ThinkProgress author Joe Romm recently posted an article titled, “Study: Hottest Decade on Record Would Have Been Even Hotter But for Chinese Coal Plant Sulfur Pollution” based on a study titled, “Reconciling anthropogenic climate change with observed temperature 1998–2008.” As Romm points out, Reuters released a story regarding the study titled, “Asia pollution blamed for halt in warming: study,” which was then used by Fox News…

Fox Nation, the right wing extremist site brought to us by Fox News, took the Reuters story and renamed it, “Reuters Bombshell: Greenhouse Gas Emissions Reduce Global Warming.”

Seriously?

Sulfur pollution is not a greenhouse gas.  Quite the reverse, as the Reuters article Fox News links to makes clear.  Indeed, its ability to cool the globe has been known for many, many decades.

As Media Matters reports, the study’s lead author, Robert Kaufmann, denounced the headline as “patently false” via email:

Now come the worst part of publishing an article on a topic of general interest … the distortions. Sulfur emissions ARE NOT GREENHOUSE GASES and the article carefully separates the two.  Sulfur emissions are known as radiatively active gases because they reflect incoming solar radiation back to space.  But they are not greenhouse gases, which affect Earth’s energy balance by absorbing out-going long wave radiation.  So the headline is PATENTLY FALSE….

Sulfur emissions are bad air pollutants–with severe health (e.g. respiratory disease that contribute to tens of thousands of deaths) and environmental effects (acid deposition, which makes entire lakes lifeless). I am no an expert in this area, but these effects are the reasons that all industrial nations have  strict limits on sulfur emissions and now developing nations are scrubbing their emissions too.

Source

Share this article

Before launching Fox News Channel in 1996, FNC President Roger Ailes was a media strategist for Republican Presidents, Nixon, Reagan and H.W. Bush as well as a producer for Rush Limbaugh (see GOP Connections to Fox News page). It should be of little surprise to learn that Ailes would like nothing more than to push GOP propaganda onto Americans via a right-wing TV news channel, like Fox News.

A 300+ page cache of documents obtained by Gawker from the Nixon and Bush presidential libraries includes a memo titled, “A Plan For Putting the GOP on TV News.” The 15 page plan includes the opinion that “People are lazy. With television you just sit—watch—listen. The thinking is done for you.”

Today television news is watched more often than people read newspapers, than people listen to the radio, than people read or gather any other form of communication. The reason: People are lazy. With television you just sit—watch—listen. The thinking is done for you.

Knowing the differences between news and entertainment programming and the relative difference in rules, the plan was to circumvent the system and get GOP opinions into what they believed to be the “liberal media” and therefore delivered by who they saw as the enemy. Just as Fox News continues to claim to be the opposition to the mainstream media (of which they are part).

This is a plan that places news of importance to localities (Senators and representatives are newsmakers of importance to their localities) on local television news programs while it is still news. It avoids the censorship, the priorities, and the prejudices of network news selectors and disseminators.

The memo included handwritten notes from Roger Ailes, clearly stating his interest in making the plan a reality. Not only that, but using his media consulting experience to suggest changes and address possible repercussions.

Notes written by Roger Ailes in the margin of the memo.

Basically a very good idea. It should be expanded to include other members of the administration such as cabinet involved in activity with regional or local interest. Also could involve GOP governors when in DC. Who would purchase equipment and run operation—White House? RNC? Congressional caucus? Will get some flap about news management.

Ailes wanted in… here’s his note to Nixon Chief of Staff H.R. Haldeman:

Bob—if you decide to go ahead we would as a production company like to bid on packaging the entire project. I know what has to be done and we could test the feasibility for 90 days without making a commitment beyond that point.

The first version of the plan was to be called “Capitol News Service.” After Roger Ailes was fired by the White House, he was involved with Television News Incorporated (TVN), seemingly the subsequent version. As reported by Rolling Stone, TVN was financed by the President of Coors Brewing Co., Joseph Coors, and “was designed to inject a far-right slant into local news broadcasts by providing news clips that stations could use without credit—and at a fraction of the true costs of production.”

The documents obtained by Gawker include other “dirty tricks” memos. A memo from Roger Ailes to Haldeman involves a scheme to infiltrate a political opponent’s organization – “I would like to see us get one of our people inside the Wallace organization immediately.” There was also evidence of a “news” piece to be directed by Ailes and financed by a pro-Nixon front group that would have used two pro-war Democrats, who he calls “dupes for the administration,” to respond to a CBS News special.

Ailes was working on as a response to an anti-war CBS News special.

As you can clearly see, these examples demonstrate a direct GOP connection between Roger Ailes (American President of Fox News Channel) and a plan to air GOP propaganda on TV, disguised as news, plus other dirty tricks involving media manipulation. “Fair and balanced?” Really?

Source

Share this article

Jon Stewart appeared on The O’Reilly Factor to debate Bill O’Reilly about the singer Common being invited to the White House… Fox and Friends aired heavily edited footage of the debate video, from which Jon Stewart’s criticism of Fox News was removed.

Here’s the video from Fox and Friends:

Here’s what’s missing:

STEWART: There is a selective outrage machine here at Fox that petty fogs only when it suits the narrative that suits them. This guy is in the crosshairs in a way that he shouldn’t be, whether you agree with him or not over — you may think he is ignorant in believing that Assata Shakur is innocent. You may think he is ignorant in believing that Mumia is. But then guess what? Bono can’t go to the White House. Springsteen can’t go to the White House. Bob Dylan can’t go to the White House. You have got a lot of people that aren’t allowed to sit in the White House because they have written songs about people convicted of murder.

[...]

O’REILLY: You say that because Bono, Springsteen, and Bob Dylan wrote songs defending people who were accused of heinous things that I have to give Common a pass because he did the same thing.

STEWART: No. You have to be consistent with your outrage.

O’REILLY: All right. Let me give you -

STEWART: Be consistent.

O’REILLY: I will. Common visited, went to see.

STEWART: So what if Bono went to see Leonard Peltier?

O’REILLY: All right? In Cuba, and said – and said, quote –

STEWART: So now that’s your line? You are putting yourself in a smaller and smaller box.

O’REILLY: No, I’m not. I’m not.

STEWART: So this guy is worthy of it because he actually visited. And, by the way, I don’t agree with you that that’s what puts it over the top. I completely disagree with you.

O’REILLY: This makes it beyond a reasonable doubt.

STEWART: Oh, please.

O’REILLY: Oh, come on. You know this guy is sympathizing with two cop killers. You know that.

STEWART: I don’t know him. He believes they were unjustly convicted. That’s what I imagine this is.

Source

Share this article

Fox & Friends used a Rasmussen poll to show how people feel about scientists falsifying research to support Global Warming. Fox News then took the poll results, did some manipulation, and displayed the results… totaling 120%.

Apparently, the actual poll results were as follows: According to the poll, 35 percent thought it very likely, 24 percent somewhat likely, 21 percent not very likely, and 5 percent not likely at all (15 percent weren’t sure).

Fox News added the “very likely” and “somewhat likely” figures together, which total 59% and retained the “somewhat likely” label. They then included the 35% “very likely” in their graphic in addition to the new “somewhat likely” votes. The result shows a total of 120% and that doesn’t include the 15% who weren’t sure…

Original Story

Share this article

James O’Keefe’s visited a Philadelphia ACORN office. Subsequently, Fox News ran what even they referred to as “heavily edited tape.” Captions aired on Fox News Channel stated, “Exposing ACORN: New Video Shows Unlawful Actions.” The problem? The video shows no such thing. Additionally, ACORN workers filed an incident report with Philadelphia police following O’Keefe’s visit.

Many of Russell’s statements in the video of the office visit were edited out and replaced with audio of O’Keefe purporting to explain what she said, but nothing in the video supports the claim that Philadelphia ACORN workers actually assisted O’Keefe and Giles with any “unlawful actions.” As Fox News reported: “The new eight-minute video depicts O’Keefe and Giles entering ACORN’s Philadelphia office and meeting with Conway-Russell. O’Keefe and Giles are seen speaking with Conway-Russell, but audio portions of the video are missing or edited in some portions.” O’Keefe later stated, “We muted the audio of the ACORN employees on the video” because of “ACORN’s legal attack upon us.”

Original Story

Share this article

Fox News’ Major Garrett, whom Glenn Beck claimed to never gets to ask questions at the White House, asked White House press secretary Robert Gibbs about people claiming to be on a so-called list and receiving unsolicited email from the White House. Fox News then edits video to show Gibbs using the word “list” first in order to back up Garrett’s claim of said act. The actual transcript tells a different story… Note the bold sections and where they match up to the actual transcript.

On August 14, Major Garrett stated the following:

GARRETT: I have three times now told Robert Gibbs I have emails to present to him or anyone else he assigns at the White House to look into this, provided I receive substantive answers back as to how these people’s names ended up on a White House list. And remember, I never said “list” until Robert Gibbs said “list.” He said it first, then I repeated the word “list,” so apparently there is one. I don’t say that; he said it.

August 13 Major Garrett’s exchange with Robert Gibbs, edited:

GARRETT: — I receive e-mails from people who have never, ever signed up for anything related to this White House, Senator Obama as a candidate, Senator Obama as anything, and have received e-mails from David Axelrod. How could that be?

[Fox's video cut]

GIBBS: I’d be interested to see who you got that e-mail from and whether or not they’re on the list. I don’t –

[Fox's video cut]

GIBBS: Again, I just want to be — but I just want to be very –

GARRETT: So what you’re telling me is I need to give you these people’s e-mails so you can check them on a list? I’m just asking.

Here is the actual transcript showing how the video was manipulated:

GARRETT: Robert, a couple things on public option. It wasn’t listed in the email that David Axelrod sent out today where he was defining principal goals for health care reform. By my reading of it, I didn’t see any mention of a public option as a mechanism of achieving what you just outlined. Was that an oversight or is this — are there other –

GIBBS: I’d have to go back and reread the email.

GARRETT: Are there other priorities that take a higher precedent –

GIBBS: Well, again –

GARRETT: — for the president than a public option?

GIBBS: Let me be clear — I thought I was a minute ago, but I’ll take another whack at it — this is an option that provides choice and competition in an otherwise narrow or closed insurance market. That’s the president’s goal, is to ensure that if you didn’t get your health insurance through your employer, you didn’t have those type of options, that you would have something that might compete with the only game in town. That’s — I think that’s in David’s email, choice and competition.

GARRETT: Speaking of the email, how was the list for who would receive it determined?

GIBBS: I believe it’s for people that have signed up to receive email updates from the White House.

GARRETT: The reason I ask is I have received emails from people who did not, in any way, shape, or form, seek any communication from the White House, who have never registered on OFA, who have never registered on a campaign website –

GIBBS: Well, hold on, let’s –

GARRETT: Let me finish my question, let me finish my question.

GIBBS: No, no, no, but let’s be clear, because –

GARRETT: Let me finish my question.

GIBBS: No, no, no, but let’s be clear before you — I’m going to give you a chance to finish your question. You’ve done this a couple of times, Major, and I just want to be very clear, OK? OFA — no, no, no, no, don’t look funny. OFA, whether Obama for America or Organizing for America, has nothing to do with, never has had anything to do with what — if you sign up for, through whitehouse.gov, to receive emails, so let’s just — the reason I interrupted you is because I want you to rephrase your question that doesn’t continue to assume that –

GARRETT: Well, all I’m trying to get at is –

GIBBS: — somebody is violating the law and mixing up political –

GARRETT: — I receive e-mails from people who have never, ever signed up for anything related to this White House, Senator Obama as a candidate, Senator Obama as anything, and have received e-mails from David Axelrod. How could that be?

GIBBS: I’d have to look at who you said got the email.

GARRETT: I mean, do you seek other pieces of information identifying who might be curious about health care outside of people who have asked for emails?

GIBBS: I’m sorry, say that again.

GARRETT: Do you in any way seek databases or information about people who might be interested in health care?

GIBBS: I will certainly check. I will certainly check. I am not under that impression. But again –

GARRETT: I mean, folks have emailed me — I just want to know — would like to know how they get an e-mail from the White House when they have never asked for one.

GIBBS: I’d be interested to see who you got that e-mail from and whether or not they’re on the list. I don’t –

[Fox's video cut]

GIBBS: Again, I just want to be — but I just want to be very –

GARRETT: So what you’re telling me is I need to give you these people’s e-mails so you can check them on a list? I’m just asking.

GIBBS: Well, you’re asking me if they’re on a list.

GARRETT: No, they’re telling me –

GIBBS: If you can figure out a different way of checking without asking me to double-check the name, I’m happy to –

GARRETT: Perhaps I’m not phrasing this correctly. They’re telling me they’re not — they can’t be on a list because they never asked for an e-mail from the White House.

Original Story

Share this article

Known for manipulating video for desired shameful effect and badly misquoting Barack Obama, Sean Hannity was caught doing it again, this time of Obama discussing the Cold War. Obama acknowledged the roles of past leaders to lift the Iron Curtain, but the video Hannity aired was edited to exclude that part:

OBAMA: There were a whole bunch of people throughout Eastern Europe who showed enormous courage, and I think that it is very important in this part of the world to acknowledge the degree to which people struggled for their own freedom. We don’t have to diminish other people in order to recognize our role in that history.

Hannity followed up that edited clip with:

HANNITY: Unbelievable. Now, that’s interesting, because Lech Walesa, the leader of the Polish Solidarity Movement, said this about the end of the Cold War; he said, quote: “We in Poland took him, Ronald Reagan, so personally. Why? Because we owe him our liberty. Now this can’t be said often enough by people who lived under oppression for half a century.” Mr. President, if I were you, you may want to consider hitting the history books maybe before your next foreign trip.

Here’s what President Obama really said:

OBAMA: Well, listen, the — I think that you just cut out Lech Walesa and the Poles. You just cut out Havel and the Czechs. There were a whole bunch of people throughout Eastern Europe who showed enormous courage.

And I think that it is very important in this part of the world to acknowledge the degree to which people struggled for their own freedom. I’m very proud of the traditions of Democratic and Republican presidents to lift the Iron Curtain.

But, you know, we don’t have to diminish other people in order to recognize our role in that history.

Original Story

Share this article

The following contest is from Salon.com:

Contest: Can you spin better than O’Reilly? See if you can edit the full-length video of Bill O’Reilly’s interview with Joan Walsh (here’s Part 1 and Part 2) down to the 45 seconds or so that best captures Bill O’Reilly. 1). Upload it to YouTube or the video sharing site of your choice. 2). Post it on Open Salon, or link to it in the comments section here. We’ll feature the best submissions as they come in, and name the winner at the end of the week.

The best submissions will be featured here and on Joan’s blog — and the winning submission will be featured on the cover of Salon.

If I had the slightest idea how to edit and manipulate video, I’d love to give this a try. So, I’ll be looking forward to seeing what you all come up with – be sure to link to your submission in the comments below as well!

Share this article

Last week, Joan Walsh of Salon.com, was interviewed by Bill O’Reilly, who probably regretted that decision all weekend. That may be why he decided to re-air the interview. But would he dare air the full interview? Of course not.

Without Ms. Walsh there to respond, O’Reilly manipulated the video to remove the facts she provided and to show that it’s the crazy liberals who have no regard for “murdered” babies. O’Reilly also repeated his unverified and illogical arguments about the procedures and the numbers performed.

According to O’Reilly, Dr. Tiller performed 60,000 late term abortions, which were legal, BTW. If you do the math, that would be more than 16 late term abortions per day, 7 days a week for 10 years. Nevermind that the procedure is rare and highly regulated.

Original Story

Share this article

Yesterday, Sean Hannity discussed Barack Obama‘s speech in Cairo, stating that the President, “decided to give 9-11 sympathizers a voice on the world stage.” This is the text of the clip Hannity showed:

I am aware that there are still some that would question or even justify the events of 9-11.

This is what Obama said following that quote, that Hannity conveniently left out:

But let us be clear: Al Qaeda killed nearly 3,000 people on that day. The victims were innocent men, women and children from America and many other nations who had done nothing to harm anybody. And yet al Qaeda chose to ruthlessly murder these people, claimed credit for the attack, and even now states their determination to kill on a massive scale. They have affiliates in many countries and are trying to expand their reach. These are not opinions to be debated; these are facts to be dealt with.

Here’s the transcript from Hannity’s show:

HANNITY: He went on to imply to the foreign audience in Cairo that the U.S. is a nation that tortures.

OBAMA: I have unequivocally prohibited the use of torture by the United States, and I have ordered the prison at Guantanamo Bay closed by early next year.

HANNITY: He also decided to give 9-11 sympathizers a voice on the world stage.

OBAMA: I am aware that there are still some that would question or even justify the events of 9-11.

HANNITY: And throughout the speech, Mr. Obama spoke out of both sides of his mouth. He said on Iraq that he’s glad that Saddam is gone, but then he added this caveat. Listen to this.

OBAMA: Iraq was a war of choice.

Original Story

Share this article

Here is a great mashup video showing how Fox News crops and manipulates video to show people, like Barack Obama, stating things that have the entirely opposite meaning than the context of the message.

Share this article