The Wall Street Journal published an op-ed co-written by Galen Institute president Grace-Marie Turner promoting congressional Republicans' health care reform proposal without noting that the Galen Institute reportedly receives funding from the pharmaceutical and medical industries.
In two days, a Republican strategist's baseless suggestion that Nancy Pelosi could fall victim to "a coup in Congress" spread from his Politico.com op-ed to all three cable news channels, TheFoxNation.com, a New York Times blog, and the print edition of The Wall Street Journal.
None of five major national newspapers has reported on a Daily Beast article reporting that Vice President Dick Cheney's office "suggested waterboarding an Iraqi prisoner, a former intelligence official for Saddam Hussein, who was suspected to have knowledge of a Saddam-al Qaeda connection."
In his Wall Street Journal column, Karl Rove claimed that because Nancy Pelosi was allegedly "informed" of the Bush administration's use of enhanced interrogation techniques, her non-action made her "an accomplice to 'torture.' " The claim is inconsistent with the definition of "accomplice," as well as with the reality of Pelosi's ability to affect the Bush administration's actions in any way.
Wall Street Journal editorial board member Kimberley Strassel trotted out the oft-repeated falsehood that President Obama is on a "drive to socialize health care," a charge that echoes the baseless attacks conservatives have made against other progressives' health care reform proposals since the 1930s.
An NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll question advanced the false claim that a secret-ballot election is currently required before workers can form a union. In fact, under current law, a secret-ballot election is required only when an employer demands it; an employer can recognize a union if it is supported by a majority of workers.
In his Wall Street Journal column, Karl Rove distorted a statement by President Obama to falsely suggest Obama is now considering "a universal health care system like the European countries."
One month ago, the Wall Street Journal editorial board complained that President Barack Obama had ruined the economy. As evidence, they cited the decline in the Dow Jones Industrial Average, which closed at 6763 on March 2.
"The dismaying message here is that President Obama's policies have become part of the economy's problem," the Journal concluded, as it blamed Obama for the Dow's overall decline of 25 percent in two months. The Journal also attacked Obama's proposed budget. "The market has notably plunged since Mr. Obama introduced his budget last week, and that should be no surprise," the editors wrote.
But today the news was different. After the Financial Accounting Standards Board revised the rules on "mark to market" accounting this morning, the Dow climbed over 8000, slightly higher than its close at 7949 on Inauguration Day. And this market rally comes on a day with bad economic news on employment.
Will The Journal Apologize?
So what will the Journal say now that the stock market has "rebounded"? Does this mean the market now loves Obama's policies? Will the conservative editorial board credit Obama for the rebound as it blamed him for the decline? And more importantly, will the Journal now apologize to the president?
An apology may be too much to expect, but if nothing else, the Journal should at least acknowledge that presidents should not be judged by short-term swings in the stock market.
Of course The Wall Street Journal wasn't alone in pinning the decline of the DOW on President Obama. I don't expect the Journal or any of the outlets who have attempted to blame the President for the DOW to offer apologies. That would require an acknowledgment that their reporting on the issue has been absolutely, 100 percent, certifiably stupid.
Discussing a column by Karl Rove, Brian Kilmeade baselessly claimed that "[s]ixty-six percent of you are against the stimulus bill." In fact, Rove noted in his column that according to a CNN poll, 66 percent of Americans are opposed to a second stimulus bill -- the poll showed majority support for the bill enacted in February.
A Wall Street Journal article about Tim Geithner and his aides' involvement in decisions about AIG's bonus payments did not note that it was the Bush administration that negotiated a November 2008 stock purchase agreement with AIG through which the Bush Treasury Department injected $40 billion into the company without requiring that the bonus contracts be nullified.
Media Matters today launched Financial Media Matters (www.FinancialMediaMatters.org) a website dedicated to holding accountable those who report on the financial and business industry as well as those who report on labor, economic, and other fiscal matters. The new website will focus extensively on ensuring that outlets such as CNBC, Fox Business Network, and The Wall Street Journal are held accountable.
"As people across the country struggle with losing their jobs, losing their homes, and losing their nest eggs, Americans are depending on the media -- especially the financial media -- for answers," said Eric Burns, President of Media Matters. He added, "We are launching Financial Media Matters because the public deserves accurate and honest reporting on what is happening and what is being done to fix the economic crisis."
Which reminds me, have you checked out Burns' open letter to CNBC regaring Larry Kudlow potentially using his platform to further his possible candidacy for Senate in Connecticut?
On Fox & Friends Saturday, Karl Rove understated the debt run up by George W. Bush, asserting that there were only "$2.9 trillion in deficits under eight years of Bush." However, the national debt increased by nearly $4.9 trillion during the eight years Bush was in office. Rove's $2.9 trillion figure apparently refers only to "on-budget" deficits, thereby excluding emergency supplemental spending bills used to fund the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, Hurricane Katrina relief, and any other "off-budget" spending.
Recently, the media have highlighted claims that President Obama's "plate" is too "full," suggested he has "bit off more than he can chew," or otherwise given credence to the accusation that the president has loaded his agenda with unrelated items when he should be focusing on the economy. In many instances, the media have simply run teasers to this effect, reinforcing the idea without challenge; in other cases, they have highlighted the accusation, while also providing responses by the Obama administration.
The Wall Street Journal falsely suggested that a secret ballot election is currently required before workers can form a union, asserting that the Employee Free Choice Act "would allow unions to organize workers without a secret ballot, giving employees the power to organize by simply signing cards agreeing to join." In fact, current law already allows a union that shows it has the support of a majority of workers to represent the workers if their employer voluntarily agrees to recognize the union.
Numerous media outlets have devoted significant coverage to the earmarks contained in the pending omnibus appropriations bill, even though, according to most estimates, earmarks constitute less than 2 percent of the total spending in the bill. In many instances, the media have allowed attacks by Sen. John McCain and other opponents of the omnibus bill to dominate their coverage of the legislation -- at times themselves characterizing the bill as laden with "pork."