President Biden and Nazi Twitter

 One of the freedoms I got back when I decided to bring back the blog is I can call right-wing pundits, token black Republicans, whatever the name I want, and don't have to worry about Twitter sending me "most people won't like this" bullshit. 

Right-wing Twitter is a landfill of racism, sexism, homophobia, transphobia, and misinformation.

As part of their misinformation campaign, Nazi Twitter has decided to play the projection game with President Biden. From a professional glue fumes inhaler Dan Bongino to the dipshit, horse fucker Cat Turd, they project what was true about their beloved Donald Trump, AKA the Bum. 

They attack President Biden on how he speaks, knowing Biden has to talk in a certain way to avoid stuttering, while their guy Trump talks at the level of an 8-year-old boy. Donald Trump only knows 14 words, yet these special ed reject motherfuckers are trying to cap on President Biden's speech, hoe, please.

Dan Bongino looks like they tried to turn Donkey Kong human but stopped halfway loves to Tweet whatever the date is and say Joe Biden is the worst president ever, one fuck you and fuck your mother for having you. Motherfucker if I put a 3k on the table and ask you to list four actual Donald Trump accomplishments, he couldn't do it.

As president, the only thing Donald Trump got done was pass a 2 trillion tax cut for wealthy Republican donors, and if John McCain didn't give a thumbs down. Trump would have taken healthcare away from millions of Americans.

Donald Trump knew how deadly COVID-19 is but only told Bob Woodward and fuck Bob Woodward for sitting on that story for his book.

Lastly, the man left office finishing with the record of worst job creation than goddamn Hebert Hoover, and these frog-face bitches want to call President Biden the worst president? Fuck out of here with that.

Lawmaker Accused Of Opposing Michigan’s Rape Insurance Law To Keep Abortion ‘Cheap For His Daughters’

BY TARA CULP-RESSLER/Think Progress

According to an anti-choice group in Michigan, one of the state’s lawmakers has staked out his position on reproductive rights purely because he wants to make sure that abortion remains “accessible and cheap for his daughters.”

The statement comes in response to a controversial new abortion restriction in Michigan thattook effect earlier this month. Women who buy health insurance in Obamacare’s private market are now barred from purchasing a plan that includes abortion coverage, even if they want to end a pregnancy that resulted from rape or incest. They’ll be required to purchase a separate rider if they want an abortion procedure to be covered, which has led reproductive rights supporters to decry the measure as a “rape insurance” law.

U.S. Rep. Gary Peters (D), who is currently running for a Senate seat, is one of the lawmakers who has repeatedly spoken out against the measure. “As the father of two daughters, I struggle with how to tell them that the state we love and where our family has been for generations is now unfairly discriminating against them and makes health care less affordable,” Peters said in a statement last week.

Right to Life of Michigan — the right-wing group that was instrumental in getting the new law approved last winter — has seized on that sentiment. In a new website highlighting Peters’ abortion policy positions, the group cites Peters’ recent comments to assert that the pro-choice lawmaker “wants to make sure abortion is accessible and cheap for his daughters.”

Thanks to the persistent stigma that remains attached to abortion care, the comments appear to imply something negative about the women who may need access to abortion, and attempt to link Peters with that implication.

The congressman has condemned the comments as “inflammatory partisan politics,” saying that using his daughters to make a point is a step too far. Peters is calling on his Republican opponent, Terri Lynn Land, to distance herself from Right to Life of Michigan. Land has been endorsed by the anti-choice group.

“I’m proud to be the dad of two amazing teenage daughters, and I’m also proud of my record fighting to protect critical access to women’s health care,” Peters said in a statement provided to ThinkProgress. “Women’s health care is a serious and significant point of contrast in the U.S. Senate race, and it is outrageous that Land’s allies would cheapen this debate and distort my support for women’s health care… To include my teenage daughters in their attack crosses the line.”

A Right to Life spokesperson told Michigan Live that Peters has brought up his daughters on several occasions while discussing reproductive rights, which makes the point relevant to the current race.

Michigan’s new insurance restriction has captured a lot of media attention, but it’s hardly the only state with this type of policy on the books. Cutting off access to insurance coverage for abortion is an very popular method of restricting reproductive rights, and Obamacare’s state-level exchanges have introduced a new avenue for abortion opponents to accomplish this goal. Just as Peters points out, this policy is about making abortion care too expensivefor many women to afford.

Since abortion is simply part of women’s reproductive health care, complicated laws thatsegregate it from the rest of the services covered by insurance are often too difficult to implement in practice. For instance, even though Michigan’s new law operates under the assumption that women can buy separate insurance riders for abortion, it’s not clear that these types of riders are even being offered on the individual market.

MSNBC's Maddow: Fox News Is "Worried Enough" About Gun Safety Ad To "Lie" To Its Audience

From Media Matters For America:

From the March 28 edition of MSNBC's The Rachel Maddow Show:

 

 

 

 

 

00:00

 

00:00

 

 

 

 

 

 

O'Reilly apologizes for meltdown, then goes right back to war against the facts

Visit NBCNews.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

WaPo's Problem Isn't Rubin's Partisanship, It's Her Dishonesty

SIMON MALOY/Media Matters For America:

A teapot tempest erupted today after Sen. Jim Inhofe (R-OK) citedWashington Post political blogger Jennifer Rubin by name today at Defense Secretary nominee Chuck Hagel's Senate confirmation hearing. Postassociate editor and senior correspondent Rajiv Chandrasekaran tweeted, "I hate it when senators refer to WP opinion blogger posts as articles. [Rubin] is NOT a WaPo reporter," which prompted Buzzfeed to proclaimthat a "civil war" had broken out at the Post over "the newspaper's reputation for fairness and neutrality." This misses the point of what makes Rubin so problematic for the Post: it's not that she's conservative, or even that she's opinionated. She's dishonest, often flagrantly so, and that dishonesty tarnishes Washington Post's reputation.

Rubin, who essentially served as the Romney campaign's in-house blogger for the Washington Post during the 2012 presidential campaign, has recently led the charge against Hagel's nomination.

Here's a not-at-all exhaustive list of outright lies, misrepresentations, and self-contradictions Rubin has spun while speaking or writing on the Post's behalf:

Rubin invented the idea that State Department personnel in Washington, D.C., watched real-time video of the attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, a claim later debunked by Washington Post media writer Erik Wemple.

Rubin claimed in September 2012 that President Obama had not released a corporate tax plan. Obama released his corporate tax plan in February of that year, and Rubin criticized it at the time.

Rubin lied about President Obama's remarks in the Rose Garden the day after the Benghazi attack, saying the president did not use the term "acts of terror" in "the same paragraph with Benghazi." Obama's next sentence after saying "acts of terror" was about the four Americans killed in the attack.

Rubin wrote that the Tax Policy Center's critique of Mitt Romney's tax plan couldn't be trusted because the group is "left-leaning" and "very partisan." Ten months earlier she'd hyped the group as "independent" when it critiqued one of Romney's primary opponents.

Rubin claimed that the 2009 stimulus package contained no funding for "shovel-ready defense jobs." The stimulus allocated several billion dollars for military "construction" projects and "operations and maintenance."

She invented criticisms of Obama's second-term Cabinet nominees. She cleaned up George W. Bush's terrorism record by saying 9-11 didn't count. She alternated between describing Romney's tax proposals ashighly detailed and lacking detail, depending on which would better allow her to flack for them. And, of course, there's Rubin's post-election tacit admission that pretty much everything she'd written during the 2012 campaign about Mitt Romney's campaign was misleading spin.

Rubin discredits herself and the Washington Post not by leaning to the right, but by lying, over and over, again and again.

UPDATE: Mother Jones' Adam Serwer highlights another Rubin whopper. During the campaign she railed against Obama for not having an immigration plan: "Where is Obama's solution?" That plan was readily available on the White House website.

Who Started The Benghazi "Real-Time" Video Falsehood?

SIMON MALOY/Media Matters for America

Washington Post media writer Erik Wemple has been working doggedly to correct one of Sean Hannity's favorite false claims about the attack on the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi: that State Department officials watched "real-time" video of the assault from an office in Washington, DC. Wemple's efforts got an assist from Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, who testified before the House Committee on Foreign Affairs on January 23: "There was no monitor, there was no real time." As Wemple's debunking of the falsehood makes clear, Hannity has been the primary driver of this claim by repeating on a near-daily basis. But the "real-time" video falsehood did not start with the Fox News host. In fact, one of the first mentions -- perhaps the first -- of the spurious Benghazi video was on Jennifer Rubin'sWashington Post blog.

The whole story starts with an October 10, 2012, hearing of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform. At that hearing, Charlene Lamb, the deputy assistant secretary of state for international programs, had this exchange with Rep. James Lankford (R-OK), describing how she followed via telephone the developments in the Benghazi attack as they were happening:

LANKFORD: Mrs. Lamb, can you clarify for me, where -- where were you working September 11? Were you in the Washington area -- were -- in the main facility there?

LAMB: Yes sir. I was in the D.S. Command center on the evening of the event.

LANKFORD: You -- you -- you note that in your testimony that you were in the Diplomatic Security Command Center and then you make this statement, "I could follow what was happening almost in real time."

LAMB: That's correct.

LANKFORD: So once they hit the button in Benghazi, you're alerted, it says you could have.Did you follow what was happening in real time at that point?

LAMB: Sir, what was happening is they were making multiple phone calls and it was very important that they communicate with the annex in Tripoli because this is where additional resources were coming from. So they would hang up on us and then call back.

LANKFORD: But you're -- but you're tracking it back and forth what's going on.

LAMB: Yes absolutely. [Transcript via Nexis, emphasis added]

That night on Fox News' Hannity, Liz Cheney seized on Lamb's testimony, but characterized it correctly:

CHENEY: Today, we learned from Charlene Lamb under oath that she followed, you know, the diplomatic security official, that she followed what was going on, minute by minute. She was following it in real time. So the administration knew in real time, there wasn't a mob, they knew in real time that this was a well-coordinated attack. They knew in real time that it involved heavy weaponry, this was clearly a terrorist attack and the American people have clearly, as you've said, been lied to.

The following morning, October 11, Jennifer Rubin posted a video of Cheney's Hannity appearance in a postheadlined "Real-time Libya: Who knew what, when?" In that post, Rubin claimed (citing no other sources) that Lamb had watched a "real-time video" of the attack -- something neither Lamb nor Cheney had said:

Seriously, something doesn't make sense. Do we think no one else ever got the benefit of that information that mid-level bureaucrat Charlene Lamb had? This was the most urgent issue of the moment in which everyone (the White House, the public, the media) wanted to know what happened in Benghazi. So why not look at the real-time video? Why not ask Lamb what she saw and heard?

That next day, October 12, CNBC host Lawrence Kudlow wrote in his syndicated column that "State Department officials saw the Benghazi attack in real time." [emphasis in original] Later that night on Fox News, Hannity made his first reference to "real time video" of the attack: "The president knew within 24 hours what the truth was, and what I am told, they actually saw this in real-time. There is a video, real-time, of everything that went down in Benghazi."

From that point forward, Hannity flogged away at the State Department for "watching" the attack unfold "real time," repeating it almost every day as it spread to other corners of the conservative media. Wemple debunked the allegation in November, citing a State Department official's denial that anyone at State "had the ability to watch either of the attacks in real time." According to an administration official quoted in Wemple's report, the Benghazi compound had closed-circuit video surveillance that could not be monitored from outside the facility. 

From the October 15 edition of Hannity (via Nexis):

HANNITY: Also, this is the problem they have with their story. It's falling apart because they said that this was spontaneous, a mob uprising, but we had somebody at the State Department watching in real time.

October 16 (via Nexis):

FORMER NEW HAMPSHIRE GOV. JOHN SUNUNU: The White House has to hear their embassy had a breech in security. I don't know this it was a separate report to the president or just in his president's daily brief. But I cannot imagine that that was not sent to the president.

HANNITY: Governor, they were watching this from the State Department in real time.

SUNUNU: Yes.

HANNITY: Yes. They knew that night. Libyan president told us the next day.

October 18 (via Nexis):

FOX NEWS HOST DANA PERINO: Not only that, but an American citizen for a probation violation about a video. They blamed him for deaths of four Americans. They blamed a video-maker that turns out not to be true, and turns out they knew it wasn't true.

HANNITY: Wait a minute. There's a 50-minute tape of this -- what happened this night. It's available. The State Department watched it in real time. I've confirmed tonight, I can say 100 percent that tape exists and a transcript of them is available.

As Wemple documented, Hannity is still repeating this false claim despite receiving "definitive, on-the-record refutation" from Secretary Clinton.

Four Falsehoods About Doctors And Guns Pushed By Conservative Media

TIMOTHY JOHNSON/Media Matters for America:

After President Obama announced an executive action clarifying that doctors are permitted -- but not required -- to discuss gun safety with patients, conservatives in the media trumpeted a number of falsehoods, including the baseless claim that Obama is requiring doctors to report all gun owners to law enforcement.

Does executive action by the Obama administration require doctors to ask their patients about gun ownership?

Is the Obama administration requiring doctors to report individuals suspected of being a danger to the public to law enforcement?

Does the Obama administration executive action require doctors to report all gun owners to law enforcement?

Did the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010 -- also known as Obamacare -- ever prevent doctors from discussing gun safety with patients?

CLAIM: Doctors Are Now Required To Ask Patients About Guns In The Home

Rush Limbaugh: "Now Doctors Are Being Ordered, Instructed To Talk To Patients And Get Information From Them About Gun Ownership." From a transcript of Limbaugh's January 16 show, titled on his website, "Regime Deputizes Gun-Snitch Doctors":

LIMBAUGH: So now doctors are being ordered, instructed to talk to patients and get information from them about gun ownership, where they are in their house, who has access to them, where the ammunition is kept.  Doctors are now, quote, unquote, "permitted," unquote, to do this. It makes 'em deputies, agents of the state. And if they don't do it -- let's look at this the other way around.  Let's say patient X goes to a doctor. The patient's got a sore throat, runny nose.  The doctor does not ask the patient anything to do with the patient's guns. The patient then goes out and uses the guns sometime later and then the regime learns that the doctor didn't report that this patient indicated that he might be dangerous.

Look at the position this puts the doctors in. The doctors are now under the thumb of Obamacare. They had better comply. This is not a choice. Can you say hello to rapidly increasing, even higher and faster, malpractice insurance? They'd better comply. They'd better do as they're told. [The Rush Limbaugh Show, 1/16/13]

REALITY: Obama Executive Actions Clarifies That Doctors May Ask About Firearm Ownership At Their Own Discretion

Obama Administration: "The Affordable Care Act Does Not Prohibit Or Otherwise Regulate Communication Between Doctors And Patients, Including About Firearms." In a report issued by the White House outlining the Obama administration's proposals to curb gun violence announced on January 16, the administration clarified that doctors are permitted to ask their patients about gun safety but did not create any mandate requiring doctors to do so:

Doctors and other health care providers also need to be able to ask about firearms in their patients' homes and safe storage of those firearms, especially if their patients show signs of certain mental illnesses or if they have a young child or mentally ill family member at home. Some have incorrectly claimed that language in the Affordable Care Act prohibits doctors from asking their patients about guns and gun safety. Medical groups also continue to fight against state laws attempting to ban doctors from asking these questions. The Administration will issue guidance clarifying that the Affordable Care Act does not prohibit or otherwise regulate communication between doctors and patients, including about firearms. [The White House, accessed 1/17/13] 

CLAIM: The Obama Administration Is Changing The Rules Concerning When Doctors Can Report Dangerous Individuals To Law Enforcement

Fox's Sean Hannity: Obama Executive Action Is "Urging Doctors And, Quote, Other Health Care Providers, To Contact Authorities If They Arbitrarily Deem That A Patient Is A Threat To Themselves Or To Others." From the January 16 edition of Hannity on Fox News:

Limbaugh: Doctors "Must" Report Dangerous Individuals To Law Enforcement. From the January 16 edition ofThe Rush Limbaugh Show:

LIMBAUGH: Mental health professionals, therapists, if they detect that you might leave the office and go grab a gun and do something, they have to call and report you. And now doctors must do the same thing. [The Rush Limbaugh Show, 1/16/13] 

REALITY: Obama Executive Action Reiterated That Federal Law Does Not Prohibit Doctors From Reporting Individuals Who Threaten Violence To Law Enforcement

Obama Administration Clarifies "Public Confusion" Over Whether Doctors Are Prohibited From Reporting Dangerous Individuals To Law Enforcement. The White House report contains no mandate that doctors must report suspicious individuals to the authorities, and rather it clarifies that doctors are not prohibited from contacting authorities about dangerous persons:

Doctors and other mental health professionals play an important role in protecting the safety of their patients and the broader community by reporting direct and credible threats of violence to the authorities. But there is public confusion about whether federal law prohibits such reports about threats of violence. The Department of Health and Human Services is issuing a letter to health care providers clarifying that no federal law prohibits these reports in any way. [The White House, accessed 1/17/13] 

CLAIM: Executive Action By The Obama Administration Will Result In All Gun Owners Being Reported To The Authorities

Limbaugh: Obama's Goal Is To Ensure "What We Do Or Say" Is Reported To The Authorities. From the January 16 edition of The Rush Limbaugh Show:

LIMBAUGH: Again, folks, this is pushing people's buttons on purpose. This is gonna cause some people to snap. It might. This is going after the very reasonableness and sanity of people. It seems like the goal here is to get everybody on some kind of list and to have all kinds of people that we interact with end up reporting on what we do or say to hear to the government, to the, quote, unquote, the authorities. The authorities. That's a totalitarian word, "the authorities."

Why is Obama doing this? Why is he deliberately making people so upset? What's driving him? Don't ask me where the ACLU is. I mean, anything to get rid of guns, the ACLU's right there. Leftists are leftists, and that comes first with them. The ACLU as a civil rights organization is a bit of a laugher. They're just another branch of liberalism. [The Rush Limbaugh Show, 1/16/13] 

Fox Regular Mark Levin: Executive Actions Part Of Obama Plan For "National Database" That Includes "All Innocent Law-Abiding Citizens Who Purchase Guns." During a January 16 appearance on Your World with Neil Cavuto on Fox News, Levin also urged Americans to "rise up" over his claim that the executive actions will "have doctors reporting their clients to the federal government":

LEVIN: I think there are a couple things in here that are poison pills, though. The attempt to nationalize the medical profession and have doctors reporting their clients to the federal government. This is 1930s stuff. The American people need to rise up against that. The medical profession needs to say no. Also he clearly wants a national database where all innocent law-abiding citizens who purchase guns are in a national database. [Your World with Neil Cavuto, 1/16/13]

REALITY: There Is No Mention Of Gun Owner Data Collection In The Obama Executive Actions On Gun Violence

A Summary Of Gun Violence Prevention Measures Proposed By The Obama Administration Makes No Mention Of Requiring Doctors To Collect Information About Gun Owners. [The White House, accessed 1/17/13]

The Affordable Care Act Prohibits The Secretary Of Health And Human Services From Collecting Data On Gun Owners. [Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010, accessed 1/17/13]

CLAIM: The Affordable Care Act Prohibits Doctors From Asking Patients About Gun Ownership

Fox News Legal Analyst Peter Johnson Jr.: "Explicitly [The Affordable Care Act] Says That There Cannot Be Questions About Guns In Homes." From the January 17 edition of Fox & Friends on Fox News:

JOHNSON: But when you say to a doctor, "We're going to clarify your role under one of the executive orders," clarify whether doctors can ask patients about their guns in homes. We know under the Obamacare Act in 2010 explicitly the statute says that there cannot be questions about guns in homes, lawful possession of firearms in wellness programs, in programs dictating how people are feeling, and questionnaires and the like. So the subtle, or not so subtle, indication in this executive order memorandum is, yeah doctors you should really be looking at the issue of lawful guns in people's homes because it is in fact a health hazard. [Fox & Friends, 1/17/13]

Brietbart.com Contributor AWR Hawkins: "The Government Cannot Use Doctors To Collect 'Any Information Relating To The Lawful Ownership Or Possession Of A Firearm Or Ammunition.'"[Breitbart.com, 1/9/13]

REALITY: Firearm-Related Provisions In The Affordable Care Act Concern Prohibitions On Data Collection Of Gun Owners, Not The Doctor-Patient Relationship

Affordable Care Act Refers To Data Collection By The Secretary Of Health And Human Services, Not Doctors Conferring With Patients About Firearm Ownership. From the consolidated Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010:

 '(2) LIMITATION ON DATA COLLECTION.--None of the authorities provided to the Secretary under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act or an amendment made by that Act shall be construed to authorize or may be used for the collection of any information relating to--

''(A) the lawful ownership or possession of a firearm or ammunition;

''(B) the lawful use of a firearm or ammunition; or

''(C) the lawful storage of a firearm or ammunition [Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010, accessed 1/17/13]

NBC News: "There Are Some Who Believe The Health-Care Law Outlaws Doctors From Asking Patients About Guns In Their Homes. But That's Not True." From a January 16 article by NBC deputy political editor Domenico Montanaro:

The vagueness of some of the directives may cause controversy, but only one specific one jumps out that may get some talking -- No. 16: "Clarify that the Affordable Care Act does not prohibit doctors asking their patients about guns in their homes."

There are some who believe the health-care law outlaws doctors from asking patients about guns in their homes. But that's not true.

What it does prohibit, however, is "employers and the secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services from asking about gun ownership in many instances, and it prohibits HHS from collecting such data," according to the Kaiser Health Foundation. [NBC News, 1/16/13]

A History Of Dishonest Fox Charts

HANNAH GROCH-BEGLEY & DAVID SHERE/media matters for America

Fox News was forced to address yet another dishonest chart last week, which it aired to paint a misleading picture of President Obama's handling of the economy. Fox has a habit of displaying error-laden and deceptive graphics to reinforce conservative attacks on the Obama administration.

Spurious Fox Graphic Accused Obama Of Exploding Government Spending 

Fox 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

EDITION: GAS PRICES 

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] 

EDITION: TAXES 

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] 

EDITION: JOBS 

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] 

EDITION: CLIMATE CHANGE 

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]

EDITION: RELIGION 

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] 

EDITION: UNEMPLOYMENT, PART 1 

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]

EDITION: UNEMPLOYMENT, PART 2 

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] 

EDITION: UNEMPLOYMENT, PART 3 

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]

EDITION: GAS TAXES

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] 

EDITION: FOOD STAMPS

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.FactCheck.org 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]