In the hours after the July 7 terrorist attacks on the London mass transit system, three Fox News hosts offered appalling and callous opinions of the tragedy.

Week ending July 8, 2005
www.mediamatters.org
action@mediamatters.org

This week:

Fox News reacts to London bombings ...

...but Rush Limbaugh won't be outdone

In wake of London attacks, will media begin asking important questions about Bush's record?

Supreme Court coverage marked by inaccuracy, right-wing spin

Plamegate: Why won't the White House press corps ask about Rove's role?

Fox News reacts to London bombings ...

In the hours after the July 7 terrorist attacks on the London mass transit system, three Fox News hosts offered appalling and callous opinions of the tragedy.

Fox & Friends host Brian Kilmeade suggested that the attacks were somehow beneficial:

And he [British Prime Minister Tony Blair] made the statement, clearly shaken, but clearly determined. This is his second address in the last hour. First to the people of London, and now at the G8 summit, where their topic Number 1 -- believe it or not -- was global warming, the second was African aid. And that was the first time since 9-11 when they should know, and they do know now, that terrorism should be Number 1. But it's important for them all to be together. I think that works to our advantage, in the Western world's advantage, for people to experience something like this together, just 500 miles from where the attacks have happened.

Fox News Washington managing editor Brit Hume saw the attacks as a way to make a quick buck in the futures market:

I mean, my first thought when I heard -- just on a personal basis, when I heard there had been this attack and I saw the futures this morning, which were really in the tank, I thought, “Hmmm, time to buy.”

And Big Story host John Gibson suggested that the real tragedy of the bombings wasn't that they happened at all, but that they didn't happen in Paris:

The bombings in London: This is why I thought the Brits should let the French have the Olympics -- let somebody else be worried about guys with backpack bombs for a while.

The Fox News callousness wasn't limited to Kilmeade's ability to find the bright side of a deadly terrorist attack, Hume's greed, and Gibson's frustration that the French weren't attacked. Fox News correspondent Simon Marks distinguished between Arabs and “regular” Londoners:

It [Edgeware Road] is an area that has a very large Arab population. Surrounding that station, a large number of Middle Eastern restaurants. So, it's a further indication, if in fact these attacks were carried out by Al Qaeda-affiliated cells that these people are, if necessary, prepared to spill Arab blood in addition to the blood of regular -- of non-Arab people living in London.

We wonder how long it would take for Hume or Gibson or Bill O'Reilly to call for resignations if employees of another news outlet -- say, CBS -- had made these comments.

... but Rush Limbaugh won't be outdone

Rush Limbaugh, meanwhile, suggested that everyone should just get over it, implying that “40 people dead” just isn't a big deal:

That's, ah, the mayor of London, Ken Livingstone. Very powerful, excellent. And it was such a great contrast to what we're seeing in our own media this morning with the hand-wringing I was speaking about and the “Oh, woe is us” and “Oh, what did we do to cause this?” and “Oh, does this mean we're going to get hit?” and “Oh ...” It's like I said -- 40 people dead, 150 seriously wounded, 1,000 wounded, out of over 1 million people in that transit tube. It's not a successful terrorist attack, folks.

Limbaugh also accused Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-CA), Democrats, and critics of the prisoner treatment at Abu Ghraib of “aiding and abetting” the terrorists, adding that Osama bin Laden “sounds like John Kerry”:

When bin Laden talks about the “evils” of the United States and why it must be attacked -- it sounds like John Kerry in his 2004 presidential campaign. When whoever did this in London explains why they did it -- sounds like any liberal criticizing a successful capitalist country to me. So when you want to talk about, Sen. Boxer, the insurgents are winning the propaganda war, my question is, “Who's helping them? Who's assisting them? Who's going ape and bananas over Abu Ghraib and Gitmo? Who is aiding and abetting them? Who, who is it when they speak in this country -- the terrorists sit back and laugh themselves silly?” It's you, Sen. Boxer, and members of your party.

In wake of London attacks, will media begin asking important questions about Bush's record?

In recent weeks, we've noted that the American media have largely glossed over important questions about the “war on terror.” When Karl Rove attacked liberals' approach to terrorism, media coverage largely lacked any assessment of the Bush administration's record on terrorism. News organizations that tell us it is “old news” that the Bush administration misled the nation in making the case for war in Iraq have ignored serious questions about the consequences of the administration's dishonesty. Time will tell if the bombings in London remind reporters that there are very real, very open questions about the Bush administration's success in combating terror -- and about what its lack of candor about Iraq has done to its credibility going forward. Serious times, with serious security threats, and serious questions about the Bush administration's effectiveness and honesty in addressing those threats, demand more serious reporting than we've seen thus far.

Salon.com details some homeland security challenges that deserve greater coverage; Think Progress focuses on a more specific threat that also deserves more attention: rail security.

Supreme Court coverage marked by inaccuracy, right-wing spin

In the week since Justice Sandra Day O'Connor announced her retirement from the U.S. Supreme Court, media coverage of the vacancy created by her decision to step down has been marked by inaccurate claims and repetition of right-wing spin.

News outlets have repeated false claims by conservatives that Senate Democrats are seeking “unprecedented” consultation (in fact, President Bill Clinton consulted Republican Sen. Orrin Hatch; Hatch has revealed that he first recommended eventual nominees Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer to Clinton); that Ginsburg wasn't questioned about her opinions during confirmation; that Ginsburg is ultra-liberal; that ideological differences are not an appropriate reason to filibuster a nominee; and much more.

It's worth noting that conservative misinformation about the vacancy hasn't been limited to expressly conservative news outlets -- far from it. The Washington Post, for example, has had a particularly misinformation-filled week, as Media Matters has detailed here, here, and here.

Media Matters will continue to offer extensive coverage of the coverage of the Supreme Court vacancy; check here for the latest.

Several of our items have been aided by reader tips; keep them coming. If you see inaccurate, misleading, or imbalanced coverage of the Supreme Court vacancy, please send us an email at mm-tips@mediamatters.org or post on our message boards.

Plamegate: Why won't the White House press corps ask about Rove's role?

Karl Rove, the senior White House adviser known as "Bush's Brain," has become increasingly tangled up in the investigation into who outed CIA operative Valerie Plame. But the White House press corps has yet to ask a single question about Rove during any of the four White House press briefings held since Rove's lawyer admitted that Rove was a source for a reporter to whom information about Plame was leaked, as Think Progress has noted.

Jamison Foser is Executive Vice President at Media Matters for America.