Join the Meeting Place for Moms!
Talk to other moms, share advice, and have fun!

(minimum 6 characters)


Posted by on Feb. 27, 2013 at 3:36 AM
  • 11 Replies

Author and media observer Michael Wolff appeared on HuffPost Live on the Huffington Post to discuss Roger Ailes and Fox News.  The moderator of the discussion was Alicia Menendez, daughter of embattled Senator Bob Menendez who has had quite a bit of air time on Fox News lately.  Other panelists included Mao-loving Anita Dunn who as Communications Director for the Obama White House waged a war against Fox News that drew criticism even from the likes of Howie Kurtz, and Eliza Grey from left-wing The New Republic.  

As you can already guess, Mr Wolff had his hands full.  Considering the make up of the panel it was ironic that Ms. Menendez attempted to lecture Wolff on "journalistic integrity" and criticized Fox News for not living up to her standards in that department.  Let me repeat: Ms. Menendez, the journalist chosen to lead this discussion of Fox News, is the daughter of Sen. Bob Menendez.  Yes Ms. Menendez, you and HuffPost are all about "journalistic integrity."  I submit that perhaps Paul Bunyon would be jealous of the size of the axe Ms. Menendez has to grind.  

That said, if you watch the entire 28 minute segment you will see that Wolff does a masterful job controlling the narrative and swatting back at any straw man or cliche' ridden argument the women of the panel attempted to raise.  Unfortunately, the editors at HuffPost recognize what a masterful job he did as well.  So they did what agenda-driven liberals do: they drastically edited down the full segment to an embarrassing one and a half minute mash-up designed to make Wolff look unhinged, sexist and bullying.  The YouTube mash-up created by Huffington Post staff is not-so-subtly titled: Michael Wolff Loves Fox. Hates Everybody Else.

In a follow-up post, HuffPost bragged about how they've been able to affect the number of Twitter followers Wolff enjoys because the close-minded and hyper-ventilating viewers of the segment can't stand the idea that someone calling himself Roger Ailes' friend might appear in their timeline.  Is this how Huffington Post is planning on making news with HuffPost Live?  Severely edit segments in an attempt to demonize their guests and then do an endzone dance when they get trolled on social media?  When did such a large organization like HuffPost get so small?

A few more points about the interviewing acumen of Alicia "Journalistic Integrity" Menendez:  

  • When interviewing a person who, as Communications Director for the White House, decided to single out a news outlet for a vicious and vindictive war designed to marginalize and usurp their right to report the news, opinionated or not, perhaps you should challenge the propriety of that act rather than ask her "At what point do you make that decision, to fight back?" (1:10)  Perhaps, Ms. Menendez, a journalistworried about a free press would ask "How is it the role of the White House to use their power to intimidate a news organization because they don't like their reporting?" (Journalistic integrity)
  • When Ms. Dunn said in your interview that Fox News "had become the not-so-loyal opposition" (1:15) you might have stopped her and challenged such an inflammatory comment.  You do realize, Ms. Menendez, that Ms. Dunn had just accused Fox News of disloyalty to the United States of America, right? (Journalistic integrity)
  • When Ms. Dunn praised the efforts of Media Matters for America, (13:00) an organization who has used its tax-exempt status to attempt to have Fox News taken off the air completely because it is just too dangerous to have a news outlet that doesn't walk in lock-step with John Podesta's world view, it might serve your audience for you to point out that Media Matters has regular weekly strategy calls with the White House and they are hardly an example of pure and unbiased journalism. In fact, you might have made some real news by probing Ms. Dunn by asking if she, as Communications Director, had any direct contact with them while she worked for the President. (Journalistic integrity)
  • At 26:18 of the interview, you probably shouldn't have praised Ms. Dunn for going on Fox News and "going up against Bill O'Reilly and going up against Sean Hannity (and) steer(ing) the conversation."  Comments like that might make people question your obvious JOURNALISTIC INTEGRITY. 
Mr. Wolff seems like an interesting and smart guy. It seems like he has an educated and enlightened view of the inner-workings of America's number one news network. Hopefully, he's learned a valuable lesson here. A guest with actual knowledge of a subject that doesn't fit into the agenda at Huffington Post should expect to be personally attacked, ridiculed and mischaracterized lest people actually learn something from their appearance.
by on Feb. 27, 2013 at 3:36 AM
Add your quick reply below:
You must be a member to reply to this post.
Replies (1-10):
by Ruby Member on Feb. 27, 2013 at 3:47 AM

What is with the severe editing?

I've seen on either Jimmy Fallon or Red Eye severely edited video of President Obama saying something he never said- pasting a lot of snippets together. Obviously, that would never be considered legitimate journalism.

I don't understand how fraudulent activity can be OK for liberals, but a felony for conservatives.

Whatever happened to journalistic integrity?


Sorry, ladies - I can't figure out how to attach the two videos here - the full version, and HuffPost's edited version.

If anyone can do that, it would be great.

by Ruby Member on Feb. 27, 2013 at 4:08 AM


by Ruby Member on Feb. 27, 2013 at 5:42 AM
2 moms liked this

And the left likes to condemn FOX.  PMSNBC has been very good at editing lately.  It is no wonder the young people of this nation are getting more stupid.

by Platinum Member on Feb. 27, 2013 at 8:48 AM

How many times have we seen similar editing at Fox regarding a liberal person?  Neither should do it, but calling foul on something you do all the time is kind of hypocritical, isn't it?

by Gold Member on Feb. 27, 2013 at 8:53 AM
2 moms liked this

HuffPO ..they are well known for this editing junk.This is nothing new.ALL of the media seems to participate in this crap.Only the left just has ONE con source to harp on and hammer (FOX) whereas there are many from their side.Some liberals also like to say such things as,'Oh but FOX does it WAY more than MSNBC (insert whatever other lib source).Which is a load.Where is the study that proves that statement?

by Ruby Member on Feb. 27, 2013 at 1:12 PM

Could you please give me a few specific examples of what you are referring to? I am not aware of any selective and heavy editing of the speech of liberals by FNC.


Quoting PamR:

How many times have we seen similar editing at Fox regarding a liberal person?  Neither should do it, but calling foul on something you do all the time is kind of hypocritical, isn't it?

by Ruby Member on Feb. 27, 2013 at 1:32 PM



Fox & Friends Deceptively Edits Obama's Comments On Small Business

Blog ››› July 16, 2012 11:15 AM EDT ››› REMINGTON SHEPARD

Fox News this morning deceptively edited President Obama's remarks to make it seem as though he was claiming that small business owners do not deserve any credit for their own success. But Obama's actual remarks show that he attributed the success of small businesses to both the individual drive of small business owners, and to the benefit provided by influences such as great teachers, and government-created infrastructure.


President Obama, during a July 13 appearance in Roanoke, VA, argued that while small business owners' individual talents and drive allow them to attain their own portion of the American dream, credit for such attainment is not theirs alone. Obama pointed out that the success of small businesses can also be attributed to outside influences such as "a great teacher somewhere in your life" and investment "in roads and bridges."


But on the July 16 edition of Fox & Friends, the co-hosts cropped the clip of Obama's appearance to make it appear as though he was making a different point. The clip featured Obama saying:


OBAMA: If you've got a business, you didn't build that, somebody else made that happen.




The point is that, when we succeed, we succeed because of our individual initiative, but also because we do things together.


Gretchen Carlson reacted by calling the grossly misleading clip "most startling," before hosting a small business owner who switched her political allegiance from Obama in 2008 to GOP presidential hopeful Mitt Romney in 2012.


Had Fox & Friends provided a more complete accounting of Obama's comments regarding small business and success, Fox & Friends' attempt to gin up outrage would've made even less sense. Take a look. What Fox & Friends provided in their clip is bolded below.


OBAMA: [L]ook, if you've been successful, you didn't get there on your own.  You didn't get there on your own.  I'm always struck by people who think, well, it must be because I was just so smart.  There are a lot of smart people out there.  It must be because I worked harder than everybody else.  Let me tell you something -- there are a whole bunch of hardworking people out there. 


If you were successful, somebody along the line gave you some help.  There was a great teacher somewhere in your life.  Somebody helped to create this unbelievable American system that we have that allowed you to thrive.  Somebody invested in roads and bridges.  If you've got a business -- you didn't build that.  Somebody else made that happen.  The Internet didn't get invented on its own.  Government research created the Internet so that all the companies could make money off the Internet. 


The point is, is that when we succeed, we succeed because of our individual initiative, but also because we do things together.  There are some things, just like fighting fires, we don't do on our own.  I mean, imagine if everybody had their own fire service.  That would be a hard way to organize fighting fires.


So we say to ourselves, ever since the founding of this country, you know what, there are some things we do better together.  That's how we funded the GI Bill.  That's how we created the middle class.  That's how we built the Golden Gate Bridge or the Hoover Dam.  That's how we invented the Internet.  That's how we sent a man to the moon.  We rise or fall together as one nation and as one people, and that's the reason I'm running for President -- because I still believe in that idea.  You're not on your own, we're in this together.


Selectively editing Obama comments is just par for the course for Fox & Friends, a practice that has been widely mocked. This particular instance of selective editing is a part of Fox's regular practice of accusing Obama of attacking small business.


However, this erasure of Obama's crediting both "individual initiative" and the help of outside forces is particularly hypocritical given other Fox opinions on how government spending can help foster individual prosperity.


In a segment during the June 24, edition of Fox and Friends Sunday, co-hosts Clayton Morris and Alisyn Camerota expressed disgust at the notion that some wealthy Americans were denouncing their citizenship to avoid paying taxes on their wealth. Morris asserted that such people should, "get out of here" arguing they "made all this money on the backs of the infrastructure, taxpayers that got you there, the roads that taxpayers pay so you can drive back and forth to work to get rich on a regular basis."


Camerota added "are they just greedy? I mean, are they just -- after this country allowed you the entrepreneurial spirit, the freedom to make all this money, now you're going to leave it?"


Perhaps, Fox & Friends erased Obama's assertions because they, like Morris, know that infrastructure and other spending, supported by the average tax payers, paves the way for success. Unfortunately, that truth doesn't allow for the sustained rage Fox & Friends regularly attempts to engender.








Fox News show edits clip to make it seem like Obama can't lower taxes

By David Edwards
Tuesday, September 21, 2010 11:04 EST

Weeks after Sean Hannity was caught selectively editing a clip of President Barack Obama to paint him in a negative light, the Fox News channel has done it again.


The latest clip, aired by Fox & Friends Tuesday, has the president appearing to say that he could not give tax cuts to the richest Americans.


"It is an irresponsible thing for us to do. I can't give tax cuts to the top two percent of Americans..." Obama said before being cut off in mid-sentence by the morning show's editing.



But in the full context, it's clear that the president said that he couldn't give tax cuts and lower the deficit at the same time.


The Hill reported Obama's full quote as it aired on CNBC Monday.


When asked if he would modify his position on the Bush-era tax cuts to only increase taxes on those making at least $1 million, President Obama on Monday said the country simply could not afford it.


"I can't give tax cuts to the top two percent of Americans - 86 percent of that going to Americans making $1 million or more - and lower the deficit at the same time," he told CNBC. "I don't have the math."


Fox News' Steve Doocy and Andrew Napolitano spent the remainder of the segment blasting Obama's tax policies.


"It's theft," Doocy told Napolitano.



"It is a form of theft," said Napolitano. "I mean, it presumes that the government decides how much of what we own and what we earn we'll be permitted to keep."


"Did you hear the words of the president? ‘I can't give the wealthiest two percent or three percent a tax cut,'" Napolitano continued.


"We start with the presumption that what we earn is ours. So, the president should say, ‘I want to take money from them.' Not, ‘I can't give them a tax cut.'"


Doocy and Napolitano failed to mention that lowering the deficit was a condition of not giving tax cuts to the richest Americans.


Later in the speech, Obama indicated that tax cuts for the rich were possible as the economy improved. "However, Obama did leave the door open for tax cuts for the wealthy after the economic crisis subsides," The Hill noted.


Just days ago, Comedy Central's Jon Stewart called out Fox News' Sean Hannity for similar editing of a presidential clip.


"It's a fun and easy way to make people you disagree with say things that make them unelectable," said Stewart.


CNN's Howard Kurtz called the editing "deceptive."


This video is from Fox News' Fox & Friends, broadcast Sept. 21, 2010.



Jon Stewart called out Fox News on Tuesday's "Daily Show" for the way the network edited a 2011 tape featuring President Obama discussing the Dream Act.


Before focusing on Fox News' response to Obama's change in immigration policy, the "Daily Show" host mocked Republicans for criticizing Obama for using executive authority to grant work permits and a two-year deportation deferral for students who arrived in the U.S. after the age of 16.


"George Bush, Bill Clinton, George H.W. Bush and Ronald Reagan-no president in modern history-has changed deportation policy through executive action, except all of them," Stewart said. "So the objections here may be what you call situational, or so I thought until yesterday, when I saw this on Fox News."


Stewart cut to a clip from Sean Hannity's Monday Fox News show, in which the host played a tape of Obama speaking in September 2011. During his remarks, Obama said, "There's been a great disservice done to the cause of getting the Dream Act passed, and getting comprehensive immigration passed, by perpetrating the notion that by myself, I can go and do these things. It's just not true."


Stewart pretended to be in disbelief. "That was just 9 months ago," Stewart said in a tone dripping with mockery. "The president said he couldn't do the thing he just did. Game over, Fox! Kudos!" He acknowledged the network's diligence and accuracy. Stewart also admitted that he sometimes acted like "a dick" to the network and was "quick to pounce," but Fox News "got it right."


"But before I go," Stewart said, "it looked like the president wasn't done speaking...Roll the unedited tape, perhaps."


Following the final line that Fox News included in its edited tape, Obama said, "Now what we can do is prioritize enforcement, since there's limited enforcement resources, and say, 'We're not going to go chasing after this young man or anybody else who has been acting responsibly and would otherwise qualify for legal status of the Dream act passed.'"


"Motha f***as!" Stewart said. "You cut Obama off just before he very clearly says that he can do the exact thing he just did! But which you said he said he's not supposed to-motha f***as! You almost had me, Fox News! You almost had me!"


Check out Stewart in the clip above, and the full, 10-minute Hannity segment below



Quoting SallyMJ:

Could you please give me a few specific examples of what you are referring to? I am not aware of any selective and heavy editing of the speech of liberals by FNC.




Quoting PamR:

How many times have we seen similar editing at Fox regarding a liberal person?  Neither should do it, but calling foul on something you do all the time is kind of hypocritical, isn't it?








by Ruby Member on Feb. 27, 2013 at 1:33 PM


This is one of the sleaziest, most dishonest things I’ve ever seen Fox News do. People need to start seriously asking what’s going on with a news organization ...​Fox_News...

SURPRISE! FoxNews” Lies Again, Deceptively Edits Obama Speech! (video)​deceptively-edits...

Fox News Edits Clinton Testimony To Claim She Never Addressed Benghazi Monitoring Blog ››› January 24, 2013 4:06 PM EST ››› THOMAS BISHOP​news-edits-clinton... -

Fox News Dishonest Editing of Obama Judicial Nominee Goodwin Liu? Video. Watch Video Online. TubeHome is a great video search engine on the net with millions of videos.​dishonest-editing-of...



Quoting SallyMJ:

Could you please give me a few specific examples of what you are referring to? I am not aware of any selective and heavy editing of the speech of liberals by FNC.


Quoting PamR:

How many times have we seen similar editing at Fox regarding a liberal person?  Neither should do it, but calling foul on something you do all the time is kind of hypocritical, isn't it?




by Platinum Member on Feb. 27, 2013 at 1:39 PM

Need more?

by Platinum Member on Feb. 27, 2013 at 1:40 PM

ox Graphic Claimed Government Spending Increased From 3.2 Percent Under Bush To An Average Of 23.8 Percent Under Obama. In a graphic labeled "Growth of Government Spending (As A Share Of GDP)," Fox & Friends suggested that government spending increased from 3.2 percent of the economy at the end of the Bush administration to an average of 23.8 percent under Obama.


[Fox News, Fox & Friends, 9/26/12, via Media Matters]

In Fact, Graphic Compared Two Completely Different Measures Of Government Spending. The figure for "government spending" during the Obama administration is in line with historical data for overall spending as a percentage of the economy, a figure that does not take into account federal revenue. By contrast, the 3.2 percent figure used to illustrate "government spending" under Bush and the figures for the 1940s are in line with historical data for deficits, which do take into account revenues. [Media Matters, 9/26/12

Government Spending Under Obama Increased Only Slightly Since 2008 And Dropped Since 2009. The actual figures for government spending ("outlays") as a percentage of the economy would indicate that the number has increased only slightly since 2008 and actually dropped since 2009. They were 20.8 percent in 2008 but 25.2 percent in 2009. In 2010 and 2011, they dropped to 24.1 percent and are expected to be 24.3 in 2012 and 23.3 percent in 2013. 


[Media Matters, 9/26/12

A Few Days Later, Fox & Friends Admitted: "We Mixed Up The Numbers." On September 28, Fox & Friends addressed the dishonest chart. Guest co-host Eric Bolling stated: "We mixed up the numbers on Wednesday, so we wanted to clear things up." But Bolling did not explain how Fox made such an error or note that government spending as a percentage of the economy has actually increased only slightly since 2008. [Media Matters, 9/26/12]

Fox Routinely Misleads Viewers By Airing Inaccurate Graphics


Fox Chart Showed Gas Prices Were Consistently Rising. On February 20, Fox News displayed a graphic that used three random data points to purportedly show the national average cost of gasoline over a year: One was the national average gas price from the day the graphic aired, the other two were chosen from the previous week and the previous year. From Fox News' America's Newsroom:


[Fox News, America's Newsroom, 2/20/12, via Media Matters

In Reality, Fox Cherry Picked Data To Hide Fact That Fluctuating Gas Prices Had Fallen From High Points. An accurate representation of gas prices over the 12-month period starting in February 2011 showed that gas prices in February 2012 -- the highest point on Fox's graphic -- were actually down from their high in April-May of 2011. From AAA:


[AAA, 2/21/12, via Media Matters


Fox Chart Showed That Wealthy Would See Drastic Increase In Rate If Bush Tax Cuts Expired. Fox Business' Cavuto displayed a graphic showing what the wealthiest Americans in the top marginal income tax bracket would pay if the Bush tax cuts were allowed to expire. The chart exaggerated the increase, which would go from 35 percent, the current top rate, to 39.6 percent -- less than 5 percentage points:


[Fox Business, Cavuto, 7/31/12, via Media Matters

In Reality, Fox Graphic Used Distorted Scale To Exaggerate 4.6 Percentage Point Increase. Displaying the change in tax rates with the vertical axis starting at zero instead of 34, as the Fox Business chart did, shows that the proposed change in the tax rate for the wealthy is much less significant than Fox Business presented it:


[Media Matters, 7/31/12


Fox Chart Portrayed Job Losses In The Millions Per Quarter From 2007-2010. A Fox News chart claimed the economy was losing an increasing number of jobs per quarter, from 7 million in December 2007 to 15 million in June 2010. The chart cited the Bureau of Labor Statistics as the source of the data:


[Fox News, America's Newsroom, 6/28/10, via Media Matters

In Reality, Fox Used Arbitrary Data Points That Corresponded To Number Of Unemployed. Although Fox's chart is titled "Job Loss By Quarter," the data presented in the chart referred to the total number of unemployed Americans during those periods -- not job losses. Moreover, Fox manipulated the chart's scale to create a misleading impression of the 15-month span from March '09 to June '10, which somehow seemed shorter but more dramatic than the six-month span preceding it, September '08 to March '09. A realistic depiction of the chart mapping unemployment numbers through those random quarters would look like this:


[Media Matters, 6/28/10

A More Realistic Picture Of Unemployment Numbers Shows Jobless Rate Off Its 2009 Heights. As the following BLS chart shows, the simplistic unemployment picture that Fox presented, giving the false impression of a steady deterioration through June 2010, is incorrect. The BLS chart clearly communicates that the jobs situation in 2010 differed significantly from the jobs situation in 2009:


[Media Matters, 6/28/10

U.S. Job Losses Essentially Ceased At The End Of 2009. As BLS data show, job losses ceased at the end of 2009 and began recovering after that. A realistic chart mapping that data by successive quarter would look like this:


[Media Matters, 6/28/10


Fox Graphic Claimed Most People Believe Scientists Falsify Research To Promote "Their Own Theories On Global Warming." Fox cited a Rasmussen Reports poll asking respondents whether "scientists falsify research to support their own theories on Global Warming" and displayed a graphic claiming that 94 percent of Americans believed it was "very" or "somewhat" likely that scientists did so:


[Fox News, America's Newsroom, 12/8/09, via Media Matters]

In Reality, Fox's Graphic Fused Together Different Poll Data To Arrive At 120 Percent Conclusion. To give the erroneous impression that up to 120 percent of Americans had an opinion on the matter, the Fox News graphic added together the "very likely" and "somewhat likely" numbers to reach 59 percent and called the new group "somewhat likely"; included the 35 percent "very likely" as its own group though it had already been added to the previous group; mashed together the "not very likely" and "not likely at all" groups; and omitted the 15 percent who were unsure. In reality, the Rasmussen poll data looked like this: 

  • 35 percent responded "Very Likely" 
  • 24 percent responded "Somewhat Likely" 
  • 21 percent responded "Not Very Likely" 
  • 5 percent responded "Not Likely At All" 
  • 15 percent were unsure. [Media Matters, 12/8/09]


Fox Graphic Suggested Republicans Mentioned God More Than The Democrats In Party Platforms. A Fox graphic presented evidence showing that the Republican Party platform for 2012 contained more references to "God" than the Democratic Party platform has in any of the last four election years. Fox was trying to draw attention to the fact that the word "God" did not appear in the DNC platform for 2012. From Special Report with Bret Baier:


[Fox News, Special Report with Bret Baier, 9/4/12, via Media Matters

In Reality, Fox Cherry Picked Data To Omit Republican Information From 2000, 2004, And 2008. The Fox graphic ignored that in 2000 and 2004, the Democratic platform contained more references to the word "God" than the Republican platform in those years; moreover, the 2012 Democratic platform had a section on faith. An honest comparison of mentions of the word "God" in previous party platforms would look like this:


[Media Matters, 9/4/12


Fox Graphic Claimed Unemployment Rate Stayed At 9 Percent In November 2011. Following breaking news that the unemployment rate had dropped from 9 to 8.6 percent in November 2011, Fox & Friends aired an on-screen graphic that read: "November Unemployment Rate: 9%":


[Fox News, Fox & Friends, 12/2/11, via Media Matters

In Reality, Unemployment Rate Had Decreased To 8.6 Percent. During the segment, co-host Gretchen Carlson accurately described the rate as having fallen "down to 8.6 percent from 9 percent," and the lower-screen text accurately noted: "Unemployment down to 8.6%." Nevertheless, Fox still aired its incorrect graphic. [Media Matters, 12/2/11]


Fox Graphic Claimed There Was No Difference Between An 8.6 And 9 Percent Unemployment Rate. A Fox graphic that purported to illustrate changes in the unemployment rate in 2011 made it seem as if the unemployment rate had remained steady in November 2011 at 8.6 percent from 9 percent the previous month:


[Fox News, America's Newsroom, 12/12/11, via Media Matters

In Reality, Chart Had Grossly Distorted Scale To Give False Impression Of Unemployment Rate 11-Month History. The Fox graphic showed data that did not correspond to its own scale, putting the 8.6 percent unemployment rate in November 2011 higher on the chart than the March 8.8 percent rate, and at the same level as the 9 percent unemployment rate in October. The following chart clearly illustrates how Fox's chart was manipulated to hide the decrease in unemployment from October to November in 2011:


[Media Matters, 12/12/11

BLS Data Show That U.S. Economy Saw Sharp Drop In Unemployment Rate In 2011. A BLS chart mapped to a similar scale as Fox's graph shows that the unemployment rate sharply dropped in November 2011:


[Bureau of Labor Statistics, 12/12/11, via Media Matters


Fox Graphic Claimed The "Real" Unemployment Rate Doubled Under Obama. A Fox & Friends graphic claimed that the "real unemployment rate" had increased from 7.8 percent in 2009 to 14.7 percent in September 2012:


[Fox News, Fox & Friends, 9/11/12, via Media Matters

In Reality, Fox Conflated Two Different Measures Of Unemployment. Fox conflated two different statistics to distort Obama's jobs record -- the official unemployment rate from January 2009 (7.1 percent) and a separate measure of unemployment for 2012 (14.7 percent), which includes part-time workers, discouraged workers, and other categories that don't fall into the official rate. This alternative measure of unemployment was 14.2 percent in January 2009 -- 0.5 percentage points lower than it is today. An accurate depiction of the rate would look like this:


[Media Matters, 9/11/12

Fox Was Forced To Correct The Chart The Next Day. Following heavy criticism, Fox aired a correction to the graphic the next day, with co-host Brian Kilmeade saying he wanted "to clarify" the graphic displayed previously. Co-host Gretchen Carlson then noted that the unemployment rate had not, in fact, increased from 7.8 percent to 14.7 percent during Obama's time in office. Fox aired this graphic:


[Fox News, Fox & Friends, 9/12/12, via Media Matters]


Fox Graphic Claimed Gas Taxes Made Up A Large Portion Of The Price At The Pump. A Fox graphic titled, "Taxes At The Pump," purported to show the size of federal, state, and "state & local" gasoline taxes. From Happening Now:


[Fox News, Happening Now, 3/6/12, via Media Matters

In Reality, Fox Graphic Double-Counted State Taxes To Exaggerate The Size Of Fuel Taxes. Fox News exaggerated gas taxes by double-counting state taxes, by placing taxes on top of the price of gasoline when the $3.83 average at the time already included taxes, and by exaggerating the scale of the tax figures on the graph. An accurate depiction of how much fuel taxes cost shows the much smaller impact of taxes on gasoline prices:


[Media Matters, 3/6/12


Fox Graphic Claimed Obama Has Put More People On Food Stamps Than Any Other U.S. President. A Fox graphic reinforced the notion that "more people have been put on food stamps by Barack Obama than any president in American history," as Bolling put it.


[Fox News, Your World with Neil Cavuto, 1/27/12, via Media Matters

In Reality, Fox Used Random Data Points To Answer A Different Question Than The One Being Discussed. The Fox graph seemed to have tried to select the year of each presidency with the highest participation and attempted to answer the question of whether there were more people enrolled in food stamps at the time than were enrolled under any other president -- which is different than trying to figure out whether "more people have gotten on food stamps." [Media Matters, 1/27/12

FactCheck.Org: More Recipients Were Added To Food Stamp Rolls During President Bush's Tenure. created a chart that determined whether the "food stamp president" claim was accurate, based on month-to-month figures, rather than the more confusing fiscal year data. The organization's chart showed that more recipients were added to the rolls under President Bush's tenure than under Obama's:


[Media Matters, 1/27/12]

Add your quick reply below:
You must be a member to reply to this post.
Join the Meeting Place for Moms!
Talk to other moms, share advice, and have fun!

(minimum 6 characters)