Fox passes off GOP press release as its own research -- typo and all
Please upgrade your flash player. The video for this item requires a newer version of Flash Player. If you are unable to install flash you can download a QuickTime version of the video.
SUMMARY: In purporting to "take a look back" at how the economic recovery plan "grew, and grew, and grew," Fox News' Jon Scott referenced seven dates, as on-screen graphics cited various news sources from those time periods -- all of which came directly from a Senate Republican Communications Center press release. A Fox News on-screen graphic even reproduced a typo contained in the Republican press release.
During the February 10 edition of Fox News' Happening Now, co-host Jon Scott claimed that "the Senate is expected to pass the $838 billion stimulus plan -- its version of it, anyway. We thought we'd take a look back at the bill, how it was born, and how it grew, and grew, and grew." In tracking how and when the bill purportedly "grew," Scott referenced seven dates, as on-screen graphics cited various news sources from those time periods. However, all of the sources and cost figures Scott cited, as well as the accompanying on-screen text, were also contained in a February 10 press release issued by the Senate Republican Communications Center. One on-screen graphic during the segment even repeated a typo from the GOP document, further confirming that Scott was simply reading from a Republican press release. The Fox News graphic and the GOP press release both claimed that a Wall Street Journal report that the stimulus package could reach "$775 billion over two years" was published on December 19, 2009 [emphasis added].
While Scott spoke, Fox News aired the following graphics, citing news reports about the stimulus plan's cost:
All seven news sources and cost figures Scott and on-screen Fox News graphics referenced -- including the "12/19/09" Journal article -- were contained in the Senate Republican Communications Center's press release. From its release:
FLASHBACK... "STIMULUS" STARTED AT $56 BILLION
$56 BILLION
POLITICO: "Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) and Senate Appropriations Committee Chairman Robert C. Byrd (D-W.Va.) today announced a $56.2 billion stimulus package." ("Second stimulus announced," Politico, 09/25/08)
$61 BILLION
CONGRESSIONAL QUARTERLY: "The House Friday passed a $60.8 billion economic stimulus package designed to pump money into infrastructure projects, unemployment insurance and Medicaid, but a similar measure failed to advance in the Senate." ("House Passes Stimulus Measure; Senate Proposal Fails," CQ, 09/26/08)
$100 BILLION
McCLATCHY: "Washington is poised during the next 90 days to approve spending perhaps $100 billion to jolt the ailing economy." ("Can a $100 billion stimulus save a $14 trillion economy?," McClatchy, 11/09/08)
$150 BILLION
DENVER POST: "House Speaker Nancy Pelosi called for a new $150 billion economic-stimulus package today and suggested Congress may need to act this year." ("Pelosi: New stimulus package needed," Denver Post, 10/08/08)
$200 BILLION
WASHINGTON TIMES: "House Speaker Nancy Pelosi vowed Wednesday to hold a lame-duck session to pass a $200 billion economic-stimulus package likely to include rebates to middle-class taxpayers, despite recent failure to enact less ambitious plans and Republican charges it is a 'spending hike to exploit the nation's economic troubles.'" (" Lame-duck session eyed to OK stimulus," Washington Times, 10/16/08)
$300 BILLION
WASHINGTON POST: "With fears rising that the nation stands on the precipice of a prolonged recession, House Democrats are contemplating a huge infusion of public cash -- as much as $300 billion -- to stoke economic growth by creating public jobs and padding the wallets of struggling consumers." ("House Democrats Consider Large, New Economic Stimulus Package," Washington Post, 10/14/08)
$400 BILLION
THE NEW YORK TIMES: "The programs will be a part of a larger economic stimulus package whose outlines are faint but which is expected to cost $400 billion to $500 billion." ("Proposal Ties Economic Stimulus to Energy Plan," The New York Times, 12/04/08)
$500 BILLION
McCLATCHY: "President-elect Barack Obama and Democratic congressional leaders have agreed to a $500 billion economic-stimulus package that they want to move next month even before Obama takes office." ("Obama, Democrats Agree to $500 Billion Stimulus Package," McClatchy, 12/13/08)
$600 BILLION
POLITICO: "House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) has increased the size of the economic stimulus package she will support when Congress reconvenes next month, saying it will need to be $500 billion to $600 billion." ("Pelosi sees bigger, greener stimulus," Politico, 12/12/08)
$700 BILLION
WASHINGTON POST: "Facing an increasingly ominous economic outlook, President-elect Barack Obama and other Democrats are rapidly ratcheting up plans for a massive fiscal stimulus program that could total as much as $700 billion over the next two years." ("Democrats' Stimulus Plan May Reach $700 Billion," Washington Post, 11/24/08)
$775 BILLION
WALL STREET JOURNAL: "President-elect Barack Obama's economic team is crafting a stimulus package to send to Congress worth between $675 billion and $775 billion over two years, according to officials familiar with the package..." ("Stimulus Package Heads Toward $850 Billion," The Wall Street Journal, 12/19/09)
$800 BILLION
THE NEW YORK TIMES: "Ask just about anyone in Washington involved in the $800-billion-plus economic stimulus legislation churning its way through Congress and they will tell you it is a milestone - but without question the less expensive, and politically and technically less chancy, part of the Great National Bailout of 2009." ("Spending More Than $800 Billion Is the Easy Part," The New York Times, 02/08/09)
From the February 10 edition of Fox News' Happening Now:
SCOTT: So in that series of votes, the Senate is expected to pass the $838 billion stimulus plan -- its version of it, anyway. We thought we'd take a look back at the bill, how it was born, and how it grew, and grew, and grew.
On September 25 of last year, just a few months ago, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid announced a $56.2 billion stimulus package.
It hit $61 billion a day later when the House passed a $60.8 billion economic stimulus package.
By October 10, it had more than doubled. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi called for a new $150 billion economic stimulus package.
About a week later, another 50 billion was added when Speaker Pelosi vowed Wednesday decided to hold a lame-duck session to pass a $200 billion economic stimulus package.
It doubled again in the beginning of December when, according to The New York Times, the programs will be part of a larger economic stimulus package whose outlines are faint but which is expected to cost 400 to $500 billion.
Well, it took another huge jump about a week later. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has increased the size of the economic stimulus package she will support, saying it'll need to be 500 to 600 billion.
Well, it hit 775 billion soon after, The Wall Street Journal reporting that President-elect Barack Obama's economic team is crafting a stimulus package to send to Congress worth between 675 billion and 775 billion over two years.
Which brings us back to today and the Senate's vote on that $838 billion bill.
DOH!
Yeah, BIG time!
(And they've tipped their hand and conveyed one of the many ways Fox News will misinform its veiwers next December.)
God bless Media Matters. Now can't wait to see Olbermann pick up on this.
The big news here is of course that they missed the last step of the rules (according to Stephen Colbert). Well, this was about the President, but it pretty much applies to anything political that is actually about policies and not about extramarital affairs:
Pure incompetence from Fox here!
Sounds like Barney of Mark the Foot might be Fox employees. Both are know around these parts as lifting whole passages and putting them forth as their own, typos intact.
The GOP couldn't have served it up any better for its copy-and-paste "news" network. They keyed it with a typo just like a smart company keys its advertising to know which outlet's ads are working. LOL
Has anybody checked limbaugh's site yet? The original must be there, typo and all, right?
I don't want to hear anybody try to deny that faux news is just a mouthpiece for the republic party masquerading as a legitimate news channel any more.
2009 is not off to a good start of Fox News. Just 5 days ago, Rupert declares that Fox has never been a company that tolerates facts and, now, they're passing off Republican press releases as their own work without even proofreading it. Tools. Absolute tools.
Roger Ailes is a lifelong friend of the Bushes and pretty much in G H W Bush's pocket, for a long time. I wouldn't be surprised if Bush money was used to start uf FOX.
<!-- /* Style Definitions */ p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal {mso-style-parent:""; margin:0in; margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";} @page Section1 {size:8.5in 11.0in; margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in; mso-header-margin:.5in; mso-footer-margin:.5in; mso-paper-source:0;} div.Section1 {page:Section1;} -->
Faux News: Right-wing propaganda outlet and fortune-telling.
Any chance the GOP, FoxNoise, and Rush are not all in cahoots with each other?
.......................................................................................................................
....................................
I didn't think so either!
Fox News has no choice....They are all convinced that the liberal media got President Obama elected and they are only going to present the repub's side! They have lost the last two elections following Rush, Sean and the rest of those idiots...Fine with me!
TBone...
This may not technically be misinformation (provided the information in the GOP press release is accurate, but.......
This certainly tells us something important about the Fake News Channel. If a so-callled "News" channel is willing to print one sides press releases, haven't they pretty much lost all credibility as a "News" outlet?
I would expect we'll see this latest outrage on ABC, CBS and NBC won't we?
The Republican press release was not an opinion piece - it is a citation of other news sources. I would argue that Fox loses credibility if either of the following occurred:
a) they didn't verify the citations independently (this is what the reporter should be called on). From the typo its nearly a given they did not, or
b) one of the citations is factually incorrect or taken substantively out of context which would then make this propaganda.
You mean you see no problem with news chanell using Republican talking points as their own?
Thanks for your tacit approval of the fact that Republicans use facts as talking points!
Don't flatter yourself. This Republican arrangement of "facts" 1) assumes the stimulus of mid 2008 is the same fundamental concept as Feb. 2009 -- it's not, and Obama's leadership has changed it fundamentally. 2) assumes the only factors in raising the amount needed was Democrats’ whimsical spendthrift ways -- rather than the incompetent inaction of the Bush administration/Republican blocked Congress to address an economic meltdown as the problem got exponentially worse week after week. SOOOOooo, "greatjob" these facts have been carefully arranged to present a false picture, a propaganda, which was not only unexamined by a "news" organization, but accepted whole cloth as “information” and deceived their viewers into thinking the source of this “information” was research. When I was a reporter for the Chicago Trib, this would get you fired and blackballed, at Fox perhaps they think the reporter is being “thrifty” by not wasting time on research.
And spending isn't stimulus, even if Obama tells you otherwise
Groan. Swill isn't spit. Drool isn't cool. By convoluted "logic" I'm sure you've convinced yourself that spending isn't stimulus, but perhaps a trip to the Webster would help you sort it all out.
Faux, worse than botox.
Dick, Dick, Dick, you know what's gonna be great? Now you have no choice but to sit back and watch Obama's spending stimulate the economy. I don't have to waste effort trying to prove to you it works, I can just sit back with a shiit eating grin on my face as Obama proves you wrong. And watching you gyrate like a marionette with a broken string as you try to spin it is gonna be the greatest show on earth!
If they didn't do Item A, yes. If they did, no. If they didn't, then they should have disclosed the source since it was not independently confirmed.
the problem is that the first figure cited is from last september, when the present economic implosion had not happened. what faux is attempting to do is make it look like this bill just ballooned all of sudden since obama took office. the estimates were already pretty big when he took over.
The dates are on there. Also, taking a "look back" implies over time.
Yeah, but the "stimulus work" of mid/late 2008 was fundamentally different from Obama's plan for job creation. To call it the same thing is like referring the surge as a part of the invasion of Iraq -- technically, maybe the 2006 surge and the 2003 invasion can be classified as "war" but it really muddies the water to do so. Calling the "stimulus" of 2008 the same as the vision of Obama's stimulus is muddying the waters. But that's the point of the Republican press release. As it is, it looks like the "stimulus" is nothing more than a symptom of Democrat's whimsical spending habits. It mentions nothing of any other possible influences on the rising cost of stimulus efforts -- like the criminal inattention of the Bush administration to a catastrophic economic meltdown as the weeks get worse and worse and the need for aid gets more and more expensive. This Republican argument is breathtaking in it's dishonesty.
i know the dates are on there. i can read. but what they are trying to do is make this look this is all the same program. it's not.
Tell me again how you're going to look back to December, 2009 from February, 2008.
the question is: is this misinformation?
Of course it is, but not the part you are looking at. "We thought we would take a look back" is not the same, and gives a different meaning than the truth. "Here is what was released by senate Republicans". That little piece of misinformation most assuredly promotes the conservative agenda. With bells on.
During the February 10 edition of Fox News' Happening Now, co-host Jon Scott claimed that "the Senate is expected to pass the $838 billion stimulus plan -- its version of it, anyway. We thought we'd take a look back at the bill, how it was born, and how it grew, and grew, and grew."
Add to this their 'apology' for 'their' error in letting the typo through, when it wasn't 'their' error at all, and you see how very misinformative this is!
http://mediamatters.org/countyfair/200902110016
Facts are not propaganda, even if presented with an ideological spin (e.g., grew and grew and grew).
a) They're trying to pass them off as their own and got caught.
b) It proves they are nothing more than a conduit for the Republican Party.
It's like the kid who copies his answers off of the girl in front of him-- mistakes and all.
Exactly. News organizations are supposed to do their own studies. How can an RNC press release not be out of context?
Under the Bush Administration Faux news served as "state" run TV. Their whole function is to support a certain section of the conservative movement and the Republican party, right? A whole network devoted to spewing "Republican" talking points, there is no equivalent on the "left" is there? The difference is certainly lost on our friends on the "right" who post here, about the LIB-bul-ral media blah blah blah, because Keith O. or Rachel M. portray a bias,because they blast Fox or refute some conservative misinformation! Can anyone tell me why Glenn Beck gets a TV show and Amy Goodman doesn't?
Actually, I think fox is a good thing. It keeps all the ideologues on the same page.
Imagine if each wacky new misinformed opinion was the sole responsibility of anyone who refused to recognize reality? We'd have to address them one by one. At least with limpaugh, hannitard, fox et al feeding common rhetorical gruel to their sycophants, each ignorant manifestation of fantasy is amalgamated into its own large steaming pile.
It's a shame. The Republican Noise Machine's lockstep message also silences a lot of conservatives who are trying to promote alternative solutions to the meltdown other than spending for jobs or tax breaks to big business.
Don't watch it. As with any viable business in America(up to this point), if there is no patronage, the business will fail unless it is propped up, like Air America. There is this uncanny devotion to ridiculing Fox news, yet they still thrive. The left has gone about it all wrong. Case in point is the sit-com with Al and Peg Bundy. It was on the brink of failure until a woman in Pittsburgh went on a public crusade to have it removed from the airways. Within a month, the viewership grew and it became the longest running sitcom in history(except for the Simpsons). If the people who pray to the altar of MMFA want to rid the airways of Fox news, target the people who watch it or the sponsors who air their products on Fox. This constant "nagging" only enhances their position at Fox and makes liberals look petty and cheap. Liberals should start their own version of the O'Reilly factor. they could call it, "The Olbermann Infliction" or "Rachally Undivided" or "Frankenly, My Dear". Just some suggestions.
"rid the airways of Fox news"
I just want it renamed to "Republican propaganda Channel" or "Republicans' Bowels".
Then buy it and rename it. Simple.
............but remember, "wanting is sometimes better than having".
I don't want it. The name "Fox News Channel" is a misnomer and frankly a lie. I suggested two names that are equivalent to what they provide.
It's sad that some people STILL prefer to be lied to.
Like the handful of morons who tune in for Olberman every night.
Find a lie and get back to us.
to Mary and many others on here, to say that Olbermann and Maddow are any less biased than fox news is absurd. Every night I switch back and forth during commercials between Orielly and Olberman and Hannity and Maddow. Hannity presents himself as a conservative talking point so if you watch you know what you are going to get, however Olbermann and Maddow literally think they are bringing us news every night that is not slanted IT IS AMAZING. As far as mis-information goes for the last 2 weeks Maddow has been pounding the "all spending is good spending" propaganda which is her viewpoint but intelligent minds can disagree.
Finally I thought it was funny how after our president spoke on Monday. Orielly's comment was could they have asked any easier questions(sarcasm), And they I flip over to OLbermannand he was amazed at how over the next 4 years we will finally be able to ask the president tough questions.
The same speech and 2 totally different out takes, on this one I will side nwith O'reilly I thought the questions were "softballs" and who the hell cares about Arod?
Maddow and Olbermann are as biased as anyone at Fox. That's not news.
But you can't say that they're dishonest and outright liars. It would be easier to list those on Fox who don't lie that to list all who do.
How many out and out, blatant lies are told between 8 and 10 PM on both networks?
O'Reilly and Hannity are first and foremost propagandists who'll say anything if it props up the Republican Party. Truth never enters into either's presentation of talking points.
Olbermann lied back in 2008 saying Palin cut Special Olympics funds by over $200,000 when in fact her budget increased spending by 10% over the year before.
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2008/09/17/olbermann-echoes-thinkprogress-lies-smear-palin
Olbermann also lied about Palin here:
In this case, Sarah Palin is accusing Barack Obama of advocating socialism when she literally used that word to describe the collective wealth sharing in her home state of Alaska.
Palin never said that, it was from a New Yorker writer.
http://24ahead.com/blog/archives/008242.html
One could go on and on and on about Olbermann and his lies and distortions, but whats the use. Everyone besides the radical left knows he is so over the top partisan that it is funny.
Hannity is of course partisan, he admits to it freely.
There is nothing wrong with partisan pundits on either side. Gotta love that 'freedom of speech' even when you disagree. Right?
Palin said "I sought more funds for students with special needs."
But she actually cut the proposed budget in half. She didn't seek additional funds.
Presenting oneself upfront as a conservative or liberal does not give one carte blanche to simply lie, insult, distort, assasinate the character, impugn, commit slander. Hannity commits these egregious acts routinely, not accidentally, but as a matter of practice, as a specific tactic. You CANNOT find this from your examples of Olbermman and Maddow. The comparison just doesn't add up. You can wish it were so, but wishing doesn't make it true.
The fact remains: a news channel is a news channel. An opinion belongs on an opinion channel. A channel dishing up conservative opinion, even if it is explicated to the audience (which it certainly wasn't in this specific case), is not fodder for a NEWS channel. It creates the impression that the ideological talking points of a specific political point-of-view are somehow neutral in context and information. It's done purposefully, and it's done to distort in favor of Republicans. I.E. it's lying as a matter of policy.
Dick, don't listen to mary59. She has given you a task which would keep you away for years. I would miss your humor. When I log on, I like to read the funny pages first so I look for a thread with your posts. Ignore mary59, she is really mary60.
Read you tomorrow.
Dang it prince, I have to tell the truth. I'm really only 58. But I'll be 59 in March.
It was interesting to see the switch, wasn't it? From my "point out the lie" to "their both biased..." etc.
"rid the airways of Fox news"
When they are doing such a great job of shooting themselves in the foot?
huh? Why should I choose to not watch it when they are deceiving me into thinking they are a news organization?
I will watch all news channels and if some channels are Republican talking point echoing channels (or Democratic talkng point channels), I will whine that they shoule be taken off public air till they identify themselves correctly.
You have a problem with that?
Yes, I want to buy FoxNews and bury it. The fact that I do not have the money should not result in it being on my face as a news channel. They want to make money, I am all of it, as long as they do it straight.
A woman from Pittsburgh? I do believe you are mistaken. That was Terry Rakolta, who lived in Bloomfield Hills, Michigan. She was my Bishop's sister-in-law. My Bishop was Mitt Romney's brother, and the son of Michigan governor George Romney. I had the honor of going to her house for "home-teaching", where I learned that the first person she thought of as a "hero" was Jesse Helms. I had trouble refraining from vomiting.
There's a major difference between a sitcom and FOX. For any random show, it survives or fails based on its popularlity alone. It's about profit. FOX, on the other hand, serves a political purpose. There's a motivation to "prop it up", as you suggest yourself.
So instead of pointing out FOX's behavior, they should just try to imitate O'Reilly? Why? There's no evidence that liberals are interested in anything like that, and it just gives conservatives an excuse that "both sides are the same". Showing that FOX is an illegitimate news network is the proper way to go about things, and if that seems "petty" to you I have to wonder how you justify that impression.
Dr. Robert Altemeyer has been doing research on this very subject. His work is so thorough that DHS itself uses his findings to give us all warnings about the rise of RWA and it's predilection for politically motivated violence.
The DHS research can be found here: Arie Kruglanski - Political Conservatism as Motivated Social Cognition , while Altemeyers is available free (he , as I , believe the findings are too important to be restricted by cost): http://members.shaw.ca/jeanaltemeyer/drbob/Introduction_links.pdf
Shaggles, did you see where the RIGHT controls the "media"? Let's ask those 2 antichrists who controls THEM? Hint: it ain't a Republican. That includes ALL of the "other" notworks other than FOXNEWS. They are soon going to be totally controlled from Jeff Immelts (appropiately) office inside the House of oppression. The antiChrist is alive. The stim will prove it. Out of Europe a savior shall come and lead you. (and no, it won't be the real Messiah. He comes after the MSNBC antiChrist fools you.
Son, are you on the dope?
We can help.
Gee, can't argue with that!
Um....what???
"Without the stimulus there will be a disaster. "nothing but this stimulus can save America" Loosely quoted by ykw. What about the words on the money you want to burn? In God we TRUST. God is able, you are not, ykw.
What in the bejesus are you on about? I can't make heads nor tails of this crap.
Frankie is talking about a poll on NBC or MSNBC which asks about In God We Trust on money, yes or no. A new email about this is circulating but it is old news. Some athiest wants it off coins so the Ridiculous Right is trying to pin it on NBC.
A question for you FrankieBoy, you want to ask the 2 antichrists', why didn't you ask Cheney and Bush BEFORE they left the White House? Who is ykw.?
Frankie, you should D.A. Limbaughs' doctor or doctors or maid and get controlled.
P.S. Look outside your window or cave entrance. See the fifth tree on the right. That is not a tree.
Uh, yeah. I can't help but think of this classic joke:
At least it's fair and balanced
You think transcribing typos is easy?
Boy, I guess not. requires some dexterity.
didn't the republicans come up with this idea and give all the money to their friends first? now they're complaining......i gues friends are all that matter.and the jobs you get after you leave office
I note from the comments that many here really don't get what the problem really is with FOX behaving this way. This is nothing short of a High Crime against the US Constitution. Propaganda of this sort is explicitly and repeatedly denounced by the Founding Fathers, hence a number of rules against using tax dollars, by any government, to promote a covert agenda. It is seen to be the hallmark of a tyrannical, authoritarian government that must be opposed to democracy by it's very nature. This isn't a mere "getting the word out" problem, but rather an indication of how close we all came to a neo-fascist form of government.
Get mad. Really mad! And demand accountability....Or it will happen again next election cycle.
What really disgust me about these rats is that they hide behind their slogans like "fair and balanced" and "we report, you decide" when even their faithful viewers know that their not independent or objective. They form an integral arm of the Repugnican noise machine that stretches across media outlets passing lies and misinformation back and forth like a media dirty laundering network until lies and misinformation find their way into the MSM and crackpots and their ideas become legitimate. Glenn Beck????? Rush Limbaughs repeats a lie about a provision in the healthcare package being "socialist"(see this site on article)and soon Fox news is repeating the misinformation as fact and soon you'll have some posters here and callers to talk radio reciting the lie as if it was fact and acting on it. I found this on thinkprogress and examplifies what I'am saying : http://thinkprogress.org/2009/02/10/limbaugh-health-care/
Really, where's the surprise?
This is not new for FOX News. They receive news releases on a daily basis from the GOP and read off their talking points. They also read from other right-leaning newspapers as well. The public doesn't know what's written in these news releases, so therefore, FOX News gets away with it. Place the blame on the programming director, assignment editor, producers, etc. They are the ones who decides what goes on air. If you want to get access to these news releases, go to www.whitehouse.gov and click the links to the Senate, House, etc. Look under 'press' or 'media' to view news releases.