Media Matters for America summary, June 15, 2007
 
Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2007 22:03:02 -0400


<x-html>
<a href="http://mediamatters.org/"><img src="http://mediamatters.org/static/images/logo_email.jpg" border="0" /></a>
<p><b></b></p>
<p><a href=""></a></p>

<style type="text/css"><!--
body    	{ font-family: verdana, sans-serif; margin: 20px}

#spread 	{ float: left; width: 560px; clear: both; }

#spread a	{ text-decoration: none; color: #003366 }            
#spread a:hover	{ text-decoration: underline }

#spread p	{ font-size: 0.9em; }

#spread h1	{ font-size: 100%; }
#spread h2	{ font-size:  90%; }
#spread h3	{ font-size:  85%; }

#spread a.read	{
	font-size: .8em;
	/*font-weight: bold;*/
	text-transform: uppercase;
}
--></style>
<div id="spread">
<p>Here are today's news items from <i>Media Matters for America</i>, 
click on the title or 'read more' to read the entirety of each story.</p>
<h1><a href="http://mediamatters.org/issues_topics/2008_elections?src=other">2008 Elections</a></h1>
<p><b><a href="http://mediamatters.org/items/dailyemail/200706150005?src=other">Hannity falsely claimed Dem debates didn't include questions about partial-birth abortion, NIE</a></b><br />
On the
June 14 edition of Fox News&#39; <i>Hannity
&amp; Colmes</i>, while discussing the June 5 Republican presidential
debate with Republican pollster Frank Luntz, co-host <a href="http://mediamatters.org//issues_topics/people/seanhannity?src=other">Sean Hannity</a> claimed to
be "frustrated" by purported differences between the Democratic and
Republican debates: "The Democrats don&#39;t get the questions on
partial-birth abortion or asked if they&#39;ve read the National Intelligence
Estimate [NIE]. It seems like the Republicans are getting more scrutiny."
In fact, during an April 26 debate, the Democratic presidential candidates
faced a question on the abortion procedure that critics call partial-birth
abortion, and at a June 3 debate, several Democratic candidates were asked
whether they regretted not reading the September 2002 NIE on the threat posed
by Iraq.
Indeed, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton&#39;s (D-NY) response to the NIE question
was specifically noted by Luntz during a June 4 appearance on <i>Hannity &amp; Colmes</i>.
<a href="http://mediamatters.org/items/dailyemail/200706150005?src=other" class="read">Read more</a></p>

<p><b><a href="http://mediamatters.org/items/dailyemail/200706150010?src=other">CNN's Sesno baselessly asserted Giuliani would be "pro-military" and "tough on ... spending"</a></b><br />
On the June 14 <a href="http://mediamatters.org//rd?http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0706/14/sitroom.01.html" title="http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0706/14/sitroom.01.html">edition</a> of CNN&#39;s
<i>The Situation Room</i>, CNN special
correspondent <a href="http://mediamatters.org//rd?http://www.cnn.com/CNN/anchors_reporters/sesno.frank.html" title="http://www.cnn.com/CNN/anchors_reporters/sesno.frank.html">Frank Sesno</a> asserted
that "[i]f past is prologue," former New York City Mayor Rudy
Giuliani (R) would be a "pro-military" president who would also "butt
heads with Congress, interest groups,
and conservatives, who
already distrust him." Sesno did not cite any aspect of Giuliani&#39;s
record in public life to indicate why
he would be more "pro-military" than any of the other
presidential contenders, nor did he provide any indication of what he meant by that term. Sesno also asserted that Giuliani was
"tough on crime, taxes,
and spending" as New York&#39;s mayor, despite what <a href="http://mediamatters.org//rd?http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1632736-2,00.html" title="http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1632736-2,00.html"><i>Time</i></a>
magazine and <a href="http://mediamatters.org//rd?http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9807E6D61E3BF934A15755C0A9659C8B63" title="http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9807E6D61E3BF934A15755C0A9659C8B63"><i>The New York Times</i></a> called Giuliani&#39;s
"second-term spending spree." 
<a href="http://mediamatters.org/items/dailyemail/200706150010?src=other" class="read">Read more</a></p>

<p><b><a href="http://mediamatters.org/items/dailyemail/200706150006?src=other">MSNBC's Carlson falsely suggested Rezko purchased Obama's house</a></b><br />
On the June 14 edition of MSNBC&#39;s <i>Tucker</i>, host Tucker Carlson falsely
suggested that Chicago Democratic fundraiser Antoin "Tony" Rezko had
purchased Sen. Barack Obama&#39;s (D-IL) Chicago home for Obama. Referring to a June
14 <i>New York Times</i> <a href="http://mediamatters.org//rd?http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/14/us/politics/14rezko.html?ei=5090&amp;en=e1200f33d113ba7c&amp;ex=1339473600&amp;partner=rssuserland&amp;emc=rss&amp;pagewanted=print">article</a> on
Obama and Rezko&#39;s relationship, Carlson said of Obama:
"[I]t&#39;s like, buy your own house. You know what I mean? I think a
normal person would have concluded that" -- a reference to a 2005 real
estate deal Obama entered into with Rezko. 
<a href="http://mediamatters.org/items/dailyemail/200706150006?src=other" class="read">Read more</a></p>

<h1><a href="http://mediamatters.org/issues_topics/propaganda_noise_machine?src=other">Propaganda/Noise Machine</a></h1>
<p><b><a href="http://mediamatters.org/items/dailyemail/200706150008?src=other">Media report McCain's attack on Reid but omit McCain's own criticism of military leaders</a></b><br />
Several media outlets, including <i>The New York Times</i>, CNN, and Fox News, uncritically aired or
repeated Sen. John McCain&#39;s (R-AZ) attack on Senate Majority Leader Harry
Reid (D-NV) for criticizing the performance of two senior military officers,
Gen. Peter Pace and Gen. David H. Petraeus, without reporting that McCain
himself criticized military officers several times this year, including referring to Gen.
George W. Casey Jr.&#39;s
"failed leadership" at a time when Casey was commander of the coalition forces in
Iraq.
<a href="http://mediamatters.org/items/dailyemail/200706150008?src=other" class="read">Read more</a></p>

<p><b><a href="http://mediamatters.org/items/dailyemail/200706150002?src=other">Reports on subpoenas of Miers, Taylor ignored support from Republicans</a></b><br />
In reports on congressional subpoenas
issued on June 13 to two former aides to President Bush, several news outlets --
including Fox News, MSNBC, <i>The Washington
Times</i>, and the <i>Kansas City Star</i> --
cast the issue as partisan, suggesting that only Democrats supported the
subpoenas. In fact, at least two Republicans on the Senate Judiciary Committee expressed support for the
subpoenas, which called for former counsel Harriet Miers and former political
director Sara Taylor to testify before the House and Senate judiciary
committees about the Bush administration&#39;s
controversial firings of nine federal prosecutors.
<a href="http://mediamatters.org/items/dailyemail/200706150002?src=other" class="read">Read more</a></p>

<p><b><a href="http://mediamatters.org/items/dailyemail/200706150003?src=other">Once again, <em>Wash. Post </em>showed no attempt to contact SF officials about Pelosi funding request</a></b><br />
In a June 15 article headlined "<a href="http://mediamatters.org//rd?http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/06/14/AR2007061402342.html">Lawmakers
Cashing In on Real Estate, Financial Reports Reveal</a>," <i>The Washington
Post</i> reported that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA)
"requested $25 million in earmarked funds" for a San Francisco waterfront redevelopment
project "near" property owned by Pelosi and her husband. The <i>Post</i> added that "Pelosi&#39;s office has
denied any conflict in the earmark request, saying it was submitted to her by
the Port of San Francisco" and quoted a Pelosi spokesman as saying that
the "Pelosis&#39; property is &#39;a mile away&#39; from the
pier" and that "[t]here&#39;s tons of other buildings in
between." But the article, written by <i>Washington
Post</i> campaign finance reporter
Matthew Mosk, suggested that it is
only Pelosi&#39;s office claiming that the Port of San Francisco submitted
the request when, in fact, port
officials have reportedly confirmed that they made the request of Pelosi. The
article gave no indication that the <i>Post</i> attempted to contact officials from the Port of San Francisco. As <i>Media Matters for
America</i> has <a href="http://mediamatters.org//items/200705080014?src=other">noted</a>,
blogger and media critic Greg Sargent <a href="http://mediamatters.org//rd?http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/horsesmouth/2007/05/pelosi.php">reported</a>
on May 8 that Port
 of San Francisco
officials confirmed during a phone interview that they requested the waterfront
improvement spending.
<a href="http://mediamatters.org/items/dailyemail/200706150003?src=other" class="read">Read more</a></p>

<h1><a href="http://mediamatters.org/issues_topics/immigration?src=other">Immigration</a></h1>
<p><b><a href="http://mediamatters.org/items/dailyemail/200706150009?src=other">More on-screen "amnesty" from <em>Lou Dobbs Tonight</em></a></b><br />
During the June 14 <a href="http://mediamatters.org//rd?http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0706/14/ldt.01.html">edition</a> of CNN&#39;s <i>Lou Dobbs Tonight,</i> the politically charged
word "amnesty" <a href="http://mediamatters.org//items/200706080003?src=other">once again appeared</a> in
captions beneath news reports by CNN correspondents on deliberations over the
Senate immigration bill. It was at least the second time in two weeks that a caption bearing the word "amnesty" has appeared in a news
report airing on <i>Dobbs</i> that did not appear in
similar reports during other CNN programs. This time, separate reports by White House correspondent Suzanne Malveaux and
congressional correspondent Dana Bash were accompanied
by on-screen text referring to "Bush&#39;s amnesty push,"
"pro-amnesty senators," and the "amnesty bill," even
though both Malveaux and Bash have noted in previous reporting that
"amnesty" is a characterization of the bill favored by
"critics." When CNN&#39;s <i>The
Situation Room</i> had aired similar reports earlier that day, the
accompanying on-screen text featured the less inflammatory descriptor
"Immigration deal," suggesting that Dobbs&#39; program was responsible
for adding editorial commentary to what was ostensibly a CNN news report. 
<a href="http://mediamatters.org/items/dailyemail/200706150009?src=other" class="read">Read more</a></p>

<h1><a href="http://mediamatters.org/issues_topics/war_in_iraq?src=other">War in Iraq</a></h1>
<p><b><a href="http://mediamatters.org/items/dailyemail/200706150007?src=other">O'Reilly cited Hunt interview to rebut criticism of Fox News' Iraq coverage -- but Hunt agreed with critics</a></b><br />
During
the June 14 edition of Fox News&#39; <i>The
O&#39;Reilly Factor</i>, host <a href="http://mediamatters.org//issues_topics/people/billoreilly?src=other">Bill O&#39;Reilly</a>
claimed that his program does not cover "the explosion du jour" but
rather "report[s] honestly on the Iraq war and bring[s] you reports
that advance the story." O&#39;Reilly was responding to criticism of
Fox News&#39; Iraq
war coverage stemming from a <a href="http://mediamatters.org//rd?http://www.journalism.org/node/5719">study</a> by the <a href="http://mediamatters.org//rd?http://www.journalism.org/">Project
for Excellence in Journalism</a>, which found that Fox News spent
far less time covering the conflict than CNN and MSNBC. As evidence of his program&#39;s "honest[]"
reporting on Iraq, O&#39;Reilly cited comments made by Fox News military analyst Col.
David Hunt on the June 12 edition of O&#39;Reilly&#39;s nationally syndicated radio show: "[E]arlier this week on <i>The Radio Factor</i>, Colonel David Hunt said
that the surge has improved things in the Anbar province, the Sunni stronghold,
but not yet in Baghdad." However, O&#39;Reilly failed to mention that,
during the June 12 interview, Hunt disagreed with O&#39;Reilly&#39;s
assertion that "[t]here&#39;s no news value" in reporting on
"the latest explosion" in Iraq. 
<a href="http://mediamatters.org/items/dailyemail/200706150007?src=other" class="read">Read more</a></p>

<h1><a href="http://mediamatters.org/issues_topics/media?src=other">Media</a></h1>
<p><b><a href="http://mediamatters.org/items/dailyemail/200706160001?src=other">Fox altered false story but failed to issue correction</a></b><br />
A June 14 FoxNews.com <a href="http://mediamatters.org//rd?http://216.109.125.130/search/cache?ei=UTF-8&amp;p=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.foxnews.com%2Fstory%2F0%2C2933%2C282632%2C00.html&amp;fr=ush-news&amp;u=newshub.com/rd.php%3Fnh_id%3D0c799bb0d2ab275222caeb96a9be4ac8&amp;d=Bhzme-rnO86h&amp;icp=1&amp;.intl=us">article</a> (retrieved via Yahoo cache)
mischaracterized a question posed to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) during
a press conference to convey the false impression that Reid suggested that Army
Gen. David Petraeus, the commander of the multinational force in Iraq, is
"incompetent." FoxNews.com reported that Reid was asked whether he
"considered Petraeus competent," and that "Reid responded,
&#39;Not as far as I&#39;m concerned.&#39; " In fact, according to
the transcript provided by <i>Congressional
Quarterly</i> transcription services -- as well as a video aired on Fox
News Channel -- Reid was asked
whether he believed Petraeus was incompetent, answering, "Not as far I&#39;m
concerned."
Fox later <a href="http://mediamatters.org//rd?http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,282632,00.html">altered</a> the story online to accurately reflect the exchange but
never issued a formal correction to note that a change had been made. Rather,
the new version of the article simply changed the word "competent"
to "incompetent," indicating Reid&#39;s denial that he regards
Petraeus as <i>in</i>competent. Fox News
congressional correspondent Major Garrett, who is listed as having contributed
to the FoxNews.com article, similarly mischaracterized the exchange on Fox
News&#39; <i>Special Report</i>. Later
in the program, after playing a video clip of the exchange, Fox News Washington managing
editor and host Brit Hume properly characterized the exchange, but he did not
note Garrett&#39;s false report. 
<a href="http://mediamatters.org/items/dailyemail/200706160001?src=other" class="read">Read more</a></p>




<hr />
<p>This mail was sent by <i>Media Matters for America</i>
to 'news@energy-net.org'. Please visit us at
<a href="http://mediamatters.org">http://mediamatters.org</a></p>

<p>You can help support our work; become a 
<a href="http://mediamatters.org/items/200407200002?src=other">volunteer media
monitor</a>, or 
<a href="https://mediamatters.org/donate?source=email">donate</a>
to <i>Media Matters for America</i>.</p>


<p>To change your email subscription preferences, visit <a href="http://mediamatters.org/users/prefs.html?src=other">http://mediamatters.org/users/prefs.html</a></p>

<p>If you'd like to unsubscribe from all <i>Media Matters for America</i> emails, you can just click on <a href="http://mediamatters.org/users/unsub/_TFiSm6WIkiaci7iLu6ZtH8gu6JaPh8t_vLvpt4dfhY">http://mediamatters.org/users/unsub/_TFiSm6WIkiaci7iLu6ZtH8gu6JaPh8t_vLvpt4dfhY</a>.</p>

<p>To contact us directly, reply to this mail or visit <a href="http://mediamatters.org/contact_us?src=other">http://mediamatters.org/contact_us</a></p>
</div><img src="http://mediamatters.org/static/images/tracker.gif?src=other" style="display: none;" />
</x-html>