Media Matters for America - County Fair

Media Matters staff: Neal Boortz Likens President Obama To Syria's Assad

Media Matters staff — Thu, 09 Feb 2012 21:57:41 EST

Right-wing talk radio host and frequent Fox News guest Neal Boortz, who has said that President Obama "is a bigger disaster to this country than 9-11," is now comparing Obama to Syrian President Bashar al-Assad. In a post on his Twitter feed, Boortz wrote: "Trying to convince myself that under the right circumstances Obama wouldn't be another Bashir [sic] Assad. Trying .... but I can't":

The Syrian government is currently engaged in cracking down on an 11-month-old uprising protesting the Assad family's 42-year rule of the country. The brutal suppression has resulted in many deaths. According to human rights organizations, the current military assault on the city of Homs has "killed at least 300 civilians and wounded 1,000." Numerous countries, including the United States, have pulled their diplomatic envoys from the country amid the mounting violence.

In October 2011, Boortz stated that "Barack Obama is a bigger disaster to this country than 9-11." Asked to explain his statement, he added that "killing 3,000 people is a tragedy," but that "killing the individualism, the self-reliance, and the self-respect of the American people, like Barack Obama has done, is much more of a tragedy." Boortz's comments drew fire from 9-11 victims' families, who said the comparison was an insult.

In December 2009, Boortz similarly wrote on his Twitter feed that 9-11 was "[h]orrible," but "the damage Obama and the Dems are doing will surpass this tragic event."

Jocelyn Fong: CBS Pulls Attkisson From CPAC Award Event

Jocelyn Fong — Thu, 09 Feb 2012 18:47:00 EST

CBS Correspondent Sharyl Attkisson did not appear at the Conservative Political Action Conference today to receive her journalism award from fringe group Accuracy In Media (AIM), despite previous reports that she would speak at the event. Instead, CBS Vice President and Washington Bureau Chief Christopher Isham accepted the award on her behalf.

AIM said earlier this week that Attkisson had "confirmed and reconfirmed" her attendance at the award presentation and that she would address the audience for 8-10 minutes. Isham did not speak at length, telling the audience: "Sharyl was very sorry not to be here today. She is traveling out of town on assignment, so I'm going to accept this award on her behalf, on behalf of CBS News."

After saying Attkisson would be donating the award to the family of slain Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry, Isham added: "CBS News is very proud of Sharyl's groundbreaking reporting, as you've described it. It represents the best at CBS News -- original reporting that we are extremely proud of."

Attkisson's reported decision to accept AIM's award -- which before this year had only been given to conservative commentators -- drew attention, due to AIM's history of promoting virulently anti-gay views and conspiracy theories. In less than 24 hours over 11,000 people signed a Media Matters petition urging CBS not to legitimize AIM by accepting the award.

Among other veteran journalists who questioned the move, former CBS Washington bureau chief Ed Fouhy said Attkisson risked becoming "another pawn in the ideological chess games being played with such intensity in Washington." Charles Davis of the University of Missouri School of Journalism added: "I'm not going to ever applaud a journalist for accepting an award that essentially recognizes the fact that the advocacy group likes what they reported."

In announcing this year's winners, AIM praised Attkisson for her January 13 "investigation" purporting to reveal 11 "New Solyndras." But Attkisson's report suffered from factual problems that CBS has yet to correct. Attkisson has also been criticized for a series of articles fueling unsupported claims about a link between vaccines and autism.

Andy Newbold: Chris Wallace Decides: It's Not About Contraception, It's About A Government Mandate

Andy Newbold — Thu, 09 Feb 2012 18:15:00 EST

The recent announcement that the Obama administration would require most employers to provide birth control caused immediate outrage throughout Fox News and the right-wing media. (Churches and other religious institutions are exempt.) Today on Fox News' Happening Now, Jon Scott explained to fellow Fox News host Chris Wallace that critics are calling "the birth control mandate an attack on religious freedom" while "supporters say it's about woman's access to family planning and health care." Chris Wallace -- supposedly part of the network's straight news division and anchor of Fox News Sunday -- decided that the supporters of the mandate were totally wrong.

Wallace said: "I don't think it's just about birth control. I really think this controversy is about government intrusion. There are a lot of people who aren't Catholics who are very upset about this because they think the government shouldn't be in the business of telling anybody in any religion what they have to do. And so it becomes a question of government limits or government intrusion in the lives of institutions or of people." Wallace also said: "This idea of mandates is something I think you don't have to be Catholic to be upset about."

Wallace's comments directly contradicted comments that Democratic senators had made about the contraception issue. For instance, Senator Patty Murray (D-WA) said: "We have news for Republican: This is about contraception. The attacks on women's rights never come without being disguised as something else."

And it's ridiculous to suggest that this isn't about access to contraception. According to a study by the Kaiser Family Foundation, "[e]mployer-based coverage is the primary form of health insurance for 64% of women of reproductive age, but a sizable minority of women lack coverage for contraceptives." Notably, poorer and college-aged women are the ones who struggle the most with the cost of prescription birth control.

But that's Fox's straight news division for you: always ready to rebut the progressive position regardless of the facts.

Marcus Feldman: A Thinly Veiled Attack On Social Security And Medicare From Heritage And Its Allies

Marcus Feldman — Thu, 09 Feb 2012 17:52:14 EST

Yesterday Heritage

Rob Tornoe: A Proud Moment For CBS

Rob Tornoe — Thu, 09 Feb 2012 13:41:10 EST

David Lyle: Selective (And Misplaced) Outrage: The Right-Wing Freakout Over Justice Ginsburg's Comments in Egypt

David Lyle — Thu, 09 Feb 2012 12:03:00 EST

Conservatives have a simple, and false, narrative when it comes to the Constitution. In their telling, they cherish, protect, and defend our founding document, while progressives at best ignore and at worst actively seek to undermine it. And, ever since the heady days of Brown v. Board of Education and "Impeach Earl Warren," they are always on the lookout for opportunities to tell this tale.

With that in mind, right-wing bloggers' and pundits' explosion of indignation at Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg's inoffensive recent comments in Egypt is wholly predictable. Reacting for the most part to a heavily redacted transcript (which reduces the 16-minute interview to 356 words) released by The Middle East Media Research Institute (MEMRI), the right-wing outrage machine has seized on a single sentence:

You should certainly be aided by all the constitution-writing that has gone one since the end of World War II. I would not look to the US constitution, if I were drafting a constitution in the year 2012. I might look at the constitution of South Africa. That was a deliberate attempt to have a fundamental instrument of government that embraced basic human rights, had an independent judiciary... It really is, I think, a great piece of work that was done. Much more recent than the US constitution - Canada has a Charter of Rights and Freedoms. It dates from 1982. You would almost certainly look at the European Convention on Human Rights. Yes, why not take advantage of what there is elsewhere in the world? (emphasis added)

Cue the vitriol. Among the first to weigh in was Liberty Counsel, which claimed Ginsburg "insulted" the Constitution. The Daily Caller accused her of "dissing the Constitution while abroad." Breitbart.tv charged the Justice with showing "disdain" for the Constitution. Daniel Horowitz of RedState.com thought he detected evidence of a "perverted judicial philosophy." The headline of William Tucker's essay on the The American Spectator website blared: "Justice Ginsburg should resign." Former Supreme Court law clerk and Harvard Law School graduate Ed Whelan decided to elevate the discourse by encouraging his readers to take a RedState.com "pop quiz" asking "Which of these artifacts is too old and irrelevant to be useful to America?" The choices? Justice Ginsburg and the Constitution.

Syndicated radio host Lars Larson struck the shrillest note on Fox News, calling Justice Ginsburg "anti-American."

Lost in the rush to yet again tell the false fable of progressive perfidy regarding the Constitution was just about everything else Justice Ginsburg said in the lengthy interview. Although you wouldn't know it from MEMRI transcript, which contained the outrage-triggering quote and not much else, watching the unedited video posted to YouTube by the U.S. embassy in Cairo reveals that Justice Ginsburg was eloquent and effusive in talking about how well the Constitution has served America, rather than Egypt. She touched on the power of the simple phrase "we the people;" the vital role played by the First Amendment; the brilliant insight by the Founders that establishing three branches of government, each with a foothold in the others, would preserve a republican form of government; the importance of guaranteeing all people the equal protection of the laws. In short, she offered much regarding the U.S. Constitution as a source of guidance for the Egyptians' thinking about the form their new government should take.

Chelsea Rudman: Fox Goes Cherry-Picking In Attempt To Keep Its Phony "War On Religion" Claim Alive

Chelsea Rudman — Thu, 09 Feb 2012 12:01:31 EST

On January 20, the Obama administration reaffirmed that under the Affordable Care Act, most employers must provide health care plans that cover contraceptives for women free of charge. Religious employers such as churches, synagogues, and mosques are exempt, but hospitals and schools run by religious organizations that employ people of many faiths are not. Catholic clergy have been protesting the decision, asserting that contraception is counter to the teachings of the Catholic faith.

Right-wing media, with Fox News leading the charge, have seized on the ruling as evidence of a supposed "war on religion" that they have long claimed Obama is waging. Desperate to keep this narrative alive, Fox News this morning hyped a Rasmussen Reports poll that purported to show that the "majority" of Americans oppose the contraception rule. But Fox failed to note (though one Fox contributor tried) that two other polls in recent days have found that a majority of Americans do support the rule -- as do a majority of Catholics.

Rasmussen has a history of asking loaded questions to produce Republican-friendly findings; not only did this poll fit that pattern, but it actually asked a question that misleads about the contraception rule.

Fox & Friends began hyping the Rasmussen poll at the top of their show, during a segment in which they attacked the president and his administration for the decision. Co-host Steve Doocy reported the results of the poll, saying:

DOOCY: Rasmussen did a poll, called up 1,000 people, and here's the -- here's some of the results: 50 percent oppose, 39 percent favor it, 10 percent undecided. Interestingly enough, when you get into the small print about it, a plurality of Republican and independent voters as well are against it, and for the White House, that is a problem.

The co-hosts hyped the poll results again in a later segment with Fox News contributor Michelle Malkin. Co-host Brian Kilmeade again cited Rasmussen's findings and said, "In this political season, how does it make political sense for the president to do this?" Malkin replied, "It really doesn't."

Neither of these segments acknowledged, however, that two other recent national polls determined the opposite.

Solange Uwimana: Fox's Tantaros Avoids Fact That Contraception Coverage Is A Women's Health Issue

Solange Uwimana — Thu, 09 Feb 2012 01:06:40 EST

Fox News' Andrea Tantaros has been very vocal in blasting the Obama administration for its decision to require all health insurers, including church-affiliated organizations, to provide plans that cover contraception. In her haste to criticize the administration tonight, she distorted comments by House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi to make the point that the administration's mandate "has nothing to do with women's health," but is more about "population control."

In fact, the requirement has everything to do with women's health.

When political commentator Jehmu Greene pointed out that contraception is also used to treat other health issues, including ovarian cancer, Tantaros dismissed the argument:

According to a study by the Kaiser Family Foundation, "[e]mployer-based coverage is the primary form of health insurance for 64% of women of reproductive age, but a sizable minority of women lack coverage for contraceptives." Notably, poorer and college-aged women are the ones who struggle the most with the cost of prescription birth control.

And those struggles have real consequences for women's health. Contraceptives are indeed used to treat a wide array of medical conditions, including reducing the risk of ovarian cancer. USA Today recently reported that "[o]varian cancer is the deadliest of cancers that affect the female reproductive system, with about 22,000 women diagnosed each year and, in 2011, approximately 15,460 deaths." According Dr. Hyun J. Bang, a radiologist quoted by USA Today, "this cancer produces few, if any, symptoms in early stages. ... This is why 75 percent of all women present with advanced disease which has already begun to spread to other areas of the body."

Leslie Rosenberg: Bill O'Reilly "Doesn't Really Do Much" Fact Checking Before Dismissing Cancer Services Provided By Planned Parenthood

Leslie Rosenberg — Thu, 09 Feb 2012 00:09:13 EST

Raising questions about whether he will continue to donate money to the Susan G. Komen Foundation, Bill O'Reilly once again downplayed the role that Planned Parenthood for America plays in providing cancer screenings for millions of American women..

Contrary to O'Reilly's claim that Planned Parenthood "doesn't really do much" in the area of cancer prevention, Planned Parenthood doctors and nurses provide nearly 750,000 breast cancer screenings annually. According to their 2009-2010 Annual Report, "cancer screening and prevention" combined with "other women's health services" account for almost 25% of their total services:

O'Reilly also pushed the discredited claim that grants given to Planned Parenthood by Komen are used to fund abortions. In an open letter to Komen CEO Nancy Brinker, The Washington Post's Sally Quinn noted that "not one penny" of the money the Komen Foundation has granted to Planned Parenthood "went toward abortion":

It is clear, despite what you told Mitchell, that you were under enormous political pressure -- and had been for some years -- from conservative donors to cut your ties to Planned Parenthood. This was because some of its money (about 3%) goes to fund abortions. Nevermind that of the $680,000 or so given to Planned Parenthood last year by your organization, not one penny went toward abortion. It was targeted to breast cancer screening for low-income and uninsured women. In the past five years Planned Parenthood has, with your funds, been able to provide 170,000 breast exams and thousands of referrals.

Solange Uwimana: Class Warfare: Fox's Eric Bolling Denies Income Inequality In This Country

Solange Uwimana — Wed, 08 Feb 2012 23:44:00 EST

Fox News' Eric Bolling has said some pretty awful things about the Occupy Wall Street movement. He's called the protesters "petulant little children," compared them to Communists and Nazis, and even slammed them as "pot-smoking, sex-addicted morons." When Bolling has been forced to specifically address the substance of the protesters' claims -- namely that of rising inequality and an economic system tilted to overwhelmingly benefit the wealthy -- he has employed a different tack: denial or diversion.

Tonight, confronted with the fact that Americans share the protesters' concerns about rising income inequality in the United States, he chose to negate the claim, arguing that income inequality doesn't exist in this country.

Bolling's efforts to dismiss inequality comes as an overwhelming majority of Americans voice support for policies meant to address inequality. Results from a recent Washington Post-ABC News poll indicate that 68 percent of Americans believe the current tax system favors the wealthy, and 72 percent of Americans support raising taxes on millionaires.

Here are the facts:

Taxes on top earners are at historic lows

CBPP: "Typical middle-class households face higher tax rates than some high-income households."

The Center for Economic and Policy Research has shown that income for the top 1 percent increased 256 percent from 1979-2006, while the lowest quintile saw incomes rise 11 percent

Federal Reserve Bank of Boston: Mobility has "not been sufficient to offset the considerable rise in short-term inequality."

Chris Brown: More Nonsense Complaints About DHS Targeting Conservatives

Chris Brown — Wed, 08 Feb 2012 17:15:03 EST

In 2009, conservative media perpetually mischaracterized a Department of Homeland Security (DHS) report on potential increases in right-wing terrorism to suggest DHS was targeting conservatives for political reasons. On Sunday, PJ Media correspondent Patrick Poole extended this long-running attack by criticizing a new DHS document that defines categories of "domestic terrorism and homegrown violent extremism." The document doesn't mention conservatives, but does include a definition of "militia extremists." According to the document DHS defines "militia extremists" as:

(U//FOUO) Groups or individuals who facilitate or engage in acts of violence directed at federal, state, or local government officials or infrastructure in response to their belief that the government deliberately is stripping Americans of their freedoms and is attempting to establish a totalitarian regime. These individuals consequently oppose many federal and state authorities' laws and regulations, (particularly those related to firearms ownership), and often belong to armed paramilitary groups. They often conduct paramilitary training designed to violently resist perceived government oppression or to violently overthrow the US Government. [emphasis added]

Poole's flawed analysis of the DHS document concludes that DHS classifies essentially everyone that dislikes or distrusts the government for conservative reasons as "militia extremists." In a post titled "Homeland Security: You're All 'Militia Extremists' Now," Poole quotes the DHS definition of "militia extremists" and then complains:

So what drives militia extremism according to DHS now is "belief that the government deliberately is stripping Americans of their freedoms." It is demonstrated by opposing "many federal and state authorities' laws and regulations, (particularly those related to firearms ownership)." Would writing about those topics (as I am now) fall under "facilitation"? On its face, it's hard to see how it could be excluded under DHS's broad definition.

So despite the fact that "militia extremists" are classified as "Groups or individuals who facilitate or engage in acts of violence," Poole suggests DHS would unfairly target conservatives not engaged in or facilitating violence. In reality DHS isn't saying militia extremism is "demonstrated by opposing" federal laws and regulations, but by opposing them through violence.

Poole's argument further falls apart given that DHS isn't even focusing on conservative ideologies. While listing "militia extremists" as one category of extremist activity, DHS also defines non-conservative categories such as, "anarchist," "animal rights," and "environmental rights." Under Poole's logic, DHS would also be saying that opposing environmental degradation makes you a terrorist.

Violent militia extremism isn't a hypothetical concern for our nation's law enforcement. A 2009 report by the Southern Poverty Law Center concluded that militia and other right-wing extremists groups were experiencing a "second wave" of growth following the election of Barack Obama. Last summer militia members in Alaska were arrested on charges of conspiracy to murder judges and State Troopers. In November four members of a Georgia militia were arrested in connection with an alleged plot to kill federal employees.

Joe Strupp: Journalism Veterans Criticize CBS Reporter Receiving Award At CPAC

Joe Strupp — Wed, 08 Feb 2012 15:28:00 EST

Veteran journalists and media ethicists -- including a former CBS News Washington bureau chief -- are criticizing CBS News reporter Sharyl Attkisson for accepting an award from Accuracy in Media, a conservative group with a long history of promoting anti-gay views and conspiracy theories.

Attkisson is scheduled to accept the award in person Thursday at the annual Conservative Political Action Conference in Washington, D.C.

Several longtime news experts contend Attkisson is hurting her own credibility and that of CBS by participating in the event.

"If you go out and you've received an award from any organization with an agenda, then any reader of your work or viewer of your work has a right to question your impartiality or your fairness," Ken Auletta, media writer for The New Yorker, told Media Matters in an interview. "I don't think journalists should accept awards from either right-wing or left-wing, conservative or liberal organizations, or from any other organized group that has an agenda. We're not supposed to have an agenda. By accepting those awards or appearing, you are raising questions about your own dispassion. We have enough of those questions already about journalists."

Ed Fouhy, a former long-time CBS News producer and one-time Washington bureau chief for the network, called Attkisson a "pawn."

"Sharyl Attkisson is making a mistake in accepting an award from A.I.M. By doing so she becomes just another pawn in the ideological chess games being played with such intensity in Washington," Fouhy stated. "Her acceptance helps to legitimize A.I.M., a fringe group, whose sole agenda is and has been for many years, to undermine the credibility of the mainstream media, fueled by the donations of millionaire conspiracy theorists."

Fouhy, also a former CBS News vice president, then noted A.I.M's past efforts against the network dating back many years:

"Reed Irvine, founder of A.I.M., and his political heirs have long made CBS News a special target in their fevered attempts to propound the myth of the liberal media. Going back to Watergate days, A.I.M. has relentlessly tried to intimidate and harass CBS News journalists. Ms. Attkisson may not be aware of that history but she should know that accepting awards from groups with political agendas, whether of the right or the left, is a bad idea."

Simon Maloy: The Roots Of Bin Laden Denialism

Simon Maloy — Wed, 08 Feb 2012 13:01:26 EST

Sean Hannity is terribly vexed. In his mind, Democrats are weak on national security, for no other reason than they're Democrats. It's a foundational belief -- not just for him, but for a good portion of his and the rest of Fox News' conservative audience.

So how does he deal with the fact that Osama bin Laden met his end under a Democratic president? Denial.

The president's role in the hunt for Bin Laden has been well documented. The New Yorker published an exhaustive account of the raid on the Al Qaeda chief's compound in Abbottabad and the president's decision-making in the months leading up to the moment when he personally authorized it. More recently, Vice President Biden divulged that he had advised the president not to approve the mission, but was overruled. And yet, Hannity is insisting not just that Obama did not want Bin Laden killed, but that there exists taped evidence to prove it. The psychology at work here is fascinating.

The death of Bin Laden has proven to be an intractable problem for a conservative commentariat that relies upon facile and outdated stereotypes of the opposition. Say what you will about the Obama administration's expanded use of drone warfare and targeted assassinations, but it certainly does not comport with the flower-child caricature that has served as a foil for talk radio tough guys. And the death of the world's most prominent anti-American terrorist is not easily explained away.

Eric Boehlert: Why Is CBS Reporter Attending Right-Wing CPAC To Receive Award From Birther Organization?

Eric Boehlert — Wed, 08 Feb 2012 12:31:53 EST

While CBS News reporter Sharyl Attkisson attends the far-right Conservative Political Action Conference this week to accept an award from the far-far-right group, Accuracy In Media, perhaps she will have extra time to take in some of the discussions scheduled to take place.

According to the posted agenda, these will be among the CPAC offerings Attkisson could sit in on:

-"How the Liberal Mob is Endangering America"

-"Injustice: Exposing the Racial Agenda of the Obama Justice Department"

-"Obama vs. The Constitution: How a Harvard Law Graduate President Is Shredding the Constitution"

Fascinating topics, no doubt.

Of course, last year CPAC made news when it banned the conservative gay group, GOProud, from being a conference sponsor in 2012. GOProud's inclusion in 2011 prompted angry boycotts from social conservative groups. AIM itself has a long and disturbing history of publishing columns condemning gays and their "sympathizers" as subversive agents of death.

There really is no cockamamie conspiracy AIM hasn't pursued over the years, including its pathetic attempts to promote the "cover-up" surrounding the death of Clinton aide Vince Foster.

Which reminds me, when Attkisson has finished her ten-minute award ceremony remarks for the appreciative CPAC audience, maybe she'll get a chance to ask Cliff Kincaid, director of AIM's Center for Investigative Journalism, about all the reporting he's done on President Obama's birth certificate.

In case Attkisson hasn't had time to read up, here's a sample of Kincaid's penetrating birther analysis:

-"By releasing a copy of my own birth certificate, I have tried to demonstrate what other necessary information is lacking about Obama's birth."

- "The contrast between what is on so many birth certificates for ordinary Americans, such as mine, versus what the Obama campaign has released, is striking."

-" The only way to address these questions is to identify where exactly he was born, in what hospital, and what doctor was present."

-"Anybody who has an original copy of their own birth certificate, or a certified copy of their own original birth certificate, should immediately understand that the Obama version is lacking in basic information that should be publicly available."

You get the idea, even if CBS News does not: Sending a straight news reporter to an Obama-bashing conference to receive an award from a proud birther organization is a very, very bad idea, and one that will do needless damage to CBS' reputation.

As Media Matters accurately noted this week, AIM represents a "cesspool of hate and conspiracy theories." That's not hyperbole. That's the documented truth; go read for yourself.

So that's a problem in terms of CBS News maintaining its reputation as an honest news broker. But that's not all. When you add onto that the myriad of loony conspiracy theories that AIM has pushed, the Attkisson decision makes even less sense. And when you top it off with the fact that AIM represented an engine that helped drive the blind idiocy behind the birther charade, then you really have to wonder what CBS News is trying to accomplish this week at CPAC.

According to a network spokesperson, "CBS News journalists are regularly honored by a broad spectrum of organizations for their outstanding original reporting." That makes sense and I'm sure it's true. But at some point common sense ought to come into play.

Here's a simple, hypothetical question for CBS News executives: Eight years ago, would you have allowed a straight news reporter to accept an award from a radical left-wing group that dedicated untold hours trying to document how the Bush administration was behind the 9/11 attacks? And would you have allowed your straight news reporter to receive the award, and to address an appreciative crowd, at a national conclave of Bush-hating nut jobs?

I didn't think so.

Solange Uwimana: Fox's Gutfeld Dismisses Struggles Of Women Who Can't Afford Birth Control

Solange Uwimana — Wed, 08 Feb 2012 00:21:17 EST

Amid a Fox News campaign to portray President Obama as anti-Catholic, The Five's Greg Gutfeld dismissed the struggle faced by millions of women in trying to access contraceptives.

While protesting the Obama administration's new guidelines aimed at improving women's overall health -- that health insurance plans cover contraceptives without a copay -- Gutfeld said:

GUTFELD: This makes no sense to me. There are two elements that kinda drive me crazy here: The decision is supposed to help make birth control affordable to millions. How much more affordable can you make it? It's like 50 bucks a month. I mean, do we -- should we start up like a "buy the pill" campaign? Like "feed the children" where we make sure we all adopt one woman and pay for her pills? Anybody can afford this.

In fact, not everybody can afford birth control pills, which can range from $15 to more than $50 a month. Other methods can be even more cost-prohibitive. According to Nancy Keenan, president of NARAL Pro-Choice America, "nearly one in three women finds it difficult to pay for birth control."