Media Matters for America - Research Items

Grasping For New Scandals, Fox Fearmongers That Obamacare Will Allow IRS To Deny Medical Treatment

Fri, 17 May 2013 05:07:05 EDT

Fox continued its effort to target the Obama administration with manufactured scandals, fearmongering that IRS commissioner Sarah Hall Ingram will use the IRS' authority under the Affordable Care Act to discriminate against conservatives by denying or postponing approval for medical procedures.

IRS Commissioner Who Oversaw Tax-Exemption Approvals Now Heads Healthcare Office

ABC News: "IRS Official In Charge During Tea Party Targeting Now Runs Health Care Office." In a May 16 report headlined "IRS Official in Charge During Tea Party Targeting Now Runs Health Care Office," ABC News reported that Sarah Hall Ingram, the IRS commissioner previously in charge of the office that oversaw the approval of tax-exempt organizations had been moved to an IRS office in charge of some aspects of the new health care legislation:

The Internal Revenue Service official in charge of the tax-exempt organizations at the time when the unit targeted tea party groups now runs the IRS office responsible for the health care legislation.

Sarah Hall Ingram served as commissioner of the office responsible for tax-exempt organizations between 2009 and 2012. But Ingram has since left that part of the IRS and is now the director of the IRS' Affordable Care Act office, the IRS confirmed to ABC News today. [ABC News, 5/16/13]

Fox Fearmongers That Health Care Reform Gives The IRS Power To Discriminate Against Conservatives

Fox News' Steve Doocy Suggests The IRS Could Use Health Records To Interfere With Conservatives' Healthcare. Fox & Friends co-host Steve Doocy suggested that the IRS would be able to access Americans' private health information and meddle in specific health procedures:

DOOCY: Well, this is a little scary. Just think about the nexus of IRS with healthcare and the fact that she -- keep in mind, one of the things from the IG report was, one of the problems with the IRS, was they blamed ineffective management. Well, she was the management, and now she's running Obamacare at the IRS? Going forward, just imagine: okay, so you go in and you're, you're trying to get a doctor's appointment; right? And they go, we see from your tax records -- how would that possibly be possible? -- We see from your tax records that you support the Tea Party or conservative groups. You want a doctor's visit? Three weeks. You want hip replacement? Four years.

Fox displayed this graphic during the segment:

[Fox News, Fox & Friends, 5/17/13]

In Fact, The IRS Will Only Have Power To Verify Health Coverage

Politico: "The Agency Will Verify Insurance Coverage, But Nothing More." A May 16 Politico article disputed the suggestion that the IRS would have the power to stand between conservatives and their doctors, quoting former IRS Acting Commissioner Steven Miller who explained during a September 2012 House hearing that the insurers will only provide insurance coverage information to the IRS:

In reality, the IRS is just supposed to verify that people have health coverage -- which means collecting records from employers and insurers, but not doctors.

And in September, then-IRS Acting Commissioner Steven Miller testified at a House hearing that the agency will verify insurance coverage, but nothing more. "It is important to note that the information that insurers provide to the IRS will show the fact of insurance coverage, and will not include any personal health information," he said in his prepared testimony. [Politico, 5/16/13]

Reuters: IRS Deputy Commissioner Steven Miller Testified Agency Will Not Audit Health Coverage. A September 11, 2012 Reuters article reported then-IRS Deputy Commissioner Steven Miller clarification of the agency's role in implementing the Affordable Care act to a subcommittee of the House Ways and Means Committee, pointing out that "[i]n most cases, taxpayers will file their tax returns reporting their health insurance coverage, and-or making a payment, and there will be no need for further interactions with the IRS":

The Internal Revenue Service on Tuesday assured congressional lawmakers that agents would play no role in enforcing the controversial requirement that Americans buy insurance under President Barack Obama's healthcare overhaul.

"IRS revenue agents will not be involved. There will not be audits," IRS Deputy Commissioner Steven Miller told a subcommittee of the tax-writing Ways and Means Committee in the Republican-controlled House of Representatives.

[...]

"In most cases, taxpayers will file their tax returns reporting their health insurance coverage, and-or making a payment, and there will be no need for further interactions with the IRS," Miller said. [Reuters, 9/11/12]

The New Republic: Idea That Obamacare Gives IRS Control Over Individuals' Health Care Is "Beyond Laughable." In a May 17 New Republic article, Jonathan Cohn called the idea that the Affordable Care Act would "meaningfully" expand the power of the IRS "beyond laughable." He highlighted the minor role that the agency would play in implementing the law and contrasted it with the agency's existing power:

[T]he notion that Obamacare meaningfully expands the power of the IRS, let alone that it will give its bureaucrats control over how people get medical care, is beyond laughable.

It's true that the IRS performs several of Obamacare's critical functions. Starting next year, the IRS will be distributing the tax credits that will make insurance affordable for millions of Americans. The IRS will also be responsible for enforcing the "personal responsibility requirement"--a.k.a., the individual mandate. To do that, it must figure out who has insurance, and then, under certain circumstances, impose a tax penalty on people who do not.

[...]

The medical privacy nightmare is a figment of the libertarian imagination. The IRS will never see an actual medical record, let alone meddle with decision-making by doctors and hospitals. The agency will deal entirely with financial matters--how much money you make and whether you have insurance.

[...]

[I]f you're worried about the IRS discriminating against individuals, selective application of a modest, non-enforceable tax penalty seems like a trivial matter given the other options the agency has at its disposal. After all, the IRS has the power to conduct audits, which can be brutal, and dial income tax penalties way up or down. [The New Republic, 5/17/13]

Media Hardly Notice Deficit Drop

Thu, 16 May 2013 12:39:16 EDT

Following months of media calls for deficit reduction, cable news channels spent just over 7 minutes reporting on a revised Congressional Budget Office (CBO) projection that the 2013 deficit will decline by more than previous estimates. Broadcast network news evening shows did not cover the new report.

CBO Announces New Report: Deficit Projections Lower For 2013

CBO: "The Budget Deficit Will Shrink This Year To $642 Billion." According to the Congressional Budget Office's most recent analysis, assuming current law remains unchanged, "the budget deficit will shrink this year to $642 billion ... the smallest shortfall since 2008":

If the current laws that govern federal taxes and spending do not change, the budget deficit will shrink this year to $642 billion, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimates, the smallest shortfall since 2008. Relative to the size of the economy, the deficit this year--at 4.0 percent of gross domestic product (GDP)--will be less than half as large as the shortfall in 2009, which was 10.1 percent of GDP. Because revenues, under current law, are projected to rise more rapidly than spending in the next two years, deficits in CBO's baseline projections continue to shrink, falling to 2.1 percent of GDP by 2015. [Congressional Budget Office, May 2013]

Wonkblog: CBO Has "Cut Their Prediction For 2013 Deficits By More Than $200 Billion." At The Washington Post's Wonkblog, Ezra Klein explained that the new CBO report cuts previous predictions of the 2013 deficit by more than $200 billion:

Washington's most powerful budget nerds have cut their prediction for 2013 deficits by more than $200 billion. They've cut their projections for our deficits over the next decade by more than $600 billion. Add it all up and our 10-year deficits are looking downright manageable. [The Washington Post, Wonkblog, 5/14/13]

Media Largely Ignores CBO's Lowered Deficit Projection

Network And Cable News Largely Ignore CBO's Revised Projection Of Lower Deficits. According to a Media Matters analysis, the May 15 ABC, CBS, and NBC evening news programs did not cover the CBO's announcement that deficits are projected to shrink more than previously estimated. On cable news, CNN devoted less than one minute to the announcement, while Fox News devoted 1 minute 44 seconds of coverage. MSNBC covered the announcement the most, with 4 minutes and 53 seconds of coverage.

Previously, Media Focused On Deficit Reduction More Than Other Economic Issues

In April News Coverage, Calls For Deficit Reduction Beat Out Mentions Of Other Economic Issues. A Media Matters analysis of economic news coverage in the month of April found that media continued their long-established focus on deficit reduction. In 45 of 123 total segments discussing policy impacts on the economy, guests or hosts on network and cable news advocated for deficit reduction as a priority. Calls for deficit reduction beat out mentions of other economic issues, most notably the need for economic growth and job creation, and economic inequality.

[Media Matters for America, 5/14/13]

In April Economic Coverage, Calls For Deficit Reduction Made Up Significant Portion Of Economic Coverage. A Media Matters analysis of economic news coverage in the month of April found that with the exception of CBS News, cable and network news organizations all devoted a significant amount of coverage to calls for deficit reduction. ABC News devoted the most, with a vast majority of their economic coverage focusing on deficit reduction.

Falling Deficits Absent From Segments Calling For Deficit Reduction. While 45 segments on the economy in April discussed the need for deficit reduction, only four total segments mentioned previous CBO estimates that deficits are projected to fall in coming years.

[Media Matters for America, 5/14/13]

Methodology

For the mentions of the May 2013 CBO report on revised deficit projections, Media Matters reviewed closed captioning transcripts and internal video archives for May 15, 2013, from 6 a.m. to midnight for MSNBC, CNN, and Fox News, and the evening news broadcasts of NBC, CBS, and ABC News. We identified and reviewed all mentions of the word "deficit," and included any discussion of the CBO report.

For the review of deficit reduction as a percentage of total economic coverage, Media Matters conducted a Nexis search of transcripts of evening (defined as 5 p.m. through 11 p.m.) programs on CNN, Fox News, MSNBC, and network broadcast news from April 1 through April 30. We identified and reviewed all segments that included any of the following keywords: econom!, jobs, growth, debt, and deficit. When transcripts were incomplete, we reviewed video.

The following programs were included in the data: World News with Diane Sawyer, This Week with George Stephanopoulos, Evening News (CBS), Face the Nation, Nightly News with Brian Williams, Meet the Press with David Gregory, Fox News Sunday, The Situation Room, Erin Burnett OutFront, Anderson Cooper 360, Piers Morgan Live, The Five, Special Report with Bret Baier, The O'Reilly Factor, Hannity, On the Record with Greta Van Susteren, Hardball with Chris Matthews, Politics Nation with Al Sharpton, All In with Chris Hayes, The Rachel Maddow Show, and The Last Word with Lawrence O'Donnell. For shows that air re-runs (such as Anderson Cooper 360 and Hardball with Chris Matthews), only the first airing was included in data retrieval.

Media Matters only included segments that had substantial discussion of policy implications on the macroeconomy. We did not include teasers or clips of news events, and re-broadcasts of news packages that were already counted on their initial broadcast in the 5p.m.-11p.m. window.

We define segments that call for deficit reduction as a priority as those where either the host or guest mentions deficit and debt reduction as a pressing need.

REPORT: Fox News Spent One Minute Covering Marriage Equality In Three States

Wed, 15 May 2013 12:10:37 EDT

Fox News spent one minute covering the historic legalization of same-sex marriage in Rhode Island, Delaware, and Minnesota over the past several weeks. According to an Equality Matters analysis, the network completely ignored the passage of marriage equality legislation in Delaware and made only passing mentions of Rhode Island and Minnesota's new marriage laws.

Analysis: Fox News Underreported The Passage Of Marriage Equality In Three States

Fox News Made Just Three Mentions Of The Passage Of Marriage Equality In Rhode Island, Delaware, And Minnesota. According to an Equality Matters analysis, Fox News mentioned the marriage equality victories in Rhode Island, Delaware, and Minnesota a total of three times. CNN and MSNBC made 13 and 35 mentions of the stories, respectively:

Fox News Mentioned Rhode Island's Marriage Equality Law Only Once. Fox News dedicated just sixteen seconds to covering Rhode Island's marriage equality legislation during the May 1 edition of Fox Report with Shepard Smith. CNN and MSNBC spent about one minute and 10 minutes covering the story, respectively:

Fox News Ignored The Passage Of Marriage Equality In Delaware. No Fox News program mentioned the passage of marriage equality legislation in Delaware. Both CNN and MSNBC covered the story:

Fox News Mentioned Minnesota's Marriage Equality Law Twice. Fox News devoted 44 [seconds to covering Minnesota's marriage equality legislation during two mentions on the May 14 editions of Special Report with Bret Baier and Fox Report with Shepard Smith. CNN and MSNBC spent about two and 37 minutes covering the story, respectively:

The Bulk Of MSNBC's Minnesota Coverage Came From Multiple Segments During The May 12 Edition Of Up with Steve Kornacki, Which Devoted More Than 20 Minutes To The Story.

Methodology

Equality Matters searched news transcripts provided by TV Eyes and internal TV databases for any mention of the passage of marriage equality legislation in Rhode Island, Delaware, and Minnesota.

For Rhode Island, which approved marriage equality on May 2, we searched for the terms "Rhode," "island," and "marriage" between May 1 and May 3.

For Delaware, which approved marriage equality on May 7, we searched for the terms "Delaware" and "marriage" between May 6 and May 8.

For Minnesota, which passed its marriage equality measure through the House on May 9 and signed the measure into law on May 14, we searched for the terms "Minnesota" and "marriage" between May 8 and 12:00 p.m. on May 15.

Reruns and teases for upcoming segments were excluded.

Gosnell Conviction Revives False Abortion Analogies

Tue, 14 May 2013 01:43:33 EDT

Since Kermit Gosnell's conviction of the murder of three infants, right-wing media have dismissed existing laws and the context of Gosnell's case as part of their ongoing campaign to connect his horrific crimes to legal abortion procedures.

Gosnell Was Convicted Of Three Counts Of First-Degree Murder

CNN: Gosnell Was Found Guilty Of Three Counts Of First-Degree Murder. CNN reported:

A Philadelphia abortion provider who killed babies by cutting their spinal cords with scissors was found guilty of first-degree murder on Monday.

The conviction on three counts of first-degree murder means Dr. Kermit Gosnell, 72, could be sentenced to death. [CNN.com, 5/14/13]

Right-Wing Media Equate Gosnell's Crimes To Legal Abortion

Fox's Kimberly Guilfoyle: You Can't Listen To This "And Not Rethink Abortion." On May 13, The Five co-host Kimberly Guilfoyle said that the Gosnell case would force people to "rethink abortion":

BOB BECKEL (co-host): Do you think this reignites the issue of right to life versus abortion as a public policy issue?

GUILFOYLE: Bob, great question. I think it does. It puts a spotlight on it. It brings it into the forefront of discussion and especially the media outlets that were brave enough to cover it like Fox News has been. Because you can't have sat in that courtroom, heard the evidence, listened to this and what happened to these babies and not rethink abortion and choice and all of it. [Fox News, The Five, 5/13/13]

The Washington Post's Jennifer Rubin: "Gosnell Verdict Will Force A Rethinking About Abortion." The Washington Post's Jennifer Rubin suggested in her Right Turn blog that the "implications" for legal abortion in the wake of Gosnell's case "are now unavoidable." She added:

In pulling back the curtain on a practice many Americans consider barbaric, the Gosnell trial will, I believe, have long-term implications for the abortion debate. It's about time. [The Washington Post, Right Turn, 5/13/13]

National Review Online: "Gosnell's Murders Are Not An Aberrant Abuse Of The Abortion License But An Inevitable Result Of It." From a National Review Online May 13 editorial:

Gosnell's human abattoir is the logical endpoint of our morally fraudulent national approach to abortion, the proponents of which maintain that they wish the procedure to remain "safe, legal, and rare," in Bill Clinton's cynically triangulating formulation, while at the same time resisting any and all restrictions upon the procedure. Gosnell's murders are not an aberrant abuse of the abortion license but an inevitable result of it.

[...]

We may be disgusted and horrified by Kermit Gosnell, but we should not be shocked by his crimes. Thanks to the misguided social entrepreneurship of the Supreme Court, abortion is protected as a constitutional absolute, and late-term abortions, grisly as they are, enjoy substantial protection as well. What that looks like in practice is Gosnell's slaughterhouse. We should not pretend that this evil does not extend past the Philadelphia city limits. If you would have an unlimited abortion franchise, then you will have all that goes with it, including the pitiless knife of Kermit Gosnell. [National Review Online, 5/13/13]

Gosnell's Crimes Bear No Resemblance To Safe And Legal Abortions

Philadelphia Grand Jury: Breaking The Law Was Gosnell's "Competitive Edge." The grand jury in Gosnell's case found that "Gosnell's approach was simple: keep volume high, expenses low - and break the law. That was his competitive edge." The grand jury report elaborated:

Pennsylvania, like other states, permits legal abortion within a regulatory framework. Physicians must, for example, provide counseling about the nature of the procedure. Minors must have parental or judicial consent. All women must wait 24 hours after first visiting the facility, in order to fully consider their decision. Gosnell's compliance with such requirements was casual at best. At the Women's Medical Society, the only question that really mattered was whether you had the cash. Too young? No problem. Didn't want to wait? Gosnell provided same-day service. [Gosnell Grand Jury Report, 1/14/11]

Dr. Tracy Weitz: Gosnell's Actions Have Nothing To Do With "The Way In Which Later Abortion Procedures Are Performed In The United States." University of California reproductive health professor Dr. Tracy Weitz pointed out that the procedures Gosnell was accused of performing have "nothing to do with the way in which the standard of care and later abortion procedures are performed in the United States," and that his actions are "nowhere in the medical literature." [The Washington Examiner via Media Matters, 4/17/13]

The "Overwhelming Majority" Of Abortions In The U.S. Are Safe, Early In Pregnancy

Guttmacher Institute: "The Overwhelming Majority Of Abortions In The United States ... Are In The First Trimester." A Guttmacher Institute report stated that "[t]he overwhelming majority of abortions in the United States, 88% in 2006, are in the first trimester, occurring at or before the 12th week of pregnancy." [Guttmacher Institute, 12/16/11]

Guttmacher Institute: Most States Prohibit Abortion After Viability. According to the Guttmacher Institute, the vast majority of states prohibit abortions after a fetus reaches "viability," except primarily in cases when the procedure is "necessary to protect the woman's life or health." [Guttmacher Institute, 5/1/13]

RH Reality Check's Amanda Marcotte: Third Trimester Abortions Are About 1 Percent Of All Abortions Performed. RH Reality Check reported that drawing attention to late-term abortion is a longstanding tactic of the anti-choice movement:

Third trimester abortions are about 1% of all abortions performed, and frankly, the anti-choice movement only focuses on them because they are especially disgusting, and therefore make a good cudgel to attack all abortion rights. And since they are so emotionally fraught, they have a great deal of appeal to the ghouls that populate the anti-choice movement, the ones who spend obscene percentages of their lives dwellling on graphic pictures of dead fetuses. [RH Reality Check, 6/8/09]

Gratuitous Restrictions To Abortion Can Push Women Toward Unsafe Procedures

American Journal Of Public Health: Access Barriers To Abortion Push Women Toward Unsafe And Unlawful Operations. According to a study published in the American Journal of Public Health:

Several studies indicate that the factors causing women to delay abortions until the second trimester include cost and access barriers, late detection of pregnancy, and difficulty deciding whether to continue the pregnancy. In part because of their increased vulnerability to these barriers, low-income women and women of color are more likely than are other women to have second-trimester abortions. [American Journal of Public Health, April 2009]

Salon's Irin Carmon: "The Abortion Rate Is Higher In Countries Where It's Illegal." Salon's Irin Carmon wrote that "[t]he abortion rate is higher in countries where it's illegal, and around 47,000 women die every year from unsafe abortions in clinics that likely look a lot like Gosnell's." [Salon, 4/17/13]

Gynuity Health Projects: "Legal Induced Abortion Is Markedly Safer Than Childbirth." A 2012 study found that women face fewer complications during legal abortion procedures than during childbirth: 0.6 deaths per 100,000 abortions compared to 8.8 deaths per 100,000 live births. [Gynuity Health Projects, February 2012]

Major Newspapers Whitewash Obama's "Act Of Terror" Assertion

Tue, 14 May 2013 01:17:06 EDT

The New York Times, The Washington Post, and The Wall Street Journal provided incomplete reporting of GOP criticism that President Obama downplayed the role of terrorism in the attacks on a U.S. diplomatic compound in Benghazi, Libya. None of these newspapers provided their readers with Obama's actual comments labeling the attacks an "act of terror," thereby giving undue weight to Republican attacks.

Obama: "I Acknowledged That This Was An Act Of Terrorism"

Obama Reminds Press Of His Initial Comments On Benghazi. After Associated Press reporter Julie Pace asked President Obama at a May 13 press conference if he stood by his administration's assertions "that the [Benghazi] talking points were not purposely changed to downplay the prospects of terrorism," Obama responded by noting he referred to Benghazi as an "act of terrorism" the day after the attacks [emphasis added]:

OBAMA: With respect to Benghazi, we've now seen this argument that's been made by some folks primarily up on Capitol Hill for months now. And I've just got to say -- here's what we know. Americans died in Benghazi. What we also know is clearly they were not in a position where they were adequately protected. The day after it happened, I acknowledged that this was an act of terrorism. And what I pledged to the American people was that we would find out what happened, we would make sure that it did not happen again, and we would make sure that we held accountable those who had perpetrated this terrible crime. [WhiteHouse.gov, 5/13/13]

Media Run With GOP Critique But Don't Report Obama's Comments That Address GOP Critique

NYT: Republicans Accused Obama Administration Of Trying To "Cover Up The Fact That The Benghazi Attacks Were Linked To Terrorism." The New York Times' report on President Obama's May 13 remarks ignored Obama's comments during the press conference that he referred to an act of terror following the attacks, and instead highlighted Republican claim that the administration sought to downplay terrorism. From The New York Times:

Responding to Republican accusations that the administration had tried to cover up the fact that the Benghazi attacks were linked to terrorism, Mr. Obama noted that he sent the head of the National Counterterrorism Center to brief lawmakers three days after Susan Rice, the ambassador to the United Nations, appeared on Sunday-morning talk shows.

"Who executes some sort of cover-up or effort to tamp things down for three days?" he said. "This whole thing defies logic." [The New York Times, 5/13/13]

Wash. Post: Republicans Say Editing Of Talking Points Is "Evidence That Obama Sought To Downplay" Link To Terrorism In Benghazi Attacks. From The Washington Post's report on President Obama's May 13 press conference:

The final version did not include earlier references to a specific terrorist group involved in the attacks, an omission Congressional Republicans have pointed to as evidence that Obama sought to downplay the link during a then-close presidential race.

"The whole issue of talking points throughout this process has been a side show," Obama said Monday. "Suddenly three days ago this gets spun up as if there is something new to the story. There's no there there."

Obama continued, "The whole thing defies logic, and the fact that this keeps getting churned out frankly has a lot to do with political motivations." [The Washington Post, 5/13/13]

WSJ: Republicans "Charge The Administration Withheld The Truth About The Assault Because It Showed Terrorism Remained A Threat." From a Wall Street Journal article on President Obama's May 13 press conference:

Congressional Republicans are seeking to make more headway on the investigation into the Sept. 11, 2012, assault on U.S. posts in Benghazi, which claimed the life of U.S. Ambassador Christopher Stevens.

They charge the administration withheld the truth about the assault because it showed terrorism remained a threat, counter to a key message in Mr. Obama's re-election campaign last year.

The investigation gained new momentum last week when longtime diplomat Gregory Hicks, the second-ranking official in the U.S. embassy in Tripoli during the attack, gave a detailed narrative to a congressional committee. [The Wall Street Journal, 5/13/13]

Obama Repeatedly Called Benghazi An "Act Of Terror" In The Days Following The Attacks

Sept. 12: Obama Said Of Benghazi: "No Acts Of Terror Will Ever Shake The Resolve Of This Great Nation." On September 12, the day after the attack on the U.S. diplomatic facility in Benghazi which resulted in the deaths of four Americans, President Obama gave a speech in the Rose Garden. He said, "No acts of terror will ever shake the resolve of this great nation, alter that character, or eclipse the light of the values that we stand for. Today we mourn four more Americans who represent the very best of the United States of America. We will not waver in our commitment to see that justice is done for this terrible act. And make no mistake, justice will be done." [WhiteHouse.gov, 9/12/12]

Sept. 12: In Nevada, Obama Said Of Benghazi: "No Act Of Terror Will Dim The Light" Of American Values. Later on September 12, Obama again labeled the Benghazi attacks an "act of terror." He told a crowd in Las Vegas, Nevada, "As for the ones we lost last night: I want to assure you, we will bring their killers to justice. And we want to send a message all around the world -- anybody who would do us harm: No act of terror will dim the light of the values that we proudly shine on the rest of the world, and no act of violence will shake the resolve of the United States of America." [WhiteHouse.gov, 9/12/12]

Sept. 13: Obama Again Referred To The Benghazi Attack As An "Act Of Terror" In Colorado. Campaigning in Golden, Colorado, on September 13, Obama again classified the Benghazi attack as an "act of terror." He told the crowd, "So what I want all of you to know is that we are going to bring those who killed our fellow Americans to justice. I want people around the world to hear me: To all those who would do us harm, no act of terror will go unpunished." [WhiteHouse.gov, 9/13/12]

REPORT: How Network And Cable News Covered Economic Issues In 7 Charts

Tue, 14 May 2013 08:48:59 EDT

Evening news coverage throughout April touched upon several economic issues, including income inequality, deficit reduction, and entitlement cuts. A Media Matters analysis of this coverage reveals that many of these segments lacked proper context or necessary input from economists, while some networks ignored certain issues entirely.

Economic Inequality Largely Unmentioned

Economic Inequality Mentioned In Only 12 Segments. Of the total 123 segments discussing policy effects on the economy, only 12 -- slightly less than 10 percent of economic news coverage -- mentioned income and wealth inequality and current policy's disproportionate impact on low-income earners.

MSNBC Led All Networks In Inequality Coverage. MSNBC devoted about 25 percent of its economic coverage to discussing the disparity between the rich and poor, leading the coverage of news networks on the issue. CNN devoted about 10 percent of its coverage to economic inequality, and Fox News devoted 4 percent. ABC, CBS, and NBC provided no mentions of inequality.

Deficit Reduction Still In Spotlight

Calls For Deficit Reduction Outnumber Calls For Economic Growth. Of the total 123 segments discussing the economy, 35 mentioned that economic growth and job creation are a priority, while 45 discussed the need for cutting government spending to reduce the deficit.

Fox News Most Vocal In Calls For Deficit Reduction. When mentions of economic priorities are broken down by network, it is clear that Fox News' coverage drives talk of deficit reduction. The network had the largest disparity in calls for deficit reduction over economic growth, mentioning it 30 times in the period analyzed.

Falling Deficits Absent From Segments Calling For Deficit Reduction. While 45 segments on the economy discussed the need for deficit reduction, only four total segments mentioned that deficits are projected to fall in coming years.

Supposed Need For Entitlement Cuts In Focus

Rising Healthcare Costs -- The Main Driver Of Deficits -- Overshadowed By Calls For Entitlement Cuts. A total of 27 segments focused on the perceived need for entitlement cuts, while zero noted that the main driver of long-term entitlement costs are largely due to rising healthcare costs.

Economists Still Underrepresented In Coverage

Economists Account For Four Percent Of Guests. Of the total 196 guests brought on to talk about the economy, only eight were identified as economists. Political guests and journalists accounted for the majority of guests, with 75 guests from each group.

Methodology

Media Matters conducted a Nexis search of transcripts of evening (defined as 5 p.m. through 11 p.m.) programs on CNN, Fox News, MSNBC, and network broadcast news from April 1 through April 30. We identified and reviewed all segments that included any of the following keywords: econom!, jobs, growth, debt, and deficit. When transcripts were incomplete, we reviewed video.

The following programs were included in the data: World News with Diane Sawyer, This Week with George Stephanopoulos, Evening News (CBS), Face the Nation, Nightly News with Brian Williams, Meet the Press with David Gregory, Fox News Sunday, The Situation Room, Erin Burnett OutFront, Anderson Cooper 360, Piers Morgan Live, The Five, Special Report with Bret Baier, The O'Reilly Factor, Hannity, On the Record with Greta Van Susteren, Hardball with Chris Matthews, Politics Nation with Al Sharpton, All In with Chris Hayes, The Rachel Maddow Show, and The Last Word with Lawrence O'Donnell. For shows that air re-runs (such as Anderson Cooper 360 and Hardball with Chris Matthews), only the first airing was included in data retrieval.

We defined segments that discuss economic inequality as those which mention the disparity in economic gains between high- and low-income individuals, including disproportionate effects of sequestration.

We define segments that call for deficit reduction as a priority as those where either the host or guest mentions deficit and debt reduction as a pressing need.

We define segments that call for economic growth as a priority as those where either the host or guest mentions economic growth and job creation as pressing needs.

We define segments that call for entitlement cuts as those where either the guest or host mentions the need for benefit cuts to Social Security, Medicare, or Medicaid.

We counted all guests that appeared in relevant segments, using bios, profiles, resumes, and news stories available online to determine as best we could each guest's educational background and professional experience.

We defined an economist as someone who either holds an advanced degree in economics or has served as an economics professor at the college or university level. In cases where it was unclear whether or not the guest held an advanced degree, they were classified in the next most descriptive cohort.

Media Matters defined a political guest as any former or current elected government official or political appointee, any political strategist, or any former or current political party official (such as former Republican National Committee Chair Michael Steele).

We defined a journalist as a guest whose main profession is associated with a media outlet, such as contributors, correspondents, or columnists.

Todd Starnes' 5 Fake "Culture Wars"

Mon, 13 May 2013 01:00:01 EDT

Fox News reporter Todd Starnes claims to offer "culture war news," but several of his recent stories have turned out to be false or misleading.

Starnes' Story: Military Undergoing "Christian Cleansing" Under Obama

Starnes' Story: Lesbian Role Play At Middle School

Starnes' Story: Pentagon Blocks Access To Southern Baptist Website

Starnes' Story: Track Team Disqualified For Praising God

Starnes' Story: "Saudi National" Involved In Boston Bombing

Starnes' Story: Military Undergoing "Christian Cleansing" Under Obama

Starnes: Christians "Under Significant Attack" By Obama Administration. Discussing the military's anti-proselytization policy, Starnes said that Christians were "under significant attack" by the Obama administration, under which "we have seen a Christian cleansing of the United States military." [Fox News, Hannity, 5/3/13, via Media Matters]

Fact: Military's Anti-Proselytization Policy Is Longstanding, Applies To All Religions. Pentagon spokesman Navy Lt. Cmdr. Nate Christensen told a Tennessee newspaper that there is a difference between evangelization, which is permitted, and proselytization, which is not:

"Service members can share their faith (evangelize), but must not force unwanted, intrusive attempts to convert others of any faith or no faith to one's beliefs (proselytization)," said Navy Lt. Cmdr. Nate Christensen, a Pentagon spokesman, in an email.

"If a service member harasses another member on the basis of race, color, sex, religion, national origin, age, or disability, then the commander takes action based on the gravity of the occurrence. Likewise, when religious harassment complaints are reported, commanders take action based on the gravity of the occurrence on a case-by-case basis."

Christensen said there are no plans to single out evangelical Christians for punishment, despite claims of activists.

"The U.S. Department of Defense has never and will never single out a particular religious group for persecution or prosecution. The Department makes reasonable accommodations for all religions and celebrates the religious diversity of our service members," he said. [The Tennessean, 5/2/13]

Fact: Air Force Anti-Proselytization Policy Reflects That Of Military. Starnes also claimed that Air Force guidelines against proselytization conflicted with the military's policy. In fact, the Air Force merely clarified its guidelines for the treatment of religion consistent with Department of Defense policy, specifying that personnel "should confidently practice [their] own beliefs while respecting others whose viewpoints differ from [their] own." The guidelines specifically prohibit both discrimination against and preferential treatment toward any religion. [U.S. Air Force, Air Force Culture, 8/7/12]

Starnes' Story: Lesbian Role Play At Middle School

Starnes: "Angry Parents" Say Students "Were Instructed To Ask One Another For A Lesbian Kiss." Starnes highlighted claims of parents in a New York School district alleging various acts taking place during an anti-bullying presentation:

Young girls at a New York middle school were instructed to ask one another for a lesbian kiss and boys were given guidance on how to tell if women are sluts during an anti-bullying presentation on gender identity and sexual orientation, angry parents allege.

[...]

Parents are especially furious after their young daughters were told that it was perfectly normal for 14-year-old girls to have sex and there was nothing their parents could do to intervene.

The boys and girls were also given a sexual vocabulary primer - that included words like "pansexual" and "genderqueer."

"I am furious," said Mandy Coon, whose daughter was in the class. "I am her parent. Where does anyone get the right to tell her that it's okay for her to have sex?"

Coon told Fox News that her daughter was upset by the classroom lecture and was confused about why she had to ask another girl for a kiss.

"She told me, 'Mom, we all get teased and picked on enough - now I'm going to be called a lesbian because I had to ask another girl if I could kiss her,'" Coon said.

She said the school told her that the purpose of the lesson was to "teach girls boundaries and how to say no."

"They also picked two girls to stand in front of the class and pretend they were lesbians on a date," Coons said. [Fox News Radio, 4/18/13]

Fact: School District Says No "Lesbian Kissing" Occurred. The New York school district in which the purported incidents occurred stated that during the presentation -- which was designed to "encourage students to treat one another (and all marginalized groups) with more respect as well as to further develop an appreciation for personal dignity" -- "female students were not forced to engage in any lesbian kissing," "male students were not told to carry condoms," and "sexual activity among young adolescents was not condoned or promoted in any way":

During the week of April 9, eighth grade communication sessions were held at Linden Avenue Middle School. These sessions were designed by building leadership and the guidance department. The goals of these sessions were to encourage students to treat one another (and all marginalized groups) with more respect as well as to further develop an appreciation for personal dignity.

In response to parental concerns about these sessions Dr. Zahedi, the middle school principal, held an evening informational forum on April 16. This session was well attended and the subsequent feedback has been positive. In addition, the Board of Education and Superintendent of Schools, Paul Finch, addressed the community at the April 24 board meeting on the topic of these sessions. Here again, feedback from the community and students was overwhelmingly positive. [Red Hook Central Schools, accessed 5/9/13]

Fact: School District Asked Starnes To Correct His Article. Red Hook school superintendent Paul Finch sent an email to Starnes asking him to "update" his article with the "facts":

These sessions were designed by the building leadership in an effort to have eighth graders treat each other with respect and to develop in our young adolescents an appreciation for personal dignity. To suggest that we would condone or promote sexual activity among teenagers is absurd. It is equally absurd to suggest that an activity, designed to have young women feel more confident saying no to unwanted advances from boys, is in some way promoting a lesbian lifestyle. It is my understanding that the role playing activity is part of a program supported by conservatives such as Laura Bush.

The definitions given to students, while overly granular in my opinion, were put forth to make sure that students understand that all gender identities and/or sexual orientations are protected in law in New York State as part of an effort to curb harassment, discrimination, and bullying. It is our intent to adjust this document and be less granular in future lessons.

Please also know that the two college students who helped facilitate these sessions were guided and supervised by the principal and guidance counselors. They were not acting without direction. And, there is no evidence to suggest that they were inappropriately interacting with the students. Reports indicate the opposite is true. I have read both their written accounts of the sessions and written feedback from students. It was all very positive.

We acknowledge that better communication from the building leadership is necessary for future sessions of this nature. We pride ourselves in Red Hook on working with parents to do what is in the best interest of all the students. Having attended the parent information session last week, I can speak with absolute certainty that the parents present at the meeting appreciated the District's intent and left knowing that the middle school principal will adjust for any implementation weaknesses moving into the future.

Again, I hope you will update your article to more accurately reflect what actually occurred. [Red Hook Central Schools, accessed 5/9/13]

Starnes' Story: Pentagon Blocks Access To Southern Baptist Website

Starnes: Website Blockage Part Of "Religious Hostility Within The Pentagon." Starnes wrote that "The U.S. Military has blocked access to the Southern Baptist Convention's website on an unknown number of military bases because it contains 'hostile content.'" Starnes called the alleged action "censorship" and cited an official of a conservative group to portray the incident as an example of "religious hostility within the Pentagon." [Fox News Radio, 4/24/13]

Fact: Site Was Blocked Due To Malware. A Tennessee newspaper reported that the reason the Southern Baptist website was blocked was due to malware that could potentially harm computers that accessed the site:

Conservative Christian activists had accused the Defense Department of blocking www.SBC.net intentionally. They claim the military has become hostile to their view of faith.

But the culprit turned out to be more mundane.

Lt. Col. Damien Pickart, a Defense Department spokesman, said the military has software filters to ban pornography and gambling sites and to detect malware, malicious software that can harm other computers. One of those filters caught the malware on the Baptist site.

"The Department of Defense is not intentionally blocking access to this site," he said in an email. "The Department of Defense strongly supports the religious rights of service members, to include their ability to access religious websites like that of the SBC."

That malware has since been removed, said Pickart, and the Baptist site was unblocked Thursday afternoon. [The Tennessean, 4/26/13]

Starnes' Story: Track Team Disqualified For Praising God

Starnes: Student Was "Thanking The Lord For Winning The Race," Caused His Disqualification. Starnes wrote that a Texas high school track team was disqualified from a race after the anchor runner crossed the finished line and "raised his finger to the sky -- thanking the Lord for winning the race that would send them to the state finals":

Derrick Hayes, the anchor of the Columbus High School 4×100 relay team had just crossed the finish line when he raised his finger to the sky -- thanking the Lord for winning the race that would send them to the state finals.

But a judge with the University Interscholastic League, the governing body for high school athletics in Texas, ruled that the gesture was a violation of the taunting rule - and the Cardinals were stripped of their victory.

"I think it's a travesty," said K.C. Hayes, Derrick's dad. "It's a sad deal. Those kids worked hard." [Fox News Radio, 5/4/13]

Fact: Student Disqualified For Disrespectful Behavior Toward Meet Official. The University Interscholastic League (UIL), which governs extracurricular school activities in Texas, investigated the incident and found that the student "reacted disrespectfully" to a meet official's warning of a possible disqualification "should that behavior continue," and the student was disqualified based on that reaction:

Over the course of the investigation, the UIL interviewed several eyewitnesses and reviewed video of the race. Additionally, the UIL spoke to the involved parties. The UIL has concluded the investigation and has found no evidence to suggest that the disqualification took place as a result of the student-athlete expressing religious beliefs. The basis for the disqualification was due to the student-athlete behaving disrespectfully, in the opinion of the local meet referee.

Based on the UIL's investigation, the student athlete raised his hand and gestured forward at the conclusion of the 4x100-meter relay. The meet official approached the student-athlete in an effort to warn him of a possible disqualification should that behavior continue. In the opinion of the official, the student reacted disrespectfully. Based on his reaction, the student-athlete was subsequently disqualified. Any decision to disqualify a student-athlete at any track meet must be upheld by the head meet referee. The meet official and the meet referee conferred, and the disqualification was upheld on-site. At no point during the discussions surrounding the disqualification at the meet was the issue of religious expression raised by any parties. [University Interscholastic League, 5/6/13]

Fact: Student And His Parents Admitted Religious Rights Weren't Violated. The UIL also included statements from the student as well as his parents, in which they admitted the student's religious rights were not violated:

To assist the UIL in its investigation, the student-athlete's parents submitted a letter stating that their son's religious freedoms were not violated. "In looking back at the conclusion of the 4x100 race, we realize that Derrick could have handled the win in a different manner," KC and Stacey Hayes said in the letter. "It was not our intention to force the issue that our son's religious freedom was violated. Nor do we feel that way now. After discussing this with our son, we have come to the conclusion that his religious rights were not violated."

The student-athlete who was disqualified also submitted a letter during the investigation stating: "Although I am very thankful for all God has given me and blessed me with, on Saturday, April 27, 2013 at the Regional Track Meet in Kingsville, TX, my actions upon winning the 4x100 relay were strictly the thrill of victory. With this being said, I do not feel my religious rights or freedoms were violated." [University Interscholastic League, 5/6/13]

Starnes' Story: "Saudi National" Involved In Boston Bombing

Starnes: The "Saudi National" Detained After Bombing Was On Terrorist Watch List. Starnes wrote that "sources have told me" that Abdul Rahman Ali Alharbi, who had been briefly detained then cleared following the Boston Marathon bombings, "had been flagged on a terror watch list and was granted a student visa without being properly vetted," and that Alharbi "had been deemed inadmissible under the section of the Immigration and Nationality Act which declares ineligible for a visa -- any alien who is engaged in or is likely to engage after entry -- in terrorist activity." [Fox News Radio, 4/22/13, via Scribd]

Fact: Fox's Bret Baier Reported That Saudi National Was Never A "Person Of Interest" In Bombings. In a video on his Fox News blog, Special Report host Bret Baier stated that according to Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano, the Saudi national was briefly put on the federal no-fly list while he was being questioned by authorities, but that "he really was never a person of interest" and had been cleared of any wrongdoing. Baier added that when a person is placed on the no-fly list, a visa revocation process automatically begins, which was stopped when the Saudi national was removed from the list. [FoxNews.com, 4/23/13]

Starnes' Article Scrubbed From Website Without Explanation. After Starnes' article was promoted by The Blaze and the Drudge Report, it was removed from the Fox News Radio website. Neither Starnes nor Fox News gave any explanation for its removal. [ViralRead, 4/23/13]

REPORT: Diversity On Evening Cable News In 13 Charts

Mon, 13 May 2013 10:19:44 EDT

A review of guests on 13 evening cable news shows on CNN, Fox News, and MSNBC during the month of April 2013 reveals that these networks overwhelmingly host male and white guests.

Evening Cable News Guests Were Overwhelmingly White And Male

Men Dominated Guest List On Cable News. Out of 1,677 total guests, CNN had the largest proportion of men -- 76 percent -- during the month of April. Women did not make up more than 33 percent of guests on any network.

White Guests Hosted Most Often On Cable News. Fox News had the largest proportion of white guests -- 83 percent. African-Americans were the largest non-white group on all networks, representing 19 percent, 10 percent, and 5 percent of guests on MSNBC, Fox, and CNN, respectively.

Cable News Guests Were Largely White Men. According to the most recent U.S. Census data, white men make up only 31 percent of the U.S. population. On evening cable news, they represented a much larger percentage of guests -- 62 percent of guests on CNN, 60 percent on Fox, and 54 percent on MSNBC.

White Men Were Vastly Overrepresented On Cable News. While white men enjoyed representation on cable that was nearly double that of their representation in the U.S. population, white women, who represent 32 percent of the population, were only 21 percent of guests on cable. Non-white women fared even worse. While they make up 19 percent of the population, they were only 8 percent of all guests on cable. Non-white men were also underrepresented; only 13 percent of guests on cable were non-white men while they make up 18 percent of the population.

CNN's Guest Lineup Was Primarily White And Male

Erin Burnett Outfront Hosted The Smallest Proportion Of Women On CNN. Out of 109 on Outfront guests during the month of April, 81 percent were men. No evening show on CNN hosted women more than 29 percent of the time.

Piers Morgan Live Guest Lineup Was 91 Percent White. CNN's most ethnically diverse show was Outfront, which still hosted white guests 71 percent of the time. Similar to The Situation Room, the higher proportion of non-white guests on Outfront can be attributed in part to a couple of regular commentators: CNN correspondents Christiane Amanpour and Fareed Zakaria on The Situation Room and conservative political commentator Reihan Salam and political comedian Dean Obeidallah on Outfront.

White Men Dominated CNN's Evening News. Every evening CNN show studied hosted white men significantly more often than all other guests combined. Piers Morgan Live was the worst offender with 66 percent of its guest lineup being white men.

Fox News Hosted The Largest Proportion Of White Guests

On The Record Hosted The Smallest Proportion Of Women On Any Evening Cable News Show. Out of 128 On the Record guests in April, only 22 were women, representing the smallest proportion of women on any evening cable news show studied. The O'Reilly Factor and Hannity hosted women more often than On the Record or Special Report with Bret Baier; however, men still dominated guest lineups at 64 and 66 percent, respectively.

89 Percent Or More Of Guests On Three Fox News Evening Shows Were White. Special Report, The O'Reilly Factor, and On the Record all hosted white guests near or above 90 percent of the time -- Special Report had the largest proportion of white guests at 93 percent. Hannity's ethnic diversity was better in comparison; however, a large portion of that program's diversity came from a single episode when Hannity hosted 22 of its 58 non-white guests.

On The Record's Proportion Of White Men Larger Than Any Other Show Studied. On the Record hosted white men an astounding 77 percent of the time -- much more than twice the proportion of white men in U.S. Census data. Hannity was the only Fox show to host white men less than all other guests combined.

MSNBC Led Evening Cable In Diversity But Was Still Largely White And Male

MSNBC Overall Hosted More Women Than The Other Networks. All In with Chris Hayes and The Rachel Maddow Show had a higher proportion of women than any of the other programs included in this study. By contrast, Hardball with Chris Matthews hosted women only 21 percent of the time.

The Rachel Maddow Show Was Least Ethnically Diverse. Although The Rachel Maddow Show hosted fewer guests than other shows on MSNBC, those who were invited were most likely to be white. Out of 65 total guests, only 7 were non-white.

All In With Chris Hayes Was The Most Diverse Show In Evening Cable News. All In had both the largest proportion of women and the largest proportion of non-white guests -- both 41 percent. All In also had the lowest proportion of white men -- again 41 percent. Hayes' show was the only evening cable news program to obtain such diversity.

Methodology

Media Matters recorded all guests who appeared during evening cable news programming on CNN, Fox News, and MSNBC for the month of April 2013. We reviewed raw video of all news shows airing between 6 p.m. and 11 p.m., Monday through Friday.

While CNN's The Situation Room with Wolf Blitzer begins at 5 p.m., we only included guests appearing after 6 p.m. We included the 7 p.m. rebroadcast of MSNBC's Hardball with Chris Matthews instead of its initial 5 p.m. broadcast. We excluded Fox News' Fox Report with Shepard Smith since the show's format is primarily straight news with hardly any guests at all. This is in contrast to Special Report with Bret Baier, another Fox show that is primarily straight news, because Special Report has a regular guest panel at the end of every broadcast. MSNBC's The Last Word with Lawrence O'Donnell only airs Monday through Thursday; all other shows air Monday through Friday.

We did not count news correspondents providing updates to ongoing stories or presenting prerecorded news packages. We did not count any individuals briefly clipped during prerecorded news packages; however, we did count prerecorded interviewees as guests. Guests who appeared in multiple segments during a news show were only counted once for that show and date. Foreign nationals were excluded from the results.

For guests who appeared during a phone interview and were otherwise unidentifiable and for the few guests where we were unsure of ethnicity, we omitted them from the data.

Figures on population come from the U.S. Census population estimates, the most recent of which is July 2011.

Sunday Shows Rehash Debunked Benghazi Myths

Sun, 12 May 2013 05:01:00 EDT

Broadcast and cable Sunday political talk shows featured previously debunked myths about the September 11, 2012 attacks on diplomatic facilities in Benghazi, Libya.

Were Benghazi Talking Points Edited For Political Purposes?

Was President Obama Engaged During The Attacks?

Was The Military's Response To The Attacks Negligent?

MYTH: White House And State Department Edited References To Terrorism Out Of Talking Points For Political Purposes

Fox News' Dennis Kucinich: "Of Course" Talking Points Were "Politically Scrubbed." Fox News contributor Dennis Kucinich claimed that "of course" the talking points were edited for political reasons, because the attacks took place "on the eve of an election." From Fox Broadcasting Co.'s Fox News Sunday:

CHRIS WALLACE (HOST): Do you think those talking points were politically scrubbed?

KUCINICH: Of course they were, come on, are you kidding? You know, this is one of those things that you have to realize we're in the circumference of an election, and when you get on the eve of an election, everything becomes political. Unfortunately, Americans died and people who believe in America who put their lives on the line, they weren't provided with protection. They weren't provided with a response. They and their families had a right to make sure that they were defended. Look, we went into Benghazi with -- under the assumption that somehow there was going to be a massacre in Benghazi. So we went there to protect the Libyan people. We couldn't go in to Benghazi to protect our own Americans who were serving there? I'm offended by this, and there has to be real answers to the questions that are being raised. [Fox Broadcasting Co., Fox News Sunday, 11/16/12]

President Obama Had Already Referred To The Attacks As An Act Of Terror. On September 12, President Obama referred to the attacks as an act of terror when he spoke from the White House Rose Garden. One day later, Obama again referred to acts of terror at a campaign event. These comments undermine the myth that edits to a document that were made on September 14, after Obama had already labeled the attack an act of terror, demonstrate that the administration was trying to downplay the role that terrorism played. [Media Matters for America, 5/10/13]

MYTH: President Was "Absent" During Attack

Fox News' Bill Kristol: President Was "Absent The Whole Night Of The Crisis." Fox News contributor and Weekly Standard editor Bill Kristol claimed President Obama was "absent the whole night of the crisis" during an appearance on Fox News Sunday. [Fox Broadcasting Co., Fox News Sunday, 5/12/13]

FACT: Military Leaders Testified That Obama Was Fully Engaged Throughout The Attack

Former Defense Secretary Leon Panetta Testified That The President Was In Contact And "Well-Informed" During The Attack. Then-Defense Secretary Leon Panetta testified during a February 7 congressional hearing that he had personally spoken to President Obama following the initial attack and that the White House was in contact with military officials and keeping the president "well-informed" throughout the attacks. [Media Matters, 2/7/13]

Gen. Martin Dempsey: Obama's Staff "Was Engaged With The National Military Command Center Pretty Constantly" Throughout The Attack. Dempsey testified during a February 7 congressional hearing that the president's staff was engaged with the military command center constantly during the attack, "which is the way it would normally work" (emphasis added):

SEN. KELLY AYOTTE (R-NH): But just to be clear, that night he didn't ask you what assets we had available and how quickly they could respond and how quickly we could help those people there -

PANETTA: No. I think the biggest problem that night, Senator, is that nobody knew really what was going on there.

AYOTTE: And there was no follow up during the night, at least from the White House directly?

PANETTA: No. No, there wasn't.

DEMPSEY: I would, if I could just, to correct one thing. I wouldn't say there was no follow-up from the White House. There was no follow-up, to my knowledge, with the president. But his staff was engaged with the national military command center pretty constantly through the period, which is the way it would normally work.

AYOTTE: But no direct communication from him?

DEMPSEY: Not on my part, no. [C-SPAN, 2/7/13, via Media Matters]

Huffington Post: "The President Told Them To Deploy Forces As Quickly As Possible." The Huffington Post reported that Panetta and Dempsey were meeting with President Obama when they learned of the attack and the president responded immediately:

Several committee Republicans pressed Panetta and Dempsey about their discussions with President Barack Obama on that fateful day and his level of involvement, suggesting that after the initial conversation the commander in chief was disengaged as Americans died.

Panetta said he and Dempsey were meeting with Obama when they first learned of the Libya assault. He said the president told them to deploy forces as quickly as possible. [The Huffington Post, 2/7/13]

MYTH: The Military's Response To Benghazi Was Negligent

ABC's Martha Raddatz Suggested Military Could Have Sent More Troops To Benghazi. Martha Raddatz cited the testimony of Gregory Hicks, deputy chief of mission in Libya at the time of the attacks, to suggest that, contrary to the claims of the military, more military assets might have been available to repel the attack. She did not dispute guest Sen. John McCain's claims that the military could have moved assets in the region in time. From ABC's This Week:

RADDATZ: Just quickly I want to go back to the testimony of Gregory Hicks. And he talked about bringing military assets in, bringing planes in. The military says that wasn't possible. Do you agree with the fact that it wasn't possible?

JOHN MCCAIN: I cannot find, I find it impossible to comprehend why on September 11^th, the day we all know is so important, when there have been numerous warnings about the security at that consulate, that we didn't have forces that were capable of doing so. And over a seven and a half hour period, with all the assets we have in the region, we couldn't have an F-16 at low altitude fly over those people who were attacking our consulate? And another question is, why weren't there forces capable of going to defend that consulate? [ABC News, This Week, 5/12/13]

FACT: Additional Forces Would Not Have Been Able To Get To Benghazi Before The Second Attack Was Concluded

Additional Reinforcements Would Not Have Been Able To Get To Benghazi Before The Second Attack Was Concluded. Transcripts of an interview Gregory Hicks gave to congressional investigators show that he while he said that a team of Special Forces had been told not to travel from Tripoli to aid U.S. personnel in Benghazi, the flight these Special Forces were scheduled to take, but did not, was scheduled to take off after 6:00 a.m., local time -- approximately 45 minutes after the attack at the CIA annex that killed two people. Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R-UT), a member of the House Oversight Committee who has actively pursued investigations into the Benghazi attacks, also told The Washington Post that the Special Forces team that Hicks was referring to "would have arrived after the attack." [Media Matters, 5/7/13; The Washington Post, 5/6/13]

Decision To Not Send Second Force Was Made By The Head Of The Military's Africa Command, Who Was Concerned About Embassy Security In Tripoli. Diplomats on the ground the night of the attacks were concerned about threats to the Tripoli embassy complex, and a Pentagon spokesperson confirmed that the assessment of Special Operations Command Africa leadership at the time was that "it was more important for those guys to be in Tripoli" for embassy security. [Media Matters, 5/09/13]

Pentagon: Fighters Would Not Have Been Able To Get To Benghazi Due To Lack Of Fuel Tanker Support. Top military officials have said that fighter planes in the area could not have reached Benghazi because they lacked necessary refueling tankers. From Wired.com:

Dempsey and other top Pentagon officials have previously testified that they could not get commandos or fighter planes into Benghazi in time to save the lives of Amb. Christopher Stevens and three other Americans. There was an unarmed surveillance drone over Benghazi, but Air Force fighters in Italy's Aviano air base lacked refueling tankers to allow them to get to the scene. Special-operations teams in the U.S. and Croatia were initially told to prepare for Benghazi, for a possible hostage-rescue mission, but they ultimately didn't get closer than a staging base in Europe before the attacks ended. [Wired.com, 5/8/13, via Media Matters]

The Truth About The Right's Latest Benghazi Attacks

Sat, 11 May 2013 07:47:21 EDT

In coverage of a May 8 House Oversight Committee hearing, conservatives are pushing new myths about the Obama administration's response to the attacks on a U.S. diplomatic facility in Benghazi, Libya. Here is the truth about what really happened.

Exposing The Myths Behind The Right-Wing's Trumped Up Benghazi "Cover Up"

MYTH: The White House And State Department Edited References To Terrorism Out Of Talking Points For Political Purposes

FACT: The CIA Signed Off On The Changes For Tactical, Not Political Reasons. Gen. David Petraeus, former head of the CIA, testified in November that the intelligence community signed off on the final draft of the talking points, and that references to terrorist groups in Libya were removed in order to avoid tipping off those groups. [The New York Times, 11/16/12]

FACT: President Obama Had Already Referred To The Attacks As An Act Of Terror. On September 12, President Obama referred to the attacks as an act of terror when he spoke from the White House Rose Garden. One day later, Obama again referred to acts of terror at a campaign event. These comments undermine the myth that edits to a document that were made on September 14, after Obama had already labeled the attack an act of terror, demonstrate that the administration was trying to downplay the role that terrorism played. [Media Matters for America, 5/10/13]

MYTH: Benghazi Whistleblower Gregory Hicks Is Being Prohibited From Talking To Investigators And Members Of Congress

FACT: Hicks Was Interviewed Twice As Part Of The State Department's Independent Internal Investigation. After Gregory Hicks sat down for an initial interview with the State Department's Accountability Review Board, he asked for a follow-up interview to expand on issues that he felt needed amplification. And he was granted one. [Media Matters for America, 5/9/13]

FACT: Hicks Was Only Told He Was Not Allowed To Speak With A Member Of Congress Without A State Department Attorney Present. Following the attacks, Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R-UT) traveled to Libya, seeking to interview witnesses and survivor, including Hicks. Hicks testified that the State Department had instructed him not to speak to Chaffetz without a State attorney present -- a condition Hicks says was unusual, but which the State Department says is standard procedure. Hicks ended up speaking to Chaffetz without a State Department attorney present because, according to his testimony, the lawyer lacked the proper security clearance. [Media Matters for America, 5/9/13]

MYTH: Cheryl Mills Tried To Intimidate Hicks After His Meeting With Chaffetz

FACT: Hicks Admitted Mills Offered No Criticism Or Reprimand, Only That She Had Asked For A Report. While being questioned by Rep. Carolyn Maloney (D-NY), Hicks elaborated on a phone call from Cheryl Mills, at the time Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's chief-of-staff. Hicks made clear that he had received no direct criticism from Mills. It was the "tone of the conversation," he testified, that led him to believe Mills was unhappy with him. But MSBNC reported that Philippe Reines confirmed to them that he witnessed the conversation and that it was supportive. [Media Matters for America, 5/11/13; MSNBC.com, 5/8/13]

FACT: Congressional Republicans Are Falsely Framing The Phone Call As "Threatening." Rep. Jim Jordan (R-OH) repeatedly asked Hicks if Mills was "upset" with him during the phone call. Hicks answered in the affirmative. After Hicks finished describing his phone call with Mills, Jordan immediately characterized it as an act of retribution for not going along with the "cover-up." Rep. Ronald DeSantis (R-FL) told Hicks at one point that "we need to know who actually gave the order to stand down. I'd like to know why you've been demoted, why they -- the secretary's chief of staff called you and spoke with you the way she did." [Media Matters for America, 5/11/13]

MYTH: Hicks Is Being Punished For Speaking Out And Has Been Demoted And Received Criticism Of His Management Style

FACT: Hicks Testified That He Voluntarily Chose Not To Return To Libya And That The Overriding Reason Was Because Of His Family. During his testimony, Hicks said that "based on criticism that I received, I felt that if I went back, I would never be comfortable working there, and in addition, my family really didn't want me to go back. We had endured a year of separation when I was in Afghanistan in 2006 and 2007. That was the overriding factor. So I voluntarily curtailed." [House Oversight Committee Hearing, 5/8/13, via Nexis]

FACT: Embassy Staff Told ThinkProgress That People Were Upset With Hicks' Management Style Before The Attacks. State Department employees, who spoke to ThinkProgress on the condition of anonymity, said that the staff was upset with Hicks' performance since he was first assigned to Tripoli on July 31. Contrary to Hicks' claim that he was demoted out of retribution, the sources said that Assistant Secretary Jones' meetings with the staff prior to Oct. 2 were "entirely" focused on Hicks' performance as a manager. ["EXCLUSIVE: Embassy Staff Undercut 'Whistleblower' Testimony On Benghazi," ThinkProgress, 5/10/13]

MYTH: The White House Refused To Send A Second Team To Benghazi Because Of Political Motivations

FACT: The Decision Was Made By The Head Of The Military's Africa Command, Who Was Concerned About Embassy Security In Tripoli. Diplomats on the ground the night of the attacks were concerned about threats to the Tripoli embassy complex, and a Pentagon spokesperson confirmed that the assessment of Special Operations Command Africa leadership at the time was that "it was more important for those guys to be in Tripoli" for embassy security. [Media Matters for America, 5/09/13]

FACT: Additional Reinforcements Would Not Have Been Able To Get To Benghazi Before The Second Attack Was Concluded. Transcripts of an interview Hicks gave to congressional investigators show that he said that the flight these special forces were scheduled to take, but did not, was scheduled to take off after 6:00 a.m., local time -- approximately 45 minutes after the attack at the CIA annex that killed two people. [Media Matters for America, 5/7/13]

Tom Pickering Has Been Shut Out Of The Benghazi Debate

Fri, 10 May 2013 06:21:57 EDT

Since the April release of a House Republican report on Benghazi, Tom Pickering -- co-chairman of the State Department's Accountability Review Board on the Benghazi attacks last year -- has been interviewed only twice on major news programs.

Pickering Hosted Only Twice To Discuss Right-Wing Scandal Mongering Since April Report

Pickering Has Made Only Two Appearances Since The Release Of The House GOP Report. According to a search of the Nexis database, Tom Pickering made only two media appearances since the April 23 release of the House Republican report: on the May 8 edition of CNN International, and on the May 8 edition of MSNBC's Andrea Mitchell Reports. [Nexis search for search terms: guests(Pickering) or body(allcaps(Pickering)) conducted 5/10/13; Andrea Mitchell Reports, 5/8/13]

Pickering Is Slated To Appear On Meet The Press May 12. According to Talking Points Memo, Pickering will appear on the May 12 edition of NBC's Meet the Press to discuss Benghazi. [Talking Points Memo, 5/10/13]

Pickering: Suggesting A Benghazi Cover-Up Is "Pulitzer Prize Fiction"

Pickering: "The Notion Of, Quote, A Cover-Up Has All The Elements Of Pulitzer Prize Fiction Attached To It." In his Andrea Mitchell Reports appearance, Pickering said in response to suggestions that the Obama administration was covering up the facts of the Benghazi attack: "I believe, in fact, the Accountability Review Board did its work well. I think the notion of, quote, a cover-up has all the elements of Pulitzer Prize fiction attached to it." [MSNBC, Andrea Mitchell Reports, 5/8/13]

Wall Street Journal 's Idiocracy: CO2 Is What Plants Crave

Thu, 09 May 2013 02:28:41 EDT

The Wall Street Journal once again published an op-ed disputing climate science by authors with no peer-reviewed papers on the topic and ties to groups funded by the oil industry. The op-ed argues that we should be "clamoring for more" carbon dioxide because it is a "boon to plant life," ignoring scientific research establishing that our excessive carbon dioxide emissions are rapidly changing the climate, which will have significant negative impacts for plants and humans.

WSJ Conceals Negative Impacts Of CO2 For Plants And Humans

WSJ Op-Ed Suggests We Should Be "Clamoring For More" CO2 As It Is A "Boon To Plant Life." In an op-ed titled "In Defense of Carbon Dioxide," former astronaut and Republican Senator Harrison Schmitt and physics professor William Happer write that the "demonized chemical compound is a boon to plant life" and thus "increased carbon dioxide in the atmosphere will benefit the increasing population on the planet." They add, "[t]here isn't the slightest evidence that more carbon dioxide has caused more extreme weather" and conclude that "in an age of rising population and scarcities of food and water in some regions, it's a wonder that humanitarians aren't clamoring for more atmospheric carbon dioxide. Instead, some are denouncing it." [Wall Street Journal, 5/8/13]

Skeptical Science: This Argument Relies On The Fallacy Of Exclusion. Skeptical Science explains that while carbon dioxide stimulates plant growth, our excessive emissions are changing precipitation patterns in ways that can hurt plant growth:

A quick look at the science behind this argument demonstrates its inherent weaknesses. In closed, controlled environments, like greenhouses and plant nurseries, an increase in CO2 does indeed spur plant growth. However, the globe is not a controlled environment, and its incredible sensitivity to a variety of factors is something that is often taken for granted when such narrow arguments are proffered. A rise in CO2 levels is not the only consequence of climate change, and it is these other effects that have had and will have more abiding adverse effects on plant growth around the world.

While CO2 is an important element that stimulates plant growth, the planet's flora requires a cocktail of elements to maintain its health. Arguably the most important of these elements is water. With the global increase in temperature caused by the various factors affecting our climate's balance, increased evaporation means decreased soil moisture. Another effect of global climate change is erratic precipitation patterns. This causes extreme weather in certain geographic locations only sporadically, with overall, balanced rainfall drastically reduced.

[...]

[A]t its most basic level, the CO2 plant food argument rests on a simple logical fallacy--the fallacy of exclusion, which focuses on one cause-and-effect (in this case, more CO2 means more plants) to the exclusion of all other cause-and-effect chains. [Skeptical Science, 7/1/2010]

IPCC: Rising Temps. Put About "20-30% Of Plant And Animal Species" At "Increased Risk Of Extinction." The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's 4th Assessment Report concludes:

Approximately 20-30% of plant and animal species assessed so far are likely to be at increased risk of extinction if increases in global average temperature exceed 1.5-2.5°C.

For increase in global average temperature exceeding 1.5-2.5°C and in concomitant atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations, there are projected to be major changes in ecosystem structure and function, species; ecological interactions, and species; geographical ranges, with predominantly negative consequences for biodiversity, and ecosystem goods and services e.g., water and food supply. [IPCC 4^th Assessment Report, Summary for Policymakers, 2007]

Research Indicates Climate Change Will Lead To More Floods And Droughts, Hurting Agriculture. A recent NASA study added to evidence that climate change will increase the risk of extreme rainfall and drought, according to a NASA press release:

A NASA-led modeling study provides new evidence that global warming may increase the risk for extreme rainfall and drought.

The study shows for the first time how rising carbon dioxide concentrations could affect the entire range of rainfall types on Earth.

Analysis of computer simulations from 14 climate models indicates wet regions of the world, such as the equatorial Pacific Ocean and Asian monsoon regions, will see increases in heavy precipitation because of warming resulting from projected increases in carbon dioxide levels. Arid land areas outside the tropics and many regions with moderate rainfall could become drier. [NASA, 5/3/13]

The World Bank notes that these changes may lead to "severe crop yield reductions" unless there are "strong adaptation measures":

Climate change will affect agriculture through higher temperatures, greater crop water demand, more variable rainfall and extreme climate events such as heat waves, floods and droughts. Many impact studies point to severe crop yield reductions in the next decades without strong adaptation measures--particularly in Sub-Saharan Africa and South Asia. These are areas where rural households are highly dependent on agriculture and farming systems are highly sensitive to volatile climate. One assessment, estimates that by the 2080s world agricultural productivity will decline by 3-16 percent. The loss in Africa could be 17-28 percent (Cline 2007). [World Bank, accessed 5/9/13]

National Research Council: Effects Of Climate Change "Pose Significant Risks To Both Human And Ecological Systems." From a 2010 report by the National Research Council:

Scientific evidence that the Earth is warming is now overwhelming. There is also a multitude of evidence that this warming results primarily from human activities, especially burning fossil fuels and other activities that release heat-trapping greenhouse gases (GHGs) into the atmosphere. Projections of future climate change indicate that Earth will continue to warm unless significant and sustained actions are taken to limit emissions of GHGs. Increasing temperatures and GHG concentrations are driving a multitude of related and interacting changes in the Earth system, including decreases in the amounts of ice stored in mountain glaciers and polar regions, increases in sea level, changes in ocean chemistry, and changes in the frequency and intensity of heat waves, precipitation events, and droughts. These changes in turn pose significant risks to both human and ecological systems. Although the details of how the future impacts of climate change will unfold are not as well understood as the basic causes and mechanisms of climate change, we can reasonably expect that the consequences of climate change will be more severe if actions are not taken to limit its magnitude and adapt to its impacts. [National Research Council, 2010]

WSJ Portrays Highest CO2 Levels In Human History As "Low"

WSJ Op-Ed: Current CO2 Levels "Are Low By The Standards Of Geological And Plant Evolutionary History." The op-ed claims that carbon dioxide levels have "little correlation" with temperatures and that current carbon dioxide levels are "low by the standards of geological and plant evolutionary history," pointing to CO2 levels over 65 million years ago:

The cessation of observed global warming for the past decade or so has shown how exaggerated NASA's and most other computer predictions of human-caused warming have been--and how little correlation warming has with concentrations of atmospheric carbon dioxide. As many scientists have pointed out, variations in global temperature correlate much better with solar activity and with complicated cycles of the oceans and atmosphere.

[...]

The current levels of carbon dioxide in the earth's atmosphere, approaching 400 parts per million, are low by the standards of geological and plant evolutionary history. Levels were 3,000 ppm, or more, until the Paleogene period (beginning about 65 million years ago). [Wall Street Journal, 5/8/13]

Scientist: CO2 Has Never Risen "So Much So Rapidly" Without "A Mass Extinction Event." Ken Caldeira, a scientist at the Carnegie Institute for Science at Stanford University who has specialized in paleoclimate issues, wrote in an email to Media Matters that it is the rate of increasing carbon dioxide levels that is worrying:

Yes, atmospheric CO2 concentrations have been high in the past, but those high levels were achieved over many millions of years.

Atmospheric CO2 concentrations have never risen so much so rapidly as they are today without being accompanied by a mass extinction event. The geologic record gives us no reason to be sanguine about current rates and amounts of CO2 increase.

100 million years ago when atmospheric CO2 concentrations were high, volcanoes and other natural sources were probably emitting twice as much CO2 as they are today.

We, in contrast, are emitting about 100 times more CO2 than all the volcanoes of the world put together. We are so far beyond what the natural world does in terms of rates, it isn't even funny.

Atmospheric CO2 is increasing today about 100 times faster than it did after the last ice age.

We are not sure how the Earth will respond to these rates of change, because there are no real examples of similar rates of change except for the big mass extinction events.

Michael Mann, a paleoclimatologist and a professor at Penn State University, echoed Caldeira, saying that the "claim is at best deceptive" because "[t]he problem isn't the levels of CO2 per se, but the rate at which we are increasing them." And Ethan Grossman, a professor at Texas A&M who has published paleoclimate research, noted that the high CO2 period that the op-ed refers to -- the late Cretaceous period, which was the tail-end of the age of the dinosaurs -- experienced warm temperatures with essentially ice-free polar regions and higher sea levels:

Periods of high CO2 coincide with warm intervals (greenhouse climate mode) such as the late Cretaceous ( ~85 million years ago [myr]).

[...]

During greenhouse climate intervals, there were essentially no continental glaciers at the poles ("ice-free" condition), and subtropical plants sometimes extended into the Arctic Circle (such as in the Eocene, ~50 myr). Sea levels of course were much higher. [Email exchanges, 5/9/13]

CO2 Levels Are Higher Than Any Time In Human History. As Smithsonian Magazine wrote, we are poised to exceed atmospheric carbon dioxide levels of over 400 parts per million, which is higher than at any time in the last 800,000 years according to ice core records:

For the first time in human history, later this month the world's atmospheric levels of carbon dioxide will likely exceed 400 parts per million, according to a study conducted by the Scripps Institution of Oceanography. The researchers monitor CO2 concentrations from a station in Hawaii, and those levels usually peak in May. Right now, levels are teetering at 399 ppm. If they do not exceed 400 ppm this year, the researchers say, they almost certainly will next year.

In March 1958, when the first measurements of atmospheric CO2 were made, the northern hemisphere stood at 316 ppm. Researchers project that the pre-industrial atmosphere was around 280 ppm. For the past 800,000 years prior to the industrial revolution, Scripps points out, CO2 levels never exceeded 300 ppm. [Smithsonian Magazine, 5/7/13]

Caldeira added in an email to Media Matters that most species alive today have "never existed in a world with CO2 levels substantially higher than today's":

[T]here is no evidence that CO2 concentrations have been higher than today's concentration in the past 20 million years.

The average species lives something like 6 million years, so the species that are alive today never existed in a world with CO2 levels substantially higher than today's. [Email exchange, 5/9/13]

CO2 Levels Are Indeed Closely Correlated With Warming. While the op-ed claims that carbon dioxide levels have "little correlation" with temperatures, The New York Times reported that scientists have actually found a "close association" between the two:

The basic physics of the atmosphere, worked out more than a century ago, show that carbon dioxide plays a powerful role in maintaining the earth's climate.

[...]

In recent years, researchers have been able to put the Keeling measurements [of atmospheric carbon dioxide levels since the 1950s] into a broader context. Bubbles of ancient air trapped by glaciers and ice sheets have been tested, and they show that over the past 800,000 years, the amount of carbon dioxide in the air oscillated between roughly 200 and 300 parts per million. Just before the Industrial Revolution, the level was about 280 parts per million and had been there for several thousand years.

That amount of the gas, in other words, produced the equable climate in which human civilization flourished.

Other studies, covering many millions of years, show a close association between carbon dioxide and the temperature of the earth. The gas seemingly played a major role in amplifying the effects of the ice ages, which were caused by wobbles in the earth's orbit.

The geologic record suggests that as the earth began cooling, the amount of carbon dioxide fell, probably because much of it got locked up in the ocean, and that fall amplified the initial cooling. Conversely, when the orbital wobble caused the earth to begin warming, a great deal of carbon dioxide escaped from the ocean, amplifying the warming.

Richard B. Alley, a climate scientist at Pennsylvania State University, refers to carbon dioxide as the master control knob of the earth's climate. He said that because the wobbles in the earth's orbit were not, by themselves, big enough to cause the large changes of the ice ages, the situation made sense only when the amplification from carbon dioxide was factored in.

"What the ice ages tell us is that our physical understanding of CO2 explains what happened and nothing else does," Dr. Alley said.

The article included the following graphics:

[The New York Times, 12/21/10]

Who Are Harrison Schmitt And William Happer?

Neither Have Written Peer-Reviewed Climate Research. Harrison Schmitt has a Ph.D in Geology, and served as an astronaut at NASA from 1965 to 1975. After resigning from NASA, Schmitt was a one-term Republican Senator from New Mexico. William Happer is a physics professor at Princeton University. Neither Schmitt nor Happer has published peer-reviewed climate research. William Happer wrote a paper titled "Climate Science and Policy: Making the Connection" that was published by the oil industry-funded George C. Marshall Institute, but not any peer-reviewed journal. Several surveys have shown that the vast majority of climate scientists agree that humans are warming the planet and that the public should be concerned about the effects. [Skeptical Science, accessed 5/9/13] [DeSmogBlog, accessed 5/9/13] [DeSmogBlog, accessed 5/9/13] [Media Matters,

[Media Matters, 9/24/12]

Right-Wing Media Push New Benghazi Myths Ahead Of Hearings

Wed, 08 May 2013 07:52:59 EDT

Right-wing media are using a congressional hearing to push new myths about the Obama administration's response to the September 11, 2012 attacks on a U.S. diplomatic facility in Benghazi, Libya. In fact, these myths are discredited by previous congressional reports and testimony, which show that the politicized nature of the hearings come from right-wing media and Congressional Republicans, that the military could not have rescued personnel from the second attack, that the administration was in constant communication at all levels during the attacks, and that the intelligence community believed there was a link to an anti-Islam video at the time of the attacks.

MYTH: Latest Benghazi Hearing Is Apolitical

Fox News' Brian Kilmeade Attacks The Claim That Benghazi Hearings Are "Politically Driven." On Fox & Friends, co-host Brian Kilmeade claimed that because self-identified whistleblowers are testifying at congressional hearings on Benghazi at a time that elections are not being held, the hearings can't be politically driven, saying "politics is out, and whistleblowers are in":

KILMEADE: [A]nyone who says this is politically driven, or it's against the president, that's out the window. Because if there's a non-political season in this world in American politics, it's now. The mid-terms aren't close --

STEVE DOOCY [co-host]: Sure.

KILMEADE: And the president is not running. [Fox News, Fox & Friends, 5/7/13, via Media Matters]

FACT: Right-Wing Media And Congressional Republicans Have Politicized The Hearings

Fox News' John Bolton: "I Hope [Benghazi] Is A Cover Up ... If It Was Merely A Political Cover-Up Then There Can Be A Political Cost To Pay." On Your World, Fox News contributor John Bolton said he hoped the hearings found that despite all evidence to the contrary, the Obama administration had engaged in a "political cover up" by altering CIA talking points to suggest that the attacks came in response to an anti-Islam video:

BOLTON: I'd have to say for the good of the country, I hope it is a cover up rather than the alternative, which is the Obama administration was so blind to the reality of the threat of Islamic terrorism, the continued threat from Al Qaeda... If that's the problem there's no cure for it. If it was merely a political cover-up then there can be a political cost to pay. [Fox News, Your World with Neil Cavuto, 5/6/13, via Media Matters]

Lawyers Representing The "Whistleblowers" In Hearings Are Long-Time GOP Activists With History Of Pushing Discredited Claims. The lawyers claiming to represent some of the witnesses at the Benghazi hearing, Victoria Toensing and Joseph diGenova, are long-time Republicans known for pushing false claims in the media and for having conflicts of interest in their professional work. They have both served as advisors to Republican candidates and donated thousands of dollars to GOP candidates and causes, and have been criticized for a conflict of interest for serving in a dual role in separate Justice Department investigations and for dropping "the air of impartiality, non-partisanship, and professionalism required" by their roles as leaders of a congressional investigation. [Media Matters, 4/30/13; 5/6/13]

Congressional Democrats Criticized House GOP Report For "Unnecessarily Politicizing Our National Security." A congressional report on Benghazi that was authored by five Republican committee chairmen was criticized by the ranking Democrats on those committees in a letter to House Speaker John Boehner, in which they said the report is "unnecessarily politicizing our national security":

We are writing to strongly object to your decision to issue a partisan Republican staff report on Benghazi and dispense with House procedures for vetting official committee reports to correct inaccuracies and mischaracterizations. By abandoning regular order and excluding Democratic Members entirely from this process, you are unnecessarily politicizing our national security and casting aside the system used by the House for generations to avoid making obvious mistakes, errors, and omissions. [House Oversight Committee, 5/6/13, via Media Matters]

Oversight Committee Ranking Member Accused Republicans Of Withholding Information From Democrats. On May 6, Rep. Elijah E. Cummings (D-MD), Ranking Member of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, issued a statement in which he accused Republican committee members of issuing "a partisan report with reckless and false accusations" and claimed interview information was withheld from committee Democrats:

CUMMINGS: I also believe Members of Congress have an obligation to actually investigate claims before coming to conclusions and making public accusations. Unfortunately, House Republicans have taken the opposite approach. They issued a partisan report with reckless and false accusations against the former Secretary of State, they have completely concealed Mr. Thompson from Democratic Committee Members, and they have failed to make even basic inquiries to the Intelligence Community, the Defense Department, or the State Department to vet specific allegations. Instead, they have leaked snippets of interview transcripts to national media outlets in a selective and distorted manner to drum up publicity for their hearing. This is investigation by press release and does a disservice to our common goal of ensuring that our diplomatic corps serving overseas has the best protection possible to do its critical work. [House Oversight Committee, 5/6/13]

State Dept. Spokesman: Congressional Republicans Have Not Shared Witness Transcripts With Us, Told Us How This Hearing Was Formed. In a May 2013 State Department Press Briefing, Acting Deputy Spokesperson Patrick Ventrell pointed out that the hearings had been convened without any interaction with the State Department:

VENTRELL: I mean, it's a little bit hard for us to - given that we don't have a lot of information about how the hearing was scheduled and the various sort of formation of the majority's decision to have this hearing, it's a little bit hard to comment on the witnesses. Let me do - let me say one thing here, though, at the very top. We have always encouraged any State Department employee who wants to share their personal story, whether it be to the ARB or the Congress to tell the truth, period, full stop, end of story. That's long been our position. We've made that clear from the start. In terms of these particular individuals, the committee didn't come to us asking witnesses. We found out through the media and through the announcement the same way you all did. In terms of these potential transcripts out there, we haven't seen the transcripts. [State.gov, 5/6/13]

MYTH: Obama Admin Stopped Rescue Team That Could Have Prevented Second Attack

Fox's Bret Baier: The Second Team Of Special Forces From Tripoli "Would Have Been There In Time For the Second Attack." On the May 6 edition of Special Report, Fox anchor Bret Baier misrepresented what former Deputy Chief of Mission in Libya Gregory Hicks reportedly told congressional investigators, claiming that a team of special forces troops would have arrived in time for an attack on the CIA annex had they not been told not to go:

BAIER: Charles, in this testimony that -- we have already seen some of this interview with Greg Hicks, the number two guy, again, on the ground, he specifically says that special forces in Tripoli were told to stand down and not get on a C-130 that was going to go from Tripoli to Benghazi that would have been there in time for the second attack, the second wave. They were told to not get on that plane. [Fox News, Special Report, 5/6/13, via Media Matters, emphasis added]

FACT: Special Forces Team In Tripoli Was Not Scheduled To Leave Until After The Second Attack Began

Wash. Post's Ignatius: Mortar Assault Began At 5:15 A.M. In his description of the "detailed CIA timeline" of the events that occurred during the attack in Benghazi, Washington Post foreign affairs columnist David Ignatius noted that that the second attack of the night began at 5:15:

5:15 a.m.: A new Libyan assault begins, this time with mortars. Two rounds miss and the next three hit the roof. The rooftop defenders never "laser the mortars," as has been reported. They don't know they're in place until the indirect fire begins, nor are they observed by the drone overhead. The defenders have focused their laser sites earlier on several Libyan attackers, as warnings not to fire. At 5:26 the attack is over. Woods and Doherty are dead and two others are wounded. [The Washington Post, 11/1/12]

Gregory Hicks: Tripoli Special Forces Were Scheduled To Take Off Between 6:00 And 6:30 A.M. According to transcripts of what Gregory Hicks -- one of the witnesses speaking at the hearing -- told congressional investigators in April, the Tripoli special forces were scheduled to take off after 6:00 a.m. local time, approximately 45 minutes after the attack at the CIA annex that killed two people:

Q: And was there a second team that was organized? Could you tell us about the second team?

A: Right. The second team -- the Defense Attache worked assiduously all night long to try to get the Libyan military to respond in some way. Early in the morning -- sorry, after we were formally notified by the Prime Minister, who called me, that Chris had passed, the Libyan military agreed to fly their C-130 to Benghazi and carry additional personnel to Benghazi as reinforcements. Because we at that time -- at that time, the third attack, the mortar attack at 5:15, had not yet occurred, if I remember correctly.

Q: So what time did the second rescue team ??

A: Well, again, they flew -- I think that flight took off sometime between 6:00 and 6:30 a.m. [CBS News, 5/6/13]

Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R-UT): Troops From Tripoli "Would Have Arrived After The Attack." Rep. Jason Chaffetz, a Republican member of the House Oversight Committee who has actively pursued investigations into the Benghazi attacks, told The Washington Post the second force "would have arrived after the attack on the CIA base":

Chaffetz said the troops who were not allowed to travel to Benghazi would have arrived after the attack on the CIA base but may have provided first aid to wounded personnel. He noted that the order to keep them from traveling was given before the second attack. [The Washington Post, 5/6/13]

Accountability Review Board Chief Tom Pickering: "Within Those Time Frames, Nothing Could Have Been Done." On Your World, Fox News contributor James Rosen played a clip of former U.N. Ambassador Tom Pickering explaining to radio host Alan Colmes that "nothing could have been done" to save the lives of those killed in the initial attack and subsequent attacks in Benghazi:

PICKERING: Our Board felt that nothing could have been done to relieve the initial attack. Subsequent attacks took place beginning about midnight but died out within an hour and I think within those time frames, nothing could have been done. [Fox News, Your World, 5/7/13]

MYTH: A Special Forces Team Training In Croatia Could Have Rescued Embassy Workers

Special Report Hyped Anonymous Source's Claim That Force Training In Croatia Could Have Rescued Workers. Fox News' Special Report aired an interview between Fox correspondent Adam Housley and an anonymous source who claimed that special operations forces training in Croatia at the time could have prevented further loss of life in Benghazi:

HOUSLEY: The C-110 is a commanders and extremists force. In Layman's terms, a 40 man special operations force capable of rapid response and deployment, specifically, trained for incidents like the attack in Benghazi. That night, they were training in Croatia just three and a half hours away.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: We had the ability to load out, get on birds, and fly there at a minimum stage. C-110 had the ability to be there, in my opinion, in four to six hours from their European theater to react.

HOUSLEY: They would have been there before the second attack.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: They would have been there before the second attack. They would have been there at a minimum to provide a quick reaction force that could facilitate their exfill out of the problem situation. Nobody knew how it was going to develop. And you hear a whole bunch of people and a whole bunch of advisors say hey, we wouldn't have sent them there because, you know, the security was unknown situation. [Fox News, Special Report with Bret Baier, 4/29/13 via Media Matters]

FACT: Croatian Force Could Not Have Arrived Until After The Attack Was Over

Accountability Review Board: "There Simply Was Not Enough Time" For "Military Assets To Have Made A Difference." The Accountability Review Board, an independent group tasked with investigating the attacks, found that the "interagency response was timely and appropriate" but that there was not enough time for "armed U.S. military assets to have made a difference":

The interagency response was timely and appropriate, but there simply was not enough time given the speed of the attacks for armed U.S. military assets to have made a difference. Senior-level interagency discussions were underway soon after Washington received initial word of the attacks and continued through the night. The Board found no evidence of any undue delays in decision making or denial of support from Washington or from the military combatant commanders. Quite the contrary: the safe evacuation of all U.S. government personnel from Benghazi twelve hours after the initial attack and subsequently to Ramstein Air Force Base was the result of exceptional U.S. government coordination and military response and helped save the lives of two severely wounded Americans. [Accountability Review Board, accessed 5/7/13]

Fox Military Analyst Keane: CIA Base Was Evacuated Before Special Operations Force Could Reach Them. On Fox & Friends, Fox News military analyst retired Gen. Jack Keane responded to guest host Eric Bolling's claim that the Obama administration "did not call on the only response team that may have been able to intervene during the attack" by pointing out that "the CIA base was evacuated prior to their arrival at Sigonella, so they were never employed":

KEANE: Here's what did happen. The national security apparatus, at the request of General Hamm, who's the commander of AFRICOM -- and he's had responsibility from a security aspect to respond to this crisis -- our national mission response force, our most classified force on the highest state of readiness, was alerted and moved from the United States to Sigonella [Naval Air Station in Italy], and they bring with them their own aircraft, their own helicopters and C-17s. Another classified special operations force was moved out of Central Europe to Sigonella as well. The fact of the matter was the CIA base was evacuated prior to their arrival at Sigonella, so they were never employed. [Fox News, Fox & Friends, 11/2/12 via Media Matters]

MYTH: Clinton Never Spoke To Obama On Night Of The Attacks

Ingraham: "We Know That The Secretary Of State Had Not A Single Conversation With The Commander In Chief." During an interview with Republican Congressman Peter King on her radio show, Fox News contributor Laura Ingraham claimed "[w]e know that the Secretary of State had not a single conversation with the Commander in Chief. Not one during this attack":

INGRAHAM: We know that the Secretary of State had not a single conversation with the Commander in Chief. Not one during this attack. Not one conversation? That just seems bizarre to me. I mean that's just one point, but that's a pretty darn good question. Why?

KING: Absolutely, it's an excellent question, and to me it's one that, it's unfortunate that it even has to be asked. I mean you'd think they would have been on the phone continually.

INGRAHAM: My God. [Courtside Entertainment Group, The Laura Ingraham Show, 5/7/13]

FACT: Clinton Testified She And Obama Communicated The Evening Of The Attacks

Clinton: "I Spoke With President Obama Later In The Evening To ... Bring Him Up To Date, To Hear His Perspective." Then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's January 23 testimony before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on the Benghazi attacks made it clear that she was continuously communicating with administration officials and the intelligence community during the evening of the attacks, including at least one conversation with the president:

CLINTON: Regarding what I was doing on September 11th, I was at the State Department all day and late into the night. At the -- during most of the day, prior to getting notice of the attack on our compound at Benghazi, we were very focused on our embassy in Cairo. That was under assault by a group of protesters.

We were assessing the security of our embassy, which is, as those of you have been there, certainly well-defensed. But there were crowds that were intent upon trying to scale the wall and, we were in close communication with our team in Cairo.

I was notified of the attack shortly after 4:00 p.m. Over the following hours, we were in continuous meetings and conversations, both within the department, with our team in Tripoli, with the inner agency, and internationally. I instructed our senior department officials and our diplomatic security personnel to consider every option, to just break down the doors of the Libyan officials to get as much security support as we possibly could, to coordinate with them.

I spoke to the national security adviser, Tom Donilon, several times. I briefed him on developments. I sought all possible support from the White House, which they quickly provided. Tom was my first call.

I spoke with our charger in Tripoli, to get situation updates.

I spoke with former CIA director Petraeus to confer and coordinate, given the presence of his facility, which, of course, was not well known, but was something that we knew and wanted to make sure we were closely lashed up together.

I talked with the then-Libyan national congress president, to press him on greater support, not only in Benghazi, but also in Tripoli.

I participated in a secure video conference of senior officials from the intelligence community, the White House, and DOD. We were going over every possible option, reviewing all that was available to us. Any actions we could take.

We were reaching out to everyone we could find, to try to get an update about ambassador Chris Stevens, also, our information specialist, Sean Smith.

So it was a constant, ongoing discussion and sets of meetings. I spoke with President Obama later in the evening, to, you know, bring him up to date, to hear his perspective. Obviously, we kept talking with everyone during the night. Early in the morning, on the 12th, I spoke with General Dempsey, again, with Tom Donilon. [CNN.com, 1/23/13, emphasis added]

MYTH: CIA Never Linked Benghazi Attack To Anti-Islam Video

Weekly Standard's Stephen Hayes: "There Is No Mention Of Any 'Video' In Any Of The Many Drafts" Of CIA Talking Points. In a post on the Weekly Standard, Stephen Hayes claimed that the CIA talking points about the Benghazi attack made no reference to an anti-Islam YouTube video which was mentioned as a possible cause for the attacks by members of the Obama administration:

More troubling was the YouTube video. [Ambassador Susan] Rice would spend much time on the Sunday talk shows pointing to this video as the trigger of the chaos in Benghazi. "What sparked the violence was a very hateful video on the Internet. It was a reaction to a video that had nothing to do with the United States." There is no mention of any "video" in any of the many drafts of the talking points. [The Weekly Standard, 5/13/13]

Fox's Chris Wallace: Reaction To The Anti-Islam Video "Had Never Been In Any Of The Talking Points." On the May 5 edition of Fox News Sunday, host Chris Wallace cited Hayes' Weekly Standard article to claim "U.N. Ambassador Rice came on this show and four other Sunday shows, never mentioned the al Qaeda extremists, which had been scrubbed from the -- from the talking points, but did mention a reaction to the anti-Islam video which had never been in any of the talking points." [Fox Broadcasting Co., Fox News Sunday, 5/5/13 via Media Matters]

FACT: Intelligence Community Believed Link Existed At The Time

CIA Talking Points Linked Attack To Protests In Cairo. The first bullet point from what The Weekly Standard described as "Version 1" of the CIA talking points says that "based on currently available information," the attacks were "spontaneously inspired by the protests at the U.S. Embassy in Cairo." The final version of the document made the same link:

The currently available information suggests that the demonstrations in Benghazi were spontaneously inspired by the protests at the U.S. Embassy in Cairo and evolved into a direct assault against the U.S. diplomatic post and subsequently its annex. There are indications that extremists participated in the violent demonstrations. [The Weekly Standard, 5/13/13 via Media Matters]

Cairo Protests Cited By CIA Talking Points Were Sparked By The Anti-Islam Video. The "protests at the U.S. Embassy in Cairo" mentioned in both versions of the CIA talking points were part of a global reaction to the anti-Islam video. A September 14 New York Times article reported "Anti-American rage that began this week over a video insult to Islam spread to nearly 20 countries across the Middle East and beyond on Friday, with violent and sometimes deadly protests." The article went on to note that protesters "had penetrated the perimeters of the American Embassies in the Tunisian and Sudanese capitals, and said that 65 embassies or consulates around the world had issued emergency messages about threats of violence." [The New York Times, 9/14/12]

Fox Snubs Pro-Immigration Rallies In Favor Of Amplifying Heritage Claims

Tue, 07 May 2013 02:41:08 EDT

Fox News devoted significantly more airtime to the Heritage Foundation's claims that providing legal status to undocumented immigrants will have negative fiscal impact, but mostly ignored pro-immigration rallies during the same period.

Fox News Spent More Than 25 Minutes Promoting Heritage's Flawed Immigration Claims

Fox News Covered The Heritage Immigration Claims For 25 Minutes, Only Covered Pro-Immigration Rallies For One Minute And A Half. Fox News covered the Heritage Foundation's immigration claims for 25 minutes and six seconds which included coverage of their flawed study, but only covered two immigration rallies for one minute and 30 seconds in the period between April 1 and May 6, 2013. [Fox News, 4/1/13-5/6/13] (click to enlarge)

Fox News Covered Heritage's Faulty Immigration Claims Leading Up To Heritage Study Release

Fox News Covered Heritage's Immigration Claims Several Times In April Leading Up To Heritage Immigration Study Release. Fox News devoted seven segments to covering the Heritage Foundation's claims that immigration reform would be expensive leading up to the release of the Heritage Foundation's study. One of these segments included an interview with Heritage President Jim DeMint to claim that immigration reform would be very expensive for taxpayers. [Fox News, Fox and Friends, 4/1/13, Happening Now, 4/9/13, Special Report with Bret Baier, 4/9/13, 5/2/13 Your World with Neil Cavuto, 4/11/13, 4/22/13, On The Record with Greta Van Susteren, 4/30/13]

Fox News Covered Heritage's Flawed Immigration Study Multiple Times On The Day It Was Released

Fox News Covered Heritage's Immigration Study Four Times On The Day The Study Was Released. Fox News devoted four segments to covering the Heritage study on May 6, the day the study was released. Two of those segments included interviews with Heritage President Jim DeMint to push the flawed study's merits. [Fox News, America's Newsroom, 5/6/13, Your World with Neil Cavuto, 5/6/13, Special Report with Bret Baier, 5/6/13]

Fox News Provided Little Coverage To Pro-Immigration Rallies

Fox News Segments On Pro-Immigration May Day Rally Often Coupled With Negative Coverage Of May Day Violence. Fox News covered the May Day immigration rallies for a total of 14 seconds but only during segments and discussions about violent anarchist protests in Seattle, albeit noting the two events were not related. [Fox News, Happening Now, 5/2/13, The Fox Report, 5/2/13]

Fox News Covered Historic April 10 Pro-Immigration Rally For 39 Seconds. Fox News covered the historic April 10 rally for immigration reform on the National Mall for 39 seconds during one segment on Happening Now. [Fox News, Happening Now, 4/11/13]

Major Newspapers Devoted Massive Print And Online Coverage To Both Pro-Immigration Rallies. The top newspapers in the country devoted several pieces -- including online video and photo galleries -- to covering the historic immigration rallies. The New York Times devoted at least two print stories and one opinion piece to the rallies. USAToday had at least one online photo gallery, a video, and a print story on the April 10 rally. The Washington Post devoted coverage to the April 10 rally both before and after it took place and published an online photo gallery. The Los Angeles Times devoted several news stories to both the April 10 rally and the May Day Rally. The Wall Street Journal covered the April 10 rally in a blog post and an online video. [New York Times, 5/1/13, 4/10/13, 4/10/13, USA Today, 4/10/13, 4/11/13, 4/11/13, The Washington Post, 4/10/13, 4/10/13, 4/6/13, Los Angeles Times, 5/2/13, 5/1/13, 4/10/13, Wall Street Journal, 4/11/13, 4/10/13]

Heritage Study Has Been Criticized And Debunked As Flawed

WonkBlog's Dylan Matthews: "The Heritage Numbers Simply Are Not Credible." According to a post on The Washington Post's WonkBlog by Dylan Matthews, Heritage's estimate leaves out several important factors in determining the cost of immigration reform:

[The Heritage Foundation's Robert] Rector and [Jason] Richwine are certainly correct that making currently ineligible immigrants eligible for means-tested benefits and retirement entitlements has a real budgetary cost. But in the long run, we know that immigration is a net economic boon, and in particular for immigrants, which reduces their fiscal cost and increases our ability to pay for what benefits they do receive. And the best study we have on the fiscal effects of immigration reform, from the CBO, finds the impact to be minimal or positive.

Pay attention to that study. Pay attention to whatever score the CBO puts out of the Gang of 8 bill. But the Heritage numbers simply are not credible. [The Washington Post, 5/6/13]

Cato Institute's Alex Nowrasteh: Heritage Report Leads To "A Massive Underestimation Of The Economic Benefits Of Immigration And Diminishing Estimated Tax Revenue." According to the Cato Institute's Alex Nowrasteh, the Heritage Foundation underestimates the positive impact of immigration reform on the economy and doesn't even score the specific immigration proposal in the Senate:

The new Heritage report is still depressingly static, leading to a massive underestimation of the economic benefits of immigration and diminishing estimated tax revenue. It explicitly refuses to consider the GDP growth and economic productivity gains from immigration reform--factors that increase native-born American incomes. An overlooked flaw is that the study doesn't even score the specific immigration reform proposal in the Senate. Its flawed methodology and lack of relevancy to the current immigration reform proposal relegate this study to irrelevancy. [Cato Institute, 5/7/13]

Fox Contributor Stephen Moore: "Almost All Economists Disagree" With Heritage's Claim That Immigrants Harm Economy. On Fox's America's Newsroom, Wall Street Journal editorial board member and Fox News contributor Stephen Moore said the study "leaves the impression" that "immigrants are a cost to the economy. That is one thing almost all economists disagree with, that we are very much benefitted by being a nation of immigrants." [Fox News, America's Newsroom, 5/6/13]

AEI's James Pethokoukis: Heritage Study "Fails To Capture Indirect But Important Economic Impacts Of Immigration." According to a blog post by American Enterprise Institute columnist James Pethokoukis, the Heritage study fails to take into account the economic benefits of immigration:

The study, however, fails to capture indirect but important economic impacts of immigration such as increasing economic activity or positively affecting American employment. Both of those would lead to higher tax revenues and reduced transfer payments. Surely every effort should be given to factoring in such dynamic impacts of immigration reform. The Heritage study says, for instance, that "taxes and benefits must be viewed holistically." So, too, immigration overall. Big policy changes don't exist in a vacuum, isolated from the rest of the economy.

Not making these added calculations raises red flags as to the study's completeness. What about studies of US states that find economic contributions of low-skill immigrants "dwarf their fiscal costs." Another example: Heritage claims "that unlawful immigration appears to depress the wages of low-skill US-born and lawful immigrant workers by 10 percent, or $2,300, per year." Yet other highly regarded research finds wage gains at all education levels for US-born workers.

Is immigration reform that potentially expands the population of less-skilled individuals a smart economic policy or not? It's impossible to draw a reasonable conclusion based only on the Heritage study. [American Enterprise Institute, 5/6/13]

Methodology

Media Matters searched news transcripts provided by a Media Matters internal research database for the terms "rally," "march," and "Heritage" between April 1 and May 6, 2013. Show reruns in non-primetime slots were excluded as well as mentions during Saturday and Sunday Fox News shows.

STUDY: Media Ignore Climate Context Of Midwest Floods

Tue, 07 May 2013 10:22:03 EDT

The Midwest has experienced near record flooding this spring, resulting in four deaths, extensive property damage, and disruptions of agriculture and transportation. Evidence suggests that manmade climate change has increased the frequency of heavy downpours, and will continue to increase flooding risks. But in their ample coverage of Midwestern flooding, major media outlets rarely mentioned climate change.

Less Than 3 Percent Of Midwest Flood Stories Mention Climate Change

ABC, NBC And CNN Entirely Ignore Climate Connection. ABC, CBS, NBC and CNN devoted 74 full segments to flooding in the Midwest, but only one -- on CBS Evening News -- alluded to the fact that heavy downpours have increased (one percent of coverage). That segment did not explain that scientists have attributed this to climate change, and did not feature any scientists. MSNBC and Fox News were not included in this analysis because transcripts of their daytime coverage are not available in Nexis. [CBS News, 5/2/13]

USA TODAY Only National Print Outlet To Mention Climate Context Of Floods. USA TODAY, which recently launched a year-long series on the impacts of climate change, was the only national print outlet in our study that mentioned climate change in its reporting on Midwestern floods. The Associated Press, Reuters, Los Angeles Times, New York Times, and Wall Street Journal never mentioned climate change in a total of 35 articles on the floods. The Washington Post did not cover the flooding independently. In total, only 3 percent of national print coverage mentioned climate change. [USA TODAY, 4/22/13] [Media Matters, major paper of its kind, the researchers used elaborate computer programs that simulate the climate to analyze whether the rise in severe rainstorms, heavy snowfalls and similar events could be explained by natural variability in the atmosphere. They found that it could not, and that the increase made sense only when the computers factored in the effects of greenhouse gases released by human activities like the burning of fossil fuels.

[...]

Scientists have long been reluctant to attribute any specific weather event to global warming, but a handful of papers that do so are beginning to appear in the scientific literature. One such installment is being published on Thursday in Nature as a companion piece to the broader paper. It finds that severe rains that flooded England and Wales in 2000, the wettest autumn since record-keeping began there in 1766, were made substantially more likely by the greenhouse gases released by human activity. [New York Times, 2/16/11]

Climate Models Indicate That Heavy Downpours Will Increase In Midwest. The 2009 National Climate Assessment stated that climate models have projected that the heaviest downpours will increase in North America, particularly in the Midwest and Northeast:

Climate models project continued increases in the heaviest downpours during this century, while the lightest precipitation is projected to decrease. Heavy downpours that are now 1-in-20-year occurrences are projected to occur about every 4 to 15 years by the end of this century, depending on location, and the intensity of heavy downpours is also expected to increase. The 1-in-20-year heavy downpour is expected to be between 10 and 25 percent heavier by the end of the century than it is now.

[...]

[T]he Midwest and Northeast, where total precipitation is expected to increase the most, would also experience the largest increases in heavy precipitation events.

A more recent draft National Climate Assessment similarly found that in the Midwest "[e]xtreme rainfall events and flooding have increased during the last century, and these trends are expected to continue, causing erosion, declining water quality, and negative impacts on transportation, agriculture, human health, and infrastructure." That report included the following map showing the heaviest precipitation (top 2 percent of all rainfalls) is projected to increase by 2041-2070 relative to 1971-2000:

The 2009 report also included the following chart showing that the heavy rainfall is projected to increase compared to 1990s averages, based on climate models used in the IPCC's 2007 assessment report:

[National Climate Assessment, 2009, in-text citations removed for clarity] [Draft National Climate Assessment, 1/11/13]

Uncertainties Remain About Future Precipitation Patterns. The University of Iowa's page on the "impacts of global climate change on the Midwest" cautions that precipitation projections are more complicated than temperature projections:

Precipitation is much more difficult for climate models to simulate [than temperature]. So we have less confidence in the predictions of changes in precipitation due to climate change (more "mediums" and fewer "highs" in the confidence levels). A complicating issue of assessing changes in precipitation in the Midwest is that we are located close to regions of high precipitation gradients. That is, annual precipitation is much less in western Iowa than eastern Iowa and less in northern Iowa than southern Iowa. In Illinois, there is less in the north than the south, but east-west differences are small. So if precipitation patterns shift eastward, for instance, in a future climate, Iowa will be more affected than Illinois, but both will be affected by a northward shift of higher rainfall. [University of Iowa, accessed 5/1/13]

However, Experts Warn It Is "Irresponsible" To Let Uncertainties Delay Adaptation. A report on "Flood Management In A Changing Climate" by the World Meteorological Organization and the Global Water Partnership warned policymakers and municipal authorities against letting uncertainties delay adaptation:

[T]he scientific knowledge about the climate change and its impacts on the hydro-meteorological extremes such as floods and droughts is far from fully understood thereby making it difficult to assess future risks. Due to this uncertainty; managers can no longer have confidence in single projections of the future. It will also be difficult to detect a clear climate change effect within the next couple of decades, even with an underlying trend. Therefore, use of an adaptive management strategy is essential.

However, it is an irresponsible strategy to wait for less uncertain assessments before implementing adaptation measures, since climate change and its impacts are already taking place. Furthermore, waiting for less uncertain scenarios is a treacherous hope; the results will remain uncertain in future even with increased refinement of scientific methods. [World Meteorological Organization and the Global Water Partnership, August 2009]

Experts Urge Journalists To Incorporate Climate Change Into Flood Coverage

Seven Out Of Eight Scientists Agreed It Is Apt To Mention Climate Change In Flood Coverage. Of eight scientists who responded to inquiries from Media Matters, seven agreed that it is "appropriate" or "advisable" for journalists to explain how manmade climate change could worsen flood risks in the Midwestern United States. One emphasized uncertainty about future precipitation patterns.

Scavia: Media Are "Missing" That This Is The "New Normal." When told of the preliminary results of our analysis, Don Scavia, an aquatic ecologist at the University of Michigan and a lead convening author of the Midwest chapter of the draft National Climate Assessment, stated, "I think they're missing an important piece of information and if you don't make the point that these intense storms are occurring more often, each one looks like a one off event." He said that if you mention the historical trend, "you get a better sense of whether these are just rare and unusual events or a new normal, which is what they really are." He stated that in his view, "it's been actually good to see some of the reporting, such as on The Weather Channel, talk about how these storms are consistent with climate models -- in the past, they never made those observations." Scavia added that this "new normal" "should influence policies associated with building and development, "such as FEMA (Federal Emergency Management Agency) flood plain maps that affect insurance rates and building codes. [Phone conversation, 5/6/13]

Oppenheimer: It Is "Advisable" For The Press To Mention Climate Change Connection. In a phone conversation with Media Matters, Princeton University climate scientist and IPCC lead author Michael Oppenheimer stated that "if [he] were the press," he would state that rainstorms in the Midwest are increasing in frequency, the "models suggest this trend will continue," and "heavy precipitation, all other things being equal, will generally lead to more flooding." Oppenheimer concluded that it would be "not only appropriate, but advisable for the press to include such statements." Oppenheimer cautioned that "it's almost impossible in most situations to connect climate change in a cause and effect way to a particular episode," although some heat waves and other events have been attributed to climate change through modeling. He added that human management practices such as damming have a great influence over whether heavy precipitation leads to flooding. [Phone conversation, 5/1/13]

Trenberth: "Insights As To Why The Flooding Occurs" Are "Welcome." Kevin Trenberth, a Distinguished Senior Scientist in the Climate Analysis Section at the National Center for Atmospheric Research, wrote in an email to Media Matters:

Yes I think any insights as to why the flooding occurs is always welcome. Of course it is easy to say it is "weather", but the weather occurs in a changed environment: one that has more moisture in the atmosphere overall by about 4 to 5% compared with 30 to 40 years ago, and associated with global warming. More moisture means more rain where and when it does rain: and so greater risk of floods. This affects decisions on what to do subsequently: whether to redo whatever damage was done or redo differently to take account of changing risk? Maybe not build in the flood plain? Etc.

In a subsequent email, Trenberth wrote that there is a trend of the media ignoring climate change even when events that have been made more likely by climate change occur, which is "disappointing and even irresponsible":

What I would add is that coverage of this sort has been dwindling. Last year with all the wild fires and exceptional heat there were very few media reports that mentioned the drought and connections to climate change. The coverage was disappointing and even irresponsible. [Email exchanges, 4/30/13]

Fasullo: It's "Certainly Appropriate To Frame" Midwest Floods In The Context Of Climate Change. John Fasullo, a climate scientist at the National Center for Atmospheric Research, wrote in an email to Media Matters:

I think it's reasonable to frame the event in the broader context of recent extremes, especially extreme drought transitioning to flooding from 2010 to 2012 across large portions of the US. In fact, we currently see simultaneous wide-spread flooding and drought conditions in the central of the country (http://droughtmonitor.unl.edu).

Of course the question people are going to reflexively pose is "Is it caused by climate change?" But I think it is much more appropriate to ask whether climate change has influenced these types of events. Clearly the odd behavior we are witnessing, both at the moment and over the past several years, is consistent with the modulating influence of climate change. Quantifying exactly how much of an influence is a complicated task, one that is likely to have considerable uncertainty given the state of current models. I'd await some well-designed targeted studies to address that question (to date I have not seen one) but it is certainly appropriate to frame the topic in the context of climate change's broader influence. [Email exchange, 4/30/13]

Kunkel: Not Understanding How Climate Change Is Impacting Floods May Lead To A "False Sense Of Security" About Infrastructure. When asked whether the press should include statements such as "heavy rainstorms in the Midwest are increasing in frequency and climate change models suggest this trend will continue," Ken Kunkel, a scientist at NOAA's National Climatic Data center who specializes in extreme events, responded "A statement like the one you quote is a reasonable one and does not overstate the scientific understanding about historical trends and possible future changes." He added that we need to understand how climate change is impacting floods so that we do not have a "false sense of security about the adequacy of infrastructure currently being planned and built":

When infrastructure that needs to be resilient to runoff from heavy rain is planned, the design engineers are typically required to use design values for heavy rain, for example, the 100-yr storm. Such design values have been determined by the National Weather Service and are available in a series of publications. However, these design values are based entirely on historical storms and do not incorporate possible future changes due to anthropogenic climate change. One reason this has not been done is that there is no generally-accepted methodology for inclusion of possible future anthropogenically-forced changes. In my own personal research, I am exploring this issue and I personally think we need to provide decision-makers with some guidelines. Otherwise, we may have a false sense of security about the adequacy of infrastructure currently being planned and built. But, there is much research and development that needs to be done to develop guidelines. [Email exchange, 5/3/13]

Meehl: Climate Change Has Increased The "Odds For Flooding" In Midwest. Jerry Meehl, a senior scientist at the National Center for Atmospheric Research and a lead IPCC author, told Media Matters that "it's hard to attribute a particular event to a particular cause, and the way I always try to present it is you've shifted the odds for these precipitation and flooding events." He added that it's become "difficult to have any kind of rational discussion" of climate change, which is "discouraging to me because climate change is a science issue not a political issue" and "if I would have one thing to say, it would be let's talk about this as a science issue, climate change is a science issue that affects everyone."

In an earlier email to Media Matters, he explained that "higher levels of greenhouse gases increase the odds for flooding events such as the ones we're seeing now in the upper midwest":

Observations have shown that the northern tier of states has been getting wetter, and the southern tier drier. This is consistent with climate model simulations of the effects of increasing greenhouse gases (basically the wet areas get wetter, the dry get dryer). Observations also show that precipitation intensity has been increasing, and models show this as a signature of increasing temperatures (warmer air holds more moisture, so for a given precipitation event, more rain or snow falls--when it rains it pours). These atmospheric responses to higher levels of greenhouse gases increase the odds for flooding events such as the ones we're seeing now in the upper midwest. [Email exchange, 5/1/13]

Budikova: "I'm Not Sure" Why Media Are Not Tying In Climate Context Of Floods. Dagmar Budikova, a scientist at Illinois State University who has published research about climate change and Midwestern flooding, stated in a phone conversation that "you can tie it in, but you have to do it very carefully." She said that journalists "could be doing that and I'm not sure why they wouldn't be." She added they may simply be "trying to be very careful" as "reporting on climate change is not a simple task" and it is "dangerous" to "assume that anything anomalous is related to climate change." However, she stated, in the case of Midwestern flooding, "the literature is definitely converging to this idea" that flooding is increasing, and "more and more evidence is mounting to suggest that it may have to do with anthropogenic climate change." When asked whether it was important for the media to mention the climate context of the floods to make the public more aware, she said "I would think that probably the more aware people are about anything really, the better we are off" and that it is most likely that "the media would be the vehicle" to bring it to the public's attention. [E-mail, 5/1/13] [Phone conversation, 5/6/13]

Hirsch: It's A "Reasonable Hypothesis" But "Evidence Is Unclear" On Whether Precipitation Will Continue To Increase. Robert Hirsch, a research hydrologist at the U.S. Geological Survey, wrote in an email to Media Matters that while it's a "reasonable hypothesis that anthropogenic climate change could change flooding risks," the increase in precipitation may not continue. In a phone conversation, Hirsch added that while climate models have projected further precipitation of the region, "there's been very little testing," which is done through hindcasting, of whether these models are skillful. From his email:

I think it is a reasonable hypothesis that anthropogenic climate change could change flooding risks. However, the evidence to date is very unclear about this, and we know that the climate models, while they may be able to project changes in temperature fairly well do not do well at all when it comes to the kind of heavy precipitation events that produce floods. What we know when we look at the last 140 years or so in the midwest, that there have been some pretty large swings in the size of floods, and much of that is probably not related to anthropogenic climate change. There were very large floods in the last half of the 19th century, much smaller floods generally in the first half of the 20th century, and now we seem to be in another period of larger floods. We don't think this can be explained by greenhouse forcing, but may be a normal periodic oscillation in the climate.

I would say that human activities on the landscape may be as big a factor or bigger than climate change when it comes to changing the size of floods in this region. Urbanization and land drainage can be significant contributors to increased flooding. [Email exchange, 4/30/13] [Phone conversation, 5/1/13]

Methodology

We searched Nexis and Factiva databases for articles and segments on "flood!" between April 1 and May 3, 2013. Our results include four major television outlets (ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN), seven national print outlets (Associated Press, Reuters, Los Angeles Times, USA TODAY, New York Times, Washington Post, and Wall Street Journal), and eight local newspapers (St. Louis Post-Dispatch, Kansas City Star, Chicago Tribune, Chicago Sun-Times, Des Moines Register, Detroit Free Press, Minneapolis Star-Tribune and Indianapolis Star).