The Two Very Different Faces Of Conservative Radio Host Steve Deace

Iowa radio host Steve Deace is frequently interviewed as a political analyst by mainstream media outlets like NPR, MSNBC, and The Hill when they need an insider's perspective on the GOP primary and Iowa political landscape. However, these outlets may not all be aware that Deace gained his insider status in conservative circles by broadcasting full-throated endorsements of extreme right-wing positions on his radio show and writing online columns filled with intolerant views that he never reveals during main stream media appearances.Deace Frequently Appears As A Commentator And GOP Analyst In Mainstream Media Deace's Website Highlights His Dual Role As A Serious Analyst And Conservative Firebrand. A list of all of the media outlets that have interviewed Deace, including his right-wing media contributions, is on his website: Deace has been interviewed on: The American Spectator, Associated Press, Atlanta Journal-Constitution, Barron's, Canadian Broadcasting Company, CNN, Fox News, Los Angeles Times, Minneapolis Star-Tribune, MSNBC, National Review, The New Republic, Newsweek, The New York Times, NPR, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, Politico, Reuters, Sky News, Time, The Washington Post, and Weekly Standard. Steve Deace is also a prolific writer. He's a columnist for The Washington Times, one of the most respected names in conservative media. He's also a regular contributor to Town Hall and has written for USA Today, Politico, Business Insider, Breitbart, CNS News, and WND. [SteveDeace.com, accessed 7/29/15] Deace: I Am MSNBC's "Token Conservative" During Presidential Elections. During an episode of The Steve Deace Show, Deace talked about his role representing broad conservative views during his appearances on MSNBC. [The Steve Deace Show, 5/5/15] MSNBC Interviewed Deace Nearly Every Time A 2016 GOP Presidential Candidate Entered The Race. In his many appearances on MSNBC for its coverage of the Republican presidential field, Deace has provided fairly objective commentary and analysis. [SteveDeace.com, accessed7/29/15] NPR Interviewed Deace About Iowa's GOP Primary. NPR's Rachel Martin turned to Deace as a source for analysis of the GOP candidate field and to offer insight into evangelical voters in Iowa. Deace has appeared or been quoted by NPR at least six times in the last four years. [NPR, 7/26/15; NPR.org, accessed 7/29/15] NPR Included Deace On A Panel Discussion On Chris Christie's 2016 Presidential Prospects. Deace joined NPR's "On Point" to discuss the implications of the "Bridgegate" scandal on New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie's GOP presidential aspirations. [WBUR, 1/15/14] The Hill Turned To Deace To Explain Donald Trump's Success Among Conservatives. Looking for an explanation for Donald Trump's surging poll numbers, The Hill interviewed Deace for his thoughts on why Trump was connecting with voters. [The Hill, 7/11/15] Deace, A Frequent Guest On MSNBC, Has Openly Mocked The Network In An Open Letter To MSNBC, Deace Taunted The Network Over Its Low Ratings. Writing for the Washington Times, Deace claimed that there is no market for MSNBC "in an industry already dominated by liberals.": Dear MSNBC, The public is sending a message. Are you open-minded enough to receive it? Your downward trend in the ratings has reached critical mass. Your primetime lineup has finished below your sister station CNBC the past two quarters. CNN's sister station Headline News has bested you in total day demo four straight quarters now, and I honestly don't know anyone who even watches that channel. [...] Bottom line: There just doesn't appear to be much of a market for an uber-liberal perspective in an industry already dominated by liberals. [Washington Times, 4/6/15] Deace: MSNBC Is The "Greatest Trolling Network Ever Devised." In a discussion of TV news audiences for political media, Deace mocked MSNBC's ratings and claimed the network has only been able to retain its market share because of its "trolling" of conservatives: They don't have a lot of viewers. Not a lot of people watch. Most of MSNBC's publicity comes from conservatives reacting to it. It's the greatest trolling network ever devised. But there is one group of people -- even though they are hemorrhaging viewers, hemorrhaging readers - there is one group of people they have still under their thumbs, that they are still in complete and total control of. And that would be the Republicans. [Steve Deace Show, 6/24/15] Deace's Radio Show And Writings Are More Extreme And Intolerant Than His Comments In Mainstream Media Deace: Supporters Of Equal Rights For LGBT People Are Part Of A "Rainbow Jihad." In a Washington Times column headlined, "The Rainbow Jihad Of The Cultural Marxists," Deace attacked LGBT supporters whom he claimed have "hijacked" the rainbow, declaring that "most of the media are all in for the rainbow jihad": Nowadays the rainbow is symbolic of judgment again. Except this time no mercy is forthcoming from the cultural Marxists who have hijacked it. They seek to ruthlessly banish from public life any who still believe as those who founded America once did. See, everything we social conservatives warned you years ago would happen if we went down the Rainbow Road is now here. When we warned you granting a "right" to sexual perversion would lead to a fight over redefining marriage, the ruling class snickered. But it did, just as we predicted. When we warned you the battle over redefining marriage would lead to a debate over whether gender exists at all, the ruling class again snickered. But it has, just as we predicted. [The Washington Times, 10/20/14; Media Matters, 4/9/15] Deace: "Jesus Says Obama Is Not A Christian." In a Washington Times column headlined, "Jesus says Obama is not a Christian," Deace wrote about an imaginary conversation he had with Jesus Christ and announced that "Jesus made it quite clear that President Obama is not a Christian": Who is more qualified to consult on who is and isn't a Christian than Jesus Christ? When I asked him what he thought, Jesus made it quite clear that President Obama is not a Christian. And he was also kind enough to give me some quotes I could pass on to ya'll. [The Washington Times, 2/23/15; Media Matters, 4/9/15] Deace: "Bruce Jenner Exposes There's No Such Thing As Feminism." Writing for the Washington Times Deace referred to Caitlyn Jenner as a "bearded lady" and claimed that support for Jenner and trans peoples undermined feminist values: Otherwise they would realize the bearded lady they're currently cheering on really represents the complete and total demise of the feminist movement. A 65-year-old man attempting to mutilate and transform himself into a big-busted, 40-years-younger caricature of actress Jessica Lange makes a statement alright, but it's probably not the one Betty Friedan was going for. [...] Most feminist enclaves and their sympathizers are celebrating Mr. Jenner's creepy impersonation of the very caricature they claimed for decades to oppose. Not that I want to judge, but that would seem to be an obvious hypocrisy until you realize this was never about "equality." This was always about whether we will still acknowledge we're made male or female in the image of the creator, with the clearly defined responsibilities roles, and rules that go along with his divinely-given ordinations. [Washington Times, 6/8/15] Deace: "I Want To Be The First To Congratulate The First Transgendered Presidential Candidate. Call Him Lindsey." Writing in Conservative Review, Deace took an apparent personal shot at Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC), saying, "I want to be the first to congratulate the first transgendered presidential candidate. Call him Lindsey." [Conservative Review, 6/30/15] Deace: The Republican Party Should Thank Donald Trump For His Offensive Comments On Immigration. In another column for the Conservative Review, Deace claimed that Republican Party Chairman Reince Priebus should thank GOP presidential candidate Donald Trump for making racist statements about Mexican immigrants, who said were rapists": This is the phone conversation Republican Party Chairman Reince Priebus should have had with 2016 presidential candidate Donald Trump last week: Ring, ring. Priebus: Hey Donald, I'd like to thank you for this one-man wrecking crew act you've put together on the illegal immigration issue. I've got my popcorn popped and can't wait to see where you take things from here. You've got your boot to the throat of the opposition. Don't let up. [Conservative Review, 7/13/15] Deace: John McCain's Political Career "Nullifie[s] Any Purpose To His Persevering" As A Vietnam POW. In an article headlined, "From American Hero to American Zero" in Townhall.com, Deace wrote that Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) has "nullified any purpose" of surviving as a prisoner of war because he has supported bipartisan cooperation in Congress (emphasis added): To sum up, McCain has actively opposed the ideals that make our enemies hate us for all the right reasons - faith, family, and freedom. And he did so in many cases while running for president. Most politicians master the art of pandering as they gear up to advance their ambitions, but not McCain. It's almost like he has such disdain for American Exceptionalism he prides himself on opposing it, and panders to the progressive dolts in our liberal media instead. Standing for all the wrong things these past few years essentially nullified any purpose to his persevering through the Hanoi Hilton. Why suffer through torture if you were just going to oppose the ideals that put you there in the first place? I suffered through physical and emotional abuse growing up. But there would've been no meaning to persevering through that suffering if I would've turned around and abused my own children as well. [Townhall.com, 7/13/13; Media Matters, 4/9/15] Deace Suggested Divorce Could Make Children Gay. Discussing the modern family structure and the rise of divorce rates, Deace suggested that divorce could lead to instability in children's lives that could make them gay. Deace later attributed Ireland's historic vote to legalize same-sex marriage in part to the decadence of a divorce culture." [The Steve Deace Show, 5/27/15; Townhall.com, 5/30/15] Deace Calls Hillary Clinton "Killary" On-Air And In Articles. When discussing Hillary Clinton on the radio or in his columns for conservative media outlets, Deace often refers to the former secretary of state as "Killary." Rand went on offense last week as the feces was hitting the fan over the Killary email scandal. He booked appearances on national television right away, including Killary's home turf like the Today Show (Commandment 10). And didn't hesitate to say "Hillary Clinton broke the law" (Commandment 2), which earned him top billing on Drudge. [SteveDeace.com, 3/17/15] Deace's Involvement And Influence On Political Campaigns Compromises His Analyst Persona Harvard Study Of Conservative Media Calls Deace An "Agenda Setter" Who Pulls Candidates To The Right. A new Harvard study on the effect of conservative media on Republican policy positions singles out Deace in a section titled, "Agenda Setter - Steve Deace: Fear God. Tell the Truth. Make Money." The report argues for his status as a kingmaker for Iowa Republican candidates and notes his close relationships with them. By early 2015, nearly everyone coveting the Republican nomination had been in Deace's studio at least once - except Bush and Rubio, who, like Bush, is suspect mainly because of his immigration stance. In an early March interview, Deace gave an accounting: "Huckabee's been on a ton. Santorum has been on a ton, too - he's even guest-hosted twice. Ben Carson has been on at least three times - have a pic from Carson of him reading my latest book on a plane. Bobby Jindal has been on numerous times. Donald Trump - I know Donald Trump on a first-name basis, which is crazy for a kid from Iowa. He's been on numerous times. Walker's been on once; when he came to Iowa, I was the only one-on-one interview that he did. In fact, I was contacted today by one of the guys who's going to run his presidential campaign - he wants to get together with me on Friday. I know Ted Cruz on a first-name basis; I've been around him and his team a ton. Rand Paul's been on a ton, though not in the last year, because I started asking questions like, 'How come you're taking every conceivable position on every conceivable issue?' Rather than explain that they just decided to ignore me." ["They Don't Give a Damn about Governing," 7/27/15] Des Moines Register: "Deace Has Served As An Informal, Unpaid Consultant" To Ted Cruz. In a report describing Sen. Ted Cruz's (R-TX) Iowa campaign strategy for 2016, The Des Moines Register reported that Deace has served as an "informal" advisor to Cruz: Cruz has already started organizing in Iowa. His paid Iowa adviser is Bryan English, a former staffer for the Christian conservative organization Iowa Family Leader and a former policy adviser to U.S. Rep. Steve King. English's hire was announced by Cruz's Jobs, Growth, and Freedom Fund PAC in early March. Iowa Christian conservative radio host Steve Deace has served as an informal, unpaid consultant, giving Cruz his take on the Iowa landscape and recommending connections with certain Iowans. And Kansas-based GOP strategist Jeff Roe, who has experience with Iowa political work, is Cruz's top organizing strategist. [Des Moines Register, 3/24/15; Media Matters, 4/9/15] Des Moines Register Reporter Questioned Deace About Consulting For Campaigns. After Deace announced that he would be making an endorsement for the 2016 Republican presidential nomination, Des Moines Register reporter Jason Noble challenged him for allegedly previously confirming that he was already a consultant for some of the candidates. Deace denied that he was working for any candidate in an official capacity.

Posted by on 31 July 2015 | 11:02 am

Politico : NY Times "Refused To Publish" Clinton Campaign Criticism Of Flawed Times Report

Politico's Dylan Byers reported that New York Times executive editor Dean Baquet "refused to publish" a letter from the Hillary Clinton presidential campaign, which expressed "grave concern" with a recent flawed Times report on Clinton's email use. The July 23 Times story, which has now been corrected twice and which came under heavy criticism from the Times' public editor and veteran journalists, originally falsely claimed that two inspectors general had requested a criminal investigation into Clinton's email use. In reality, the probe was not criminal and was not focused on Clinton personally. "Despite the overwhelming evidence," Byers noted, "the Times did not remove the word [criminal] from its headline and its story, nor did it issue a correction, until the following day." Byers explained that in response, the Clinton campaign "sent a nearly 2,000-word letter to the executive editor of The New York Times this week." The campaign then forwarded the letter to reporters after "Baquet refused to publish it in the Times": "We remain perplexed by the Times' slowness to acknowledge its errors after the fact, and some of the shaky justifications that Times' editors have made," Clinton communications director Jennifer Palmieri wrote in the letter to Dean Baquet, which the campaign forwarded to the On Media blog late Thursday night. "I feel obliged to put into context just how egregious an error this story was," Palmieri continued. "The New York Times is arguably the most important news outlet in the world and it rushed to put an erroneous story on the front page charging that a major candidate for President of the United States was the target of a criminal referral to federal law enforcement. Literally hundreds of outlets followed your story, creating a firestorm that had a deep impact that cannot be unwound. This problem was compounded by the fact that the Times took an inexplicable, let alone indefensible, delay in correcting the story and removing 'criminal' from the headline and text of the story." [...] "In our conversations with the Times reporters, it was clear that they had not personally reviewed the IG's referral that they falsely described as both criminal and focused on Hillary Clinton," Palmieri wrote. "Instead, they relied on unnamed sources that characterized the referral as such. However, it is not at all clear that those sources had directly seen the referral, either. This should have represented too many 'degrees of separation' for any newspaper to consider it reliable sourcing, least of all The New York Times." Palmieri's letter, which runs 1,915 words long, includes three other complaints: 1. That the "seriousness of the allegations... demanded far more care and due diligence than the Times exhibited prior to this article's publication. 2. That the Times "incomprehensibly delayed the issuance of a full and true correction." And 3. That the Times' "official explanations for the misreporting is profoundly unsettling." "I wish to emphasize our genuine wish to have a constructive relationship with The New York Times," Palmieri writes in closing. "But we also are extremely troubled by the events that went into this erroneous report, and will be looking forward to discussing our concerns related to this incident so we can have confidence that it is not repeated in the future."

Posted by on 31 July 2015 | 9:27 am

Erick Erickson Calls On Republicans To "Shut Down The Government" To Defund Planned Parenthood

An Erick Erickson blog post called for forcing "a fight in Congress" to "shut down the government if that is what it takes" to defund Planned Parenthood.  Conservative Republicans in Congress are currently "threatening to shut down the government" by rejecting "any spending bill that does not cut off federal funds for Planned Parenthood," following the release of four deceptively edited videos by conservative group Center For Medical Progress to attack the women's health organization.  In a July 31 blog post titled "Shut Down The Government. Now." Erickson encouraged individuals to show Republicans in Congress "violence in the polling booth" if they don't defund Planned Parenthood arguing, "shut down the government if that is what it takes. Shut it down now":  Your taxpayer dollars are being used to subsidize an organization that extracts children, weeks from birth and capable of feeling pain and hearing, from their mothers' wombs. The organization inserts instruments into the soft part of the child's skull, rips it open, and extracts its brain. It then crushes the head and pulls it further out of the womb. From there it extracts the child's heart, liver, lungs, and other viable organs. [...] Friends, if Republicans in Congress will not stop giving tax payer dollars to the American Joseph Mengele, we should show the party violence in the polling booth. The national media will not cover the savage butchery of Planned Parenthood. Forcing this fight in Congress will force coverage. They will spin it against us, but every congressman who speaks up should stand surrounded by the images of butchered children so that all Americans can see what we are fighting for. The budget and appropriations fights are forthcoming. If Barack Obama is willing to risk a government shutdown because he demands our tax dollars continue funding an organization that kills our children and sells their organs, we should have that fight. Shut down the government if that is what it takes. Shut it down now. If we cannot stand on this high ground, we should not stand at all. Children are being ripped apart and their hearts, brains, lungs, and livers sold. Is this not a fight worth having? Update: Erickson additionally said he "intend[s] to ask each POTUS candidate" at the RedState Gathering on August 7, "if they'd support a gov't shutdown" to defund Planned Parenthood in a July 31 tweet: I intend to ask each POTUS candidate next week if they'd support a gov't shutdown if that's what it took to defund Planned Parenthood. -- Erick Erickson (@EWErickson) July 31, 2015

Posted by on 31 July 2015 | 8:34 am

Media Disclosure Guide: Here Are The Industry-Funded Groups Attacking The EPA's Climate Plan

With the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) set to finalize the Clean Power Plan, dozens of fossil fuel-funded organizations are poised to revive their attacks on this landmark climate change policy, which will place the first-ever limits on carbon pollution from power plants. Here's a comprehensive guide that reporters can use to properly disclose these organizations' industry ties, many of which were recently documented in an Energy & Policy Institute report detailing the fossil fuel industry's "artificial chorus of voices" against clean energy. 60 Plus Association Energy & Environment Legal Institute American Encore  Heartland Institute American Legislative Exchange Council Heritage Foundation Americans For Prosperity Independent Women's Forum Americans For Tax Reform Institute for Energy Research Beacon Hill Institute Libre Initiative Cato Institute National Black Chamber of Commerce Charles Steele Jr. Partnership for Affordable Clean Energy Citizens' Alliance for Responsible Energy           State Policy Network Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow Taxpayers Protection Alliance Competitive Enterprise Institute U.S. Chamber of Commerce Consumer Energy Alliance 60 Plus Association The 60 Plus Association, which calls itself a "non-partisan seniors advocacy group," receives significant funding from groups connected to the oil billionaire Koch brothers, including over $20 million in the 2012 election cycle alone. The group has also received funding from the American Petroleum Institute, and was created by Sean Noble, a consultant for the Arizona Public Service utility company. The 60 Plus Association claims that the Clean Power Plan will harm seniors, often calling it the "Cruel Power Plan."  American Encore  American Encore, a conservative group formerly known as The Center to Protect Patient Rights, is used by the oil billionaire Koch brothers as an intermediary group to funnel money to various other front groups. The organization is run by utility consultant Sean Noble, who has channeled over a hundred million dollars to the Koch network's advocacy efforts, largely through The Center to Protect Patient Rights. American Encore is part of a coalition of groups urging states to "actively resist EPA's coercive power plan" and calling it an "illegitimate ... affront to both federalism and the separation of powers."  American Legislative Exchange Council The American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) is a corporate front group that connects fossil fuel industry executives with legislators to push model bills that serve industry interests. ALEC's "Private Enterprise Advisory Council" includes fossil energy powerhouses Koch Companies Public Sector, Energy Future Holdings, and ExxonMobil, and many other oil and coal companies also sponsor ALEC events. According to the Center for Media and Democracy, ExxonMobil and Koch-related companies and foundations have each contributed over $1 million to ALEC. ALEC has produced model legislation that could give states the ability to impede the Clean Power Plan, and some states have already enacted these laws. At its most recent meeting, ALEC discussed even more ways to undermine the Clean Power Plan.  Americans For Prosperity Americans for Prosperity (AFP) portrays itself as a grassroots organization representing millions of "engaged citizens" who care about "economic freedom." But the group has rightly been described by Politico as the "Koch brothers' main political arm." The oil billionaire Koch brothers co-founded the (ExxonMobil-funded) group that later became the Americans for Prosperity Foundation, and Koch foundations have given more than $5 million to AFP since 2005. AFP has coordinated a misleading nationwide op-ed campaign against the Clean Power Plan, which has involved the group's state directors calling for states to fight the plan in at least 16 newspapers. Americans For Tax Reform Americans for Tax Reform (ATR), an anti-tax group, has received funding from the American Petroleum Institute, along with Koch-related groups like the Claude R. Lambe Charitable Foundation and the Center to Protect Patient Rights, as well as DonorsTrust, which receives large donations from groups connected to the oil billionaire Koch brothers. ATR has supported states trying to stop the Clean Power Plan, claimed that the plan will harm seniors, and published a NewsMax op-ed calling it "irresponsible." Beacon Hill Institute The Beacon Hill Institute (BHI), which is based in Boston's Suffolk University Department of Economics, is an associate member of the State Policy Network, and both organizations have received donations from foundations funded by the oil billionaire Koch brothers. Recently, BHI produced a series of state-based "studies" that dramatically inflate the Clean Power Plan's projected costs without having even analyzed the EPA's actual proposal. Nonetheless, these deceptive studies have made their way into op-eds in newspapers across the country.  Cato Institute The Cato Institute, which says it is "dedicated to the principles of individual liberty, limited government, free markets and peace," was co-founded by the oil billionaire Koch brothers and has received millions of dollars from the Koch family. Cato has also received funding from ExxonMobil and the American Petroleum Institute, and the director of Cato's Center for the Study of Science, Patrick Michaels, is a longtime denier of climate science who has estimated that 40 percent of his funding comes from the oil industry. Cato has focused its anti-Clean Power Plan efforts on deceptively downplaying the impact of the EPA proposal. Charles Steele Jr. Charles Steele Jr. is the president of the Southern Christian Leadership Conference, but he also has deep fossil fuel industry ties. According to a special report by the Institute for Southern Studies, Steele previously made pro-coal claims at an EPA hearing while representing Working People for Fair Energy, an organization with "close ties to industry interests with a financial stake in fighting coal ash regulation." During the hearing, Steele also cited research linked to organization that has "supported anti-environmental initiatives such as expanded oil drilling while accepting money from Exxon Mobil and other corporations." The Institute for Southern Studies concluded that "Steele's perspective is shaped by the close personal ties to energy interests forged during his decade in the Alabama senate." Steele has published cookie-cutter op-eds in newspapers ranging from Colorado to Iowa to Florida, attacking the Clean Power Plan as "unfair" to the "poor and elderly."  Citizens' Alliance for Responsible Energy  Citizens' Alliance for Responsible Energy (CARE) is a New Mexico-based fossil fuel advocacy group whose funders include oil and gas producers. CARE's president, Marita Noon, has testified against the Clean Power Plan and published op-eds opposing it, calling it an "extraordinary and unprecedented government overreach."  Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow The Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow (CFACT) is a climate-denying think tank that has received funding from oil giants ExxonMobil and Chevron, as well as DonorsTrust, a dark money group backed by the oil billionaire Koch brothers. CFACT, which sponsors the climate science denial blog Climate Depot run by "Merchant of Doubt" Marc Morano, claims that "there is no need whatever to reduce CO2 emissions" and the Clean Power Plan is "an obscene attack on our economy." CFACT has claimed that the Clean Power Plan has "no basis in fact or science" and only serves to "threaten the economy." Competitive Enterprise Institute The Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI), a conservative advocacy group dedicated to "economic freedom," has received funding over the years from ExxonMobil, Texaco, and the family foundations of the oil billionaire Koch brothers, and past sponsors of its annual fundraising dinners include Murray Energy, Arch Coal Marathon Petroleum, Devon Energy, Phillips 66, the American Petroleum Institute, and the American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity. CEI has repeatedly cast doubt on the scientific consensus around global warming, including through paid ads that misrepresent scientific research. The group actively opposes the Clean Power Plan, with senior fellow Marlo Lewis alleging that it is "breathtakingly lawless." Consumer Energy Alliance The Consumer Energy Alliance (CEA), an energy industry front group that claims to be "the voice of the energy consumer," has received over $400,000 from the American Petroleum Institute and has been affiliated with fossil fuel giants including BP, Chevron, ExxonMobil, Marathon Oil, Shell, Peabody Energy, and more. CEA has held multiple press conferences opposing the Clean Power Plan, and generated public comments against the plan.  Energy & Environment Legal Institute The Energy & Environment Legal Institute (EELI), an organization focused on "strategic litigation" around energy and environmental issues, has received over $400,000 from DonorsTrust and Donors Capital Fund, two dark money groups tied to the oil billionaire Koch brothers. Formerly the American Tradition Institute (ATI), it was launched by the American Tradition Partnership (ATP), an energy industry-backed advocacy group. ATI is funded primarily by ATP and other individuals and foundations with ties to the oil, gas and coal industries. Tom Tanton, director of EELI's Science and Technology Assessment, has recently written a large number of nearly identical op-eds decrying the Clean Power Plan in newspapers across the country, warning states not to become "accomplices" to the EPA's plan. EELI also recently released a report accusing the EPA of engaging in "unlawful collusion with green pressure groups" when crafting the plan. Heartland Institute The Heartland Institute, which is known for its annual climate denial conferences, received over $700,000 from ExxonMobil between 1998 and 2006. Heartland has also received significant funding from organizations with ties to the oil billionaire Koch Brothers, including the Charles G. Koch Charitable Foundation and Koch-backed DonorsTrust. When the Clean Power Plan was first proposed, Heartland Institute "experts" trashed the rule as "wrongheaded" and "based on junk science," among other things. Heartland policy advisor Steve Goreham recently urged states to "refuse to comply with the proposed EPA Clean Power Plan." Heritage Foundation The Heritage Foundation is a conservative think tank that has received almost $800,000 from ExxonMobil and millions from the family foundations of the oil billionaire Koch brothers. Heritage claims that the impacts of man-made climate change are a matter of "personal opinions" and the Clean Power Plan poses serious "threats." Like the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, Heritage released a highly misleading study about the Clean Power Plan before it was even announced. Independent Women's Forum The Independent Women's Forum (IWF) has received funding from ExxonMobil, the Charles G. Koch Charitable Foundation, and the Koch-backed DonorsTrust, and was formally affiliated with the oil billionaire Koch brothers' front group, Americans for Prosperity, for several years. IWF, which aims to increase "the number of women who value free markets and personal liberty," has signed on to a letter opposing the Clean Power Plan and promoted a study accusing the EPA of "low-ball[ing]" its costs. Institute for Energy Research The Institute for Energy Research (IER) and its advocacy arm, the American Energy Alliance (AEA), both list former Koch Industries lobbyist Thomas Pyle as president, and both are partly funded by the oil billionaire Koch brothers and their political network. IER has received funding from Exxon Mobil, the American Petroleum Institute, and the Koch-backed DonorsTrust and Claude R. Lambe Charitable Foundation. Pyle joined a press call with six governors who "threaten to defy" the Clean Power Plan, and has urged other governors to do the same. AEA has also circulated a highly misleading poll to wrongly allege that Americans don't approve of the plan.  Libre Initiative The Libre Initiative promotes itself as a "grassroots" Hispanic advocacy organization, but it promotes right-wing issues and has accepted over $10 million in funding from groups tied to the oil billionaire Koch brothers, including Freedom Partners and TC4 Trust. Libre's executive director Daniel Garza has said he "fully embrace[s]" Libre's association with the Koch brothers, and that Libre "do[es] align very much with the principles and ideas of Charles and David Koch." The Libre Initiative has attacked the Clean Power Plan as harmful to Hispanics -- but the plan is expected to bring economic benefits to Hispanic communities and has widespread support among the Latino community.  National Black Chamber of Commerce The National Black Chamber of Commerce, which says it is dedicated to "the economic empowerment of African American communities," has received funding from the ExxonMobil Foundation every year for over a decade, adding up to a total of $1 million since 2003. NBCC has run a deceptive op-ed campaign against the Clean Power Plan in which NBCC president Harry Alford has relied on climate science denial and thoroughly debunked industry-linked studies in an attempt to dismiss the financial and health benefits the plan will provide to black and Hispanic communities.  Partnership for Affordable Clean Energy The Partnership for Affordable Clean Energy (PACE) claims to oppose the Clean Power Plan out of concern for "ordinary consumers," but it actually represents the interests of fossil fuel and utility companies. PACE was incorporated by an attorney from a firm that has lobbied on behalf of Southern Company and Alabama Power, and the group has also received funding from a dark money group tied to Alabama Power. PACE's official partners include various fossil fuel interests, including the Consumer Energy Alliance, the Alabama Rural Electric Association of Cooperatives, and the Tennessee Mining Association. State Policy Network The State Policy Network (SPN) is a network of conservative think tanks across the country that are largely funded by Koch-backed dark money groups DonorsTrust and Donors Capital Fund. Members of SPN have teamed up with the Beacon Hill Institute -- another think tank funded by the oil billionaire Koch brothers -- to run a misleading op-ed campaign against the Clean Power Plan. SPN affiliates attacking the Clean Power Plan include: Public Interest Institute (Iowa), Pelican Institute for Public Policy (Louisiana), The Rio Grande Foundation (New Mexico), The Civitas Institute (North Carolina), Palmetto Promise Institute (South Carolina), Thomas Jefferson Institute for Public Policy (Virginia), MacIver Institute for Public Policy (Wisconsin), and The Texas Public Policy Foundation. Taxpayers Protection Alliance The Taxpayers Protection Alliance (TPA), which claims its mission is to educate the public about "the government's effects on the economy," is part of the network of front groups funded by the oil billionaire Koch brothers and their political network. TPA has signed on to a letter urging states to actively resist the EPA's "coercive" Clean Power Plan, and has championed state officials who are "acting to reclaim authority" from the EPA. U.S. Chamber of Commerce The U.S. Chamber of Commerce, which describes itself as "the world's largest business organization," has a board of directors that includes officials from ConocoPhillips, Alliance Resource Partners, CONSOL Energy, and Southern Company. Many of the Chamber's largest donors are also fossil fuel companies. The Chamber published a study attacking the Clean Power Plan before it was even released, leading media fact-checkers to deem the study "false" and worthy of "four Pinocchios." But that hasn't stopped the Chamber from continuing to try to undermine the EPA's climate plan.

Posted by on 31 July 2015 | 4:14 am

At Least Six Times The Media Shouldn't Have Trusted Selective Leaks From Congressional Sources

The New York Times was forced to issue two corrections after relying on Capitol Hill anonymous sourcing for its flawed report on emails from former Secretary of State and Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton. The Clinton debacle is the latest example of why the media should be careful when relying on leaks from partisan congressional sources -- this is far from the first time journalists who did have been burned.The Selective Leak About A Non-Existent "Criminal Probe" Times Issues Two Corrections On Heavily Criticized Story Falsely Claiming Clinton Is Subject Of "Criminal Probe." On July 23, the Times published a story that falsely claimed that two inspectors general had requested a criminal investigation by the Justice Department into Clinton's use of email during her tenure as secretary of state. In reality, the probe was not criminal and was not focused on Clinton personally. The Times, which issued two separate corrections, came under widespread public criticism and was strongly reproached by its public editor. [Media Matters, 7/27/15] Times Public Editor: Anonymous Sources For Flawed Story Came From Sources Including On "Capitol Hill." Times Public Editor Margaret Sullivan wrote that the story had "developed quickly" after "tips from various sources, including on Capitol Hill." She further noted that her "sense" was that "final confirmation" for the story "came from the same person more than once." [New York Times, 7/27/15; Media Matters, 7/27/15] Vox's Jonathan Allen Connects Rep. Trey Gowdy To Spin In Botched Times Story. Vox's Jonathan Allen suggested that House Benghazi Committee Chairman Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-SC) knew about the request to the Justice Department regarding Hillary Clinton's email practices "at least a day" before The New York Times published its botched story: I don't know who the Times's sources are, but I do know this: My reporting suggests that House Benghazi Committee Chair Trey Gowdy was fully aware of the request to the Justice Department at least a day before the Times broke the story. If he or his staff were sources, it should have been incumbent upon the Times to check every detail with multiple unconnected sources. Gowdy's team has been accused of leaking something untrue to a reporter before. [Vox.com, 7/28/15; Media Matters, 7/29/15] The "Political Attack" Leak About Clinton Emails In 2015, Politico Mischaracterized Email Based On An Anonymous Source Who Had "Reviewed" The Emails. On June 19, Politico was forced to issue a correction after it was discovered that it had published inaccurate information about emails between Hillary Clinton and Sidney Blumenthal, in one case mischaracterizing the context of an email reply. For the piece, Politico relied on "a source who has reviewed the email exchange." [Media Matters, 7/6/15] Benghazi Committee Democrats: Politico Got Spun By Source With Committee Access Who Appeared To Want To "Attack" Clinton. Ranking Democrat on the House Select Committee on Benghazi Rep. Elijah Cummings (D-MD) wrote a letter charging that Politico had been misled by someone who had access to the committee's documents and who "inaccurately described to the press email exchanges ... in a way that appeared to further a political attack against" Clinton. Cummings described this as "only the latest in a reckless pattern of selective Republican leaks and mischaracterizations of evidence relating to the Benghazi attacks." [Media Matters, 7/6/15] The "Handwritten" Leak About The Benghazi Talking Points In 2013, ABC's Jonathan Karl Inaccurately Quoted A Key "Talking Points" Email. On May 10, 2013, ABC News' chief White House correspondent Jonathan Karl reported that the network had "reviewed" emails from administration officials regarding the creation and editing of Obama administration talking points shortly after the 2012 attack on the U.S. embassy in Benghazi, Libya. Karl misleadingly suggested that the emails indicated the White House had tried to deceive the public. [Media Matters, 12/31/13] Karl Later Admits: Story Was Based On Misleading "Summaries" Of The Emails. Karl eventually acknowledged that his story was based on "summaries" of the emails and "detailed notes" from a source who he said had misrepresented what the documents said. Four days after Karl's report, CNN's Jake Tapper obtained the actual emails, and detailed how one key email "differs from how sources inaccurately quoted and paraphrased it in previous accounts to different media organizations." [Media Matters, 12/31/13] ABC Statement: Sloppy Summaries Came From "Handwritten Copies Of The Emails Taken By A Congressional Source." ABC News issued a statement saying that it "should have been more precise in its sourcing of those quotes, attributing them to handwritten copies of the emails taken by a congressional source. We regret that error." Karl also apologized. [Media Matters, 5/20/13] The "Reckless" Leak Of IRS Emails In 2013, Rep. Darrell Issa Cited Leaked IRS Emails To Baselessly Accuse Agency Officials Of Targeting Conservative Groups. In June 2013, Rep. Darrell Issa (R-CA) cited selectively leaked IRS emails to make the unsubstantiated claim that IRS leadership in Washington, D.C. orchestrated the inappropriate targeting of conservative groups seeking tax-exempt status. Media outlets repeated the claim even though Issa provided no evidence of the alleged link between IRS officials in Washington and the agency's Cincinnati office. [Media Matters, 6/3/13] Cummings: Issa's Comments Were "Reckless" And "Inconsistent With The Findings Of The Inspector General." Cummings responded to Issa's allegation by saying he had provided no evidence to back up his claim that IRS officials in Washington were complicit in a targeting scheme. Rep. Elijah E. Cummings, Ranking Member of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, issued the following statement regarding Chairman Issa's claim on national television this morning that interviews with workers in the IRS Cincinnati office show targeting of conservative groups was a problem that was coordinated out of Washington headquarters: "So far, no witnesses who have appeared before the Committee have identified any IRS official in Washington DC who directed employees in Cincinnati to use 'tea party' or similar terms to screen applicants for extra scrutiny.  Chairman Issa's reckless statements today are inconsistent with the findings of the Inspector General, who spent more than a year conducting his investigation.  Rather than lobbing unsubstantiated conclusions on national television for political reasons, we need to work in a bipartisan way to follow the facts where they lead and ensure that the IG's recommendations are fully implemented. We must have a sincere effort to uncover the truth so that we can restore the public's trust in the IRS." [Committee on Oversight & Government Reform, 6/2/13] The Inaccurate Leaking About HealthCare.gov Warnings In 2013, Issa Selectively Leaked Transcripts To Claim Obama Administration Ignored HealthCare.gov Warnings. On November 11, 2013, CBS News cited partial transcripts leaked by Issa from a closed-door hearing of the House Oversight Committee in its story about problems with the federal health care website. CBS reported that "the project manager in charge of building the federal health care website was apparently kept in the dark about serious failures in the website's security." [Media Matters, 11/13/13] Report Based On Selective Leak Wasn't Accurate. As MSNBC.com's Steve Benen noted, the leak forwarded suspect information: The CBS report sounds troubling, right? Probably, at least until one picks up the phone to ask Democrats on the committee whether the CBS report is accurate. I talked to a Democratic staffer this morning about the partial transcript and the aide said Issa's staff "basically sandbagged this witness with a document he had never seen before and then failed to inform him that it has nothing to do with parts of the website that launched on October 1. In fact, it relates to a function of the website that is not currently active and won't be until the spring of 2014. Rather than seeking out the truth, this press release tries to scare the public by capitalizing on confusion caused by the Chairman's own staff." Oh. So, when Republicans and CBS suggest the project manager in charge of building the federal health care website was apparently kept in the dark about serious failures in the website's security, they're leaving out pretty much every relevant detail that points in a more accurate direction. The Democratic staffer added that even when this part of the website is active, it "will not submit or share personally identifiable information," but rather, will only include "insurance information plan data." Let's say this again: beware of partial transcripts from Issa's office. They keep pulling this trick; there's no reason anyone should keep falling for it. [MSNBC.com, 11/12/13] The "Cherry-Picked" Leak About Benghazi And YouTube In 2014, Issa Leaked A State Department Email About Benghazi And An Anti-Islam YouTube Video. In a May 22, 2014 post on ABC News' website, Jonathan Karl quoted Issa's leak of a single sentence from a State Department email sent on the night of the September 11, 2012 Benghazi attack. That sentence explains that the White House was reaching out to YouTube with concerns that the attack had stemmed from a recently posted anti-Islam video. Issa claimed in the media that the State Department "has attempted to obstruct" the email's disclosure. [Media Matters, 5/22/14] Issa's Leak Was Misleading. While the Issa leak was intended to show that the Obama administration had obstructed investigations into Benghazi because it didn't release the email, the White House's contacts with YouTube were already known months before the 2014 leak. They were reported by ABC News mere days after the attack and publicly acknowledged by the White House. [Media Matters, 5/22/14] Cummings: "Issa Unilaterally Released A Cherry-Picked Document Excerpt." Cummings released a statement criticizing Issa's selective leaking: Today, Rep. Elijah E. Cummings, Ranking Member of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, issued the following statement in response to the public release by Chairman Issa of a portion of a State Department e-mail that he claimed proved that the White House engaged in "a false narrative" after contacting YouTube with concerns about an anti-Islamic video during the attacks in Benghazi: "This latest document leak makes the strongest case yet for Democrats seeking procedures to protect against these kinds of abuses. In what has become an irresponsible pattern, Chairman Issa unilaterally released a cherry-picked document excerpt-claiming it means one thing when in fact it means the opposite-and he disregarded the fact that his 'new evidence' was reported publicly two years ago. He did this without consulting Democrats, and it is unclear whether he even consulted Rep. Gowdy, who also sits on the Oversight Committee. These actions undermine the credibility of both the Oversight Committee and the new Select Committee, and Speaker Boehner should uphold his promise to end this circus." [Committee on Oversight & Government Reform, 5/22/14]

Posted by on 31 July 2015 | 3:17 am

On Fox, Judith Miller Calls For More Coverage Of Hillary Clinton's Emails "Whether Or Not The Times Got Certain Facts About The Story Wrong"

From the July 31 edition of Fox News' Happening Now:Previously: The New York Times Reverses Course On Clinton's Emails After Public Editor Admits Fault In Reporting After Two Corrections, The NY Times' Botched Email Story Still Has An Error MSNBC's Rachel Maddow Criticizes The New York Times Over Blaming Sources For Botched Clinton Email Story NY Times Echoes Judith Miller's Iraq War Excuse By Blaming Sources, Not Reporters 

Posted by on 31 July 2015 | 12:29 am

The Fox News Figures Shifting Blame Onto Samuel DuBose For His Death At A Traffic Stop

Several Fox News figures are attempting to shift partial blame onto Samuel DuBose for his own death at the hands of a Cincinnati police officer during a traffic stop, arguing DuBose should have cooperated with the officer's instructions if he wanted to avoid "danger."Officer Charged With Murder For Shooting Unarmed Man During Traffic Stop Cincinnati Cop Indicted For Shooting And Killing Unarmed Black Man During Traffic Stop. Former University of Cincinnati police officer Ray Tensing was indicted on July 30 for murder and voluntary manslaughter after he fatally shot Samuel DuBose during a July 19 traffic stop. While Tensing claims he feared for his life because DuBose began to drive away with his vehicle, body camera footage appears to contradict that claim. From CNN: Former University of Cincinnati Police Officer Ray Tensing pleaded not guilty Thursday to charges of murder and voluntary manslaughter in the July 19 shooting death of Samuel DuBose. [...] Tensing fatally shot DuBose, 43, during a July 19 traffic stop over an alleged missing license tag. The officer has said he was forced to fire his weapon after almost being run over. [...] The officer's account was contradicted by Deters, the prosecutor, who said that Tensing was not dragged. "This just does not happen in the United States. People don't get shot for a traffic stop unless they are violent towards the police officer, and he (DuBose) wasn't," Deters said. "He was simply slowly rolling away. That's all he did." [CNN.com, 7/30/15] Fox News Pundits Suggest DuBose Shared Fault With Police Officer For His Death Fox Host Eric Bolling: "People Have To Realize You Can't Resist Arrest." On the July 30 edition of Fox News' The Five, the co-hosts discussed DuBose's death at the hands of the police officer, and Eric Bolling stated, "People have to realize you can't resist arrest" (emphasis added): ERIC BOLLING: It's tough because look, first of all it's a tragedy, I mean, there's another instance where someone had a missing front license plate and ends up dead. If you watch -- by the way, body cams, if this doesn't tell you there should be body cams on both sides of the debate. Good cop, bad cop, no matter what, the body cam will end up being the most important piece of evidence in the trial. But everyone is rushing this, prosecutor just said the cop is guilty of murder. He's already indicted him. And I'm not defending this at all. But people have to realize you can't resist arrest. This guy is taking off. I don't think that cop was fearing for his life. So I think he'll probably be found guilty or something, but stop resisting. [Fox News, The Five, 7/30/15] Fox Host Kimberly Guilfoyle: "Why Put Yourself Also In Danger ... Just Comply, Please." The Five co-host Kimberly Guilfoyle told Bolling, "I hear what you're saying" after he argued that people should "stop resisting" arrest. While acknowledging that "what the officer did was wrong," Guilfoyle advised people to "just comply [with cops], please" to avoid putting yourself in danger: KIMBERLY GUILFOYLE: I hear what you're saying. Saying this is unnecessary. Why put yourself also in danger? BOLLING: Exactly. Time and time again. It always comes down to someone getting hurt, getting killed, bad decisions by a cop. But those decisions wouldn't have been made if the perp didn't run away. Can you imagine what society would be like if everyone thought, if I just run away that cop can't chase me? We'd be a lawless society. GUILFOYLE: No, it's very difficult. And again, this is all about what's probable cause to pull somebody over, right? And it's front license plate, broken windshield, license and registration, et cetera, et cetera. So, you know they look at the tags on the back of the car. That is a justifiable stop. Just comply, please. Listen. Like don't lose your life because you don't know who's on the other end of it. I mean, it shouldn't be this way. What the officer did was wrong. The jury will decide ultimately though. [Fox News, The Five, 7/30/15] Fox News Contributor: "That's Not Right Either" For DuBose To Drive Away From The Cop. On the July 30 edition of Fox News' Hannity, network contributor Bo Dietl argued that while it doesn't "outweigh this terrible, terrible crime," DuBose shouldn't have attempted to drive away from the traffic stop, saying "that's not right either": DAVID WEBB: I think anger played a big part in this. You've got a confrontation between two young men, essentially. And it heats up and then they move on. I mean, it moves on and it escalates. [CROSSTALK] ERIC GUSTER: But he was driving away. He was driving away from the incident. The cop was nowhere near his car. Nowhere near getting hit. And then they lied about it. BO DIETL: Eric, this doesn't outweigh this terrible, terrible crime. Which, I'll call it a crime. The fact is, if he sat there -- For people [to] comply with the police. That's what I'm getting at is, let's all try and listen to the cop -- GUSTER: Oh my gosh -- DIETL: Listen to me. I said it doesn't outweigh the shooting. But should he have just driven away from the cop? Eric, is that right for him to just drive away from the cop? That's not right either. [...] I'm not sticking up for the shooting. I'm talking about communication. Communication between cops and people they're stopping. Respect back and forth. [Fox News, Hannity, 7/30/15]

Posted by on 31 July 2015 | 12:14 am

Indiana Clears Planned Parenthood Of Wrongdoing In Investigation Sparked By Deceptively-Edited Videos

The Indiana State Department of Health found no wrongdoing by Planned Parenthood clinics in the state in regards to the handling of fetal tissue donations after an investigation sparked by a shady anti-choice organization's heavily edited videos was completed. Indiana Gov. Mike Pence -- a Republican who has long championed efforts to defund Planned Parenthood -- ordered an investigation by the Indiana State Department of Health in cooperation with the state's Office of the Attorney General on July 16, citing "the recent video referencing Planned Parenthood's alleged trafficking of aborted fetal tissue." The move came just days after The Center for Medical Progress released a deceptive video claiming that Planned Parenthood was "selling aborted baby parts" that was roundly called out by the media for "show[ing] nothing illegal" and having selectively edited footage. The investigation was launched despite the fact Planned Parenthood of Indiana and Kentucky "does not participate in any tissue donation program."   On July 30, Indiana officially cleared Planned Parenthood clinics in the state of wrongdoing, finding "no evidence of any laws being broken" in the handling of fetal tissue, according to an Associated Press report. Pointing to letters from the Indiana Department of Health to the clinics investigated which stated that the agency was "unable to find any non-compliance with state regulations" the report noted that "the complaint is closed": The Indiana Department of Health said in a statement Thursday that an investigation found no evidence of any laws being broken. Health department inspectors investigated the Indiana facilities on July 21. Letters from the health department to the three Indiana facilities dated Tuesday and released to the media by Planned Parenthood said the agency had completed its investigation into the Planned Parenthood facilities that perform abortions in Indiana. The letters said the agency was "unable to find any non-compliance with state regulations. Therefore, no deficiencies were cited." The letters say the complaint is closed. The state has the authority to license and regulate abortion clinics and to inspect them, the Health Department said. Federal law prohibits the buying and selling of human body parts or trafficking in tissue from an aborted fetus. Indiana's findings further underscore the flimsy nature of The Center for Medical Progress' claims and reinforce the fact Planned Parenthood has simply been discussing legal reimbursement for fetal tissue donation.

Posted by on 31 July 2015 | 12:00 am

Bill O'Reilly On Planned Parenthood's Fetal Tissue Donation: "Many People Feel This Is Nazi Stuff"

From the July 30 edition of Fox News' The O'Reilly Factor:Previously: The Fourth Video Attacking Planned Parenthood Is Also Full Of Doctored Footage Right-Wing Media Uses Deceptively Edited Video To Liken Planned Parenthood To Nazis RedState.com: Planned Parenthood Is "Our Auschwitz"

Posted by on 30 July 2015 | 7:44 am

The Five On Samuel DuBose's Death During A Traffic Stop: "People Have To Realize You Can't Resist Arrest"

From the July 30 edition of Fox News' The Five: ERIC BOLLING: It's tough because look, first of all it's a tragedy, I mean, there's another instance where someone had a missing front license plate and ends up dead. If you watch - by the way, body cams, if this doesn't tell you there should be body cams on both sides of the debate. Good cop, bad cop, no matter what, the body cam will end up being the most important piece of evidence in the trial. But everyone is rushing this, prosecutor just said the cop is guilty of murder. He's already indicted him. And I'm not defending this at all. But people have to realize you can't resist arrest. This guy is taking off. I don't think that cop was fearing for his life. So I think he'll probably be found guilty or something, but stop resisting-- KIMBERLY GUILFOYLE: I hear what you're saying. Saying this is unnecessary. Why put yourself also in danger?  BOLLING: Exactly. Time and time again. It always comes down to someone getting hurt, getting killed, bad decisions by a cop. But those decisions wouldn't have been made if the perp didn't run away. Can you imagine what society would be like if everyone thought, if I just run away that cop can't chase me? We'd be a lawless society.  GUILFOYLE: No, it's very difficult. And again, this is all about what's probable cause to pull somebody over, right? And it's front license plate, broken windshield, license and registration, et cetera, et cetera. So, you know they look at the tags on the back of the car. That is a justifiable stop. Just comply, please. Listen. Like don't lose your life because you don't know who's on the other end of it. I mean, it shouldn't be this way. What the officer did was wrong. The jury will decide ultimately though. Previously: Megyn Kelly On Sandra Bland Case: "Even If You Know The Cop Is In The Wrong, Comply And Complain Later" Fox's Megyn Kelly On Teen Violently Manhandled By McKinney Police: "The Girl Was No Saint Either" Sean Hannity: Lesson Of Freddie Gray's Death Is "Don't Run At 8:30 In The Morning When You See A Cop"

Posted by on 30 July 2015 | 5:16 am

Fox's Dana Perino Complains Media Covered Bush Torture Of Detainees More Than Doctored Planned Parenthood Videos

From the July 30 edition of Fox News' The Five:Previously: Conservative Media Use Cecil The Lion's Death To Attack Planned Parenthood The Fourth Video Attacking Planned Parenthood Is Also Full Of Doctored Footage Fox's Eric Bolling Says Videos Attacking Planned Parenthood Are "Far Worse" Than Videos Of ISIS Beheadings

Posted by on 30 July 2015 | 4:44 am

MSNBC's Alex Wagner Debunks Bay's Benghazi Film Trailer, "There Was No Stand Down Order"

From the July 30 edition of MSNBC's NOW With Alex Wagner:Previously: Nine Military Officers Demolish Fox's Benghazi "Stand Down" Order FableFox Changes Meaning Of "Stand Down" Order To Keep The Benghazi Hoax AliveFox Uses Michael Bay's Benghazi Movie To Revive Debunked Stand Down Order Myth

Posted by on 30 July 2015 | 4:42 am

The Fourth Video Attacking Planned Parenthood Is Also Full Of Doctored Footage

The Center for Medical Progress' fourth attempt to smear Planned Parenthood -- by using deceptively-edited videos to falsely claim clinics are "negotiating a fetal body parts deal" -- once again falls flat, providing no evidence that any laws were broken. Transcript of the full, undoctored footage reveals staff at a Planned Parenthood Colorado affiliate simply discussing legal reimbursements for safe donations, and reveals that the undercover actors admitted they were the "middlemen" who stood to potentially make a profit from selling tissue -- not Planned Parenthood itself.Anti-Choice Organization Releases Fourth Doctored Video Alleging Planned Parenthood Is "Negotiating A Fetal Body Parts Deal" The Center For Medical Progress Releases Fourth Video Claiming That Planned Parenthood Officials Are "Negotiating A Fetal Body Parts Deal." A July 30 video released by The Center for Medical Progress (CMP) claimed that Planned Parenthood of the Rocky Mountains, in Denver, CO, was "negotiating a fetal body parts deal, agreeing multiple times to illicit pricing per body part harvested." According to the organization's press release: DENVER, July 30--New undercover footage shows Planned Parenthood of the Rocky Mountains' Vice President and Medical Director, Dr. Savita Ginde, negotiating a fetal body parts deal, agreeing multiple times to illicit pricing per body part harvested, and suggesting ways to avoid legal consequences. Planned Parenthood of the Rocky Mountains (PPRM) is a wealthy, multi-state Planned Parenthood affiliate that does over 10,000 abortions per year. PPRM has a contract to supply aborted fetal tissue to Colorado State University in Fort Collins. [...] When the buyers ask Ginde if "compensation could be specific to the specimen?" Ginde agrees, "Okay." Later on in the abortion clinic's pathological laboratory, standing over an aborted fetus, Ginde responds to the buyer's suggestion of paying per body part harvested, rather than a standard flat fee for the entire case: "I think a per-item thing works a little better, just because we can see how much we can get out of it." The sale or purchase of human fetal tissue is a federal felony punishable by up to 10 years in prison or a fine of up to $500,000 (42 U.S.C. 289g-2). Federal law also requires that no alteration in the timing or method of abortion be done for the purposes of fetal tissue collection (42 U.S.C. 289g-1). [The Center for Medical Progress, 7/30/15] But Latest Video Once Again Shows Planned Parenthood Officials Discussing Legal Reimbursements For Fetal Tissue Donations Latest Video Again Shows Nothing Illegal. Like the three previously released deceptively-edited videos from CMP, the organization's latest undercover video does not include any evidence of illegal activity on the part of Planned Parenthood. Instead, the video once again features strategically-edited conversations that merely show that the organization is being reimbursed for costs associated with the procurement of fetal tissue, which federal law allows. [Media Matters for America, 7/28/15, Media Matters for America, 7/14/15; Media Matters for America, 7/21/15] Both Planned Parenthood Official And Actor Note That Fees Are For "Processing And Time." CMP's video features a Planned Parenthood doctor discussing the fetal tissue reimbursement process with an undercover actor. Over the course of the conversation, both the actor and doctor acknowledge that compensation was based on reimbursement of "processing and time," as allowed under federal law. According to the video (emphasis added): ACTOR: I think the resistance that I have felt is from people that, yes, they want to do it, but they don't understand that doing it right can be easy. Just with getting the attorneys on board, having, I mean we all know that for example, compensation. I want to come in and pay you top dollar because I know what you're going to be facing and I want you to be happy. I want to make sure our suppliers are happy, so compensation, okay, your cost is negligent. So it could look like we're paying you for specimens. GINDE: Right. ACTOR: So let's talk about it correctly. ACTOR: We all know that yes, that's what we're doing. GINDE: So processing and time, and yeah. ACTOR: Exactly. So yes, I am paying you, but how we're talking about it out there in the public square.  [The Center for Medical Progress, 7/30/15] Video Has Been Deceptively Edited To Leave Out Crucial Context Undercover Video Includes Cherry-Picked Footage, Is Doctored To Hide Time Stamps. The 11-minute video from the Center for Medical Progress strategically cherry-picks from undercover footage of the organization's actors speaking to Planned Parenthood officials under false pretenses. Like previous videos, the footage was cherry-picked in order to attempt to cast the clinic in a bad light. The short video's initial conversations with the clinic official were also doctored to hide time stamps from view. [The Center for Medical Progress, 7/30/15] Footage Removed From Short Video: Actor Makes Clear That They Represent The "Middleman" That Might Sell Tissue, Not PPFA: "If We Somehow Misrepresented ... That's On Our Shoulder." Left out of the edited 11-minute video is an actor from CMP posing as a buyer from a procurement company called Biomax, and Planned Parenthood of the Rocky Mountains' (PPRM) Clinical Research Coordinator, who is referred to only as "J.R.", clearly detailing that PPFA does not "sell" the tissue. Instead, the actor notes that it is procurement companies like Biomax, not the clinics, who potentially profit from tissue. The actor explains that they essentially act as a "middleman" sourcing material from clinics before turning it around and selling it to researchers themselves. The actor goes on to say that if anything else has been conveyed, the process has been "somehow misrepresented" and that they "haven't done our due diligence." According to the Center for Medical Progress' transcript (emphasis added): ACTOR: Because technically, we're basically a middleman right? It's one transaction acquiring and sourcing the material from you guys. It's another separate transaction for us to turn around to who ever our client is and sell it to them. If we somehow misrepresented, and we haven't done our due diligence, that's on our shoulder right? J.R.: Yea, just because we're not sending it to your lab so you can process ACTOR: It does kind of blur the boundaries huh? Because it's like we're all here together J.R.: It's just that the transaction takes place in the path lab.  Buyer: Yea, so I think all that stuff when we just sit down, with the attorney's and just drafting our contracts very carefully and consciously and just making sure that everyone's roles and expectations are clear. I think having an idea of who the tech is going to be also goes a long way. Maybe that's an argument that is is better just to have one of our people here- if you guys decided that's something you don't want to do, getting that information quickly, that would be helpful. The expectation would be that there is compensation for that. Those can be separate, so that what we're compensating to you for specimen is very clear and not negotiable. [The Center For Medical Progress, 7/30/15, 7/30/15] Footage Removed From Short Video: Clinic Researcher Says Planned Parenthood Could "Easily Cut" Research "Because It's So Small" In Their Budget, But Clinic Officials See "The Benefits There Are For Patients." Left out of the short 11-minute video is a second exchange between the actor from CMP and "J.R." The full transcript of the exchange reveals "J.R." explaining to the actor that although Planned Parenthood could "easily cut" research, such as fetal tissue donation, from the clinic's budget, it's important to them because of "the benefits there are for patients" who often "come in and say, can I do something with this medical research?" From CMP's transcript: Buyer [ACTOR]: Why would she be so open to us coming in- we want to know what drives you? Yea, that because that's what I want to tap into, keeping this productive for both of us, keeping this profitable as this gets older. J.R.: Yea Buyer [ACTOR]: We had a fun fifteen minutes. J.R.: The honeymoon period is over. Yea, what happens after the honeymoon period. For me, I do- my job is primarily research based and everything but the thing is, at PPRM research can be easily cut because it's so small, compared to the other services that we offer. What really keeps research around, is Savita. She really is a champion, and really passionate about keeping it around and helping, she knows the benefits there are for patients, and for PPRM. I think that's also reflective with Biomax and PPRM. There are patients who do come in and say, can I do something with this medical research? Buyer [ACTOR]: Yes. Just like this young lady was saying.  J.R.: Yea, and she sees that and she's also been on the research side and knows-  J.R.: -how it can be to get specimens, so that's really- I know when we first talked about it, was didn't discuss financials or what- could this go wrong or something, we really focused on the benefits as a whole and everything. So, that's my third person take of it. I don't know how she views it, she might have a different response but that's- I definitely feel that way about it and everything. And she's very supportive of medical research and everything. Like our department? four people total, in all of PPRM. I oversee all research in PPRM and all affiliates and everything, so it's something that could easily be cut budget wise, from a numbers perspective. It's definitely something that she pushes to keep around. Buyer [ACTOR]: Ok. Good. That's really good. [The Center For Medical Progress, 7/30/15, 7/30/15]

Posted by on 30 July 2015 | 4:09 am

The Daily Show Dismantles The Right-Wing's Transgender Bathroom Myth

The Daily Show lampooned conservative attacks on an LGBT non-discrimination ordinance in a small town in Arkansas, setting a powerful example for how mainstream media outlets should treat bogus right-wing "horror stories" about affording legal protections to LGBT people. During the July 29 edition of The Daily Show, correspondent Jordan Klepper traveled to Eureka Springs, Arkansas, which voted overwhelmingly in May to retain the town's non-discrimination ordinance prohibiting discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity. The Daily Show segment mocked and dismantled some of the most popular conservative arguments against LGBT non-discrimination laws with the unwitting help of an opponent of the ordinance, who agreed to be interviewed and warned that the law infringed on the rights of Christians and allowed men to enter women's restrooms: The myth that male sexual predators use non-discrimination laws to sneak into women's restrooms has been repeatedly debunked by experts, but it remains a tremendously popular conservative attack on legal protections for LGBT people. Unfortunately, mainstream media outlets tend to treat the "bathroom" myth as if it were true, uncritically repeating it in their coverage of LGBT non-discrimination laws. Fears that non-discrimination laws will punish Christians or let men sneak into women's restrooms are as ridiculous as they are pervasive. Media outlets would serve their audiences better by following The Daily Show's lead and treating right-wing attacks on LGBT non-discrimination laws as the jokes they really are. 

Posted by on 30 July 2015 | 2:02 am

Media Outlets Cite Conservative Group's Flawed Poll On Iran Deal Without Disclosing Misleading Question

Media are citing a flawed poll claiming majority opposition to the Iran nuclear deal conducted by Secure America Now (SAN) and Pat Caddell's Caddell Associates, without acknowledging that it contains a misleading question that falsely equates the Iran deal to the failed nuclear agreement with the North Korea agreement. Experts have explained that the Iran deal and North Korea agreement are vastly different, and SAN and Caddell have a history of advocacy polling and shady conservative advocacy campaigns.Secure America Now Releases Poll With Misleading Question Comparing Iran Nuclear Deal To North Korea Deal Secure America Now Poll Misleadingly Likens Iran Nuclear Deal To 1994 Agreed Framework With North Korea. A poll by Secure America Now in coordination with Caddell Associates and McLaughlin & Associates suggests that 54 percent of voters agree with opponents of the Iran nuclear deal, based on a misleading question that falsely likens the deal to "the one North Korea violated to build nuclear weapons": All things being equal with which position do you agree with more? President Obama who says that the proposed deal with Iran on nuclear weapons is a good deal. It has unprecedented verification and unprecedented access to Iran's nuclear sites. It limits Iran's nuclear program and extends their breakout time to develop a nuclear weapon to one year. The opponents of the deal who say that it's a bad deal because it gives Iran a $150 billion windfall in immediate sanctions relief, ends their arms embargo and it leaves Iran's nuclear infrastructure intact. The agreement is similar to the one North Korea violated to build nuclear weapons. Iran can continue to support wars of aggression against their neighbors and terrorism against Israel and the United States. [Secure America Now, July 2015] Media Outlets Cite Poll To Hype Opposition To The Iran Deal Washington Examiner Claims "Poll Shows Opposition To Iran Deal," But Fails To Explain The North Korea Comparison Is Flawed. The Washington Examiner reported July 29 "a new nationwide survey reveals opposition to" the Iran nuclear deal. The Examiner pointed to the survey's North Korea question to note that, "In answer to this question, 54 percent said they agreed with opponents of the deal, while 31 percent sided with Obama," but didn't acknowledge that the comparison is false. [The Washington Examiner, 7/29/15] Weekly Standard Reports "Facts Sway Voters On Iran Deal," But Fails To Note Poll's Misleading North Korea Comparison. The Weekly Standard wrote that according to the poll, "the more Americans learn" about the deal "the less they like it," but didn't acknowledge that the poll contained a misleading question falsely equating the Iran deal to North Korea. [Weekly Standard, 7/30/15] The Hill Reports "Poll Finds Growing Opposition To Iran Deal," Without Acknowledging The Poll's False North Korea Comparison. The Hill wrote that "public support for the Iran nuclear deal is declining, according to a new poll," but failed to note that the poll contained a misleading question falsely equating the Iran deal to a 1994 Agreed Framework with North Korea comparison. [The Hill, 7/29/15] But The Poll's Question Is Misleading And Its Comparison Is Flawed: The Iran Nuclear Deal Is Much More Detailed than The North Korean Agreement, And The Countries' Circumstances Are Different State Department's Marie Harf: Unlike Iran, "North Korea Had Produced Weapons-Grade Plutonium Prior" To Agreement. In a press briefing on April 23, State Department Spokeswoman Marie Harf addressed the comparison between the Iran deal and the North Korean Agreed Framework: MS HARF: There's no - the comparison is just - they're completely different things, and I'm happy to talk through why a little bit. The comprehensive deal we are seeking to negotiate with Iran is fundamentally different than what we did in terms of our approach to North Korea. In the early 1990s, North Korea had produced weapons-grade plutonium prior to agreeing to limited IAEA inspections. After the Agreed Framework, they agreed to more intrusive inspections; but in 2002, when they finally broke its commitments, its violations were detected by the IAEA. We've also said very publicly that one of the reasons we have the Additional Protocol now, which is a key part of what we're negotiating with Iran, is in fact because of the lessons we learned from the North Korea situation. [U.S. Department of State, 4/23/15] National Interest: Unlike The 4-Page North Korea Deal, Iran Deal Has "Unprecedented Degree Of Monitoring And Inspections." Paul Pillar, nonresident senior fellow for both the Center for Security Studies and the Brookings Institution, wrote in his blog for The National Interest, "The Agreed Framework was a sketchy four-page document that provided for little in the way of monitoring and enforcement. In contrast, the leading feature of the agreement being negotiated with Iran is its unprecedented degree of monitoring and inspections. The final agreement will have an enforcement and dispute resolution mechanism consistent with the Additional Protocol pertaining to work of the International Atomic Energy Agency." [The National Interest, 5/19/15] Economist: Unlike North Korea Agreement, Iran Deal Contains "The Most Intrusive Nuclear-Inspection Arrangements Ever Designed." The Economist explained that "the nuclear agreement with Iran is very different from the one with North Korea," noting that unlike the North Korean agreement, the Iran deal contains "the most intrusive nuclear-inspection arrangements ever designed": The contrast with what has been agreed with Iran is striking. In a meticulously detailed document which, with appendices, extends to well over 100 pages, the most intrusive nuclear-inspection arrangements ever designed are described. Not only will inspectors have a right to visit any site they deem suspicious, but every stage of the fuel cycle will be monitored, as will Iran's nuclear supply chain. This deal implicitly assumes that Iran will attempt to cheat unless it knows it will get caught. The North Korean agreement showed no concern about uranium-enrichment activities, which, in due course, the regime in Pyongyang exploited. With Iran, Mr.Obama was right to say that its every pathway towards a bomb has been blocked. [The Economist, 7/25/15] CEIP: Unlike North Korean Agreement, "The P5+1 Are Unified In Wanting To Prevent Iran From Acquiring Nuclear Weapons." According to an April 28 article by the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace (CEIP) titled "Why the Iran Nuclear Deal Is Not the North Korea Deal," all members of the P5+1, including Russia and China, are involved and invested in the deal, unlike the bilateral North Korean deal between only the U.S. and North Korea: The negotiations that produced the 1994 Agreed Framework were conducted by the United States and the DPRK alone. The other permanent members of the UN Security Council were not invested in it and in its enforcement. The P5+1 perceive major national and collective interests in preventing Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons and in upholding the NPT. Each of these states has invested national prestige in demonstrating that their collective effort can abate a threat to international peace and security. They have made this clear in a number of ways, including by authorizing and enforcing an unprecedented array of economic sanctions on Iran. The intensity of these states' support for sanctions has varied, and the P5+1--particularly Russia--may have different priorities in dealing with Iran if and when the nuclear case is resolved. But there is reason to believe that they all are prepared to hold Iran to account for fulfilling the terms of an agreement. [Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, 4/28/15] CEIP: Iran Deal "Explicitly Addresses All Pathways To The Bomb." The April 28 CEIP article further explained that in contrast to the deal with North Korea, every path to nuclear weapons is addressed in the Iran deal: The Agreed Framework focused specifically on the DPRK's plutonium program. The framework also reaffirmed the DPRK's broader commitment not to seek nuclear weapons by any means, pursuant to the 1992 Joint Declaration of South and North Korea on the Denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula. As it turned out, the DPRK secretly imported uranium enrichment technology from Pakistan and developed a parallel route for acquiring weapons-usable fissile material. The proposed agreement with Iran explicitly covers both the uranium and plutonium pathways to acquiring nuclear weapons, and includes extensive measures to verify that declared and undeclared pathways would be blocked. [Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, 4/28/15] Pollster Patrick Caddell And Secure America Now Have A History Of Shady Conservative Advocacy SAN Used Its Board Members' Fox News Positions To Urge Benghazi Investigation. Secure America Now (SAN), whose advisory board at the time included Pat Caddell and several other Fox News personalities, used the network and its history of Benghazi misinformation to advocate for Congress to appoint the Benghazi Select Committee in 2013. [Media Matters, 9/11/13] SAN Used Footage Of Journalist Murdered By ISIS In "Deplorable" Campaign Ad. In 2014 SAN -- backed by Caddell and several other Fox figures -- published an anti-Democrat campaign ad featuring footage of an American journalist murdered by ISIS. The group pulled the ad after the journalist's parents told England Cable news that the ads were "very sad" and "deplorable." [Media Matters, 10/17/14] SAN Board Member Pat Caddell Has A History Of "Advocacy Polling" Based On Leading Questions. In 2011, Washington Post polling manager Peyton Craighill described one of Caddell's polls as "a clear example of advocacy polling": Update from Greg Sargent: I asked Washington Post polling manager Peyton Craighill to assess the value of this poll. His answer was unequivocal: "This is a clear example of advocacy polling. They've generated leading questions to elicit a desired result to prove a point. In no way does this represent neutral, independent research." The only thing this poll reveals is the lengths some folks will go to in order to keep alive the storyline that Obama is forever on the verge of losing Jewish support -- a claim they evidently hope will become a self-fulfilling prophesy if they repeat it often enough. [The Washington Post, 7/13/11]

Posted by on 30 July 2015 | 1:54 am