January, 06 2010, 12:52pm EDT
For Immediate Release
Contact:
Brandon Hersh (202) 471-3205,bhersh@mediamatters.org
The 'Beck Phone' Line is Open
Media Matters challenges host to live up to self-professed interest in accuracy
WASHINGTON
In response to Glenn Beck lashing out
for being chosen as 2009's "Misinformer of the Year," Media Matters for America challenged him
to contact the organization if he
believes any critiques of his show are false or deceptive. Media Matters' President Eric Burns sent
Beck a letter inviting the Fox News host -- who has repeatedly professed an interest in
accuracy -- to call the
newly installed "Beck phone" anytime he believes he is being unfairly
criticized.
The letter reads:
January 5, 2010
Mr. Beck,
On October 13, you unveiled
a "red phone" that the White House could use to call in and "correct the
mistakes" on your show. On Monday, that red phone made another appearance, as
you - responding to Media Matters
naming
you 2009's Misinformer of the Year - again asserted your commitment to the
truth:"If I'm not telling the truth, then why not just call me? That's all you
have to do. Call. Why is it that you attack this program, this network and
anyone, the tea party goers, anyone who stands in your way, Washington? Why attack? You see, lies are so
easily stopped. Lies that are broadcast nightly to an entire nation are easily
stopped. They're called laws -- or here's an idea, standards. Even if you think
I'm wildly irresponsible, you have to know that News Corp. is not stupid. It's
a company worth billions of dollars. Do you really think this corporation would
risk everything on an irresponsible crazy guy? That doesn't make sense. And
yet, the phone still doesn't ring. Truth."While we do not have the number for your red phone, we have on many
occasions corrected falsehoods and misinformation from Fox News' Glenn Beck and Premiere Radio Network's The Glenn Beck Program - you simply refuse
to acknowledge it. You claimed our decision to name you 2009's "Misinformer of
the Year" was not backed up "with any facts." However, that decision was based
on the 175 research items we posted in 2009 alone addressing claims made on
your radio and television shows. For example:
- Beck falsely claimed
"[o]nly 3 percent" of stimulus plan would be "spent in the next
12 months." Beck falsely claimed
that "[o]nly 3
percent" of the Democratic economic stimulus plan would be "spent in
the next 12 months." Beck's figures were based on a partial
Congressional
Budget Office cost estimate that excluded faster-moving provisions in
the bill. According to the CBO's full cost estimate of the bill,
11.2 percent of the $816 billion bill would be spent in the first
seven-and-a-half months after the bill is enacted, and, when including
the
bill's tax cut provisions, $169 billion -- or 20.7 percent of the
bill's total
cost -- would take effect in the first seven-and-a-half months.- Beck
aired false claim that a union only needs 30 percent support from employees to
be "established." Beck aired
an on-screen graphic with the headline, "THEN ... WAGNER ACT," which
falsely asserted that if 30 percent of employees want a union, "it gets
established." In fact, the Wagner Act, which was passed in the 1930s,
required that for union representation to be established, a majority of employees in a bargaining unit
within a company had to "designate or select" a union to represent
them. The National Labor Relations Act as it stands today also contains a
majority requirement.- Beck falsely claimed average
UAW worker makes $154 per hour. Beck falsely claimed
that "the average UAW [United Auto Workers] worker" earns "[a]
hundred and fifty-four dollars an hour if you look at -- you know, if you add
in all of the benefits." In fact, a recent Barclays Capital analysis
reportedly found that U.S.
automakers "pay an average of $55 an hour in wages and benefits to hourly
workers."- Beck falsely asserted that U.S. does not
fingerprint foreign visitors or collect rapists' DNA. Beck asserted
that "[w]e can't fingerprint anybody who's coming into this country
because that would be offensive" and that "[w]e can't take DNA
samples from killers or rapists, but you can have your fingerprint taken if you
want to sell your house." In fact, the Department of Homeland Security
does take fingerprints from "aliens seeking admission to the United States" at U.S. entry
points, and according to the National Conference of State Legislatures,
"All 50 states require that convicted sex offenders provide a DNA
sample."- Beck falsely claimed Iowa marriage ruling
"is actually about going into churches." Beck falsely asserted
that the Iowa Supreme Court's decision striking down the state's ban on
same-sex marriage "is actually about going into churches ... and saying
you can't teach anything else." In fact, the ruling does not affect
religious institutions' definitions of marriage.- Beck echoes tired falsehood
that ACORN received stimulus funds. Beck echoed
the false Republican talking point by stating, "By including ACORN, or
groups like them, in the stimulus package, we have guaranteed them billions of
dollars to buy more votes for the party that helps them the most." In
fact, the stimulus bill does not mention ACORN or otherwise single it out for
funding.- Beck falsely claimed $1.4
million in stimulus spent on doors, which actually cost $246,100 to repair. Beck
falsely claimed
that the government spent $1.4 million of economic stimulus funds "to
repair a door" at Dyess Air Force Base. In fact, the doors repaired were
hangar doors and did not cost that much money.
Recovery.gov actually states that the government awarded AFCO
Technologies nearly $1.2 million to replace gas mains on the base, and $246,100
to repair doors in Building 5112.- Beck falsely claimed Obama said
he doesn't want health reform protesters to "do a lot of talking." Beck
falsely claimed
that President Obama was "reacti[ng] to the health care protests"
when he said, "I don't want the folks who created the mess to do a lot of
talking." In fact, Obama was not talking about public protests or even
health care reform; he was discussing "folks on the other side of the
aisle pointing at the federal budget and somehow trying to put that at our
feet."- Beck reports fake murder story
from ACORN video as fact. After Andrew Breitbart posted a video of
an ACORN employee in San Bernardino,
California, claiming that she had
killed her ex-husband, Beck joined
Fox News colleagues Karl Rove, Greta Van Susteren, and Sean Hannity in
promoting it without fact-checking it or indicating that they had contacted
ACORN for a response to the claim. In fact, ACORN stated that the employee made
up the story because she recognized that the actors in the video "were
clearly playing with" her so she "matched their false scenario with
her own false scenarios," and, indeed, the San Bernardino Police
Department has said her claim is false.- Beck, falsely claimed IPCC's
Latif has "pulled the rug out" from under climate change consensus. Beck
joined
Sean Hannity in seizing on a World Climate Conference presentation on
short-term natural climate variability by Mojib Latif, a prominent climate
modeler, to suggest that, in Beck's words, Latif has "backed out now and
said, 'We were wrong,' " about global warming because, according to
Hannity, Latif stated that global temperatures are actually
"cooling." In fact, Latif asserted that contrary to common
"media" misperceptions of global warming as a "monotonic
process" in which "each year is warmer than the preceding year,"
there are significant natural climate variations within the decadal timescale
that do not change the "long-term warming trend."- Beck falsely claimed Anita Dunn
"worships" "her hero" Mao Zedong. Throughout
most of his October 15 Fox News program, Glenn Beck falsely claimed
that White House communications director Anita Dunn "worships" and
"idolizes" "her hero" Mao Zedong. In fact, in the video
that Beck aired as evidence to support his claims, Dunn offered no endorsement
of Mao's ideology or atrocities -- rather, she commented that Mao and Mother
Teresa were two of her "favorite political philosophers," and based
on short quotes from them, she offered the advice that "you don't have to
follow other people's choices and paths" or "let external definition
define how good you are internally."- Beck falsely accused Reid of
lying about support for public option. Following reports that Senate
leaders will include a public option in health care legislation, on Fox & Friends, Glenn Beck falsely suggested
that only "35 percent of the population" supported a public option
and accused Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid of lying when he said, in co-host
Gretchen Carlson's words, "the public wants this." In fact, polling
consistently shows broad support for the public option, and the Fox News poll
Beck is presumably referencing did not ask specifically about a public option.- Beck falsely claimed that under
the Senate health care bill, "You don't get a single benefit until
2014." On November 19, Beck falsely claimed
that under the Senate health care bill, "All of the benefits of this bill
don't kick in until when? You don't get a single benefit until 2014."
According to a document
released by Senate Democrats summarizing the "Immediate Benefits" of
the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, the bill included numerous
benefits that would "be available in the first year after enactment"
of the bill. Indeed, Washington Post
writer Ezra Klein published a list
of benefits that the Senate bill would provide
"before 2014."- Reviving "born alive"
falsehood, Beck claims Obama suggested it's OK to "put a spike in the
baby's head." Beck falsely claimed
that President Obama "suggested that [it] was OK" to "go into
those pregnant women and pull the babies out of them and put a spike in
the baby's head," echoing the oft-repeated right-wing falsehood that Obama
did not support protecting babies who survived botched abortions. In fact,
while serving in the state Senate, Obama opposed legislation to amend the
Illinois Abortion Law because the amendment threatened abortion rights and was
unnecessary since existing law already required doctors to provide medical care
for babies who survived abortions.- Beck falsely claims no jobs are
being "saved or created." Beck falsely claimed
that "jobs are not being saved or created" and that the Obama
administration is "creating the make-believe 'saved or created'
category" for jobs. In fact, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO)
recently estimated that the American Reinvestment and Recovery Act of 2009,
which was heavily promoted by President Obama, created 1.6 million jobs, and
the Bush administration repeatedly stated that its economic initiatives had
"saved or created" jobs.- Beck falsely claimed Robert
Creamer "stole" $2 million from banks. Beck falsely claimed
that progressive activist Robert Creamer "stole" $2 million from
banks while serving as Executive Director of the Illinois Public Action Fund.
In fact, Creamer was never accused of stealing any money and the judge in the
case reportedly gave Creamer a lighter sentence because no one suffered any
"out of pocket losses."- Beck led charge advancing
"Lie of the Year" contender that Holdren supported forced abortions
and sterilizations. Beck repeatedly
advanced
the false claim that White House science and technology adviser John Holdren --
whom Beck called "our science czar" -- supported forced abortions and
putting sterilants in drinking water. PolitiFact previously declared his claim
"pants on fire" false and nominated it for "Lie of the
Year," stating that Holdren and his coauthors "make clear that they
did not support coercive means of population control." Beck's claim was
Politifact.com's runner
up for lie of the year.
Your response to being named "Misinformer of the Year," however, did
not appear to be backed up "with any facts." For example, you claimed that
death panels were "discovered by The New
York Times" but the article you cite makes no mention of health care
reform or death panels. You stated that you "didn't want" Van Jones "to be
fired" but on the September 3 edition of your radio show you said that
"[r]emoving Van Jones is not enough" and called on listeners to ask "Why is
this man in [Obama's] administration?"You've repeatedly professed your interest in accuracy, stating that you
would immediately correct any errors on your broadcasts. Unfortunately, it's
hard to take this claim of yours - like so many others - seriously. For
example, it took you more than four months to correct your assertion that Van
Jones was a "convicted felon" who had spent "six months in
prison" - and you certainly haven't corrected any of the troubling errors
we've highlighted above.But just in case you are truly interested in setting the record
straight, Media Matters is going
take a cue from your October 13 show. We've installed a "Beck phone" at our Washington headquarters,
accessible by dialing (202) XXX-XXXX.
I challenge you to contact us anytime you believe one of our critiques of your
show is deceptive or false. We'll be waiting for your call.Warm regards,
Eric Burns
President, Media Matters for America
Media Matters for America is a Web-based, not-for-profit, 501(c)(3) progressive research and information center dedicated to comprehensively monitoring, analyzing, and correcting conservative misinformation in the U.S. media.
LATEST NEWS
ICE Goons Pepper Spray Congresswoman Adelita Grijalva During Tucson Raid
"If federal agents are brazen enough to fire pellets directly at a member of Congress, imagine how they behave when encountering defenseless members of our community," Grijalva said.
Dec 05, 2025
In what Arizona's attorney general slammed as an "unacceptable and outrageous" act of "unchecked aggression," a federal immigration officer fired pepper spray toward recently sworn-in Congresswoman Adelita Grijalva during a Friday raid on a Tucson restaurant.
Grijalva (D-Ariz.) wrote on social media that US Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) officers "just conducted a raid by Taco Giro in Tucson—a small mom-and-pop restaurant that has served our community for years."
"When I presented myself as a member of Congress asking for more information, I was pushed aside and pepper sprayed," she added.
Grijalva said in a video uploaded to the post that she was "sprayed in the face by a very aggressive agent, pushed around by others, when I literally was not being aggressive, I was asking for clarification, which is my right as a member of Congress."
The video shows Grijalva among a group of protesters who verbally confronted federal agents over the raid. Following an order to "clear," an agent is seen firing what appears to be a pepper ball at the ground very near the congresswoman's feet. Video footage also shows agents deploying gas against the crowd.
"They're targeting small mom-and-pop businesses that don't have the financial resources to fight back," Grijalva told reporters after the incident. "They're targeting small businesses and people that are helping in our communities in order to try to fill the quota that [President Donald] Trump has given them."
Mocking the incident on social media, Department of Homeland Security spokesperson Tricia McLaughlin contended that Grijalva "wasn’t pepper sprayed."
"She was in the vicinity of someone who *was* pepper sprayed as they were obstructing and assaulting law enforcement," she added. "In fact, two law enforcement officers were seriously injured by this mob that [Grijalva] joined."
McLaughlin provided no further details regarding the nature of those injuries.
Democrats in Arizona and beyond condemned Friday's incident, with US Sen. Ruben Gallego writing on social media that Grijalva "was doing her job, standing up for her community."
"Pepper spraying a sitting member of Congress is disgraceful, unacceptable, and absolutely not what we voted for," he added. "Period."
Democratic Arizona Attorney General Kris Mayes said on social media: "This is unacceptable and outrageous. Enforcing the rule of law does not mean pepper spraying a member of Congress for simply asking questions. Effective law enforcement requires restraint and accountability, not unchecked aggression."
Congresswoman Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.) also weighed in on social media, calling the incident "outrageous."
"Rep. Grijalva was completely within her rights to stand up for her constituents," she added. "ICE is completely lawless."
Friday's incident follows federal agents' violent removal of Sen. Alexa Padilla (D-Calif.) from a June press conference held by Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem.
Congresswoman LaMonica McIver (D-NJ) was federally indicted in June for allegedly “forcibly impeding and interfering with federal officers" during an oversight visit at a privately operated migrant detention center in Newark, New Jersey and subsequent confrontation with ICE agents outside of the lockup in which US Reps. Bonnie Watson Coleman and Rob Menendez, both New Jersey Democrats, were also involved.
Violent assaults by federal agents on suspected undocumented immigrants—including US citizens—protesters, journalists, and others are a regular occurrence amid the Trump administration's mass deportation campaign.
"If federal agents are brazen enough to fire pellets directly at a member of Congress, imagine how they behave when encountering defenseless members of our community," Grijalva said late Friday on social media. "It’s time for Congress to rein in this rogue agency NOW."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Gavin Newsom Wants a 'Big Tent Party,' But Opposes Wealth Tax Supported by Large Majority of Americans
"A wealth tax is a big tent policy unless the only people you care about are billionaires," said one progressive organizer.
Dec 05, 2025
California Gov. Gavin Newsom, considered by some to be the frontrunner to be the next Democratic presidential nominee, said during a panel on Wednesday that he wants his party to be a “big tent” that welcomes large numbers of people into the fold. But he’s “adamantly against” one of the most popular proposals Democrats have to offer: a wealth tax.
In October, progressive economists Emmanuel Saez and Robert Reich joined forces with one of California's most powerful unions, the Service Employees International Union's (SEIU) United Healthcare Workers West, to propose that California put the nation’s first-ever wealth tax on the ballot in November 2026.
They described the measure as an "emergency billionaires tax" aimed at recouping the tens of billions of dollars that will be stripped from California's 15 million Medicaid recipients over the next five years, after Republicans enacted historic cuts to the program in July with President Donald Trump's One Big Beautiful Bill Act, which dramatically reduced taxes for the wealthiest Americans.
Among those beneficiaries were the approximately 200 billionaires living in California, whose average annual income, Saez pointed out, has risen by 7.5% per year, compared with 1.5% for median-income residents.
Under the proposal, they would pay a one-time 5% tax on their total net worth, which is estimated to raise $100 billion. The vast majority of the funds, about 90%, would be used to restore Medicaid funding, while the rest would go towards funding K-12 education, which the GOP has also slashed.
The proposal in California has strong support from unions and healthcare groups. But Newsom has called it “bad policy” and “another attempt to grab money for special purposes.”
Meanwhile, several of his longtime consultants, including Dan Newman and Brian Brokaw, have launched a campaign alongside “business and tech leaders” to kill the measure, which they’ve dubbed “Stop the Squeeze." They've issued familiar warnings that pinching the wealthy too hard will drive them from the state, along with the critical tax base they provide.
At Wednesday's New York Times DealBook Summit, Andrew Ross Sorkin asked Newsom about his opposition to the wealth tax idea, comparing it to a proposal by recent New York City Mayor-elect Zohran Mamdani, who pledged to increase the income taxes of New Yorkers who earn more than $1 million per year by 2% in order to fund his city-wide free buses, universal childcare, and city-owned grocery store programs.
Mamdani's proposal was met with a litany of similar warnings from Big Apple bigwigs who threatened to flee the city and others around the country who said they'd never move in.
But as Robin Kaiser-Schatzlein explained in October for the American Prospect: "The evidence for this is thin: mostly memes shared by tech and finance people... Research shows that the truth of the matter is closer to the opposite. Wealthy individuals and their income move at lower rates than other income brackets, even in response to an increase of personal income tax." Many of those who sulked about Mamdani's victory have notably begun making amends with the incoming mayor.
Moreover, the comparison between Mamdani's plan and the one proposed in California is faulty to begin with. As Harold Meyerson explained, also for the Prospect: "It is a one-time-only tax, to be levied exclusively on billionaires’ current (i.e., 2025) net worth. Even if they move to Tasmania, they will still be liable for 5% of this year’s net worth."
"Crucially, the tax won’t crimp the fortunes of any billionaire who moves into the state next year or any later year, as it only applies to the billionaires living in the state this year," he added. "Therefore... the horrific specter of billionaire flight can’t be levied against the California proposal."
Nevertheless, Sorkin framed Newsom as being in an existential battle of ideas with Mamdani, asking how the two could both represent the Democratic Party when they are so "diametrically opposed."
"Well, I want to be a big-tent party," Newsom replied. "It's about addition, not subtraction."
Pushed on the question of whether there should be a "unifying theory of the case," Newsom responded that “we all want to be protected, we all want to be respected, we all want to be connected to something bigger than ourselves. We have fundamental values that I think define our party, about social justice, economic justice.”
"We have pre-distribution Democrats, and we have re-distribution Democrats," he continued. "Therein lies the dialectic and therein lies the debate."
Polling is scarce so far on the likelihood of such a measure passing in California. But nationally, polls suggest that the vast majority of Democrats fall on the "re-distribution" side of Newsom's "dialectic." In fact, the majority of all Americans do, regardless of party affiliation.
Last year, Inequality.org examined 55 national and state polls about a number of different taxation policies and found:
A billionaire income tax garnered the most support across party identification. On average, two out of three (67%) of Americans supported the tax including 84% of Democrats, 64% of Independents, and 51% of Republicans.
In national polls, a wealth tax had similarly high levels of support. More than three out of five Americans supported the tax including 78% of Democrats, 62% of Independents, and 51% of Republicans.
That sentiment only seems to have grown since the return of President Donald Trump. An Economist/YouGov poll released in early November found that 72% of Americans said that taxes on billionaires should be raised—including 95% of Democrats, 75% of independents, and 48% of Republicans. Across the board, just 15% said they should not be raised.
Support remains high when the proposal is more specific as well. On the eve of Mamdani's election, despitre months of fearmongering, 64% of New Yorkers said they backed his proposal, including a slight plurality of self-identified conservatives, according to a Siena College poll.
Many observers were perplexed by how Newsom proposes to maintain a “big tent” while opposing policies supported by most of the people inside it.
"A wealth tax is a big tent policy unless the only people you care about are billionaires," wrote Jonathan Cohn, the political director for Progressive Mass, a grassroots organization in Massachusetts, on social media.
"Gavin Newsom—estimated net worth between $20 and $30 million—says he's opposed to a billionaire wealth tax. Color me shocked," wrote the Columbia University lecturer Anthony Zenkus. "Democrats holding him up as a potential savior for 2028 is a clear example of not reading the room."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Supreme Court Agrees to Hear Case That Could Bless Trump's Bid to End Birthright Citizenship
"That the Supreme Court is actually entertaining Trump’s unconstitutional attack on birthright citizenship is the clearest example yet that the Roberts Court is broken beyond repair," said one critic.
Dec 05, 2025
The United States Supreme Court on Friday agreed to decide whether US President Donald Trump's executive order ending birthright citizenship—as guaranteed under the 14th Amendment for more than 150 years—is constitutional.
Next spring, the justices will hear oral arguments in Trump's appeal of a lower court ruling that struck down parts of an executive order—titled Protecting the Meaning and Value of American Citizenship—signed on the first day of the president's second term. Under the directive, which has not taken effect due to legal challenges, people born in the United States would not be automatically entitled to US citizenship if their parents are in the country temporarily or without legal authorization.
Enacted in 1868, the 14th Amendment affirms that "all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside."
While the Trump administration argues that the 14th Amendment was adopted to grant US citizenship to freed slaves, not travelers or undocumented immigrants, two key Supreme Court cases have affirmed birthright citizenship under the Constitution—United States v. Wong Kim Ark (1898) and Afroyim v. Rusk (1967).
Here is the question presented. It's a relatively clean vehicle for the Supreme Court to finally decide whether it is lawful for the president to deny birthright citizenship to the children of immigrants. www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/25...
[image or embed]
— Mark Joseph Stern (@mjsdc.bsky.social) December 5, 2025 at 10:55 AM
Several district court judges have issued universal preliminary injunctions to block Trump's order. However, the Supreme Court's right-wing supermajority found in June that “universal injunctions likely exceed the equitable authority that Congress has given to federal courts."
In July, a three-judge panel of the US Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit unanimously ruled that executive order is an unconstitutional violation of the plain language of the 14th Amendment. In total, four federal courts and two appellate courts have blocked Trump's order.
“No president can change the 14th Amendment’s fundamental promise of citizenship,” Cecillia Wang, national legal director at the ACLU—which is leading the nationwide class action challenge to Trump's order—said in a statement Friday. “We look forward to putting this issue to rest once and for all in the Supreme Court this term.”
Brett Edkins, managing director of policy and political affairs at the advocacy group Stand Up America, was among those who suggested that the high court justices should have refused to hear the case given the long-settled precedent regarding the 14th Amendment.
“This case is a right-wing fantasy, full stop. That the Supreme Court is actually entertaining Trump’s unconstitutional attack on birthright citizenship is the clearest example yet that the Roberts Court is broken beyond repair," Edkins continued, referring to Chief Justice John Roberts.
"Even if the court ultimately rules against Trump, in a laughable display of its supposed independence, the fact that fringe attacks on our most basic rights as citizens are being seriously considered is outrageous and alarming," he added.
Aarti Kohli, executive director of the Asian Law Caucus, said that “it’s deeply troubling that we must waste precious judicial resources relitigating what has been settled constitutional law for over a century," adding that "every federal judge who has considered this executive order has found it unconstitutional."
Tianna Mays, legal director for Democracy Defenders Fund, asserted, “The attack on the fundamental right of birthright citizenship is an attack on the 14th Amendment and our Constitution."
"We are confident the court will affirm this basic right, which has stood for over a century," Mays added. "Millions of families across the country deserve and require that clarity and stability.”
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular


