Media Matters for America - Latest Items

Jamison Foser: The other right-wing media mogul you should worry about

J.F. — Wed, 25 Nov 2009 19:09:39 EST

If you like what Rupert Murdoch, the right-wing billionaire behind Fox News and the New York Post, has done for the national discourse, you'll love what Philip Anschutz is trying to do in your hometown.

Anschutz built his fortune -- his $8 billion net worth is good for 36th place on the Forbes 400, ahead of better-known Murdoch and Steve Jobs -- in the oil and gas industry, augmented with railroad and telecommunications holdings, as well as Regal Cinemas and the production company behind The Chronicles of Narnia films.

The far-right American Spectator describes Anschutz as "a committed conservative" who "gives lots of money to the Republican National Committee and to GOP candidates" and is "friendly with fellow oilman George W. Bush."

In 2005, Media Matters detailed Anschutz's history of conservative activism:

Anschutz has a history of supporting socially conservative causes. According to a recent Post article, Anschutz's family foundation gave James Dobson, the founder of the conservative Christian organization Focus on the Family, an award for his "contributions to the American Family." The Post noted that according to the foundation's website, Focus on the Family works to "counter the media-saturating message that homosexuality is inborn and unchangeable" and that one of the group's policy experts referred to abortion as an example of when "Satan temporarily succeeds in destroying God's creation." Further, as the Post mentioned, Anschutz contributed $10,000 in 1992 to Colorado Family Values in support of the group's efforts to pass a state constitutional amendment to invalidate state and local laws that prohibited discrimination based on sexual orientation. (The referendum passed, but the United States Supreme Court struck it down as unconstitutional.) According to the Post, "Anschutz's money helped pay for an ad campaign that said such anti-bias laws gave gays and lesbians 'special rights.'"

In May 2003, the Orange County Weekly reported that other Anschutz Foundation beneficiaries include the Institute for American Values, which according to the Weekly "campaigns against single parenting," and Enough is Enough, which "promotes Internet censorship." The San Francisco Chronicle noted on February 20, 2004, that Anschutz also funds Morality in Media. As Media Matters previously noted, the Institute for American Values also receives funding from the conservative Bradley and Scaife foundations, as well as grants from the John M. Olin Foundation, another major financer of conservative organizations. Enough is Enough and Morality in Media have also received funding from the conservative Castle Rock Foundation.

In recent years, Anschutz has turned his attention to his media holdings, including his movie production company. And he is building a news-media empire, as well: he bought the San Francisco Examiner in 2004 and launched the Washington Examiner the next year, while trademarking the "Examiner" name in more than 60 cities. And earlier this year, Anschutz purchased The Weekly Standard from Murdoch.

Anschutz and the people in his employ are quick to counter suggestions that his right-wing politics drive editorial decisions at his newspapers. A 2007 profile of Anschutz in American Journalism Review included a Washington Examiner editor stressing that Anshutz had told him "All I want to do is put out quality newspapers." A 2004 Washington Post article quoted another Anschutz employee stressing that Anschutz had "taken no hand in the operations, nor in demanding any particular editorial policy."

But Anschutz's publications certainly do reflect his conservative views.

Earlier this year, Media Matters' Terry Krepel detailed the right-wing tilt to the Washington Examiner's staff, including alums of the National Review, The Washington Times, NewsBusters, Robert Novak's newsletter, the American Enterprise Institute, and the Heritage Foundation.

And those kinds of staffing decisions lead to headlines like these, all featured on the front of the Washington Examiner's web page Wednesday afternoon:

Are Democrats exiting the sinking ship?
Inside the numbers: How Obama has fallen
Global warming industry becomes too big to fail
Youngest voters spurn Obamacare
Damn the deficit: Full speed ahead on health care

Then there's the Opinion section, which features such gems as:

Gene Healy: Obamacare is unconstitutional
Grace-Marie Turner: Ten reasons public won't buy Senate health care plan
Dr. David Gratzer: Medicine isn't perfect, Obamacare is even less perfect
Ken Blackwell: Obama's indecision is hurting foreign alliances

If Anschutz's right-wing politics were shaping only the Washington Examiner, it might not matter much. Washington has plenty of conservative media; how much damage can one more do -- particularly given that The Washington Times (another newspaper controlled by a right-wing billionaire) is in danger of imploding?

But remember: Anschutz trademarked the "Examiner" name in more than 60 other cities. And he is making a push into the "hyper-local" news market with his Examiner.com sites.

Anschutz launched Examiner.com about a year and a half ago as an Internet-only local news portal; it currently reaches 129 markets and its traffic ranks 21st among U.S. news sites -- with the fastest traffic growth of any site from August of 2008 to August of 2009. And just a few weeks ago, Examiner.com bought NowPublic, a Canadian citizen-journalism site with reporters in more than 140 countries. The New York Times reported at the time:

With the sale, Examiner.com, a unit of Mr. Anschutz's Clarity Digital Group, became the latest company to show interest in a lively corner of the Web: the tools that let people read and share the news around them, sometimes down to neighborhood blocks.

[...]

Rick Blair, the chief executive of Examiner.com, said in an interview that his company's expansion into more than 100 markets indicated that hyperlocal information could be a scalable and sustainable business. Whether it can be profitable is still to be determined. "We're trying many ways to determine the advertiser interest," he said.

Given the newspaper industry's struggles, it isn't inconceivable that Examiner.com could quickly become a key source of news and information for many Americans. At which point, based on Anschutz's history, it'll be like having a local version of Fox News Channel in every city in America.

Jamison Foser is a Senior Fellow at Media Matters for America, a progressive media watchdog and research and information center based in Washington, D.C. Foser 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 and Facebook or sign up to receive his columns by email.

Quick Fact: Fox News' Scott claims hacked emails "suggest some scientists manipulate data on global warming"

M.M. — Wed, 25 Nov 2009 15:20:18 EST

On Fox News' Happening Now, co-host Jon Scott stated that climate scientists' emails that were apparently stolen by hackers from the UK's Climate Research Unit (CRU) suggest that "some scientists manipulate data on global warming." Scott then quoted an email sent by Phil Jones, head of the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia, which stated: "I've just completed Mike's Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (i.e. from 1981 onwards) and from 1961 for Keith's to hide the decline"; however, the email Scott quoted has been cited by RealClimate.org as "[o]ne example" of "instances of cherry-picked and poorly-worded 'gotcha' phrases [being] pulled out of context."

From the November 25 edition of Fox News' Happening Now:

SCOTT: Scientists researching climate change have their emails hacked, and some of the mail suggests some scientists manipulate data on global warming. One of them reads, "I've just completed Mike's Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (i.e. from 1981 onwards) and from 1961 for Keith's to hide the decline." This is a controversy rocking the scientific community right now. [Happening Now, 11/25/09]

Jones' email was distorted, "pulled out of context"

Numerous climate scientists have explained that the purportedly offensive terms have been taken out of context. Several climate scientists have criticized efforts to take Jones' email out of context. In a November 20 post, Real Climate's staff, which is made up of several working climate scientists, cited Jones' 1999 email -- which Scott read -- as "[o]ne example" of "instances of cherry-picked and poorly-worded 'gotcha' phrases [being] pulled out of context." Moreover, a November 20 Guardian article reported that Bob Ward, director of policy and communications at the Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment at the London School of Economics, said of Jones' email: "It does look incriminating on the surface, but there are lots of single sentences that taken out of context can appear incriminating. ... You can't tell what they are talking about. Scientists say 'trick' not just to mean deception. They mean it as a clever way of doing something -- a short cut can be a trick." Further, RealClimate.org explained that "[s]cientists often use the term 'trick' to refer to a 'a good way to deal with a problem,' " and that "hiding the decline" refers to a method that is "completely appropriate."

Quick Fact: Reviving "born alive" falsehood, Beck claims Obama suggested it's OK to "put a spike in the baby's head"

B.C.O. — Wed, 25 Nov 2009 12:45:32 EST

Glenn Beck falsely claimed that President Obama "suggested that [it] was OK" to "go into those pregnant women and pull the babies out of them and put a spike in the baby's head," echoing the oft-repeated right-wing falsehood that Obama did not support protecting babies who survived botched abortions. In fact, while serving in the state Senate, Obama opposed legislation to amend the Illinois Abortion Law because the amendment threatened abortion rights and was unnecessary since existing law already required doctors to provide medical care for babies who survived abortions.

From the November 25 edition of Premiere Radio Networks' The Glenn Beck Program:

BECK: Do you remember when we went in and we sent our troops in, and we said -- we gave them spikes -- and we said, "Go into those pregnant women, and pull the babies out of them and put a spike in the baby's head. "Oh, no, wait, no, I'm sorry. That's what Barack Obama suggested that was OK when he was in the Senate, but not overseas, but here in the United States." [The Glenn Beck Program, legislation that amended the Illinois Abortion Law of 1975. As Media Matters for America has repeatedly noted, Obama and other opponents said the bill posed a threat to abortion rights and was unnecessary because, they said, Illinois criminal code already required doctors to provide medical care for "babies who somehow survived abortions." When tasked by the Illinois attorney general's office with investigating allegations that fetuses born alive at an Illinois hospital were abandoned without treatment -- the alleged incident that inspired the "Born Alive Act" -- the Illinois Department of Public Health reportedly said that it was unable to substantiate the allegations but said that if the allegations had proved true, the conduct alleged would have been a violation of existing Illinois law. The Obama presidential campaign subsequently cited specific provisions of the Illinois Compiled Statutes in stating that the "born alive principle was already the law in Illinois."

Hannity's not even close on 2009 temperatures

J.K.F. — Wed, 25 Nov 2009 12:37:07 EST

In three separate instances over two weeks, Sean Hannity has baselessly asserted that "this is one of the coldest years on record" to claim that climate change is a "hoax" or not "real." In fact, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS), and Britain's Met Office have stated that to date, 2009 is among the warmest years on record.

Hannity repeatedly asserted, "This is one of the coldest years on record"

November 10: "This is one of the coldest years on record, ladies and gentlemen." Hannity stated during the November 10 edition of his Fox News program, "Here's what I don't understand. This is one of the coldest years on record, ladies and gentlemen. There is no -- I don't believe climate change is real. I think this is global warming hysteria and alarmism."

November 18: "Senator, this is the coldest year on record ... or one of them." Hannity stated during a November 18 radio interview with Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC), "[W]hat I'm afraid of is I think you're going to be used by the Democrats. 'Well, even Lindsey Graham agrees that global warming is real.' We're -- Senator, this is the coldest year on record ... or one of them."

November 24: "You can also look it up, this is one of the coldest years in history, this past year." During the November 24 edition of his radio show, Hannity told a caller who said he "can't wait" to confront "a liberal aunt and uncle" with "some facts" on global warming: "I tell you what, I have a special bit of information for you. At the top of the next hour, we're going to expose the global warming hoax and how they have purposefully been misguiding people on this issue of man-made global warming. You can also look it up, this is one of the coldest years in history, this past year."

In fact, major climate data centers indicate that thus far, 2009 is among the warmest years on record

NOAA: 2009 year-to-date global temperatures tied "as fifth warmest January-through-October period." NOAA's National Climatic Data Center stated in its October Global Analysis that "[f]or the year to date, the global combined land and ocean surface temperature of 14.7 °C (58.4 °F) tied with 2007 as the fifth-warmest January-through-October period on record." From the analysis:

NOAA explains that "[t]he term 'temperature anomaly' means a departure from a reference value or long-term average. A positive anomaly indicates that the observed temperature was warmer than the reference value, while a negative anomaly indicates that the observed temperature was cooler than the reference value."

GISS: 2009 year-to-date global surface temperature ranks fifth warmest out of 130 years. The following "Comparison of 2009 Temperature to the Two Years with the Warmest Annual Means" was posted on the Surface Temperature Analysis of NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies, last modified on November 16:

Met Office: 2009 will be one of top five warmest years globally. The BBC reported on November 24 that "[t]his year will be one of the top five warmest years globally since records began 150 years ago, according to figures compiled by the Met Office." The BBC further reported that "[o]ther sources say it could even be the third warmest."

Monthly U.S. temps not representative of global climate

NOAA: United States saw "third coolest October on record." NOAA stated in its October "National Overview" that "[t]he average October temperature of 50.8°F was 4.0°F below the 20^th Century average" and that "[f]or the nation as a whole, it was the third coolest October on record." Hannity may be mistaking the U.S. national October temperature for the global annual temperature. Globally, October was "the sixth warmest October on record," according to NOAA. And data for the year thus far, rather than for one month, indicate that 2009 is among the warmest years on record for the planet.

FoxNews.com misleads on FY09 spending to attack Obama as "Spender in Chief"

J.K.F. — Wed, 25 Nov 2009 09:13:34 EST

A graphic posted on FoxNews.com suggested that President Obama is responsible for all of the $3.5 trillion in federal outlays for Fiscal Year 2009. In fact, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) has stated that "much" of the 2009 increase in spending "results from legislation enacted in calendar year 2008 in response to turmoil in the housing and financial markets-in particular, $133 billion for the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) and $291 billion for the estimated costs of placing Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac into conservatorship."

FoxNews.com graphic attributes all FY09 spending to "Spender in Chief" Obama

From FoxNews.com on November 25:

But spending came in response to severe recession and much of FY09 spending was enacted by Bush

FoxNews.com: Fiscal Year 2009 includes "the last three-and-a-half months of George W. Bush's term." The FoxNews.com article to which the graphic linked noted that "[i]n fiscal 2009 the federal government spent $3.52 trillion -- $2.8 trillion in 2000 dollars, which sets a benchmark for comparison. That fiscal year covered the last three-and-a-half months of George W. Bush's term and the first eight-and-a-half months of Obama's." However, the article obscured the magnitude of the actions taken by Bush in those final months and stated that the FY 2009 budget "was about a half-trillion more than Bush's for 2008, his final full fiscal year in office. That's a big increase."

FY 2009 budget changes largely "the result of the severe economic downturn" and the government's response. CBO stated in its August 25 Budget Update that "[t]he dramatic expansion of the deficit in 2009 (up from 3.2 percent of GDP in 2008) results from a projected rise in outlays of 24 percent (the largest percentage increase since 1952) and a drop in revenues of 17 percent from last year's levels (the largest percentage drop since 1932). Those changes have largely been the result of the severe economic downturn and the fiscal impact of federal policies enacted in response." By contrast, Bush and Clinton did not assume the presidency in the midst of a severe recession.

CBO: "Much of" increase in spending from FY2008 "results from legislation enacted in calendar year 2008." CBO stated in its August 25 Budget Update that "[t]he deterioration in the fiscal picture results from both increased outlays and decreased revenues. Relative to what they were last year, outlays will rise dramatically-by 19 percent according to CBO's estimates. Much of that increase is a result of policy responses to the turmoil in the housing and financial markets-particularly spending for the TARP and the conservatorship of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac." More specifically, CBO stated:

Outlays will rise by about $700 billion this year, in CBO's estimation. Much of that increase results from legislation enacted in calendar year 2008 in response to turmoil in the housing and financial markets-in particular, $133 billion for the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) and $291 billion for the estimated costs of placing Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac into conservatorship. CBO expects that total spending in 2009 from funding provided by the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA, Public Law 111-5) will reach about $115 billion.

November 2009 CBO budget review shows impact of policies enacted under Bush. CBO's November 2009 Monthly Budget Review states that the total outlays include $154 billion in funds for TARP, which Bush passed in October 2008, and $91 billion in payments to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, which were placed into conservatorship by the Bush Administration in September 2008. The Budget Review also showed that $202 billion was spent in FY2009 to service the Public Debt amassed by previous administrations over decades. CBO noted that "[s]timulus spending from ARRA totaled $108 billion in 2009--$32 billion for Medicaid, $22 billion for unemployment benefits, and $54 billion for other programs and activities."

CBO projected outlays of $3.5 trillion for FY 2009 before Obama took office. On January 7, CBO stated in its Budget and Economic Outlook that "[w]ithout changes in current laws and policies, CBO estimates, outlays will rise from $3.0 trillion in 2008 to $4.5 trillion in 2009."

Quick Fact: Drudge, Washington Times falsely claim allegedly hacked emails show global warming is not real

D.C.P. — Wed, 25 Nov 2009 08:58:51 EST

The Drudge Report suggested that global warming is "junk science," by linking to a Washington Times editorial that falsely claims a series of emails that were reportedly stolen from the UK's Climate Research Unit [CRU] show that global warming is an "unproven theory." In fact, the validity of climate science is not hinged on the contents of these emails, some of which conservative media have taken out of context; reports from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the leading scientific body for assessing climate change research, are the product of thousands of scientists worldwide.

Drudge, Wash. Times editorial falsely suggest stolen emails show that global warming is "junk science" and an "unproven theory"

Washington Times: "Revelations of fudged science should have a cooling effect on global-warming." A November 24 Washington Times reported on November 20 that Gavin Schmidt, a climate scientist at NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies, said: "There's nothing in the e-mails that shows that global warming is a hoax. ... There's no funding by nefarious groups. There's no politics in any of these things; nobody from the [United Nations] telling people what to do. There's nothing hidden, no manipulation. It's just scientists talking about science, and they're talking relatively openly as people in private e-mails generally are freer with their thoughts than they would be in a public forum. The few quotes that are being pulled out [are out] of context. People are using language used in science and interpreting it in a completely different way." Schmidt is a contributor to the Real Climate blog, which has stated that some of the stolen CRU emails "involve people" at Real Climate.

Fact: Thousands of scientists from around the world participate in IPCC process

IPCC: "Thousands of scientists from all over the world contribute to the work of the IPCC on a voluntary basis." The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which is a scientific body established by the United Nations and World Meteorological Organisation, has established that "warming of the climate system is unequivocal." The IPCC "reviews and assesses the most recent scientific, technical and socio-economic information produced worldwide," and its reports are the product of contributions from "[t]housands of scientists from all over the world."

CBS' Cordes falsely suggests health care bills will not reduce deficits after 10 years

C.S. — Tue, 24 Nov 2009 22:48:07 EST

CBS correspondent Nancy Cordes forwarded the Republican suggestion that the House and Senate health care reform bills are a "trillion-dollar scam" because the bills "impos[e] new taxes years before the tax credits would kick in to help Americans buy insurance," and thus would only reduce the deficit in the first decade after enactment. In fact, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) found that both bills would also reduce the deficit beyond the first 10 years.

Cordes advances Republican talking point about a "catch" in CBO estimates

From the November 24 edition of the CBS Evening News:

CORDES: Concerns run so deep that the most recent CBS News poll shows only 40 percent of Americans approve of the proposed health care plans in Congress; 45 percent disapprove. Polls show one of their main concerns is the price tag, around one trillion dollars over 10 years.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: It's going to bring up the deficit.

CORDES: That's not true, according to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, which analyzed both health reform bills. It found the Senate bill would not only pay for itself through a raft of cuts and taxes, but would actually reduce the deficit by $130 billion over 10 years. Likewise, the House bill would put $138 billion back into the budget.

HENRY AARON (senior fellow, Brookings Institution): I think what we have is an honest, nonpartisan attempt to evaluate what each bill will cost.

CORDES: But there's a catch, say Republicans. They argue Democrats artificially lowered the cost of reform by imposing new taxes years before the tax credits would kick in to help Americans buy insurance.

SEN. KIT BOND (R-MO): Move over, Bernie Madoff. Tip your hat to a trillion-dollar scam.

CBO: Senate and House bills will continue to reduce the deficit after the first 10 years

CBO expects Senate bill to reduce deficit by as much as $650 billion during decade after 2019. CBO estimated that the bill will continue to reduce the deficit in the second decade following its enactment by "around one-quarter percent of GDP." According to FoxNews.com, this reduction amounts to "as much as $650 billion." CBO also noted that it "has not extrapolated estimates further into the future, because the uncertainties surrounding them are magnified even more," but it said that "the legislation would probably continue to reduce budget deficits." From CBO's 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 has not extrapolated estimates further into the future, because the uncertainties surrounding them are magnified even more. However, in view of the projected net savings during the decade following the 10-year budget window, CBO anticipates that the legislation would probably continue to reduce budget deficits relative to those under current law in subsequent decades, assuming that all of its provisions would continue to be fully implemented. Pursuant to section 311 of S. Con. Res. 70, CBO estimates that enacting the legislation would not cause a net increase in deficits in excess of $5 billion in any of the four 10-year periods beginning after 2019.

CBO also estimated the House bill will result in "slight reductions in federal budget deficits" in the second decade after enactment. From the November 6 CBO estimate:

According to CBO and JCT's assessment, enacting H.R. 3962 would result in a net reduction in federal budget deficits of $109 billion over the 2010-2019 period (see Table 1) [this estimate was later updated to $138 billion over the same period]. In the subsequent decade, the collective effect of its provisions would probably be slight reductions in federal budget deficits. Those estimates are all subject to substantial uncertainty.

Quick Fact: Which Obama admin official is Hannity falsely claiming "supports forced sterilizations"?

G.L. — Tue, 24 Nov 2009 22:45:06 EST

Sean Hannity falsely claimed that Obama has "got" a "guy" in his administration "that supports forced sterilizations." Hannity did not specify which "guy" he was referring to, but has previously leveled this charge at director of the White House Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs Cass Sunstein and White House science and technology adviser John Holdren.

From the November 24 broadcast of Fox News' Hannity:

DON IMUS: I think seizing on the fact that he hung out with Bill Ayers is -- come on, who cares?

HANNITY: Look. He has an energy secretary, Don, that wants every roof in America painted white. Every pavement right down there in, you know, in New York, they'll paint every pavement in the country white. He's got another guy that supports forced sterilizations.

IMUS: Well that's trouble.

HANNTIY: He's got another guy that wants to ban hunting and give animals lawyers, that he's appointed.

Fact: Contrary to Hannity's prior claims, Holdren did not "support forced sterilization"

Hannity has concluded that "the text of the book clearly does not support that. We think a thorough reading shows that these were ideas presented as approaches that had been discussed. They were not posed as suggestions or proposals. In fact, the authors make clear that they did not support coercive means of population control. Certainly, nowhere in the book do the authors advocate for forced abortions."

Fact: Hannity previously offered no evidence in claiming Sunstein "wants to... force sterilizations."

As Media Matters for America documented, on his November 23 show, Hannity baselessly claimed Sunstein "wants to... force sterilizations," citing no evidence whatsoever.

NBC lets McCaffrey attack "harmful" Afghanistan timeline without disclosing his DynCorp ties

B.C.O. — Tue, 24 Nov 2009 21:42:10 EST

NBC News chief Pentagon correspondent Jim Miklaszewski aired a clip of NBC News military analyst and retired Gen. Barry R. McCaffrey's criticism of a "definitive exit strategy" from Afghanistan "with a timeline." At no point during the segment did McCaffrey, Miklaszewski, or guest anchor Lester Holt disclose McCaffrey's ties to DynCorp International -- a company under contract to provide support to U.S. bases in Afghanistan for up to five years, as well as to train the Afghanistan National Police and the Ministry of Interior.

NBC airs McCaffrey's criticism of timeline for withdrawal from Afghanistan, does not disclose his DynCorp ties

From the November 24 edition of NBC's Nightly News:

MIKLASZEWSKI: The Pentagon and military commanders did prevail on one critical issue: an exit strategy. The president does lay out a series of benchmarks and goals that could lead to a U.S. military withdrawal, but he does not demand a specific timetable or deadline for combat troops to get out.

McCAFFREY: There's no question that the military commander on the ground, General McChrystal, would not want a definitive exit strategy with a timeline. This would be harmful to the sense of determination with which we approach this task.

MIKLASZEWSKI: Military officials and experts alike say that the president must also be honest with the American people -- that in the short term, American casualties will rise, and even if the shooting stops, there could still be American soldiers on the ground in Afghanistan for another 10 years. Lester?

McCaffrey affiliated with DynCorp, which holds contracts with U.S. gov't in Afghanistan

McCaffrey serves on DynCorp's board. According to the firm's website, McCaffrey is a member of the board of directors of DynCorp International.

DynCorp holds contract to provide support for U.S. bases in Afghanistan for up to five years. A July 8 DynCorp press release reported that the company had been awarded an 18-month, $317.4 million contract with the State Department to "provide at least 580 civilian police advisors to advise, train, and mentor the Afghanistan National Police and the Ministry of Interior."

NBC News is aware of McCaffrey's DynCorp ties and the firm's Afghanistan contract. On February 27, David Gregory introduced McCaffrey as a member of "the board of directors of DynCorp, an organization that's helping train local forces in Afghanistan." McCaffrey's bio on MSNBC's website also notes that he "has been elected to: the Board of Directors of DynCorp International."

NBC has repeatedly failed to disclose McCafferty's conflict of interest

Both MSNBC and NBC have repeatedly failed to disclose McCafferty's conflict of interest. Media Matters for America previously documented the following instances in which NBC or MSNBC programs featured McCaffrey in discussions of Afghan security forces without disclosing his ties to DynCorp:

On the March 26 edition of MSNBC Live, McCaffrey stated that the "solution" to U.S. involvement in Afghanistan "[i]n the longer run" is to "build Afghan security forces, not for the U.S. to unilaterally fight a counterinsurgency strategy."

On the February 25 edition of MSNBC Live, discussing with anchor Norah O'Donnell President Obama's reported decision to redeploy combat troops from Iraq within 19 months, McCaffrey stated: "By the way, another question to be decided is, What are we doing in Afghanistan? Are we there to build an Afghan security force with our NATO allies and then withdraw, or are we there to fight a counterinsurgency battle in this gigantic country?"

During a November 27, 2008, report discussing efforts to "turn around what some military analysts are calling an eight-year stalemate," NBC's Nightly News aired a clip of McCaffrey saying, "The answer is the Afghan security forces, with 40 NATO and allied present supporting elements, but not the U.S. fighting the significant counterinsurgency battle" in Afghanistan.

Quick Fact: Varney claims apparently hacked CRU emails suggest that "scientists are fudging data to make their case for global warming"

G.L. — Tue, 24 Nov 2009 18:15:10 EST

Fox News' Stuart Varney touted the emails that were apparently stolen from the UK's Climate Research Unit (CRU), claiming the emails suggested that "scientists are fudging data to make their case for global warming." Varney distorted statements from two of the emails and took them out of context to claim that one showed that "evidence isn't really there" for global warming and the other suggested scientists were "deliberately changing the data to suit your way."

From the November 24 broadcast of Fox News' Your World with Neil Cavuto:

VARNEY: Climategate set to break wide open. New developments today involving those hacked emails from Britain suggesting scientists are fudging data to make their case for global warming. Republican Senator James Inhofe is calling for a full investigation. And he joins me now by phone from Oklahoma.

Senator, you've seen these emails at length. Do you believe that the climate scientists are trying to conceal evidence that works against global warming?

[...]

VARNEY: Well Senator, I know you've seen the emails, but for the benefit of our viewers who haven't, I'm just going to read brief excerpts from three of them. Here's the first, number one, says, look, "We can't account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can't."

Well that's self explanatory. That's really suggesting that the evidence isn't there. We don't know what's going on with this.

[...]

VARNEY: Number three, a little bit more complex, but listen to this. "I've just completed Mike's Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (IE, from 1981 onwards) and from 1961 for Keith to hide the decline."

That seems like deliberately changing the data to suit your way.

Fact: Trenberth's email references his article on an "incomplete explanation" of short-term climate variations, which maintained that "global warming is continuing"

In the email in which he wrote, "We can't account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can't," Kevin Trenberth, a climatologist for the National Center for Atmospheric Research, article covered what Trenberth described as an "incomplete explanation" of short-term climate variations, while maintaining "that global warming is unequivocally happening."

Fact: Jones' email Varney read was distorted, "pulled out of context"

As RealClimate.org email referenced a method for making the "context of the recent warming ... clear" and isn't "problematic ... at all." RealClimate.org also explained that Jones' mention of "hiding the decline" refers to a method that is "completely appropriate." RealClimate.org wrote that Jones' email would be an "example" of "cherry-picked and poorly-worded 'gotcha' phrases" that would be "pulled out of context."

Fact: NASA scientist: Emails do not show that "global warming is a hoax"

NASA's Gavin Schmidt: Critics "are using language used in science and interpreting it in a completely different way." Wired's Threat Level blog reported on November 20 that Gavin Schmidt, a climate scientist at NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies, said: "There's nothing in the e-mails that shows that global warming is a hoax. ... There's no funding by nefarious groups. There's no politics in any of these things; nobody from the [United Nations] telling people what to do. There's nothing hidden, no manipulation. It's just scientists talking about science, and they're talking relatively openly as people in private e-mails generally are freer with their thoughts than they would be in a public forum. The few quotes that are being pulled out [are out] of context. People are using language used in science and interpreting it in a completely different way." Schmidt is a contributor to the Real Climate blog, which has stated that some of the stolen CRU emails "involve people" at Real Climate.

Fox trumpets Breitbart's dubious ACORN document dump claim

D.C.P. — Tue, 24 Nov 2009 16:18:14 EST

On Fox & Friends, host Brian Kilmeade advanced Andrew Breitbart's dubious allegations against ACORN by reporting that a "private investigator" saw the group "dumping thousands of sensitive documents into the trash outside their San Diego office ... after California's attorney general launched an investigation into the group." But Breitbart, who hyped the document dump as a "scandal" on his website, BigGovernment.com, and asserted that the documents are "very vital to that investigation," has not shown that the discarded documents are in fact vital to the investigation or related to the reported scope of the investigation.

Fox News promotes "scandal" pushed by Breitbart's BigGovernment.com

Kilmeade: "Was ACORN trying to hide something?" Kilmeade asked: "Was ACORN trying to hide something?" and linked the documents to the California attorney general's investigation into ACORN. From the November 24 edition of Fox & Friends:

KILMEADE: Was ACORN trying to hide something? A private investigator tells Fox News he saw ACORN workers dumping thousands of sensitive documents into the trash outside their San Diego office. It happened just after California's attorney general launched an investigation into the group. Some of the documents reportedly included Social Security and bank account numbers of people who went to ACORN for help, others detailing ACORN's ties with banks and labor unions. A top ACORN official in California apologized, saying it was a mistake. You know that happens.

Fox Nation: "ACORN Caught Dumping Documents in Dumpster." On November 24, Fox Nation linked to a November 23 BigGovernment.com post:

But documents posted on BigGovernment.com appear unrelated to investigation into undercover tapes

California attorney general reportedly opened investigation into ACORN. On October 2, the Los Angeles Times noted that on undercover videos, "ACORN workers in several states were shown allegedly offering advice on tax evasion, human smuggling and child prostitution," and reported that California Attorney General Jerry Brown "plans to look into circumstances surrounding both the making of the videos and any possible misdeeds by ACORN employees in California caught on tape."

Breitbart: "Some might call [document dump] 'obstruction of justice.' " In a November 23 post on BigGovernment.com, Breitbart wrote of "20,000 deeply sensitive and highly political documents discovered in the dumpster behind ACORN in San Diego on October 9, nine days after ACORN was announced to be under state investigation," adding: "Some might call that 'obstruction of justice.' " Breitbart further wrote: "There are reasons ACORN dumped these documents before the scheduled visit by Brown's office." He did not elaborate on those "reasons." On a November 22 KFI 640 AM broadcast, Breitbart said to Derrick Roach, the "licensed investigator" who pulled the documents out of the Dumpster, that "they started dumping documents during that period of time. If you went there on the 9th and they announced an investigation on the 1st, they're dumping documents at a time when those documents are very vital to that investigation."

Documents posted on BigGovernment.com include food stamp application, canvassing form, and an employee's tax and identification information. In a November 23 post on BigGovernment.com, Roach noted that he retrieved "thousands upon thousands of sensitive documents" from a Dumpster and found that they include "information exposing not only the inner workings of ACORN in California, but also personal, sensitive information belonging to employees, members and clients of ACORN." Roach posted documents containing an employee's transmittal form, tax forms, and identification information, as well as a canvassing form, a neighborhood map, and an authorization form for the deduction of membership fees. Roach also wrote:

Over the weeks and months ahead, BigGovernment.com will continue to release information from this shocking document dump by ACORN, slowly revealing the ugly truth of ACORN: the fact that their stated mission of helping the poor and downtrodden is just a ruse and a cover for an organization that is highly partisan and highly political, and thus rotten to the core."

On November 24, BigGovernment.com blogger Publius posted "one family's application for food stamp benefits that ACORN threw out with its trash, in advance of a visit from officers of the Attorney's General office" and "a monthly credit card statement for ACORN employee David Lagstein's corporate credit card" showing "payments to a fertility clinic." He also posted other documents that appear to outline a "plan for a 2-year ACORN campaign to repeal California's Prop 13," and one that discusses re-branding ACORN under a different name.

ACORN employee: "[T]he majority of what was thrown out was junk -- old leaflets, newsletters, etc." NBC Los Angeles reported on November 23 that Amy Schur of ACORN's California office stated of the discarded documents: "In early October, when our San Diego staff were doing an office clean-up in preparation for a major 10-station phone bank program being set up in our offices, it appears that included in the piles of garbage being thrown out may have been some documents containing private information." Schur further stated: "Our files were not part of the scope of the visit by the Attorney General's office, and the majority of what was thrown out was junk - old leaflets, newsletters, etc... It looks like our staff were careless and some documents with personal information were included in the piles of garbage."

Breitbart's only allegation of potential illegality is unrelated to investigation. A November 24 post on BigGovernment.com suggests that ACORN -- by throwing away a copy of a credit report -- may have violated the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act of 1999 (GLB), which "requires that financial institutions protect information collected about individuals," according to the Federal Trade Commission. However, the credit report displayed with the blog post appears to be unrelated to the California attorney general's investigation, and the post itself notes that it is unclear "whether or not ACORN falls under the letter of GLB."

Fox & Friends previously ran with false stories about ACORN

Ignoring police report, Carlson advanced false claim that ACORN employee killed husband. Referring to a San Bernardino, California, ACORN employee whose claim that she killed her husband was recorded by actors posing as a prostitute and pimp, Fox & Friends co-host Gretchen Carlson asked, "She killed somebody?" adding, "Despite this, some lawmakers want to keep funding the group." However, the San Bernardino Police Department investigated the matter and concluded that the claims made by Tresa Kaelke -- the ACORN staffer in question who said she fabricated the story because the actors filming her "were clearly playing with me" -- "do not appear to be factual," and that her "known former husbands" are "alive and well."

Doocy: White House adviser Gaspard "has been in bed with ACORN." After Matthew Vadum wrote in The American Spectator that "[e]vidence shows that years before he joined the Obama administration," White House political affairs director Patrick Gaspard "was ACORN boss Bertha Lewis's political director in New York," Fox & Friends host Steve Doocy seized on the blog post, stating that Gaspard "apparently has been in bed with ACORN. And, in fact, Bertha Lewis, who heads up ACORN, he -- Mr. Gaspard -- was her right-hand man. So does ACORN have somebody in the White House in one way or another?" Politico's Ben Smith later reported that the allegation "just isn't true" and that the White House denied the American Spectator report.

Fox News' ACORN attacks rely on Drudge protégé Breitbart

Breitbart's BigGovernment.com first posted ACORN video. In a September 15 post for BigGovernment.com, James O'Keefe, who made the video in which Kaelke appears, posted "Part I of the ACORN San Bernardino expose." Clips from this and other ACORN videos pushed by Breitbart have been featured on numerous Fox News programs.

Breitbart has repeatedly attacked progressives. Breitbart, whom Glenn Beck has called one of the "great journalists of our time," has made several incendiary statements about progressives, claiming for instance that Democrats depend "on the ability to keep blacks in fear"; that Ted Kennedy is a "villain," a "duplicitous bastard," and a "prick"; and that "Democrats would distribute needles, methadone, medical marijuana and biscotti in voter goodie bags if they could get away with it."

McCaughey advances falsehood that task force would limit preventive care under health reform bill

J.V.B. — Tue, 24 Nov 2009 13:38:00 EST

In a November 24 New York Post column, Betsy McCaughey suggested that both "women -- and men" would "lose" under the Senate health care bill because preventive care would be limited by the US Preventive Services Task Force guidelines, and quoted medical professor James Thrall stating: "I fear we are entering an era of deliberate decisions where we choose to trade people's lives for money." But insurers operating under the Senate health care reform bill are not required to adopt recommendations against preventive screening, only to adopt those recommendations supporting preventive screening.

McCaughey falsely suggested the Senate health care bill limits coverage for preventive services

From McCaughey's November 24 New York Post column:

Last week, the US Preventive Services Task Force [USPSTF] recommended that women forego mammograms between the age of 40 and 50, settle for mammograms every two years thereafter and stop altogether after 74 -- a huge departure from current practice. The Task Force says its guideline will be 81 percent as effective in saving lives and should be good enough. This is the same task force empowered by the Senate bill to determine preventive care in your benefit package (p. 17). James Thrall, a Harvard Medical School professor, says, "I fear we are entering an era of deliberate decisions where we choose to trade people's lives for money."

In fact, the Senate bill does not enable task force to limit preventive services

Senate bill does not require insurers to adopt USPSTF recommendations against preventive screenings, only those in favor of specific preventive screenings. Page 17 of the Senate health care reform bill, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, which McCaughey cited, requires insurance companies to cover screenings that the USPSTF rates as A or B recommendations. It does not require insurers to adopt guidelines - as suggested by McCaughey -- 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;

Section-by section analysis: Sec. 2713 "[r]equires all plans to cover preventative services and immunizations recommended by" USPSTF, CDC. From the Senate Democrats' section-by-section analysis of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act:

Sec. 2713. Coverage of preventive health services. Requires all plans to cover preventive services and immunizations recommended by the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force and the CDC, and certain child preventive services recommended by the Health Resources and Services Administration, without any cost-sharing.

Morris again uses Fox News to raise funds

M.M. — Tue, 24 Nov 2009 13:37:31 EST

On Fox News' Hannity, Fox News contributor Dick Morris touted "the work we're trying to do through DickMorris.com" to oppose health care reform and instructed viewers to "go there and help us." Morris has repeatedly used his frequent appearances on Fox News to raise money for conservative political organizations, including those in which he has a financial interest, a practice that also has been followed by Fox News' Mike Huckabee.

Morris touts DickMorris.com: "[G]o there and help us"

From the November 23 edition of Fox News' Hannity:

MORRIS: When this bill passed the House four weeks ago, it was 45 [percent] support, 52 oppose. Well, it's 38 support, 56 oppose.

SEAN HANNITY (host): That's correct.

MORRIS: And a lot of that movement is coming, as I've said on your show, from some of the work we're trying to do through DickMorris.com -- go there and help us -- is switching young people. The question among them has gone from "Oh, yeah, we really need insurance" to "What, am I going to go to jail if I don't have it?"

Morris frequently raises funds for conservative groups on Fox News

Morris asked Fox viewers to "give funds to GOPTrust.com" without noting his apparent financial ties to the organization. Between October 27, 2008, and November 17, 2008, Morris mentioned GOPTrust.com during at least 13 Fox News appearances and asked viewers to "give funds to GOPTrust.com," the website of the National Republican Trust PAC, without disclosing that the organization has paid $24,000 to a company apparently connected to Morris. Through publicly available records with the Federal Election Commission (FEC), Media Matters for America found that GOPTrust.com paid Triangulation Strategies at least $24,000 from the beginning of October 2008 to November 24, 2008, mostly for "Email Communication." The "Mailing Address" for Triangulation Strategies is listed in one of the National Republican Trust PAC's FEC filings as "dickmorris.com."

Morris brags about raising $2.5 million on his website for ads against health care reform. On the October 19 edition of Hannity, Morris claimed that "at DickMorris.com we've raised now $2.5 million to run ads" against health care reform through the League of American Voters (LAV). Morris previously used Fox News to solicit donations for LAV, stating on the September 21 edition of Hannity, "[O]n my website, DickMorris.com, I'll tell you how to contribute to 10-second ads we are now running." His website featured an LAV ad and solicited donations for "[t]he New Ad Against Obamacare." While Morris stated on the September 28 edition of Hannity that he has no "financial stake in these ads," he is LAV's "chief strategist," and according to LAV executive director Bob Adams, Morris "actually crafted our ads and national campaign."

Huckabee has also raised money on Fox News -- for PAC that supports GOP candidates and pays his daughter's salary

Huckabee sends viewers to his PAC under the guise of signing a petition. On two Fox News shows, Huckabee directed viewers to "go to balancecutsave.com," urging them to sign a petition telling Congress to "balance the budget," "cut their spending," and "save American families." However, balancecutsave.com redirects visitors to a Web page soliciting donations for Huckabee's political action committee, which financially supports Republican candidates and also pays Huckabee's daughter's salary.

Right-wing media run with false Wash. Times claim that Republicans were "not invited" to state dinner

D.C.P. — Tue, 24 Nov 2009 12:48:28 EST

The Drudge Report and FoxNews.com have seized on a Washington Times article that falsely suggests the Obama administration excluded Republican lawmakers from its first state dinner on November 24, honoring Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh. In fact, as the Times itself reported, Obama invited several Republicans, including the House and Senate Minority leaders, and some are declining to attend.

Wash. Times misleading headline: "Top Republican Lawmakers Not Invited to Obama's First State Dinner"

From a November 23 Washington Times article:

Top Republican lawmakers not invited to State Dinner

While the White House is mum about who will be among the 300 or so lucky invitees to President Obama's first state dinner Tuesday night, word is already leaking out about who's not on the A-list.

Chief among the non-attendees: top Republican lawmakers.

House Minority Leader John A. Boehner won't be there; he's on Thanksgiving break and home in Ohio. His deputy, Rep. Eric Cantor of Virginia, also didn't get an invitation to the dinner.

The president didn't invite his 2008 rival, Sen. John McCain of Arizona, even though Mr. Obama the candidate pledged a post-partisan presidency.

Most senators will be back in their home states during the holiday break, and few Republicans want to return to Washington for a party packed with Democrats. Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell received an invitation but decided to skip the dinner.

"Sen. McConnell is with his constituents this week and will be at Kentucky events tomorrow and tomorrow night," Don Stewart, the senator's communications director, said Monday.

Right-wing media run with false claim that Republicans were "not invited" to the White House state dinner

Drudge: "Not invited: Republican lawmakers...." Drudge linked to the Times article with the headline: "Not invited: Republican lawmakers...." juxtaposed with headlines stating that Obama invited Hollywood celebrities. From the Drudge Report:

Fox News.com: Top Republican Lawmakers Not Invited to Obama's First State Dinner." FoxNews.com also linked to a reprint of the Times story with the headline, "Top Republican Lawmakers Not Invited to Obama's First State Dinner." From FoxNews.com:

In fact, Wash. Times itself lists at least three "top" Republicans who were invited to the dinner

McConnell, Boehner, Jindal among Republicans invited. As Media Matters noted, Obama did invite "top Republican lawmakers," but some reportedly turned their invitations down. Despite its misleading headline, the Times article reported that Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell was invited to the dinner. Also, the article noted that Minority Leader John "Boehner won't be there; he's on Thanksgiving break and home in Ohio," although it did not mention that he was reportedly invited as well. The Times article further reported that Louisiana governor Bobby Jindal "also has been invited."

Wash. Times also reports that "Some top Democrats also found themselves out of the loop"

Nelson, Baucus reportedly did not get invitations. The Washington Times also reported that "Sen. Ben Nelson of Nebraska, who turned out to be a pivotal player in Saturday's health care vote, didn't rate an invitation. Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus of Montana, who wrote the first draft of the bill, also didn't get the vaunted engraved invitation to the black-tie dinner."

Quick Fact: Fox Nation falsely characterized reportedly stolen CRU emails as "Global Warming's Waterloo"

M.W. — Tue, 24 Nov 2009 12:33:41 EST

Under the headline "Global Warming's Waterloo?," The Fox Nation linked to a November 23 Gateway Pundit post asserting that "Senator James Inhofe [R-OK] will call for an investigation into the Climate Research Unit (CRU) emails that showed that global warming scientists were deliberately mainpulating [sic] and hiding information from the public to further their cause." But Gateway Pundit's claim that the emails -- which were reportedly stolen by a hacker -- "showed that global warming scientists were deliberately mainpulating [sic] and hiding information," and consequently Fox Nation's headline suggesting that these emails represent a "Waterloo" for climate change, are false; in fact, numerous climate change experts have explained that such a characterization is predicated on reading the emails out of context and distorting their scientific language.

From The Fox Nation accessed reported on November 20 that Gavin Schmidt, a climate scientist at NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies, said: "There's nothing in the e-mails that shows that global warming is a hoax," adding, "It's just scientists talking about science, and they're talking relatively openly as people in private e-mails generally are freer with their thoughts than they would be in a public forum. The few quotes that are being pulled out [are out] of context. People are using language used in science and interpreting it in a completely different way." Moreover, RealClimate.org's staff has refuted the distortion of an email that has been email represent an "example" of "instances of cherry-picked and poorly-worded 'gotcha' phrases [being] pulled out of context." RealClimate.org explained that "[s]cientists often use the term 'trick' to refer to a 'a good way to deal with a problem', rather than something that is 'secret', and so there is nothing problematic in this at all," and noted that "hiding the decline" refers to a method that is "completely appropriate."