From the August 7 edition of Fox News' Fox & Friends:
Loading the player reg...
Fox News is not disclosing its clear conflict of interest in defending Chick-fil-A against criticism over the fast-food restaurant's stance on marriage equality, as the controversy stands to benefit HarperCollins, a publishing company owned by Fox News' parent company, News Corporation.
Chick-fil-A president Dan Cathy set off a controversy when, during a July 16 interview, he said that his company supports "the biblical definition of the family unit." Cathy later said in a radio interview, "As it relates to society in general, I think we are inviting God's judgment on our nation when we shake our fist at him and say, 'We know better than you as to what constitutes a marriage.' "
Amid calls to boycott the company over the anti-marriage equality remarks, The Jim Henson Company, which created toys for Chick-fil-A, spoke out against the restaurant, writing on Facebook: "[W]e have notified Chick-Fil-A that we do not wish to partner with them on any future endeavors. Lisa Henson, our CEO is personally a strong supporter of gay marriage and has directed us to donate the payment we received from Chick-Fil-A to GLAAD." Chick-fil-A then announced it had pulled the Henson toys, citing safety concerns.
Following the split with The Jim Henson Company, Chick-fil-A replaced the toys with the children's books The Berenstain Bears. As reported by NBC News, a statement on the Berenstain company website "said the books' publisher, HarperCollins, has been working on this marketing project for more than a year." The statement read, in part:
The Berenstain family does not at this time have control over whether this program proceeds or not. We hope those concerned about this issue will direct their comments toward HarperCollins and Chick-fil-A.
While all this has been going on, Fox has been defending Chick-fil-A while not disclosing that it has an interest in doing so. Both Fox and HarperCollins, the publisher of the Berenstain Bears books, are subsidiaries of News Corporation. If the HarperCollins marketing project suffers as a result of a decline in sales brought about by the Chick-fil-A controversy, News Corp. stands to take a hit to its bottom line.
From the July 27 edition of Fox News' The O'Reilly Factor:
Loading the player reg...
From the July 26 edition of Fox News' The O'Reilly Factor:
Loading the player reg...
Fox's Laura Ingraham dismissed a recent rule change regarding welfare work requirements as an attempt by the Obama administration to buy votes, a charge right-wing media have frequently leveled at Obama after his attempts to improve antipoverty programs. But the rule change was reportedly requested by GOP governors, and a 2005 version of the waivers was supported by several GOP governors, including Mitt Romney.
Fox News contributor Laura Ingraham lent Rep. Joe Walsh (R-IL) a helping hand as the congressman sought to do damage control on his recent attack on wounded veteran Tammy Duckworth.
During a July 1 campaign speech, Walsh claimed that Duckworth, his opponent, was unlike "our true heroes" because her military service is "all she talks about":
WALSH: Understand something about John McCain. His political advisers, day after day, had to take him and almost throw him against a wall and hit him against the head and say, "Senator, you have to let people know you served! You have to talk about what you did!" He didn't want to do it, wouldn't do it. Day after day they had to convince him. Finally, he talked a little bit about it, but it was very uncomfortable for him. That's what's so noble about our heroes. Now I'm running against a woman who, my God, that's all she talks about. Our true heroes, it's the last thing in the world they talk about. That's why we're so indebted and in awe of what they've done. [emphasis added]
Following widespread criticism of Walsh's comments, Ingraham, while filling in for Bill O'Reilly on The O'Reilly Factor tonight, hosted the congressman and helped clean up after him.
Ingraham began the interview with a softball question: "Do you think Tammy Duckworth, who lost both of her legs in a Blackhawk helicopter accident in Iraq in combat -- do you think she's a hero?" Walsh replied, "Oh absolutely, Laura, and I've said that hundreds of times," but then added that "all [Duckworth] does is film me talking to people, and the left-wing blogs just went crazy with it."
Ingraham went on to remark that Duckworth has said "blistering things about the tea party movement" and Walsh, and that it seems as if Walsh is in a position where he has to "watch every word" he says to avoid being "branded as insensitive to her plight as a disabled American and as a war hero." She continued:
INGRAHAM: So, I guess, what do you do? You have to argue with her, you have to be sensitive, you have to be tough, but you gotta be careful. I mean it's a tough mix, but you gotta watch your Ps and Qs, I guess.
Ingraham concluded the interview by saying that Duckworth is a "war hero with whom" Walsh disagrees on the issues, and adding: "Most disabled people that I know just want to be treated like everybody else and they don't want to be babied."
In her interview with Walsh, Ingraham downplayed that Walsh's initial remarks created a distinction between Duckworth and "our true heroes" in the military. In fact, after being given the chance to walk back his statement earlier today, Walsh called Duckworth a hero but qualified it by stating that "unlike most veterans I have had the honor to meet since my election to Congress, who rarely if ever talk about their service or the combat they've seen, that is darn near all of what Tammy Duckworth talks about."
Ingraham's effort to help Walsh with damage control comes the same day that CNN contributor Erick Erickson defended the congressman.
Bill O'Reilly promised in March that he would "apologize for being an idiot" if the Supreme Court upheld the Affordable Care Act. But after the historic ruling upholding the law, O'Reilly called into his Fox News show, which was being guest-hosted by Laura Ingraham, and didn't mention his previous pledge to apologize or his prediction that it would be overturned.
Instead of addressing his promise, O'Reilly chose to push a number of debunked falsehoods about the health care law.
On the March 26 broadcast of his show, O'Reilly hosted Caroline Fredrickson, president of the American Constitution Society, who said the legislation "doesn't actually require people to buy health insurance" but "imposes a penalty" on those who don't. She described this as "a tax power," and indeed, the Supreme Court would later rule that the mandate is "authorized by Congress's power to levy taxes."
O'Reilly concluded the segment by saying, "Miss Fredrickson, you're going to lose, and your arguments are specious. ... And if I'm wrong, I will come on, and I will play your clip, and I will apologize for being an idiot."
From the June 28 edition of Fox News' The O'Reilly Factor:
Loading the player reg...
On The O'Reilly Factor, guest host Laura Ingraham discussed the June 25 Supreme Court ruling striking down several parts of Arizona's immigration law. While talking to Chuck Rocha of the American Worker Latino Project, Ingraham used phony statistics to smear immigrants as criminals and fearmongered about an immigrant invasion that isn't happening.
While talking to Rocha, Ingraham implied immigrants commit more crimes than native-born Americans, citing anecdotes about crimes committed by undocumented immigrants and concluding with the dubious claim that "13 or 12 people a day" "are killed under DUIs by illegals":
INGRAHAM: A lot of these people just say, you know, look, my kids' school has crowded classrooms. Our health care costs are still ballooning. We just had this case just a few months ago in Chicago -- this guy wasn't deported. He ended up running over a 66-year-old insurance salesman -- 66-year-old man dead because this illegal immigrant was not reported to ICE, and he was never deported. We have people killed all over this country. Girls raped, little baby girls raped in Escondido, horrible story over the last six months. What do you say to those families?
ROCHA: I say to those families that you are talking about just a small portion of the immigrants who are here.
INGRAHAM: Doesn't feel small to the mother whose daughter was raped by an illegal immigrant, does it?
ROCHA: That's right. That person should be deported and should be dealt with by every extent of the law.
ROCHA: Let's be clear that we have 12 million immigrants that are in this nation. There's going to be a small portion of that just like a small portion who are here legally, who were born here --
INGRAHAM: Right, but the point is, they were born here. And crime is crime. But when people weren't supposed to be here in the first place, that crime would have never been committed. Isn't that the case?
ROCHA: That is the case to a certain extent.
INGRAHAM: No. To a -- that is the case. Is it not?
ROCHA: No, no. No, it's not the case. We have a broken system.
INGRAHAM: So the people -- the 13 or 12 people a day who are killed under DUIs by illegals -- those people would be alive if our immigration laws were enforced.
This would be indeed be shocking if true, since it would mean that almost half of DUI fatalities in the United States were caused by undocumented immigrants, who make up an estimated 4 percent of the population.
From the June 13 edition of Fox News' The O'Reilly Factor:
Loading the player reg...
From the June 7 edition of The O'Reilly Factor:
Loading the player reg...
From the June 7 edition of Fox's The O'Reilly Factor:
Loading the player reg...
Bill O'Reilly attacked a bipartisan group of 168 members of Congress for voting against a bill that criminalizes certain abortions under the guise of preventing sex-selective abortions. In particular, O'Reilly singled out Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee (D-TX), mocking a clip of her saying, "We're going back to the days of coat hangers. That's what they want to do. They want to criminalize doctors because what that says is, how do you know that a doctor is engaged in helping a woman abort because of the particular gender of the fetus?"
But Jackson Lee is correct.
As Jackson Lee noted, if passed, the bill would make it a felony for doctors to perform certain abortions. Opponents of the bill point out that the legislation could lead to racial profiling, would interfere with the doctor-patient relationship, authorizes the government, spouses, and other family members to get court injunctions to stop abortions, has serious constitutional problems, and, according to experts, would not actually be effective at stopping sex-selective abortions.
Moreover, Jackson Lee is correct that the ultimate goal of legislation such as this is to "go back to the days of coat hangers."
Indeed, one of the bill's proponents has made it quite clear that the "ultimate end" of the legislation is to prevent all abortions. According to House Judiciary Committee members who voted against the bill:
[S]ome proponents of this legislation have publicly admitted that it is intended to undermine, and ultimately overturn, the Supreme Court's Roe v. Wade decision. For example, Steven Mosher, who testified at the Constitution Subcommittee hearing on this legislation, has written:
I propose that we -- the pro-life movement -- adopt as our next goal the banning of sex- and race-selective abortion. By formally protecting all female fetuses from abortion on ground of their sex, we would plant in the law the proposition that the developing child is a being whose claims on us should not depend on their sex.
Of course, this suggestion is not original with me. It was originally made by the redoubtable Hadley Arkes, who wrote in the pages of First Things in 1994 that ''we seek simply to preserve the life of the child who survives the abortion. From that modest beginning, we might go on to restrict abortions after the point of ''viability,'' or we could ban those abortions ordered up simply because the child happens to be a female. We could move in this way, in a train of moderate steps, each one commanding a consensus in the public, and each one tending, intelligibly, to the ultimate end, which is to protect the child from its earliest moments.
Fox is hyping comments by former RNC chairman Michael Steele in which he criticized the NAACP for "signing up with an organization like Planned Parenthood," which he said had worked in the past to "eliminate and limit" African Americans and other minorities. Guest hosting for Bill O'Reilly, Fox News contributor Laura Ingraham aired Steele's comments, which were made earlier today on Ingraham's radio show. Steele's comments were also touted by Fox Nation.
Unmentioned by Ingraham and Fox Nation, however, is that fact that Martin Luther King Jr. accepted an award from Planned Parenthood and praised the organization for its dedication to family planning.
During a discussion of Planned Parenthood on Ingraham's radio show, Steele stated: "I have yet to understand how when you look at something like the NAACP signing up with an organization like Planned Parenthood that has a part of its history and its charter and its existence, you know, the use of abortion to eliminate and limit the number of African American and other minorities in this country, I -- to me, it's just beyond the pale."
Tonight on The O'Reilly Factor, after discussing the NAACP's recent endorsement of same-sex marriage with Fox's Juan Williams and Mary Katherine Ham, Ingraham said: "I interviewed Michael Steele on my radio show this morning about the views of black voters on the issue of abortion and abortion in the Democratic Party." She then aired Steele's comments:
But neither Ingraham nor Fox Nation mentioned Martin Luther King Jr.'s praise of Planned Parenthood for its dedication to family planning or the fact that he accepted an award from the organization.
On ABC's This Week, George Will and Laura Ingraham engaged in a bit of revisionism to try to distance conservative billionaire Joe Ricketts from an incendiary plan to re-manufacture the Rev. Jeremiah Wright controversy, and in the process accused the New York Times of journalistic malpractice. Will claimed that Ricketts, who commissioned the plan, immediately repudiated the proposal, while Ingraham asserted that he "didn't even see" it. In fact, the proposal stated that Ricketts had given "preliminary approval" of the plan and commissioned it in part because he thought it was a mistake that John McCain's campaign refused to use Wright to attack Obama in 2008.
During a discussion of the plan, which was made public by the New York Times, Will claimed that Ricketts "repudiated [the proposal] the instant he saw it." Will went on to accuse the Times of fudging the facts of Ricketts' involvement because "it didn't fit their narrative: billionaire behaving responsibly."
Fellow panelist Ingraham added: "As far as I know, he didn't even see this proposal -- I believe, George -- and the idea that he was considering it was a total false narrative put forward by the New York Times to send a message to other people, don't you dare get involved in this election in any type of, quote, 'controversial,' way."
But their contentions aren't supported by the facts.