Media Matters for America

Justin Berrier: James Taranto: The WSJ 's "War On Men" Crusader

Wed, 19 Jun 2013 08:11:11 EDT

Wall Street Journal editorial board member James Taranto defended his recent column that dismissed the epidemic of sexual assault in the military as a "war on men." Taranto has a long history of making sexist remarks.

Taranto Claims Military Sexual Assault Epidemic Evidence Of A "War On Men"

Taranto: Effort To Address Rising Sexual Assault In Military A Sign Of "Effort To Criminalize Male Sexuality." In a Wall Street Journal opinion piece, Taranto wrote that an effort by Sen. Claire McCaskill to address the growing problem of sexual abuse in the military was evidence of "a war on men -- a political campaign against sexual assault in the military that shows signs of becoming an effort to criminalize male sexuality." [The Wall Street Journal, 6/17/13]

Taranto: "War On Men" A Result Of "Female Sexual Freedom." On the June 18 edition of the Opinion Journal Live, a Wall Street Journal webcast that features members of its editorial board, Taranto doubled down on his claims, explaining that a military sexual assault case under investigation is evidence of a "war on men" that began with "female sexual freedom":

MARY KISSEL (Wall Street Journal editorial board member): What a perverse outcome here. So you have this really accomplished woman, in this lieutenant general who's up for promotion, and getting held up by another woman because of the war on men. James, when did this war on men begin? Can you pinpoint a starting point?

TARANTO: Well, it all goes back to the beginning of contemporary feminism in the early '60s. You know, women wanted to be equal to men, they wanted to be able to do all the sort of professional things including the military that men could do, and --

KISSEL: Was there anything wrong with that, though, James? I mean, that sounds --

TARANTO: Well, that's too long to go into now, the question of what's wrong with that, but in addition they wanted sexual freedom. Well what is female sexual freedom? It means, for this woman, that she had the freedom to get drunk, and to get in the backseat of the car with this guy. There was another woman who accused him, he was acquitted in this case, of sexual assault. This so-called assault happened in his bedroom, to which she voluntarily accompanied him, even the jury said that was consensual. [WSJ Live, Opinion Journal Live, 6/18/13, via Media Matters]

Taranto Defends Column, Claiming Response "Proves Us Right"

Taranto: "Viciousness" In Response To Column "Proves Us Right." In a June 19 op-ed, Taranto addressed critics of his earlier remarks, claiming the "viciousness" in response to his column "proves us right" that a "war on men" exists:

All this viciousness was in the service of denying that there is, as we wrote in yesterday's article, a "war on men." Well, imagine if a prominent feminist journalist wrote about the "war on women" and dozens of conservative male writers responded by subjecting her to similar verbal abuse. Would that not be prima facie evidence that she was on to something? If the answer is yes -- and we'd say it is -- then either the same is true in our case or the sexes aren't equal. (Select one or both of the above.)

We can take the abuse. In fact, in this instance we delight in it, not only because we see the humor but because it proves us right. [The Wall Street Journal, 6/19/13]

Taranto Has A Long History Of Sexism

Taranto: "Salon's Joan Walsh Is Spoiling For A Catfight With Our Colleagues." In his May 21 column, Taranto described criticism from Salon editor at large Joan Walsh by writing that she "is spoiling for a catfight with our colleagues Kim Strassel and Peggy Noonan," and going on to claim that an earlier Wall Street Journal column "has Walsh's back up." Taranto concluded by writing "Toward the end of her 700-word outburst, Walsh writes: 'It's wrong to dignify Noonan with too much attention.' Me-OW!" [The Wall Street Journal, 5/21/13]

Taranto Promotes "Evolutionary Psychology" That "Contradicts The Feminist Dogma That The Sexes Are Created Equal." In his January 14 column, Taranto wrote that the theory of evolution demonstrated that "[m]en incline toward promiscuity, women toward hypergamy." Taranto concluded that "evolutionary psychology contradicts the feminist dogma that the sexes are created equal":

Why would the New York Times, which scoffs at creationism, publish such an intellectually slipshod attack on evolution? Because evolutionary psychology contradicts the feminist dogma that the sexes are created equal, that all differences between men and women (or at least those differences that represent male dominance or superiority) are pure products of cultural conditioning.

Feminism is the new creationism. The left loves to scoff at people who believe that Genesis is literally true, but these days feminist beliefs are a lot more influential. [The Wall Street Journal, 1/14/13]

Taranto On Women Who Were Shielded During Aurora, CO Shootings: I Hope They "Were Worthy Of The Sacrifice." Following reports that three men had died during the July 20, 2012, shooting in Aurora, CO, after shielding their girlfriends from the violence, Taranto tweeted "I hope the girls whose boyfriends died to save them were worthy of the sacrifice." Taranto later called the tweet an "ill-considered tweet" in the Wall Street Journal. [The Huffington Post, 7/25/12]

Taranto: "Feminism's Latest Triumph" Is That "Boys Are Afraid Of Girls." In an April 13, 2012, column, headlined "Isn't It Romantic? Feminism's latest triumph: Boys are afraid of girls," Taranto wrote that "there is good reason for males (men as well as boys) to be more fearful of sex than females. Contemporary reproductive technology and law place all the burden for unwanted pregnancy on them":

At the same time, there is good reason for males (men as well as boys) to be more fearful of sex than females. Contemporary reproductive technology and law place all the burden for unwanted pregnancy on them. Between the pill and abortion, women have complete control over the reproductive process. They can avoid or end any unwanted pregnancy, and the man involved has no say in the matter. In Planned Parenthood v. Casey (1992), the U.S. Supreme Court went so far as to hold that a married woman has the constitutional right to abort her husband's child without even telling him.

A woman's "reproductive rights" also include the right to carry a pregnancy to term. The crucial point here is that while the decision belongs entirely to her, in the event that a child is born the law assigns financial responsibility to the male involved. That is what the boy in her study means when he worries about being "screwed for the rest of my life." Short of sterilization, the only way for a male to be sure of avoiding this fate is to abstain from sex. [The Wall Street Journal, 4/13/12]

Taranto: "Contemporary Feminism Is A Sweet Deal For Hedonistic Men" And "Based On A False Theory Of Equality." In his March 12, 2012, column, Taranto wrote that "contemporary feminism is a totalitarian ideology" that is "based on a false theory of equality." Taranto further wrote:

It is true, however, that contemporary feminism is a sweet deal for hedonistic men who have the social skills to persuade "young women of child-bearing age" to consent to "easy access sex." When you look at it that way, you can understand why feminism's grandes dames are so keen to turn back the clock. [The Wall Street Journal, 3/12/12]

Taranto: Feminism "Has Helped To Create A Two-Tiered Culture" Where Women Are "'Chained To A Desk'." In his March 8, 2012, column, Taranto claimed that feminism has led to only affluent women being able to enjoy a "normal family life" in which they were "casting off the chains of professional work":

Marriage and male responsibility for families were once the norm at all levels of American society. Feminism was supposed to liberate women from dependency on men. Instead it has helped to create a two-tiered culture in which the norm is for women to be "chained to a desk," but those who hit the jackpot in the mating game can realistically aspire to escape that status. Nice going, ladies. Happy International Women's Day. [The Wall Street Journal, 3/8/12]

Taranto: Liberal Women Dislike Sarah Palin Because She's "A Threat To Their Sexual Identity." On the January 27, 2011, edition of Fox News' Hannity, Taranto claimed that liberals' dislike for Sarah Palin "all comes down to sex. It originates with the liberal women and it's because they're -- she is a threat to their sexual identity." [Fox News, Hannity, 1/28/11, via Media Matters]

Taranto Called For A "Rebalancing Of The Burden Of Proof In Sexual-Harassment Cases." In a November 3, 2011, column, Taranto downplayed allegations of sexual harassment against then-presidential candidate Herman Cain, suggesting that the women accusing Cain "took advantage of a legal regime that ... is highly indulgent of sexual-harassment allegations." Taranto concluded by calling for "a rebalancing of the burden of proof in sexual-harassment cases":

With virtually no facts available, a fair-minded person cannot possibly draw any conclusions from these stories. Maybe Cain behaved badly. Maybe the women were unhappy in their jobs and took advantage of a legal regime that -- especially in the wake of the furor over Anita Hill's unsubstantiated accusations of ribaldry against Clarence Thomas -- is highly indulgent of sexual-harassment allegations. Maybe the real story is something in between and involves elements of misunderstanding.

[...]

A consequentialist Cain skeptic might argue that it would be a good thing for the country if Cain's campaign fell apart even if by unjust means. We can't agree with that. If a rival campaign is behind this, it would be better if voter revulsion at such tactics sank that campaign -- and eventually prompted a rebalancing of the burden of proof in sexual-harassment cases. [The Wall Street Journal, 11/3/11]

Salvatore Colleluori: CNN Distorts Debate Over Proposed New York Racial Profiling Law

Wed, 19 Jun 2013 05:48:20 EDT

CNN distorted the goal of a proposed law to strengthen the ban on illegal racial profiling in New York, erroneously claiming it would not allow police to refer to race, religion, or disability at all when describing a suspect.

CNN ran a segment highlighting a New York Post article on an advertisement from the New York Police Department (NYPD) Captains Endowment Association depicting a blindfolded police officer and asking, "How effective is a police officer with a blindfold on?" The NYPD Captains Endowment Association is fighting the measure claiming that the bill would "ban cops from identifying a suspect's age, gender, color or disability." Even though CNN's law enforcement analyst Mike Brooks, a former police officer, acknowledges that the claims made in the ad may not be true, he goes on to parrot its claims and say that if such a proposal is enacted, "cops aren't going to be able to do their job":

Despite Brooks' assertion, the bill would not ban police officers from using those descriptions to identify a suspect. The bill clearly states that police officers cannot use "actual or perceived race ... as the determinative factor in initiating law enforcement action against an individual, rather than an individual's behavior or other information or circumstances" (emphasis added) to the suspected crime. Law enforcement can still use race and other identifying factors in stopping suspects, as long as it is not the main, or determinative, factor in doing so. According to the New York Civil Liberties Union (NYCLU), a fitting description or having a full description of the suspect prior to stopping someone "was the reason for a stop-and frisk just 16 percent of the time in 2011,"despite the fact that 90 percent of people stopped under the NYPD's current stop-and-frisk policy were either black or Latino.

The current stop-and-frisk policy of the NYPD has been largely unsuccessful. Research has shown that the stop-and-frisk policy has never been proven effective and, despite the skyrocketing number of stop-and-frisks, shootings in New York have remained relatively steady. That's because a gun is recovered during a stop-and-frisk less than one percent of the time.

Justin Berrier: Betsy McCaughey Claims Obamacare Outreach A Plot To Create "Beholden" Democratic Majority

Wed, 19 Jun 2013 02:04:01 EDT

Serial health care misinformer and right-wing media figure Betsy McCaughey pushed the conspiracy theory that health care outreach efforts are a secret plan to register voters as Democrats.

In an Investor's Business Daily column, McCaughey attacked grants that fund outreach and education about President Obama's health care law. McCaughey claimed, "The lion's share of the money is going for what the exchange budget terms 'outreach.' In truth, the money is going to build Democratic Party enrollment." She continued:

Assisters will also guide the uninsured to sign up for whatever non-health social services they may be eligible for, including welfare, food stamps and housing assistance, according to the manual prepared by the Community Health Councils for California's implementation.

Anyone who remembers the days of James Curley, Boss Tweed and Tammany Hall gets the picture. If you were poor or a newcomer to this country, you went to the local ward boss and got whatever you needed in exchange for your vote.

The difference is that back then, politics was local. Now the Obama health law is institutionalizing this corrupt style of politics across the country. Whether you live in California or New York, local community activists and unions will be recruiting people to enroll in ObamaCare and sign up to be part of the permanent, beholden Democratic voting majority.

McCaughey is not the first right-wing media figure to push this claim despite lack of evidence to support it. Fox News host Megyn Kelly and contributor Michelle Malkin have both attacked outreach efforts in an attempt to push a political agenda. Rush Limbaugh also claimed that officials employed by the government to help Americans evaluate health care options will register voters as Democrats and "smear Republicans." But outreach efforts for health care legislation are not new -- the State Health Insurance Assistance Program has been conducting similar outreach for Medicare Advantage and Medicare Part D programs.

McCaughey has a long history of misinforming about health care, including the claim that the health care law will lead to euthanizing seniors, that the law contains "death panels," and that it will limit preventive care

Zachary Pleat: Fox Promotes New O'Keefe Smear Campaign With False Claim About Low-Income Phone Program's Funding

Wed, 19 Jun 2013 12:52:52 EDT

Fox News hosts falsely claimed that a federal program that helps low-income Americans obtain phone access is paid for by individual taxpayers, when in fact the program is funded by fees levied on telecommunications companies. Fox fabricated this falsehood in support of a new smear campaign against low-income phone programs from conservative activist James O'Keefe.

O'Keefe Releases New Highly Edited Video Smearing Lifeline Low-Income Phone Program

New O'Keefe Video Attacks Program To Provide Low-Income Americans With Access To Phones. Conservative activist James O'Keefe released a new highly edited video that purports to show people inappropriately receiving free cell phones after announcing an intention to sell them to purchase drugs and to pay bills. The phones were being distributed as part of a federal program to provide low-income Americans with access to phones. The raw footage of the video, however, shows that none of O'Keefe's actors who claimed that they were going to sell the phones for unrelated purchases actually received phones. [Media Matters, 6/18/13]

Fox News Hosts O'Keefe, Pushes Falsehood That Taxes Fund Low-Income Phone Program Featured In His Video

O'Reilly: Lifeline Phone Program Is "Ripping Off The American Taxpayer." Fox's Bill O'Reilly interviewed James O'Keefe to promote his highly edited video. Throughout the segment, O'Reilly pushed falsehoods about the Lifeline program's finances, saying that "the government gives tax money" to companies that provide free cell phones to eligible Americans, and that the program is "ripping off the American taxpayer." O'Reilly also presented the cost of the program in the context of the country's national debt. [Fox News, The O'Reilly Factor, 6/18/13]

Hannity: "Your Hard-Earned Tax Dollars Are Paying For" Low-Income Phone Program. Fox News host Sean Hannity also promoted O'Keefe's video and claimed that the Lifeline program was funded by taxes, saying that "your hard-earned tax dollars are paying for" the program and that "you spent $2.2 billion on this program just last year alone. Pretty unbelievable." [Fox News, Hannity, 6/18/13]

Bolling: O'Keefe Video Shows "How Our Money Is Being Spent." Eric Bolling, co-host of Fox's The Five, introduced O'Keefe's highly edited video by saying: "$2 billion tax dollars later, let's see how our money is being spent now." [Fox News, The Five, 6/18/13]

Lifeline Program Is Funded By Telecommunication Companies, Not Taxpayers

FCC: Lifeline Provides Affordable Phone Service For Low-Income Americans. From the Federal Communications Commission's guide to the Lifeline program:

Lifeline is a government benefit program that provides discounts on monthly telephone service for eligible low-income consumers to help ensure they have the opportunities and security that telephone service affords, including being able to connect to jobs, family, and 911 services. Lifeline is supported by the federal Universal Service Fund (USF). [Federal Communications Commission, accessed 6/19/13]

Programs Providing Phone Access To Low-Income Americans Paid For By Telecommunications Service Providers. From an explanation of how Lifeline and similar programs are funded from Maine's Department of Health and Human Services [emphasis original]:

Who Pays for the Lifeline and Link-Up Programs?

All telecommunications service providers and certain other providers of telecommunications must contribute to the federal USF based on a percentage of their interstate and international end-user telecommunications revenues. These companies include wireline phone companies, wireless phone companies, paging service companies, and certain Voice over Internet Protocol (VoIP) providers.

Some consumers may notice a "Universal Service" line item on their telephone bills. This line item appears when a company chooses to recover its USF contributions directly from its customers by billing them this charge. The FCC does not require this charge to be passed on to customers. Each company makes a business decision about whether and how to assess charges to recover its Universal Service costs. These charges usually appear as a percentage of the consumer's phone bill. Companies that choose to collect Universal Service fees from their customers cannot collect an amount that exceeds their contribution to the USF. They also cannot collect any fees from a Lifeline program participant. [Maine Department of Health and Human Services, accessed 6/19/13]

FactCheck.org: Lifeline Is Not A "Taxpayer-Funded Program." A May 2012 FactCheck.org article responding to Republican Congressman Tim Griffin's (AR) web video about the Lifeline program noted that it is not funded by taxpayers:

Griffin's video focuses on Lifeline, a federally mandated program that reimburses phone companies with a monthly subsidy of $9.25 for each low-income customer who uses a landline or a cell phone. The program has allowed millions of persons living under or just above the poverty line to acquire cell phones -- once considered a luxury -- for free.

Lifeline is funded by telecom customers who pay a universal service fee as part of their phone bills. The fee technically is not a tax but a cross subsidy, the rules of which are determined by the Federal Communications Commission.

[...]

Griffin's video portrays Lifeline as a taxpayer-funded program. Technically, it's not. Telecom customers cover the cost.

[...]

[T]he universal service fee is not a tax but a cross subsidy overseen by the FCC. The U.S. Treasury does not collect or handle the funds. Griffin's description goes too far. [FactCheck.org, 5/22/12]

Eric Hananoki: Meet Tobin Smith: The Dubious Stock Pitchman Fired From Fox News

Wed, 19 Jun 2013 12:33:33 EDT

Fox News has fired paid contributor and market analyst Tobin Smith for receiving compensation to promote the stock of Petrosonic Energy, a violation of network policy. According to a Media Matters review, Smith's company, NBT Equities Research, also received compensation for promoting numerous other companies through his website and conservative newsletters, and used his Fox News credentials to hawk volatile stocks to conservatives.

MarketWatch's Chuck Jaffe reported that Smith issued "sponsored investment research" to tout Petrosonic's stock in a 20-page mailer, for which NBT received $50,000. The paid endorsement is against Fox's policy that "no contributor to FBN [Fox Business Network], nor his/her firm, and/or family members are allowed to accept financial consideration of any kind whatsoever to issue research, advertisements, or to otherwise promote individual stocks or securities." In a post today on his website, Smith acknowledged that he is "no longer a Fox contributor" but defended his "business of sponsored research for uncovered emerging growth companies." He also wrote: "For the record, my last contributor agreement with Fox News did NOT include any exclusion from me or my company sponsored research. But that is water under the bridge."

MarketWatch -- which, like Fox News, is owned by News Corp. -- noted that companies hire people like Smith for sponsored research "to help small stocks find a market using fluff-and-shine hyperbolic chatter" at novice investors.

Smith's company produces voluminous quantities of sponsored content. In June alone, NBT's website has featured posts by Smith with compensation disclaimers for GlyEco ("200,000 options of GlyEco"), Petrosonic ("$50,000"), Brazil Minerals ($40,000), Barfresh Food Group ("$35,000 and 75,000 restricted shares"), and Pulse Beverage ("$50,000").

Smith also regularly pitches paid stock promotions to conservatives through right-wing email newsletters. Media Matters identified at least six recent instances in which Smith's NBT Group was compensated to promote a company's stock via Townhall.com newsletters. The companies include Medient Studios in 2013 ("225,000 shares"); BOLDFACE Group in 2013 ($50,000); IceWeb in 2012 ($50,000 via a third-party firm); Plandai Biotechnology in 2012 ("$30,000 monthly and 1.4 million shares for a one year"); Replicel Life Sciences in 2012 ("a fee of over $1000.00 in cash"); and Petrosonic in 2012 and 2013 ($50,000).

Since mid-December 2012, Smith has sent compensated Petrosonic advertisements to subscribers of email lists for Townhall.com, National Review, Dick Morris Reports, and CainTV, which is run by Fox News contributor Herman Cain.

MarketWatch wrote that Smith's Petrosonic advertising pitches ignored several problems with the company's finances, including its lack of revenues, "Petrosonic's rising losses, negative cash-flow and the 'going-concern letter' from auditors who think there is 'substantial doubt' in Petrosonic's ability to survive."

Other stocks that Smith promoted to conservative newsletter subscribers paint a similarly rosy picture of volatile companies with low share prices. At least two stocks are now virtually worthless: BOLDFACE Group closed yesterday at $.06 and IceWeb closed at $.02. Two other companies, Plandai Biotechnology and Replicel, are both trading at between approximately $.50 and $.65. And Medient Studios is trading at near $1 a share.

Remington Shepard: Fox's Anti-Tax Zealotry Leads To Conclusion That One Should Make Less Money In Order To Avoid Paying Taxes

Wed, 19 Jun 2013 12:22:11 EDT

A Fox Business correspondent claimed that it was better to forgo nearly $3 million in additional prize money than to pay the roughly $400,000 in taxes due on it, representing a continuation of the baseless Fox News narrative that the rich have unduly high tax burdens.

Professional golfer Phil Mickelson placed second at June's U.S. Open golf tournament. Fox Business correspondent Lauren Simonetti argued on June 19's edition of Fox & Friends First that it may have been better for Mickelson to have lost the tournament and place second, for he would avoid paying nearly $400,000 in additional taxes.

She explained that had Mickelson won the tournament -- and won the $1.44 million first prize -- he would have had to pay an additional $76,000 more in taxes than he paid by placing second and receiving $700,000. Mickelson would have also had to pay an additional $300,000 in taxes on $2.5 million in bonuses paid to him by his sponsors, had he won. She concluded it's better to avoid paying roughly $400,000 in taxes than to win nearly $3 million in after-tax income. Simonetti said this made Mickelson "$400,000 richer."

This conclusion may stem from Fox's zealotry against additional taxes for the rich: the rich, because of their supposed onerous tax burden, need lower taxes in order to continue amassing wealth, or else they may stop working.

The idea that the wealthiest Americans have a disproportionately high tax burden is a fabrication Fox has pushed for years. However, a February 15 New York Times article reported that incomes for top earners rose more than 11 percent during the recovery from the most recent recession, while the rest saw their incomes decline slightly. As Nobel Prize-winning economist Joseph Stiglitz noted in an April 14 New York Times Opinionator blog post, "as the top 1 percent has grown extremely rich, the effective tax rates they pay have markedly decreased." The Center for Tax Justice (CTJ) found that the effective tax rate -- a rate including all federal, state and local taxes paid -- for the wealthiest Americans is not much higher than the effective tax rate for middle class Americans:

In the same report the CTJ found that the precentage of all taxes paid by the wealthy is near the amount of all national income captured by the wealthy.

From this fabrication, Fox has argued that the supposedly high tax burden will make the rich not work or might seek lower taxes in different states. In September 2011, Fox News host Bill O'Reilly equated earnings to achievement and claimed that "if you tax achievement, some of the achievers are going to pack it in." And in September 2010, Fox & Friends co-host Brian Kilmeade argued that high levels of taxation, to the wealthy, "robs you of your ambition and your push and your drive."

However, the rich have not been doing this. As Reuters reported, millionaires in high tax states, such as Mickelson's home state of California, have not left the state for low-tax alternatives. Mickelson himself suggested in January he may quit golf due to California's income taxes, walking back the statement a day later. If the 2013 U.S. Open results are any indication, Mickelson is still playing golf, presumably because after taxes he still earns millions and because he doesn't take financial advice from Fox.

Albert Kleine: Niall Ferguson Cites Flawed Evidence To Stoke Regulation Fears

Wed, 19 Jun 2013 12:16:47 EDT

Conservative author Niall Ferguson used discredited research to overstate the negative impact of regulations on the economy.

In an op-ed for The Wall Street Journal titled "The Regulated States of America," Ferguson, a Daily Beast contributor, claimed that the increase of regulations is holding back economic growth.

Ferguson's argument hinges upon the promotion of statistics compiled by the oil and pharmaceutical industry funded Competitive Enterprise Institute's (CEI) annual report on the cost of regulations. According to Ferguson, the report shows:

Excluding blank pages, the 2012 Federal Register - the official directory of regulation - today runs to 78,961 pages. Back in 1986 it was 44,812 pages. In 1936 it was just 2,620.

[...]

The cost of all this, [CEI's Cyde Wayne] Crews estimates, is $1.8 trillion annual - that's on top of the federal government's $3.5 trillion in outlays, so it is equivalent to an invisible 65% surcharge on your federal taxes, or nearly 12% of GDP.

The research that Ferguson cites, however, is inherently misleading and has been criticized by experts.

The way in which CEI tallies the overall burden of regulations -- counting the number of pages in the Federal Register -- is more focused on shock value than sound analysis. In an email correspondence with Media Matters, James Goodwin, a policy analyst at the Center for Progressive Reform, noted that CEI's focus on the pages in the Federal Register overstates regulatory burden:

Bad case law, "filter failure," and the explosion of analytical requirements have more to do with those numbers than do some alleged "overreaching and unaccountable bureaucracy."

Furthermore, Ferguson, like the CEI report, completely ignores any potential benefits that regulations contribute to the economy. According to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), which calculates the costs and benefits of regulations, over the past 10 years major rules have provided a net positive benefit to the economy.

Ferguson's focus on the CEI report ultimately leads him to "wonder if all this could have anything to do with the fact that we still have nearly 12 million people out of work," a conclusion that is in direct contrast to economic evidence. Many economists have consistently cited lack of demand in the economy as the main contributor to slow growth - demand that is held back by reduced government spending.

Indeed, independent surveys support this position. According to an Economic Policy Institute (EPI) analysis, during the Obama presidency, businesses have reported poor sales as the single most important problem facing their business, while a smaller percentage of businesses named regulations as their most important issue. EPI's results are confirmed by surveys that find lack of customer demand to be the main hindrance to business growth and employment.

Ferguson's argument continues the well-established right-wing media theme of demonizing regulation despite evidence to the contrary.

Sergio Munoz: Fox News Botches Civil Rights Law To Defend Discriminatory Background Checks

Wed, 19 Jun 2013 11:56:28 EDT

Fox News analyst Bernie Goldberg railed against long-standing employment discrimination law, mangling a civil rights doctrine to incorrectly claim the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) is seeking to prevent companies from screening job applicants for misdemeanor or felony convictions.

The EEOC recently filed complaints against a BMW facility in South Carolina and the retailer chain Dollar General because they allegedly conducted improper background checks that disproportionately affected workers and applicants of color, a possible violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. This type of racial discrimination has been held to be impermissible by the Supreme Court since 1971 and was most recently acknowledged to be good law by conservative Justice Antonin Scalia in 2010.

Goldberg, however, attacked the complaints, claiming "to most regular folks out there listening to us, this has to sound crazy, because there is no racial discrimination in any traditional sense." From the June 18 edition of America Live:

As mentioned by Goldberg, EEOC is using the disparate impact enforcement approach of Title VII, which can prohibit employment policies that have a disproportionate effect on the basis of race without an acceptable employer justification. Not only has the Supreme Court affirmed this antidiscrimination enforcement under Title VII since 1971, Congress explicitly codified the doctrine in 1991. Nevertheless, right-wing media continue to pretend this type of statistical analysis is improper and have repeatedly smeared the Department of Justice for utilizing this area of civil rights law.

Salvatore Colleluori: Right-Wing Media Misrepresent CBO To Pit U.S. Workers Against Immigrants

Wed, 19 Jun 2013 11:32:27 EDT

Right-wing media outlets cherry-picked data from a Congressional Budget Office report on the Senate's immigration reform proposal to claim that immigrants who would benefit under the bill will drive down the wages of U.S. workers. In fact, while CBO predicts a slight decrease in wages in the first decade, that decrease would be outweighed by the larger increase in wages in the following decade. CBO also noted that its estimates "do not necessarily imply that current U.S. residents would be worse off" in the first decade.

A post on Breitbart.com asserted that CBO found that "illegal immigrants who would receive amnesty, or legalized status, would see a spike in their income while Americans' incomes dropped." The post added that "it would be harder for Americans to find jobs if the bill passed." Similarly, on her radio show, Fox News contributor Laura Ingraham aired comments by Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-AL) claiming the bill would depress U.S. wages, then stated that the bill "goes beyond all common sense":

In reality, the CBO report on the economic impact of the Senate immigration bill states that "average wages for the entire labor force would be 0.1 percent lower in 2023 and 0.5 percent higher in 2033 under the legislation than under current law." CBO continues:

The estimated reductions in average wages and per capita GNP for much of the next two decades do not necessarily imply that current U.S. residents would be worse off, on average, under the legislation than they would be under current law. Both of those figures represent differences between the averages for all U.S. residents under the legislation--including both the people who would be residents under current law and the additional people who would come to the country under the legislation--and the averages under current law for people who would be residents in the absence of the legislation.

As noted, the additional people who would become residents under the legislation would earn lower wages, on average, than other residents, which would pull down the average wage and per capita GNP; at the same time, the income earned by capital would increase. [emphasis added]

Media Matters staff: Fox's Varney Downplays Cuts To Food Stamp Program As Effort To "Just Trim It A Little"

Wed, 19 Jun 2013 11:31:09 EDT

From the June 19 edition of Fox Business' Varney & Co.:

Previously:

Dobbs Downplays Effects Of Proposed SNAP Cuts

Fox's Varney Attacks "Feel Good" Food Stamp Program As Hunger Reaches Elevated Levels

Fox Business Rebukes Poor People For Not Being Ashamed Of Their Poverty

Simon Maloy: NY Times Leaves Industry Disclosure Out Of Op-Ed Celebrating Broadband Mediocrity

Wed, 19 Jun 2013 10:47:45 EDT

Complaints about the poor quality of customer service from big internet providers like Comcast or Time Warner are often punctuated with an exasperated variant of "I'm paying XX dollars every month, how can they get away with this?" The short answer is because they can, because in all likelihood there's no real broadband competition in your area, because cable companies like Comcast and Time Warner are strengthening their grip on broadband and aren't feeling much pressure to improve your service.

The salt in the wound is that even though you do pay quite a bit for connectivity to the internet, what you're getting in return probably isn't all that great, at least when compared to the rest of the developed world where faster, cheaper internet connections abound. But the mere adequacy of cable-delivered U.S. internet is not without its defenders. Richard Bennett of the Information Technology and Innovation Foundation (ITIF) inked an op-ed for the New York Times this weekend arguing that we're actually doing pretty OK on the cable broadband front. Bennett's arguments, however, require a little scrutiny and clarification.

First and foremost, some disclosure is needed. Between 2009 and 2011 (the most recent data available) the ITIF received nearly $100,000 from the National Cable and Telecommunications Association (NCTA), the cable industry's chief lobbying group. (The NCTA's 990 forms for the relevant years can be found here, here, and here.) Over that same time period ITIF also received $122,500 from CTIA -- The Wireless Association, which lobbies on behalf of the wireless telecommunications industry. (990s here, here, and here.) The New York Times identified Bennett as a senior fellow at ITIF but did not disclose these donations, which are relevant given his promotion of America's broadband systems, which are dominated by the cable networks, and mobile broadband development.

UPDATE: The Times has responded to Media Matters' inquiries on the financial disclosure aspects of Bennett's op-ed: "We are entirely confident that this essay was handled correctly and we do not intend to comment further on it."

Ari Rabin-Havt: Canonize or Villainize?

Wed, 19 Jun 2013 10:29:10 EDT

No act in modern media culture can create as instantly polarizing a figure as the leaking of classified information. Daniel Ellsberg, Julian Assange, Bradley Manning, and now Edward Snowden -- the complexity of their human psyche was instantly reduced to binary choices by opposing extremes tugging to set a narrative.

They must be canonized or villainized.

Creating a media narrative focused on battles over the moral character of imperfect individuals inevitably draws the public away from necessary debates about our fundamental rights.

Bob Schieffer's commentary Sunday night on CBS was jarring, because after acknowledging, "I don't know yet if the government has overreached since 9/11 to reinforce our defenses, and we need to find out," the veteran newsman then turned his fire: "I think what we have in Edward Snowden is just a narcissistic young man who has decided he is smarter than the rest of us."

Schieffer's statement followed former NBC anchor Tom Brokaw belittling Snowden as a "military washout" and Richard Cohen of The Washington Post describing him as a "cross-dressing Little Red Riding Hood."

Whether or not Edward Snowden is a narcissist is inconsequential. Was the information he leaked to The Guardian and The Washington Post accurate? What are the boundaries between the surveillance abilities our 21^st century telecommunications infrastructure provides agencies like the NSA, and a free and open society?

Who Edward Snowden is as a person is insignificant to the question of whether or not we as a society should be having a debate - facts in hand - about the level of surveillance we are willing to tolerate.

There are legitimate grounds of inquiry into how individuals obtain clearances, the use of private contractors by the intelligence community, and if the disclosure of this information constitutes a criminal act. But the majority of attacks on Snowden don't seek answers to these questions. They attempt to distract us with a chorus of voices more interested in a conversation better suited to the naming of Kim Kardashian and Kanye West's baby than the most significant discussion about our right to privacy of the past decade.

Snowden has been called a "hero," "traitor," "dropout," "narcissist," and "washout." He has been attacked by elites from all ends of the ideological spectrum in government and the media. And yes, he has put himself forward for these attacks. But just as the conversation the Pentagon Papers promoted was ultimately far more significant than the personality of Daniel Ellsberg, the conversation Edward Snowden has begun is far more important than any defects - or heroic qualities - he may possess.

Brian Powell: Fox Cuts Away From Obama's Berlin Speech To Cover Tea Party Protests

Wed, 19 Jun 2013 10:10:12 EDT

Fox News broke from other cable networks when it cut away from President Obama's speech in Berlin to host a panel previewing planned tea party protests in Washington, D.C.

Fifty years after President Kennedy delivered his famous "Ich bin ein Berliner" speech on the front line of the Cold War, President Obama kicked off a series of German events celebrating the 1963 address with a speech of his own. MSNBC, CNN, and Fox News each covered the speech live. But while MSNBC and CNN aired Obama's remarks to their conclusion, Fox cut away early in order to discuss tea party protests planned in Washington, D.C. the same day.

After cutting to a commercial break, Fox News ignored the remainder of the president's speech, opting instead to host a panel to discuss the significance of the tea party's rally against the Internal Revenue Service (IRS). Following that segment, Fox News covered wildfires in Colorado and an NFL player suspected of murder, all while their cable news peers continued to cover the president's address from Berlin.

Obama received criticism from Fox for speaking in Germany as a U.S. senator in 2008. Then in 2009, the 20^th anniversary of the fall of the Berlin Wall, Fox News personalities criticized Obama for failing to give a speech in Berlin. Fox contributor Monica Crowley even accused the president of being "very reluctant to stand up for the values on which America is based and the values on which we stand."

Fox News' promotion of anti-IRS tea party rallies is not surprising. The network has a history of pushing misinformation regarding the recent allegations of improper IRS scrutiny of conservative groups and has a storied history of propping up the tea party during the movement's infancy.

Eric Boehlert: The Truth About Chicago's Falling Murder Rate

Wed, 19 Jun 2013 10:08:14 EDT

The recent bloody headlines out of Chicago relayed the sad tale of the city's deadly weekend, where seven people were killed in shootings and more than 50 were victims of gunfire. Thanks in part to news coverage, America's third largest city has become synonymous with runaway gun violence, and especially deadly weekend shootouts.

Sadly, that type of shooting spree isn't restricted to Chicago. Just this month in New York City, which has experienced an historic reduction in crime in recent years, 25 people were shot over a single weekend; six of the victims died.

Nonetheless, the Chicago news triggered the usual response from conservative gun advocates, who love to mock the city's homicide rate. In recent years Chicago gun victims have served as a macabre punch line for NRA fans as they scoff at the alleged futility of the city's gun safety laws. (Chicago banned handguns decades ago, and has retained strong gun laws following the 2010 overturning of that ban by the Supreme Court.)

Conservative conspiracists such as Rush Limbaugh even claim Democratic politicians, including Chicago's mayor Rahm Emanuel, want the city's murder rate to remain high so they can use the killings to advocate for stronger gun laws.

But mostly, firearm defenders simply ridicule Chicago's murder count. "Slaughter in Gun Control Chicago," blogged Fox News contributor Katie Pavlich in the wake of last weekend's gun attacks, while a Breitbart writer on Monday insisted city officials had "little to show" for their efforts to curb violence.

But note what these commentators are careful not to mention while using the killings to make a political point: They didn't mention that homicides in "Gun Control Chicago" are down dramatically this year; a trend that undermines the attack that the Second City stands as the ultimate symbol of gun enforcement failure.

In early May, the Chicago Police Department released figures indicating the city marked a 43 percent decline in the number of murders over the first four months of this year, as compared to the same period last year. For the first quarter of this year, Chicago registered 93 murders, its lowest January-to-April tally since 1963.

Then this month came news that Chicago experienced a 31 percent decrease in shootings for the month of May, which meant that through May of this year the city's murder count had declined 34 percent from last year. Chicago homicides still outnumber those in larger cities, such as New York and Los Angeles; it suffers from weaker gun laws in both its home state and surrounding states than those two cities, allowing criminals easier access to guns purchased elsewhere.

It's true that Chicago's crime is certain to spike in the coming summer months, and with it will come more heartbreaking headlines about tragic gun murders; killings that will inevitably involve young victims. But statistically, violent crime almost always goes up in warm weather months. So the question is, will Chicago's murder rate go up more this year than during last year's summer months? Or will the city be able to maintain its pattern of reduced gun violence throughout 2013?

Media Matters staff: Fox Continues Campaign To Hype Texas As Economic Role Model With Softball Interview Of Gov. Perry

Wed, 19 Jun 2013 09:43:55 EDT

From the June 19 edition of Fox News' Fox & Friends:

Previously:

Fox Helps Gov. Perry Hype Texas While Ignoring Its Problems

Fox's Doocy Ignores Problems With Texas Economy To Hype It As Model For Rest Of Nation