In reporting on Sen. Russ Feingold's call for the censure of President Bush for authorizing the National Security Agency's warrantless domestic surveillance program, numerous media outlets have repeated the Republican talking point that Feingold's action provides an opportunity for Bush and the GOP to regain ground by turning the public's attention back to national security.
A New York Times article reported that the Bush administration had recently challenged the plans of "Republican lawmakers'" to reform the review process for foreign investment. But the article later noted that Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman (D-CT) has backed such a proposal, contradicting its initial representation of these efforts as exclusively Republican.
A New York Times article documented a recent rift between employers and labor unions over a unionizing method that uses "card checks" instead of secret ballot elections. The Times included comments from Richard Berman, the founder of the anti-union organization, the Center for Union Facts; however, it did not mention Berman's history of lobbying for the restaurant and beverage industry or his support for and involvement in controversial campaigns.
In covering President's Bush's March 13 speech, the media reported that Bush effectively laid out a timetable for U.S. troop withdrawal from Iraq by setting a "goal of having the Iraqis control more territory than the coalition by the end of 2006" but completely ignored the numerous statements Bush and other administration officials have made denouncing timetables for withdrawal, and attacking those who propose them.
A New York Times article on partisanship in the Senate Intelligence Committee investigations ignored the conduct of committee chair Pat Roberts in impeding investigations or blocking them outright.
The New York Times reported that the recent agreement between the White House and Republican senators concerning the Bush administration's warrantless domestic surveillance program "would reinforce the authority of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court." In fact, the reported agreement, if it is introduced as legislation, would codify the program's status outside the reach of the court.
The New York Times issued a correction of a previous correction of an article that misstated the purpose of legislation by Sens. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-NY) and Robert Menendez (D-NJ) regarding control of U.S. seaports. But the Times has yet to issue a correction about a similar falsehood regarding port-related legislation proposed by Rep. Duncan Hunter (R-CA).
New York Times columnist John Tierney misrepresented the findings of a study of school vouchers in Milwaukee, claiming that it showed "that as the voucher program expanded in Milwaukee, there was a marked improvement in test scores at the public schools most threatened by the program." In fact, the study questioned whether the Milwaukee voucher program actually had an effect on public schools.
A story in The New York Times falsely suggested that only Democrats have challenged the legality of the Bush administration's warrantless domestic spying program. But the Times itself has reported on Republican concerns about the program's legality.
In reporting that the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs rejected a proposal to create an independent Office of Public Integrity to investigate ethics violations by members of Congress, March 3 articles by The New York Times and The Washington Post ignored Democratic support on the committee for the measure. In fact, more Democrats on the committee voted for the proposal than against it, while only one Republican supported it.
On the second day after the release of videos showing President Bush was warned of possible catastrophic flooding in New Orleans because of Hurricane Katrina, The New York Times, the Los Angeles Times, and The Wall Street Journal published no news articles following up on the controversy.
In a flawed correction and a new report, The New York Times continued to misrepresent congressional proposals on port security in the wake of a proposed agreement that would allow a company owned by the government of Dubai to control port terminals in six major U.S. cities.
Faced with widespread criticism in recent weeks, the Bush administration and some of its supporters have promoted numerous false and misleading claims intended to downplay the approval of a deal that would turn over control of terminal operations at six U.S. ports to Dubai Ports World (DPW) -- a company owned by the government of Dubai, a member state of the United Arab Emirates (UAE) -- and cast critics of the transaction as racist, politically opportunistic, or both. The media, in turn, have often repeated these claims without challenge or correction.
In recent days, numerous pundits have summarily dismissed concerns about the takeover of operations at six U.S. ports by a company owned by the government of Dubai, a member state of the United Arab Emirates, despite the fact that the Bush administration opted not to conduct the 45-day investigation into the deal's national security implications provided for -- and, critics argue, required -- by federal law.
Most major print and broadcast media outlets offered no coverage of House Homeland Security Committee chairman Peter King's March 1 claim that there was "no investigation into terrorism whatsoever" during the Bush administration's initial review of the proposed deal that would allow Dubai Ports World (DPW) to assume control of terminal operations at six major U.S. ports.