On the March 4 broadcast of ABC's World News, anchor Charles Gibson advanced the false claim -- propagated by conservatives including House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-OH) -- that prior to President Obama's statement that he would sign an omnibus appropriations bill that includes earmarks, Obama promised “to get rid of earmarks.” Introducing a report, Gibson stated, “You may ask, didn't the presidential candidates last fall agree to get rid of earmarks?” Later, Gibson repeated the claim by stating, “And President Obama did campaign on a promise to end pet projects, earmarks.” In fact, as PolitiFact.com and Media Matters for America have noted, Obama had actually promised to reform the earmark process and cut wasteful spending, not eliminate earmarks altogether.

From PolitiFact.com:

Speaking on the House floor, Republican Leader John Boehner railed against a spending bill with some 9,000 earmarks, calling on President Obama to veto it and insist on one free of pet projects.

“The President campaigned against this type of legislation, this number of earmarks,” the Ohio Republican said on Feb. 25, “and I would hope that the President would veto this bill because Republicans in Congress will be here to uphold his veto of this piece of legislation.”

Several news organizations made even harsher claims. The New York Times, for example, reported that Obama would sign the bill, earmarks and all, “despite campaign promises to put an end to the practice.”

That's incorrect. Obama did not promise to end earmarking, only to “reform” it, and eliminate “screwy” or wasteful earmarks.

While Sen. John McCain repeatedly said during the presidential debates that he would “veto every earmark pork-barrel bill” if elected, Obama said in the first debate that “the earmarks process has been abused” and said he had “suspended any requests for my home state ... until we cleaned it up.” During the second presidential debate, Obama said McCain's criticism of earmarks was “important,” but that he wanted “to go line by line through every item in the federal budget and eliminate programs that don't work and make sure that those that do work, work better and cheaper.” And in the third presidential debate, Obama said: “There's no doubt that the system needs reform and there are a lot of screwy things that we end up spending money on, and they need to be eliminated. But it's not going to solve the problem.”

Similarly, in May 2008, Obama issued a statement that “the entire earmarks process needs to be re-examined and reformed.” The statement said:

I also have championed greater disclosure requirements for earmarks to ensure that the public knows which member of Congress is sponsoring an earmark.

However, even with all of these reforms, I have come to believe that the system is broken. We can no longer accept a process that doles out earmarks based on a member of Congress' seniority, rather than the merit of the project. We can no longer accept an earmarks process that has become so complicated to navigate that a municipality or non-profit group has to hire high-priced D.C. lobbyists to do it. And we can no longer accept an earmarks process in which many of the projects being funded fail to address the real needs of our country.

The entire earmarks process needs to be re-examined and reformed. For that reason, I will be supporting [South Carolina Republican] Senator [Jim] DeMint's amendment and will not be requesting earmarks this year for Illinois. Over the next year, I hope to work with my colleagues, both Democratic and Republican, to improve the earmarks process."

As Media Matters documented, many in the media -- including The New York Times and Times columnist Maureen Dowd -- have falsely claimed that Obama, in the words of a Washington Times editorial, “promised no earmarks” in spending bills during his administration, and that he has since broken that pledge.

From the March 4 broadcast of ABC's World News with Charles Gibson:

GIBSON: When having passed the giant stimulus bill that [correspondent] David [Muir] was talking about two weeks ago, Congress has now moved on to a giant $410 billion bill to fund the government for the next year. And today, the Senate was sparring over 9,000 earmarks that are included in that bill. You may ask, didn't the presidential candidates last fall agree to get rid of earmarks?

Here's our senior congressional correspondent, Jonathan Karl.

[...]

KARL: The White House says it will fight to eliminate wasteful projects from future spending bills, but don't count on it. Democratic leaders and more than a few Republicans say they will fight to defend Congress' right to fund their pet projects.

Jonathan Karl, ABC News, Capitol Hill.

GIBSON: And President Obama did campaign on a promise to end pet projects, earmarks. So do you think he should sign this year's bill, stuffed with earmarks? You can weigh in on our question of the day at our World Newser blog at ABCNews.com.