Showing posts with label Cenk Uygur. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Cenk Uygur. Show all posts

Thursday, November 14, 2013

The Obamacare Fact-Check CBS Should Have Done (But Didn't)

The Obamacare Fact-Check CBS Should Have Done (But Didn't)

Blog ››› ››› SIMON MALOY 
CBS News, already in trouble for not bothering to fact-check sensational claims about the Benghazi attacks, has stepped in it again with an exclusive story on the Affordable Care Act that has quickly fallen apart. On November 11, CBS News reported that the "project manager in charge of building the federal health care website was apparently kept in the dark about serious failures in the website's security." CBS investigative correspondent Sharyl Attkisson's report was based on an exclusive "first look at a partial transcript" of closed-door testimony by project manager Henry Chao that was likely leaked to the network by Republicans on the House Oversight Committee. Other media outlets picked up CBS's scoop and ran with it.
According to Attkisson, Chao was presented with "a memo that outlined important security risks discovered in the insurance system," and said he was unaware of that memo. CBS News reported that this indicated that Chao had been "kept in the dark about serious failures in the website's security" that "could lead to identity theft among people buying insurance."
But as Washington Post media blogger Erik Wemple demonstrated, Rep. Gerald Connolly (D-VA) questioned Chao at a November 13 Oversight Committee hearing and revealed how misleading CBS News' report was. The memo shown to Chao dealt with portions of the website that aren't yet in use -- not the website as it currently exists, as the partial transcript and CBS News' report wrongly suggested. And those portions won't include personally identifiable information, making it impossible for the security risks to lead to identity theft.
Here's the video and transcript of Connolly's questioning of Chao:



CONNOLLY: Mr. Chao, during your interview with committee staff on November 1, you were presented with a document you had not seen before. And it was entitled "Authority to Operate," signed by your boss on September 3, 2013, is that correct?

CHAO: Correct.

CONNOLLY: The Republican staffers told you during that interview that this document indicated there were two open high-risk findings in the federally facilitated marketplace launched October 1. Is that correct?

CHAO: Correct.

CONNOLLY: This surprised you at the time.

CHAO: Can I just qualify that a bit? It was dated September 3 and it was referring to two parts of the system that were already--

CONNOLLY: You are jumping ahead of me. We are going to get there. So when you were asked questions about that document, you told the staffers you needed to check with officials at CMS [Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services] who oversee security testing to understand the context, is that correct?

CHAO: Correct.

CONNOLLY: The staffers continued to ask you questions, nonetheless, and then they -- or somebody -- leaked parts of your transcript to CBS Evening News, is that correct?

CHAO: Seems that way.

CONNOLLY: Since that interview, have you had a chance to follow up on your suggestion to check with CMS officials on the context?

CHAO: I have had some discussions about the nature of the high findings that were in the document.

CONNOLLY: Right. And this document it turns out discusses only the risks associated with two modules, one for dental plans and one for the qualified health plans, is that correct?

CHAO: Yes.

CONNOLLY: And neither of those modules is active right now, is that correct?

CHAO: That's correct.

CONNOLLY: So the September 3 document did in fact, not apply to the entire federally facilitated marketplace despite the assertions of the leak to CBS notwithstanding, is that correct?

CHAO: That's correct.

CONNOLLY: And these modules allow insurance companies to submit their dental and health care plan information to the marketplace is that correct?

CHAO: Correct.

CONNOLLY: That means that those modules do not contain or transmit any personally identifiable information on individual consumers, is that correct?

CHAO: Correct.

CONNOLLY: So to be clear, these modules don't transmit any specific user information, is that correct?

CHAO: Correct.

CONNOLLY: So when CBS Evening News ran its report based on a leak, presumably from the majority staff, but we don't know, of a partial transcript, excerpts from a partial transcript, they said the security issues raised in the document, and I quote, "could lead to identity theft among buying insurance," that cannot be true based on what we just established in our back and forth, is that correct?

CHAO: That's correct. I think there was some rearrangement of the words that I used during the testimony in how it was portrayed.

CONNOLLY: So to just summarize, correct me if I'm wrong, the document leaked to CBS Evening News didn't in fact not relate to parts of the website that were active on October 1. They did not relate to any part of the system that handles personal consumer information, and there, in fact, was no possibility of identity theft, despite the leak.

CHAO: Correct.

CONNOLLY: Thank you, Mr. Chao. I yield back.

Thursday, October 17, 2013

USA Today Op-Ed Accusing Media Matters Of 21st Century "Book Burning" Is Missing A Major Disclosure

USA Today Op-Ed Accusing Media Matters Of 21st Century "Book Burning" Is Missing A Major Disclosure 

 by ERIC HANANOKI

USA Today published an op-ed from The Media Institute president Patrick Maines attacking Media Matters for purportedly engaging "in the 21st century's version of book burning" by "target[ing] advertisers on shows such as Rush Limbaugh and Fox News." But the paper didn't disclose that Maines' group receives financial support from the very media companies that have a business interest in preventing such actions, including Fox News and Clear Channel, which owns Rush Limbaugh syndicator Premiere Networks.
Maines' October 16 op-ed accused Media Matters of supporting "the suppression of speech" for having targeted advertisers. He added that Media Matters "traffics in the 21st century's version of book burning" and "it's something to ponder as the country celebrates Free Speech Week this month."
Maines also criticized TruthRevolt for its boycott campaign of Al Sharpton's MSNBC program. TruthRevolt is a new organization headed by discredited activists Ben Shapiro and David Horowitz which aspires to be the conservative equivalent of Media Matters.
The op-ed simply identified Maines as: "Patrick Maines is president of The Media Institute."
The Media Institute has a financial interest in attacking Media Matters. The 501(c)(3) non-profit organization states that it "receives financial support from foundations, corporations, media companies, associations, and individuals."
The group's November 14, 2012, Friends & Benefactors Awards Banquet honored Clear Channel CEO Bob Pittman with its Freedom of Speech Award. Clear Channel was listed as a platinum sponsor, then-Fox News parent News Corporation (which later spit into 21st Century Fox and News Corp.) was listed as a gold sponsor, and Fox News Channel was listed as a silver sponsor.
The Media Institute's board of trustees includes Michael Regan, the executive vice president of Fox News-parent company 21st Century Fox., and Jessica A. Marventano, senior vice president for Clear Channel.
The board also includes Meredith A. Baker, the senior vice president NBCUniversal, which produces Al Sharpton's program. Comcast/NBCUniversal was a platinum sponsor of the 2012 banquet. USA Today owner Gannet Co. also has a seat on the board.

Saturday, September 14, 2013

Cenk Uygur on Conservatives' Reaction to President Obama's Syria Speech

Cenk Uygur on Conservatives' Reaction to President Obama's Syria Speech

By Heather      



The Young Turks and Cenk Uygur put together a nice mashup of the right wing and Fox pundits' reaction to President Obama's speech on Syria this Tuesday and as Cenk noted, they're really pissed off that they're not going to get their bombing any time soon.
After getting criticism from all sides who did not necessarily agree on whether the United States ought to use air strikes in Syria or not, now that President Obama has given his speech saying he wants to give diplomacy a chance first, the right is all in agreement that it's a reason to attack him, call him weak and claim that his presidency is doomed. It seems the only way these wingers believe we can show we're not weak is by lobbing a few bombs on some more people's heads in the Middle East, because that's what tough guys do, don't ya' know.
Like Uygur, I'm so sick of these Republicans and the fact that the only thing consistent about their policies is that if President Blackenstein (as Bill Maher calls him) is for something, they're going to be against it, even if they were for it a year, or week, or even a day before.
Our government would function a whole lot better if we had some people running it who actually cared about what was good for their constituents who are not part of the one percent instead of governing by sabotage to make a Democratic president look bad, consequences be damned, with this goon squad on Fox cheerleading for them all the way.




Cenk Uygur on Conservatives' Reaction to President Obama's Syria Speech http://t.co/8gvuQShvJz