

SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
To donate by check, phone, or other method, see our More Ways to Give page.


Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
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.
The Trump administration last week sued Minnesota after it passed a law banning prediction markets from operating in the state.
A Sunday report in The New York Times revealed how the Trump administration is using a key government agency to shut down any efforts to regulate online betting markets such as Kalshi and Polymarket.
According to the Times, the administration has stacked the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) with industry insiders who have systematically "mowed down" staffers at the agency who have expressed interest in providing oversight on prediction markets.
Among other things, the report documented how multiple officials at CTFC have been put on leave simply for asking questions about the betting markets' ties to members of President Donald Trump's family or for having past experience enforcing regulations related to cryptocurrencies.
What's more, the Times found that even being an industry insider isn't enough to guarantee good standing in the agency. Brian Quintenz, who was tapped by Trump to lead CTFC last year, saw his nomination withdrawn after he drew the ire of Cameron and Tyler Winklevoss for refusing to support their cryptocurrency exchange's complaint against the agency.
Revelations about industry insiders rolling over regulators at CTFC come as the Trump administration is fighting any attempts by states to regulate prediction markets.
As explained in a Thursday report from CNBC, the Trump administration is "fighting a multi-front battle to stop the state actions and assert its regulatory authority," with CTFC arguing that it is "the only entity that can regulate" betting platforms.
16 different states are engaged in legal proceedings against the platforms, and Minnesota last week passed a law to ban them outright, which immediately drew a lawsuit from the administration.
The new Minnesota law, which is scheduled to take effect in August, bans prediction markets "from hosting, creating or advertising in the state," according to ABC News.
In an interview with ABC, Minnesota state Rep. Emma Greenman (D-63B) said she authored the legislation because she has grown increasingly concerned about young people in the state seeing their finances drained from placing online bets.
"We're seeing studies come out that say [the companies] are targeting 18- to 21-year-olds," said Greenman, "and we are seeing gambling starting younger and younger."
CFTC Chair Michael Selig last month warned states against trying to regulate prediction markets, which he said would "circumvent the clear directive of Congress."
"Our message to Wisconsin is the same as to New York, Arizona, and others," said Selig. "If you interfere with the operation of federal law in regulating financial markets, we will sue you."
"Nothing was accomplished by Operation Epic Fury except putting the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps in charge of Iran and the Strait of Hormuz," said one critic of the war.
President Donald Trump revealed on Saturday that he is mulling a deal that would end his illegal war with Iran, and some hawks within the Republican Party are expressing alarm.
According to a Sunday report in The New York Times, many details of the agreement to end the war remain murky, with the fate of Iran's enriched uranium up in the air. US and Iranian officials have also given contradictory messages about the proposed deal's contents, suggesting there is much work still to be done before any agreement is finalized.
Regardless, three hawkish GOP senators on Saturday raised major concerns about the contents of the deal, warning against accepting any agreement that will leave Iran in a stronger position than before Trump illegally launched a war against it without any authorization from Congress in late February.
"If it is perceived in the region that a deal with Iran allows the regime to survive and become more powerful over time, we will have poured gasoline on the conflicts in Lebanon and Iraq," wrote Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC), who lobbied Trump to attack Iran repeatedly before the start of the war. "A deal that is perceived to allow Iran to survive and possess the ability to control the [Strait of Hormuz] in the future will put Hezbollah in Lebanon and the Shia militias in Iraq on steroids.
Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas), another longtime Iran hawk, said he was "deeply concerned" about what he's been hearing about the deal and expressed particular worry about Iran getting relief from US sanctions while still maintaining the ability to shut down the Strait of Hormuz.
"If the result of all that is to be an Iranian regime—still run by Islamists who chant 'death to America'—now receiving billions of dollars," Cruz wrote, "being able to enrich uranium and develop nuclear weapons, and having effective control over the Strait of Hormuz, then that outcome would be a disastrous mistake."
Sen. Roger Wicker (D-Miss.) was even blunter in his condemnation of the reported agreement.
"The rumored 60-day ceasefire—with the belief that Iran will ever engage in good faith—would be a disaster," Wicker wrote. "Everything accomplished by Operation Epic Fury would be for naught!"
Ben Rhodes, a former deputy national security adviser for President Barack Obama, challenged Wicker's claims that Trump's illegal war had achieved anything of value.
"Nothing was accomplished by Operation Epic Fury," Rhodes wrote, "except putting the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps in charge of Iran and the Strait of Hormuz."
Rhodes' criticism was echoed by Stephen Wertheim, senior fellow at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, who wrote that "everything accomplished by Operation Epic Fury is already for naught."
Ali Vaez, director of the Iran Project at the International Crisis Group, accused the Iran hawks of being delusional for thinking further bombing would force Iran to capitulate.
"DC's Iran hawks got two wars, nearly every conceivable sanction designation, a blockade, threw a wrench in global economy," Vaez wrote, "and will still claim that just a little more pressure and a touch more bombing will magically yield the concessions they still won't be satisfied with."
Data released by the University of Michigan and Gallup this week showed US consumer sentiment cratering even as stock markets hit record highs.
Multiple polls and surveys released in recent days have shown US consumer sentiment cratering—and all the while, the US stock market keeps hitting record highs.
The Kobeissi Letter, a financial newsletter, posted a graphic Saturday that matched consumer sentiment as measured by the University of Michigan's Surveys of Consumers with the performance of the S&P 500 stock index over a 30-year span.
The graphic shows that, up until around 2020, consumer sentiment matched stock market performance closely, although there was a large divergence between the two leading up to the 2008 financial crisis, where stocks briefly outperformed consumer sentiment before crashing downward as the housing bubble burst.
But throughout the last six years, the graphic shows, the S&P 500 has produced an almost continuous upward surge even as consumer sentiment spirals downward.
Absolutely incredible:
Over the last 6 years, the S&P 500 has risen +130% while US Consumer Sentiment has collapsed by -55%, to its lowest since data began in 1952.
We are witnessing the formation of the biggest wealth divide in modern history. https://t.co/XGMR6DfuNc pic.twitter.com/2w7cRvn7ok
— The Kobeissi Letter (@KobeissiLetter) May 23, 2026
"Absolutely incredible," commented Kobeissi Letter. "Over the last six years, the S&P 500 has risen +130% while US Consumer Sentiment has collapsed by -55%, to its lowest since data began in 1952. We are witnessing the formation of the biggest wealth divide in modern history."
Kobeissi Letter produced the graphic one day after the University of Michigan's latest survey found consumer sentiment hitting the lowest level on record.
Joanne Hsu, director of the survey, observed that "the cost of living continues to be a first-order concern, with 57% of consumers spontaneously mentioning that high prices were eroding their personal finances, up from 50% last month."
On the same day, Gallup published new data showing that Americans' economic confidence has fallen to its lowest level since October 2022, with just 16% of Americans rating the economy as excellent or good, and nearly half describing it as poor.
Axios reported on Saturday that even Republicans have been growing sour on the US economy, citing a recent poll from The Associated Press showing GOP approval of President Donald Trump on the economy to be at around 60%, down from 80% just three months ago.
"The growing GOP gloom could hardly come at a worse time for Trump and the party," Axios noted, "less than six months out from a midterm election that's likely to turn on the economy."
The gap between overall consumer sentiment and stock market performance also lines up with recent consumer spending trends. Data published by The Financial Times earlier this year showed that the top 10% of earners in the US now account for nearly half of all consumer spending, while the bottom 80% of earners now account for less than 40% of all consumer spending.
A February report from TD Economics economist Ksenia Bushmeneva noted that “the economic divide between America’s households at the top of the income spectrum and everyone else continued to widen last year,” as “upper-income households benefited from the still-robust wage growth, strong gains in equity markets, and better access to consumer credit.”