Fox's Angle did not disclose that "analyst" Holmstead is an energy lobbyist
SUMMARY: Jim Angle aired Jeffrey Holmstead's criticisms of possible Clean Air Act regulations of greenhouse gases without mentioning that Holmstead works as a lobbyist on behalf of energy companies.
In an April 17 segment on Fox News' Special Report about the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) finding that greenhouse gases can be regulated under the Clean Air Act, chief Washington correspondent Jim Angle aired Jeffrey Holmstead's assertions that the "permitting process under the Clean Air Act slows things down by at least two or three years" and that new regulation would give activist groups "the ability to bring lawsuits, to stop virtually any construction project that they disfavor for any reason." Angle did not mention, however, that Holmstead works as a lobbyist on behalf of energy companies.
As Media Matters for America has previously noted, Holmstead is a current employee of Bracewell & Giuliani, an energy lobbying firm. The Senate lobbying database (lobbyist name: Holmstead, Jeffrey) lists Holmstead as lobbying for more than half a dozen energy companies and organizations, including the Southern Co.
Moreover, a May 2, 2007, New York Times article reported that "[e]nvironmentalists say" Bracewell & Giuliani "has had considerable success in persuading the Bush administration to ease Clinton-era enforcement efforts against coal-fired plants and write policies favored by that sector over tougher alternatives." The article further reported:
Several years ago, the Bracewell firm played a significant role in an effort to block the E.P.A. from continuing a series of lawsuits filed against coal-fired electric power plants under the Clinton administration. The suits sought to enforce a rarely used provision of the Clean Air Act that required plants to install pollution controls when they altered their facilities.
Bracewell lawyers and other industry representatives argued that the E.P.A. under President Bill Clinton had retroactively redefined routine maintenance as modifications to bring the regulation into play.
Bracewell and some of its biggest clients, including the Southern Company, formed a new lobbying group, the Electric Reliability Coordinating Council, to fight for legislative and policy changes to kill the lawsuits. The council operates as an extension of Bracewell's Washington office and is staffed by its partners and professionals. It also contracted with Haley Barbour, the former Republican National Committee chairman, as a lobbyist. (Mr. Barbour is now governor of Mississippi.)
Angle referred to Holmstead only as an "analyst []," and accompanying on-screen text identified him only as the EPA's former assistant administrator for air quality:
From the April 17 edition of Fox News' Special Report with Bret Baier:
BAIER: The Environmental Protection Agency has concluded that carbon dioxide and five other gases pose a danger to health and can be regulated under the Clean Air Act. Beyond the bureaucratic language, this move could have sweeping effects on the U.S. economy. Chief Washington correspondent Jim Angle reports the administration and its allies made clear this is a shot across the bow for Congress in an effort to force action to regulate emissions.
[begin video clip]
ANGLE: The potential impact of today's finding by the EPA could hardly be more sweeping, because it could affect everything from airliners to lawnmowers and almost every corner of the U.S. economy.
WILLIAM KOVACS (U.S. Chamber of Commerce vice president for the Environment, Technology, and Regulatory Affairs Division): They would regulate every aspect of the economy, not just -- not just vehicles. They would be regulating buildings, farms, cows -- whatever would produce a greenhouse gas.
ANGLE: In fact, 1 million more buildings would be required to get EPA permits.
ROGER MARTELLA (former EPA general counsel): Big-box stores, shopping malls, in some case municipal buildings, things like schools and libraries. Larger buildings that use a lot of energy to heat all could be subject to Clean Air Act regulation.
ANGLE: Even tens of thousands of churches would be required to get a permit because of their air conditioning, and analysts say any kind of new construction such as hospitals or schools would take a lot longer.
HOLMSTEAD: That permitting process under the Clean Air Act slows things down by at least two or three years.
ANGLE: And legendary Democrat John Dingell of Michigan says this has the potential for shutting down or slowing down virtually all economic activity. It's early in the process. The EPA only announced a proposed finding that tailpipe emissions of carbon dioxide and other gases endanger human health. But once any regulation is issued, activist groups would have a basis for lawsuits against carbon dioxide from any source.
HOLMSTEAD: It would give them the ability to bring lawsuits, to stop virtually any construction project that they disfavor for any reason.
ANGLE: Rather than deny potential regulatory nightmares, the Obama administration and its allies are using them as leverage to scare Congress into passing legislation to regulate carbon emissions.
A statement from the White House said, "The president has made clear his strong preference that Congress act to pass comprehensive legislation rather than address the climate challenge through administrative action." And the EPA in announcing today's move said "both President Obama and administrator [Lisa] Jackson have repeatedly indicated their preference for comprehensive legislation to address this issue."
HOLMSTEAD: I've never seen a press release before from a regulatory agency that says, well, we're required to do this but we're only doing it because we really want Congress to act.
MARTELLA: It's been a very explicit strategy by the environmental groups. They're not shy to say that this is their biggest stick in getting Congress to do something.
ANGLE: And one of the president's allies on Capitol Hill calls it a game-changer.
EDWARD MARKEY (D-MA): It is now a choice between regulation and legislation. The EPA will have to act if Congress does not act.
[end video clip]
ANGLE: So officials are depicting the EPA move as a sword hanging over Congress as a threat to lawmakers who think climate change legislation is too expensive or may hurt their constituents too much. The administration and its allies are saying it could be worse -- Bret.
BAIER: This is one to watch.
ANGLE: Absolutely.
BAIER: Jim, thanks.
yadda yadda yadda...with the disclosure tantrum.
How about this...address the actual content of the claim:
-- the "permitting process under the Clean Air Act slows things down by at least two or three years" and that new regulation would give activist groups "the ability to bring lawsuits, to stop virtually any construction project that they disfavor for any reason."--
It matters little who he works for...his claim is either true or not...what say you mmfa?
The simple failure to disclose Holmstead's pertinent associations renders his opinions suspect. But this is how FOX News operates. FOX News is not a legitimate journalistic news source. FOX News is a right wing propaganda machine. FOX News' audience is too dumb and/or too ideologically entrenched to care whether FOX is peddling misinformation.
Ok, you're suspicious...care to address the validity of the statement made by Holmstead? That should clear things up.
I question the validity of the premise of stopping "any construction project" for "any reason."
I seriously doubt the Clean Air Act would give "activist groups" (some of which are lobbyists, there's some irony for you) the ability to stop a project simply because they think it's aesthetically ugly. A court would have to hear a convincing argument to stop a project, and any "activist group" is bound to have the deck seriously stacked against them when they're across the aisle from an army of the best lawyers that big coal and big oil can buy.
I don't think you refuted the claim made, that it will tied up in litigation for god knows how long, and the "activist" groups will be well funded by a battery of lawyers who hope the builders just give up. That's the tactic.
Why would lawyers fund activist groups? Aren't they in the business of getting paid by activist groups?
liberal activist groups always have a closet full of lawyers at their disposal. ACORN, ACLU, etc. they got plenty.
And it's the lawyers who do the funding?
funded as in lend their services, not the best work ok. point is activist groups have plenty of lawyers at their disposal who will litigate and tie it up in the courts.
word, not work
Well, I won't pretend to know how many lawyers there are willing to work pro bono litigating a case for years. I'm sure they exist, but what do you base "plenty" on?
enough to cripple
So in other words you argument is to follow baseless assertion with baseless assertion and not even TRY to make a reasoned argument.
Funny how he mentions ACLU - that's as far from an activist organization as you can find. Their only "client" is the consitution. And ACORN? Don't see them on the teevee very much "activating" for their cause.
People flailing like James grasp at FAMILIAR straws. Like a gibbon who doesnt let go of one branch till he has hold of another it is talking point to familiar talking point. Logic doesnt enter into it.
How horrible! REPUBLICANS never have lawyers! And everybody knows that getting more people to vote and defending the Constitution are horrible, LIBRUL ideas!
Oh NO, wesely made the claim is HIS to back up. Wes doesnt just get to make a claim then put the obligation of pete to prove him wrong.
-- A court would have to hear a convincing argument to stop a project -- pete
The very act of filing the suit and forcing the court to hear the arguments...silly or not...effectively stops or delays the project while the court deliberates.
Holmstead said it could delay projects by 2-3 years. I'm not that familiar with the actual act and whether Holmstead is correct...but mmfa has done nothing in this article to provide the information...just more yammering about the messenger.
The only way to know if Holmstead is correct is if his prediction plays out.
This is NOT a political site. It is a site about the MEDIA. Do YOU care to address, I dont know maybe, THE SUBJECT OF THE THREAD?
Holmstead is not a member of the media. It was a recorded statement by Holmstead, not an interview, so there's no opportunity to pounce on Fox for "allowing" Holmstead to spew it unquestioned.
"It matters little who he works for"
Does disclosure and conflict of interest ever matter to you?
Or is this just another iteration of the mantra that liberals need to be more apathetic toward the media?
Sure it does...it's all part of the process.
But the constant yammering by mmfa about discloure settles nothing. In the end it's whether the information or statement made is credible and accurate...not who said it.
well said. if mmfa wants to question the disclosure, fine. But unless they can demonstrate the misinformation in what the person whose affiliation was not disclosed said, then it's essentially meaningless, isn't it?
Conflicts of interest are not meaningless.
Holmstead is not a member of the media, so he is not subject to MMFA's scope, only the media source that presents him in a misinforming manner is. If the media does not inform the viewer of Holmstead's conflict of interest, then the viewer is misinformed as to who he really is and what he repsesents.
-- it's essentially meaningless, isn't it? -- james
Pretty much...just partisan bickering...long on inuendo and short on facts.
So are you saying it ISNT a fact that Angle was on the show? Are you saying it ISNT a fact he is an energy analyst or that this fact was NOT disclosed? Those are the only facts that matter for this issue.
he already said, why not address the meat of what is being discussed or disclosed, otherwise what is the point of all this disclosure handwringing? point is here mmfa just doesn't like what Holmstead is saying, so instead of some backup to what they don't like, they attack the messenger with pure partisanship and sidestep the issue at hand. neat and tidy, but lazy and meaningless.
Because the 'meat' of what is being said, the commentator's prediction, is totally irrelevant. MMfA is a critic of the media when they don't do their job properly.
How is it possible that you don't know this, James?
Luv,
Right.. when one cannot argue the facts, attack the messenger.
A tired and true MMFA tactic.
Oh my GOD please tell me you dont think that made sense. She DID EXACTLY argue the facts. MMFA DID EXACTLY present the FACTS. You guys can whine the rest of your lives that MMFA didnt address your CHANGE OF SUBJECT but you dont really expect us to take it seriously do you?
she dismissed the facts in favor of bashing Fox. Next time an issue like torture or taxes come up I fully expect the liberals here to say those issues are also "irrelevant" and to stick to the media outlet exclusively for discussion. ya right.
No she didnt. She made EXACTLY the right point. YOU want to change the subject to why didnt MMFA do the impossible and refute a prediction. No one can do that unless they are predicting something contrary to the laws of physics. Since what you are asking is CLEARLY impossible the ONLY relevant issue is why is Fox so totally without journalistic ethics. Besides she was refuting the criticism YOU TWO are making of MMFA which is TOTALLY without merit.
What are THE FACTS??? Holmstead speculated and made predictions while Fox did not disclose who he really was, those are they only relevant facts I see. Then Wesley put MMFA on trial for not debunking speculation and predictions, and like clockwork, the WITH Patrol jumped on board and started martyring Holmstead.
This is not a political site. This is a site about media. You can continue to complain that MMFA doesnt do things the way YOU want them too but its a boring and worthless argument. The SUBJECT HERE is FOX being bereft of journalistic ethics not what YOU think, THEY think about Angle and his prediction. YOU are the one that is lazy. You dont want to defend Fox you want to change the subject. They arent sidestepping the issue because the issue IS FOX and how they didnt disclose a clear conflict of interest WHICH IS WHAT THEY SAID. Neat trick YOU changing the subject then complaining that MMFA didnt address YOUR CHANGE OF SUBJECT.
Of course Angle was on the show...it's his show. And you're correct...he's not an energy analyst.
Yeah I dont know why I kept writing Angle instead of Holmstead. I must need more coffee.
Holmstead: long on prediction, short on facts.
The point is that he's offering a prediction of future events, not a statement of fact. There is no way to verify the statement's accuracy. Since it is being presented as an "expert" opinion, knowing that he's being paid by companies with a dog in the fight makes a difference.
For example, if an "expert" predicts that legalizing prostitution will cut down on crime, would it not be relevant to know if he owned a house of prostitution?
YOUR constant yammering that MMFA should STOP doing what they do accomplishes nothing. Is it your contention that they should ONLY point out the FIRST violation of journalistic ethics then give all the rest of them a pass?
Nope
Then you had no point at all.
so far Wes, alot of blustering but nobody answered your question about the validity of the claim made. typical, attack the messenger, ignore and deflect from the message.
Stated simply...FOX News is so lacking in credibility that I do not believe anything that emanates from them unless corroborated by a legitimate news source. FOX News is a right wing propaganda machine ...24/7. Got any reliable sources to back up Holmstead's assertions?
so mmfa just has to put something up here they don't agree with, or by someone they don't like or whose affiliation is not disclosed and that's it. It's up to the posters to find another source to back up the claim that mmfa did not refute in the first place? that is absurd.
LOL...that hits the old nail right on the head.
If by that you meant flailed around hopelessly and made no sense then I agree.
Actually, it's your argument that was nailed, Wesley. This site is about media misinformation, and the misinformation emminating from FoxNews this time was that they didn't disclose that a commentator might have a partisan interest in the subject.
That has to be disclosed by any fair and balanced news network. The claim he made is irrelevant. You're just trying to change the subject to discuss something else. Taking over James/Tommy's role?
It isnt their JOB to refute what was in essense a PREDICTION by Angle. In fact that is ludicrous. It is their job to show the lack of journalistic ethics by FOX which they did quite well.
What claim? Holmstead made a prediction.
so mmfa is in the business of slamming predictions and those who air them if they don't agree with the prediction, with no backup except their own disagreement? ok
I don't know what part of the MMFA item you're referring to. The only thing I see is MMFA taking an issue with a failure to disclose something. I don't see them disagreeing with a prediction, I missed that part. Can you point it out?
come on, do you think they would be all upset over the lack of disclosure if what is being disclosed they agreed with? you are not naive.
The prediction by definition CANNOT BE REFUTED so the lack of journalistic ethics IS the story here. This is pretty simple.
Yes, I think they would be upset over the lack of disclosure. I know I am regardless of what the commentator is saying.
My guess is that they wouldn't be upset because, If I'm following you correctly, your hypothetical would constitute "liberal" or "progressive" misinformation, which is outside of MMFA's stated scope.
so mmfa is completely uninterested and nonpartisan when it comes to the misinformation they include in their threads? coulda fooled me.
Uh, no. In fact, I said quite the opposite. They don't analyze or report "liberal" or "progressive" misinformation. You have to go elsewhere for that.
that's like saying you don't analyze or report "high fat content" or "low fat content" in foods, yet you only criticize McDonalds and Burger King.
No it isnt its like saying you dont critisize LOW fat content ONLY high fat content whatever it is in. MMFA criticizes a lot of otherwise good journalists when they disseminate conservatives misinformation
Have fun making up whatever analogy you want.
If it's B.S. and it forwards the conservative agenda, you'll find it here.
If it's B.S. and it forwards the liberal or progressive agenda, you won't find it here.
It's in the mission statement and they don't mince words.
I've sang in unison with the WITH Patrol a few times myself.
-- they don't mince words -- pete
Nor did you...and aptly phrased.
-- you are not naive -- james
Of course, most of the mmfa legions are not naive...in fact pete usually provides a pretty honest disagreement when he has one.
But they are not naive. They support the partisan efforts of mmfa and when the issue being discussed becomes untenable...they can be counted on to fall back to the old founding document of mmfa...called the mission statement.
The information that is being presented in any news story is more important than the disclosure about the author..that is, whether the facts are correct or not.
Sure disclosure has some importance...but the only way to satisfy mmfa would be to enclose or read an entire wiki edition every time someone was introduced...if they're conservative.
This contention by mmfa is pretty lightweight and transparent...no they're not naive.
bingorama! and how many threads are put up here with an issue and a media person and the issue itself is argued forcefully by all who comment. yet we get scolded on this thread for not sticking to only criticizing the media outlet involved and ignore the actual issue itself, which as we have been told is "irrelevant". it's baloney. when the issue has not even been elementarily refuted by mmfa and the liberals know that, then they say "it's not about the issue, it's about blah blah". sometimes they really think we are that stupid.
Vern Gosdin says it best..."That just about does it...don't it".
any minute now we will be cut down to size and told to get a room. more than one con per thread throws the quota police for a loop.
Not by me. I love it when you double up on the free clown show.
...but the only way to satisfy mmfa would be...
I can't speak for MMFA but the only way to satisfy me would be if FOX News ran a disclaimer before, during and after each broadcast, saying that the information presented is inherently unreliable. FOX News is nothing more than a 24/7 right wing propaganda machine...and IMO they should be treated as such.
Do you want the same disclaimer on the left? What about MSNBC? CNN? NBC? NYT?
Wouldnt be appropriate NOR truthful. THEY are not lefty propagandists the way FOX is a rightwing propaganda outfit it is ludicrous to claim they are.
more baloney from you. If you're going to compare commentator for commentator, for every Hannity and OReilly and Beck on Fox, there is an Olbermann and Maddow and Schultz on MSNBC. don't kid yourself, they are not much better.
No it isnt baloney because YOU are brainwashed. Name the liberal with a show on FOX. He doesnt exist. MSNBC has Scarborough. Mathews is not a liberal. CNN has NO liberals so neither are like Fox is that simple.
Fox is the bottom of the barrel, I have never denied that. but MSNBC is within reaching distance of Fox, so as I said, they are not much better. so you can celebrate their one rung above Fox if you'd like, it's not much to crow about.
MSNBC does not engage in systematic lying and distortion. FOX News does...24/7. Watching FOX is like watching an endless series of very bad campaign commercials of the rankest dishonesty.
I dont think ANY of them are much to crow about. I get NO NEWS from TV. I read. Mostly magazines and books. I used to read newspapers but here in Arizona it is pointless
i will not disagree with any of that. Even newspapers are becoming obsolete to me anymore.
We dont CARE what you think is more imporatant. MMFA is a media site this is THEIR site. THEY pick the subject. YOU yammering that THEY dont do things the way YOU want them to is worthless. It isnt up to you. Their thing is media. IF you want the political side there are many sites out there that DO that. This isnt one of them. What part of this is hard for you to understand? What is clear is that YOU are a lightweight
Failure to disclose this kind of conflict is a BASIC deriliction of journalistic ethics. This is journalism 101
The "claim" is pure speculation and opinion. As such it only has validity if Holmstead can provide credible proof to back it up.
Disclosure of his affiliations would indicate that he has a bias. If ALL of his proof came from one source (his employer), then it would be suspect.
It's worth noting something special about this issue, which as an issue can be defined as being about ethics in Government, specifically about the industry ties that Congresspersons and administration officials have, and of how those ties become extraordinarily lucrative lobbying jobs when those Congresspersons and administration officials leave Government (ethics in Government)... and of course this extends to when these lobbyists appear on the Public Airwaves, disguised as "analysts".
The special thing to note on this issue, is how near universal the American People feel about it:
They're angry about the influence of money in their Federal Government, and they want to curtail if not outright stop this flow of money, flowing from lobbyists to their Congresspersons and to administration officials, and we want to stop the influence being bought with that money!
It's a near universal political opinion of the American People (one of the few and only universal opinions they hold), it stretches across the political spectrum including Republicans and Democrats both (People I mean, not politicians), it crosses all geographic lines (the American People feel the same way about it in Alaska as in Florida, in Texas as in Maine, in the cities and the suburbs and the country, it's universal), it crosses all age groups young and old, and both genders men and women, it doesn't matter if the American Person is Hispanic or African-American or Asian or as white as Wonderbread, they all feel the same way about ethics in Government, and about the influence of money on our Congresspersons and administration officials.
So if we are of a near universal political opinion in this matter, then how come our Democracy is still plagued by this problem, this problem of the influence of lobbyists and the money they use, to influence the making and administering of our Laws?
Because when I said it was a near universal political opinion of the American People, I used the word "near" for a reason: as the only ones not in agreement with the American People on this matter, are the very Congresspersons and administration officials who take this money, and also the lobbyists who they take it from...
And they make the Laws, don't they?
It's called ethics in Government, it's called also Rules in our Congress, but it's otherwise the Law... it's the Law, and it's about the money that is spent to influence the Law... and we feel almost universally the same way about it... almost.
Dem,
Do you feel the system is corrupt. I do.
People can be corrupt, not systems (whatever systems is supposed to mean).
The Law can be corrupt, but only because it can be written by corrupted people.
And there's nothing inherently wrong with money, but only with the things people might do for money.
And lastly, there is no such thing in the 1st Amendment to our Constitution, that makes for any right for anyone to give money to Congresspersons or to administration officials: the right to petition the government for a redress of grievances (to lobby), has nothing whatsoever to do with money... no part of that Amendment has any word meaning money in it, and none of the words that are in that Amendment, can ever be twisted to imply or include the concept of laying money on Congresspersons and administration officials in order to influence the writing or administering of U.S. Law.
I have looked all over MMFA about the Finestein Story, just seem unable to find it!! I would thing that this would be Media that Matters.
First of all, if you're looking for news, I suggest going to a news website. Secondly, the Washington Times story on the revelations surrounding Feinstein only broke today.
If you're looking to see if MMFA has found anything wrong with the article, I think you're still a bit ahead of gun.
We also have yet to see how the right-wing professional liars are going to run with it tonight. So I'm thinking the soonest you'll see anything from MMFA about it would be this evening or tomorrow.
if mmfa decides if can't refute the charges against Feinstein, then the best they can hope for is if Fox has an "analyst" on their network who has some disclosure issue from their past on government contracts or something barely related. then when anyone jumps into to discuss Feinstein, they will be slapped for veering off topic.
It depends on what you mean by "charges".
If you're talking about official ethics charges, I doubt you'll see MMFA trying the case on their website, since prosecutors are not members of the media.
If you're talking about charges that come straight from the posterior database of a right-wing professional liar, MMFA may have something to say about it.
The rest of your post is just your usual petulant martyring of yourself and your cohorts as oppressed truth tellers.
I am not oppressed by any means, I am free to post the truth here anytime.
and I do.
Your first post is unreservedly true. Your second, I give you a C. Sometimes yes sometimes no.
If you're not oppressed then don't act like you're being oppressed.
"any minute now we will be cut down to size and told to get a room. more than one con per thread throws the quota police for a loop."
"they will be slapped for veering off topic."
those were jokes my friend, I figured that would be easy enough to figure.
Oh you were joking. Well, in that case, so was I.
I have looked all over MMFA about the Finestein Story, just seem unable to find it!! I would thing that this would be Media that Matters.
Tips
Send news tips about conservative misinformation to Media Matters here:
send all tips on liberal missteps to deaf-ears.com
You need to get out more.
Or MRC or AIM of one of the sites where THAT is their mission. You really are the victime here arent you? WWWWAAAHHHHHHHHH