Fox News took the Interior Secretary's remarks on the urgency of climate change out of context to claim that the Obama administration is engaged in a "witch hunt" to purge climate deniers from the agency.
Fox & Friends hosted contributor Michelle Malkin Tuesday to suggest that Interior Secretary Sally Jewell is planning on conducting a "witch hunt" because she said she "hope[s] there are no climate change deniers in the Department of the Interior." Malkin added that Jewell was "talking like a cult leader" and insinuated that the administration is full of "eco-zombies."
But extended video from the meeting undermines this attack. Jewell was not trying to intimidate anyone; rather, she was emphasizing the signs of climate change already evident on our public lands, and encouraging the department to heed those signs and address the broader issue through renewable energy leasing and other measures.
Here's what Jewell actually said and how Fox News clipped the video to make it seem like she was announcing a "witch hunt":
JEWELL: I hope there are no climate change deniers in the Department of the Interior. If you don't believe in it, come out into the resources, go on to some [federal] land, go to Alaska where the permafrost is melting, go into the Sierra, which used to retain a lot more water in its frozen form that's now running off the hillsides quicker, and we don't have the storage capacity to be able to serve the downstream users like the demand requires. We have far-reaching impacts in every part of the department, but we are in a unique position to actually be able to do something about it. How exciting is that?
From the August 13 edition of Fox News' Fox & Friends:
Loading the player reg...
From the August 13 edition of Fox News' Fox & Friends:
Loading the player reg...
From the August 12 edition of Fox News' Fox & Friends:
Loading the player reg...
From the August 10 edition of Fox News' Cashin' In:
Loading the player reg...
Fox News' Eric Bolling hosted Hotair.com's editor-at-large Mary Katharine Ham to push school choice and attack public schools, but failed to mention that school choice does little to address educational disparities and may actually disadvantage low income students.
On the August 8 edition of Fox News' Your World with Neil Cavuto, guest host Eric Bolling criticized Matt Damon's decision to send his children to private schools despite advocating for the public school system. Ham used the story - which has received much right wing media hype - to push school choice as an alternative to investing in public schools:
HAM: I would love everybody to have that choice instead of spending all this money on schools that don't work.
BOLLING: Sure, and it really isn't that complicated. There's the charter school program, there's the voucher programs that are available, but they don't seem to want to do that. Why don't--what's the push back on those?
HAM: Well, the argument from the left, and from union leaders and frankly folks like Matt Damon is we need to invest more in public schools, it's always about more money and less accountability, is frankly what it feels like, and they're often very explicit about that. The fact is, holding schools accountable is part of making them work, and sometimes in order to do that you have to give kids a ticket elsewhere so that schools realize, hmm, maybe I should be serving this kid. And if that happens through charter schools, fine, that's a form of public schools that can be held accountable. But I do find it very interesting when the left tells the rest of us we have to invest in public schools and then they take their, perhaps their most rich investment, their own children, and they put them in private schools.
Fox News host Eric Bolling and Daily Caller senior editor Jamie Weinstein continued Fox's attempt to breathe life back into its manufactured Benghazi scandals by suggesting that issues debunked long ago were still open questions.
Fox News personalities, Eric Bolling and Marc Siegel made false claims about the Individual Payment Advisory Board (IPAB) included in the Affordable Care Act in an attempt to revive the "death panel" lie. This claim has been repeatedly debunked and has no basis in the law itself.
Bolling's claim that "the whole point of [IPAB] is to decide what medical treatment I'm going to be able to get" and Siegel's conclusion that IPAB is "a death panel - it's a rationing board," has been a proven falsehood dating back to 2011.
In June 2011, Georgia Representative Phil Gingrey claimed that the IPAB board could "decide whether you get care, such as continuing on dialysis or cancer chemotherapy." Gingrey concluded, "it's rationing."
PolitiFact addressed this claim in August of that year:
Gingrey is "not even close to correct," said Michael Tanner, a scholar with the libertarian Cato Institute. He opposes the IPAB.
"It [IPAB] has nothing to do with individual care at all. It's not making decisions on individuals," Tanner said.
Experts agree that the IPAB has no say in whether a specific person receives dialysis, chemotherapy or any other such treatment. The board does not intercede in individual patient cases. It makes broad policy decisions that affect Medicare's overall cost.
Furthermore, the IPAB is barred from making policy recommendations that would block patients from receiving needed care, experts told PolitiFact Georgia.
"The legislation explicitly forbids the board from rationing care," said Stuart Guterman, a health policy expert with the Commonwealth Fund, a nonpartisan group which works to improve health care access, quality and efficiency. Guterman said he thinks the IPAB can help with health care savings.
Finally, the law itself makes it clear that IPAB is forbidden from making "any recommendation to ration health care ... or otherwise restrict benefits."
After dedicating his opening segment to attacking the alleged dependency culture of younger generations, Fox News' Eric Bolling waded into an error-filled tirade against food assistance.
On the August 8 edition of Fox News' Your World, Bolling, who was filling in for host Neil Cavuto, was joined for a panel discussion of "food stamps" (officially known as the Supplement Nutrition Assistance Program, or SNAP). Fox contributors Jedediah Bila and Julie Roginsky debated the merits of the food assistance program, with Bila often making wildly inaccurate claims in her attempt to smear recipients and chastise alleged waste.
Bolling and Bila parroted numerous demonstrably false claims over the course of just a few minutes. First, Bolling falsely claimed that the budget for food assistance is $80-100 billion. In fact, the SNAP budget for fiscal year 2012 was $74.6 billion.
The cost of the program has increased significantly since the onset of a catastrophic recession in December 2007, but official data from the Department of Agriculture's Food and Nutrition Service reveal that the growth is due to increased participation driven by economic factors. From the Department of Agriculture:
SNAP participants declined steadily through 2000 but began to rise in 2001 and increased each year through 2011, except for a slight dip in 2007. The increase was substantial from fiscal year 2010 to fiscal year 2011. Average monthly participation increased from 17.2 million individuals in fiscal year 2000 to 40.3 million in fiscal year 2010, and to 44.7 million in fiscal year 2011. Fluctuations in the number of SNAP participants in the last 16 years have broadly tracked major economic indicators
When challenged to do as others have and take the SNAP Challenge for a week, Bolling deflected the subject. Previously, Fox News' Andrea Tantaros referred to the prospect of living on just over $130 each month as a diet plan.
It is not out of the ordinary for right-wing media figures to bemoan the growth of SNAP registers as some form of vote buying, dependency culture, or expansionist nanny state. Food assistance is a common and easy target for the right-wing media, which need not provide evidence to support baseless claims. Bolling in particular is not shy about attacking those in dire need of adequate nutrition.
However, the Fox host leapt into "trutherism" territory during the following exchange:
BILA: We wasted $2.2 billion just in waste, in fraud
ROGINSKY: According to their auditor, 1 percent fraud.
BOLLING: One percent? Julie, you and I go way back, we're very good friends, right? Where in the world is there 1 percent waste and fraud?
When challenged to provide a statistic to back up his claim that food stamps are wrought with corruption and waste, with recipients using assistance to buy alcohol and drugs, Bolling contended the following:
BOLLING: I'm going to have to push back on your "one percent".... I'll throw something out there. I'll bet you it's closer to 50 percent than 1 percent.
According to the Department of Agriculture's Food and Nutrition Service, the fraud and waste rate is roughly 1 percent. Bolling's claim is not just wrong, it is wrong by a factor of 50, or nearly 5,000 percent.
From the August 7 edition of Fox News' The Five:
Loading the player reg...
Earlier this summer, the Supreme Court struck down a key provision of the Voting Rights Act that helped force states and localities with a history of discrimination to have the Justice Department preclear proposed changes to voting regulations. Representative John Lewis (D-GA), a civil rights icon, described the decision as "a dagger in the heart of the Voting Rights Act of 1965."
Today marks the 48th anniversary of President Lyndon Johnson signing that act into law.
Conservatives are apt to defend gutting the law by arguing that our country has made significant strides in racial equality over the past 48 years. That being the case, one would hope that segregationists' arguments against the Voting Rights Act of 1965 would have been relegated to the dust bin of history, rather than in use by conservatives today to defend discriminatory policies.
Unfortunately, much of the rhetoric used to attack the law and defend the Supreme Court's decision remains rooted in the segregationist defenses of Jim Crow. Regardless of the motives, the use of similar rhetoric shows a lack of historic perspective.
Keith Finley, a professor of history at Southern Louisiana University and author of Delaying the Dream: Southern Senators and the Fight Against Civil Right, has detailed many of the arguments made by Senators from the old South as they fought the Voting Rights Act of 1965 on the floor of the chamber.
One such tactic was to accuse civil rights activists of aggravating racial tensions. According to Finley, Virginia Senator Henry Byrd, an opponent of the 1965 Voting Rights Act, claimed Lyndon Johnson would only increase racial tensions by "inflaming so-called civil rights issues" if he pursued the legislation.
Forty-eight years later, that defense remains a go-to of civil rights antagonists.
Two weeks ago, Fox host Bill O'Reilly told his the audience that civil rights leaders want "to divide the country along racial lines because that's good for business." While O'Reilly was specifically referring to reaction to the George Zimmerman verdict among civil rights leaders, similar sentiment has been expressed throughout the right in defense of the court's decision to gut the Voting Rights Act.
When Attorney General Eric Holder announced that the Justice Department would use available tools to continue enforcing the Voting Rights Act, Fox's Eric Bolling accused the nation's first black attorney general of "thumbing his nose at the Supreme Court so he can widen the race divide in America." Nina Easton, a Fortune columnist, said on Fox's Special Report that Holder's move was part of an "ongoing electoral strategy by this administration to gin up the black and Latino vote."
The fight to defeat the Voting Rights Act in 1965 also hinged on pivoting away from the central issue of voting rights to the canard of defending the process. According to Finley, Louisiana Senator Allen Ellender claimed race had nothing to do with his opposition to the Voting Rights Act. Instead, Ellender argued that he was simply maintaining the integrity of the electoral process: "the task of making it clear that one is not against voting rights, but only in favor of maintaining voting qualifications, is not always an easy one."
The same tactic is alive and well nearly five decades later and is made frequently by those advocating for strict voter ID laws, which experts say will disenfranchise minority voters.
When Mother Jones' David Corn published the internal deliberations of Groundswell, a right-wing listserve, one of the debates he highlighted centered on the issue of voter ID laws:
A high-priority cause for Groundswellers is voter identification efforts--what progressives would call voter suppression--and when Groundswellers developed a thread on their Google group page exploring the best way to pitch the right's voter identification endeavors as a major voting rights case was pending in the Supreme Court, the coalition's friendly journalists joined right in. Dan Bongino, the ex-Secret Service agent and 2012 Senate candidate, kicked off the discussion: "We need to reframe this. This narrative of the Left has already taken hold in MD. The words 'Voter ID' are already lost & equated with racism. Maybe a 'free and fair elections initiative' with a heavy emphasis on avoiding ANY voter disenfranchisement combined with an identification requirement which includes a broader range of documents."
In response, Tapscott suggested, "How about 'Election Integrity'?" And Gaffney weighed in: "I like it." Fitton noted that Judicial Watch had an "Election Integrity Project." Boyle proposed, "Fair and equal elections," explaining, "Terms 'fair' and 'equal' connect with most people. It's why the left uses them." Then came True the Vote's Anita MonCrief: "We do a lot under the Election Integrity Banner. Does not resonate with the people. Voter Rights may be better. We really have been trying to get the messaging right."
Hans von Spakovsky, a fellow at the Heritage Foundation and leader in the conservative movement's war on voting, wrote in USA Today that voter ID laws were "to ensure the integrity of our election process."
Rush Limbaugh told his audience that Democrats only oppose voter ID laws "because that would have a very negative impact on cheating."
Finley points to Herman Talmadge, a Senator from Georgia, who claimed the 1965 Voting Right Act was unnecessary because the "[right to vote] is probably the most protected right we have." Echoes of Talmadge could be heard in the aftermath of the Supreme Court's decision this summer. The Wall Street Journal argued the Voting Right Act was "no longer necessary" due to "American racial progress."
Speaking about the Supreme Court's decision on Fox, network contributor Andrew Napolitano cheered the court's ruling, claiming the section stuck down "worked so well" that "the procedure is not necessary anymore."
Von Spakovsky claimed in 2011 there was "a complete lack of evidence that the type of systematic discrimination that led to [the 1965 Voting Rights Act's] initial passage still exists."
This 48th anniversary of the Voting Rights Act provides conservative media figures an opportunity to revisit the historical context of the language they use to confront issues of races, and begin to engage in a real conversation.
Former Fox News host Glenn Beck once declared "Do I believe scientists? No. They've lied to us about global warming." But the study, by the Yale Project on Climate Communication, concludes that it's actually the other way around: conservative media consumers don't believe in scientists, therefore they don't believe in global warming.
The study suggests that watching and listening to outlets like Fox News and The Rush Limbaugh Show may be one reason that only 19 percent of Republicans agree that human activity is causing global warming, despite the consensus of 97 percent of climate scientists. The Yale researchers depicted five tactics used by conservative media to erode trust in scientists, which Media Matters illustrates with examples.
Conservative media typically turn to a roster of professional climate change contrarians and portray them as "experts" on the issue. What they don't mention is that most of these climate "experts" don't have a background in climate science and are often on the bankroll of the fossil fuel industry.
A Media Matters study detailed how certain climate contrarians have been given a large platform by the media, particularly Fox News.
For instance, Fox News cut away from President Barack Obama's recent climate change speech to host Chris Horner of the industry-funded Competitive Enterprise Institute -- giving approximately equal time to Horner and the president.
Of all social programs, in recent weeks nothing seems to rile up conservative media figures more than government programs designed to alleviate hunger.
This is a marked change from a time when former Republican Sen. Bob Dole (KS) was instrumental in the effort to "reform the Food Stamp Program (now known as SNAP), expand the domestic school lunch program, and establish the Special Supplemental Food Program for Women, Infants, and Children."
Fox News' Stuart Varney, who previously claimed all the poor lacked was a "richness of spirit," toyed with the notion of letting the children of poor immigrants starve. Varney this week claimed that the AARP's helping seniors get food benefits was tantamount to a "buy the vote campaign."
On Fox News, Brian Kilmeade attempted to cast aspersions on the White House by claiming two Americans "were added to food stamp programs for every job the Obama administration created." This numbers game was echoed by The Washington Times and Breitbart.com in an obviously attempt to stigmatize the program.
All three ignored the fact that 45 percent of benefit recipients are under 18 years old, nine percent are over the age of 60, and 30 percent have jobs that simply don't pay enough to afford to eat. (Of course Fox News also demonizes workers' attempts to earn a living wage.)
On Saturday night Buzzfeed's Andrew Kaczynski posted a FoxNews.com segment in which Reza Aslan, a noted religious scholar, was interviewed by Spirited Debate host Lauren Green, a Fox News religion correspondent.
Kaczynski asked "Is this the most embarrassing interview Fox News has ever done?" due to the host's inability to accept that Aslan, who is Muslim, would have any legitimate interest in a scholarly work about Jesus.
While the segment itself was jarring, particularly when Green falsely accused Reza Aslan of hiding his Muslim faith -- a ridiculous charge implying devotion to Islam is something that must be hidden -- and furthermore as the author points out, he noted it on the second page of his book and in countless interviews.
It should surprise no one that Islamophobia has a home on Fox. From the top on down, the network's attitude could be at best described as hostile to Muslims. In Zev Chafet's hagiography of Ailes, published earlier this year, he quotes Fox News' boss explicitly stating his hostility to Muslims (emphasis added):
He donates upward of 10 percent of his net income to charities, many of them religious, including an annual fifty grand to the Jewish Community Relations Council of New York and another fifty grand to Catholic charities." He told me he'd be glad to give to Muslim charities, too, "if they disarm.
A Rolling Stone profile of Ailes quoted a source close to the Fox boss who claimed he "has a personal paranoia about people who are Muslim - which is consistent with the ideology of his network."
These beliefs have been reflected by a number of the network's on-air personalities.
From the July 25 edition of Fox News' The Five:
Loading the player reg...