So how’s your summer going? If you have been listening to the news
cycle, you would think it was alot closer to Halloween, perhaps hoping
against hope for April Fool’s or War of The Worlds. But no. The scary
talk just keeps coming. Benghazi, drones, the IRS, Snowden, and NSA, are
being name dropped more often then Kanye mentions Kim.
The creepiest part is the glee with which Fox and Friends spews their
balanced fare. Be afraid. Be very afraid. Each Rovian sculpted phrase
is ripped off the word-of-the-day faked white papers popping out of
Crossroads and broadcast with extra drooly zeal. While there are liberal
talk shows and blogs aplenty, the conservative claim that the entire
media has a bias favoring liberals is just another piece of
misinformation from their exclusive line of facts. 50 of the worst places you could go to get your news & information:
1. Fox News
2. The Rush Limbaugh Show
This is one of the better researched examples of Fox News
deliberately editing film footage to make false accusations against
President Obama.
This clip demonstrates some of the clearest evidence of dishonest Fox News quote mining I have ever seen.
You can watch the video below and if you are interested in seeing all
the sources, as well as reading a scene by scene explanation you can
visit the LiberalViewer’s YouTube post.
I’m
sure I’m not the only one who’s noticed the tendency for conservatives
to have what can best be described as a foggy recollection of history.
While modern day right-wing media outlets like Fox News mostly paint
the Republican party in a positive light, anyone with any kind of common
sense knows that, while political parties might have shifted over time,
the beliefs of the “conservative” have not.
Hell, these people now try to claim that President Kennedy was
actually a conservative and if MLK were alive today he would be a
Republican. And while many conservatives today love programs like
Social Security and Medicare, their rabid opposition to anything
“socialized” leads me to believe with great certainty that had Fox News
been around during the time when Social Security and Medicare were
created, conservatives would fiercely oppose both programs as well.
So while this idea has been explored by others, I decided I would
give my own take on the type of headline I believe Fox News would write
about certain issues that have happened throughout our history.
I figure, let’s have a little fun.
In no particular chronological order, here we go:
1) Watergate: Liberal Witch Hunt Continues: Mainstream Media’s Relentless Attack on President Nixon Proves Their True Liberal Bias
2) MLK’s “I Have a Dream” Speech: Racist Martin Luther King Descends on Washington D.C., Continues to Try to Make Race an Issue
3) Social Security: FDR the Socialist? President Signs Largest Redistribution of Wealth Legislation in United States History
4) Medicare: Following Kennedy’s Assassination, President Johnson Signs
Communist-like Law Forcing Younger Americans to Pay for Free-Loading
Seniors
5) Truman’s Election: Rampant Voter Fraud Leads to Unexpected Truman Victory
6) Pear Harbor Bombing: FDR’s Nazi Sympathizing Backfires: German Ally Empire of Japan Attacks United States Naval Base
7) Custer’s Last Stand: American Hero General Custer Slaughtered by Pack of Illegal Immigrants
8) Lincoln’s Push to Free Slaves: “King” Lincoln Wants the Federal Government to be Able to Seize Your Personal Property, Destroy United States Economy
9) University of Alabama Integration: Police State in Alabama: President Kennedy Attacks States
Rights, Sends Military to Protect Inferior Negros Trying to Mix with
Whites
10) Building of the Interstate Highway System: Government Spending is Out of Control as President Eisenhower Plans Socialist Takeover of Interstate Travel
Alright, I’m going to stop there. Honestly, I could do this all day.
Did I exaggerate a bit on some of them? I’m really not so sure.
Considering the radical nature of the Republican party — tea party
Republicans in particular — and Fox News being the mouthpiece for the
GOP, I think most of them would be fairly accurate.
But of course Republicans won’t agree with any of these. Then again,
most conservatives are in complete denial about the sad reality of
their own party.
I hope those reading this will share this around and see if others
agree with what these “headlines” from Fox News might have been. Image via “If Fox News Was Around” on Facebook
Well, finally. Chairman of CBS News and executive producer of 60 Minutes
Jeff Fager, in a lengthy memo and outline of their findings from an
internal investigation, has asked Lara Logan and producer Max McClellan
to take a leave of absence from the program.
By now most of you have received the report from Al Ortiz about the problems with the 60 Minutes story on Benghazi.
There is a lot to learn from this mistake for the entire
organization. We have rebuilt CBS News in a way that has dramatically
improved our reporting abilities. Ironically 60 Minutes, which has been a
model for those changes, fell short by broadcasting a now discredited
account of an important story, and did not take full advantage of the
reporting abilities of CBS News that might have prevented it from
happening.
As a result, I have asked Lara Logan, who has distinguished herself
and has put herself in harm’s way many times in the course of covering
stories for us, to take a leave of absence, which she has agreed to do. I
have asked the same of producer Max McClellan, who also has a
distinguished career at CBS News.
Al Ortiz, Executive Director of Standards and Practices, lists 10 paragraphs outlining the series of events that led 60 Minutes
to invite Dylan Davies on the program under the false pretense that he
was an eyewitness to the Benghazi attack. His story quickly unraveled
and left CBS red-faced over the shoddy journalism involved.
Logan should have been fired, but this is a start.
Huffington Post's Michael Calderone has the full memo and findings here.
Elisabeth Hasselbeck Knows Who Is ‘Smart,’ And That Is Young People Who Don’t Buy Insurance Because They Will Never Get Sick
by Rebecca Schoenkopf
Founding Mensa member and Fox & Friends cohost Elisabeth Hasselbeck knows genius when she sees it. Where has Elisabeth Hasselbeck seen genius today? In “young invincibles” refusing to buy insurance!
“You know who is playing it smart?” Hasselbeck began. “Young invincibles. The young set out there who are not buying into Obamacare because they’re seeing situations like this and saying, ‘I’m not going to be the one responsible for paying for everybody else. That’s not what was sold to me.’ So they’re not signing up. Government’s freaking out because they need the young people to pay for Obamacare.”
We have never heard that particular formulation before, but who are we to question what is “smart” and what is “the opposite of that.”
But why does Hasselbeck want young people to be “smart” and not buy insurance? Oh, the usual reasons: young healthy people would have to pay for old sick people, by being alive, at the same time, in the same nation. (This is sort of like how people who buy Wonkette T-shirts are subsidizing people who buy Smoking Joe cups, because it does not cost anywhere near $7.99 to ship a T-shirt, and it costs way way more than $7.99 to ship a cup! We call it “socialism.” We also call it “we don’t know how to charge different amounts for shipping depending on which product you buy so we sort of tried to charge a happy medium EVEN THOUGH WAY MORE OF YOU buy cups than buy T-shirts.” We also also call it “if you buy a T-shirt AND a cup, you are getting a hell of a deal on shipping, so you should probably do that.”)
But yes, young people, definitely don’t buy insurance because someone, somewhere, might be helped by it if you do. Also, don’t buy anything, because did you know when you buy something you are helping to pay somebody’s salary? What a ripoff, right? Who do they think you are, Richard Branson? Why is it up to you to help pay salaries for all these “takers” doing the job selling you the thing you needed?
Also, it is definitely not like you are ever going to break your leg while snowboarding or whatever the cool “EXTREEEEME” sport is now, you will be fine, you are “invincible.” Also, stop paying your rent, because why is it up to you to make your landlord rich, and you are “invincible” and will never be evicted and if you do “sleeping rough” is very groovy and hep.
Stop Fox News: Tell FCC To Revoke Broadcast License NOW!
Help us take Fox News off the air—get the FCC to revoke Rupert Murdoch’s broadcast licenses NOW!
The deplorable actions Murdoch has taken to run his News Corp. empire prove we can't trust him to act in the public interest. Now, a study by Farleigh Dickinson University shows Fox News can’t even claim to inform its audience: its viewers are less informed than those who avoid news outlets altogether!
It’s the Federal Communications Commission’s job to consider the character of a media owner when dealing out broadcast licenses, and to label programs as news only when they actually inform viewers. The Murdoch Mafia has failed on both counts, and we have a chance to take them down for good. Save the airwaves from bigotry and corruption: tell the FCC to enforce the law NOW!
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION: Rupert Murdoch has failed every “character” test available, and the programs under his broadcasting licenses have both been implicated in scandal and have been proven to make audiences less informed, not more. We urge you to revoke Murdoch’s broadcasting licenses immediately, and to take a stand against his corrupt media empire.
I’ve
officially enrolled in coverage through the marketplace. It was easier
than I expected — and will save me about $10,000 a year.
I just got covered under Obamacare. I already had insurance, but it
was breaking my piggy bank. Now I have coverage with almost identical
benefits, for less than half the price I’m paying right now.
Even better, my coverage can’t be canceled or limited if I get sick,
and I could choose any plan I wanted, despite living with type 2
diabetes. That’s all thanks to the Affordable Care Act or, if you
prefer, Obamacare. Under my current insurance plan, I’m paying $1,400 a month for coverage. Yes,
it’s comprehensive. At that price, it had better be. But my rates had
been going up by $100 a month annually in the last few years and, as a
self-employed woman with a pre-existing condition, I didn’t have a lot
of choices. Starting January 1, I’ll be paying $530 a month for almost identical coverage. Actually,
my deductible is less — $150 instead of $250. My prescription co-pay
will be just a tad higher, but that still won’t bring me anywhere near
what I’m paying per month now. The cost to see a doctor is just about
the same if I stay in-network, and the nationwide network is huge. All
the other benefits are comparable, with the added bonus of programs to
help me better manage my diabetes. Plus, I can keep every single one of
my doctors.
This is what I call winning.
Was using HealthCare.gov
cumbersome? Well, yes, at first. But I was patient. I started the
enrollment process in mid-October. Knowing they were working on the
website, I waited a couple of weeks to check back. I logged in just four
or five times to get through the entire process, and every time I did
the site was working better. It took me a total of about four hours to
complete my enrollment, including comparing plans to find the best one
for me.
There were plans on the Obamacare marketplace that cost even less
than I paid, but as someone with a pre-existing condition I want as much
of my care covered by my premium as possible. This plan covers about 80
percent of all my medical costs. In Michigan, plans start at $161 a
month (there are even less expensive catastrophic coverage plans).
There’s a plan and a price that’s right for everyone, and they all have
to cover 10 essential health benefits that “junk” insurance plans being phased out under the Affordable Care Act don’t offer.
I could not be happier, both with my coverage and the help I got
through HealthCare.gov’s live chat and phone representatives. I also got
assistance from my new insurer when I called to check that my blood
glucose test supplies would be covered. They will be, at an even better
rate than they are now.
Everyone was well-informed and able to answer my questions promptly.
When HealthCare.gov froze at the point where it should have confirmed my
enrollment, a HealthCare.gov phone rep was able to verify on his end
that my enrollment was completed and in their database. Plus, when I’d
called the insurance company earlier, their rep had told me I could
always call them directly and provide the name of the plan I wanted, and
they’d take care of the application and enrollment process over the
phone for the Obamacare marketplace plan I wanted.
Everything I needed was accessible from HealthCare.gov, including a
brochure about my new plan and the phone number to contact the insurer.
Which happens to be the same insurer I have now. But I never would have
gotten a plan like this on my own without Obamacare.
If you’re still trying to enroll, keep trying back and use all the
resources they offer. Be sure to consider not only premium costs, but
co-pays, co-insurance and deductibles. Buying insurance through the
Obamacare marketplace isn’t anything like buying insurance used to be.
It’s better.
For me, and millions of other Americans, that’s a very, very good thing. [CC image credit: Will O'Neill | Flickr.]
The background here is that before the rollout of the Affordable Care
Act there were a lot of people eligible for Medicaid who simply didn't
know it. This "take-up rate" -- wonk-speak for the percentage of people
eligible for the program who sign up for it -- varies widely from state to state, with some states as low as 36 percent and others as high as 81 percent.
The publicity around the new health-care law has led a lot of those
people to inquire about whether they're eligible for health insurance --
and they're finding out that they are. The clearest example of this is
in the red states that aren't participating in the law's Medicaid
expansion: There, 91,000 people have tried to sign up for health
insurance and learned, in the process, that they are already eligible
for Medicaid coverage.
The effect is also present in the blue states. The Kaiser Family Foundation reports
that of the 70,000 people who've enrolled in Medicaid in Washington
State, 30,000 were eligible before the new law took effect -- they just
didn't know it.
The result is that while the expansion of health-care coverage still isn't working nearly as well as it needs to be, it's actually making preexisting coverage expansions work better than they ever have.
Ezra Klein
is the editor of Wonkblog and a columnist at the Washington Post, as
well as a contributor to MSNBC and Bloomberg. His work focuses on
domestic and economic policymaking, as well as the political system
that’s constantly screwing it up. He really likes graphs, and is on Twitter, Google+ and Facebook. E-mail him here.
Bill Lawrence of Texas recently posted on his Facebook page that he sold his business because of Obamacare.
Naturally, Mr. Lawrence was then invited on Fox News to be interviewed about his ordeal. He was on the Megyn Kelly show a week ago Friday.
Most
of Kelly’s questions were fat softballs or in some cases just
statements (“Employers like you might just have to say, ‘I’m gettin’ rid
of my company!’”; “Your thoughts on having your livelihood directly
affected based on what politicians in Washington felt was best for
you?”).
I looked up Bill and decided to give him a buzz to learn
more. He lives outside of Houston. We spoke for 45 minutes. He’s a guy
who’s sort of hard not to like — funny, very sharp and obviously a very
good businessman who built a large business from scratch.
Bill
recently sold his company Bubbles Car Wash, with 13 locations and 290
employees, to a private equity fund for what he admitted was a
tremendous price. “I’ve been very successful,” he acknowledged. (He
boasted in a 2011 Houston Business Journal article that he owns two Mercedes and a Bentley convertible.)
With
290 employees, his business would be subject to the Affordable Care
Act’s employer mandate that kicks in in 2015 (assuming it isn’t delayed,
as it has been once already), which will force companies to offer
insurance to workers or else pay a penalty. Bill says it would have run
him in the neighborhood of $400,000 annually.
My first question to
him was: Would he show me some of his business’s financial records?
Maybe an annual report, preferably something audited, so I could analyze
his claim about the catastrophic effect Obamacare would have had on his
business? He would not.
Did Megyn Kelly request such verification? No, he said, she did not.
I
then pressed Bill on whether there were any other reasons he was
selling his business. He admitted to me that there were plenty of others
(“myriad reasons,” in his words). What were some of them? “You ever
run a business?” he asked with a chuckle. And then he began ticking off a
bunch of problems in his life that he said he’d now be glad to be rid
of. The headache of managing workers. Taxes, fees and permits of every
shape and size and color (dumpster permits, gate permits, this permit,
that permit). He complained to me that he has to pay $300 for an “auto
dealer’s” permit just to sell air fresheners at the checkout counter of
his car wash centers. From
the sound of it, Gov. Rick Perry is more to blame for Bill’s choice to
retire than Obama. Perhaps Texas is not the pro-business eden that Perry
portrays it to be.
Nonetheless, Bill insisted that the Affordable
Care Act was the “primary” reason he chose to sell out and retire after
22 years. He told me he spent a year attending seminars and seeking
advice from lawyers and insurance experts on the employer mandate, and
it was universally made clear to him that the new federal law would make
it too costly to stay in business.
There’s no questions that
Bubbles Car Wash will have to absorb a new cost under the employer
mandate. The question is how great it will be, and whether it will
impact the business enough to have required Bill to unload it. Although
Bill wouldn’t show me any hard financial data, I asked him if he could
give me a brief sketch of his company’s revenue. He thought for a while,
and then said he’d estimate that the company had around $13 million a
year in revenues and about $900,000 in earnings — earnings, meaning
post-salary (he wouldn’t tell me what his annual salary had been as an
owner of the business).
Bill also told me most of his wage earners do not want health insurance.
He’s offered a mini-med program in the past, a very cheap and
bare-bones plan that employees could purchase, and they usually decline
it. If that’s the case, Bill’s burden will be much smaller than what he
told Megyn Kelly. Under the Affordable Care Act, Bill must simply offer
his employees a chance to share in the cost of an insurance plan. The
worker’s share can legally be as high as 9.5 percent of the worker’s
household income. Once Bill has made this offer to an employee, if the
employee declines the coverage then Bill is off the hook and doesn’t
have to pay a penalty.
And sadly, Bill might be correct that his
wage earners (who earn $8.50 to $10 an hour) can’t afford to spend as
high as 9.5 percent of their salaries sharing the cost of an insurance
plan.
I sent Bill an article from a recent Forbes magazine
that shows how businesses of his size, and specifically Texas
businesses, will have ample opportunity to keep Obamacare costs very low
by strategically offering insurance plans that they know their
employees will reject, forcing them onto the individual exchange in some
cases. He did not respond.
Incidentally, Bill also told me that
the private equity company that bought him out had approached him as
early as “three or four years ago,” so he was at least speaking to the
buyers before Obamacare ever existed. A spokesperson for the new owner
refused to talk to me for this article. Suffice it to say, however, that
a private equity firm sees enormous potential in Bubbles Car Wash with
or without Obamacare.
In the final analysis, Bill is a strong
conservative who believes government has no business saddling him with
new costs. He said it would be nice if every citizen could be insured,
but “even if the cost were only 10 percent of what I’ve estimated,” he
said to me, “why should the federal government make it my responsibility to pay for it?” (We decided to agree that there is no right or wrong answer to that question, only opinions.)
And
as for Megyn Kelly, she asked very few probative questions before or
during the interview, preferring instead to just take Bill’s claim about
Obamacare at face value. But clearly there was another side of the
story. Special thanks to Bill Bertovich, one of my readers, who tipped me off to the above segment.
Eric Stern lives in Helena, Montana. He was senior counsel
to Brian Schweitzer, former Governor. Follow him on Twitter at @_ericstern.
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.
50 right-wing news sources that are infecting the American mind
examiner.com
Republicans often talk about the media's "liberal bias" when many
of their claims aren't validated. Ever since Sarah Palin was thrust
into the spotlight in 2008, cries of "lame stream media" have been heard
echoing through the ear drums of registered voters. Whether it's NBC,
CBS, CNN, ABC or any other "main stream" news outlet, the right-wing are
often quick to attack, claiming bias against conservatives and the
Republican agenda.
While one major news channel, MSNBC,
promotes a more progressive message during their prime time line-up,
they promote themselves as liberal, tagging themselves with the slogan
"lean forward." Other news channels, such as CNN, have actually taken
steps to the right of the political spectrum in an attempt to capitalize
on Fox News' ratings success.
Despite claims of media bias, the number one rated news channel is Fox News, the loudest voice for conservatism
in the country. Even outside television, conservative media is often
easily found. The overwhelming majority of talk radio is dominated by
right-wing voices. Earlier this year, "Talkers" magazine released their annual "Heavy Hundred" list
of the 100 most important radio show hosts in the country. Out of the
top ten, only three would be described as "liberal" or "progressive,"
with the remaining being far right conservatives or libertarian. The
rest of the list is similar to the top 10 as conservative talk shows
heavily outnumber their liberal counter parts.
The internet is also a viable place to promote your political agenda.
Conservative blogs and websites have popped up at a record number over
the last few years and don't look to be slowing down any time soon.
While there are liberal talk shows and blogs, the conservative claim
that the entire media has a bias favoring liberals is just false. The
list below is simply a counter to that claim and, in no particular
order, is a list of 50 of the worst places you could go to get your news
and information.
CBS News aired a misleading report
on Monday about security issues concerning the federal health insurance
exchange website based on leaked partial transcripts of a health care
official's testimony, according to the Washington Post.
CBS reported that Henry Chao, lead project manager of
Healthcare.gov at the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, had
been unaware of two major security holes in the website that could lead
to identity theft.
"CBS News has learned 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," the CBS report reads.
"Those failures could lead to identity theft among buying insurance."
When questioned by Rep. Gerald Connolly (D-VA) Wednesday at a House
Oversight and Government Reform committee hearing, it became apparent
that the security flaws that the CBS report discussed could not actually
lead to identity theft.
According to Chao, the two modules the CBS report referenced are not
currently active on the exchange website and that neither module used
personally identifiable information.
Connolly, while questioning Chao on Wednesday, implied that the partial leaked transcript came from Republican committee staff.
“So when CBS Evening News ran its report based on a leak, presumably
from the [Republican] 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 established in
our back and forth. Is that correct?” Connolly asked during the hearing,
as quoted by the Washington Post.
Chao responded that Connolly was correct.
There may never be a more classic line in the pantheon of empty
boasts by competitive news organizations. On Monday night, CBS News
reporter Sharyl Attkisson came up with what looked like a significant
story: “Memo warned of “limitless” security risks for HealthCare.gov.”
As the story and on-air broadcast alleged, the person entrusted with
putting together HealthCare.gov was “apparently kept in the dark about
serious failures in the website’s security. Those failures could lead to
identity theft among [those] buying insurance.”
How did Attkisson know this? “CBS News has obtained the first look at a partial transcript of his testimony.”
Which is like saying you’ve got the exclusive on half the story.
To consume Attkisson’s story is to freak out about HealthCare.gov.
The scoop here is that Henry Chao, Healthcare.gov’s chief project
manager at the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS), somehow
didn’t know about a Sept. 3 memo warning of issues on that troubled
government Web site. The transcript to which Attkisson gained access
spells out some serious alleged difficulties with the site. From the
televised report: “In excerpts we’ve obtained, Chao was asked about a
memo that outlined important security risks discovered in the insurance
system. Chao said he was unaware of this Sept. 3 government memo written
by another senior official at CMS. It found two high-risk issues which
are redacted for security reasons. The memo said, ‘The threat and risk
potential to the system is limitless.’ The memo shows CMS gave deadlines
of mid-2014 and early 2015 to address them.”
Via Attkisson’s treatment, Chao comes off looking clueless about a
critical aspect of HealthCare.gov. In her narrative, a Republican lawyer
questioning Chao asked him if he found it “surprising” that he’d never
seen that memo before. Chao replied, “‘Yeah . . . I mean, wouldn’t you
be surprised if you were me?’ He later added: ‘It is disturbing. I mean,
I don’t deny that this is . . . a fairly nonstandard way’ to proceed.”
In a hearing of the House oversight and government reform committee
today, Attkisson’s story received something of a public fact-check.
Rep. Gerald Connolly, apparently rankled by the CBS News piece, launched
a series of pointed questions at Chao. The short take from the exchange
is this: The CBS News report looks completely misleading. Here’s a
selective summary of what Connolly discussed with Chao:
Connolly: Correct that Republicans presented you with a document you hadn’t seen before? Chao: Correct.
Connolly: Correct that the document indicated that there were two
“open high-risk” findings in Obamacare exchange? Chao: Correct.
Connolly: Correct that someone leaked parts of your transcript to CBS News? Chao: “It seems that way.”
Connolly: Correct that the document discusses risks relating to two
Web site modules on dental plans and qualified health plans? Chao:
Correct.
Connolly: Correct that neither of those modules is active at this point? Chao: Correct.
Connolly: Correct that the Sept. 3 memo did not apply to the Obamacare marketplace? Chao: Correct.
Connolly: Correct that modules do not contain any personally identifiable information on consumers? Chao: Correct.
“So when CBS Evening News ran its report based on a leak, presumably
from the [Republican] 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 established in
our back and forth. Is that correct?”
Chao replied: “That’s correct. I think there was some rearrangement
of the words I used during the testimony and how it was portrayed.”
The Erik Wemple Blog raised similar questions to CBS News yesterday. It declined to comment.
Attkisson’s story did contain this nod to the administration’s
position: “Health and Human Services told CBS News the privacy and
security of consumers’ personal information are a top priority, and
consumers can trust their information is protected by stringent security
standards.”
Journalism veterans and media observers continue to strike the same chord while launching a chorus
of criticism at CBS News in recent days: The network needs to be
transparent and explain exactly what happened with its botched Benghazi
report, and start detailing how such an obviously flawed report made in
onto the most-watched news program in America.
And yet it's silence from CBS, which is now stonewalling press
inquiries, as well as the calls for an outside review of its Benghazi
reporting. CBS' refusal to undergo a public examination in the wake of
such a landmark blunder stands in stark contrast to how news
organizations have previously dealt with black eyes; news organizations that once included CBS News.
CBS is now taking a radically different approach. There appears to
have been a corporate decision made that granting members of an
independent review panel unfettered access to 60 Minutes represents a greater danger than the deep damage currently being done to the network's brand via the two-week-old scandal.
So again and again the question bounces back to this: What is CBS hiding? And who is CBS protecting?
I'm sure network executives there are embarrassed by the controversy
and wish the report hadn't aired as it did. There's a reason Jeff Fager,
Chairman of CBS News (above left), ranked it as among the worst mistakes in the nearly 50 year history of 60 Minutes.
But as we learn more and more about the errors and oversights, it's
becoming increasingly difficult to understand the magnitude of the
malfeasance; the refusal by CBS to follow even rudimentary rules of
journalism.
In a small but telling example, Mother Jones recently reviewed
the Benghazi book that CBS' discredited "witness," Dylan Davies,
co-wrote, and which CBS supposedly relied on to corroborate this tale,
which included him informing the FBI about his heroic actions the night
of the attack at the U.S. compound in Benghazi. (It was later confirmed
Davies wasn't even at the compound and the book was quickly recalled.) Mother Jones found Davies' published account to be completely, and almost comically, unbelievable:
Davies' improbable account of FBI agents weeping and spouting grateful platitudes only underscores how negligent 60 Minutes
was in vetting its story. Even if the FBI wouldn't confirm Davies'
account, why didn't they corroborate his tale with others who'd been
there?
But is being embarrassed really justification for not trying to find
out why the mistakes were made and to inform viewers what happened? And
if CBS refuses to learn from these sloppy mistakes, isn't the network
guaranteed to repeat them?
As it stonewalls, CBS cannot avoid the fact that in 2004 when 60 Minutes II
was caught in a crossfire of conservative outrage after airing a
disputed report about President Bush's Vietnam War record, the network
appointed a former Republican attorney general, Richard Thornburgh, to
investigate what went wrong. The review panel was given
"full access and complete cooperation from CBS News and CBS, as well as
all of the resources necessary to complete the task." Those resources
included reporters' notes, e-mails, and draft scripts. The panel worked
for three months, interviewed 66 people, and issued an-often scathing 234-page report.
Today, that standard established by CBS is being purposefully
bypassed. But why? Is it a fear of even further embarrassment? If you're
asking what could be more embarrassing than the current set of facts in
which CBS was duped by an "eyewitness" impostor, the answer is, plenty.
Imagine the possibly explosive findings to these questions: *Did CBS executives have internal discussions about the network's clear conflict of interest
with regards to Davies' book being published by CBS-owned Simon &
Schuster and decided not to reference that conflict in the final
Benghazi report? *Did the impending book release impact the reporting in the segment or the timing of the broadcast? *Did 60 Minutes producers have extensive contacts with partisan Republican sources while reporting on Benghazi? *Did any CBS executives express serious doubts about Davies' account only to be overruled by Logan? *Were script changes made to remove any doubts about Davies' account? *Did any co-workers think that Logan was pursuing a political agenda with the Benghazi report?
My guess is that a truly transparent review would find 'yes' answers
to two or three of those questions. But without an independent inquiry
we won't know. In that regard, refusing to appoint a review panel covers
up more bad news, which is what CBS seemingly wants. But a review could
also help exonerate CBS with regards to some allegations, and address
doubts about its professionalism.
Recall that one of the key conclusions from the National Guard panel review was that political bias did not
play a role in how the controversial 2004 story was put together. For
the Benghazi story though, it's impossible to know if CBS is equally
free of prejudice unless there's an independent assessment.
The other key question: By resisting an honest and open evaluation,
are CBS bosses trying to protect key players? Keep in mind that
following the release of the National Guard panel review, several
employees were fired, including the executive producer of 60 Minutes II.
Given the extent of the Benghazi screw-up, it's likely an outside
review today would find fault with the executive producer of today's 60 Minutes. Who is executive producer of 60 Minutes? It's Jeff Fager, who also runs CBS News. (The dual titles seem like an obvious conflict of interest.)
And since 60 Minutes correspondent Lara Logan says she was
deeply involved in the reporting and the editing of the Benghazi piece,
it's likely she would be the target of a stinging rebuke. So is CBS
refusing to appoint an independent panel in an effort to protect its
news boss Fager and its rising star Logan?
It certainly looks that way.
When
we helped form the national media-reform network Free Press, we were
motivated by an understanding that the great debates about media policy
played out behind closed doors in Washington, with corporate puppeteers
pulling the strings of politicians and regulators. Free Press, which is
celebrating its tenth anniversary, set out to change the dynamic by
securing a place for citizens in those deliberations. We always knew
this involved more than just a critique of what was wrong. There had to
be bold proposals for how to make things better, proposals that would
inspire Americans to join mass movements to counter the mass money and
influence of the telecommunications industry.
An opportunity we had not anticipated helped make our network a major
player more rapidly than we had ever imagined. Free Press took shape
early in 2003, as George W. Bush was selling his war in Iraq. Americans
recognized that media outlets had let them down by tipping coverage in
favor of a wrongheaded rush to war. When administration allies on the
FCC proposed greater consolidation of media ownership by the same
interests that had facilitated an unnecessary war, Free Press and allies
like Common Cause, MoveOn and Code Pink got an unprecedented 3 million
Americans to signal their opposition. The courts put consolidation on
hold, citing the public outcry.
Early victories created a sense that we could pressure Congress and
regulators to do the right thing. Free Press and other groups achieved
significant success with those strategies, forcing the FCC to consider
minority ownership issues, fighting cuts to public broadcasting,
exposing corporate and government spin masquerading as news, and
defending Net neutrality and a free and open Internet. But big media
corporations have reasserted themselves. They are spending more freely
on campaigns and lobbyists than ever before, reminding all of us that
whichever party is in power, the money power rules in Washington.
It’s time to get back to our roots—the grassroots—and organize
citizens into a media-reform movement so big and so bold it cannot be
denied. The people are ready. On our current book tour we have spoken to
thousands of Americans. We’ve heard the fury at a media system that
fails to cover elections but gladly pockets billions for spewing
negative campaign ads; that facilitates government and corporate data
mining; that creates cartels rather than independent journalism.
We are more certain than ever that Americans can be organized around ideas for sweeping media reforms. They include: § Increase public funding for public media.
Newspaper and broadcast layoffs, cutbacks and closings have gutted
newsrooms, and digital media are not coming close to filling the void.
We are as excited by the investment Pierre Omidyar is making in a new
venture with Glenn Greenwald as we are by every serious investment in
serious journalism. But there will never be enough enlightened
billionaires to fill the information voids that have opened. We need
enlightened policies. Instead of merely opposing cuts, reformers must
fight for massive expansion of public broadcasting, community media and
nonprofit digital experiments. The hallmark of a strong democracy is
public support for great independent and aggressive journalism—and a
great deal of it. § Give the Internet back to the people. The Internet
has spawned the greatest wave of monopoly in history. Thirteen of the
thirty-two most valuable publicly traded US firms are primarily Internet
companies, and many of those thirteen have a market share in their core
activities approaching that of John D. Rockefeller’s Standard Oil
monopoly in its prime. This is simply untenable for democratic
governance. One place to start: eliminating the government-created
cartel of Verizon, AT&T and Comcast, which gives the United States
some of the lousiest, yet most expensive, cellphone and Internet service
in the world. Washington should establish free high-speed broadband for
every American. § Restore privacy. Coverage of the NSA scandal has
focused on data mining by the government. But private corporations and
political consultants have access to the same information, and they’re
using it to manipulate our choices as consumers and citizens. The
restoration of privacy rights may begin with limits on the NSA, but it
should extend to strict regulation of, and limits on, the digital data
that can be collected from us, and how corporations and politicians can
use those data to manage discourse.
These are starting points for a broader reform moment in which we
must limit the influence of negative campaign ads while extending the
range of political debate; more tightly regulate the commercial
carpet-bombing of our children; and make media literacy central to
public education. That moment must be characterized, above all, by
organizing so that no matter who runs things in Washington, politicians
will know that the people want media that err on the side of diversity
and democracy—not profiteering and propaganda. In August, Leticia Miranda wrote about deregulation of the telecom giants and how it affects working-class and minority people.
