From the March 18 edition of Fox News' Hannity:
Loading the player reg...
From the March 17 edition of Fox News' The O'Reilly Factor:
Loading the player reg...
Right-wing media are accusing President Obama and Attorney General Eric Holder of supposedly fostering a culture that led to the shooting of two police officers in Ferguson, Missouri.
From the March 3 edition of Premiere Radio Networks' The Rush Limbaugh Show:
Loading the player reg...
From the December 17 edition of Fox News' Your World With Neil Cavuto:
Loading the player reg...
From the November 17 edition of Premiere Radio Networks' The Rush Limbaugh Show:
Loading the player reg...
From the November 5 edition of Fox News' Special Report With Bret Baier:
Loading the player reg...
Fox News is continuing their campaign to rehabilitate the legacy of former President George W. Bush by falsely claiming that he predicted the rise of the Islamic State in 2007 speech. But Bush's speech was merely to garner support for the 2007 surge against al Qaeda in Iraq.
During an October 2 interview on Fox Friends, co-host Brian Kilmeade spoke with Bush about the pull out of American forces in Iraq and the subsequent rise of the Islamic State. Kilmeade suggested that Bush predicted the rise of the Islamic State and asked the former president "How did you know" that "we needed a surge" in order to prevent an occurrence like this?
Kilmeade also asked Bush whether he agreed with Gen. Martin Dempsey's assessment that Obama should have left a residual military force in Iraq. And though Bush acknowledged that having a former president "second guessing" is not "good for the presidency or the country," he said that he agreed with Dempsey's assessment.
Later that day, on The Real Story, host Gretchen Carlson parroted the idea that Bush predicted the rise of the Islamic State claiming that "some of what he says has happened," adding that Bush was "exactly right":
Opposition to virulent conservative columnist Ted Nugent's appearance at an event sponsored by The Blade of Toledo, OH, is growing, with the president of the paper's Newspaper Guild speaking out against Nugent and an anti-gun violence group launching a petition to stop the concert.
"As the president of the Guild and more importantly as an individual, I do not support Mr. Nugent's political views," Deborah Riley-Jackson, president of the Newspaper Guild of America Local 34043, which represents Blade newsroom employees, told Media Matters via email. "Freedom of speech requires one not to engage in recklessness."
At issue is The Blade's sponsorship of the upcoming Northwest Ohio Rib-Off, a four-day August food and music event the newspaper has been running for four years.
The Blade announced last week that Nugent, a rock musician, columnist for conspiracy site WND, and National Rifle Association board member whose offensive comments about President Obama and other leaders have drawn criticism, will play the festival on August 8.
Riley-Jackson said she did not believe Nugent's appearance would hurt her members' credibility, but stressed, "I do believe that [the] event itself may suffer. The Rib-Off is a family event that a lot of people look forward to, enjoying good food and entertainment. The people will decide if it was a good idea to have included in the lineup of entertainment."
The Coalition to Stop Gun Violence, meanwhile, has launched a petition urging organizers to remove Nugent from the concert line-up.
The petition states, in part, "The Northwest Ohio Rib-Off webpage brags that 'nothing goes better with savory BBQ than jamming, rib-bone in hand, to a rocking band.' Certainly, nothing goes worse with good food than the virulently racist rhetoric of a man who has no regard for the dignity or rights of others."
Mike Mori, The Blade's sales director and Rib-Off event director, told Media Matters last week that he had already received "quite a few" calls from readers objecting to the appearance.
"It surprised me how many calls I got," he said. "I'm listening to the people and I probably will do something different next year if I can."
CBS Sunday morning political talk show Face The Nation with Bob Schieffer is knocking down right-wing media claims that an interview with Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) was edited for political reasons, explaining that the one-on-one just went too long and was also shortened for breaking news on the Maryland mall shooting.
"This was not uncommon at all, this was a quick turnaround pre-tape," a Face the Nation spokesperson told Media Matters Monday, explaining that the interview was slated for seven minutes and ran long. "That just happened to be at the end so it was easy to trim for turnaround. And we had breaking news of the [Maryland mall] shooter's name ... We had already gone overtime, that is pretty much the gist of it."
But some on the right found conspiracy in the routine interview editing, suggesting that the cuts had been made to protect President Obama from attacks Cruz levied in the deleted portion.
Newsbusters posted an item after examining the full version of the interview posted on Cruz's YouTube page, claiming that Cruz "was the victim of editing by CBS" because "the senator's comments surrounding President Obama's 'abuse of power' were edited from the program."
During the deleted segment, Cruz attacked President Obama's handling of the Benghazi attacks and promoted the conservative conspiracy that the administration had indicted conservative filmmaker Dinesh D'Souza because of his film that criticized the president.
While Newsbusters acknowledged that "it is certainly plausible that CBS edited out the ending of the Cruz interview for time," they nonetheless called the editing "highly inappropriate and unusual" and wrote that the network "should explain why it felt it appropriate to edit out a high profile senator accusing the President of the United States of targeting his politcal [sic] enemies."
None of those sites, however, apparently sought to ask CBS or Face The Nation why the edit occurred. Asked if it was done to censor Cruz's Obama criticism, the spokesperson stated: "There was no editorial purpose."
Face The Nation said editing such interviews is common.
"It just varies on topic and the availability of the person," the spokesperson said. "We also had breaking news, too. There's a lot to get into that first half hour."
Fox News hosts and guests have been especially disciplined in pushing the Republican Party talking point that the vote yesterday in the U.S. Senate to reform filibusters on judicial nominees was nothing more than a Democratic "distraction" to shift attention away from President Obama's troubled health care roll-out.
Senate Minority Leader Sen. Mitch McConnell first introduced the talking point Thursday afternoon and Fox News has been loyally parroting it ever since.
"It does appear it is a distraction from the Affordable Care Act debacle," Steve Doocy announced this morning on Fox & Friends. Co-host Elisabeth Hasselbeck later agreed, insisting the American people are "wise to the fact" that filibuster reform is a mere "distraction."
According to Obama's opponents, the vote taken yesterday to change the Senate rules in the wake of blanket Republican obstructionism, was actually part of an elaborate White House political strategy. That explanation leaves out the fact that simmering fight over nominations has been a decade in the making, not something the White House invented for political cover.
It also omits the fact that Democratic leaders had threatened to amend the filibuster rules for most of 2013, and that they were prompted to finally take action by yet another round of Republican filibusters blocking Obama judicial nominees over the past few weeks. While nominees have in the past been blocked due to lack of qualifications or ideological extremism, Republicans have largely eschewed these criticisms, instead stating flat out that for political reasons they don't want to allow President Obama to fill seats on a critical bench with anyone at all.
But what's especially ironic is that the "distraction" charge is being peddling by Fox News during the same week it played host to its latest gold-plated distraction, the mean-spirited claim that President Obama failed to attend the 150th anniversary of President Lincoln's Gettysburg address out of some sort resentment of America. (The right-wing media accompanied that distraction with the hollow allegation that Obama purposefully omitted the phrase "under God" when reciting the Gettysburg Address for a YouTube video posting.)
Fox hosts questioned Obama's sense of honor by refusing to attend the Civil War anniversary ceremony. ("Maybe he thought he'd be shown up," said Greta Van Susteren,) They claimed Obama's "snubbing" was deliberate and offensive, yet carefully omitted the fact that only one U.S. president in the last 150 years had traveled to Gettysburg on the date of the Lincoln anniversary. (Nonetheless it was "a big deal" Obama didn't attend.)
Detroit news reporters who've covered the city's fiscal problems for years say claims from conservative commentators that the recent bankruptcy is due to liberal agendas, federal policies, or even President Obama are wildly inaccurate.
Journalists, some with decades in the Motor City, contend such national coverage has missed the true cause of the financial debacle, which includes decades of population decline, mismanagement of city debt, and recent individual corruption.
By contrast, right-wing commentator and Detroit native Ted Nugent recently claimed that "Liberal democrats took hold of the greatest, most productive city on earth and turned it into a bloodsucker excuse-making hell," adding, "If allowed to continue, our President will do the same to the whole country. Heartbreaking and tragic."
Similar coverage from Fox News -- which misleadingly claimed other cities could fall into Detroit's bankruptcy path - and National Review's Rich Lowry, who tried to blame it on "a toxic combination of Great Society big spenders, race hustlers, crooks, public-sector unions, and ineffectual reformers," is misleading, local reporters say.
They contend that Detroit's problems are unique and driven by demography and decades-long trends, not ideology.
"I don't agree with that thesis," Jim Kiertzner, a reporter at ABC affiliate WXYZ-TV who has covered Detroit news since 1983, said about some of the conservative claims. "This was a city, like the auto industry, [where] in the heyday the money rolled in. When the decline started, nobody kept ahead of it and made the cuts necessary."
He added that the decline has "been in the making for decades. Detroit has been on a long steady decline."
Kiertzner and other reporters pointed to the population drop that began decades ago when wealthier families moved to the suburbs, reducing the population from 1.8 million in 1950 to 1.2 million in 1980 to only 701,000 in 2012.
Detroit-based journalists contend that drop reduced both job opportunities and city revenue, but with a rising maintenance cost because the city still had to pay for police, fire and other services. And with a 138-square mile area, one of the largest in the nation, the cost is vast.
"You have one of the largest areas that the police need to cover, the fire department, street lights, and keeping roads maintained and roads plowed," said Brett Snavely, a Detroit Free Press reporter covering the bankruptcy. "The cost of keeping this city maintained is fundamentally higher than in many cities."
With such rising costs and reduced revenue, the city of Detroit kept borrowing money and raising its debt, the reporters say. It also failed to pay into its pension fund properly, leading to the current situation in which city worker pensions are $3.5 billion in the red.
"The city didn't meet its obligations paying along the way, they gave the pensions IOU's, they are also looking at possible bad investments where they lost millions of dollars," says Kiertzner. "It wasn't just the employees, it is not a fair assessment to blame the unions."
Kathleen Gray, another Detroit Free Press reporter, added, "Its mismanagement, it's the downturn in the economy, it is not a single thing. We get a lot of [reader] feedback here that it is the liberal management of Detroit, but I don't agree with that assessment."
Charlie Langton, a reporter at WWJ News Radio and a 10-year Detroit journalist, said trying to link Detroit's situation to some outside influence is misleading.
"There is a combination of a couple of things, certainly mismanagement of the city's assets play a major role," he said. "For many years Detroit borrowed money to pay down its debt and Detroit lost a significant population."
Berman of the Detroit News said some of the problems were the result of the same sub-prime mortgage lending that hurt other cities, and even Wall Street banks continuing to lend Detroit money as its debt bloomed.
"The biggest mistake here is that no one tried to solve problems as they arose. They tried to paper over them, there was no problem solving, everything got pushed back," Berman said. "There was continued borrowing and there was no payback. They would shop the debt to Wall Street. You could blame Wall Street for not questioning that they were enablers, they gave them that credit. Why did Moody's write Detroit bonds?"
For Curt Guyette, news editor of the alternative weekly Metro Times, trying to blame liberal policies or some progressive approach is too narrow.
The president of the National Association of Black Journalists is criticizing columnist George Will's claim that President Obama may be re-elected because he is black, calling the assertion "narrow-minded."
NABJ President Greg Lee, who is also executive sports editor of the South Florida Sun-Sentinel in Fort Lauderdale, reacted to Will's October 1 column, in which the Washington Post scribe wrote that President Obama's "administration is in shambles, yet he is prospering politically."
Will suggested that the explanation for this alleged contradiction may be that Americans seem "especially reluctant not to give up on the first African American president."
"I think it's a slippery slope, you are making a broad sweeping suggestion that the only reason why Obama would be given a second term is because he is black. I think that's very narrow-minded and not looking at the totality of what Obama had to go through his first four years and what Mitt Romney has said during his campaign and also his resume in the past," Lee told Media Matters by phone Tuesday. "To make a broad sweeping generalization, it is a very dangerous thing to do, to just use race an excuse in this election. It's not an overall fair assessment if you are going to use that as a litmus test to decide a president because of their color."
In the column, Will sought to compare Obama's election as the first African-American president to that of Frank Robinson, the first African-American manager in Major League Baseball:
A significant date in the nation's civil rights progress involved an African American baseball player named Robinson, but not Jackie. The date was Oct. 3, 1974, when Frank Robinson, one the greatest players in history, was hired by the Cleveland Indians as the major leagues' first black manager. But an even more important milestone of progress occurred June 19, 1977, when the Indians fired him. That was colorblind equality.
Managers get fired all the time. The fact that the Indians felt free to fire Robinson -- who went on to have a distinguished career managing four other teams -- showed that another racial barrier had fallen: Henceforth, African Americans, too, could enjoy the God-given right to be scapegoats for impatient team owners or incompetent team executives.
After being fired by the Indians, Robinson went on to manage three other teams, and won the American League Manager of the Year Award in 1989. He was elected to the National Baseball Hall of Fame in 1982 and received the Presidential Medal of Freedom from President George W. Bush in 2005.
Three panelists who appeared with President Barack Obama at the 1998 conference where he mentioned "redistribution" agree that his comments were wrongly taken out of context by the conservative press and some mainstream media outlets.
The panelists at the Loyola University event also recall then-state senator Obama discussing funding of education and other social programs through foundations and public funds.
"Shame on them," said Maureen Hellwig, who was a program coordinator for the Policy Research Action Group, a consortium of non-profit community organizations, when she appeared on the panel. "How do you take one phrase and say therefore this person is a socialist? You need to know a lot more about him, give other examples. He wasn't discussing socialism at the meeting, he was discussing distribution of public funds to produce good public adult education."
The conference made news this week after a video clip of Obama at the event was posted on YouTube and picked up by The Drudge Report and several news outlets.
Initially, Drudge linked to a video clip with a photo of Obama and the headline, "I actually believe in redistribution." That quote was picked up by Gateway Pundit blogger Jim Hoft who used the video to call Obama "America's Socialist In Chief."
But the quote flagged by Drudge and other conservatives left off the end of Obama's sentence: "at least at a certain level to make sure that everybody's got a shot."
Obama was talking about the role of government in providing services, but also criticizing ineffective forms of government. For instance, Obama says in the audio, "We do have to be innovative in thinking, what are the delivery systems that are actually effective and meet people where they live?"
He was speaking broadly about pooling resources to make sure that everyone has fair access.
Transcript of the YouTube audio:
OBAMA: Let me just close by saying, as we think about the policy research surrounding the issues that I just named, policy research for the working poor, broadly defined, I think that what we're going to have to do is somehow resuscitate the notion that government action can be effective at all. There has been a systematic -- I don't think it's too strong to call it a propaganda campaign against the possibility of government action and its efficacy. And I think some of it has been deserved. Chicago Housing Authority has not been a model of good policymaking. And neither necessarily have been the Chicago Public Schools.
What that means, then, is, is that as we try to resuscitate this notion that we're all in this thing together, leave nobody behind, we do have to be innovative in thinking, what are the delivery systems that are actually effective and meet people where they live? And my suggestion, I guess, would be that the trick -- and this is one of the few areas where I think there are technical issues that have to be dealt with, as opposed to just political issues -- I think the trick is figuring out how do we structure government systems that pool resources and hence facilitate some redistribution, because I actually believe in redistribution, at least at a certain level to make sure that everybody's got a shot.
But that didn't stop several news outlets, including Fox News, from hyping the edited clip and failing to offer full context to suggest that Obama is a closet extremist.
NBC News posted and reported on the full context of the clip Thursday, stating on its website:
Mitt Romney's campaign this week has pounced on a 14-year-old clip of Obama speaking about "redistribution" in October 1998 at a conference in Chicago, in which the future president seems to extol the virtues of redistributing wealth.
Yet NBC News has obtained the entirety of the relevant remarks, which includes additional comments by Obama that weren't included in the video circulated by Republicans. That omission features additional words of praise for "competition" and the "marketplace" by the then-state senator.