content top

Fox & Friends Edits Jon Stewart’s Criticism of Fox News

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

  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Google Plus
  • Pinterest
  • MySpace
  • LinkedIn
  • FriendFeed
  • Tumblr
  • Instapaper
  • Blogger
  • Reddit
  • Digg
  • Delicious
  • StumbleUpon
  • Add to favorites
  • Email
  • RSS
Read More

Major Garrett Leaves Fox News

White House correspondent for Fox News, Major Garrett, has left the network and TV, returning to print journalism. This comes after Garrett helped Fox News gain the coveted front row seat at the White House Briefing Room. Wendell Goler and Mike Emanuel will share the White House beat.

“Throughout my television career, I’ve known with certainty I would someday return to my roots in print journalism,” Garrett said in the announcement. “That day has come. I will soon announce an exciting new phase of my career — one made possible in no small part by FOX News’ consistent support. It would take a lot – something near perfection – to lure me away from the best job I’ve ever had. Details to come.”

Garrett has accepted a job at National Journal, returning to his roots in print journalism. National Journal Editor-in-Chief Ron Fournier said in a separate announcement. “He is known across Washington as one of the hardest-working journalists in the business, a fierce competitor on his beat, and a good and decent man. It is a rare combination, and one we’re incredibly lucky to be bringing into our newsroom.”

“We think Major Garrett is a legitimate reporter,” former White House Communications Director Anita Dunn said in the midst of the administration’s battle against the network.

Of course, if you want an example of Major Garrett twisting President Obama’s words, here you go. And, if you want to see Wendell Goler taking an Obama quote out of context, you can find that here. But Goler has also provided a voice of reason about the czar issue.

Source

Share this article

  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Google Plus
  • Pinterest
  • MySpace
  • LinkedIn
  • FriendFeed
  • Tumblr
  • Instapaper
  • Blogger
  • Reddit
  • Digg
  • Delicious
  • StumbleUpon
  • Add to favorites
  • Email
  • RSS
Read More

Petition: NPR vs. Fox

As early as Sunday, the White House Correspondents’ Association will decide which news organization will be awarded a recently-vacated front-row center seat in the White House briefing room.

The contenders? National Public Radio, Bloomberg News—and Fox.

Yes, Fox—which we all know is actually a tool in the right-wing propaganda machine, not a legitimate news organization. They simply don’t deserve the best seat in the White House briefing room—a seat held for years by journalist Helen Thomas until she retired recently.

So we’re joining our friends at CREDO Action to petition the Correspondents’ Association to award the seat to a real, public news organization: NPR.

Can you sign the petition today? Tell the Correspondents’ Association to give the best seat in the briefing room to NPR, not Fox.

http://pol.moveon.org/nprvsfox/

The petition says, “Give Helen Thomas’ former briefing room seat to NPR, which has provided public interest coverage for decades—not Fox, which is a right-wing propaganda tool, not a legitimate news organization.”

Then, please forward this email to your friends and post on Facebook and Twitter so we can spread the news faster. Already 140,000 people have signed onto this call through CREDO Action. Help us get up to 250,000 before the meeting on Sunday!

Winning this seat would give Fox legitimacy it simply doesn’t deserve—not after years of race-baiting, smears against progressives and Democrats, and spreading right-wing propaganda 24/7.

So instead we’re calling on the Association to award the seat to one of our nation’s premiere news organizations, which has served the public for years and currently reaches an audience of 27 million.

Will you sign the petition today? Just click here:

http://pol.moveon.org/nprvsfox/

Thanks for all you do.

–Kat, Marika, Jeff, Duncan, and the rest of the team

Source

Share this article

  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Google Plus
  • Pinterest
  • MySpace
  • LinkedIn
  • FriendFeed
  • Tumblr
  • Instapaper
  • Blogger
  • Reddit
  • Digg
  • Delicious
  • StumbleUpon
  • Add to favorites
  • Email
  • RSS
Read More

Roger Ailes: White House May Have Had ‘Legitimate Complaints’ About Fox News

Without providing specifics, Fox News President Roger Ailes may have made an admission of guilt about the bias found on Fox News… at least as far as the claims that came from the White House.

ROBINSON: Do you subscribe to the statement of your news host Chris Wallace that the Obama administration is “the biggest bunch,” he said, “the biggest bunch of crybabies” that he’s dealt with in his 30 years in Washington?

AILES: That was his…

ROBINSON: They’re whining over nothing!

AILES: Well, I don’t think they’re whining over nothing and I think they have — look, there’s legitimate complaints that they could have. And I’ve had this dialogue with David Axelrod, who I like very much and, there are legitimate areas. I mean, Chris said that, that’s his words, that’s what he believes, and he had reason to believe that. But I don’t think its helpful to say that.

Original Story

Share this article

  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Google Plus
  • Pinterest
  • MySpace
  • LinkedIn
  • FriendFeed
  • Tumblr
  • Instapaper
  • Blogger
  • Reddit
  • Digg
  • Delicious
  • StumbleUpon
  • Add to favorites
  • Email
  • RSS
Read More

Dana Perino’s Hypocrisy Re: FNC vs. White House

Fox News contributor Dana Perino, who is the former White House press secretary under President George W. Bush, had this to say about her time serving Bush and their treatment of NBC:

PERINO: I could have taken that tack, but I thought it was not the right thing to do and I think it’s mostly because it’s really unproductive, it feels un-American, and it’s not inspiring.

However, history tells a different story:

In a May 20, 2008, press briefing, when asked about “the back-and-forth between you guys and NBC News,” and a letter sent by then-White House counselor Ed Gillespie to NBC alleging the network had “deceptively edited” an interview with Bush, Perino stated, “The reason that we sent the letter yesterday is because we had gotten fed up with the way that the President’s policies are being mischaracterized.” She added, “We had complained before. And it just reached a boiling point when things had boiled over when we believed that NBC News specifically edited out — intentionally edited out — something that the President said in response to a question in an interview regarding Iran, and that it mischaracterized the whole interview because of it.”

Original Story

MS. PERINO: We have not heard back from them on that specific matter. We anxiously await any response that we would get on it. But I think it’s quite telling that they have been silent.

The reason that we sent the letter yesterday is because we had gotten fed up with the way that the President’s policies are being mischaracterized, or the situations on the ground weren’t being accurately reflected in the reporting. We had complained before. And it just reached a boiling point when things had boiled over when we believed that NBC News specifically edited out — intentionally edited out — something that the President said in response to a question in an interview regarding Iran, and that it mischaracterized the whole interview because of it.

As regards the civil war, I remember very distinctly how there was quite the pomp and circumstance when NBC, on the Today Show, decided to declare — that they were declaring that Iraq was a civil war. But since then, after the surge and things certainly improved in Iraq, NBC has never had a corresponding ceremony to say that Iraq is not in a civil war. I was just curious to find out what they believe.

And the same goes with the economy. When we got the numbers just two weeks ago on the GDP for the economic growth, it said that we had grown at 0.6 percent. And yet the anchor that night decided to disavow that number. We’re just curious what part of the official government data that’s been coming out for years do they not agree with. So we haven’t had a response on that.

And just another point on this is that President Bush is going to continue to state what United States policy is for the next eight months, and certainly during the six months that there’s an election going on. If, for example, if tomorrow President Bush says that he believes that the tax cuts should be made permanent, that doesn’t mean he’s attacking anybody; he is stating his policy. And we just want to make sure it’s really clear that we’re not going to allow the President’s policies to be dragged into the ’08 election unnecessarily and unfairly.

Share this article

  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Google Plus
  • Pinterest
  • MySpace
  • LinkedIn
  • FriendFeed
  • Tumblr
  • Instapaper
  • Blogger
  • Reddit
  • Digg
  • Delicious
  • StumbleUpon
  • Add to favorites
  • Email
  • RSS
Read More

Fox News’ War on White House Video Montage

Fox News plays the victim about criticism and fact checking from the white house and certain individuals have come to their defense, but what they conveniently don’t admit is that Fox News started the war on the White House prior to Barack Obama being elected President. The White House has been fairly silent on the lies and misinformation coming from Fox News for several months. Now that they address the attacks, Fox News plays their victim card… Here is a great montage showing Fox News clips from this year:

YouTube Preview Image

Share this article

  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Google Plus
  • Pinterest
  • MySpace
  • LinkedIn
  • FriendFeed
  • Tumblr
  • Instapaper
  • Blogger
  • Reddit
  • Digg
  • Delicious
  • StumbleUpon
  • Add to favorites
  • Email
  • RSS
Read More

Fox & Friends Helps Prove White House’s Case

Fox & Friends hosts Brian Kilmeade and Steve Doocy were gabbing away with Dana Perino about how wrong they think it is that the Obama administration is finally standing up against the numerous falsehoods and manipulations aired by Fox News. Below are quotes from Steve Doocy, a video clip and an excerpt from the Newsweek article he refers to.

DOOCY: And you know it’s funny Dana, I didn’t do a thorough search, but I did do a little Google thing. The New York Times came out against it, The Nation refers to, says there’s a word for what the President and his aids are doing and that’s “whining” and refers to the President as the “Whiner-in-Chief”, the Baltimore Sun thinks it’s stupid, and the Newsweek column said that it is essentially un-American.

YouTube Preview Image

The Newsweek article actually states the exact opposite – that Rupert Murdoch and Fox News are un-American. Doocy showed that he couldn’t even correctly read the title of the article, The O’Garbage Factor. Fox News isn’t just bad. It’s un-American.

NEWSWEEK: What’s most distinctive about the American press is not its freedom but its century-old tradition of independence—that it serves the public interest rather than those of parties, persuasions, or pressure groups. Media independence is a 20th-century innovation that has never fully taken root in many other countries that do have a free press. The Australian-British-continental model of politicized media that Murdoch has applied at Fox is un-American, so much so that he has little choice but go on denying what he’s doing as he does it. For Murdoch, Ailes, and company, “fair and balanced” is a necessary lie. To admit that their coverage is slanted by design would violate the American understanding of the media’s role in democracy and our idea of what constitutes fair play. But it’s a demonstrable deceit that no longer deserves equal time.

So, as you can see, Doocy complains that the criticism of Fox News is un-American while floating yet another falsehood about the Obama administration.

Original Story

Share this article

  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Google Plus
  • Pinterest
  • MySpace
  • LinkedIn
  • FriendFeed
  • Tumblr
  • Instapaper
  • Blogger
  • Reddit
  • Digg
  • Delicious
  • StumbleUpon
  • Add to favorites
  • Email
  • RSS
Read More

Glenn Beck on White House Controlling Media

White House communications director, Anita Dunn, made a comment prior to working with the White House that the Obama campaign wanted to control their message in regards to their direct video method, not the media itself. Unfortunately, Glenn Beck didn’t see it that way. Instead, he turns it into a “hands around your throat” conspiracy theory.

BECK: OK. So this one has come out this weekend, that we controlled the press. And what people are saying about this is that, see? They’re controlling the press. Well, let’s be honest here. Isn’t that what every candidate tries to do? If you don’t control the press, if you don’t get your hands around the press, they’re going to have their hands around your throat. It is a struggle to the death — not for Obama. I mean, they would have their hands all over you stroking your smooth pecs and saying, “Oh, you are just so hot.” So it’s never been that problem for Barack Obama, but that’s what you do.

Here are Anita Dunn’s exact words:

DUNN: A huge part of our press strategy was focused on making the media cover what Obama was actually saying as opposed to, you know, why the campaign was saying it, what the tactic was, that we — we had a huge premium both on message discipline, on people in the campaign not leaking to reporters and people in the campaign not discussing our strategy, and also on making the press cover what we were saying.

So we, you know, one of the reasons we did so many of the David Plouffe videos was not just for our supporters, but also because it was a way for us to get our message out without having to actually talk to reporters; we just put that out there and make them write what Plouffe had said as opposed to Plouffe doing an interview with a reporter. So it was very much we controlled it, as opposed to the press controlled it.

It’s nothing new for campaigns and administrations to release videos. In their case it was a winning strategy to stay focused on the message, not a commentator’s version of it.

Original Story

Share this article

  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Google Plus
  • Pinterest
  • MySpace
  • LinkedIn
  • FriendFeed
  • Tumblr
  • Instapaper
  • Blogger
  • Reddit
  • Digg
  • Delicious
  • StumbleUpon
  • Add to favorites
  • Email
  • RSS
Read More

Fox News Hypocrisy On Criticism From White House

Fox News has been actively playing the victim regarding harsh criticism from the White House recently. As you may have seen here, White House communications director, Anita Dunn, called Fox News “opinion journalism” and a “wing of the Republican Party.” Previously the White House blog listed falsehoods aired by Fox News regarding the Olympics.

Here is one example, from Sean Hannity:

HANNITY: We have a White House that has now set up a Web site specifically to attack the FOX News Channel because we ask tough questions and they do not like that. They’re not used to that with the fawning news media.

So — I mean is this an enemies list? It seems like it to me. I can’t imagine a Republican doing this without, you know, a media outcry.

Note that the White House has not actually “set up a Web site specifically to attack the FOX News Channel,” but rather a blog wherein they’ve addressed Fox News twice (see above). If there is a web site that matches Hannity’s description, we’d probably know about it… It appears to be, instead, another in a long line of falsehoods.

Enter the hypocrisy of Fox News.

Last year, when the Bush administration attacked the credibility of NBC News, and even sent a letter to the President of NBC News questioning deceptive editing and their news vs. opinion, Fox News did not come to NBC’s defense. In fact, they openly questioned why the White House would “bother.”

Example 1 with Laura Ingraham, sitting in for Bill O’Reilly on The O’Reilly Factor:

INGRAHAM: Now Karl, why would the White House agree to do an interview with Richard Engel? I mean, this is the guy who, you know, really didn’t want to give the surge any credit and NBC, an organization, obviously that’s called this a civil war. Now it’s kind of not gone back and changed his view on that. We’re in a recession, etcetera, etcetera. I mean, why bother really at this point? [The O'Reilly Factor, 5/19/09]

Example 2 with Ed Gillespie, then-White House counselor, who sent the scathing letter to NBC:

E.D. HILL: You know, I’m sure you know from watching this program that, you know, Bill has, you know, has been reporting for more than a year on a pattern suggesting that NBC News basically panders to the left and is, in essence, in the pocket for Barack Obama. Why go on a venue like that to begin with?

GILLESPIE: Go on a venue like MSNBC?

HILL: Yes.

GILLESPIE: I don’t know. It’s — you know, the – you know, there are elements there who are clearly advocates for a candidate or a point of view, not even commentaries or commentators really or analysts. So I don’t know why he would. [The O'Reilly Factor, 5/22/08]

So, they can dish it out, but can’t take it. Take, as another example, Glenn Beck and Gillespie, mentioned above, talking about the Democrats allegedly “trying to blackball Fox” in regards to debates in 2008.

BECK: While their [Fox News's] journalists clearly or their commentators are clearly conservative, nobody in Washington is trying to — the Democrats are trying to blackball Fox by not going on any debates, et cetera, et cetera. You don’t see Republicans doing that to NBC, do you?

GILLESPIE: No, and sometimes I question why… It is beyond me frankly.

Keep in mind that Gillespie was White House counselor while Bush was President and accused NBC of deceptive editing. It was that same White House that was caught taking an ABC broadcast, editing it to paint a positive picture of political progress in Iraq, and redistributing it. Don’t forget that the Bush administration granted Fox News unprecedented access. Where was the outrage from Hannity, Beck, or anyone else at Fox News when that was going on?

Original Story

Share this article

  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Google Plus
  • Pinterest
  • MySpace
  • LinkedIn
  • FriendFeed
  • Tumblr
  • Instapaper
  • Blogger
  • Reddit
  • Digg
  • Delicious
  • StumbleUpon
  • Add to favorites
  • Email
  • RSS
Read More

Fox News Operates As ‘a wing of the Republican Party’

White House communications director Anita Dunn defended her recent comment to Time magazine that Fox News is “opinion journalism masquerading as news.”

DUNN: The reality of it is that Fox News often operates as either the research arm or the communications arm of the Republican Party. And it’s not ideological. I mean, obviously there are many commentators who are conservative, liberal, centrist, and everybody understands that. What I think is fair to say about Fox is — and certainly the way we view it — is that it really is more of a wing of the Republican Party. [...]

They’re widely viewed as, you know, a part of the Republican Party — take their talking points, put them on the air, take their opposition research, put them on the air, and that’s fine. But let’s not pretend they’re a news network they way CNN is.

YouTube Preview Image

Share this article

  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Google Plus
  • Pinterest
  • MySpace
  • LinkedIn
  • FriendFeed
  • Tumblr
  • Instapaper
  • Blogger
  • Reddit
  • Digg
  • Delicious
  • StumbleUpon
  • Add to favorites
  • Email
  • RSS
Read More

White House Points Out Fox News Olympic Falsehoods

The official White House blog, once again, takes Fox News to task over falsehoods and, this time, their partisan attack over the Olympics, of all things…

RHETORIC:          BECK SAID VANCOUVER LOST $1 BILLION WHEN IT “HAD THE OLYMPICS.” Glenn Beck said, Vancouver lost, how much was it? they lost a billion dollars when they had the Olympics.”  [Transcript, Glenn Beck Show, 9/29/09]
REALITY:              VANCOUVER’S OLYMPICS WILL NOT TAKE PLACE UNTIL 2010. Vancouver will host the 2010 Olympic and Paralympic Games from February 12 – 28, 2010 and March 12-21, 2010, respectively. [Vancouver2010.com, accessed 9/29/09]
RHETORIC:          VALERIE JARRETT “WAS LAST SEEN WITH THE NEA.” Beck’s guest, FOX News contributor Pat Caddell, said, “[Obama] is going to go [to Copenhagen] with Valerie Jarrett who was last seen with the NEA pumping up their use of, you know, money.” [Transcript, Glenn Beck Show, 9/29/09]
REALITY:              VALERIE JARRETT WAS NOT ON THE NEA CONFERENCE CALL. Valerie Jarrett was not a participant in the August 10, 2009 United We Serve/NEA conference call.
RHETORIC:          CHICAGO IS CLOSING THE GOVERNMENT SEVERAL DAYS A WEEK BECAUSE THEY CANNOT AFFORD TO BE OPEN. Beck’s guest Caddell said, “Chicago is closing the government several days a week because they cannot afford to be open. They are going to go and reward — this is the biggest scandal.” [Transcript, Glenn Beck Show, 9/29/09]
REALITY:              CHICAGO HAS HAD ONE REDUCED-SERVICE DAY IN 2009, AND WILL HAVE TWO MORE ON THE FRIDAY AFTER THANKSGIVING AND ON CHRISTMAS EVE. On August 17, 2009, CBS Chicago reported, “If you planned to check out a library book, visit a city clinic or have your garbage picked up on Monday, you’re out of luck.   The City of Chicago is basically closed for business on Aug. 17, a reduced-service day in which most city employees are off without pay. City Hall, public libraries, health clinics and most city offices will be closed.  Emergency service providers including police, firefighters and paramedics are working at full strength, but most services not directly related to public safety, including street sweeping, will not be provided.  That also includes garbage pickup. Residents who receive regular collection on Mondays should expect trash to be picked up on Tuesday. Some other customers may experience a one-day delay as collectors catch up.  As part of the 2009 budget, three reduced-service days were planned for 2009, days which are unpaid for all affected employees — the Friday after Thanksgiving; Christmas Eve; and New Year’s Eve. The City Council recently approved moving the reduced-service day planned for New Year’s Eve to Monday.  The 2009 budget anticipates saving $8.3 million due to the reduced-service days.   In addition to reduced service days, all non-union employees were asked to take a series of furlough days and unpaid holidays, and most non-sworn union employees agreed to similar unpaid time off.”CBS Chicago, 8/17/09] [
RHETORIC: VALERIE JARRETT WILL BENEFIT FINANCIALLY. Beck asked, “Is it possible that she is going to benefit if the Olympics come to Chicago?” Caddell responded, “Well, that’s the word. She has certainly had a lot of dealings going on in real estate.” [Transcript, Glenn Beck Show, 9/29/09]
REALITY: UPON ENTERING GOVERNMENT, VALERIE JARRETT DIVESTED ALL HER REAL ESTATE INVESTMENT HOLDINGS EXCEPT FOR A SINGLE INVESTMENT THAT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE OLYMPIC BID. Valerie Jarrett divested all her investment real estate holdings upon entering government except for a single real estate holding that she was unable to sell. This single real estate investment has been determined by White House Counsel and the independent Office of Government Ethics to present no conflict of interest in performing her duties as a White House advisor.  It has nothing to do with the Olympic bid.

Original Story

Share this article

  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Google Plus
  • Pinterest
  • MySpace
  • LinkedIn
  • FriendFeed
  • Tumblr
  • Instapaper
  • Blogger
  • Reddit
  • Digg
  • Delicious
  • StumbleUpon
  • Add to favorites
  • Email
  • RSS
Read More

Obama Skips Fox News & White House Response

Fox is playing the victim when President Obama skipped the network in a round of recent interviews after the network previously dismissing the President’s other speeches.

You have people on FNC falsely claim that the White House does not call on them at press conferences, get caught manipulating video of a previous speech, spread falsehoods about so-called “Czars,” acuse Obama of “indoctrinating students,” call Obama a “racist” and “dangerous,” promote tea parties, decide to not show his press conference on network TV, etc. etc. etc. and now they’re whining about being not being included with the other networks.

We figured Fox would rather show So You Think You Can Dance than broadcast an honest discussion about health insurance reform,” White House spokesman Josh Earnest told ABC News. Earnest was referring to the TV show FOX TV broadcast September 9 instead of the president’s speech.

“Fox is an ideological outlet where the president has been interviewed before and will likely be interviewed again,” Earnest told ABC. “Not that the whining particularly strengthens their case for participation any time soon.”

Original Story

Share this article

  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Google Plus
  • Pinterest
  • MySpace
  • LinkedIn
  • FriendFeed
  • Tumblr
  • Instapaper
  • Blogger
  • Reddit
  • Digg
  • Delicious
  • StumbleUpon
  • Add to favorites
  • Email
  • RSS
Read More

White House Takes on ‘Czar’ Claims, Slams Glenn Beck

Fox News has focused many hours to uncovering and trying to take down so-called “Czars.” The White House has, apparently, had enough of the nonsense and published a firm statement on their official blog. One of the people they’ve called out is Glenn Beck.

Glenn Beck Claimed There Were 32 “Czars” In The Obama Administration. “The Brainroom counts 32 czars in the Obama administration, based on media reports from reputable sources that have identified the official in question as a czar.” [Glenn Beck Website, 8/21/09]

Reality: Many of the arbitrarily labeled “czars” on Beck’s list are Senate-confirmed appointees or advisory roles carried over from previous administrations. Others are advisors to the President’s Cabinet Secretaries.  Beck himself says on his own website, “Since czar isn’t an official job title, the number is somewhat in the eye of the beholder.”

Here are the important points from the White House blog:

  • Republicans have supported these positions in the past.
  • In fact, the Bush administration had many of the same officials and advisors now described as “czars,”  including Afghanistan czar, AIDS czarDrug czarFaith-based czar, Intelligence czar, Mideast Peace Czar, Regulatory Czar, Science Czar, Sudan Czar, TARP/Bailout Czar, Terrorism Czar, and Weapons Czar.
  • Some hold jobs that involved coordinating the work of agencies on President Obama’s key policy priorities: health insurance reform, energy and green jobs, and building a new foundation for long-lasting economic growth
  • Of the 32 “czars” on Beck’s list, nine were confirmed by the Senate
  • Sen. Robert Bennett has criticized czars as “undermining the Constitution,”  but reportedly prodded President Clinton to appoint a Y2K Czar.  In a 1999 CNN appearance, Sen. Bennett said “I think John Koskinen has been superb. I wrote the president six months before John was appointed, recommending that he appoint a Y2K czar.”
  • Senator Lamar Alexander has also criticized President Obama’s “czars,” calling them “an affront to the Constitution.”  But during remarks delivered on the Senate floor in 2003, Sen. Alexander said “I would welcome” President Bush’s “manufacturing job czar.”
  • When asked on Fox News if he had opposed any of President Bush’s “czars,” Rep. Darrell Issa responded “No we didn’t,” despite previously claiming that czars “undermine” transparency and accountability.

The Truth About Czars

Share this article

  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Google Plus
  • Pinterest
  • MySpace
  • LinkedIn
  • FriendFeed
  • Tumblr
  • Instapaper
  • Blogger
  • Reddit
  • Digg
  • Delicious
  • StumbleUpon
  • Add to favorites
  • Email
  • RSS
Read More

Sean Hannity’s Weak Argument For Using Term ‘Czars’

A lot of focus is being put on so-called “Czars,” or advisers, in the Obama Administration, even though the same faux outrage was not staged for advisers of previous administrations. So, why the outrage? Why the new terminology? Sean Hannity tries to answer that, and fails.

Hannity claims that the term is used because the White House, itself, uses it. However, his montage only provides clips that show responses, a joke and a reference to the long standing position dubbed “drug czar” (Both Bushes & Reagan had “drug czars”)

YouTube Preview Image

– On July 13, Obama did use the term “Drug Czar” when referring to Gil Kerlikowske, director of the Office of National Drug Control Policy.

– Hannity’s March 11 clip of Gibbs saying, “I think I’ve been asked in this room any number of times if the czars in our White House to deal with energy and health care had too much power” was in response to a reporter’s question. In fact, the first person to use the term “czar” in that briefing was Fox News reporter Major Garrett.

– At the Radio and Television Correspondents’ Association dinner in June, Obama was joking when he said, “ABC is planning a series called ‘Dancing with the Czars.’” It was part of his comedy routine at the dinner.

– Hannity’s fourth clip was taken from the same March 11 press briefing as his second clip. In fact, it was in response to the exact same question, and came just a sentence later.

Original Story

Share this article

  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Google Plus
  • Pinterest
  • MySpace
  • LinkedIn
  • FriendFeed
  • Tumblr
  • Instapaper
  • Blogger
  • Reddit
  • Digg
  • Delicious
  • StumbleUpon
  • Add to favorites
  • Email
  • RSS
Read More

Fox News Crops Video to Support Email List Claim

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

  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Google Plus
  • Pinterest
  • MySpace
  • LinkedIn
  • FriendFeed
  • Tumblr
  • Instapaper
  • Blogger
  • Reddit
  • Digg
  • Delicious
  • StumbleUpon
  • Add to favorites
  • Email
  • RSS
Read More
Page 1 of 212
content top