Fox News' Special Report highlighted conservative calls for President Obama's impeachment, but hid that the calls they cite as coming from "some prominent outside conservative voices" actually originated with Fox's own contributors.
On the July 10 edition of Fox News' Special Report with Bret Baier, Fox correspondent Mike Emanuel reported that "some prominent outside conservative voices have called for President Obama to be impeached":
Right-wing media labeled the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) plan to garnish the wages of polluters who have failed to pay their fines a "power grab," even though the agency is acting with authority granted to it by decades-old federal law that is already used by 30 other federal agencies.
On July 2, the EPA announced that it would implement a provision of the Debt Collection Improvement Act that would allow the agency to collect delinquent debts from polluters by garnishing their wages without first obtaining a court order. This law, which was approved by an overwhelming majority in both houses of Congress and signed into law in 1996, is applicable not just to the EPA but all federal agencies. According to the text of the law and Department of the Treasury guidelines, all federal agencies who collect delinquent debts can "collect money from a debtor's disposable pay by means of administrative wage garnishment to satisfy delinquent nontax debt" without going to the courts first.
Right-wing media outlets like The Washington Times were quick to accuse the EPA of "flexing its regulatory muscle under President Obama" to "unilaterally garnish the paychecks of those accused of violating its rules," because the EPA's proposed rule would no longer require the agency to "obtain a court judgment before garnishing non-Federal wages." The Times framed the announcement as an EPA "power grab," even though the report later pointed out that "every federal agency has the authority to conduct administrative wage garnishment." Fox News was similarly outraged over the EPA's announcement, with Townhall.com news editor Katie Pavlich appearing on The Kelly File to claim that "the EPA now is acting as judge, jury, and executioner" by attempting to adopt the wage garnishment rule.
But Fox's senior judicial analyst, Judge Andrew Napolitano, took it even further on the July 10 edition of Fox & Friends. Napolitano complained that the EPA did not have the authority to garnish wages without a court order because "Congress never authorized it. Congress couldn't authorize it. It blatantly violates the Constitution." Napolitano went on to claim that the EPA's proposed plan was "not legal" because the rule didn't protect debtors' "right to a hearing," and that it was "the president's people" who were behind the rule change:
Fox News' Sean Hannity is currently visiting the Texas border and criticizing President Obama for not doing so during the developing humanitarian crisis. But in 2012, when President Obama visited regions devastated by Hurricane Sandy, Hannity lashed out at the president for his "photo-op" trip.
On July 9, President Obama visited Texas, meeting with Texas Governor Rick Perry (R) and local officials to discuss the administration's response to the crisis and called on Congress to approve billions in emergency aid funding for the region. But Obama chose not to visit the Texas border with Mexico to view the developing refugee crisis, in which thousands of children are fleeing violence in Central America. At a news conference he explained: "There is nothing taking place down there that I'm not intimately aware of and briefed on. This isn't theater. This is a problem. I'm not interested in photo ops. I'm interested in solving the problem."
Conservatives attacked Obama for his comments, often falsely suggesting that he had expressed a broad aversion to doing photo-ops in general.
In response, Hannity, who is touring the border with Perry in preparation for a special edition of his Fox News program, tweeted asking "shouldn't the president be down here too?" He also tweeted photos showing himself traveling with Texas Highway Patrol gunships on the Rio Grande, which look for drug cartels along the border, and posing with the Governor and several guns:
Glad to be on the border with @GovernorPerry but shouldn't the president be down here too?-- Sean Hannity (@seanhannity) July 10, 2014
With Gov Perry pic.twitter.com/oLaxlpwgp8-- Sean Hannity (@seanhannity) July 10, 2014
Texas border patrol pic.twitter.com/QxFCn0GccK-- Sean Hannity (@seanhannity) July 10, 2014
Based on past precedent, if Obama had actually toured the border, Hannity would have criticized him for that as well.
Newly released transcripts of congressional testimony from nine military officers confirmed that no "stand down" order was issued during the September 2012 Benghazi attacks, again debunking Fox News' constantly-cited myth.
The Associated Press reported July 10 that previously classified testimony given to Congress from the military officers "undermines contentions by Republican lawmakers that a 'stand-down order' held back military assets that could have saved the U.S. ambassador and three other Americans killed at a diplomatic outpost and CIA annex in Benghazi, Libya." Instead, the military officers confirmed that the Special Operations team of four who were in Tripoli that night "were instructed to help protect and care for those being evacuated from Benghazi and from the U.S. Embassy in Tripoli. The senior military officer who issued the instruction to 'remain in place' and the detachment leader who received it said it was the right decision and has been widely mischaracterized."
This new testimony confirms previous reports that debunked the false claim that someone in the Obama administration or military had denied assistance to Americans at the diplomatic facilities in Benghazi the night of the terrorist attacks. Lt. Col. S.E. Gibson, the former commander of a four-member Army Special Forces unit in Tripoli, Libya, and Gen. Martin Dempsey, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, both told congressional committees over a year ago that no stand down order was given. Multiple CIA senior officers have repeatedly denied the false charge. In early 2014, a House Armed Services Committee report and a bipartisan Senate Intelligence Committee report put the myth to rest.
As Media Matters previously noted, Fox News was a primary force behind the false "stand down" story claim. Just a month after the attacks they repeatedly suggested that the Obama administration had made a "political decision" to allow Americans to be killed, and pushed variations on the false "stand down" narrative in 85 primetime segments in the following months. The network has continued to push the myth long after it was debunked, citing questions of why military aid was supposedly withheld as a rationale for the establishment of the House select committee on Benghazi.
A six-member quick reaction team and 60 Libyan militiamen in Benghazi responded to the attack, and reinforcements from the embassy in Tripoli arrived the same night.
From the July 10 edition of Fox News' Happening Now:
Loading the player reg...
Fox News suggested HGTV ran afoul of the First Amendment when it canceled an upcoming reality show following reports of the hosts' extreme anti-gay and Islamophobic activism.
HGTV cancelled its forthcoming reality show Flip It Forward following revelations that the hosts, Jason and David Benham, had an extensive history of anti-gay, anti-choice, and anti-Muslim activism. Examples of the brothers' reported hate speech include David Benham likening the fight against gay marriage to that against Nazi Germany, and participation in protests against "homosexuality and its agenda that is attacking the nation." Benham has publicly highlighted Leviticus' punishment of death for gay sex and protested in front of mosques shouting "Jesus Hates Muslims."
After rushing to defend the brothers by claiming they were being punished for their Christian views, Fox News is now suggesting HGTV's decision to cancel the show violated the Benhams' First Amendment right to free speech.
On July 10, Fox News host Steve Doocy interviewed Jason and David Benham while an on-screen graphic declared they had been "fired for faith." Doocy argued, "You were fired for having an opinion. I mean, there's this thing called the First Amendment where people are entitled to their opinion and their Christian beliefs as well."
But the First Amendment does not protect individuals from being fired by private employers, as it does not limit the actions that private employers may take based on employees' speech. The First Amendment Center explained:
The First Amendment does not limit private employers. The Bill of Rights -- and the First Amendment -- limit only government actors, not private actors. This means that private employers can restrict employee speech in the workplace without running afoul of the First Amendment.
HGTV did not violate the First Amendment rights of the Benhams by dropping their show. As Columbia Law's Suzanne Goldberg pointed out in an interview with CNN, it was most likely a decision to protect the business' brand following widespread outcry against the Benhams' comments. Even David Benham told CNN that he does not hold a grudge against the network, telling Erin Burnett, "It was too much for them to bear and they had to make a business decision."
Fox & Friends continued its bizarre attack on Illinois State University for designating gender-neutral restrooms, but even a group of "Fox fans" didn't seem fazed by the school's attempt to accommodate LGBT students.
Illinois State University recently announced that it would be relabeling several of its single-stall "family" restrooms on campus as "all-gender" restrooms. Though the decision won't alter the functionality of any of the restrooms, the move is meant to accommodate transgender and gender-variant students, who often face harassment and even violence in public restrooms. All-gender restrooms will be identified by a new sign that "will include a symbol of a half of a man and half of a woman."
On July 9, the cast of Fox & Friends mocked the decision, calling the new sign confusing and blaming the change on the "P.C. police."
On July 10, Fox & Friends continued its criticism of the university's decision. Co-host Steve Doocy produced a massive mock-up of an "all-gender" sign and asked a group of "Fox fans" outside the studio what they thought the sign meant.
But none of the fans, including a young boy, seemed to share Doocy's confusion or outrage over the sign:
From the July 10 edition of Fox News' Outnumbered:
Loading the player reg...
Here we go again.
Within hours of House Oversight Committee Chairman Darrell Issa (R-CA) selectively leaking emails from one of his investigations, the right-wing media is dutifully claiming that he had offered evidence of a cover-up in the controversy over IRS scrutiny of nonprofit groups.
The question now is whether legitimate media outlets will again let Issa and Fox manipulate them with selective leaks.
Fox News host Bill O'Reilly claimed on July 9 that the emails that Issa released were "hard evidence" that embattled former IRS official Lois Lerner was engaged in a cover up.
In reality, the email shows nothing more than a manager issuing guidance that email communication could be subpoenaed by Congress, underscoring the "need to be cautious about what we say in emails," and confirming that instant messages were not archived but should be treated with the same caution as email.
Absent any additional information about the context of Lerner's initial guidance, it's impossible to draw any conclusions whatsoever, let alone O'Reilly's sweeping claim of a cover-up.
O'Reilly's interpretation of Lerner's email is perfectly in line with Darrell Issa's spin, which he floated in a July 9 Twitter post arguing that Lerner was engaged in a conspiracy to hide information from Congress.
And the media is already adopting Issa's spin, a troubling development given the media's lengthy history of being manipulated by Issa's deceptive leaks.
From the July 9 edition of MSNBC's The Ed Show:
Loading the player reg...
Mere weeks after right-wing media loudly defended racist Nevada rancher Cliven Bundy with erroneous allegations of a "federal land grab" of his property, the same conservative outlets are now advocating for a border fence that would require an immense seizure of private lands.
In the first half of 2014, thousands of children fled across the U.S.-Mexico border to escape rising violence plaguing their home countries in Central America. Anti-immigrant figures in the right-wing media have responded by stoking nativist insecurities, erroneously suggesting the children pose public health and safety concerns and that they will be allowed to stay in the United States indefinitely.
Many of these figures have also returned to calls for a fence to be constructed on the U.S.-Mexico border.
Conservative radio host and ABC News contributor Laura Ingraham made the completion of a border fence part of her personal plan to address holes in the nation's immigration policy in a manifesto titled, "The Government Vs. The People: Rebuilding Trust In The Midst Of The Illegal Alien Tsunami".
On Fox News July 9, America's Newsroom co-host Martha MacCallum floated the idea of prioritizing appropriations to construct a border fence over money for humanitarian care and administrative personnel to facilitate customs hearings. On July 8, Fox guest Pat Buchanan said in an appearance on Hannity, "Why cannot the government say 'Look, let's get together, we do need a secure fence, a double- or triple-link fence, all along the border of the United States with Mexico'?"
About a week earlier, contributor Charles Krauthammer advocated for a border fence, saying, "If fences don't work, why is there one around the White House?"
Calls for a fence often lack context or details -- and in MacCallum's case, drastically misinform on the cost of such an endeavor. In particular, conservative media tend to ignore the fact that, in order to complete a border fence, the federal government will have to seize, through eminent domain, the private property of American landowners from Texas to California.
Fox News host Martha MacCallum suggested the construction of a border fence would be a cost-effective strategy for dealing with the influx of children fleeing Central America across the U.S.-Mexico border, but she underestimated the real cost of construction by billions of dollars.
On July 8th, Politico reported that President Obama requested $3.73 billion in emergency funds from Congress "to address the influx of child migrants crossing the Southwest border and Rio Grande from Central America." The funds would be used for border enforcement, humanitarian assistance for unaccompanied children, and immigration courts.
During an interview with Rep. Ted Poe (R-TX) on the July 9 edition of America's Newsroom, MacCallum criticized the Obama administration for requesting $3.7 billion to address the humanitarian crisis which she claimed would only "plug the hole" when the "most recent estimate" for the cost to build border fence was only $6.5 billion:
MACCALLUM: 3.7, and we just listened to sort of a detail of where the money goes -- a lot of it is into facilities and for judges and that kind of thing as you say. It was interesting -- we looked back this morning at the latest estimate -- the most recent estimate we could find for what it would have cost to build the fence across the border and that's about six and a half billion dollars. So now you've got a 3.7 billion dollar request to basically -- you know -- plug the hole and take care of the people who came through it.
But MacCallum is wrong. According to the New York Times, the $6.5 billion figure MacCallum cited was merely an estimate of the cost to "deploy, operate and maintain" the existing border fence, which currently covers 650 miles, not the cost to extend the fence across new territory. In fact, the Times also reported that Customs and Border Protection projected the cost of finishing one fence across the southern border of the U.S. to be more than $22 billion, not including costs to acquire land and maintain the fence:
In 2009, the Congressional Search Service reported that the Department of Homeland Security had spent roughly up to $21 million per mile to build a primary fence near San Diego. The cost had ballooned as the fence extended into hills and gullies along the line.
The same year, Customs and Border Protection estimated costs of building an additional 3.5 miles of fence near San Diego at $16 million per mile. Even this lower figure would yield a rough projection of $22.4 billion for a single fence across the 1,400 miles remaining today.
These estimates do not include the costs of acquiring land, nor the expense of maintaining a fence that is exposed to constant efforts by illegal crossers to bore through it or under it or to bring it down. In March, Customs and Border Protection estimated it would cost $6.5 billion "to deploy, operate and maintain" the existing border fencing over an expected maximum lifetime of 20 years. The agency reported repairing 4,037 breaches in 2010 alone.
Fox continues to offer misinformation and advocate anti-immigration policies, recommending the federal government respond to the increasing numbers of of children fleeing gang violence in Central America by building multiple fences and militarizing the border.
The hosts of Fox & Friends mocked Illinois State University's decision to accommodate LGBT students by designating certain campus restrooms as gender-neutral.
During the July 9 edition of Fox & Friends, Fox's Heather Nauert reported on Illinois State University's decision to re-label a number of single stall restrooms on campus, designating them "all-gender" restrooms rather than "family" restrooms. The change is expected to affect approximately 10 restrooms and won't affect the functionality of any of the facilities. Designating gender-neutral restrooms on campus is a common practice aimed at accommodating growing populations of transgender and gender-variant students, who often face harassment and even violence in public restrooms.
Nauert, who incorrectly identified the university as Indiana State University, attributed the decision to the "P.C. police." Members of the Fox & Friends crew could be heard laughing throughout the segment, and Nauert concluded by stating "we're all a little confused by it":
Fox & Friends has a habit of ridiculing gender-neutral accommodations as ridiculous or unnecessary. The show has mocked gender-neutral passports, passport applications, college housing policies, student financial aid forms, and marriage licenses. In all of these cases, the changes were minor adjustments made to acknowledge members of the LGBT community. And in all of these cases, Fox & Friends jumped at the opportunity to turn gender-neutral accommodations into an early morning punch lines.
Less than a minute after noting that the Obama administration requested increased funding for border security, Fox & Friends attacked the Obama administration for failing to request funding for border security.
In a July 9 report, Fox News reporter Peter Doocy described President Obama's request to Congress for $3.7 billion in supplemental funding to deal with the recent increase in border crossings by unaccompanied minors from Central America. As Doocy noted, the request explicitly included $433 million for border protection and "$1.1 billion for homeland security to step up enforcement and to deter border crossings." An on-air graphic underlined the point.
These facts disappeared from Fox's coverage less than a minute later. Co-host Steve Doocy responded to the report by criticizing the White House for allegedly failing to request funds to boost border protection:
DOOCY: Where's the money to stop people from coming in? That's the problem. We need a secure border. You know -- one side says we need it. The other side said 'oh, we have it.' But you've got eight-year-olds just walking across. We need a secure border.
A White House fact sheet outlined how Obama's funding request would be allocated to boost security at the border:
The Department of Homeland Security, Immigration and Customs Enforcement - $1.1 billion
This proposal would provide the Department of Homeland Security a total of $1.1 billion for Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). Of this total:
$116 million would pay for transportation costs associated with the significant rise in apprehensions of unaccompanied children;
$109 million would provide for immigration and customs enforcement efforts, including expanding the Border Enforcement Security Task Force program, doubling the size of vetted units in El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras, and expanding investigatory activities by ICE Homeland Security Investigations; and
$879 million would pay for detention and removal of apprehended undocumented adults traveling with children, expansion of alternatives to detention programs for these individuals, and additional prosecution capacity for adults with children who cross the border unlawfully.
The Department of Homeland Security, Customs and Border Protection - $433 million
This proposal would provide the Department of Homeland Security a total of $433 million for Customs and Border Protection (CBP). Of this total:
$364 million would pay for operational costs of responding to the significant rise in apprehensions of unaccompanied children and families, including overtime and temporary duty costs for Border Patrol agents, contract services and facility costs to care for children while in CBP custody, and medical and transportation service arrangements;
$29 million for CBP to expand its role in Border Enforcement Security Task Force programs, increasing information-sharing and collaboration among the participating law enforcement agencies combatting transnational crime; and
$39.4 million to increase air surveillance capabilities that would support 16,526 additional flight hours for border surveillance and 16 additional crews for unmanned aerial systems to improve detection and interdiction of illegal activity.
From the July 9 edition of Fox News' Fox & Friends:
Loading the player reg...