions on the ground in both Iraq and Afghanistan; suggested that military responses to bin Laden by the Clinton administration could have "hinder[ed] the U.S. stance on the war on terror"; and asked students to debate whether the media "hinder our national security." Under intense criticism --including by Media Matters -- over its discussion guide, Scholastic pulled the guide from its website, stating, "[T]he materials did not meet our high standards."

Journalists, conservative pundits, and the film's star, actor Harvey Keitel, pressured ABC to correct the film's inaccuracies and set the record straight regarding the Clinton administration's counterterrorism efforts. In response, ABC released a statement, claiming that "[n]o one has seen the final version of the film, because the editing process is not yet complete, so criticisms of film specifics are premature and irresponsible" -- even though the network had reportedly previously said that the film was "locked and ready to air" and had released copies to members of the conservative media, including Limbaugh.

When ABC broadcast the miniseries, it did so with numerous inaccuracies still in it. The first night of the two-part miniseries included a fabricated scene that depicted Clinton administration officials declining to authorize the CIA to capture bin Laden. ABC retained the controversial scene despite the fact that it is contradicted by the 9-11 Commission report and had even been disputed by conservative media figures. The second half of the miniseries, which aired on September 11, also contained scenes that were factually inaccurate -- this time showing Bush taking aggressive action there is no indication he ever took. The film also misrepresented American Airlines and former FBI counterterrorism expert John O'Neill, who died on September 11, 2001, in the World Trade Center, where he was head of security.

In November, the Liberty Film Festival, "a forum for conservative thought on film," awarded the festival's "Freedom of Expression Award" to ABC's Judith Tukich, the vice president of Synergy and Special Projects, a right-wing evangelical who has described her mission as "evangeliz[ing] the world ... through the media," for her role in assisting the production and promotion of The Path to 9/11.

Propagating conservative misinformation

  • Following Bush's State of the Union address in January, Good Morning America co-anchor Charles Gibson cited after-speech poll results from previous years to claim that Bush may get a "pretty good size boost in his polls" after the 2006 address, even though ABC News polling director Gary Langer had dismissed such polls as a highly unreliable indicator of the entire country's view of the speech. [1/31/06]
  • Discussing a report detailing wasteful government spending or so-called "pork" on Good Morning America, Washington correspondent Jake Tapper claimed that Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) is "such an opponent of pork he's almost kosher." [4/5/06]
  • During an interview with first lady Laura Bush on This Week, host and chief White House correspondent George Stephanopoulos failed to correct a claim by the first lady that when Bush's "poll numbers were good," the press did not put them "on the front page." [5/14/06]
  • Discussing a May 15 ABC News/Washington Post poll, Stephanopoulos stated that "a president just shouldn't be at 33 percent when you've got 89 percent of the country optimistic about their future." Stephanopoulos focused on the administration's handling of Iraq as an "opportunity ... if things can turn around in Iraq" while omitting other results, both from that poll and others, that provide other reasons for Bush's low approval ratings. [5/16/06]
  • In reporting on a trip to Arizona Bush took to promote his immigration reform proposals, then-World News Tonight co-anchor Elizabeth Vargas claimed that "it was clear [Bush] is passionate about the very issue that has so many members of his party up in arms: allowing people now here illegally the chance to become American citizens." However, she completely ignored the fact that the White House reportedly supported a controversial immigration bill proposed by Rep. F. James Sensenbrenner (R-WI) that would have made it a crime to be an illegal resident of the United States. [5/18/06]

Shoddy coverage of Democrats

  • Vargas reported that "Congress voted to raise the national debt limit to nearly $9 trillion" but omitted the fact that all Senate Democrats voted against the increase, along with three Republicans. [3/16/06]
  • In citing the results of an ABC News/Washington Post poll on Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-NY), Tapper ignored the positive results and claimed that "a daunting 42 percent of all Americans say they will never vote for her." He added that "[s]ome think she's too liberal. Others think she's untrustworthy." Tapper did not mention the poll found that a majority of respondents said Clinton is, in fact, "honest and trustworthy" and that her views are "about right," while a minority thought she is "too liberal." [5/31/06]
  • Tapper uncritically reported an argument made by conservatives that raising the minimum wage will result in job losses and discourage job creation, even though numerous studies have found that increasing the minimum wage does not result in job loss or negatively affect employment. Further, neither Tapper nor business correspondent Betsy Stark reported that congressional Republicans tied a minimum-wage increase to legislation cutting the estate tax -- a measure that would disproportionately benefit the wealthiest Americans. As well, both Tapper and Stark did not report that Democrats have been pushing for years to increase the minimum wage. [8/02-8/03/06]
  • Chief White House correspondent Martha Raddatz argued that Democrats "don't want" to call for the withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq because "the lesson from Vietnam ... was you have to support the troops or there's tremendous backlash." In other words, supporting the United States' withdrawal from Iraq is not supporting the troops. [8/13/06]
  • In a report on the campaign advertisement wars of the 2006 election cycle, Nightline co-anchor Terry Moran reported that "both sides are playing a serious game of hardball" with "mudslinging" attack ads hitting "below the belt." Moran wondered: "How low can they go?" Despite Moran's insistence that the "low punches" were being thrown by both Democrats and Republicans, he provided no examples of Democratic-sponsored attack ads that matched the level of distortion and personal attack found in Republican commercials. [10/25/06]

Missed opportunities in solo interviews with Bush administration officials

  • During an exclusive interview with Bush on World News Tonight, Vargas echoed the White House line that Bush "doesn't read the polls"; uncritically accepted Bush's explanation for Katrina failures, despite citing the House Katrina committee report critical of the White House's response; omitted the key distinction that a Dubai company seeking to take over operations at port terminals at six major U.S. ports is state-owned, allowing Bush to falsely attack port deal critics; and ignored a number of other issues, including warrantless domestic spying and the Plame investigation. [2/28/06]
  • During his interview with Bush, Stephanopoulos did not challenge Bush on several statements that directly contradicted previous statements and actions, including when Bush asserted that his administration has "never been stay the course" in Iraq. [10/22/06]
  • In an interview with White House senior adviser Karl Rove, correspondent Ann Compton asked Rove three questions about Sen. John Kerry's (D-MA) "botched joke" about Bush and Iraq but none about other contemporaneous topics of greater significance. The only questions Compton asked not relating to Kerry were whether Rove believed that Bush would be able to "mobilize the Republican base and those independents and undecideds" and if "this [is] George W. Bush's last campaign and yours." [11/1/06]
  • During an interview with Vice President Dick Cheney, Stephanopoulos prompted Cheney to blame the recent upsurge of violence in Iraq on an insurgent "strategy" to "influence" the midterm elections, asking Cheney if "that mean[s] that a Democratic victory is a victory for the insurgents." Additional portions of the interview showed that Stephanopoulos let Cheney repeat the administration's self-serving and dubious assertions on Democratic tax plans, Iraq, and the economy. [11/3/06: first part; second part]

Misinformation from Mark Halperin

  • In an online article, Halperin asserted that Republicans had "an advantage" over Democrats in the then-upcoming midterm elections on "national security and taxes." In fact, polls suggested that Democrats actually held the advantage over Republicans on both issues. [10/17/06]
  • On The Sean Hannity Show, Halperin falsely suggested that while progressive 527 organizations with ties to the Democratic Party attacked Bush during the 2004 election, there were no comparable groups on the right. However, one of the most prominent 527 groups during that time was the Swift Boat Veterans For Truth, a group with ties to both the GOP and the Bush-Cheney '04 campaign, whose attacks on Kerry received broad coverage in the media. [10/23/06]
  • During a report about the controversy surrounding Limbaugh's attacks on actor Michael J. Fox, who has Parkinson's disease, Halperin claimed that "[i]n the past, conservatives let liberal entertainers kind of have a free ride," but now "they're saying, under George W. Bush, if you get involved in politics, we're going to come after you and the Democrats you're supporting." In fact, Fox was campaigning for candidates who support embryonic stem cell research; in 2004, he appeared in a campaign ad for Sen. Arlen Specter (R-PA). [10/29/06]

Miscellaneous

  • During a report on ties between Rep. Katherine Harris (R-FL) and disgraced defense contractor Mitchell Wade, correspondent John Donvan reported that Wade "made illegal contributions to her campaign" but added, "[T]hough she gave the money back, it's what reporters in Florida keep asking about. Even this week it came up." In fact, while Florida newspapers continued to raise questions about the illegal campaign contributions, they also focused on Harris' subsequent request to the House Defense Appropriations Subcommittee for a $10 million earmark that would have benefited Wade's company. [3/21/06]
  • On Good Morning America, 20/20 co-host John Stossel claimed that it is a "myth" that "women earn less" than men for "doing the same work." Stossel acknowledged that women "earn less" than men overall, and concluded that "[t]he truth is" that "men are more willing to take lousy jobs" and "work longer," and that is why they yield higher wages. In fact, numerous studies and data indicate that, on average, men earn more than women regardless of occupation. [5/12/06]

On Good Morning America, discussing whether conflicts in the Middle East heralded the potential coming of the Apocalypse, co-host Robin Roberts asked of the authors of the Left Behind series: "You see what's going on: the bombing in Haifa and Israel and it's so close to the valley of Armageddon. And when you think about that, and people see this and think about [it], is it indeed Armageddon?" Throughout the segment, the onscreen text read: "Apocalypse Now: Is The End Near?" [7/27/06]

Expand All Expand 1st Level Collapse All Add Comment
    • Author by mefirst (December 22, 2006 8:46 pm ET)
         

      i've posted this before, but the "writer" of "the path to 9-11", cyrus nowrasteh, said in an interview that he had to do his "own research" because the 9-11 commission report "only goes back to 1998". a flat out total lie. it goes back decades before that. i guess he also missed the part where the commission wrote: "president clinton was deeply concerned about bin ladin" [page 174]. nowrasteh deserves his own supporting liar award.

      Report Abuse
      • Author by hogprint (December 23, 2006 1:15 pm ET)
           

        MeFirst posted:

        ""president clinton was deeply concerned about bin ladin" [page 174]."

        My question is "deeply concerned" as he may have been, what did he actually do? The National Security Council doesnt concur with your assessment:

        ""'This National Security Council Millennium After Action Review declares,'" This is Ashcroft speaking in his testimony, "'that the United States barely missed major terrorist attacks in 1999 and cites luck as playing a major role, according to Ashcroft's testimony. It's clear from the review that actions taken in the millennium period, Y2K should not be the operating model for the US government.'" WorldNetDaily, a piece from 2004: "In testimony before the 9/11 Commission in April John Ashcroft pointed to a National Security Council document now at the center of the FBI's investigation of Sandy Berger, urging the panel to ask why its warnings and blueprint to thwart Al-Qaeda plans to target the US were ignored by the Clinton administration and not shared with the incoming Bush security staff."

        More on this:

        [link to news.yahoo.com]

        [link to www.usdoj.gov]

        [link to www.9-11commission.gov]

        If Clinton had nothing to hide, why wont they release what Berger took out of the archives?

        [link to www.riehlworldview.com]

        Report Abuse
        • Author by fantagor (December 23, 2006 2:37 pm ET)
             

          Hogprint:

          WorldNetDaily and RiehlWorldView are both right wing nutjob sites and you know it. Ashcroft is a Bush apologist and you know it. Plus, you felt compelled to repeat the “Berger stole documents" canard. The only legitimate source you provide is the 9/11 commission link. How about this for a quote:

          “The policy streams converged at a meeting of the Principals Committee, the Administration’s first such meeting on al Qaeda issues, on September 4. Before this meeting, Clarke wrote to Rice summarizing many of his frustrations. He urged policymakers to imagine a day after a terrorist attack, with hundreds of Americans dead at home and abroad, and ask themselves what they could have done earlier. He criticized the military for what he called its unwillingness to retaliate for the Cole attack or strike Afghan camps. He accused senior CIA officials of trying to block the Predator program. He warned that unless adequate funding was found for the planned effort, the directive would be a hollow shell. He feared, apparently referring to President Bush’s earlier comment, that Washington might be left with a modest effort to swat flies, relying on foreign governments while waiting for the big attack.”

          Isn’t that special. The Bush administration was so focused on terrorism it waited over SEVEN MONTHS to have a preliminary meeting on terrorism while ignoring Clarke’s repeated warnings. But still, it’s Clinton, who was handed NOTHING from 12 years of Republican “leadership” and handed Bush an active anti-terrorism program, who in your opinion dropped the bin Laden ball.

          HP, you get my vote for misinformer of the year.

          Like it or not, Clinton did more to thwart terrorism than Bush, even now, especially since there is strong evidence that the Iraq war is responsible for fomenting more terrorism than it's repelling.

          Report Abuse
        • Author by mefirst (December 23, 2006 7:37 pm ET)
             

          from the 9-11 report itself [not ashcroft himself who one might consider biased] page 265: "he [ashcroft] did not ask the fbi what it was doing in response to the threats, and did not task it to take any specific actions.....in sum the domestic agencies never mobilized in response to the threat." we now know what he did do, within days of getting the same dire warnings that condi got in july 2001. he stopped flying commercial airlines and flew on a chartered jet. too bad he didn't let the rest of us in on the warnings. happy holiday reading.

          Report Abuse
        • Author by chrisdutch89 (December 23, 2006 7:46 pm ET)
             

          What the hell does what Sandy Berger did have anything to do with the fact that major media outlets like ABC are full of more s___ than Christmas turkeys and are shills for the Republican party!!! This is absurd. Terrorism was a top priority under the Clinton administration and for the false failure of the supposed handover of Bin Laden by the Sudanese there was Junior Bunnypants backing away from getting Bin Laden at Tora Bora. Actually, y'know, Bush just doesn't spend that much time on him....

          Report Abuse
    • Author by conleytgwinn (December 22, 2006 10:18 pm ET)
         

      Not as outre as FoxLies, ABC has been able to pass for merely lazy and corporate. You have exposed them, and it is just too bad that you lack the amount of reach they enjoy - only a few thousands will read your expose, far fewer than ABC/Disney will to lie to, even lie about, just this one day.

      Report Abuse
      • Author by zerosumgame0005 (December 23, 2006 12:04 am ET)
           

        who have no problem breaking commandments, like that silly one about not bearing false witness. That is sooooo 3,000 years ago!

        Report Abuse
    • Author by chrisgodawgs (December 23, 2006 1:43 am ET)
         

      I also commend the pick. My conservative friends beat me over the head with the "liberal bias of the networks", while I have to sit through watching these examples listed above. Conservatives have reached a point where they are so convinced that the media has conspired in favor of Dems and against Repubs that they scoff at me and give the dismissive wave in the air when I try to discuss conservative bias on a big three network like ABC. It would have been easy to pick any right wing blowhard, but picking an entire mainstream network is the right way to go. Maybe somebody from ABC will read this and, possibly...I don't know, describe a Democrat in a positive light instead of as a buffoon? Or call a left leaner a "straight talker"? Or focus on something other than a wardrobe choice? Maybe challenge a Bush administration representative when they say something questionable? That would be nice.

      Report Abuse
    • Author by captfoster2 (December 23, 2006 10:21 am ET)
         

      ABC as your Misinformer of the Year 2006...... sounds about right!

      FOX on the other hand might have lost this battle for the MOY award in 2006...... but they have already wrapped up the MOY award for this Decade (and the 90's) and this Century and what the heck......

      The Lifetime Achievement Award for MOY for basically being nothing more than a misinformation/progaganda machine for those that Rupert Murdoch decides to like!

      That's not media.....that's un-American!!

      Report Abuse
    • Author by captfoster2 (December 23, 2006 10:41 am ET)
         

      Rupert Murdoch......................

      IS NOT AN AMERICAN!!!!

      That is for all of you that might come in here and replay the talking points of FOX (as if they were facts) and yet you claim that you love your country........

      You are following the words of a NON-American...... other than PROFIT, Mr Murdoch has no motivation to allow the truth here in America, only sensationalism, ignorance, propaganda, and fear are usful to his pocketbook.....

      That's why GWB and his minions are so perfect for the job and why FOX will stop at nothing to make them out as the good guys...

      Makes you kind of proud....huh?

      Report Abuse
    • Author by What Happened to Gannon (December 23, 2006 11:02 am ET)
         

      I think ABC was on its way to MOY until they broke the Mark Foley story. Then they had a gushing correspondent gleefully reporting from the DNC midterm night victory party.

      I think ABC is defintely conservative on political issues, but socially liberal, just like their parent company (Disney).

      My vote would be for Rush Limbaugh. However, he might have disqualified himself by trying too hard. ; )

      Report Abuse
    • Author by pete bogs (December 23, 2006 12:30 pm ET)
         

      wow, I can't get used to Carlson without the bowtie... I always assumed it was too tight and was cutting off his air... the fact that people like this can get - and keep - spots in the media is very alarming...

      Report Abuse
    • Author by holly (December 23, 2006 3:30 pm ET)
         

      They asserted that welfare undercut the development of personal responsibility.

      Well, they had a chance to bear responsibility for 9-11, which happened on their watch and while they controlled Congress and the White House. Instead, they shirk responsibility and seek to blame Clinton. Yet again. Forever and ever. In this way, Clinton is welfare for rich, white neocons who shirk their personal responsibility for 9-11.

      Remember Truman and "The buck stops here."

      Every neocon should have this on their desk: "The buck always stops at Clinton. Forever and ever and ever."

      I'm not arguing that W and his cronies bear the full responsibility for 9-11. Bin Laden and his cronies bear much of it. It's just that when you assume the office, you also assume its responsibilities...if you're big enough.

      Report Abuse
      • Author by captfoster2 (December 23, 2006 7:45 pm ET)
           

        As it pertains to Bush......

        He only THINKS that he is big enough for the job.....

        In reality..... if not for the fact that the Congress was republican majority and the neo-cons had this uncanny ability to bullsh*t there way into being voted in and staying in (until this last Nov 7).....it can be rest assured....

        There is absolutely NO WAY that GWB would have been the frontrunner in 2000, let alone 2004......

        Karl Rove MIGHT have been the Architect........ and now that the Dems are going to be in charge.......

        It proves, with no shadow of doubt how absolutely inept and pathetic GWB and the neo-con ways really are!!

        Report Abuse
      • Author by tahomaactivist (December 24, 2006 8:13 pm ET)
           

        Dudes, please. Bin Laden is not even listed on the FBI's website as responsible for the 9/11 attacks.

        The guy who many have claimed is the mastermind was Sheikh Abdel Rahman, who just died in prison.

        The real culprits, however, as any 9/11 Truth activist will tell you, are Bush, Cheney and the rest of the neocon cabal, who engineered the attacks to save their political futures and ensure the dominance of the neoconservative worldview for years.

        I urge everyone to go to 911truth.org and do the research. I know it sounds kooky, but Bush and Cheney really knew 9/11 was happening, and they helped it go off without a hitch. Cheney even ordered Washington's air defenses not to respond to the threat, according to Transportation Secretary Mineta.

        Please check out David Ray Griffin's New Pearl Harbor or Kevin Barrett's latest, Truth Jihad, for more on this topic.

        If we can pin the 9/11 attacks on the Prez and his goons, we might just be able to save America.

        Report Abuse
    • Author by starwheel (December 24, 2006 10:42 am ET)
         

      I suppose outside of Fox News Channel, this had to be a difficult decision to make.

      CNN hiring Glenn Beck, NBC promoting Anne Coulter and her book on all their channels, CBS inviting Rush Limbaugh for an unchallenged rant. And this is just the tip of iceberg.

      NBC did allow Olbermann to shine and David Gregory did challenge the administration on several occasions.

      But if NBC isn't the campaign platform of the McCain/Guiliani 2008 Presidential ticket, I don't know WHAT is.

      Report Abuse
    • Author by Danger_Dr_Venture (December 25, 2006 4:31 pm ET)
         

      This is the man who won't allow anyone on his show who disagrees with him because he can't create an argument, so he needs to create a world where there are no arguments. Bill O'Reilly believes his show is above freedom of speech. If he ever told me to shut up, he'd be choking on a Lufah.

      Report Abuse

my.MediaMatters.org

Login  Sign Up

Push Back

Phone calls, emails and letters from the public do make a difference. Remember that to be effective you must be polite, and professional. Express your specific concerns regarding that particular news report or commentary, and indicate what you would like the media outlet to do differently in the future.