From the November 30 edition of Fox News' Fox & Friends First:
Fox News' Fox & Friends seized on the latest testimonies of Hillary Clinton aides before the House Select Committee on Benghazi to push the long debunked myths that Obama administration officials altered talking points on the attack to cover up or alter the facts for political purposes, and falsely blamed an inflammatory anti-Islam video for inciting the attack. In reality, a bipartisan Senate review of the attack determined there was no effort by the Obama administration to alter their talking points for political purposes, and U.S. intelligence, suspected attackers, and witnesses have repeatedly linked the inflammatory video to the attack.
From the August 18 edition of Fox News' Special Report with Bret Baier:
Loading the player reg...
From the April 16 edition of Fox News' Outnumbered:
Loading the player reg...
From the February 22 edition of Fox News' MediaBuzz:
Loading the player reg...
Fox News' Special Report characterized former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's speaking contract requirements as outrageous, in an attempt to paint Clinton as an out of touch "diva," but Clinton's requirements are typical of contracts made by high profile politicians.
The Las Vegas Review-Journal reported the details of Hillary Clinton's speaking contract for her upcoming October fundraiser for the University of Nevada-Las Vegas, including Clinton's speaking fee as well as a number of stipulations ranging from private jet transportation, luxury hotel accommodations, and travel arrangements for aides.
On the August 18 edition of Fox News' Special Report, host Bret Baier and Fox correspondent James Rosen seized on the report to paint Hillary Clinton as a "rock star diva" with outrageous demands. Baier introduced the segment claiming "Hillary Clinton has a list of demands that critics say would make a rock star diva proud." Rosen detailed Clinton's "demands" which included a private jet, a luxury suite, and travel stipends for Clinton's aides:
From the July 24 edition of Fox News' The O'Reilly Factor:
Loading the player reg...
Organizations that monitor reporter access and safety overseas are harshly criticizing a Fox News reporter's suggestion that U.S. forces could have posed as journalists in order to more quickly apprehend a recently-captured suspect in the Benghazi attacks.
Earlier today, news broke that following "months of planning," U.S. Special Operations forces had captured Ahmed Abu Khattala, a suspected ringleader of the 2012 attacks on U.S. diplomatic facilities in Benghazi, Libya.
Several conservative media figures have criticized the administration for the timing of Khattala's capture. At a State Department press briefing, Fox News reporter James Rosen questioned State Department spokeswoman Jen Psaki about why journalists had been able to access Khattala -- several major outlets have published interviews with him since the attacks -- while U.S. forces had still not apprehended him.
After Psaki responded that there was a difference between suspected terrorists wanting to talk to reporters and special forces being able to capture them, Rosen asked, "Following your own logic...why didn't we pose as a reporter to capture him then?"
But organizations that advocate for reporter access and safety overseas told Media Matters such an approach would put legitimate journalists in danger because their credibility would come into question more often.
"Let's recognize that military and intelligence operations should never, ever use journalists as cover," said Joel Simon, executive director of The Committee to Protect Journalists, which monitors treatment of reporters in foreign outposts and tallies physical and rights abuses of journalists. "Intelligence agents should never use journalistic cover, never because that jeopardizes the work of the media.
Simon and other experts said that military elements posing as journalists could pose a danger to the ethics and safety of legitimate reporters who would be accused of being spies or intelligence plants.
"We see every day all over the world that journalists are accused of being spies and of having ties or supporting military efforts that a particular country is taking," Simon stressed. "The most important asset that journalists have in those situations is their independence and their impartiality and anything that compromises that or the perception of their impartiality further endangers them."
Bryan Bender, former president of Military Reporters & Editors and a current MRE board member, agreed.
"I think setting aside for a second the case of this suspect, many of us who cover the Pentagon would have huge concerns if we learned U.S. military was posing as journalists," said Bender, also a Boston Globe national security reporter. "We'd get upset as we did in Iraq years ago that the military was planting stories in local media to help their cause. It is important to us as journalists and it should be important to the government that we fulfill our unique roles and not confuse one with the other."
Fox News personalities are questioning the timing of the Obama administration's capture of Ahmed Abu Khattala, suspected leader of the 2012 Benghazi attacks, ignoring the complicated logistics involved in carrying out the dangerous apprehension in an unstable foreign country.
From the February 20 edition of Fox News' The O'Reilly Factor:
Loading the player reg...
From the January 22 edition of Fox News' The O'Reilly Factor:
Loading the player reg...
From the January 14 edition of Fox News' The O'Reilly Factor:
Loading the player reg...
The day after Congress finally signed off on legislation that would end a weeks-long government shutdown and prevent a debt ceiling crisis, Fox News sent a correspondent to the White House to shift the conversation to the September 11, 2012, attacks on U.S diplomatic facilities in Benghazi, Libya.
Chief Washington Correspondent James Rosen devoted nearly ten minutes of the October 17 White House press briefing to questioning Press Secretary Jay Carney about the federal government's response to the Benghazi attacks.
As Mediaite's Tommy Christopher noted, at one point during the exchange Carney accused Rosen of "creating an exchange here for Fox." The network has been a central force in the right-wing media's effort to use phony conspiracy theories and blatant falsehoods about Benghazi to smear President Obama and members of his administration.
Rosen's line of questioning concerned questions raised by House Republicans at a week-old House Armed Services subcommittee hearing about a September 10, 2012, White House press office release detailing a meeting Obama had with key national security officials to ensure that steps were being taken to ensure the protection of U.S. personnel and assets on the September 11 anniversary. Rosen asked Carney "how closely vetted" the 13-month-old press release was and for more information about the meeting.
Later in the exchange, Rosen said that "the posturing of the military in a volatile time around the world" at the time of the Benghazi attacks "was so poor as to make rescue or remedy impossible." After Carney suggested that "the 'poor' statement is a reflection of an assessment made by Republicans who have, as you know, attempted, unfortunately, to make this a partisan issue," Rosen replied that "the fact that the posturing was such that it made remedy or rescue in that situation impossible is not a conclusion solely of the House Armed Services Committee or of Republicans, it is a self-evident fact."
Rosen's comments is consistent with the "cartoonish impression of military capabilities and military forces" that former Secretary of Defense Robert Gates has ascribed to conservatives who claim that the Obama administration should have been able to send additional support to the aid of Americans in Benghazi. "The one thing our forces are noted for is planning and preparation before we send people in harm's way," Gates said in May, "and there just wasn't time."
Similarly, during a September hearing, former Joint Chiefs Chairman Mike Mullen, a co-chairman of the State Department Accountability Review Board that examined the attack, explained that he had reviewed the force posture of the U.S. military and the "military did everything they possibly could that night. They just couldn't get there in time." Mullen's co-chair Ambassador Thomas Pickering added that America has "over 270 consulates and embassies around the world in some very isolated and strange places" and "we are not able to count on the U.S. military, as Admiral Mullen said, always being positioned to come in short notice to deal with those issues."
Rosen ended the exchange by asking whether the administration would "be willing to make any of those documents associated with that press release available, as you did with the Susan Rice talking points?" Carney replied "James, I think we're done here," and exited the briefing room.
Fox News' James Rosen claimed that Marine Corps Colonel George Bristol admitted to giving what "some will call" a stand down order to Lieutenant Colonel S.E. Gibson during the September 2012 attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi. But both Bristol and Gibson have said that no "stand down" order was given.
Rosen appeared on the July 31 edition of Fox News' The O'Reilly Factor to discuss a briefing on Benghazi given to the House Armed Services Committee by Bristol, who commanded an Africa-based task force at the time of the Benghazi attack. Rosen claimed that Bristol acknowledged he had given Gibson, who commanded a small team of special forces troops in Tripoli, what "some will call ... a stand down order":
O'REILLY: Now there was a hearing today, the House Armed Services Committee. General George Bristol who was in charge, I guess, of the African forces that could have helped the four Americans, including the Ambassador to Libya killed in Benghazi, he testified. But I'm reading over the notes here Rosen, and I've only got thirty seconds, Bristol would not say who told him not to help them. Is that true?
ROSEN: Well, first of all this wasn't a hearing, it was a briefing, which was being kind to the guy. He wasn't put under oath, so he didn't really have to testify. But he led this task force in Northern and Western Africa, and he acknowledged that he was the guy, a Marine colonel, who had the conversation with an Army lieutenant colonel who was on the ground in Tripoli and who was ready to get a whole bunch of guys on an airplane and fly from Tripoli to Benghazi to try and rescue our guys, which is the distance from Richmond, Virginia to Chicago, Illinois. It's not a short trip. And Col. Bristol, who is retiring effectively tomorrow, did acknowledge that he told Lt. Col. Gibson "stay in Tripoli." Some will call that a stand down order, Bill.
O'REILLY: Is Bristol taking the rap? That he did it? That he wouldn't order anybody?
ROSEN: He's saying, in essence, "I told them stay in Tripoli in case our embassy there -- "
O'REILLY: Did he say if anybody ordered him to say that?
ROSEN: No. He said it was his decision.
Rosen's claim is at odds with statements by both Bristol and Gibson. The Hill reported that Bristol told the congressional panel that no "stand down" order was given. Furthermore, according to a press release issued by the House Armed Services Committee, Bristol told the committee he gave Gibson "initial freedom of action to make decisions in response to the unfolding situation in Benghazi."
The former commander of a four-member Army Special Forces unit in Tripoli, Libya, denied Wednesday that he was told to stand down during last year's deadly assault on the U.S. diplomatic mission in Benghazi.
In a closed-door session with the House Armed Services Committee, Lt. Col. S.E. Gibson said his commanders told him to remain in the capital of Tripoli to defend Americans in the event of additional attacks and to help survivors being evacuated from Benghazi.
"Contrary to news reports, Gibson was not ordered to 'stand down' by higher command authorities in response to his understandable desire to lead a group of three other special forces soldiers to Benghazi," the Republican-led committee said in a summary of its classified briefing with military officials, including Gibson.
In one of his final opinions as a Supreme Court Justice, Hugo Black in the 1971 Pentagon Papers case wrote that "The Government's power to censor the press was abolished so that the press would remain forever free to censure the Government." The Court's 6-3 decision granted the Washington Post and New York Times permission to resume publishing a comprehensive and classified government history of the Vietnam War. The permission was granted over the "national security" objections of the Nixon administration. Black's opinion stressed that the "press was protected so that it could bare the secrets of government and inform the people."
The Pentagon Papers case revolved around the more traditional press debate regarding prior restraint: if and when the government has the right to stop news organizations from disseminating sensitive information. The Supreme Court's landmark 1931 media ruling, Near v. Minnesota, declared that almost all forms of prior restraint were unconstitutional. One of the few exceptions included issues of national security.*
Of course, the recent Obama administration controversies surrounding freedom of the press revolve around national security and the intense prosecutorial efforts by the government to weed out leakers of classified information. Rather than trying to stop journalists from reporting national security news, federal law enforcement seems preoccupied with snooping around, in increasingly clandestine ways, and ensnaring reporters in criminal investigations.
Whether it was the Department of Justice's wild overreach in seizing phone records of more than 20 separate telephone lines used by Associated Press editors and reporters, or the Department's more focused, yet even more troubling, information grab of a Fox News reporter, the practice is wrong and shortsighted. It's also un-American.
The Founding Fathers had the foresight to carve out extraordinary privileges and protections for the press, and for centuries they have endured. So why now turn our storied First Amendment into the Sort Of First Amendment or the When It's Convenient First Amendment?
Imagine what international observers must be thinking as they watch the U.S. government, in the name of leak investigations, chisel away at one of America's most famous contributions to the democratic way of life: Freedom of the press.
Yet it's also important to note that despite some of the heated rhetoric in recent days, there's little evidence that the federal government is waging some sort of all-out war on journalism (that it's "spying" on reporters), or that it's set out a dangerous new policy to "criminalize" the craft. And no, Fox News certainly hasn't been "targeted" by the Obama administration, despite Fox's plaintive cries of victimhood in recent days. (There's certainly no evidence to back up Shepard Smith's baseless on-air claim that the Department of Justice "went into" Fox News computer servers and "pulled things out.")