A Wall Street Journal editorial contradicted the Journal's own news reporting by falsely claiming that the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) never considered costs when setting regulations on mercury and other toxic air pollution. The Journal editorial also deceptively downplayed the public health benefits of the Mercury and Air Toxics Standards, and baselessly dismissed the dangers of mercury pollution.
The Wall Street Journal editorial board is flip-flopping on its acquiescence to President Obama's highly-qualified and noncontroversial nominee for attorney general, and is also calling for Republican senators to go even farther and extend their obstruction of Loretta Lynch to "all of his appellate nominees until he stops abusing his power."
Right-wing media have struggled to find a substantive reason to object to Lynch, an experienced United States attorney who has received bipartisan acclaim for prosecuting terror suspects, human traffickers, and police brutality cases. Lacking any legitimate complaints about Lynch's widely praised record, conservative media figures like National Review's Rich Lowry have instead complained that Lynch, unsurprisingly, agrees with the president on key legal issues. On the March 22 edition of NBC's Meet The Press, Lowry doubled down on this absurd new standard, and insisted that until the president nominates an AG that thinks he broke the law, "so be it -- it's nothing against her personally, I don't care if she's Eliot Ness, the Senate can't do this."
In contrast, the editorial board of the Journal originally recognized the noncontroversial nature of Lynch's nomination, and concluded last November that "Republicans have enough high priorities in the next Congress that the bar should be high for challenging non-judicial nominees who seem to be qualified and honest." But in a March 22 editorial, the Journal switched gears and joined the campaign to prevent a vote not only for Lynch, but for all future circuit court nominees as well:
These columns believe that Presidents deserve their cabinet nominees in nearly all cases, but Mr. Obama's governance presents Congress with a larger Madisonian dilemma.James Madison designed a constitutional system of checks and balances to prevent executive or legislative tyranny. This works best when Presidents and Congresses assert their legal powers but step back from constitutional excesses that lead to judicial intervention or political crises.
The Lynch hold signals that the GOP Senate should consider using its advice and consent power more aggressively -- as a constitutional response to Mr. Obama's unconstitutional abuse of his executive authority. In her confirmation hearings Ms. Lynch defended Mr. Obama's executive order on immigration, which is a fair reason to vote against her, though Mr. McConnell and other Republicans should explicitly repudiate the false racial charge on the Senate floor.
The more fruitful area for resistance may be on Mr. Obama's appellate-court nominees, as Curt Levey recently argued on these pages. Simply refuse to confirm all of his appellate nominees until he stops abusing his power. This would be proportionate political justice after Messrs. Obama and Reid broke Senate rules to pack the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals last year.
The Wall Street Journal is recycling old news to scandalize donations from foreign individuals to the Clinton Foundation by funders who were previously disclosed by the Clintons as early as 2008.
The Clinton Foundation, a global charity, agreed not to accept donations from foreign governments while Clinton was secretary of state, in order to avoid any possible conflict of interest. The Journal baselessly suggested on March 19, however, that the foundation may have been inappropriately sidestepping this ban by still "raising millions of dollars from foreigners with connections to their home governments" from more than a dozen individuals since Clinton became secretary of state in 2009. The article noted that the donations were for "charitable, not political reasons," but went on to hype "political criticism" over the donations.
A Fox News panel subsequently used the article to baselessly push that there may be a "conflict of interest" with donations to the Clinton Foundation from these individual donors.
But this is yet another attempt to recycle old stories in order to sensationalize charitable donations to an organization with global reach.
The Clintons publically released their donor list in 2008, ahead of Hillary Clinton's confirmation at the State Department which the Journal wrote about at the time. The Journal's 2015 report covers donations to the Clinton Foundation from several of the same foreign individuals referenced in those reports:
· Donations from Victor Dahdaleh were referenced in a December 2008 Journal article.
· Donations from Sheikh Mohammed H. Al-Amoudi were referenced in a separate December 2008 Journal article.
· Donations from Viktor Pinchuk were referenced in a January 2009 Journal editorial.
Moreover, many of the donors hyped by the Journal have made numerous charitable contributions to a variety of organizations. For example, Wang Wenliang donated to "Singapore, Harvard and New York Universities as well as the Center for Strategic and International Studies, a Washington think tank," as the Journal noted.
A Wall Street Journal report on campus sexual assault suggested false accusations of sexual assault are on the rise but failed to explain the rarity of such accusations. What's more, studies show that universities tend to favor accused perpetrators over victims when investigating sexual assault reports, and the myth of widespread false accusations may actually deter victims from reporting assaults to police.
Wall Street Journal editorial board member Jason Riley argued that black people saw faster progress "when whites were still lynching blacks" in a recent op-ed.
In his column on the video of University of Oklahoma students singing a racist song, Riley claimed that "the reaction among some black liberals was closer to glee" than disgust. Riley went on to criticize the "Democratic Party's belief that there is a federal solution to every black problem" and claimed blacks were in fact progressing faster in an era when many were being lynched (emphasis added):
History shows that faster black progress was occurring at a time when whites were still lynching blacks, not merely singing about it. Liberals want blacks to ignore the lessons of this pre-Civil Rights era, which threaten the current relevance of groups like the NAACP and call into question the Democratic Party's belief that there is a federal solution to every black problem.
He went on to decry a "post-Civil Rights era social pathology and misguided government interventions," which Riley sees as the cause of not just a lack of progress but a "retrogression" among black Americans. Riley argued that "the problem isn't the attitudes and behaviors of the boys on the bus so much as those of the boys in the 'hood." The "boys on the bus" Riley refers to are the group of Oklahoma fraternity members who were filmed chanting, "There will never be a nigger in SAE. You can hang them from a tree, but they'll never sign with me."
An analysis by the Equal Justice Initiative from February revealed that almost 4,000 African Americans were lynched -- murdered as a form of extra-legal vigilante justice, often with public spectators -- between 1877 and 1950.
The Wall Street Journal and The Libre Initiative's Daniel Garza cherry-picked data from recent elections to suggest that Latinos are becoming more conservative, failing to note that almost 63 percent of Latinos voted for Democrats in U.S. House races and that 79 percent of Latino politicians elected to state legislatures were also Democrats.
On the March 17 edition of The Wall Street Journal's "Opinion Journal," WSJ editorial board member Mary Kissel talked to Koch-funded Libre Initiative executive director Daniel Garza, asking him if Democrats were "at risk of really losing [the Latino] vote" despite Latinos "overwhelmingly" voting Democratic. Pointing to the 2014 midterm election results, Garza says that there is evidence that Latinos have "shifted" to the right.
Garza is correct to point out that a few races did see GOP gains among Latino voters, but as Democratic strategist Maria Cardona told The New York Times, "Republicans should not read too much into this," adding, "this doesn't mean their path to the White House in 2016 will be that much easier." In the same Times piece, Garza again claimed "there is a national trend of Latinos distancing away from the Democrats."
In fact, according to The Huffington Post, the 2014 midterm elections produced the "most Latino Congress ever" with "Democrats making up almost three out of four" of the 32 incoming Hispanic Congress members. The Huffington Post also added that exit poll numbers prove "that some 63 percent of Latino voters backed Democrats in U.S. House races -- a six-point jump from the last midterm elections in 2010."
Furthermore, the Pew Research Center found that "Democrats won the Latino vote by a margin of 62% to 36%" across the country in congressional races. This is an upward trend, considering that 60 percent of Latinos voted for Democrats in the 2010 midterm elections.
Media outlets are demanding that Hillary Clinton be subject to an independent review of her personal email account to disprove their own baseless suggestions that she engaged in illicit activity or failed to properly disclose all work-related correspondence. The demand ignores that every State Department employee, regardless of whether they use government or personal accounts, decides for themselves whether or not to preserve their emails.
The Wall Street Journal called on Supreme Court justices to "vindicate federalism" by striking down health care subsidies in the Affordable Care Act (ACA), but ignored the proven economic consequences such a ruling would have on the states, which has led the court in the past to refuse to inflict such harm because of those same federalist concerns.
At issue in the latest health care challenge, King v. Burwell, is whether ACA subsidies are available over the federal health care exchange website, which operates in 37 states. During oral arguments, Justice Anthony Kennedy expressed concern that the challengers' interpretation of the law -- which would deny subsidies to upwards of eight million Americans -- might be unconstitutionally coercive to those states that declined to set up their own exchange. This coercion argument was at the heart of the last ACA challenge in 2012, when the court ruled that it was unconstitutional for the federal government to threaten to deny money to states that refused to expand Medicaid, because the economic consequences would have been devastating.
In a March 5 editorial, the Journal argued that denying federal subsidies to states that refused to set up exchanges "is not the same" as denying federal funds to states that refuse to accept the Medicaid expansion. But in a brief to the Supreme Court, the states who have had to make both choices disagreed, and pointed out that the King challengers themselves had admitted this type of coercion was the same:
In [the 2012 health care challenge], the Court explained that cutting off all Medicaid funding to States that declined Medicaid expansion constituted "much more than relatively mild encouragement -- it is a gun to the head." It "crossed the line distinguishing encouragement from coercion," serving "no purpose other than to force unwilling States" to comply. In the court of appeals, Petitioners argued that the scheme they attribute to Congress was "the same" in its coercive nature as one invalidated in . In this Court, Petitioners prefer understatement, saying that "Congress could quite reasonably believe that elected state officials would not want to explain to voters that they had deprived them of billions of dollars by failing to establish an Exchange." Either way, it is a novel kind of pressure to threaten to injure a State's citizens and to destroy its insurance markets in order to force State-government officials to implement a federal program.
To avoid the comparison, the Journal also downplayed the likely destabilization of the insurance markets in the event the federal tax credits are struck down, echoing a false claim from the King challengers' lawyer, Michael Carvin, who argued in court that there was "not a scintilla of evidence" that the health insurance market would enter a death spiral without the current subsidies. The Journal editorial argued that "in the 1980s and 1990s, eight states including Kentucky, Washington and New York imposed the same rules -- without subsidies. In other words, the regulations are supposedly valuable by themselves to achieve liberal policy goals."
Conservative Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia is adopting right-wing media's talking points yet again, this time implausibly claiming that the Republican-controlled "Congress would act" with an alternative if the court strikes down the Affordable Care Act's health insurance tax credits.
On March 4, the justices heard King v. Burwell, a case that could make insurance subsidies unavailable to some Americans. At issue in the suit is whether a subclause in the law that says subsidies can be disbursed through "Exchanges established by the State" prohibits the IRS from providing tax credits to consumers who bought insurance over the federal exchange. Despite the fact that experts agree that the law clearly makes the subsidies available to everyone, right-wing media have called on the Supreme Court to rule otherwise.
Health and Human Services Secretary Sylvia Burwell has repeatedly said that there is no contingency plan in the event of an adverse decision in King, and that there is no fix the administration can make to remedy the problem without inviting further legal challenges. Right-wing media jumped at Burwell's comments, criticizing the administration for not having a back-up plan while promoting a series of Republican "alternatives" should the court ultimately strike the subsidies down.
Conservative outlets like The Wall Street Journal and Fox News have done their part to push these plans by hosting numerous op-eds and segments with the authors of these questionable proposals. On the March 4 edition of Fox & Friends, Sen. Bill Cassidy (R-LA) joined hosts Steve Doocy, Brian Kilmeade, and Elisabeth Hasselbeck to promote one such alternative. After Cassidy claimed that the Obama administration has "nothing to say" to consumers who might lose their subsidies, Doocy remarked that "the administration says they don't have a plan B, but apparently the Republicans do." National Review Online has also argued that the Republicans have a viable alternative plan, writing in a recent post that "Senate Republicans aren't leaving anything to chance" and that "there's some conservative intellectual firepower behind" their ideas.
As The Hill reported, these alternatives are "a direct appeal to the Supreme Court justices" that are "intended to make it easier for the court to strike down the subsidies, since Republicans believe the court is more likely to rule in their favor if it believes a plan is in place to limit the fallout."
The Wall Street Journal is once again promoting a right-wing challenge to the Affordable Care Act (ACA) by repeating misinformation about the case, calling on the Supreme Court to strike down some health care subsidies while falsely claiming the law's "plain text" renders them illegal.
On March 4, the Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in King v. Burwell, a case that could block the availability of federal health care subsidies. The plaintiffs in King argue that because a subclause of the ACA states that subsidies are available "through Exchanges established by the State," consumers who buy insurance over the federal exchange aren't eligible to receive tax credits from the IRS to offset the cost. Without subsidies, people who live in one of the 37 states that don't operate their own health care exchange would be unable to afford insurance.
In a March 2 editorial, the Journal made its final pitch before oral arguments, calling the challenge an opportunity for "the Justices to vindicate the law's plain text." The editorial, like the challengers in King, ignored the context of the ACA as a whole and claimed that the decision to strike down the subsidies should be an easy call for the Supreme Court because the "English language is clear" and the law is unambiguous:
In King, the High Court will scrutinize this IRS decree using the traditional canons of statutory construction. The English language is clear: Congress wrote that subsidies would be available on state exchanges only, so Washington cannot deputize itself as the 51st state -- especially when the black-letter law is as consistent, tightly worded and cross-referenced as the Affordable Care Act.
To take one example, the Secretary of Health and Human Services was empowered to grant unlimited sums of money to states to establish exchanges. But the law appropriated not a penny for the federal exchanges, and HHS raided internal slush funds to build them. If there is no legal difference between the federal and state exchanges, why did HHS need this budget ruse?
ObamaCare's history shows Democrats made a deliberate choice. As they tried to assemble 60 votes in the Senate, holdouts like then Nebraska Senator Ben Nelson intensely desired state partners. Because the federal government couldn't commandeer the sovereign states by mandating participation, the subsidy bait was Congress's constitutional option to encourage buy-in.
The Journal's attempt to make the plaintiffs' case by arguing that the subsidies are illegal because the Department of Health and Human Services had to rely on a "budget ruse" to build the federal exchanges ignores the facts. According to a report from The Washington Post, the Republican-controlled Congress "repeatedly rejected the Obama administration's requests for additional funds" to implement the ACA, including those exchanges Republican-controlled states refused to set up.
Fox News and owner Rupert Murdoch's newspapers The New York Post, and The Wall Street Journal have all fallen silent as more questions emerge about Bill O'Reilly's claims about his reporting career.
The New York Post has never reported on any of the recent revelations that O'Reilly has inflated tales of his journalism career, while the Wall Street Journal provided just one article right as the controversy began, and Fox News' scant coverage has disappeared as they now ignore all new developments, according to a Media Matters review.
O'Reilly has come under heavy criticism for multiple lies and exaggerations, after a Mother Jones report first noted the Fox host has a history of misleadingly claiming to have been "in the Falklands" and in "combat" during the Falklands War. Media Matters has also identified serious discrepancies in O'Reilly's stories about witnessing nuns being shot in El Salvador, and overhearing the suicide of a figure linked to President John F. Kennedy's assassination.
When the original Mother Jones piece broke, Murdoch's Fox News went to war with the magazine. O'Reilly immediately gave a series of interviews to other news outlets, denying the allegations by saying he had never said he was on the Falkland Islands themselves, and launching personal attacks.
On Fox News itself, O'Reilly first lashed out at critics during his February 20 show and dismissed the Mother Jones report as "garbage," and later used his February 24 show to try to shift the focus away from the scrutiny. Fox's MediaBuzz also covered the story, giving O'Reilly another platform to attack his critics. No other Fox News program covered the story, according to a search of the Nexis and Snaptream databases.
The Wall Street Journal, which is also owned by Murdoch, similarly reported on O'Reilly's initial denials.
When Media Matters further reported on February 25 that O'Reilly had fabricated the claim that he personally "saw nuns get shot in the back of the head" in El Salvador, O'Reilly also offered a statement to Mediaite claiming that when he said "I was in El Salvador and I saw nuns get shot in the back of the head" he was referring to seeing "horrendous images" of nuns murdered, not personally witnessing their deaths.
He did not, however, mention the El Salvador controversy that night on his show, and Fox's PR department released a statement the same day suggesting they would not continue to respond to the "accusation du jour." Additionally, neither Fox nor O'Reilly have directly addressed Media Matters' report on the substantial evidence undermining O'Reilly's claim that he "heard" a shotgun blast when a figure linked to the assassination of President John F. Kennedy committed suicide.
Outside of O'Reilly's own program, no Fox News show has even hinted at these developments, according to a search of the Nexis and Snaptream databases.
Similarly, other Rupert Murdoch-owned media properties have fallen silent or failed to mention the controversies entirely.
Though the Wall Street Journal reported on February 20 on O'Reilly's initial denials of the Falklands story, the paper hasn't mentioned O'Reilly since. According to a search of the newspaper's website and Factiva, the paper has not reported any of the new developments.
And The New York Post hasn't published any stories about O'Reilly this month, except for a brief mention in an Inside Edition anniversary special piece.
The evidence of O'Reilly fabricating and exaggerating past experiences has sparked national news coverage in other non-Murdoch outlets, including CNN, MSNBC, Politico, The Washington Post, The Daily Beast, The Huffington Post, and more.
Previously, Murdoch-owned properties have not shied away from reporting on O'Reilly controversies. For example, the New York Post published multiple reports in 2004 on the alleged $60 million dollar settlement over an O'Reilly a sexual harassment lawsuit filed by Andrea Makris, a former O'Reilly producer.
Media are recycling old news that The Clinton Foundation accepts foreign donations when neither Bill nor Hillary Clinton hold political office to fearmonger over "ethical concerns" surrounding the donations, ignoring the fact that it is not unusual for foundations to receive foreign donations and that Clinton's record as Secretary of State makes clear that she was not politically influenced by previous donations to the Foundation.
Conservative media figures criticized the Obama administration for suggesting terrorism is tied to poverty, ignoring the fact that former President George W. Bush also explicitly cited alleviating poverty as a fundamental tool to fighting terrorism.
Right-wing media are celebrating Gov. Bruce Rauner's (R-IL) executive order blocking public-sector unions from collecting "fair share" fees from the state employees they represent, even though there is no precedent for such a move. National Review and The Wall Street Journal are praising Rauner for "thinking creatively" by effectively turning Illinois into a "right-to-work" state without legislative approval, even though those same outlets have criticized President Obama for issuing lawful executive orders without Republican input.
Rauner's order specifically targets "fair share" dues that nonmembers in unionized workplaces pay to cover the cost of union representation for their collective bargaining agreements. Illinois law already prohibits fair share fees (as opposed to full membership dues) from being used to fund union political activities, but Rauner nevertheless issued his executive order and wrongly claimed that "an employee who is forced to pay unfair share dues is being forced to fund political activity with which they disagree." A number of states have passed "right-to-work" laws that target these kinds of dues with the express purpose of weakening the bargaining power of unions. But Rauner saved himself some time by ignoring decades of Supreme Court labor-law precedent and imposing the "right-to-work" standard on state employees without running it past the legislature first.
Right-wing media are not particularly concerned with Rauner's unilateral and legally questionable antics. Rauner's lawyers, however, apparently realize the unusual nature of this executive action. On the governor's behalf, they have defensively filed a lawsuit asking a district court to preemptively declare his order legal on the radical assumption that all union activity -- even that related to collective bargaining -- is inherently political.
In a February 11 post, National Review writer Patrick Brennan applauded Rauner's "daring" and legal maneuvering, celebrating that "Rauner's Illinois is in limbo -- and, duly elected, he deserves credit for putting them there." The Journal also praised Rauner in a February 10 editorial for "thinking creatively" since the "Democrats who have a supermajority in the state legislature won't make Illinois a right-to-work state."
This is an interesting about-face on executive orders from these outlets, which have attacked Obama's executive action on immigration in the face of an obstructionist GOP-controlled House as an "abuse of power" and "executive overreach" -- despite there being plenty of legal and historical precedent to support Obama's orders. In a November 16 editorial, the Journal argued that it would "support more liberal immigration but not Mr. Obama's means of doing it on his own whim because he's tired of working with Congress." Similarly, in a November 6 editorial, National Review complained that for Obama to "act on immigration without engaging the country's new congressional majority would be a defiance of the legislative branch, and of the American electorate."
But Rauner's order gets a pass from National Review now, because it is enough that "after a deep legal review, he thinks the fair-share fees are unconstitutional forced expression."
Apparently Rauner's deep legal review involves rewriting the basics of labor law. As the Illinois Economic Policy Institute explained, Rauner's claim that "state workers are forced to pay union dues for political purposes" is "false":
Illinois law does not prohibit labor organizations with state collective bargaining agreements from contributing to elected officials, but it also does not mandate that workers must pay for political activities that are endorsed by their representative union. The Illinois Public Labor Relations Act requires all employees covered by a collective bargaining agreement to pay their "fair share" of the cost of collective bargaining and contract administration. Fair share dues "shall not include any fees for contributions related to the election or support of any candidate for political office" but an employee can make "voluntary political contributions in conjunction with his or her fair share payment" [emphasis added]. Since the 1988 Communications Workers of America v. Beck case in the U.S. Supreme Court, unions are authorized to collect from non-members only fees and dues necessary to perform collective bargaining operations, and workers can object to paying a portion of their dues toward political activities.
As conservative Justice Antonin Scalia explained in a 1991 labor law case, nonmembers who don't pay dues "are free riders whom the law requires the union to carry -- indeed, requires the union to go out of its way to benefit, even at the expense of its other interests. In the context of bargaining, a union must seek to further the interests of its nonmembers; it cannot, for example, negotiate particularly high wage increases for its members in exchange for accepting no increases for others." Without compulsory fair share dues for the collective bargaining agreement from which both non-members and members benefit, unions face a serious "free rider" problem and threat to their financial viability.
Which, for the National Review and the Journal, is clearly the point.
There's no question that the current makeup of the Supreme Court is less sympathetic to the labor movement than it has been in the past. In 2014, the conservative majority ruled that home care workers in Illinois (who are paid with state Medicaid funds but are not full-fledged public employees) cannot be compelled to pay dues to a union they don't want to join, but ultimately declined to strike down a 1977 case that allows public-sector unions to collect "fair share" dues from nonmembers. Even though Justice Samuel Alito's majority opinion questioned the "foundations" of that 1977 ruling -- basically inviting a challenge like Rauner's -- the case is still good law.
In light of this precedent, some might call Rauner's actions an appeal to the "judicial activism" they frequently condemn. The Journal, on the other hand, is calling this "thinking creatively."
The Wall Street Journal glossed over Jeb Bush's close ties to the neoconservative movement that shaped the foreign policy of his brother, former President George W. Bush, suggesting that Jeb Bush's foreign policy would be more moderate than that of his brother's. But Jeb Bush has praised his brother's foreign policy, specifically the decision to invade Iraq, and even signed a founding neoconservative document.