Fox News senior vice president Neil Cavuto told likely presidential candidate Ben Carson that "I think you're running. I think you're running for office now. You're just laying the groundwork as we speak." If Cavuto believes what he says, by Fox's own lax standards, Carson's employment with Fox News should be suspended.
Carson said in September that the "likelihood is strong" that he'll run for the 2016 Republican presidential nomination. The Fox News contributor said he setup the political group USA First PAC to help with infrastructure for a potential campaign.
Fox News hired Carson in 2013 after he drew attention for his National Prayer Breakfast speech attacking President Obama. The conservative network has since turned Carson into a likely presidential candidate.
After the network cut ties with former employees Rick Santorum and Newt Gingrich in 2011 due to their then-fledgling presidential ambitions, Fox's executive vice president for legal affairs Dianne Brandi told Howard Kurtz that the network didn't suspend the contract of contributor Sarah Palin because she "hasn't done anything herself to show us she has any intention of running right now."
But on the October 1 edition of his Fox Business program, Cavuto suggested Carson has crossed that line -- saying he thinks Carson is "running for office now."
Two prominent LGBT groups are urging journalists to stop conflating religious belief with anti-LGBT attitudes in their coverage of the upcoming midterm elections, pointing to the dramatic rise in support for LGBT equality in communities of faith across the country.
On September 29, GLAAD and the Human Rights Campaign released a resource guide for journalists covering the 2014 midterm elections. The guide, Faith, LGBT People, & The Midterm Elections, is aimed at helping journalists "challenge anti-LGBT talking heads who mask bias as a 'tenet of faith'" by highlighting growing support for LGBT equality in religious communities. According to the resource guide:
For decades, entire denominations, networks of churches, and Biblical and Talmudic scholars have been making a robust case that scripture actually embraces full and complete LGBT lives. In 2012 Christian and Jewish communities of faith spoke out for marriage equality in record numbers in Washington, Maine, Maryland, and Minnesota. Likewise, the United Church of Christ has led a coalition of organizations that have sued North Carolina over its ban on marriage equality on first amendment grounds. And in Houston, Lutheran and Metropolitan Community Churches hosted and organized the effort to pass the Houston Equal Rights Ordinance. Even respected evangelical Bible scholars like Dr. James Brown and Dr. David Gushee have been encouraging evangelicals to rethink their reading of Scripture on LGBT issues while Catholics for Marriage Equality refuse to abandon their LGBT sons and daughters and the faith they love. These pro-equality voices of faith matter, and they aren't getting the media attention they deserve.
Instead of highlighting religious support for LGBT equality, media outlets tend to rely on the voices of some of the most extreme voices of anti-gay conservatism, treating them as broadly representative of religious voters. Nowhere was this more apparent than during the run-up to the 2012 presidential election, when even mainstream news networks relied heavily on commentators like Tony Perkins - president of the anti-gay hate group the Family Research Council - to speak on behalf of religious voters:
Historians and biographers of General George S. Patton are panning Bill O'Reilly's theory that the World War II commander was assassinated by the Soviet Union, calling the tale implausible and lacking evidence.
But O'Reilly and co-author Martin Dugard contend in the newly-released Killing Patton that the general's death was the result of a conspiracy by former Soviet leader Joseph Stalin. O'Reilly repeated the theory during an appearance to promote his book on ABC News' This Week:
STEPHANOPOULOS: The official record says Patton died after a car accident on a hunting trip, but O'Reilly's new book "Killing Patton" suggests a darker conspiracy.
O'REILLY: I think Stalin killed him. Patton was going to go back to the United States and condemn Stalin and the Soviet Union, tell the American people these guys aren't going out of Poland, they're going to try to take over the world. And Stalin wanted him dead. And I think Stalin got him dead.
Several historians who have researched Patton's life told Media Matters no real evidence exists to support O'Reilly's claim.
"Premising an assassination plot on something so uncertain as a traffic accident doesn't seem plausible," said Jonathan W. Jordan, author of Brothers Rivals Victors: Eisenhower, Patton, Bradley and the Partnership that Drove the Allied Conquest in Europe. "The rapid onset of Patton's death is not inconsistent with a pulmonary embolism ... There is no smoking gun pointing toward poison smuggled into his Heidelberg hospital room. Exhumation and testing of Patton's body, while it would put the matter to rest, most likely would be a biological Al Capone's Vault."
Rick Atkinson, a historian and author of several books about World War II, agreed saying Patton's death was from injuries suffered in "a fender bender, outside Heidelberg, in the fall of 1945."
Robert H. Patton, the general's grandson and author of The Pattons: A Personal History of an American Family, said both research and family lore discredit O'Reilly's version of events.
"Generally growing up our sense was the general's widow was satisfied that it was accidental," he said. "She was persuaded that it was an accident."
Robert Patton said his grandfather suffered from Phlebitis due to a blood clot he developed from a fractured leg between World War I and World War II. He said after he was paralyzed in the auto accident it worsened and eventually led to his death.
National Review Online's foremost legal analyst is continuing his colleagues' attacks on Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg by criticizing her for"speaking publicly on abortion policy," despite previously defending Justice Antonin Scalia's penchant for similar public comments and interviews.
In the past week, National Review "roving correspondent" Kevin Williamson echoed his outlet's debunked insinuations from 2009 that Ginsburg supported eugenics. Williamson accused her of harboring a "desire to see as many poor children killed as is feasibly possible," an argument that NRO editor-at-large Jonah Goldberg offered "three cheers for" and that Williamson later compounded when he argued that women who have abortions should be hanged. NRO legal analyst Ed Whelan continued the attacks on Ginsburg, joining other anti-choice voices in condemning Ginsburg's statements in a recent interview in which she criticized a Texas law that closed down a number of the state's reproductive health clinics, arguing that commenting on legislation that could soon be before the Supreme Court was grounds for her recusal.
But Whelan went on to broaden his critique of Ginsburg, suggesting in a later post that she not speak publicly about abortion policy at all, regardless of whether it is in reference to a reproductive justice case before the court or not. In a September 30 blog post, Whelan complained about Ginsburg speaking "on all sorts of other matters related to abortion policy" and suggested that it was improper for the justice to "speak her mind openly on this matter."
Whelan's condemnation of Ginsburg and her discussion of general "abortion policy" appears inconsistent with his defense of his former boss, Justice Antonin Scalia, who also frequently speaks on contentious public policy. For example, in 2011, when Scalia spoke at a "closed-door session with a group of conservative lawmakers," Whelan balked at the suggestion that Scalia's attendance at a Tea Party function was inappropriate. According to The New York Times:
M. Edward Whelan, president of the Ethics and Public Policy Center and a former clerk to Justice Scalia, disputed [George Washington University law professor Jonathan] Turley's criticism.
"Does he think it's improper for any justice ever to speak to any group of members of Congress who might be perceived as sharing the same general political disposition?" Mr. Whelan told The Los Angeles Times. "My guess is that, schedule permitting, Scalia would be happy to speak on the same topic to any similarly sized group of members of Congress who invited him."
Fox News' Gretchen Carlson urged President Obama to follow "precedent" set by President George W. Bush and release 18 months of daily intelligence briefings to prove what his administration knew about the rise of the Islamic State (ISIS) -- despite the fact that Bush released only one intelligence briefing after years of pressure.
Fox has fixated on Obama's Presidential Daily Briefs (PDB) amid ongoing U.S. air strikes against the Islamic State, reviving long debunked claims that the president skipped his scheduled briefings and thus missed intelligence on the terror group. The October 1 edition of The Real Story With Gretchen Carlson took a similar route, as Carlson and network anchor Bret Baier discussed a recent call by Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) for Obama to release 18 months of his PDB in order to prove when he first learned of the Islamic State from the intelligence community. According to Carlson, "President Bush did do it, so there is precedent for this," and the pair speculated about the chances of Obama doing the same now. Baier predicted that it was "not likely," adding, "There is a precedent here, in that, the last time we dealt with a big intelligence question prior to 9/11, the 9/11 Commission met with President Bush and President Bush did come forward with the Presidential Daily Briefs."
Though idealized by Carlson and Baier, Bush's "precedent" on releasing PDBs is not one of disclosure.
Under pressure from the 9/11 Commission, the Bush administration fought the release of PDBs for two years. Ultimately, they released only one, titled "Bin Laden Determined To Strike in US," years after the 2001 attack on the World Trade Center. From The New York Times:
On April 10, 2004, the Bush White House declassified that daily brief -- and only that daily brief -- in response to pressure from the 9/11 Commission, which was investigating the events leading to the attack. Administration officials dismissed the document's significance, saying that, despite the jaw-dropping headline, it was only an assessment of Al Qaeda's history, not a warning of the impending attack. While some critics considered that claim absurd, a close reading of the brief showed that the argument had some validity.
That is, unless it was read in conjunction with the daily briefs preceding Aug. 6, the ones the Bush administration would not release. While those documents are still not public, I have read excerpts from many of them, along with other recently declassified records, and come to an inescapable conclusion: the administration's reaction to what Mr. Bush was told in the weeks before that infamous briefing reflected significantly more negligence than has been disclosed. In other words, the Aug. 6 document, for all of the controversy it provoked, is not nearly as shocking as the briefs that came before it.
The New York Post has settled a lawsuit about a front page that the paper ran shortly after the Boston Marathon bombing on which it highlighted two "Bag Men" it claimed were being sought authorities.
Right-wing media outlets are complaining about the federal government's announcement that it will provide grant money to legal services organizations willing to represent undocumented immigrant children in deportation proceedings.
Earlier this summer, federal officials reported that a record number of unaccompanied minors were being apprehended while crossing the border from Mexico into the United States. Despite the fact that many of those children made the dangerous journey to escape horrific violence in their home countries, right-wing media still blamed President Obama for the increase in refugees, suggested that the children carried rare diseases, and claimed that they were "fronts for drug dealers" and terrorists. Although the number of unaccompanied minors coming into the United States has dropped over the last few months, children now in custody are entering deportation proceedings, and most of them will face the court with no lawyer -- a potential violation of due process that right-wing media don't seem to care much about.
Federal law allows immigrants "the privilege of being represented, at no expense to the government, by counsel of the alien's choosing." This privilege, however, is no guarantee and often hollow as many of these minors cannot afford a private attorney. As a result, thousands of children -- who have no money -- are forced to represent themselves in complex legal proceedings because there aren't enough lawyers available to take their case pro bono, without a fee. As The New York Times reported earlier this year, minors representing themselves in court "can be comically tragic, with preschoolers propped in leather-cushioned chairs facing off against federal lawyers." Although the grant money will be a step toward addressing this glaring civil rights problem, advocates agree that "it would only touch a fraction of all the unaccompanied minors who appear in court in the coming months."
To try to provide these preschoolers with basic due process, the Department of Justice announced plans to distribute $1.8 million in grants to legal aid organizations that represent unaccompanied minors in immigration court. The DOJ's grants will be awarded through AmeriCorps and "will enable legal aid organizations to enroll approximately 100 lawyers and paralegals to represent children in immigration proceedings." The Department of Health and Human Services also announced that it plans to give out $9 million over the next two years to help fund immigration services for children who face deportation.
But the right-wing media weren't wild about extending civil rights to these unaccompanied minors.
National Review Online complained that the grants hadn't received enough scrutiny in the media because they were "an unprecedented effort to shield illegal immigrants from deportation" and went on to say the grants are "legally dubious" and may be an "illegitimate use of taxpayer dollars." On the October 1 edition of Fox & Friends, host Brian Kilmeade also criticized the federal grants in his "News by the Numbers" segment:
UPDATE: Politico Magazine added an editor's note to the end of Kessler's piece, claiming readers had "misinterpreted" the conclusion:
Editor's note: Some readers have misinterpreted the original last line of Kessler's article as somehow suggesting that the president should be held responsible in the event of his own assassination. That couldn't be further from the truth, and we're sorry if anyone interpreted Kessler's meaning in any other way.
The note did not explain what a correct interpretation of the line would be.
Politico Magazine published a piece by Ron Kessler, a discredited conservative journalist with a history of pushing conspiracy theories, which suggested that President Obama would be to blame for his own assassination and that the president's death could be necessary for the reform of the Secret Service.
Agents tell me it's a miracle an assassination has not already occurred. Sadly, given Obama's colossal lack of management judgment, that calamity may be the only catalyst that will reform the Secret Service.
As Josh Marshall at Talking Points Memo noted, this implies either that "Obama is at fault for his inevitable assassination, or he's the only thing standing in the way of cleaning up the agency responsible for his inevitable assassination," both "bizarre" and troubling suggestions.
But also bizarre and troubling is why Politico published Kessler in the first place. As Marshall pointed out, while Kessler has written several books on the Secret Service and other national law enforcement agencies, "he's made a hard veer to the right" in recent years and is "a bit of a kook."
Kessler, who left credible newspapers to become the chief Washington correspondent for the right-wing website Newsmax, has been widely been criticized for peddling trashy gossip. He previously accused former first lady Hillary Clinton of "pathological lying" and pushed the conspiracy theory that she drove then-deputy White House counsel Vince Foster to suicide, because Clinton "humiliated him in front of all these White House aides." He also promoted the falsehood that Obama was in attendance at controversial Rev. Jeremiah Wright sermons.
As Media Matters has previously noted, numerous book critics have also slammed Kessler for his reliance on "Page Six"-style gossip and innuendo:
National security reporter James Bamford wrote in The Washington Post that for his book In The President's Secret Service, Kessler "milked the agents for the juiciest gossip he could get and mixed it with a rambling list of their complaints," comparing the book's reporting to that of the National Enquirer. New York Times critic Michiko Kakutani called Kessler's Joseph P. Kennedy book The Sins of the Father a "meanspirited, speculation-filled biography ... which purveyed a determinedly poisonous portrait of the man." That book was also described by Globe and Mail's Andrew Cohen as featuring research that "is sometimes suspect" because Kessler "relies too heavily on speculation, gossip, innuendo and secondary sources." Publicity material for Kessler's The Secrets of the FBI, as Bryan Burrough wrote in the Post, even promised it would be "filled with revelations about the Bureau and Page Six tidbits."
Kessler's work over the last few years has solidified his reputation for pushing gossip and conspiracy -- raising questions over Politico Magazine's decision to give him a platform.
Fox News misled viewers about trends in household income, job creation, and the use of food stamps while claiming that President Obama's policies are to blame for a supposedly stagnant economy.
During an interview that aired on the September 28 edition of CBS' 60 Minutes, Obama argued that the United States "is definitely better off" economically than it was when he took office in 2009. The president said he would compare the success of his response to the "terrible, almost unprecedented financial crisis" that he inherited to the response by "any leader around the world."
On the September 30 edition of Fox & Friends, co-host Steve Doocy and Fox Business anchor Stuart Varney attempted to refute Obama's claim of economic achievement over the past six years, citing three major indicators -- household income, part-time job creation, and food stamp participation -- to make their case.
In each instance, Fox cherry-picked data to obscure positive trends in the overall economy:
Conservative media is dubiously claiming that the rise of the Islamic State is due in part to President Obama skipping scheduled daily intelligence briefings. The basis of this claim is a misleading interpretation of how intelligence briefings are received by the White House that was debunked two years ago.