Media Matters for America - Latest Items

In LA video, O'Keefe and Giles expose their own dishonesty

J.S. — Fri, 20 Nov 2009 18:18:22 EST

In making public a video he withheld for more than two months, right-wing activist James O'Keefe finally acknowledged that a Los Angeles ACORN employee "would not assist us obtain a house for our illegal activities" -- an admission that directly contradicts claims by his colleague Hannah Giles that no ACORN employees refused to help them. Moreover, O'Keefe's claim in the video that the Los Angeles employee was the "only" ACORN employee who refused to help is contradicted by the fact that ACORN employees in two other cities contacted the police following their encounters with O'Keefe and Giles.

ACORN employee refused to assist in obtaining house for "illegal activities"

O'Keefe: LA worker "was the only ACORN employee ... who would not assist us obtain a house for our illegal activities." In a video article on the conservative website Human Events, Mike Flynn, the editor-in-chief of BigGovernment.com, said in an exclusive interview: "It's not even just one random employee, it's so comprehensive, it's everywhere [O'Keefe] went. What shocks me is when you watch the videos, they don't even flinch."

O'Keefe dodged questions about whether ACORN employees refused to help

O'Keefe didn't disclose LA tape when asked whether any ACORN employees "were not willing to cooperate." During the September 13 edition of Fox News' America's News HQ, Shawn asked, "Were there some that refused your offers, that actually did not -- were not willing to cooperate?" But rather than acknowledge at the time what happened in Los Angeles, O'Keefe responded:

O'KEEFE: No -- in none of the facil -- [laughs] none of the facilities kicked us out. That's a lie.

O'Keefe waited more than two months after this exchange to acknowledge that Harris "would not assist us obtain a house for our illegal activities."

In September, Fox's Chris Wallace reported that O'Keefe "says he'll release all the tapes soon to show if any ACORN offices did the right thing." On the September 27 edition of Fox News Sunday, host Chris Wallace reported that "O'Keefe wants to set the record straight" and aired the following:

WALLACE: O'Keefe wants to set the record straight. He denies reports on left-wing blogs he got any money from conservative backers. And he says he'll release all the tapes soon to show if any ACORN offices did the right thing. Why not release all the tapes at the start?

O'KEEFE: We knew that they would lie and they would say, "Oh, you've got nothing," or, "You're dubbing your voice in." But you release a little bit at a time, and they get caught in their lie.

ACORN employees in other cities contacted the police

Philadelphia and San Diego area ACORN employees contacted police after O'Keefe's visits. Contrary to O'Keefe's assertion that the Los Angeles ACORN worker "was the only ACORN employee in our nationwide investigation who would not assist us obtain a house for our illegal activities," ACORN employees in Philadelphia and the San Diego area contacted the police following their encounters with O'Keefe and Giles.

Right-wing media put Obama on the couch for inch-deep analysis

M.M. — Fri, 20 Nov 2009 15:45:43 EST

Right-wing media figures, including Glenn Beck, Michael Savage, and The Washington Times' Wesley Pruden, have in recent days attacked President Obama while discussing his mental state. While claiming, "I'm not asking you to psychoanalyze the president," Beck asked psychiatrist and Fox News contributor Keith Ablow, "Are we crazy for saying something is not right?"; Savage offered a psychological diagnosis of Obama, claiming that the president has "deep psychological problems" and "deep-seated inferiority feelings."

Right-wing media figures discuss what's "wrong" with Obama, identify "deep psychological problems"

Beck and psychiatrist Ablow not psychoanalyzing the president -- just discussing what's "wrong" with him. On the November 11 edition of his Fox news program, Beck stated to Ablow: "I wrote to you, and I said, 'Do you see anything wrong here as a -- ' I'm not asking you to psychoanalyze the president. I'm saying, psychoanalyze the American people. Are we crazy for saying something is not right?" In his reply, Ablow stated: "We're not crazy for saying something's not right. It's a little crazy that more people aren't saying it more loudly." Ablow later stated: "[T]here is a big, cavernous gulf, apparently, between the president's ability to generate emotion and charisma and gripping words that move people when he's scripted. And then, when there's less time to prepare, there's some sort of lack of connectedness, a true lack of connectedness with at least what moves the majority of us." In discussing Obama's statements about the Fort Hood shooting, which Beck claimed were "disconnected," Ablow said: "[I]f he's not scripted to deliver the emotional cues, if he's not scripted to have lots of time and a teleprompter to do it, then he tends to stumble. And this was a huge stumble. This was a big, big window on the man's soul, I think." [Fox News' Glenn Beck, 11/11/09]

Savage's psychoanalysis: Obama has "deep psychological problems," "deep-seated inferiority feelings." While discussing Obama's bow to Japanese Emperor Akihito, Savage stated that "this man has deep psychological problems" and that "since we know he is only a man, and therefore since all men suffer from psychological problems, is it not logical to assume that he may have psychological problems? And if so, what are his psychological problems, and how do they affect this man's behavior and his overt contempt for America, its history, and its people and his love of everything third-world?" He later claimed that "you start to put a picture together of a guy who has such deep-seated inferiority feelings, it seems as though he's looking for his father all over the world." [Talk Radio Network's The Savage Nation, 11/17/09]

Pruden: "Obama's curious compulsion to travel the world to make endless apologies for America could stem from his spending the most formative years of his childhood in the Third World." In a November 17 column, Pruden, The Washington Times' editor emeritus, wrote that Obama's bow to Emperor Akihito was "a sign of a really deep sense of inferiority." In a November 20 column, Pruden wrote: "Barack Obama's curious compulsion to travel the world to make endless apologies for America could stem from his spending the most formative years of his childhood in the Third World."

Morning Joe repeatedly airs Lieberman's false claim on public option

J.K.F. — Fri, 20 Nov 2009 15:19:02 EST

On November 20, MSNBC hosts Mika Brzezinski and Joe Scarborough uncritically repeated Sen. Joe Lieberman's (I-CT) claim that "if you look at the campaign last year, the presidential, you can't find a mention of public option. It was added after the election as a part of what we normally consider health insurance reform." In fact, both President Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton proposed a public health insurance plan during the Democratic primary, and Obama continued to campaign on a health care reform plan that included a public option through the November 2008 election.

Morning Joe quoted Lieberman's claim that "you can't find a mention of public option" during presidential campaign

From the November 20 edition of MSNBC's Morning Joe:

BRZEZINSKI: He's engaging in a battle where there is absolutely no margin for error. He has to -- he must, must, must get all 60 Democratic votes in the Senate to keep his bill moving forward. But this morning, more reports of Democrats who seem willing to stand in the way of the White House's top priority.

In his toughest language yet, Connecticut Senator Joe Lieberman is now accusing the Democratic Party of using bait-and-switch tactics on the American people. He says, quote, this, "It's classic politics of our time that if you look at the campaign last year, the presidential, you can't find a mention of public option. It was added after the election as a part of what we normally consider health insurance reform -- insurance market reforms, cover people ... who are not covered." Lieberman says the support for the public option has now become a litmus test for Democrats, adding, quote, "I thought Democrats were against litmus tests."

SCARBOROUGH: Oh, that's bad.

BRZEZINSKI: Yeah.

SCARBOROUGH: Again, you need Lieberman to get over the top and 60.

[...]

SCARBOROUGH: Here we are a month later, a month after the president wanted to get this behind him and start talking about jobs, and let me read you what Joe Lieberman said yesterday about the Democrats' efforts on the public option. Quote, "It's classic politics of our time and if you look at the campaign last year, you can't find a mention of the public option. It was added after the election as a part of what we normally consider health care insurance reform -- insurance market reforms, cover people ... who are not covered. I thought Democrats were against litmus tests." That's tough talk.

In fact, Obama campaigned on public option throughout 2007, 2008

Politico: "[T]he 2008 Democratic Party Platform referred to the need for a 'public plan.' " On November 20, Politico stated of Lieberman's claim, "In fact, the 2008 Democratic Party Platform referred to the need for a 'public plan,' and candidate Barack Obama referred more than once to the idea of providing people who can't get private insurance with government-backed insurance similar to that which members of Congress get."

NY Times, May 2007: "Obama would create a public plan for individuals who cannot obtain group coverage." The New York Times reported on May 30, 2007, that in a major health care speech, "Mr. Obama would create a public plan for individuals who cannot obtain group coverage through their employers or the existing government programs, like Medicaid or the State Children's Health Insurance Program. Children would be required to have health insurance. Subsidies would be available for those who need help with the cost of coverage."

Wash. Post, February 2008: Both Obama and Clinton propose "option to buy into a public plan." The Washington Post reported on February 24, 2008, "There is a growing political consensus among Democrats that universal health care can be achieved by subsidizing coverage for low-income people, establishing new purchasing pools to help others buy affordable insurance, and requiring most businesses to offer health plans to their workers or pay a fee. Both the Obama and Clinton proposals contain these elements, as well as the option to buy into a public plan. Their most striking difference is on whether to require everyone to get a policy."

Chicago Tribune, October 2008: Obama's proposal "[c]reates a new public plan as another option." In an article on Obama's and Sen. John McCain's health care proposals, the Chicago Tribune stated that Obama's proposal "[w]ould require private insurers to accept all applicants. Creates a new public plan as another option. Gives subsidies to low-income citizens who buy insurance. Requires businesses to cover employees or pay into a fund; small businesses get refundable tax credit. Estimated 10-year cost: $1.6 trillion."

Rove memory loss: Op-ed accuses Obama of "unusual" use of Friday news dumps

D.C.P. — Fri, 20 Nov 2009 14:44:12 EST

In a Wall Street Journal op-ed, former Bush official Karl Rove criticized the "degree" to which the Obama administration has released "news on contentious issues late on Friday," adding that "such tactics ... can look disingenuous if they undercut public debate on substantive policy changes"; later on Fox & Friends, co-host Brian Kilmeade cited Rove's column and asserted that the administration's use of this tactic means it did not have to "confront the questioners." In fact, the Bush administration made numerous substantial and often controversial announcements on Fridays, including news about the Abu Ghraib scandal and a report related to the Pentagon's military analyst program.

Rove, Kilmeade criticize Obama administration for releasing news on Friday

Rove: "What is unusual is the degree to which this White House has relied on this tactic." In a November 19 op-ed in The Wall Street Journal, Rove wrote: "Every modern White House has put out news on contentious issues late on Friday in the hope that doing so will bury it, or reduce the amount of critical scrutiny it would otherwise receive. What is unusual is the degree to which this White House has relied on this tactic."

From Rove's November 19 op-ed:

Every modern White House has put out news on contentious issues late on Friday in the hope that doing so will bury it, or reduce the amount of critical scrutiny it would otherwise receive. What is unusual is the degree to which this White House has relied on this tactic.

[...]

Do Friday news dumps work? Yes, but marginally. The White House press corps is generally exhausted at the end of a long week. Congressional critics are either in route back home to their districts or already there. Friday night network television news and Saturday newspapers and cable coverage are traditionally less seen or read. By Sunday morning, a Friday announcement is often considered old news. Monday is the first opportunity White House correspondents get to ask the president's press secretary on camera about whatever was released Friday. By then there is almost always other news occupying the headlines.

Such tactics, however, can look disingenuous if they undercut public debate on substantive policy changes -- such as deciding to bring terrorists to New York for trial.

Kilmeade: Friday news means "you don't have to confront the questioners -- not Robert Gibbs, not the president." While interviewing Michelle Malkin on the November 19 edition of Fox News' Fox & Friends, Kilmeade cited Rove's op-ed and said: "He says they do so many big stories, and so many controversial -- make so many controversial decisions over the last year on Fridays, a traditional day where you dump news, Friday to Saturday. And by the time Monday rolls around, it's not a big story and you don't have to confront the questioners -- not Robert Gibbs, not the president." Malkin replied that it's "business as usual" because "[t]hey've done huge document dumps on Friday nights and over the weekends."

But the Bush administration routinely released controversial news on Fridays

Steve Benen: Friday news releases were Rove's "signature move." On his Washington Monthly blog, Political Animal, Steve Benen wrote: "I nearly fell out of my chair reading [Rove's op-ed]. It was, after all, Karl Rove's signature move -- release bad news late on Friday afternoons, in the hopes it would generate less attention. Rove is going after the president's team for occasionally using the same media trick Rove personally perfected while helping run the White House."

Indeed, the following are examples of substantial and often controversial "Friday news dumps" from the Bush administration:

DOD inspector general report on military analyst program released on Friday. According to a Washington Post article, the Department of Defense inspector general released a report Friday, January 16, 2009, that concluded an investigation into whether the Pentagon's connections with numerous media military analysts were inappropriate.

Information related to Abu Ghraib released on Fridays, Saturday. According to reports, many of the decisions related to the Abu Ghraib torture scandal were made public on Fridays and a Saturday. The United States Central Command reportedly announced its investigation of the abuses on Friday, January 16, 2004; an Army spokesman announced that six soldiers had been charged with the abuses on Saturday, March 20, 2004; and the military released more than 600 Abu Ghraib detainees on Friday, May 28, 2004.

From a March 21, 2004, Washington Post article (accessed via Nexis):

Six U.S. soldiers were criminally charged Saturday in the abuse and mistreatment of about 20 Iraqis at a military jail west of Baghdad. The charges, which include assault and sexual abuse, are among the most serious involving military detainees since the start of the war in Iraq one year ago.

[...]

The criminal charges announced Saturday resulted from an investigation into abuses at the Abu Ghraib prison ordered by Sanchez on Jan. 14.

Bush appointed controversial judicial nominee Pryor on a Friday, during recess. Despite a Senate filibuster, Bush reportedly appointed William H. Pryor to the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals on Friday, February 20, 2004, while Congress was in recess.

Bush released his Air National Guard records on a Friday. According to a Friday, February 13, 2004, Associated Press article, "President Bush, trying to calm a political storm, released his Vietnam-era military records Friday to counter Democrats' suggestions that he shirked his duty in the Texas Air National Guard. But there was no new evidence that he was in Alabama during a period when Democrats have questioned whether he showed up for service."

Department of Justice approved a Texas redistricting plan on a Friday. The Bush Justice Department announced on Friday, December 19, 2003, that it approved a controversial GOP plan to redistrict Texas, which would have reportedly given the Republican Party several seats in the House of Representatives.

From the AP article (accessed via Nexis):

The U.S. Department of Justice approved a Republican-backed congressional redistricting map Friday, disappointing Democrats who staged two legislative boycotts over redistricting and have sued over the new plan.

A federal court panel considering legal challenges to the new map also gave Republicans a victory Friday, ruling that that mid-decade redistricting is permissible under state law.

The Justice Department evaluated the map to see if it adhered to the federal Voting Rights Act, a law that protects minority voting rights.

[...]

Republicans hold every statewide-elected post and rule both the state Senate and House, but have 15 U.S. representatives to Democrats' 17. The new map is expected to give the GOP several more seats.

Several Bush administration advisers resigned on Fridays. Former Cheney adviser I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby resigned on Friday, October 28, 2005, after he was indicted that day for lying during an investigation into a CIA operative leak; Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill and Bush economic adviser Lawrence Lindsey resigned on Friday, December 6, 2002, after the administration reportedly asked them to step down; Army Secretary Thomas E. White resigned on Friday, April 25, 2003, reportedly following a controversy over his investments in Enron; and Bush's pick to head the Department of Homeland Security, Bernard Kerik, withdrew his nomination on Friday, December 10, 2004, after he reportedly failed to pay taxes on a nanny/housekeeper he employed.

The Commerce Department released news that 1.7 million people had fallen into poverty on a Friday. According to a Friday, September 26, 2003, CBS News/AP article, "Poverty rose and income levels declined in 2002 for the second straight year as the nation's economy continued struggling after the first recession in a decade, the Census Bureau reported Friday." The article continued: "Even before the data was made public, House Democrats charged the Bush administration was trying to hide bad economic news by releasing the numbers on a Friday when people are paying more attention to the upcoming weekend. In previous years, the estimates were released either on a Tuesday or Thursday."

EPA announced its decision not to regulate toxins in land-sewage sludge on a Friday. According to a Friday, October 17, 2003, Environmental Protection Agency press release, "Today, EPA has made a final decision not to regulate dioxins in land-applied sewage sludge. After five years of study, including outside peer review, the Agency has determined that dioxins from this source do not pose a significant risk to human health or the environment. ... Dioxins are a group of highly toxic persistent compounds which are a byproduct of certain combustion and chemical manufacturing processes. Sewage sludge is the byproduct of the treatment processes which purifies wastewater before it is released into local waterways."

Quick Fact: Palin links nonbinding mammogram guidelines to "death panels"

E.H.H. — Fri, 20 Nov 2009 14:29:25 EST

On Laura Ingraham's radio show, Sarah Palin linked a task force's recent recommendations on breast cancer screenings to the widely debunked smear -- propagated by Palin -- that health care reform will include "death panels." Palin fearmongered about death panels despite the fact that the recommendations are not legally binding on health care providers or insurers.

From the November 19 edition of Talk Radio Network's The Laura Ingraham Show:

INGRAHAM: What's your take?

PALIN: I think that you have been brilliant on this, because the mammogram recommendation -- this whole issue is demonstrating precisely what you've pointed out, the problem about the panels, the death panels of government bureaucrats, and I think you call it the hospice chuting, the -- but those panels of bureaucrats having more and more input into Americans' personal decisions, decisions, really, that belong between them and their doctors. And this is what rationed care is going to be about.

Undermining Palin's claims, task force recommendations not legally binding

Task force recommendations not legally binding. Contrary to Palin's claims about the mammogram recommendations, the task force recommendations are not legally binding. Moreover, the task force encouraged policymakers to include additional considerations and "individualize decision making to the specific patient or situation." In a Nightly News report on the task force recommendations, NBC chief medical correspondent Dr. Nancy Snyderman stated, "It's important to remember that these new recommendations from this independent task force are just that -- they're recommendations. They don't mandate any changes in who should get mammograms and when."

Wash. Post: Chairman states all task force members were seated under or chosen by Bush

Task force appointed under Bush. The Washington Post reported on November 18:

Ned Calonge, who chairs the 16-member panel, defended the recommendations and denied that cost or the debate over health-care reform played any role in the decision. "Cost just isn't a consideration when the task force deliberates," said Calonge, who is also the chief medical officer for the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment. Twelve of the task force members were seated during the Bush administration, and the remaining four were chosen before President George W. Bush left office, he said.

Right-wing media have repeatedly revived debunked "death panel" claim

Fox News personalities advance Palin's "death panel" claim. In an August 7 Facebook posting, Palin claimed that under Democratic health care reform, "Obama's 'death panel' " would "decide" whether her parents or her son Trig, who has Down syndrome, were "worthy of health care." Over the following days, conservative media figures adopted Palin's "death panel" term or advanced or expressed support for her assertion -- which is based on the widely debunked claim that the House health care reform bill would require end-of-life counseling. Media Matters for America subsequently identified more than 40 instances of media reporting that these claims are false.

Quick Fact: Gateway Pundit claims Senate will vote on health care reform bill after "10 Hours" of debate

E.S.S. — Fri, 20 Nov 2009 14:22:57 EST

Trumpeting a Drudge Report headline, Gateway Pundit's Jim Hoft claimed that Senate Democrats "will only deliberate 10 hourson [sic] SATURDAY before they vote to nationalize one-sixth of the US economy." In fact, the Senate vote scheduled for Saturday is a vote on a cloture motion -- which would allow the full Senate to begin debate on the health care reform bill -- not a vote on whether to pass the bill, as Hoft suggested.

From a November 19 Gateway Pundit post:

Fact: Senate to vote Saturday on whether to debate the health care bill, not on whether to pass the bill

As the Los Angeles Times noted on November 20, "The Senate today began debate on the next phase of healthcare reform, arguing over whether to bring the Democratic bill to the floor. The vote to allow full debate is scheduled for Saturday night. The vote, called cloture, requires 60 votes to pass, and if that hurdle is cleared, debate would begin after Thanksgiving."

Fox News' fearmongering: Nonbinding cancer screening recommendations are rationing

J.H. — Fri, 20 Nov 2009 13:43:27 EST

Fox News' Dr. Marc Siegel fearmongered that recent recommendations that younger women get fewer cervical cancer screenings represented a precursor of government rationing under health care reform. In fact, the guidelines, issued by a nongovernment medical organization, are the result of a medical review process reportedly initiated prior to the current health care debate and are not legally binding on insurers or health care providers.

Siegel claims cervical cancer guidelines are indicative of government rationing under health care reform

Siegel: "[H]ealth choices commissioner" will use "guidelines like this to tell insurance companies not to cover pap tests." During the November 20 edition of Fox News' America's Newsroom, Siegel responded to co-host Alisyn Camerota's question about recent guidelines from the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) and stated, "[A]s we go forward with health reform, we're going to see more and more mandates, more and more commissioners, more and more committees that are going to have to look to guidelines to decide what insurance can cover." He further claimed, "I don't know if we're getting a health choices commissioner or not, but if we are, that person is going to be using guidelines like this to tell insurance companies not to cover pap tests."

ACOG guidelines not binding and in no way connected to health care reform

ACOG issued nonbinding guidelines, not mandates. On November 20, ACOG announced new recommendations for cervical cancer screenings, stating: "Women should have their first cervical cancer screening at age 21 and can be rescreened less frequently than previously recommended, according to newly revised evidence-based guidelines issued today by The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) and published in the December issue of Obstetrics & Gynecology. Most women younger than 30 should undergo cervical screening once every two years instead of annually, and those age 30 and older can be rescreened once every three years."

ACOG: "[A] private, voluntary, nonprofit membership organization." The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists is not a government entity; it is a private membership organization. From the organization's website:

Founded in 1951 in Chicago, Illinois, ACOG has over 52,000 members and is the nation's leading group of professionals providing health care for women. Now based in Washington, DC, it is a private, voluntary, nonprofit membership organization.

ACOG works primarily in four areas:

Serving as a strong advocate for quality health care for women.

Maintaining the highest standards of clinical practice and continuing education for its members.

Promoting patient education and stimulating patient understanding of and involvement in medical care.

Increasing awareness among its members and the public of the changing issues facing women's health care. [ACOG website]

NY Times: "It is by no means clear that doctors or patients will follow the new guidelines." Further undermining Siegel's attempt to connect the ACOG guidance with health care reform, a November 20 New York Times article reported: "It is by no means clear that doctors or patients will follow the new guidelines. Medical groups, including the American Cancer Society, have been suggesting for years that women with repeated normal Pap tests could begin to have the test less frequently, but many have gone on to have them year after year anyway."

Recommendations reportedly "in the works for several years, 'long before the Obama health plan came into existence.' " Notwithstanding Siegel's efforts, the updated guidelines are in no way connected to President Obama or health care reform. The New York Times article reported, "Arriving on the heels of hotly disputed guidelines calling for less use of mammography, the new recommendations might seem like part of a larger plan to slash cancer screening for women. But the timing was coincidental, said Dr. Cheryl B. Iglesia, the chairwoman of a panel in the obstetricians' group that developed the Pap smear guidelines. The group updates its advice regularly based on new medical information, and Dr. Iglesia said the latest recommendations had been in the works for several years, 'long before the Obama health plan came into existence.' "

Senate bill does not require insurers to adopt task force recommendations against preventive screenings, only those in favor of preventive screenings. The Senate health care reform bill, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, requires insurance companies only to cover screenings that the United States Preventive Services Task Force recommends, those rated as an A or B recommendation; it does not require insurers to adopt guidelines that recommend against preventive screenings:

SEC. 2713. COVERAGE OF PREVENTIVE HEALTH SERVICES.

(a) IN GENERAL. -- A group health plan and a health insurance issuer offering group or individual health insurance coverage shall provide coverage for and shall not impose any cost sharing requirements for --

(1) evidence-based items or services that have in effect a rating of 'A' or 'B' in the current recommendations of the United States Preventive Services Task Force

House bill requires insurers to adopt task force recommendations for coverage, but not those against coverage. Similarly, the House health care reform bill, the Affordable Health Care for America Act, requires insurance companies to cover the A or B recommendations of a new task force, the Task Force on Clinical Preventive Services, but does not require that insurers adopt recommendations against preventive services:

SEC. 3143. RESEARCH ON SUBSIDIES AND REWARDS TO ENCOURAGE WELLNESS AND HEALTHY BEHAVIORS.

[....]

(c) INCLUSION IN ESSENTIAL BENEFITS PACKAGE. -- If, on the basis of the findings of research and demonstration projects under subsection (a) or other sources consistent with section 3131, the Task Force on Clinical Preventive Services determines that a subsidy or reward meets the Task Force's standards for a grade A or B, the Secretary shall ensure that the subsidy or reward is included in the essential benefits package under section 222.

Media conservatives -- including Siegel -- previously fearmongered that nonbinding mammogram recommendations represented government rationing

Conservatives fearmonger that breast cancer screening recommendations foreshadowed government rationing. In the aftermath of the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force recommendation that women receive fewer breast cancer screenings, media conservatives have fearmongered that the nonbinding recommendations represent government rationing -- with some tying the guidelines to the debunked "death panel" smear. Siegel himself appeared on Fox News to claim that the recommendations were "absolutely" about health care reform, adding, "[T]his kind of health reform is not what we need." In fact, the task force recommendations are not legally binding, and the claim is undermined by the fact that the task force previously recommended against certain preventive cancer screenings under President Bush.

Fox News' Siegel falsely claims insurers would be required to deny preventive care under health care reform

C.S. — Fri, 20 Nov 2009 13:36:17 EST

In a November 19 New York Post column, Fox News contributor Dr. Marc Siegel cited task force recommendations against regular mammograms for some women to fearmonger that "under ObamaCare, guidelines will quickly become mandates" and that "[a]ll the major 'reform' bills create lots of new panels and other bureaucrats empowered to suggest things that doctors shouldn't do." But under Senate and House health care reform bills, insurers are required only to implement task force recommendations in favor of specific preventive care and are not required to adopt those that recommend against preventive screening.

Siegel misleadingly claims that health care reform bills empower panels like preventive task force to "suggest things that doctors shouldn't do" and turn guidelines into mandates

Siegel: "[U]nder Obama care, guidelines will quickly become mandates"; "All the major 'reform' bills create lots of new panels and other bureaucrats empowered to suggest things that doctors shouldn't do." In his column, Siegel wrote of the new mammogram guidelines from the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF):

This week's decision by a government panel to discourage most women in their 40s from having routine mammograms isn't just bad medicine, but also a small taste of what ObamaCare will mean.

[...]

Happily, these rulings from on high don't have much force now. But under ObamaCare, guidelines will quickly become mandates, and patients will routinely face the choice of paying hundreds of dollars out of pocket or accept higher risks of cancer. It will take government bureaucrats years to admit mistakes, if they ever do -- and by that time thousands of women will have needlessly gotten sick or even died of cancer.

All the major "reform" bills create lots of new panels and other bureaucrats empowered to "suggest" things doctors shouldn't do -- and even to penalize doctors who order "too many" tests.

Senate bill does not require insurers to adopt USPSTF recommendations against preventive screenings, only those in favor of specific preventive screenings. The Senate health care reform bill, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, requires insurance companies to cover screenings that the USPSTF rates as A or B recommendations. It does not require insurers to adopt guidelines -- like those cited by Siegel -- that recommend against preventive screenings:

''SEC. 2713. COVERAGE OF PREVENTIVE HEALTH SERVICES.

''(a) IN GENERAL. -- A group health plan and a health insurance issuer offering group or individual health insurance coverage shall provide coverage for and shall not impose any cost sharing requirements for --

''(1) evidence-based items or services that have in effect a rating of 'A' or 'B' in the current recommendations of the United States Preventive Services Task Force;

House bill requires insurers to adopt task force recommendations in favor of specific coverage, but not those against coverage. Similarly, the House health care reform bill, the Affordable Health Care for America Act, requires insurance companies to cover the A or B recommendations of a new task force, the "Task Force on Community Preventive Services," but does not require that lower-rated recommendations against preventive services be denied:

''SEC. 3143. RESEARCH ON SUBSIDIES AND REWARDS TO ENCOURAGE WELLNESS AND HEALTHY BEHAVIORS.

[...]

''(c) INCLUSION IN ESSENTIAL BENEFITS PACKAGE. -- If, on the basis of the findings of research and demonstration projects under subsection (a) or other sources consistent with section 3131, the Task Force on Clinical Preventive Services determines that a subsidy or reward meets the Task Force's standards for a grade A or B, the Secretary shall ensure that the subsidy or reward is included in the essential benefits package under section 222.

Media conservatives -- including Siegel -- have repeatedly fearmongered that task force recommendations represent government rationing

Conservatives fearmonger that breast cancer screening recommendations foreshadow government rationing. Media conservatives have repeatedly fearmongered that the nonbinding recommendations represent government rationing -- with some tying the guidelines to the debunked "death panel" smear. Siegel himself appeared on Fox News to claim that the recommendations were "absolutely" about health care reform, adding, "[T]his kind of health reform is not what we need." In fact, the task force recommendations are not legally binding, and the claim is undermined by the fact that the task force previously recommended against certain preventive cancer screenings under President Bush.

Ignoring key CBO findings, Fox News' Cameron misleads on cost of Senate health bill

J.V.B. — Fri, 20 Nov 2009 12:21:44 EST

In a report on the Senate health care reform bill for Fox News' Special Report, chief political correspondent Carl Cameron cited the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) to claim that the Senate health care bill would increase federal health care spending over 10 years and that, in the decade after 2014, "the cost nearly triples to well over 2 trillion." But Cameron ignored CBO's conclusions that the bill would reduce federal deficits in both of the next two decades and that in the second decade, the bill would not increase net federal health care spending.

Cameron selectively quoted CBO on the cost of the Senate health care bill

Cameron: Bill increases "federal commitment" to health care. Cameron claimed the legislation "was supposed to reduce health care costs, but the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office says, quote, 'Federal outlays and the federal budget commitment for health care would increase over the 2010-19 period by a net amount of about $160 billion.' " Cameron also quoted Sen. John Thune (R-SD) claiming, "[Democrats] have tried to figure out a way to wrench it into a budget window that somehow makes it looks like it costs less, but at the end of the day, it actually costs more."

Cameron claimed bill costs "well over 2 trillion" during decade after 2014. Cameron stated, "Democrats get their 10-year, $848 billion cost by calculating between now and 2019, but the actual spending in the legislation doesn't begin until 2014. And if you add up the decade following that, the cost nearly triples to well over 2 trillion."

But Cameron ignored CBO conclusion that bill reduces deficits

CBO: Bill yields "a net reduction in federal deficits of $130 billion" over 10 years. From CBO's November 18 cost estimate:

CBO and JCT estimate that, on balance, the direct spending and revenue effects of enacting the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act would yield a net reduction in federal deficits of $130 billion over the 2010-2019 period (see Table 1). Approximately $77 billion of that reduction would be on-budget (other effects related to Social Security revenues and spending as well as spending by the U.S. Postal Service are classified as off-budget). CBO has not completed an estimate of all of the legislation's potential impact on spending that would be subject to future appropriation action.

[...]

CBO expects bill to reduce deficit by around $650 billion during decade after 2019. The CBO concluded that the bill will continue to reduce the deficit beyond the 10-year budget window that ends in 2019 by "around one-quarter percent of GDP." As FoxNews.com reported, this reduction amounts to "as much as $650 billion." From the cost estimate:

In the decade after 2019, the gross cost of the coverage expansion would probably exceed 1 percent of gross domestic product (GDP), but the added revenues and cost savings would probably be greater. Consequently, CBO expects that the bill, if enacted, would reduce federal budget deficits over the ensuing decade relative to those projected under current law -- with a total effect during that decade that is in a broad range around one-quarter percent of GDP.

CBO: After 2019, "no significant change" in federal budgetary commitment. As Cameron noted, the CBO estimated that the net increase in federal health care spending from 2010-19 is $160 billion. However, the CBO estimated that "during the decade following the 10-year budget window, the increases and decreases in the federal budgetary commitment to health care stemming from this legislation would roughly balance out, so that there would be no significant change in that commitment." Washington Post blogger Ezra Klein noted that according to the CBO, in the decade after 2019 the bill "leaves the government spending no more on health care than it otherwise planned to. That's impressive stuff given that some 94 percent of the country has health insurance [under the Senate bill]":

One actual surprise is that the Senate bill doesn't just pay for itself. It balances itself out. That is to say, the bill is not deficit neutral because it costs a billion dollars and then the government raises a billion more dollars in taxes. In that scenario, the government is spending more, but paying for it. Rather, "CBO expects that, during the decade following the 10-year budget window, the increases and decreases in the federal budgetary commitment to health care stemming from this legislation would roughly balance out, so that there would be no significant change in that commitment."

In the first 10 years, in other words, the bill improves the deficit a bit, but the government is spending $160 billion more on health care than it otherwise would have. In the second decade, however, that ends: The savings from Medicare and Medicaid, paired with the excise tax (which CBO says "is effectively a reduction in the existing tax expenditure for health insurance premiums") and a handful of other changes, leaves the government spending no more on health care than it otherwise planned to. That's impressive stuff given that some 94 percent of the country has health insurance. And it implies, of course, that in the third decade, the federal commitment actually goes down relative to expectations. The curve, as they say, is bent.

Quick Fact: Beck advanced dubious claim that "[n]owhere in the Constitution can you find" authority for health reform legislation

Z.P. — Fri, 20 Nov 2009 00:32:54 EST

During his Fox News show, Glenn Beck claimed that "[n]owhere in the Constitution can you find any of this" while he pointed to two stacks of paper representing the Senate and House health care bills. Contrary to Beck's suggestion that Congress does not have the authority to enact health care reform legislation and the implication that health reform is unconstitutional, numerous legal experts have disputed these claims, including University of California, Irvine law professor and Constitutional expert Erwin Chemerinsky, who explained that "there is no doubt that bills passed by House and Senate committees are constitutional."

From the November 19 edition of Fox News' Glenn Beck:

BECK: You know what kills me is the people in Congress, they're sworn to protect and defend this. They write this, they've never read these, and I guarantee ya, they haven't read this either. Maybe they should. Because, this is not in this. Nowhere in the Constitution can you find any of this.

Fact: Chemerinsky explained that constitutionality of reform proposals supported by "unbroken line of precedents stretching back 70 years"

As Media Matters for America has previously 10/23/09]

Fact: Amar debunks arguments that reform violates Fifth Amendment

According to Slate.com's Timothy Noah, Yale law professor Akhil Reed Amar and Fordham Law School dean William Treanor debunked conservatives' argument that the individual mandate could be considered a "taking" in violation of the Fifth Amendment:

[A]ccording to Akhil Reed Amar, who teaches constitutional law at Yale, the case law does not support [Peter] Urbanowicz and [Dennis] Smith [both formerly of the Department of Health and Human Services]. "A taking is paradigmatically singling out an individual," Amar explains. The individual mandate (despite its name) applies to everybody. Also, "takings are paradigmatically about real property. They're about things." The individual mandate requires citizens to fork over not their houses or their automobiles but their money. Finally, Amar points out, the individual mandate does not result in the state taking something without providing compensation. The health insurance that citizens must purchase is compensation. In exchange for paying a premium, the insurer pledges (at least in theory) to pay some or all doctor and hospital bills should the need arise for medical treatment. The individual mandate isn't a taking, Amar argues. It's a tax.

But how can it be a tax if the money is turned over not to the government but to a private insurance company? William Treanor, dean of Fordham Law School and an expert on takings, repeated much of Amar's analysis to me (like Amar, he thinks a takings-based argument would never get anywhere), but instead of a tax he compared the individual mandate to the federal law mandating a minimum wage. Congress passes a law that says employers need to pay a certain minimum amount not to the government but to any person they hire. "The beneficiaries of that are private actors," Treanor explained. But it's allowed under the commerce clause. "Minimum wage law is constitutional." So, too, then, is the individual mandate.

Fact: Balkin debunks claim that Tenth Amendment prohibits reform

Responding to the arguments that health care reform violates the Tenth Amendment -- which reserves all power not delegated to the federal government to the states or the people -- Yale law professor Jack Balkin has noted that "the safeguards of federalism are political," not judicial, and that state governors do not have the power to nullify federal laws or "violate federal laws or interfere with federal employees."

Quick Fact: Beck falsely claims that under the Senate health care bill, "You don't get a single benefit until 2014"

G.L. — Thu, 19 Nov 2009 20:33:42 EST

During his November 19 Fox News program, Glenn Beck falsely claimed that under the Senate health care bill, "All of the benefits of this bill don't kick in until when? You don't get a single benefit until 2014." He later added: "[G]uess what, you're not going to get jack for five whole years" after the bill is passed.

From the November 19 broadcast of Fox News' Glenn Beck:

BECK: All of the benefits of this bill don't kick in until when? You don't get a single benefit until 2014. But the taxes that we just went over, when do they start? Hmm. Wait a minute. So I'm not going to get any benefit, but I'm going to pay all of those taxes. We're taxing the American public ten years in order to pay for five years of coverage.

Well, first of all, once the coverage starts, you're never going to be able to afford it. Did somebody invent a garbage powered Delorian that can time travel when it hits 88 miles per hour? Because I'm not aware of it. You can't keep taxing ten years for taxes and only pay for five years. The space time continuum doesn't work that way.

What politician would stand at the podium and say, "I know we're in a recession, unemployment, double digits and climbing, deficit is $12 trillion -- we'll be $24.5 according to whitehouse.gov -- $24.5 trillion in ten years. But I'm going to add all these taxes here, and guess what, you're not going to get jack for five whole years. Anybody who taxes you with all of this stuff, this much, and the economy continues to go down, our deficits continue to go up, how does that politician get re-elected?

Fact: Numerous benefits from the health care reform bill would "be available in the first year after enactment" of the bill.

According to a document put forth by Senate Democrats summarizing the "Immediate Benefits" of The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act , the bill includes numerous benefits that would "be available in the first year after enactment" of the bill. Indeed, WashingtonPost.com blogger Ezra Klein published the following list of benefits that the Senate bill would provide "before 2014":

1) Eliminating lifetime limits, and cap annual limits, on health-care benefits. In other words, if you get an aggressive cancer and your treatment costs an extraordinary amount, your insurer can't suddenly remind you that subparagraph 15 limited your yearly expenses to $30,000, and they're not responsible for anything above that.

2) No more rescissions.

3) Some interim help for people who have preexisting conditions, though the bill does not instantly ban discrimination on preexisting conditions.

4) Requiring insurers to cover preventive care and immunizations.

5) Allowing young adults to stay on their parent's insurance plan until age 26.

6) Developing uniform coverage documents so people can compare different insurance policies in an apples-to-apples fashion.

7) Forcing insurers to spend 80 Epercent of all premium dollars on medical care (75 percent in the individual market), thus capping the money that can go toward administration, profits, etc.

8) Creating an appeals process and consumer advocate for insurance customers.

9) Developing a temporary re-insurance program to help early retirees (folks over 55) afford coverage.

10) Creating an internet portal to help people shop for and compare coverage.

11) Miscellaneous administrative simplification stuff.

12) Banning discrimination based on salary (i.e., where a company that's not self-insured makes only some full-time workers eligible for coverage. [Ezra Klein's WashingtonPost.com blog 11/19/09]

Conservative media frequently accuse progressives of "raping" Americans

B.R.F. — Thu, 19 Nov 2009 19:42:06 EST

Conservative commentators such as Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, and Michael Savage frequently employ rape metaphors when discussing progressives or progressive policies. For example, Beck said that New Yorkers are "being raped by [their] government," while Limbaugh, during a discussion of health care, told his listeners: "Get ready to get gang-raped again.

Right-wing media quick to claim progressives are "raping" Americans, policies amount to "rape"

Beck: "People in New York, you're being raped by your government -- raped." On his November 19 radio show, Beck stated:

BECK: When the people lead, the leaders will follow. And we're building life boats, because, right now, you know it to be true -- and I'm hearing it in New York. People in New York, you're being raped by your government -- raped. California, how are you doing it, man? They just took an extra 10 percent withholdings from you, as a forced noninterest loan. Get the hell off my land. My gosh, how are you doing it?

Well, I'm seeing it in New York. People are just starting to see now what has been done to them in the last six months here in New York. And they're starting to look at it and say, "Whoa, whoa, whoa, wait a minute. What the hell -- look at how all of this is adding up?" Well, that's what's going to happen as a collective in this country. I don't how long it's gonna take. It may take three months, six months, a year -- I can't imagine.

Beck: "We're the young girl saying 'No, no, help me,' and the government is Roman Polanski." Discussing health care reform on the November 16 edition of his Fox News program, Beck stated:

BECK: America has spoken clearly, consistently. We don't want this. And for the first time in history, we don't think it's the government's place to give it to us. ... We are -- excuse this analogy, but I feel like it's true -- we're the young girl saying "No, no, help me," and the government is Roman Polanski. In the end, I think we're all going to be cowering in France.

Beck: Health care reform is "good old socialism ... raping the pocketbooks of the rich to give to the poor." On his July 21 Fox News program, Beck stated:

BECK: President Obama has his massive $1.5 trillion health care plan. It's hogging up the news cycle. The Republicans and, you know, a lot of people are starting to say, "Isn't this socialist, here? I mea, this is pretty crazy." The answer to me on that one is really easy: Yep, it's good old socialism -- you know, pretty much raping the pocketbooks of the rich to give to the poor. I think that's socialism.

Limbaugh: Obama ordered his "pay czar" to "rape" bailed out executives. On his October 22 broadcast, talking about Kenneth Feinberg, who was appointed to oversee executive compensation at financial firms that were still holding funds authorized under the Troubled Asset Relief Program, Limbaugh stated:

LIMBAUGH: I think everything about this story, this "pay czar," is blockbuster. It is -- I mean, it's late-night comedy gold. Everything about the story is a lie. ... Every detail about this story has to be a lie. I refuse to believe that Obama didn't know what Feinberg was doing. In fact, the truth probably is Feinberg's following orders. Feinberg is following orders and I guaran-damn-tee you Obama said: "You get up there and you rape 'em. And you make 'em poor. And you make 'em pay. And you let 'em know. Just don't tell 'em that I knew anything about it."

Limbaugh: "Get ready to get gang-raped again, folks." Discussing health care reform on his June 29 broadcast, Limbaugh stated:

LIMBAUGH: Well, isn't this good? Get ready to get gang-raped again, folks. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi says she will not give the public a week to review the final text of a health care reform bill before it's voted on later this year. And Harry Reid has also declined to commit to giving the public a week to read and consider the final health care bill, despite Obama promising that all legislation would be up for five days on one of his stupid websites where everybody could read it.

Limbaugh: Obama thinks a "profit is rape." On his June 24 broadcast, Limbaugh stated:

LIMBAUGH: So, Obama looks at the private sector as just a neverending windfall. He looks at profits like surplus value, the same way Marx did. A profit is almost a crime. A profit is a crime against the people. A profit is rape. It's just -- it's surplus value that you can go get. And when you take some entity's profit, then you have been fair, and you have equalized society -- and that's how he looks at it.

I think Obama's a true believer on this stuff.

Limbaugh: Obama thinks "private sector" is "always going to be there to be raped." Also on his June 24 broadcast, Limbaugh stated:

LIMBAUGH: You know, he's like -- he's like a lot of other dictators. He's got the private sector, and he thinks it's always going to be there to be raped. It's always going to be there to be pillaged and plundered. The private sector is always going to be something he can go grab, and control, and tax, and take money out of, and grow the government. He doesn't have any concept -- or maybe he does -- that he's going to kill it all by doing all this.

Limbaugh: "[P]eople in the private sector are getting raped by this administration." On his May 27 broadcast, Limbaugh stated:

LIMBAUGH: We need a Supreme Court justice; we need somebody on the Supreme Court who was a bondholder for either General Motors or Chrysler, who can sympathize with how the bondholders are getting shafted here. We need somebody with empathy. We need somebody on the Supreme Court who can understand how people in the private sector are getting raped by this administration.

Limbaugh: Obama thinks union members and the poor "have effectively been raped by American capitalism." On his May 6 broadcast, Limbaugh stated:

LIMBAUGH: He [Obama] thinks these people should have something for nothing, because they have been raped. The union people and the disadvantaged, the downtrodden, the poor have effectively been raped by American capitalism, and they have a lot of stuff coming due. A lot of stuff is owed to them. How is it -- if you -- Snerdley's looking at me with a look of total stunned disbelief. If I'm wrong about this, I want you to explain something to me.

How is it that in this whole process of saving Chrysler, 55 percent of the company goes to unions who only had 10 percent of the bonds? How are they given 55 percent if they only had a 10-percent stake in the debt of Chrysler? I mean, this whole thing is a thumb in the nose and a cramdown, if you will, of the new way American business is going to be structured if Obama has his hands in it.

Limbaugh: Maryland health care bill is "government-sanctioned rape of an American business." During a January 13, 2006, broadcast of his radio show, Limbaugh described a Maryland bill requiring for-profit companies with 10,000 or more employees to spend at least 8 percent of their payrolls on employee health care as the "government-sanctioned rape of an American business." Limbaugh stated:

LIMBAUGH: I think this -- we've talked about this at great length on this program. This is nothing else -- it's nothing other than a government-sanctioned rape. This is a government sanctioned-rape of an American business.

[...]

LIMBAUGH: This -- you -- yeah, we just had hearings in an all-powerful Supreme Court. You going to take away a woman's right to choose? Are you going to do that? Are you going to do this? What the hell is going on in the state of Maryland?

[...]

LIMBAUGH: Probably, the only such company in this size, in the -- in the state. I mean, there's a reason they went after companies with 10,000 or more employees. It was -- it was a way to snare Wal-Mart but not many others.

Limbaugh: Haditha incident will result in a "gang-rape by a Democratic Party, the American left, and the drive-by media." During his June 5, 2006, broadcast, Limbaugh stated:

LIMBAUGH: This Haditha story, this Haditha instance -- incident, whatever -- this is it, folks. This is the final big push on behalf of the Democratic Party, the American left, and the drive-by media to destroy our effort to win the war in Iraq. That's what Haditha represents -- and they are going about it gleefully. They are ecstatic about it.

And this is a time where we all need to come together and stand up for the U.S. military, the men and women who serve, who volunteer, because I told you last week, the officials that know whatever in the process of this investigation cannot say a word for fear of having any conviction or any verdict thrown out, because they've been involved in shaping opinion about it. So it's going to be a one-sided story.

The critics are going to have a field day, and the critics are going to be able to make things up. The critics are going to be able to go out there and tell you things happened that they don't know happened. They're going to be able to use all these anonymous sources, and it's going to be -- folks, let me just put it in graphic terms. It is going to be a gang rape. There is going to be a gang-rape by a Democratic Party, the American left, and the drive-by media to finally take us out in the war against Iraq. Make no bones about it.

Savage: "Obama is raping America ... our values." On the April 21 broadcast of his radio show, Savage stated:

SAVAGE: It's pretty apparent to me that Obama hates America and the history of this country. It is apparent to me that he harbors a deep grudge towards America. It seems to me that he has many leftist friends around the world, certainly more than any president in the history of our nation. It seems to me he cannot wait to cozy up to those who criticize America, whether it be in the Middle East or in South America.

It seems to me he enjoys the celebrity status of cozying up to dictators, particularly dictators who hate America. It's amazing to me when his mouthpieces -- his mouthpieces try to downplay what he says and what he does. It's the old story as I told you: the woman comes home and finds her husband in bed with another woman, and she says, "What are you doing?" and he looks at her while he's on top of the other woman and says, "Who are you going to believe, me or your own eyes?"

Obama is raping America. Obama is raping our values. Obama is raping our democracy. And he is saying to you: "Who are you going to believe, me, with this sonorous Kenyan voice, the con man in front of your eyes? Who are you going to believe, me or your own eyes?

Savage: "Illegal aliens" have "raped and disheveled" the Statue of Liberty. On August 4, 2008, Savage stated:

SAVAGE: So there it is, Italy, they're calling out the military, they called them out already in the streets, but you didn't read that yet, huh? Didn't make it to your local comic book? The local comic books that nobody buys anymore called newspapers because they provide you nothing but trash, day and night? No truth, no reality, no stories -- you turn on the cable news, they're covering again a missing child. Not a missing country but a missing child, every day about a missing child but not a missing country, every day about a missing child but no missing country.

Every -- about the rape of a woman, but not about the rape of the Statue of Liberty. The Statue of Liberty is crying, she's been raped and disheveled -- raped and disheveled by illegal aliens, and our politicians do nothing except give themselves big fat checks and big fat jobs. The Statue of Liberty is disheveled and raped and she's crying, and she needs to be helped, but you turn on the cable news networks -- missing children, rape, rape, missing children, missing children, rape, rape, missing children, rape, missing children, missing children, rape.

How about missing country and the rape of a nation? Why don't they cover the real story? Why don't they tell the rest of us to get ready for what's coming in this country? That we have to protect ourselves because everybody else is ducking and hiding? They're hiding under their desks in Washington, they're hiding under their desks in the state capitals, they're hiding under their desks in the city capitals. And we have to fend for yourself because the government is not protecting us, don't you get it?

Savage: "The children's minds are being raped by the homosexual mafia." On the June 16, 2008, broadcast of his radio show, Savage responded to a caller who said, "I had to explain to my young son why these two men were holding hands the other day," by stating, "You've got to explain to the children ... why God told people this was wrong." He went on to say: "You have to explain this to them in this time of mental rape that's going on. The children's minds are being raped by the homosexual mafia, that's my position. They're raping our children's minds."

Fox News' year in apologies: fake videos, false info, cutting and pasting from GOP

E.H.H. — Thu, 19 Nov 2009 17:54:51 EST

On November 19, co-host Jane Skinner apologized for Happening Now "mistakenly" airing a fake video of Sarah Palin's book tour "crowds." This was not the first time Fox News has apologized for airing fake videos and false information.

Fox News' year in apologies

Fox News presents year-old Palin footage as new Palin book tour crowd. As Think Progress first noted, on the November 18 edition of Happening Now, guest co-host Gregg Jarrett used old footage -- which he said was "just coming in to us" -- of a McCain-Palin rally from last year to illustrate how Sarah Palin is "continuing to draw huge crowds" during her book tour. The following day, Skinner apologized for "mistakenly" airing the fake crowd video.

Stewart blasts Hannity for using old video footage to inflate Bachmann rally attendance. During the November 10 edition of Comedy Central's The Daily Show with Jon Stewart, Stewart blasted Fox News host Sean Hannity for attempting to inflate the crowd size of Rep. Michele Bachmann's (R-MN) Fox News-fueled GOP rally against health care reform by using footage of the crowd at the better-attended 9-12 rally. On the November 11 edition of his program, Hannity said he "screwed up" and apologized for airing "incorrect video" of 9-12 protests while discussing the Bachmann rally.

Fox News' Garrett apologizes for fake HBO-Obama story -- which Fox News repeated days later. During the November 4 edition of America's Newsroom, guest co-host Martha MacCallum started the fake story that President Obama watched an HBO special about himself instead of the November 3 election returns. The fake story was then picked up by Rush Limbaugh, among others, who claimed that "[i]f a documentary could get anal poisoning, this one could." On the November 4 edition of Studio B with Shepard Smith, White House correspondent Major Garrett apologized for mishearing press secretary Robert Gibbs and passing on the erroneous information. Despite the Fox News correction, on the November 8 edition of Fox News Watch, Fox News' weekly media analysis program, host Jon Scott repeated the fake story, claiming that Obama was "watching the HBO documentary. ... Now, maybe that's the one thing that could pull him away from -- from election returns."

Kilmeade: Americans don't have "pure genes" like Swedes because "we keep marrying other species and other ethnics." As Gawker noted, on the July 8 edition of Fox & Friends, co-host Brian Kilmeade said that Americans don't have "pure genes" like Swedes because "we keep marrying other species and other ethnics." Kilmeade apologized for his "inappropriate" remarks on July 20.

Democrat Mark Sanford. During the June 24 edition of Fox News' Live Desk, while covering a press conference of embattled South Carolina Gov. Mark Sanford, Fox News ran on-screen text identifying him as a Democrat:

On Live Desk the next day, co-host Trace Gallagher made "a correction for something we put up on the screen during our coverage during the governor's press conference yesterday. We briefly identified Governor Sanford as a Democrat. He is, of course, a Republican. And we apologize for getting that wrong."

Fox News presents deceptively cropped 6-month-old Biden clip as new. On the March 16 edition of Live Desk, MacCallum claimed that "after weeks of economic doom and gloom, the Obama administration is now singing a slightly different tune. Take a look at what was said in recent interviews this weekend." Live Desk then aired clips of administration officials purportedly giving an optimistic view of the economy, which included video of Vice President Joe Biden stating, "The fundamentals of the economy are strong." However, Biden did not make those remarks during an "interview" that weekend; he made them at a September 2008 campaign event in which he criticized statements by Sen. John McCain. MacCallum apologized the next day, stating: "When we get something wrong, we admit it. We did so yesterday, and for that we apologize."

Fox News Watch's Scott claims "[w]e don't have any idea" what Biden said to AFL-CIO, but transcript was available. On March 9, Scott claimed on Fox News Watch that Biden's appearance at an AFL-CIO executive council meeting was "closed to the press," adding, "We don't have any idea what he said there." In fact, the White House released a transcript of Biden's AFL-CIO speech, and "a pool of print reporters" reportedly covered the speech at the request of the White House. On March 23, Scott said:

SCOTT: Before we go, last News Watch, we took Vice President Biden to task to giving speech to a labor organization that had been closed to the press. I mentioned that we, the media, had no idea what he said. Well, guess what? Turns out the vice president's office heard the howls of protest and did let a few print reporters hear those remarks. The office even put a transcript on the Web a day later. The veil of secrecy had been lifted, but we at News Watch weren't aware.

Sorry, Mr. Vice President, we do know what you said.

Fox passes off GOP press release as its own research -- typo and all. During the February 10 edition of Happening Now, Scott purported to "take a look back" at how the economic recovery plan "grew, and grew, and grew." In doing so, Scott referenced seven dates, as on-screen graphics cited various news sources from those time periods -- all of which came directly from a Senate Republican Communications Center press release. A Fox News on-screen graphic even reproduced a typo contained in the Republican press release.

The following day, Scott apologized -- for running the typo. Scott's apology was criticized by Washington Post media critic and CNN host Howard Kurtz, who said: "We sometimes jab at the pundits for using talking points, but in the case of Fox News anchor Jon Scott, it was literally true this week. ... You should be apologizing for using partisan propaganda from the GOP without telling your viewers where it came from. Talk about missing the point."

Quick Fact: Limbaugh falsely claims undocumented immigrants "are covered" under House health care bill

S.S.U. — Thu, 19 Nov 2009 17:41:31 EST

On his November 19 radio show, Rush Limbaugh falsely claimed that undocumented immigrants "are covered" under the recently passed House health care bill. In fact, the Affordable Health Care for America Act (H.R. 3962) stipulates that those "not lawfully present" may not receive subsidies to purchase insurance.

From the November 19 broadcast of Premiere Radio Networks' The Rush Limbaugh Show:

LIMBAUGH: Now, folks, here's a key number for you -- let's use Reid's number: 848 billion. It says that that will insure 31 million people who are uninsured. But now, remember, the number used to be 47. Who are they? Well, that's the illegal immigrants, who are covered on the House side.

Fact: Those "not lawfully present" may not receive subsidies to purchase insurance

Under the Individual Affordability Credits section of the Affordable Health Care for America Act (H.R. 3962):

SEC. 342. AFFORDABLE CREDIT ELIGIBLE INDIVIDUAL.

(a) DEFINITION. --

(1) IN GENERAL. -- For purposes of this division, the term "affordable credit eligible individual" means, subject to subsection (b) and section 346, an individual who is lawfully present in a State in the United States (other than as a nonimmigrant described in a subparagraph (excluding subparagraphs (K), (T), (U), and (V)) of section 101(a)(15) of the Immigration and Nationality Act) --

[...]

SEC. 347. NO FEDERAL PAYMENT FOR UNDOCUMENTED ALIENS.

Nothing in this subtitle shall allow Federal payments for affordability credits on behalf of individuals who are not lawfully present in the United States.

Quick Fact: Dr. Limbaugh promotes false notion that abortion is linked to breast cancer

T.G. — Thu, 19 Nov 2009 16:56:11 EST

On his radio show, Rush Limbaugh told a caller that "there are studies that say abortions increase the chances of breast cancer." In fact, the American Cancer Society says that "research studies have not found a cause-and-effect relationship between abortion and breast cancer," and the National Cancer Institute states that it found that "having an abortion or miscarriage does not increase a woman's subsequent risk of developing breast cancer."

From the November 19 broadcast of Premiere Radio Networks' The Rush Limbaugh Show:

CALLER: You did a story awhile back on women that take the birth control pill. I don't, because of the high risk of breast cancer in my family. Now they want to take away my mammogram, but I want you to know what kind of woman I am. I like a manly man. I've never taken the pill in my life. Do you remember that story?

LIMBAUGH: Fr-- the last time you called?

CALLER: No, no, no. The birth control --

LIMBAUGH: Oh, you mean the news story -- oh, yeah, yeah, yeah. The birth-- not only birth control, but there are studies that say abortions increase the chances of breast cancer, as well.

CALLER: Right, right.

Fact: American Cancer Society and Nation Cancer Institute say abortions do not increase the risk of breast cancer

On a page titled "Is Abortion Linked to Breast Cancer?" the American Cancer Society's website states that "research studies have not found a cause-and-effect relationship between abortion and breast cancer." Similarly, the website of the National Cancer Institute, Cancer.gov, states on a page titled "Abortion, Miscarriage, and Breast Cancer Risk":

In February 2003, the National Cancer Institute (NCI) convened a workshop of over 100 of the world's leading experts who study pregnancy and breast cancer risk. Workshop participants reviewed existing population-based, clinical, and animal studies on the relationship between pregnancy and breast cancer risk, including studies of induced and spontaneous abortions. They concluded that having an abortion or miscarriage does not increase a woman's subsequent risk of developing breast cancer. A summary of their findings, titled Summary Report: Early Reproductive Events and Breast Cancer Workshop, can be found at http://www.cancer.gov/cancerinfo/ere-workshop-report.