Fortune managing editor Andy Serwer falsely claimed that Democratic Senate candidate Richard Blumenthal "lied about Harvard" by claiming "he was captain of the swim team." In fact, there is no evidence that Blumenthal said he had been captain, and a former Harvard team captain has statedthat Blumenthal was on the team.
UPDATE: Media Matters based this post, in part, on information available on the websites of Stevens and Schriefer Group. SSG has since updated a page on its website labeled "Current and Previous Clients" and removed Business Roundtable from the list. A May 26 Daily Caller item reported that according to a "source close to the family," Russell Schriefer "worked with the Business Roundtable--once, during the 90s." However, in April 2009, SSG combined with Rational PR to launch Rational 360, a "strategic communications" firm. Russ Schriefer is listed as a Rational 360 partner. The "Clients" page of Rational 360's site says, "Some of Rational 360's clients include," and lists "Business Round Table."
Following protests outside the home of a Bank of America executive, Fortune's Washington Bureau Chief Nina Easton wrote a scathing column attacking the protesters and SEIU. Easton and her family live across the street from the B of A executive in Chevy Chase.
Easton is also a Fox News contributor, so the network brought her on today and gave her own segment to attack the protesters. After all, Easton was there, so she could give a first person account of the protests.
All the more reason, then, that Easton should have disclosed -- in her column and on Fox News -- that her husband has ties to Bank of America.
Many media figures have dubbed President Obama's health care reform proposal "ObamaCare," reinventing the terms "HillaryCare" and "ClintonCare" that were used by opponents of the Clintons' reform proposal. In doing so, these media are often seeking to frame the debate in negative terms.
Fortune magazine Washington editor Nina Easton asserted: "The union-backed Employee Free Choice Act eliminates secret ballots, and declares the union the winner if a majority of employees openly sign a petition." In fact, the EFCA does not eliminate employees' rights to a secret ballot; as The New York Times reported, "Business groups have attacked the legislation because it would take away employers' right to insist on holding a secret-ballot election to determine whether workers favored unionization" [emphasis added].