Clinton Cash author and Republican activist Peter Schweizer acknowledged that, contrary to earlier reporting, there is no similar book in the works on the personal finances and policy decisions of former Florida Governor Jeb Bush, a claim journalists have previously cited to legitimize Schweizer's forthcoming book on the Clintons.
There are at least 20 documented errors, fabrications, and distortions in Schweizer's forthcoming book Clinton Cash, where the conservative author speculates about allegedly unethical ties between the Clinton Foundation and actions Hillary Clinton purportedly made as secretary of state. His allegations of impropriety by the Clintons and their family foundation have been picked apart by ABC News, BuzzFeed, MSNBC, NBC News, and ThinkProgress, among several other news agencies, and Schweizer has even been accused by one of his sources of taking comments "badly out of context" in hopes of slighting the Clinton family.
Bloomberg Politics reported on April 23 that in contrast to the "left-wing clamor that Schweizer is simply out to get Hillary Clinton," "Schweizer is working on a similar investigation of Jeb Bush's finances that he expects to publish this summer." Politico and CNN subsequently reported this would be a "book" on Bush.
But days later, Schweizer admitted that no similar book on Jeb Bush will be published. On the May 3 edition of Fox News' MediaBuzz, host Howard Kurtz asked about accusations that the book is "pursuing an agenda" based on his conservative political affiliations and activism. Schweizer acknowledged that while he's been researching Bush's finances, there are no plans to publish a book similar to Clinton Cash:
KURTZ: To be fair, you have been digging into Jeb Bush's finances --
KURTZ: -- So the Clintons aren't the only ones you're going to be looking at. But that's not going to result in a book, as I understand.
A spokesperson for Schweizer's current publisher, HarperCollins, previously told Media Matters that it has no plans to publish a book on Bush's complex finances. Instead, it expects Schweizer to issue a follow-up report at his far-right think tank, the Government Accountability Institute.
See the full segment here:
Right-wing media are rushing to champion Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) after he officially announced his bid for the 2016 Republican nomination for president.
Fox News media critic Howard Kurtz downplayed the bloody arrest and subsequent national media coverage of a black University of Virginia (UVA) student, arrested during an alleged dispute over his ID, claiming "such arrests are common in this college town."
The Washington Post reported that Virginia's Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control (ABC) is under scrutiny after the violent arrest of UVA student Martese Johnson, who "sustained head injuries that left him with bloody streaks down his face" following St. Patrick's Day celebrations near the UVA campus in Charlottesville. Photos of Johnson's bloody face sparked widespread outrage and protests over the use of excessive police force.
During a segment on March 20 edition of Special Report, Kurtz criticized the national media attention claiming that this was a local story with "no evidence that race was a factor" in the arrest. Kurtz later downplayed the arrest as typical, asserting that "bartenders tell us such arrests are common in this college town."
Fox News host Howard Kurtz offered an erroneous defense of the flawed 1992 New York Times story that is widely credited for sparking the Whitewater investigations.
During the 1990s, Hillary and Bill Clinton were extensively investigated for their role in Whitewater -- a land deal gone awry in the 1970s and 1980s -- but all of the probes determined that no wrongdoing occurred on the part of the Clintons.
The impetus for national interest in Whitewater was a March 8, 1992, front page story in the Times authored by investigative reporter Jeff Gerth that scrutinized the Clinton's real estate dealings. Political opponents then seized on Whitewater to kick off years of investigations in a fruitless effort to pin wrongdoing on the Clintons.
On the March 15 edition of MediaBuzz, Kurtz reported that Gerth had contacted him to defend his "100 percent accurate" 1992 article, which had been criticized on the show the previous week by Daily Beast writer Michael Tomasky. According to Kurtz, "Gerth is right" to defend the article, which reported that "the Clintons bought land in Arkansas with the owner of a state-regulated [savings and loans company]":
KURTZ: On last week's program, The Daily Beast's Michael Tomasky criticized the New York Times story back in 1992 that broke the Watergate scandal, excuse me, the Whitewater scandal, saying it had been documented to most people's satisfaction that many of the details in the story didn't hold up. Well the author, investigative reporter Jeff Gerth, got in touch to say the article, which said the Clintons bought land in Arkansas with the owner of a state-regulated S&L that failed, and Hillary Clinton and her firm represented the S&L, was 100 percent accurate and the Clintons never asked for a correction. Gerth is right. It's hardly his fault that Whitewater came to stand for so many spin-off allegations.
But Gerth and Kurtz are wrong. Jim McDougal, the Clinton's business partner, did not own a state-regulated savings and loans company when he bought land with the Clintons. (McDougal would later be convicted of fraud relating to business dealings he undertook as the operator of savings and loan association Madison Guaranty.)
Fox News media critic Howard Kurtz failed to substantively discuss new allegations that Fox's Bill O'Reilly fabricated several details of his reporting career while offering no criticism of the embattled host.
Since the last edition of Fox's weekly media criticism program, MediaBuzz on February 22, O'Reilly has faced cascading allegations that he lied about hearing the suicide of a figure connected to John F. Kennedy's assassination, that he had falsely claimed to have witnessed the execution of nuns in El Salvador, and that he greatly exaggerated a story about being "attacked by protesters" during the L.A. riots.
But during the March 1 edition of MediaBuzz, host Kurtz failed to specifically mention any of these new allegations against O'Reilly and instead vaguely referenced "questions raised by Mother Jones and others about whether he has embellished some of his reporting," describing the allegations as a "flap." The only analysis offered by Kurtz was to read from a portion of an official Fox News statement, saying, "Fox News said in a statement that Bill O'Reilly has already addressed several claims leveled against him" before adding that "a couple media sites have noted his ratings have actually gone up in this past week, even when not talking about this controversy." He later agreed that not everybody has as large of a platform to defend themselves as O'Reilly does, but offered no criticism of his Fox News colleague:
From the February 13 edition of Fox News' The Kelly File:
Loading the player reg...
In September 1992, then-presidential candidate Ross Perot accused two female journalists of "trying to prove their manhood" following a TV segment that was critical of him. Perot, who had previously exited the race only to re-enter it, bristled at the scrutiny and deflected from the substance of the questions raised by whining that the style of the two women associated with the report was inappropriate or unbecoming.
Things have since improved for female TV anchors and journalists, but not nearly as much as they should have considering that criticism still tends to focus on style rather than substance. Today, most use euphemisms like "tone," "pushy," "toughness," or "not pressing enough" to criticize and undermine the credibility of female journalists.
On his February 8th show, Howard Kurtz, host of Fox News' MediaBuzz, actually defended the appalling behavior of Senator and potential 2016 GOP presidential contender Rand Paul, in which he condescended to, shushed, and told a female anchor to "calm down" during an appearance on CNBC. Co-host Kelly Evans was critical in her line of questioning, beginning the interview by asking Senator Paul about comments he'd made in a radio interview with conservative host Laura Ingraham just prior to appearing on CNBC where he said that he believed vaccinations "for the most part...ought to be voluntary."
In his analysis, Kurtz accused Evans of having a "chip on her shoulder" for starting the interview with this question. This, despite the fact that the question on vaccinating children was becoming something of a litmus test for potential GOP 2016 contenders, many of whom spent the week tripping all over themselves to walk the line between public safety, common sense and anti-science rhetoric. Evans actually gave Senator Paul (who is also a physician) the opportunity to clarify his comments, who initially gave a sarcastic non-answer, "I guess being for freedom would be really unusual? I guess I don't understand the point, why that would be controversial." Senator Paul's condescending tone continued from there, scolding Evans several times during the interview. Evans did interrupt as Senator Paul attempted to run down the clock with a classic politician non-answer in response to questions about reports suggesting that the long-term consequences of tax holiday legislation he'd introduced with Senator Barbara Boxer could potentially cost the federal governement money in the long run. Visibly agitated and thrown off his game, Paul resorted to shushing Evans in a manner that I last heard when a friend was trying to quiet her agitated baby. The interview ended with a final scolding from Paul and a respectful apology from Evans.
While many reviews acknowledged Paul's sexist behavior -- Kurtz himself said "shushing a host, especially a woman, did not exactly look gentlemanly" -- the Fox News host nonetheless blamed Evans for aggravating Senator Paul. Kurtz suggested that while the substance of the interview was legitimate, her "tone" was the problem. Kurtz chose not to focus on the behavior of a grown man and potential presidential candidate so quickly thrown off by a legitimate question that he resorted to deflecting by shushing and scolding. Instead, despite Senator Paul's attempt to bully Evans by telling her to calm down and attacking her credibility as a journalist, Kurtz suggested that Evans was the problem, because she "alienated" her guest. What Kurtz didn't acknowledge is that, as reporters are supposed to, Evans was part of advancing the story. The next day, Senator Paul went so far as to release a photo of himself getting a vaccination in an attempt to quell the mess he created with his comments the day before.
Just two months ago, Kurtz and his colleagues at Fox News were among the loudest to complain that the eight non-TV female journalists President Obama called on during his 2014 end of the year press conference actually weren't tough enough. The flutter created throughout Washington, D.C., that a president "only" called on women was insulting and annoying enough. The substance of the press conference ranged from President Obama's newsworthy comments regarding Sony's decision to pull The Interview from theaters, to the fate of the president's legislative agenda, the Keystone XL pipeline, and the beginning of normalizing relations with Cuba. Immediately afterwards, Fox News' White House Correspondent Ed Henry complained about the topics covered and that some of the questions posed by his female colleagues "just didn't press him."
Sexist criticism of the press conference did come from many directions including this tweet from Roger Cohen of the New York Times: "Questions only from women fine but WH might have advised male correspondents they could split on vacation early. #maledowntime."
But it was Kurtz's blog post for Fox News -- titled "Where Were the Tough Questions" -- that was particularly offensive. Kurtz diminished the questions posed by the female reporters, equating their style with substance by suggesting that the press conference was a dud because, "This is not unrelated to the fact that he (President Obama) skipped the front-row TV correspondents--Jonathan Karl, Ed Henry, Major Garrett--who tend to ask more confrontational and, yes, theatrical questions." While suggesting that stylistically TV journalists tend to ask more "theatrical" questions, Kurtz failed to include names of female White House TV correspondents.
While Kurtz criticized these female reporters for not being tough enough and CNBC's Evans for being too tough in her interview with Senator Paul, he thought his Fox News colleague Bill O'Reilly got it just right in his contentious 2014 Super Bowl interview with President Obama. O'Reilly continuously interrupted the President of the United States with questions about various debunked Fox conspiracy theories. The Atlantic described it this way: "O'Reilly would ask Obama if he had done something scandalous. Obama would say no, that's just factually wrong. O'Reilly would defend himself, saying he was just asking questions about what many believe. Obama would insist that they only believe it because Fox News treats it as fact. And O'Reilly would insist that he isn't behind it, he's just asking questions."
In defense of O'Reilly, Kurtz said, "Your interview wasn't nasty, it was aggressive ... Sure, you interrupted the president a lot but you had to do that because he's the master at running out the clock with lengthy answers."
In other words, a female reporter has a chip on her shoulder for being aggressive in an interview, while a male reporter is just doing what he had to. Watching Kurtz's defense of Rand Paul's shushing made me think of former New York Times executive editor Jill Abramson, who was reportedly fired in part for being too "pushy."
Kurtz's sexism underscores the trap women face, one that needs to be called out at every turn: it's not about trying to be like men, it's about redefining the way it's done.
From the February 8 edition of Fox News' MediaBuzz:
Loading the player reg...
From the February 4 edition of Fox News' The Kelly File:
Loading the player reg...
From the January 25 edition of Fox News' MediaBuzz:
Loading the player reg...
From the January 4 edition of Fox News' Media Buzz:
Loading the player reg...
From the November 9 edition of Media Buzz:
Loading the player reg...
From the November 9 edition of Fox News' Media Buzz:
Fox News media critic Howard Kurtz echoed his colleague Shepard Smith's admonishment of media for irresponsible Ebola coverage, highlighting his own network's reporting failures.
Kurtz called out media figures like Fox host Bill O'Reilly, who has demanded the resignation of CDC director Tom Frieden, for reducing their response to Ebola "to a question of which heads should roll."
He contrasted coverage like O'Reilly's to that of Fox's Shepard Smith, who made headlines this week for blasting media's "irresponsible" and "hysterical" Ebola coverage. Smith "challenged his own profession to stop scaring people," Kurtz explained, asking, "Will the media listen?"
From Kurtz's October 17 column:
There's a growing media drumbeat on how to fix the Ebola crisis.
Tom Frieden should resign!
[D]oes anyone really believe that turning CDC over to an acting director will quickly boost the agency's performance?
Bill O'Reilly has demanded that Frieden be fired, calling him the "chief propagandist" for the "dumb and dangerous" approach of expecting airport screening to be able to keep infected people out of the United States.
Another doctor, Fox contributor Manny Alvarez, says:
"I am more convinced than ever that CDC director, Dr. Tom Frieden is not the right person for the job. And I say this because this latest press conference consisted of him telling a room of reporters what anyone who has ever dealt with Ebola in the past should have known...
"Frieden showed up late to the game again on Ebola, which is not acceptable when lives are at stake."
Fox News host Howard Kurtz criticized CBS News political analyst Frank Luntz for failing to disclose during a CBS appearance about a congressional election that Luntz had previously been a paid consultant for the candidate.
"I think you should have," Kurtz said during an August 10 interview with Luntz on his #MediaBuzz media criticism program, "because it just would have been leveling with the audience, hey, this is not some stranger."
Luntz discussed then-House Majority Leader Eric Cantor's (R-VA) surprise primary defeat on the June 11 edition of CBS This Morning, calling the loss "a blow for conversation" that is "bad for the country" because Cantor was "a pipeline to Americans who just wanted people to get things done." But neither he nor CBS acknowledged that Cantor's campaign had paid Luntz's company more than $15,000 in fees, as Media Matters documented.
Asked by Kurtz about the lack of disclosure, Luntz said that while "People raised that as an issue," he did not think it was necessary because he was introduced by CBS "as a Republican."
Luntz's excuse is consistent with that of a CBS spokesperson who told The Washington Post's Erik Wemple in June that the network had provided sufficient disclosure because Luntz's "work as a strategist for Republicans was disclosed on the broadcast."
But as Wemple noted, "When it comes to getting people to say favorable things about other people, there's nothing like a consultant-client relationship to facilitate things. When money changes hands, journalism ethics must pay heed." Media ethicists agreed in interviews with Media Matters, ripping CBS News for "outrageous" behavior that could be considered "not only bad, but corrupt."