From the June 2 edition of Fox News' Special Report with Bret Baier:
Loading the player ...
While the Senate Finance Committee hosted executives from five major oil companies to evaluate the necessity of certain tax breaks enjoyed by their industry, Fox took to defending the profits of these companies using a misleading comparison between industry profits and taxes placed on the gas that is sold to American consumers.
It began with the usual suspects, Fox Business' Stuart Varney and Andrew Napolitano. On his Fox Business show, Varney marveled at a statistic Napolitano cited which suggests that while oil companies only make 7 cents for every gallon of gas sold, the government collects a full 88 cents per gallon. Needless to say, Varney and Napolitano lamented the injustice of oil executives having to defend their comparatively meager profits while the government gets away with this egregious "gouging":
Napolitano claims that he's getting these statistics from a recent document published by the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office. However a search of the publications issued by the CBO in the past month shows no such calculation. Who did recently push these numbers? Why, none other than ExxonMobil.
Fox News correspondent Doug McKelway falsely suggested that increased offshore drilling would prevent high gas prices. In fact, even the Bush administration Energy Department said that expanded offshore drilling would not substantially affect oil prices any time soon.
Doug McKelway, the reporter who unknowingly aced a job interview with Roger Ailes when he was fired from WJLA last year for lying about President Obama, was on Fox News' America Live this afternoon reporting on the White House's reversal of course on Medicare reimbursements for doctors providing voluntary annual end-of-life counseling -- the non-controversial policy that was mutated by the right into "death panels."
And demonstrating that he's clearly a better fit at Fox News than at a real news outfit, McKelway kicked off his report as follows: "Do death panels live or do they die? That is the question. It appears that they have died once and for all."
Nope. They haven't died. Because they never lived. Because they don't exist, and never have.
But he wasn't done there. McKelway pointed to the New York Times report I linked to above and singled out a quote from an anonymous administration official saying that the rule change "should not affect beneficiaries' ability to have these voluntary conversations with their doctors." I don't even know how to describe McKelway's interpretation of that comment:
MCKELWAY: But still, and this is the interesting thing about this, the White House has left a little bit of wiggle room in all this. Listen to what an unnamed White House official told the New York Times today. Quoting now: "This should not affect beneficiaries' ability to have these voluntary conversations with their doctors." Now in other words -- and I'm curious, Megyn, what you might think of this as a lawyer -- what it means, as best we can understand, that patients can discuss anything they want to with their doctor, it's just that it's not going to appear in print at any time, and the White House is basically absolving itself of any responsibility of any connection to anything written in literature in the Federal Register to that effect.
I'm completely flabbergasted as to what he's yammering about here. The White House says that Medicare beneficiaries will still be able to meet with their doctors for voluntary end-of-life counseling, and McKelway thinks this means that the White House is trying to "absolve[e] itself of any responsibility"? For what? Is he saying that the White House had a nefarious plan to encourage elderly Americans to meet with doctors and now they're trying to disavow it? Or enact it secretly? Does he think that the law provided for these voluntary conversations? Does he have any idea what the hell he's talking about?
My guess would be no. He's completely clueless and a complete joke of a journalist. But since he's repeating right-wing talking points and ignorantly blathering about the Obama White House, Fox News will probably promote him.
Watch McKelway's segment below the jump to get a sense of just how hopelessly lost this hack is.
Yesterday, I pointed out that Fox News has hired Doug McKelway for its D.C. bureau. McKelway drew praise from conservatives over the summer after lying about President Obama during a WJLA segment, getting into a huge fight with his boss over the segment, and then getting suspended and eventually fired. I asked whether in hiring McKelway, Fox News was unaware of his famous falsehood, or if it was just part of bureau chief Bill Sammon's efforts to "slant news."
Today, the Washington Post notes that McKelway's hiring is just the latest example of the Fox picking up media figures who were previously fired for controversial comments:
[McKelway's] hiring followed by just a few weeks Fox's decision to sign Lou Dobbs, the controversial former CNN host, to star on the Fox Business Network, and to award a new, nearly $2 million contract to commentator Juan Williams just hours after Williams was fired by NPR for statements he made while appearing on Fox.
Fox also decided late last year to simulcast Don Imus's radio program five days a week on Fox Business. The program is the successor to Imus's last radio program and TV simulcast deal with MSNBC, which Imus lost after making his "nappy-headed 'hos" crack about the Rutgers women's basketball team in 2007.
There's a thread running through all these personnel decisions: McKelway, Dobbs, Williams and Imus all were controversial media figures. In each case, they ran afoul primarily of liberals who objected to something (and in some cases, a lot of things) they said. Dobbs, for example, was a liberal bete noir for his nightly criticism of federal immigration policy and illegal immigrants on his CNN show; he also kept alive questions about President Obama's birth certificate long after the issue had been discredited.
By hiring each one at or near the peak of their notoriety, Fox chief Roger Ailes "is being opportunistic," says Andrew Tyndall, who writes a newsletter, the Tyndall Report, covering television news. "It's a way to play the culture wars."
Tyndall jokes that the hiring policy may be turning Fox into "the safety-net network. If you say something outrageous, there's still a paycheck waiting for you."
Tyndall's right - given Fox's decision not to even comment on host Andrew Napolitano's trutherism, it's clear that there is no statement that can get a conservative fired from Fox.