Media Matters for America - Latest Items

Karl Frisch: Media Matters: The right-wing media's election analysis just ain't that good

K.V.F. — Fri, 06 Nov 2009 20:12:37 EST

Back in 2001, conservative media figures were adamant. Democratic Party victories at the ballot boxes during the off-year elections had little national significance. Fox News contributor Dick Morris said at the time, "[I]f you have a Republican president, people are going to vote Democrat, and if you have a Democrat president, they're going to vote Republicans." Proffering further spin of the GOP losses, Fox News contributor Mort Kondracke said, "We have no way of knowing" how the 2001 outcome would affect the 2002 midterms, a sentiment echoed by conservative writer Michael Barone, who declared on CNN, "I don't think that the issues and personalities" in the Virginia and New Jersey races "are going to be congruent with very many" races in 2002 or 2004. Then there was Laura Ingraham on Fox News' Hannity & Colmes noting that "[b]oth sides are going to spin this," before offering her own spin: "[T]o call this some kind of watershed moment against Republican views is nonsense."

For anyone watching Fox News in the weeks leading up to this year's off-year election, it should have been apparent what was afoot on the conservative network.

In the two weeks leading up to their November 3 elections, Conservative Party congressional candidate Doug Hoffman (NY-23), New Jersey Republican gubernatorial candidate Chris Christie, and Virginia Republican gubernatorial candidate Bob McDonnell appeared on Fox News and its personalities' radio shows at least 16 times for live interviews lasting a total of 114 minutes and 36 seconds.

As leading Republican politicians and activists celebrated Fox News' role in pushing just the right message and helping their electoral chances, two Fox News employees spent time fundraising and recruiting volunteers in support of GOP-backed candidates. Fox News host Mike Huckabee used network airtime to collect email addresses for his PAC, which in turn used the addresses to recruit volunteers for GOP candidates on Tuesday's ballot, including McDonnell and Hoffman. Meanwhile, Fox News contributor Karl Rove was shilling for the Republican Governors' Association to help Christie's bid in New Jersey. All the while, Fox continued to feature his spin of that same election.

So, Fox News gave Republican candidates a huge platform to communicate with conservative activists and voters while Fox News employees recruited volunteers and raised money for them.

What else did Fox need to check off the list before Election Day? How about telling people how to vote and pre-spinning Democratic Party losses before a single ballot had been counted? Check.

One Fox News graphic actually stated that if the GOP were to win the gubernatorial races in Virginia and New Jersey -- races with no direct influence over congressional efforts to reform health care -- it would mean "no gov't-run option" in health care reform.

Sean Hannity, Fox News' apparent GOP get-out-the-vote captain, went all out advising his radio listeners how to cast their votes, telling one caller to his radio show, "Don't forget -- go vote for Christie tomorrow in New Jersey. All right?" and his New Jersey audience in general, "get to the polls" and "stop Obama-care in its tracks." On his Fox News program, Hannity told Hoffman, "I hope I'm on the air this time tomorrow night and I'll be able to declare you the winner." Marching to Hannity's tune, CNN's Lou Dobbs declared Hoffman was "change [he] can believe in" while Fox News' Bill O'Reilly piled on predicting a Hoffman win.

But what if -- right-wing media fear of fears! -- Democrats were to pull off a victory in New Jersey? Well, there'd be just one thing to explain it -- cue the ominous music -- Voter Fraud.

Rush Limbaugh warned his audience that "fraudsters" at ACORN, SEIU, and the New Black Panthers would try to affect elections on Tuesday and that "tomorrow's going to be a dry run for Democrat mischief and malfeasance, getting ready for 2010 and 2012." Andrew Breitbart's BigGovernment.com took the bait, baselessly -- and predictably -- accusing progressives of trying to "steal" the New Jersey governor's seat. As did Wall Street Journal columnist John Fund who fabricated evidence of voter fraud in New Jersey and anonymously sourced voter fraud innuendo. Completing the circle, Limbaugh echoed Fund's baseless accusation warning of an "ACORN factor" and a "vote fraud factor."

Fox News hosts and political analysts capped off Election Day celebrating and shilling for conservative and GOP candidates. When the dust settled, Republicans had won the Virginia and New Jersey gubernatorial contests while Democrats had won the open New York congressional seat -- a seat targeted by tea-partiers and not held by a Democrat in nearly 150 years.

While Fox News' Brit Hume acknowledged that "Barack Obama was not a central issue" in New Jersey -- exit polls decisively showed he wasn't an issue in any of the targeted races -- others in the conservative media were blind to the readily available exit polls. Hume's Fox colleague O'Reilly said the New Jersey governor's race was a referendum on Obama. El Rushbo dismissed the exit polls entirely, saying the governors' races were all "about Obama" and that the election results show "[t]here is no question this is an anti-Obama vote."

Fox & Friends graphics described the election results as "shockwaves," "winds of change," a "Republican revival," and a "blueprint for success." In a truly odd attempt at spin, Fox News declared that the results meant "Obamacare" was dead, while its sister network, Fox Business, claimed the markets "like[d]" "Big GOP Wins In NJ & VA."

So, exit polls said Obama had nothing to do with Democratic losses in New Jersey and Virginia, where, incidentally, the GOP nominees downplayed their right-wing positions -- and this is good news for Republicans?

What about Hoffman, the unambiguously right-wing Conservative party candidate in New York who conservative media types spent weeks hyping? How would Fox News and company spin his loss of a seat, again, not held by a Democrat in far more than 100 years?

In an attempt to paint Democratic Party victor Owens as a conservative, thus explaining away his win in a historically GOP district, right-wing bloggers sought to highlight the "under-reported fact" that he "campaigned against the public option" even though Owens had expressed support for a public option since September.

Limbaugh blamed "party bosses and these big thinkers like Newt [Gingrich]," who "screwed the whole thing up," while leaping to the defense of Sarah Palin, who had championed Hoffman. Limbaugh asserted that Palin "is not damaged at all" by the loss of her candidate. And in an about-face only fitting for someone of Limbaugh's ego - err ... stature -- the conservative talker switched his stance on "moral" victories, which he'd lambasted Democrats for in 2006, declaring Hoffman had a "good showing."

So, yes, if one thing is clear after the 2009 off-year election, it's this: Conservative media figures haven't a clue when it comes to election analysis.

Oh and one last note on Tuesday's election, did you hear the nasty anti-Obama election night story that Fox News concocted out of thin air? The conservative cable outlet reported, remember this is not true, that President Obama watched an HBO documentary about himself, rather than following the election results. A story so grand -- gosh the president is such a narcissist! -- that the fact-challenged liberal media bias hunters at Newsbusters wet themselves over it before eventually conceding that Fox News had "misreported" the incident -- a nice way of saying "made it up."

I guess, in addition to the analysis, they haven't a clue when it comes to reporting either.

This Week's Media Columns

This week's media columns from the Media Matters senior fellows: Eric Boehlert looks at the myth of Fox News' ratings spike; and Jamison Foser takes on Howard Kurtz's bogus conflict-of-interest defense.

Greg Lewis notes that for conservatives, $400 million buys them defeat at the ballot box in The Friday Rush, a review of Limbaugh's radio shows over the past week.

Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, and MySpace

Media Matters maintains active online communities on the nation's leading social networking sites. Be sure to join us on Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, and MySpace, and join in the discussion.

Do you listen to podcasts? Try the Media Matters Minute

For months, radio shows and stations across the country have been carrying the Media Matters Minute, a daily minute-long recap of our work topped off with the "most outrageous comment" of the day. We encourage you to subscribe (iTunes / RSS) to the Minute's daily podcast, hosted by Media Matters' Ben Fishel.

This weekly wrap-up was compiled and edited by Karl Frisch, a senior fellow at Media Matters for America. Frisch also contributes to County Fair, a media blog featuring links to progressive media criticism from around the web as well as original commentary. You can follow him on Twitter, Facebook, and YouTube, or sign-up to receive his columns by email.

Greg Lewis: The Friday Rush: For conservatives, $400 million buys defeat at the ballot box

G.L. — Fri, 06 Nov 2009 19:24:21 EST

If you're a masochist, like me, then I know exactly where you were last Sunday morning: in front of your television, eyes fixed to Rush Limbaugh's 30-minute tee-ball interview, courtesy of Fox News Sunday and Chris Wallace.

If you're a regular listener of The Rush Limbaugh Show -- or, better yet, a regular reader of Media Matters' Limbaugh Wire -- then you probably recognized that every morsel Limbaugh fed to ratings-hungry Wallace on the subject of Obama's destruction of the economy was just a regurgitation of what Rush passes off as compelling radio on a daily basis.

But aside from Limbaugh's deluge of misinformation -- how many times do we need to point out that issue expertise is as common on The Rush Limbaugh Show as insightful commentary is on a Fox World Series broadcast with Joe Buck and Tim McCarver? -- there was one revealing exchange between Limbaugh and Wallace. Wallace brought up that Limbaugh's current contract is reported to be worth $400 million over eight years. He and Rush then had the following exchange:

WALLACE: And don't get me wrong. I think you're a great broadcaster. How can you possibly be worth that kind of money?

LIMBAUGH: Very simply. Value is determined by what somebody will pay you to do what you do. I'm probably worth more.

Rush tried to pass off this comment the next day on his radio show as one of his many "media tweaks." But he surely tweaked Wallace with the comment, whose expression after Limbaugh gave that answer was as dumbfounded as ours:

But what do you get for $400 million? For conservatives, $400 million bought them electoral failure.

There's a lot to be said about what Democratic losses in the New Jersey and Virginia gubernatorial races mean (and, of course, what they don't mean). But if we're talking about Rush Limbaugh, then the most important race to talk about is the special election in New York's 23rd Congressional District and Limbaugh's failure to help deliver a win for Conservative Party candidate Doug Hoffman.

Like the rest of the conservative media, Limbaugh promoted the third-party candidacy of Doug Hoffman over GOP candidate Dede Scozzafava (who ended up dropping out days before the election) and Democratic candidate Bill Owens. It was clear that Limbaugh preferred Hoffman by the way he absolutely trashed Scozzafava for being a Republican in name only (or, "RINO"):

LIMBAUGH: Scozzafava has screwed every RINO in the coun -- we can say that she's guilty of widespread bestiality. She has screwed every RINO in the country. Everyone can see just how phony and dangerous they are.

On Tuesday's program, a few hours before the polls closed in New York, Limbaugh predicted a Hoffman victory and explained the importance of the race as such (subscription required):

LIMBAUGH: This is where conservative Americans are drawing the line. New York-23. This is where we are fighting, this is where we will take a stand against both the liberal wing of the Republican Party and Obama and the Democrat [sic] Party.

Later that night, Hoffman was declared the loser. Regardless, Limbaugh went on the air the next day to spin a clear defeat into a moral victory. "What did not lose was conservatism," proclaimed Limbaugh as he went over the results. He also bragged that Hoffman had the highest percentage of votes ever won by a Conservative Party candidate running for the House or Senate. And referencing a blog post by Erick Erickson at RedState.com, Limbaugh added:

LIMBAUGH: [T]he message out of this is, we took out a horrible Republican. We kept a horrible Republican from possibly winning and totally redefining the party in a way that would make it a permanent minority party. So in Erick's view, yeah, it would've been great if Hoffman won, but the real victory was making sure that a Republican in Name Only did not win.

I don't have a problem with trying to be optimistic about losing or trying to pick out the positive morsels of a bitter defeat. But you know who used to? Rush Limbaugh.

Back in 2006, Rush was busy mocking Democrats for claiming a "moral victory" in special elections that they lost:

LIMBAUGH: So I would say to you Democrats who want to continue to redefine victory as when you narrowly lose, "Keep it up, because for all the moral victories in the world you think you're having, it's just a bunch of sophistry. You're just stroking yourselves trying to tell yourself something good happened when you lost," and of course for the country at large, it is a good thing when liberal Democrats lose.

That's what he said on the day of the 2006 special election in California's 50th Congressional District between Republican Brian Bilbray and Democrat Francine Busby. The next day, after Busby had been defeated, Limbaugh basked under the heat lamp of his self-described brilliance for predicting that Democrats would declare a moral victory after losing "by four-and-a-half to five points."

So back in NY-23, why did the conservative Hoffman lose? Election analysis guru Nate Silver took a stab at that question:

Why? Because those [conservative] activists -- however well-meaning they might have been -- misunderstood the district. The 23rd is a Republican district, but it is not a particularly conservative one, having split its vote between Barack Obama and the moderate Republican John McHugh last November.

If Nancy Pelosi is regarded suspiciously in the 23rd, so are Sarah Palin and Fred Thompson, who cut commercials and robocalls on behalf of Hoffman. What the voters there wanted was a candidate who understood them. Owens -- superior to Hoffman in his command of local issues -- provided the best approximation. [Emphasis added]

So instead of being the harbinger of conservative ascendancy that Limbaugh and his followers had hoped, NY-23 ended up being proof that Limbaugh's daily platitudes about the universality of conservative values had literally no application in the real world.

Which brings us back to the issue of Limbaugh's pay. There's no mystery as to what makes Rush Limbaugh the highest paid person in his field of work: He knows how to get attention.

But that's all his paycheck is for: getting people's attention. He doesn't have to advance the cause of conservatism. He's not responsible for making sure conservatives win at the ballot. His job is to get his legion of Dittoheads to pay for a subscription to the Heritage Foundation and use Zicam. In other words, his job is to sell ads.

Is Rush Limbaugh worth $400 million over eight years to his syndication company? Like Limbaugh said during his interview with Wallace, that's what the free market determined he was worth. Fine.

But is Rush Limbaugh worth $400 million over eight years to the conservative movement?

Following the outcome of NY-23, there may be some conservative activists out there who would want to reconsider that investment.

Media continue to misrepresent abortion provisions in health reform bill

A.H.S. — Fri, 06 Nov 2009 16:40:56 EST

Media figures continue to falsely claim that a proposed anti-abortion amendment to the House health care reform bill would only have the effect of prohibiting government money from being used to pay for abortions, echoing a myth previously advanced about a proposed amendment to a prior version of that legislation. In fact, language in the current House bill already segregates federal money so it cannot be used directly to fund abortions, and the proposed amendment would effectively ban abortion coverage for some who have it now.

Media advance false, misleading claims on abortion language, push anti-abortion alternative

On Dobbs, Donohue falsely claimed bill "explicitly" says on Page 110 that in the public option "you're going to have paying for abortion." On November 5, Catholic League president Bill Donohue stated: "[House Speaker] Nancy Pelosi is one of the problems here. She continues to deny that abortion is in the bill. Yet I have the bill in front of me. And on Page 110 of this 2,000-page bill, it explicitly says that in the public option that you're going to have paying for abortion." [United Stations Radio Network's The Lou Dobbs Show, 11/5/09]

Malkin: Current bill has "government abortion subsidies." In her November 6 syndicated column, Malkin wrote: "Upwards of 40 pro-life Democrats have objected to the plan's government abortion subsidies. Majority leaders evaded sunlight by keeping a compromise amendment on the matter out of the version of the bill made available to the public. As of Thursday afternoon (less than two days before the scheduled vote), Pelosi had yet to decide whether to permit an abortion ban amendment to her health care bill." [MichelleMalkin.com, 11/6/09]

NRO's Capretta/Washington Times: Democrats won't "back down on their unwavering commitment to abortion radicalism." In a post on National Review Online's "critical condition" blog that was quoted at length in The Washington Times' Inside Politics column, James C. Capretta wrote:

But there's apparently one thing most Democrats aren't willing to do, even if it jeopardizes their health care ambitions. And that's back down on their unwavering commitment to abortion radicalism.

For months, pro-life Democratic congressman Bart Stupak [MI] has warned Democratic leaders that he and a sizeable bloc of like-minded colleagues would vote against the Democratic health care bill in the House if it didn't clearly and unambiguously preclude taxpayer funding of elective abortions in a reformed system of subsidized health insurance.

This should be a no-brainer for House Democratic leaders. Giving Rep. Stupak what he wants -- which is a clean vote on a no-funding-for-abortion amendment -- would remove one more roadblock on their way to the nirvana of government-run health insurance. [National Review Online, 11/5/09]

RedState.com post hyped Stupak-Pitts anti-abortion alternative that would have effectively banned abortion coverage for many. From a RedState.com post by Charmaine Yoest, president and CEO of Americans United for Life Action:

Of course the false pro-life label is designed to give legislators cover back home. So we are working to get the word out to the grass roots. The Ellsworth Amendment allows the public option to pay for abortion on demand and allows government dollars to go to private plans that cover abortion. This amendment would undermine the only pro-life amendment that truly protects life in health care reform: the Stupak- [Rep. Joe] Pitts [R-PA] Amendment.

In order to stop unprecedented abortion funding in the guise of health care reform, we need everyone in pro-life America to contact Congress to prevent their tax dollars from going to abortion. [11/5/09]

Limbaugh fill-in Davis attacked "Cruella Pelosi," hyped Stupak actions on bill. From the November 5 edition of Premiere Radio Networks' The Rush Limbaugh Show:

DAVIS: Just a quick shout-out to a couple of folks: Bart Stupak of Michigan. Now this is a courageous Democrat. This is a guy who has essentially drawn a line in the sand and told Speaker Pelosi, "I've got about at least 40 people, you know, Democrats, who cannot, will not, support this thing, because it facilitates -- because of the degree to which it facilitates abortion," which it does.

And so, brother Stupak there in Michigan fighting the good fight in that regard and probably with a heavy price that lies ahead for him to pay, because woe be unto the Democrats who run afoul of, you know, Cruella Pelosi on this. There will be a price.

And the fact that they seem willing to pay it is the kind of thing that is kind of energizing, because you have to have 218 votes, and Speaker Pelosi herself doesn't know if she has them. [11/5/09]

Current bill forbids government money from being used to directly fund abortion

Page 110 does not say that public option requires government payments for abortion. Page 110 of the bill states: "PROHIBITION OF USE OF PUBLIC FUNDS FOR ABORTION COVERAGE. -- An affordability credit may not be used for payment for services described in section 222(d)(4)(A)."

Current bill provides that premiums must cover costs of public option. The bill requires that premiums be set at a rate to "fully finance the costs of ... health benefits provided by the public health insurance option; and ... administrative costs related to operating the public health insurance option." Thus, since the bill requires that the public option be fully paid for by premiums and bans the use of affordability credits from the government for most abortions, the bill bans the use of government money to directly pay for abortions.

Status quo already allows people participating in federally funded plans to obtain abortions as long as funds are segregated. The bill's treatment of abortion -- allowing people participating in a government-administered health care insurance plan to use their own money to pay for abortion but forbidding federal funding of abortion -- is consistent with current law. According to the Congressional Research Service, the Hyde Amendment was originally passed to prohibit federal funding for abortions through the Medicaid program and has since been expanded to other areas. Nevertheless, notwithstanding the prohibition on federal funding for most abortions under Medicaid, according to a September 1 study by the Guttmacher Institute, 17 states provide coverage under Medicaid for "all or most medically necessary abortions," not just abortions in cases of life endangerment, rape, and incest. Therefore, in 17 states, Medicaid, a federally subsidized health care program, covers abortions in circumstances in which federal money is prohibited from being spent on abortion.

Current bill also prohibits government from requiring abortion coverage for insurance plans participating in exchange. From Section 222(e) of the bill:

(e) ABORTION COVERAGE PROHIBITED AS PART OF MINIMUM BENEFITS PACKAGE.--

(1) PROHIBITION OF REQUIRED COVERAGE. -- The Health Benefits Advisory Committee may not recommend under section 223(b), and the Secretary may not adopt in standards under section 224(b), the services described in paragraph (4)(A) or (4)(B) as part of the essential benefits package and the Commissioner may not require such services for qualified health benefits plans to participate in the Health Insurance Exchange.

(2) VOLUNTARY CHOICE OF COVERAGE BY PLAN. -- In the case of a qualified health benefits plan, the plan is not required (or prohibited) under this Act from providing coverage of services described in paragraph (4)(A) or (4)(B) and the QHBP offering entity shall determine whether such coverage is provided.

Anti-abortion alternative would have effect of banning abortion coverage for some who have it now

An amendment hyped by conservatives would have the effect of banning all coverage through insurance offered through the exchange. A failed amendment to the previous version of the House bill offered by Stupak and Pitts would effectively bar insurance companies from offering plans through the health insurance exchange that cover abortion. As Media Matters for America documented, such a provision -- if implemented as part of the current House health care reform bill -- would effectively cause a number of people who currently have abortion coverage to lose that coverage.

Media forwarded same myth about previous version of bill

Parker advanced myth that conservative proposal merely about "exclud[ing] abortion" from health reform bill. In her September 6 Washington Post column, Kathleen Parker described an amendment to the House's health care reform bill by anti-abortion members of Congress merely as a proposal "to exclude abortion from the bills" and suggested that a compromise provision in one of the versions of the House bills would change current law by allowing federally subsidized insurance plans to cover abortion as long as federal funds are not used. In fact, the anti-abortion proposal would effectively ban abortion coverage for those participating in health insurance plans that would be part of the proposed health insurance exchange -- including those who currently have such coverage -- and contrary to Parker's suggestion that "[s]egregating funding" would reverse current law, Medicaid already allows states to cover abortion so long as they don't use federal funds.

Additionally, on the September 1 edition of Hannity, Fox News contributor Dana Perino falsely suggested that allowing federally subsidized health plans to cover abortion is inconsistent with current law

Media fact-checks failed to note effect of Stupak-Pitts amendment. CBS, ABC, the Cleveland Plain Dealer, and the Los Angeles Times all purported to fact-check claims about government funding for abortion but have ignored the fact that the Stupak-Pitts amendment by abortion opponents would have had the effect of forcing many who currently have abortion coverage to lose such coverage even if they receive no government subsidy.

Right-wing media respond to Fort Hood shooting by attacking American Muslims

B.C.O. — Fri, 06 Nov 2009 15:18:56 EST

Right-wing media figures have used the shooting at Fort Hood as an excuse to attack Islam and American Muslims in particular, with Debbie Schlussel, for example, urging readers to think of the alleged shooter "whenever you hear about how Muslims serve their country in the U.S. military." Additionally, commentators have blamed the shooting on "political correctness," with Fox News host Brian Kilmeade suggesting the implementation of "special debriefings" for Muslim American soldiers to prevent future attacks.

Right-wing media respond to attack by demonizing Muslims

Schulssel: Think of Hasan "whenever you hear about how Muslims serve their country in the U.S. military." In a November 5 post -- headlined "Shocker: Man Who Shot Up Ft. Hood Soldiers Was Muslim" -- right-wing commentator Debbie Schulssel wrote:

UPDATE: Nidal Malik Hasan isPalestinian. Figures...Yeah, I wonder if that "Palestinian" town is actually Palestinian or part of the Islamic encroachment on Israel. Either way, he had every opportunity given to him by American taxpayers. And he murdered them anyway. This isn't just the Palestinian way. It's the Islamic way. And we expect Israel to make peace with guys like this? Even in the midst of the land of plenty, look at how they behave.

[...]

And, oh, yeah, think of Major Malik Nadal Hasan (and all of the other Muslim American traitorous soldiers in the U.S. military who've shot their fellow soldiers up and killed them or otherwise helped the enemy), whenever you hear about how Muslims serve their country in the U.S. military.

Well, actually, they do serve "their country" in the U.S. military. And their country is Dar Al-Islam and greater Koranistan.

"It's Islamic terrorism, stupid. Wait, that's repetitive. It's Islam, stupid."

Geller: Shooter is in the "pious Muslim category," has "such Islamic bravery." In a November 5 blog post, Pamela Geller wrote: " 'Six months ago Major Hasan came to law enforcement attention for posting blogs supporting suicide bombing.' This puts him in the pious Muslim category." In a November 6 post, she wrote: "The pig jumped on a table and was shooting down on the crowd, which is why he could get so many off. Jihad Hasan was shooting soldiers in the back. Such Islamic bravery."

Malkin links shooter to other "Muslim Soldiers with Attitude." In her November 6 post headlined "The massacre at Fort Hood and Muslim soldiers with attitude," Fox News contributor Michelle Malkin linked the alleged Fort Hood shooter to "all those who came before Hasan," highlighting her March 2003 column on "Muslim soldiers with attitude" who are "suspected of infiltrating our military, endangering our troops and undermining national security" and referencing "Muslim sniper" John Muhammad and "Muslim US soldier Hasan Abujihaad."

Right-wing media blame shooting on "political correctness," call for "special debriefings" of American Muslims

Carlson: "Could it be that our military is so politically correct... to be careful about treatment of Muslims" that this happened? On the November 6 edition of Fox News' Fox & Friends, co-host Gretchen Carlson asked: "Could it be that our own military is so politically correct right now ... to be careful about treatment of Muslims that they would have allowed this to go by?"

Michelle Malkin: "Political correctness is the handmaiden of terror." Commenting on "The whitewashing of jihad by the MSM," Michelle Malkin wrote: "I've said it many times over the years and it bears repeating again as cable TV talking heads ask in bewilderment how all the red flags Hasan raised could have been ignored: Political correctness is the handmaiden of terror."

Steyn: People afraid to report suspicious Muslim activity, lest they end up "in sensitivity-training hell for the next six months." On the November 6 edition of Rush Limbaugh's radio show, guest host Mark Steyn said: "You think about the next time you see some behavior that's suspicious -- guys praying, they're doing goofy things, they're talking about Saddam Hussein, all the things that the flying imams did. And you think to yourself, 'Do I call Homeland Security? No, I'm going to be tied up in sensitivity-training hell for the next six months. Maybe it's better to just forget about it, to ignore it.' And that is becoming the problem now, that we're conditioned to ignore it."

Kilmeade suggested that "it's time for the military to have special debriefings" of U.S. soldiers who are Muslim. On the November 6 edition of Fox & Friends, Brian Kilmeade asked Geraldo Rivera, "Do you think it's time for the military to have special debriefings of Muslim Army civili-- officers, anybody enlisted?" He added: "Because if I'm going to be deployed in a foxhole, if I'm going to be sitting in an outpost, I've got to know that the guy next to me is not going to want to kill me."

Farah falsely claimed official "confirm[ed]" WND falsehood that alleged shooter "advised Obama transition"

M.G. — Fri, 06 Nov 2009 15:17:04 EST

WorldNetDaily CEO and editor-in-chief Joseph Farah claimed that WND's false report that alleged Fort Hood shooter Nidal Hasan "advised" the "Obama transition" -- previously debunked by Media Matters for America -- had been subsequently "confirm[ed]" by an official with the Homeland Security Policy Institute (HSPI) at George Washington University, which had listed Hasan as a member of its Presidential Transition Task Force "Event Participants." But the updated article reported only that the official confirmed that the Hasan listed as a "participant" was the alleged shooter, not that he had advised the "Obama transition" -- a falsehood undermined by WND's own reporting that there is no evidence that "the group played any formal role in the official Obama transition."

**Farah falsehood: GW official "confirm[ed]" WND article; "take that, Media Matters!"**

Guest-hosting the November 6 edition of Radio America's The G. Gordon Liddy Show, Farah said:

FARAH: Despite reports to the contrary yesterday, Major Malik Nadal Assan, the alleged shooter in the massacre at Fort Hood, is alive. And our report today, which is being disputed by Media Matters, says that he played a Homeland Security advisory role in the President-elect -- President-elect Barack Obama's transition into the White House, according to a key university policy institute document. We now have confirmation of that report from the man that actually chaired that institute. His name is Daniel Kaniewski, deputy director of the Homeland Security Policy Institute at George Washington University -- affirmed to WND in a telephone interview this morning that the Nidal Hasan listed as attending the meetings of that transition task force was the same person as the alleged shooter in the Fort Hood massacre. So, take that, Media Matters!

Media Matters debunked WND article's false headline, "Shooter advised Obama transition"

WND's confirmation of Hasan's identity is irrelevant to the glaring falsehood documented by Media Matters. In a November 6 item headlined "WND falsely claimed alleged Fort Hood shooter 'advised Obama transition,' " Media Matters stated:

WorldNetDaily falsely claimed that alleged Fort Hood shooter Nidal Hasan "advised Obama transition" in the headline of an article by Jerome Corsi highlighting his listing as a "participant" in a report for the Homeland Security Policy Institute (HSPI) at George Washington University's Presidential Transition Task Force. However, Corsi himself acknowledges that there is no evidence that "the group played any formal role in the official Obama transition" -- indeed, the Task Force was initiated in April 2008. Moreover, while Hasan was listed as one of approximately 300 "Task Force Event Participants" in the report's appendix, HSPI has reportedly said he was not a "member" of the Task Force, and was listed because he RSVP'd for several of the group's open events.

WND report: GW official "confirm[ed]" only that Hasan was an "Event Participant"

From the updated November 6 WND article:

Daniel Kaniewski, deputy director of the Homeland Security Policy Institute at George Washington University affirmed to WND in a telephone interview this morning that the Nidal Hasan listed as attending the meetings of the HSPI Presidential Transition Task Force was the same person as the alleged shooter in the Fort Hood massacre.

Kaniewski said Hasan attended the meetings in his capacity as a member of the faculty of the Uniformed Services University School of Medicine, not as a member of the HSPI Presidential Task Force.

Kaniewski believed Hasan applied on the institute's website to attend the meeting and was accepted because of his professional credentials.

Kaniewski could not tell WND whether or not Hasan made comments from the audience that influenced the task force recommendations or not.

He further confirmed Hasan had attended several meetings held by the Homeland Security Policy Institute at George Washington University and that the institute is currently searching conference records to see if it is possible to determine what additional institute conferences he attended.

**As Media Matters documented, WND claim contradicted by HSPI report and WND article itself**

Corsi: No evidence "the group played any formal role in the official Obama transition." In his article, Corsi wrote: "While the GWU task force participants included several members of government, including representatives of the Department of Justice and the U.S Department of Homeland Security, there is no indication in the document that the group played any formal role in the official Obama transition, other than to serve in a university-based advisory capacity."

HSPI Presidential Transition Task Force initiated in April 2008 -- well before Obama's election. According to the HSPI Presidential Task Force report Corsi cited to establish the link between Hasan and the organization, "in April 2008 The George Washington University Homeland Security Policy Institute (HSPI) established the Presidential Transition Task Force, comprised of national and homeland security experts, policymakers and practitioners."

According to Kaniewski, Hasan not a Task Force member, listed because he RSVP'd for groups' open events. In a November 6 blog post, Gawker reported:

FRIDAY MORNING UPDATE: Daniel Kaniewski, the institute's deputy director, confirms that Hasan attended task force meetings as an audience member, and stresses that he was not a member of the task force. "All of our events are open to the public," Kaniewski says, "and when someone RSVPs we put their name in the [report] so everyone knows who was in the room." He says institute staffers recall Hasan attending at least one task force event, and that he RSVP'd for several. "We do recall him speaking at one of our events as an audience member," he says, "but none of us recall what he actually said. Generally, our events are attended by people in the homeland security community, and Hasan had a very legitimate reason to be there. He was a fellow at the Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences."

Fox News advances false claim that "House Call" protest was "spontaneous"

J.V.B. — Fri, 06 Nov 2009 13:05:34 EST

Fox News has repeatedly advanced, and in Sean Hannity's case adopted, Rep. Michele Bachmann's (R-MN) false claim that her November 5 House Call protest in opposition of health care reform was "organic" and "spontaneous." In fact, the protest was organized by House Republicans in collaboration with conservative activist groups, and was promoted by right-wing media outlets in advance of the actual event.

Fox News advances false claim that "House Call" protest was "spontaneous," "organic," organized by "word of mouth"

Napolitano does not dispute Bachmann's description of protest as "spontaneous...organic." Appearing on the November 4 edition of Fox News' Glenn Beck, Bachmann asked "real freedom-loving Americans" to come to the steps of the Capitol, and said to guest-host Andrew Napolitano: "Judge, we're going to have a meet-up. And it's spontaneous. It's organic. Just last Thursday afternoon, I had the idea to really kill this bill. We need to have members of Congress see real freedom-loving Americans." After Bachmann pitched the protest, Napolitano said: "Alright. You and I have been at these tea parties. We have each spoken at them. And you know what the fire in the belly is like when freedom-loving Americans hear the words that they want to hear."

Bachmann on Hannity: "[T]his was totally word of mouth. This was nothing that we organized, nothing that we planned. We didn't order one bus, one carload. Nothing." On the November 5 edition of Fox News' Hannity, after registering surprise at the number of people who attended the rally, Bachmann claimed "this was totally word of mouth. This was nothing that we organized, nothing that we planned. We didn't order one bus, one carload. Nothing. Complete word of mouth. And estimates are anywhere between 20 and 45,000 people" attended.

Brent Bozell: Protest was "spontaneous combustion." On the November 5 edition of Hannity, Media Research Center President Brent Bozell responded to Hannity's claim that there was a "huge march on Washington today" by calling it "spontaneous combustion. This wasn't an instant tea party, this was a coffee urn exploding."

Peter Johnson Jr. advances GOP claim of no organization. Discussing the protest on the November 6 edition of Fox & Friends, guest host Peter Johnson Jr. uncritically advanced the claim that the protest came together without planning or organization on the part of GOP leadership, stating "the thing just kind of grew, the Congresspeople claim that there was no organization for it, and it kind of was a word of mouth thing."

Hannity: "This is a last minute thing." On the November 3 edition of The Sean Hannity Show, after guest Mark Levin discussed how "we're hoping to put together a pretty good little rally," Hannity responded by stating, "can I add one thing? I don't want to interrupt you. ...This is a last-minute thing."

In fact, the event was organized in collaboration with prominent Astroturf group

Bachmann worked with Americans for Prosperity on the "House Call" protest. Fox News hosts repeatedly ignored that, despite Bachmann's claim that "[t]his was nothing we organized, nothing that we planned," health care opposition group Americans for Prosperity [AFP] hosted a conference call with Bachmann and RedState.com's Erick Erickson before the protest. A November 4 their website, AFP organized and ran numerous buses to bring people to the protest. AFP listed free bus rides for supporters in New Jersey and Pennsylvania.

Think Progress: Americans for Prosperity staffed the protest, organized buses from multiple states. Think Progress reported that at the protest, there were several AFP staffers organizing the arrival of buses. According to one of those staffers, "We have about 40 buses coming" from multiple states, including New Jersey, Pennsylvania, and Maryland.

And, it was aggressively promoted by Fox News days in advance

Beck: "We'll get the word out ... and we'll continue to have you make the pitch for people going to Washington, DC, noon this Thursday." On the November 2 edition of Glenn Beck's radio show, Bachmann stated, "I really believe, Glenn, if we can get good normal patriot, freedom loving Americans to D.C., converge at noon on Thursday on the Capitol steps, and what we need to do is literally go into these members of Congress' offices, look in the whites of their eyes and tell them don't take away my healthcare, don't take away my freedom. Because once government gets this power, Glenn, they can use healthcare as cradle to grave, they can use that as a pretext for controlling every other aspect of our life." Beck stated at the end of the interview, "Michele, God bless you. We'll get the word out and let's have you on a little bit later on this week and we'll continue to have you make the pitch for people going to Washington, D.C., noon this Thursday, and look them in the whites of their eyes." Bachmann again promoted the protest on the November 4 edition of Beck's radio program.

Bachmann: "[W]e began this on Sean Hannity's show." Also during the November 4 Glenn Beck broadcast, Bachmann further detailed her motivations to organize the protest, saying, "what we've done, and we began this on Sean Hannity's show, is just to - the only thing I know to do at this point to kill this bill is to ask and plead for real freedom-loving Americans to come to the steps of the US Capitol tomorrow."

Fox and Friends posts details of the protest on their website. On the November 3 edition of Fox & Friends, two days before the protest, host Gretchen Carlson interviewed Bachmann. Calling the planned protest "the Super Bowl of freedom," Bachmann asked the show's viewers to join her on the steps of the Capitol, and listed guests who were scheduled to show up. While Bachmann was speaking, the on-screen text read: "Thursday reform bill protest planned." At the end of the segment, Carlson told viewers that "people can get more information, they can go to FoxandFriends.com. We'll link it to your website."

Fox Nation, conservative media launch political attack on Obama's shooting remarks

Fri, 06 Nov 2009 12:24:51 EST

Following the shootings at the Fort Hood Army Post, the Fox Nation and right-wing blogs launched political attacks on President Obama's remarks at a the Tribal Nations conference at the Interior Department, in which he addressed the tragedy after making introductory remarks.

Right-wing media attack Obama's introductory remarks

Fox Nation: "Appropriate? Obama Gives 'Shout Out' Before Fort Hood Remarks." Fox Nation posted a video of the press conference on November 5 with the headline, "Appropriate? Obama Gives 'Shout Out' Before Fort Hood Remarks":

Drudge headline: "Obama's Frightening Insensitivity Following Shooting..." Drudge posted a link to a column by Robert A. George under the headline "Obama's Frightening Insensitivity Following Shooting..." From the Drudge Report on November 6:

Commentary's Chavez: "He treated the event like a pep rally." Linda Chavez wrote in a November 5 blog post for Commentary Magazine that "President Obama's rushed press conference was surprising in its flippancy nonetheless. Before he got to the issue on everyone's mind - namely the deaths of Americans in uniform - the president gave a 'shout-out' to government bureaucrats gathered for a previously scheduled conference at the Interior Department, complete with appreciative chuckles. He treated the event like a pep rally rather than a tragic occasion with a wider audience than those gathered in the room. I wonder how many media outlets will compare Obama's performance to President Bush's 'Pet Goat' moment on 9/11. I won't hold my breath."

GatewayPundit: Obama addressed shooting "[a]fter two minutes of smiling, pointing and dithering." GatewayPundit blogger Jim Hoft wrote on November 5, "After two minutes of smiling, pointing and dithering... Barack Obama finally got around to mentioning the massacre at Fort Hood in Texas. The president then went on to tell the audience what great admiration he has for the men and women in uniform...Except, of course, for those serving in Afghanistan who he refuses to support."

Ben Johnson: Obama "feels there is no event so serious that it cannot be prefaced by a moment of glib hipness." On November 5 Johnson wrote on David Horowitz' Newsreal website that Obama's "shout out" "says it all: our commander-in-chief feels there is no event so serious that it cannot be prefaced by a moment of glib hipness, no solemn loss so sacred he will deny himself a moment of wry self-indulgence. Soldiers were killed? Let's say hi to Joe first. An entire theater of war needs a plan to defeat the terrorists who struck America on 9/11? No reason I can't go golfing, shoot some hoops, and hit the town with Michelle." Johnson added, "We desperately need an adult in the White House. Sadly, today's press conference proves we do not have one."

American Thinker: "Our clueless C in C." American Thinker blogger Clarice Feldman wrote on November 5, "Twelve soldiers were murdered in cold blood at Fort Hood. Thirty others were wounded. Our Commander in Chief calls a press conference and begins it with a long thanks to the Interior Department and Indians who just concluded a conference and then gives a good natured 'shout out' to an attendee, all with a studied nonchalance, before he even mentions the outrage on our military base."

Right-wing media falsely claim Pelosi broke pledge to post health care bill online 72 hours in advance

D.C.P. — Fri, 06 Nov 2009 12:05:19 EST

Right-wing media are claiming Speaker Nancy Pelosi broke a pledge to post the "final" House health care bill online 72 hours before it comes to a vote, echoing a Weekly Standard blog post that claimed amendments allowed by the House Rules Committee the day prior to the vote will change the bill. However, Pelosi's office posted both the text of the bill and the "manager's amendment" -- which The Sunlight Foundation called an "extra final version of legislation" -- 72 hours in advance; those actions meet guidelines set by a House transparency measure that Pelosi told the Weekly Standard she "absolutely" supported.

Right-wing media falsely claim Pelosi broke 72 hours pledge

The Weekly Standard: "Pelosi's agreement to leave the 'final' bill online 'at the very end' of the process wasn't such a straightforward pledge." In a November 5 blog post, the Weekly Standard's John McCormack wrote that Pelosi broke her pledge to put the "final" health care bill online 72 hours before it comes to a vote because, even though she posted the text of the bill and the manager's amendment online, "House members are still negotiating important issues in the bill--whether it will provide taxpayer-funding for abortions, for example." McCormack wrote that this is because the "Rules Committee hasn't yet released its resolution, or rule, that must be passed before the bill can move from committee to the floor. The rule will set the terms of debate and determine what amendments are in order." From McCormack's Weekly Standard report in a July 14 post, a July 15-17 Republican press release for the Education & Labor Committee linked to its report, and the Ways & Means Committee linked to its report in an October 15 post.

Rules committee amendments don't apply to 72 hour measure

Sunlight Foundation: H. Res. 554 does not cover amendments to bills, and manager's amendment is "an extra-final version of legislation." According to a post on The Sunlight Foundation, a non-profit organization that advocates for government transparency, "the proposed 72 hour rule written into H. Res. 554 (the Read the Bill bill) does not cover amendments to bills," and the manager's amendment "amount[s] to an extra-final version of legislation." The post stated that Pelosi's decision to put the Manager's Amendment online 72 hours in advance was "commendable." From the post:

A Manager's Amendment is a partial substitute for the underlying legislation that often includes many last minute compromises to gain support from lawmakers on the fence. There is no required procedure for the public disclosure of Manager's Amendments, but most are posted with the list amendments to be considered on the Rules Committee web site, usually the day before consideration.

[...]

While the proposed 72 hour rule written into H. Res. 554 (the Read the Bill bill) does not cover amendments to bills, the decision to provide adequate time for the health care bill Manager's Amendment is highly commendable. These long amendments are farther reaching in scope than other amendments and amount to an extra-final version of legislation that is not recognized in most people's mental image of "How A Bill Becomes A Law." Acknowledging that the bill's language should be available at all stages for at least 72 hours before action is taken is an extremely important step in the right direction.

Sunlight Foundation: "A milestone" that the text was posted online. The Sunlight Foundation's John Wonderlich also wrote in a November 1 blog post of the text of the bill: "September 24th, Speaker Pelosi said that the healthcare bill would be online for 72 hours.... That 72 hours is now. The bill is online... We should recognize this as a milestone."

Hoyer: Adding an abortion compromise is not a violation of the pledge. According to a November 4 The Hill article, "Lawmakers said the abortion compromise may not be included in the final version of the bill to be released as soon as Wednesday, called the 'manager's amendment.' Instead, it may be included in the 'rule,' which is done the day before the vote. House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) said Tuesday he did not consider that a violation of his pledge to have the bill language available for three days before a vote." According to the article, Hoyer said: "We said the manager's amendment we would give 72 hours for...Obviously, we have had 72 hours on the bill. So I don't think that is a violation."

WND falsely claimed alleged Fort Hood shooter "advised Obama transition"

M.G. — Fri, 06 Nov 2009 11:03:46 EST

WorldNetDaily falsely claimed that alleged Fort Hood shooter Nidal Hasan "advised Obama transition" in the headline of an article by Jerome Corsi highlighting his listing as a "participant" in a report for the Homeland Security Policy Institute (HSPI) at George Washington University's Presidential Transition Task Force. However, Corsi himself acknowledges that there is no evidence that "the group played any formal role in the official Obama transition" -- indeed, the Task Force was initiated in April 2008. Moreover, while Hasan was listed as one of approximately 300 "Task Force Event Participants" in the report's appendix, HSPI has reportedly said he was not a "member" of the Task Force, and was listed because he RSVP'd for several of the group's open events.

WND article featured false headline "Shooter advised Obama transition"

From the November 6 WND article:

WND claim contradicted by HSPI report and WND article itself

HSPI Presidential Transition Task Force initiated in April 2008 -- well before Obama's election. According to the HSPI Presidential Task Force report Corsi uses to establish the link between Hasan and the organization, "in April 2008 The George Washington University Homeland Security Policy Institute (HSPI) established the Presidential Transition Task Force, comprised of national and homeland security experts, policymakers and practitioners."

According to HSPI, Hasan not a Task Force member, listed because he RSVP'd for groups' open events. In a November 6 blog post, Gawker reported:

FRIDAY MORNING UPDATE: Daniel Kaniewski, the institute's deputy director, confirms that Hasan attended task force meetings as an audience member, and stresses that he was not a member of the task force. "All of our events are open to the public," Kaniewski says, "and when someone RSVPs we put their name in the [report] so everyone knows who was in the room." He says institute staffers recall Hasan attending at least one task force event, and that he RSVP'd for several. "We do recall him speaking at one of our events as an audience member," he says, "but none of us recall what he actually said. Generally, our events are attended by people in the homeland security community, and Hasan had a very legitimate reason to be there. He was a fellow at the Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences."

Hasan was listed in the group's report as one of roughly 300 "Task Force Event Participants."

Citing no evidence, Hannity estimates that 20,000 attended Fox-promoted GOP health care protest

K.E.C. — Thu, 05 Nov 2009 20:10:43 EST

Citing no evidence, Sean Hannity twice stated that 20,000 people gathered to protest health care reform at a GOP rally on Capitol Hill -- a claim he later walked back drastically -- while MSNBC reported that Capitol police estimated the crowd at only 4,000; prior to the rally, Hannity said crowds at the event -- which he and other Fox News figures heavily promoted -- would be "massive." Conservative media previously inflated crowd estimates for the 9-12 March on Washington.

Hannity twice stated that the Capitol Hill crowd numbered 20,000 -- before drastically walking it back

Hannity: "20,000 people showed up today." During the November 5 edition of ABC Radio Network's The Sean Hannity Show, Hannity stated, "We announced on Hannity Friday night on the Fox News Channel, we had Congresswoman Michele Bachmann [R-MN] on, and she mentioned that there was going to be on Thursday, she was going to put together in less than a week a little town hall on -- what do you want to call it -- march on our nation's Capitol. And anyway, 20,000 people showed up today."

Hannity: "[W]hat, 20,000 people showed up today." Hannity subsequently stated, "That was Jon Voight, the actor, who on his own heard -- I guess was watching Hannity last Friday -- and heard Congresswoman Michele Bachmann announce that she was going to have this rally today in preparation for what we expect to be a vote on a rare Saturday edition of Congress, and, what, 20,000 people showed up today."

Hannity: "I heard there was, like, 5,000 people plus there." Toward the end of his radio show, Hannity backtracked from his earlier estimates, responding to a caller's statement that "there was more than 1,000 people here," by stating, "I heard there was, like, 5,000 people plus there."

Citing U.S. Capitol Police, MSNBC's First Read reported much lower crowd estimates

MSNBC.com: "Three Capitol Hill police officers all guessed that the crowd numbered at about 4,000." In a November 5 First Read blog post, MSNBC.com reported, "The crowd, per [NBC'S Luke] Russert, is so far about 3,000 to 3,500, according to Capitol Police estimates." In a subsequent update, MSNBC reported, "Three Capitol Hill police officers all guessed that the crowd numbered at about 4,000."

Prior to the Fox News-promoted rally, Hannity predicted a "massive" crowd

Hannity: "I hear there's going to be a lot of people -- thousands of people." During the November 4 edition of his Fox News' show, Hannity stated, "All right, Congresswoman Michele Bachmann announced on this program last Friday that at noon tomorrow -- by the way, anybody that wants to go, you can go to the nation's capitol -- they're going to have a press conference, and then I hear there's going to be a lot of people -- thousands of people. Our cameras are going to be there. We'll have full coverage on the program tomorrow night."

Hannity: "I am told the crowd is going to be massive." During the November 4 edition his radio show, Hannity responded to a caller who said, "There's nine of us traveling in an RV with three buses behind us heading out of Georgia to go see Michele Bachmann tomorrow at noon," by stating, "I can tell you, I am told the crowd is going to be massive."

Fox News and its personalities, including Hannity, aggressively promoted protest. In the days leading up to the November 5 protest, and following its pattern of advocacy of right-wing events, Fox News and its personalities' repeatedly promoted the anti-health care reform protest spearheaded by Bachmann. Fox News previously promoted numerous other rallies such as the April 15 tea party protests, health care town hall protests, and the 9-12 march on Washington.

Conservative media previously inflated crowd estimates for the 9-12 March on Washington

Media conservatives ran wild with 9-12 protest crowd estimates. Although a D.C. Fire Department official estimated 9-12 March crowds at 60,000 to 75,000 people, media conservatives including Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh, Michelle Malkin and Fox & Friends co-hosts Steve Doocy and Gretchen Carlson cited participant numbers in the tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands, and millions.

PolitiFact.com: D.C. Fire Department official said "he thought between 60,000 and 75,000" participated. PolitiFact.com investigated whether conservative bloggers were falsely attributing a picture of a large crowd on the National Mall to the 9-12 events and concluded that they were. From PolitiFact:

We spoke with Pete Piringer, public affairs officer for the D.C. Fire and Emergency Department, who said that the local government no longer provides official crowd estimates because they can become politicized. That said, on the morning of Sept. 12, Piringer unofficially told one reporter that he thought between 60,000 and 75,000 people had shown up.

"It was in no way an official estimate," he said.

We asked Piringer whether there were enough protesters to fill the National Mall, as depicted in the photograph.

"It was an impressive crowd," he said. But after marching down Pennsylvania Avenue to the Capitol the crowd "only filled the Capitol grounds, maybe up to Third Street," he said.

Fox News owns the extremist images featured at Capitol Hill rally it promoted

B.C.O. — Thu, 05 Nov 2009 19:27:38 EST

In aggressively promoting Rep. Michele Bachmann's November 5 anti-health care reform rally on Capitol Hill, Fox News has chosen to associate itself with the offensive and extremist rhetoric emanating from that event. This rhetoric includes the disturbing signs -- such as one of a pile of Holocaust victims' bodies captioned "National Socialist Health Care, Dachau, Germany - 1945" -- displayed at the event.

Anti-reform rally featured extremist images

"National Socialist Health Care, Dachau, Germany - 1945" From a blog post by the Center for American Progress' Matthew Yglesias:

"Got Good Health Care? Let me cure that for you. Stop Obamunism." From a November 5 Huffington Post slide show:

"OBAMA - Gov't TAKE OVER ... JUST LIKE NAZI GERMANY!" From the Huffington Post slide show:

Pelosi: "UnAmerican McCarthyite." From MSNBC.com:

"Maoism is not reform." From the Huffington Post slide show:

"Obama Listens to Mao, I listen to Fox News." From the Huffington Post slide show:

"KEN-YA TRUST OBAMA." From MSNBC.com:

NBC's First Read reports on "jaw-dropping signs." In a November 5 post on the rally, the MSNBC.com blog First Read reported:

Here are some of the more jaw-dropping signs seen at the rally:

"Get the Red Out of the White House."

"Waterboard Congress"

"Traitor to the U.S. Constitution" (Picture of Obama on sign)

"Ken-Ya Trust Obama?" (Rep. Steve King, R-IA, autographing the sign)

"Un-American McCarthyite" (with picture of Pelosi)

"I'm the King of the World: Remember the Titanic?" (Drawing of Obama in the mold of the 'Jovial Sambo' from the Jim Crow era doing the Leo Titanic pose."

Fox News personalities aggressively promoted Bachmann's protest against health care reform bill

Fox News follows pattern of advocacy in promoting November 5 rally. Fox News and its personalities -- including judicial analyst Andrew Napolitano, contributor Newt Gingrich, hosts Gretchen Carlson, Sean Hannity, and Glenn Beck, and their website The Fox Nation -- repeatedly promoted Bachmann's November 5 anti-reform protest.

Fox News has repeatedly engaged in conservative advocacy by promoting protests

Fox News promoted April 15 tea parties. In the lead-up to the April 15 tea parties, which the channel repeatedly described as "FNC Tax Day Tea Parties," Fox News frequently aired segments publicizing the events and encouraging viewers to get involved. A Media Matters for America study found that from April 6 to 13, Fox News featured at least 20 segments on the "tea party" protests. A subsequent Media Matters study found that from April 6 to 15, Fox News aired at least 107 commercial promotions for its coverage of the April 15 tea parties.

Fox News promoted town hall disruptions. Fox News promoted disruptions of Democratic town hall events by protesters opposed to health care reform -- protests that were touted by Republican leaders and supported by conservative groups. Following the August 2 disruption of a town hall event hosted by Sen. Arlen Specter (D-PA) and Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius, Fox News personalities repeatedly lauded such protesters and urged viewers to take similar action.

Fox News promoted 9-12 protests. In the lead-up to the 9-12 protest, Beck's website worked with others organizing the September 12 "March on Washington," and Beck repeatedly encouraged viewers to attend the protest. Fox News also heavily promoted the Tea Party Express tour -- the final stop of which was the 9-12 protest -- on Fox News, Fox Business, The Fox Nation, and FoxNews.com.

Beck, Breitbart witch hunt targets White House official Buffy Wicks

A.H.S. — Thu, 05 Nov 2009 18:27:58 EST

Fox News' Glenn Beck, Andrew Breitbart's BigGovernment.com, and other right-wing media figures have targeted White House official Buffy Wicks in their ongoing witch hunt against President Obama's administration officials. Beck and BigGovernment.com have repeatedly attacked Wicks, and he and BigGovernment.com's Mike Flynn have made the baseless charge that Wicks was engaged in preventing prosecutions of those involved in the alleged beating of a tea party protester.

Beck, BigGovernment's Flynn baselessly suggested Wicks prevented prosecutions

Holding up picture of Wicks, Beck said Obama administration "gets its point across" through "propaganda" or attacks by SEIU "thugs." From the November 3 edition of Fox News' Glenn Beck:

BECK: [Y]ou know what? There are two ways this administration gets its point across, and I'm going to show both of them to you through this individual, Buffy Wicks. They either trick you through propaganda or they do it this way.

[video clip]

BECK: SEIU. SEIU. The thugs attacking a man at a Missouri town hall meeting. How are these two stories connected, and how is Buffy Wicks coming into play on this? We go to Mike Flynn. He is the editor-in-chief of BigGovernment.com. [11/03/09]

Beck and Flynn repeatedly attempted to tie Wicks to the lack of prosecutions for the alleged attack on tea party protestor in St. Louis. Discussing Wicks, Beck said to Flynn: "She's also, coincidentally -- in Missouri, she was also the campaign manager there, right? Campaign manager for Barack Obama." Flynn responded, in part: "Now, part of that effort, what they did -- there was a very famous, it got some national attention -- is they created an Obama truth squad. And what they did is that Buffy Wicks organized at the Obama campaign headquarters a press conference of law enforcement officials, prosecuting attorneys, district attorneys, at the campaign headquarters who issued a warning that they would prosecute rival campaigns for any -- what they saw as misleading statements from their campaigns."

Later, Beck and Flynn each suggested that Wicks has or may have some connection to the lack of prosecution of those involved in the Missouri incident:

FLYNN: I mean, the incident happened August 6th. Charges were filed. [Protester Kenneth] Gladney went to the hospital. Immediately, the Democrats brought in a high-powered attorney to defend the SEIU thugs who were charged with assault, and it's just kind of disappeared.

And what's interesting is that it disappeared within the jurisdictions of those individuals who are part of Buffy Wicks' truth squad.

BECK: I don't think that's true. Is that true? I don't think that's true that she was a part of the -- that they were a part of -- they were the same people of the truth squad, but I'm not sure. I'd have to check --

FLYNN: No, not the individuals, the individuals right now who are not pursuing the charges.

BECK: OK. We'll have to look into that. Here's my point -- and I want to follow this up tomorrow -- why haven't charges been filed? It has been 90 days. Why haven't they been filed? It's my understanding that it's now being kicked to the county, which the county usually only handles misdemeanors. This sounds like felony assault.

FLYNN: Right.

BECK: I'd like to know what game is being played through strings being pulled through the purple people. Also, the administration -- is Buffy Wicks involved? How is she involved? This is all propaganda to send a message, and they're getting off scot-free. I'm wondering how exactly. Mike, keep digging into it, and we'll talk to you again.

FLYNN: We will. All right. Thanks. [11/03/09]

Conservative commentator Vadum echoed Beck's, Flynn's attacks. Writing for conservative David Horowitz's Newsreal.com blog, the Capital Research Center's Matthew Vadum highlighted Flynn's assertion that the alleged assault case has "disappeared within the jurisdictions of those individuals who are part of Buffy Wicks' truth squad." [Newsreal.com, 11/04/09]

None of them cite actual evidence of Wicks' involvement. Beck, Flynn, and Vadum cited no evidence that Wicks had any involvement in the alleged attack or in the decisions made by Missouri law enforcement officials about whether to bring any people to trial based on the incident.

Right-wing media continue to flog claims that SEIU "thugs" beat up tea party protester, White House was involved

Breitbart claimed White House literally "directed" town hall violence. In a Washington Times op-ed, Breitbart cited the incident in St. Louis and distorted a reported quote from a White House official in claiming that "union thugs were directed by the White House to go to" the meetings "and 'punch back twice as hard.' " In fact, White House deputy chief of staff Jim Messina reportedly used that phrase while speaking to Senate Democrats -- not to any union groups -- and there is no indication it was anything other than a metaphorical explanation of how the White House plans to respond to attacks against Senate Democrats.

Beck said SEIU "delivers beatdowns to opponents," asks, "[W]ho would have thought union members might be thugs?" On August 10, Beck said: "While the SEIU dons their health care '09 T-shirts and delivers beatdowns to opponents, the tensions keep getting worse and the president really is not saying much helpful. You know what I mean? How about throwing us a bone here, Mr. President? How about a little, 'Hey, you know what? You guys should knock it off'?" Later, Beck said: "Who's the mob here? Kenneth Gladley [sic], he is a 38-year-old conservative. He'd probably say, I don't know. SEIU, you know, the people -- when I was handing out "don't tread on me" flags and I was attacked by a member of the SEIU?"

Beck subsequently added:

BECK: First of all, who would have thought that union members might be thugs? Not me.

You know, I am so sick and tired of the media and everybody else equating union thugs, like these guys, with regular American citizens who have gathered -- most of them -- for the first time in their lives to be heard. This isn't a bunch of college kids and hippies and union members being paid to protest. These are regular people who see how things are being run in this government, things like, oh, I don't know, Chicago politics, and they're terrified at the prospects of government-run health care. [8/10/09]

Beck, Breitbart's BigHollywood, BigGovernment websites on a witch hunt for Wicks

Beck, Breitbart's website attacked Wicks for participating in NEA conference call. As of November 5, Breitbart's BigHollywood.com has posted 21 different entries attacking Wicks. Breitbart's BigGovernment.com has posted 13 entries attacking Wicks, some of which are cross-posts from BigHollywood.com. On each occasion, the entries brought up Wicks' participation in an August 5 National Endowment for the Arts conference call. Beck has also previously attacked Wicks, saying, "Valerie Jarrett is the one that Buffy [Wicks, deputy director of the White House Office of Public Engagement] was working for. Buffy, the propaganda slayer." According to a Nexis search, Beck has attacked Wicks on at least four occasions.

Beck compared NEA conference call to Goebbels. On November 3, Beck said of the NEA conference call: "Advocating through art is known as propaganda. You should look up the name Goebbels." [11/03/09]

No evidence of illegality in NEA conference call. As Media Matters for America has documented, advancing Beck's and Breitbart's aggressive promotion of the NEA conference call, Fox News' Gretchen Carlson and conservative columnist Ben Shapiro alleged that the NEA broke laws against lobbying and electioneering during the secretly taped call. In fact, the transcript of the conference call released by Breitbart's website contains no evidence of illegal electioneering or lobbying by government officials.

Baseless attacks against Wicks part of pattern

Right-wing media have repeatedly attacked the targets of their witch hunts with false and baseless charges. In addition to the baseless claims that Wicks is preventing prosecutions of people involved in the alleged assault in Missouri and that the NEA conference call contains evidence of illegality, right-wing media advanced other falsehoods, including:

Education Department official Kevin Jennings "cover[ed] up statutory rape"

State Department official Harold Koh "advocates the use of Sharia law in America"

White House official Cass Sunstein advocated for forced organ donation, and that he argued that "you should not be able to remove rats from your home"

former White House official Van Jones is a "convicted felon"

Obama science and technology adviser John Holdren called for forced abortion and forced sterilization.

Right-wing media figures have also made baseless charges against Obama judicial nominees David Hamilton and Edward Chen and have smeared White House communications director Anita Dunn for stating that Mao Zedong was one of her "favorite political philosophers," and "manufacturing czar" Ron Bloom for stating in February 2008 that he agreed "with Mao that political power comes largely from the barrel of a gun.

Fox News figures endorse ABC's V as an attack on "Obama-mania"

B.C.O. — Thu, 05 Nov 2009 18:22:21 EST

Fox News' Sean Hannity, Bill O'Reilly, and Glenn Beck have all endorsed the new ABC television show V, citing the show's depiction of aliens seeking to conquer Earth who offer to provide universal health care as a critique of "Obama-mania" and "Obamacare." This is not the first time Fox News personalities have promoted a television show to buttress their right-wing world view; many of them cited Fox's 24 to defend the use of torture by U.S. authorities, among other conservative positions.

Fox News personalities endorse V, claim its "similarities" to Obama are "eerie"

Beck newsletter: V seems to be "based exactly on what Glenn has been saying about progressives"; "[w]atch and decide for yourself." Glenn Beck's November 4 newsletter highlighted V under the headline "Favorite new show for Glenn?"

Glenn has long talked about the progressives and their goal of transforming the country -- transforming it into something reminiscent of a Karl Marx daydream. There is a new TV show on called 'V' on ABC that debuted last night which seems to be based exactly on what Glenn has been saying about progressives for the last couple of years. Watch and decide for yourself ... but the similarities are eerie.

Hannity: V "seems to be taking aim at Obama-mania," is "a show that I can actually get behind." On the November 4 edition of his Fox News program, Hannity said:

HANNITY: And a new ABC drama seems to be taking aim at Obama-mania. That's right, you heard me right. The show is called V, and it focuses on a telegenic leader who arrives from outer space offering a message of hope and compromise and promising, you guessed it, universal health care. Sound familiar? Oh, and the media? They love this new leader. Now, V premiered last night. Let's take a look at a few clips.

[...]

You know, I think this is one TV show that I can actually get behind.

O'Reilly: "It's pretty apparent" V takes shots at Obama; "I've got to watch that show." After airing clips of V, Bill O'Reilly stated on the November 4 edition of The O'Reilly Factor, "I've got to watch that show," adding that "it's pretty apparent the scriptwriters are taking some shots at President Obama."

Fox News figures used Fox's 24 to support the use of torture by U.S. authorities, other right-wing positions

Wallace supported waterboarding terrorists: "Listen, I'm with Jack Bauer on this." On the August 27 broadcast of his radio show, Steve Malzberg told Fox News Sunday host Chris Wallace, "So I'm with you. I think the public would say, good! You know, water -- the public says, 'Waterboard them if you have to.' " Wallace replied: "Waterboard? Listen, I'm with Jack Bauer on this."

To buttress his support of torture, Beck aired clips from 24. On the April 22 edition of his Fox News show, Beck aired a clip of 24 to support his view that defending the torture of terrorists is a display of "honor."

Fox & Friends hosts, Beck cited fictional congressional testimony by 24's Jack Bauer in defense of torture. During the January 13 edition of Fox & Friends, Beck and the Fox & Friends hosts invoked 24 as a justification for the use of torture. Referring to the show's season premiere, in which protagonist Jack Bauer, a former member of the fictional "Counter Terrorist Unit," defends his use of torture during a hearing before Congress, Beck said: "[I]t's going to take somebody who sits in front of Congress who is not afraid of them anymore and does what Jack Bauer did. And that is, 'Yes, I did torture, and I'm proud of it.' And it's time for these things to come out of the closet." Introducing an excerpt from 24, in which Bauer is seen answering questions from a congressional committee about torture, Kilmeade stated: "Let's listen to what happened in the fictional series 24 and see if this helps build your argument." During the segment, on-screen text read: "What Americans Need to Hear; Beck Applauds Jack Bauer's Honesty."

Fox News' Gibson suggests nuclear-bomb plot on 24 is "an early warning sign" for America. From the January 16, 2007, edition of Fox News' Big Story with John Gibson:

GIBSON: Well. The big security story tonight, terrorists detonate a mini nuclear bomb in downtown Los Angeles, the plan to kill hundreds of thousands of Americans: fact or fiction? Well, certainly maybe fiction for now. But 24's Jack Bauer has it right. People need to wake up to the possibility of nuclear attack. This isn't only coming from Hollywood. ... Is 24's faux suitcase nuke bomb a real wake-up call for America? Should we take this as an early warning sign that something like this could happen here?

Ingraham on The O'Reilly Factor: "America ... love[s] Jack Bauer"; ergo, America is OK with torture. On the September 13, 2006, edition of Fox News' The O'Reilly Factor, Fox News contributor Laura Ingraham stated, "The average American out there loves the show 24. OK? They love Jack Bauer. They love 24. In my mind, that's as close to a national referendum that it's OK to use tough tactics against high-level Al Qaeda operatives as we're going to get. OK?"

Dietl, on Your World, justified racial profiling: "You don't watch 24? They're out there." On the January 17 edition of Fox News' Your World, private investigator Richard "Bo" Dietl used 24 to justify the use of racial profiling when searching for terror suspects. Discussing an incident in which 40 American Muslims were barred from boarding a plane, Dietl told host Neil Cavuto and guest Imam Sayed Hussan al-Qazwini, leader of the Islamic Center of America and one of the 40 Muslim passengers: "The fact of the matter is -- I mean, you don't watch 24 on Fox TV? They're out there. They're out there. There are cells out there. We have to protect ourselves against it, as Americans."

Fox News' La Jeunesse attacks Obama for not spending billions more on Yucca Mountain

D.C.P. — Thu, 05 Nov 2009 17:54:04 EST

During a report about President Obama's decision to stop funding a nuclear waste storage facility at Yucca Mountain, Fox News' William La Jeunesse referred to Obama's decision as "$13 billion of your money down the drain" and said that the facility is, "from an engineering standpoint," "complete" but "just waiting for a license" -- suggesting that Obama's decision cost taxpayers billions of dollars for no reason. However, even if Yucca Mountain were to receive a license -- which could be several years -- experts say it may not be safe, would not be able to receive radioactive fuel for a "long time," and the costs to build, operate, and receive the fuel have reportedly ballooned to more than $96 billion.

La Jeunesse suggested because of Obama, Yucca may be "single biggest waste of your money ever"

From the November 4 edition of Fox News' America's Newsroom:

MARTHA MacCALLUM (anchor): Well, it is a tax waste the size of a mountain, and a White House about-face causing problems for America's nuclear industry. William La Jeunesse is tracking your taxes. William, what's coming up?

LA JEUNESSE: Well, Martha, $13 billion and still nowhere to put America's nuclear waste. Now, coming up, I will show you what may be the single biggest waste of your money ever, and it's getting worse every day.

La Jeunesse: Yucca is "complete, from an engineering standpoint. It's just waiting for a license"

From the November 4 edition of Fox News' Fox & Friends:

STEVE DOOCY (co-host): It has been called the biggest waste of taxpayer dollars in history, billions of our money sunk into a hole that's supposed to be used for nuclear waste, but now, Yucca Mountain, out West, will probably never ever be used.

BRIAN KILMEADE (co-host): William La Jeunesse is tracking your taxes live right near the San --

DOOCY: Onofre.

KILMEADE: -- Onofre nuclear power plant out in California. How much is this going to cost?

LA JEUNESSE: Well, I mean, how much of your money is gone? About $13 billion. Now, San Onofre -- you can't see it, it's a little dark here still -- is one of about 100 nuclear plants around the country. Each one, of course, generates tons of nuclear waste. Now, for 25 years, the federal government has been taxing consumers and ratepayers to pay for a place to put it. That is Yucca Mountain. It is complete, from an engineering standpoint. It's just waiting for a license. But the president says it is dead and will never be used. That is $13 billion of your money down the drain.

[...]

LA JEUNESSE: The federal government imposed a tax on your power bill for 25 years to pay for Yucca Mountain and promised America's nuclear industry it would have a place to store its waste by 1998. Since then, however, the feds have paid out almost 600 million in legal settlements for failing to live up to that commitment and expect another 11 billion on top of that. And with no plan for all this waste, America's cleanest, most dependable source of energy is in jeopardy.

But Yucca may not get a license, and if it does, experts say it may not be used for years

University of Illinois report: "[N]o particular reason" to expect that Yucca will accept spent fuel any time soon. According to a June 2009 University of Illinois report written by nuclear engineering experts, "[i]t may be difficult to license Yucca Mountain at all," and "even if licensed, Yucca Mountain will not start accepting spent fuel for a long time." From the report:

An underlying problem is that the legal requirement that the Department of Energy (DOE) take title to spent nuclear fuel has not been met for twenty-seven years since passage of the NWPA in 1982. And there is no particular reason to expect this approach will change in the foreseeable future. It appears, then, that spent nuclear fuel is destined to remain at about seventy U.S. nuclear reactor sites for several reasons. First, even if licensed, Yucca Mountain will not start accepting spent fuel for a long time. Second, nuclear reactors will soon produce more spent fuel than Yucca Mountain would be licensed to receive. And, third, it may be difficult to license Yucca Mountain at all, much less to amend the license for it to take more spent fuel. Thus a lot of spent nuclear fuel will continue to accumulate at reactor sites around the country, leaving those sites to manage this material. There is no question but that this management will remain subject to oversight by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. The question raised here is how or even whether the federal government should take title to spent nuclear fuel, especially as long as the spent fuel remains in the state in which it was generated. This question, in turn, raises the one of how funds for spent fuel management will be administered.

Licensing process itself takes years. According to a March 5 Associated Press article, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, the agency responsible for reviewing the Energy Department's application for a license to begin construction on the facility, has four years to complete the review process. The Energy Department submitted its application in June 2008. According to the article, "There appear to be no immediate plans by the Energy Department to withdraw the Yucca Mountain license application before the NRC because to do so could trigger lawsuits from the nuclear industry. The NRC has up to four years to consider the application."

Unresolved concerns about facility's safety are keeping it from coming online

NRC is considering at least 299 "contentions" to Yucca's license. In a September 15 article, the Las Vegas Review-Journal noted that the NRC is considering nearly 300 "contentions" from multiple petitioners against the license. A "contention," from a legal or technical standpoint, according to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, is "a specific concern or issue material to the licensing of Yucca Mountain." The article reported that the state of Nevada recently filed five more contentions, in addition to the nearly 300 that the NRC has already agreed to review.

"Contentions" are mostly safety concerns about facility, and some needed technology is not ready. When Nevada originally filed the contentions, the Review-Journal reported in a December 20, 2008, article that "[o]f the 229 contentions presented to nuclear regulators, most -- 180 -- pertain to safety." From the article:

State scientists believe geologic conditions of the mountain coupled with under-estimated corrosion rates of waste containers could result in deadly radioactive materials escaping the repository sometime before the hundreds of thousands of years that the remnants reach peak doses. Some of the equipment described in DOE's application for emplacing containers by remote control and other elements such as drip shields to divert water either don't exist or haven't been tested.

[...]

"They have not accurately estimated ground water flows in the mountain," [Nevada Nuclear Projects Agency Director Bob] Loux said Friday as he continued to head the State Nuclear Projects Agency until his replacement is chosen in the wake of controversy over his approval of unauthorized salary hikes in the office.

In addition, Loux noted, DOE's license application doesn't address the possibility that the ridge top could erode and climate change could impact the integrity of the site.

New contentions address volcanoes, corrosion as well. The September 15 Review-Journal article reported that a "key concern is the state's assertion that the DOE used 'improper techniques' in a safety assessment of how fast a metal known as Alloy-22 will corrode if it is used for waste containers," and that "[t]he state also repeatedly has questioned the DOE's logic behind its plan to wait 75 years to install titanium drip shields to prevent water from trickling onto waste containers entombed in a maze of tunnels inside the volcanic-rock ridge, 100 miles northwest of Las Vegas." From the article:

[Executive director of the Nevada Agency for Nuclear Projects Bruce] Breslow said the Alloy-22 corrosion study challenge comes in addition to new safety contentions about water infiltrating the planned repository from 10,000 years to 1 million years and effects from erosion during the same time period.

Also, two challenges are related to future volcanoes affecting Yucca Mountain.

Despite uncertainty about viability, the project is expected to cost taxpayers more than $96 billion

Las Vegas Review-Journal: Cost jumped from $57 billion to more than $96 billion. According to a July 16, 2008, Review-Journal article, "The projected costs to build a nuclear waste repository at Yucca Mountain, ship used radioactive fuel to Nevada from around the country and operate the site for 100 years have grown to more than $90 billion, an energy department official said Tuesday." The article added: "The department's previous 'total system life cycle' cost estimate for the repository was $57.6 billion, set in 2001. Since that time, the project schedule repeatedly has been pushed back and some of its key elements are being redesigned."

Reid: "Flawed plan" and a "bloated budget." According to a statement posted on Sen. Harry Reid's (D-NV) website, the Yucca Mountain plan was "flawed" and had a "bloated budget." From the statement:

In 2008, the DOE announced that it was raising Yucca Mountain's estimated price tag from $57.5 billion to over $96 billion. Beyond its bloated budget, the Yucca Mountain project faced a laundry list of scientific, technical, public health, legal, and safety problems. The skyrocketing price tag, the steadfast opposition of Nevadans and their congressional delegation, and the growing understanding that Yucca was a mortally flawed proposal have led to the project's demise.

While the Obama administration's budget cut funding for the Yucca Mountain program, it provided almost $197 million for the Department of Energy to explore alternative ways to store energy.

IBD misrepresented Gore on hurricane frequency

J.K.F. — Thu, 05 Nov 2009 15:41:14 EST

An Investor's Business Daily editorial falsely claimed that Al Gore "still claims" hurricanes "are increasing in frequency and intensity" as a result of global warming and that "[w]hat has happened in the past three years is that such claims have been thoroughly debunked as the earth has cooled, possibly for decades hence." In fact, Gore has said that there is no consensus that warming is causing more frequent hurricanes, and the author of the study IBD claims has "debunked" predictions about the effect of warming on tropical cyclone (TC) intensity has stated that his findings "do not contradict the recent climate change/TC linkage literature."

IBD asserted Gore "still claims" hurricanes "are increasing in frequency"

From the November 3 IBD editorial:

The book's cover depicts one of the hurricanes Gore still claims are increasing in frequency and intensity. What has happened in the past three years is that such claims have been thoroughly debunked as the earth has cooled, possibly for decades hence.

For example, a recent study by researchers at Florida State University determined that the 2007 and 2008 hurricane seasons had the least tropical activity in the Northern Hemisphere in 30 years.

Ryan Maue, co-author of the report released in November 2008 on "Global Tropical Cyclone Activity," used a measurement called accumulated cyclone energy (ACE) that combines a storm's duration and its wind speed in six-hour intervals. The years 2007 and 2008 had among the lowest ACE measurements since reliable global satellite data were first available three decades ago.

In fact, Gore has said there is "no consensus" linking global warming to hurricane frequency

Gore: "There is no consensus linking the frequency of hurricanes to global warming." As noted by science reporter Chris Mooney, Gore stated during a March 21, 2007, congressional hearing on climate change, "There is no consensus linking the frequency of hurricanes to global warming and I've never said there is -- it's the intensity of hurricanes. It's also true, the scientists say, you can't take an individual storm and say, 'This is caused by global warming.' But the odds of stronger storms are going up."

An Inconvenient Truth: "There is less agreement among scientists" about the impact of climate change on the "number of hurricanes." Gore noted in his 2006 book An Inconvenient Truth that "[a] growing number of new scientific studies are confirming that warmer water in the top layer of the ocean can drive more convection energy to fuel more powerful hurricanes." He added, "There is less agreement among scientists about the relationship between the total number of hurricanes each year and global warming -- because a multi-decade natural pattern has a powerful influence on hurricane frequency." Gore further stated that "some scientists" have said that warming could lead "to an increased frequency of hurricanes."

IBD's claim that study "debunked" climate change/hurricane intensity link undermined by study's author

Maue: Recent decrease in hurricane energy "does not contradict the recent climate change / TC linkage literature." Ryan Maue, the Florida State University Meteorology researcher cited by IBD, stated on his website that "[u]nder global warming scenarios, hurricane intensity is expected to increase (on the order of a few percent), but MANY questions remain as to how much, where, and when. This science is very far from settled." Maue added, "Many papers have suggested that these changes are already occurring especially in the strongest of hurricanes due to warming sea-surface temperatures, but the methodology and data issues with each of these papers perhaps overshadows the conclusions. The notion that the overall global hurricane energy or ACE has collapsed does not contradict the recent climate change / TC linkage literature but provides an additional, perhaps less publicized piece of the puzzle."

Maue reportedly "believes there's simply not enough reliable data" to determine whether climate change will increase hurricane intensity. The Houston Chronicle reported on October 31 that Maue "believes there's simply not enough reliable data to make a call either way" on the question of whether climate change will bring more intense storms.

IPCC stated that it is likely hurricanes will "become more intense." The International Panel on Climate Change stated in its Summary for Policymakers of the Fourth Assessment Report, "Based on a range of models, it is likely that future tropical cyclones (typhoons and hurricanes) will become more intense, with larger peak wind speeds and more heavy precipitation associated with ongoing increases of tropical sea surface temperatures."