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
Critics Blast 'Reckless and Impossible' Bid to Start Operating Mountain Valley Pipeline
"The time to build more dirty and dangerous pipelines is over," said one environmental campaigner.
Apr 23, 2024
Environmental defenders on Tuesday ripped the company behind the Mountain Valley Pipeline for asking the federal government—on Earth Day—for permission to start sending methane gas through the 303-mile conduit despite a worsening climate emergency caused largely by burning fossil fuels.
Mountain Valley Pipeline LLC sent a letter Monday to Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) Acting Secretary Debbie-Anne Reese seeking final permission to begin operation on the MVP next month, even while acknowledging that much of the Virginia portion of the pipeline route remains unfinished and developers have yet to fully comply with safety requirements.
"In a manner typical of its ongoing disrespect for the environment, Mountain Valley Pipeline marked Earth Day by asking FERC for authorization to place its dangerous, unnecessary pipeline into service in late May," said Jessica Sims, the Virginia field coordinator for Appalachian Voices.
"MVP brazenly asks for this authorization while simultaneously notifying FERC that the company has completed less than two-thirds of the project to final restoration and with the mere promise that it will notify the commission when it fully complies with the requirements of a consent decree it entered into with the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration last fall," she continued.
"Requesting an in-service decision by May 23 leaves the company very little time to implement the safety measures required by its agreement with PHMSA," Sims added. "There is no rush, other than to satisfy MVP's capacity customers' contracts—a situation of the company's own making. We remain deeply concerned about the construction methods and the safety of communities along the route of MVP."
Russell Chisholm, co-director of the Protect Our Water, Heritage, Rights (POWHR) Coalition—which called MVP's request "reckless and impossible"—said in a statement that "we are watching our worst nightmare unfold in real-time: The reckless MVP is barreling towards completion."
"During construction, MVP has contaminated our water sources, destroyed our streams, and split the earth beneath our homes. Now they want to run methane gas through their degraded pipes and shoddy work," Chisholm added. "The MVP is a glaring human rights violation that is indicative of the widespread failures of our government to act on the climate crisis in service of the fossil fuel industry."
POWHR and activists representing frontline communities affected by the pipeline are set to take part in a May 8 demonstration outside project financier Bank of America's headquarters in Charlotte, North Carolina.
Appalachian Voices noted that MVP's request comes days before pipeline developer Equitrans Midstream is set to release its 2024 first-quarter earnings information on April 30.
MVP is set to traverse much of Virginia and West Virginia, with the Southgate extension running into North Carolina. Outgoing U.S. Sen. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.) and other pipeline proponents fought to include expedited construction of the project in the debt ceiling deal negotiated between President Joe Biden and congressional Republicans last year.
On Monday, climate and environmental defenders also petitioned the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, challenging FERC's approval of the MVP's planned Southgate extension, contending that the project is so different from original plans that the government's previous assent is now irrelevant.
"Federal, state, and local elected officials have spoken out against this unneeded proposal to ship more methane gas into North Carolina," said Sierra Club senior field organizer Caroline Hansley. "The time to build more dirty and dangerous pipelines is over. After MVP Southgate requested a time extension for a project that it no longer plans to construct, it should be sent back to the drawing board for this newly proposed project."
David Sligh, conservation director at Wild Virginia, said: "Approving the Southgate project is irresponsible. This project will pose the same kinds of threats of damage to the environment and the people along its path as we have seen caused by the Mountain Valley Pipeline during the last six years."
"FERC has again failed to protect the public interest, instead favoring a profit-making corporation," Sligh added.
Others renewed warnings about the dangers MVP poses to wildlife.
"The endangered bats, fish, mussels, and plants in this boondoggle's path of destruction deserve to be protected from killing and habitat destruction by a project that never received proper approvals in the first place," Center for Biological Diversity attorney Perrin de Jong said. "Our organization will continue fighting this terrible idea to the bitter end."
Keep ReadingShow Less
'Seismic Win for Workers': FTC Bans Noncompete Clauses
Advocates praised the FTC "for taking a strong stance against this egregious use of corporate power, thereby empowering workers to switch jobs and launch new ventures, and unlocking billions of dollars in worker earnings."
Apr 23, 2024
U.S. workers' rights advocates and groups celebrated on Tuesday after the Federal Trade Commission voted 3-2 along party lines to approve a ban on most noncompete clauses, which Democratic FTC Chair Lina Khansaid "keep wages low, suppress new ideas, and rob the American economy of dynamism."
"The FTC's final rule to ban noncompetes will ensure Americans have the freedom to pursue a new job, start a new business, or bring a new idea to market," Khan added, pointing to the commission's estimates that the policy could mean another $524 for the average worker, over 8,500 new startups, and 17,000 to 29,000 more patents each year.
As Economic Policy Institute (EPI) president Heidi Shierholz explained, "Noncompete agreements are employment provisions that ban workers at one company from working for, or starting, a competing business within a certain period of time after leaving a job."
"These agreements are ubiquitous," she noted, applauding the ban. "EPI research finds that more than 1 out of every 4 private-sector workers—including low-wage workers—are required to enter noncompete agreements as a condition of employment."
The U.S. Chamber of Commerce has suggested it plans to file a lawsuit that, as The American Prospectdetailed, "could more broadly threaten the rulemaking authority the FTC cited when proposing to ban noncompetes."
Already, the tax services and software provider Ryan has filed a legal challenge in federal court in Texas, arguing that the FTC is unconstitutionally structured.
Still, the Democratic commissioners' vote was still heralded as a "seismic win for workers." Echoing Khan's critiques of such noncompetes, Public Citizen executive vice president Lisa Gilbert declared that such clauses "inflict devastating harms on tens of millions of workers across the economy."
"The pervasive use of noncompete clauses limits worker mobility, drives down wages, keeps Americans from pursuing entrepreneurial dreams and creating new businesses, causes more concentrated markets, and keeps workers stuck in unsafe or hostile workplaces," she said. "Noncompete clauses are both an unfair method of competition and aggressively harmful to regular people. The FTC was right to tackle this issue and to finalize this strong rule."
Morgan Harper, director of policy and advocacy at the American Economic Liberties Project, praised the FTC for "listening to the comments of thousands of entrepreneurs and workers of all income levels across industries" and finalizing a rule that "is a clear-cut win."
Demand Progress' Emily Peterson-Cassin similarly commended the commission "for taking a strong stance against this egregious use of corporate power, thereby empowering workers to switch jobs and launch new ventures, and unlocking billions of dollars in worker earnings."
While such agreements are common across various industries, Teófilo Reyes, chief of staff at the Restaurant Opportunities Centers United, said that "many restaurant workers have been stuck at their job, earning as low as $2.13 per hour, because of the noncompete clause that they agreed to have in their contract."
"They didn't know that it would affect their wages and livelihood," Reyes stressed. "Most workers cannot negotiate their way out of a noncompete clause because noncompetes are buried in the fine print of employment contracts. A full third of noncompete clauses are presented after a worker has accepted a job."
Student Borrower Protection Center (SBPC) executive director Mike Pierce pointed out that the FTC on Tuesday "recognized the harmful role debt plays in the workplace, including the growing use of training repayment agreement provisions, or TRAPs, and took action to outlaw TRAPs and all other employer-driven debt that serve the same functions as noncompete agreements."
Sandeep Vaheesan, legal director at Open Markets Institute, highlighted that the addition came after his group, SBPC, and others submitted comments on the "significant gap" in the commission's initial January 2023 proposal, and also welcomed that "the final rule prohibits both conventional noncompete clauses and newfangled versions like TRAPs."
Jonathan Harris, a Loyola Marymount University law professor and SBPC senior fellow, said that "by also banning functional noncompetes, the rule stays one step ahead of employers who use 'stay-or-pay' contracts as workarounds to existing restrictions on traditional noncompetes. The FTC has decided to try to avoid a game of whack-a-mole with employers and their creative attorneys, which worker advocates will applaud."
Among those applauding was Jean Ross, president of National Nurses United, who said that "the new FTC rule will limit the ability of employers to use debt to lock nurses into unsafe jobs and will protect their role as patient advocates."
Angela Huffman, president of Farm Action, also cheered the effort to stop corporations from holding employees "hostage," saying that "this rule is a critical step for protecting our nation's workers and making labor markets fairer and more competitive."
Keep ReadingShow Less
'Discriminatory' North Carolina Law Criminalizing Felon Voting Struck Down
One plaintiffs' attorney said the ruling "makes our democracy better and ensures that North Carolina is not able to unjustly criminalize innocent individuals with felony convictions who are valued members of our society."
Apr 23, 2024
Democracy defenders on Tuesday hailed a ruling from a U.S. federal judge striking down a 19th-century North Carolina law criminalizing people who vote while on parole, probation, or post-release supervision due to a felony conviction.
In Monday's decision, U.S. District Judge Loretta C. Biggs—an appointee of former Democratic President Barack Obama—sided with the North Carolina A. Philip Randolph Institute and Action NC, who argued that the 1877 law discriminated against Black people.
"The challenged statute was enacted with discriminatory intent, has not been cleansed of its discriminatory taint, and continues to disproportionately impact Black voters," Biggs wrote in her 25-page ruling.
Therefore, according to the judge, the 1877 law violates the U.S. Constitution's equal protection clause.
"We are ecstatic that the court found in our favor and struck down this racially discriminatory law that has been arbitrarily enforced over time," Action NC executive director Pat McCoy said in a statement. "We will now be able to help more people become civically engaged without fear of prosecution for innocent mistakes. Democracy truly won today!"
Voting rights tracker Democracy Docket noted that Monday's ruling "does not have any bearing on North Carolina's strict felony disenfranchisement law, which denies the right to vote for those with felony convictions who remain on probation, parole, or a suspended sentence—often leaving individuals without voting rights for many years after release from incarceration."
However, Mitchell Brown, an attorney for one of the plaintiffs, said that "Judge Biggs' decision will help ensure that voters who mistakenly think they are eligible to cast a ballot will not be criminalized for simply trying to reengage in the political process and perform their civic duty."
"It also makes our democracy better and ensures that North Carolina is not able to unjustly criminalize innocent individuals with felony convictions who are valued members of our society, specifically Black voters who were the target of this law," Brown added.
North Carolina officials have not said whether they will appeal Biggs' ruling. The state Department of Justice said it was reviewing the decision.
According to Forward Justice—a nonpartisan law, policy, and strategy center dedicated to advancing racial, social, and economic justice in the U.S. South, "Although Black people constitute 21% of the voting-age population in North Carolina, they represent 42% of the people disenfranchised while on probation, parole, or post-release supervision."
The group notes that in 44 North Carolina counties, "the disenfranchisement rate for Black people is more than three times the rate of the white population."
"Judge Biggs' decision will help ensure that voters who mistakenly think they are eligible to cast a ballot will not be criminalized for simply trying to re-engage in the political process and perform their civic duty."
In what one civil rights leader called "the largest expansion of voting rights in this state since the 1965 Voting Rights Act," a three-judge state court panel voted 2-1 in 2021 to restore voting rights to approximately 55,000 formerly incarcerated felons. The decision made North Carolina the only Southern state to automatically restore former felons' voting rights.
Republican state legislators appealed that ruling to the North Carolina Court of Appeals, which in 2022 granted their request for a stay—but only temporarily, as the court allowed a previous injunction against any felony disenfranchisement based on fees or fines to stand.
However, last April the North Carolina Supreme Court reversed the three-judge panel decision, stripping voting rights from thousands of North Carolinians previously convicted of felonies. Dissenting Justice Anita Earls opined that "the majority's decision in this case will one day be repudiated on two grounds."
"First, because it seeks to justify the denial of a basic human right to citizens and thereby perpetuates a vestige of slavery, and second, because the majority violates a basic tenant of appellate review by ignoring the facts as found by the trial court and substituting its own," she wrote.
As similar battles play out in other states, Democratic U.S. lawmakers led by Rep. Ayanna Pressley of Massachusetts and Sen. Peter Welch of Vermont in December introduced legislation to end former felon disenfranchisement in federal elections and guarantee incarcerated people the right to vote.
Currently, only Maine, Vermont, and the District of Columbia allow all incarcerated people to vote behind bars.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular