FOX News unsourced
I know I’ve said this before, but I continue to find it amazing that so many people buy FOX’s BS hook, line and sinker. It is literally a 24-7 wormhole of misinformation, deception, bias and misrepresentation.
Check out the chart in the following video at the 20 second mark:
See any source information on the chart? Did Bill O’Reilly at any point give the source for the data? The chart claims that the federal debt has increased more than $4 billion per day under Barack Obama, $1.6 billion per day under George W. Bush and $547 million per day under Bill Clinton. I could spend hours trying to research this information, but frankly, it’s not worth my time to fact check FOX. Media Matters has an entire mini-site devoted to this, so there’s no need for me to saw away at FOX anymore than I already do. FOX plays tricks like these all the time with the supposed “data” it presents as “fact.” So, by presenting no source information, FOX excuses itself from having to answer for the figures it throws up on the screen. This is why we use sources in journalism because if someone makes a claim and is not willing to put their name behind the claim or provide a source for their information, there’s a good chance that said claim doesn’t have much, or any, credibility. Without source information, there is no way more inquisitive viewers could check the data for themselves. Oh wait, I forgot. FOX News has no inquisitive viewers. That clears it up.
For actual figures sourced from the Congressional Budget Office and the White House, see this chart:
Source: CBO Historical Budget Page and Whitehouse FY 2012 Budget - Table 7.1 Federal Debt at the End of Year PDF, Excel, Senate.gov
“FOX plays tricks like these all the time with the supposed “data” it presents as “fact.” So, by presenting no source information, FOX excuses itself from having to answer for the figures it throws up on the screen.”
If that is true, then they must have learned it from the president… Where were his facts (or truth) with “jobs created or saved, there might not be money to pay social security”, or one of my favorites, that the new health care bill will actually reduce the deficit?
Oh wait, I forgot – he doesn’t have to tell the truth – because those that buy his lies don’t seem to bother to look things up or hold him accountable.
Sharyl
21 Jul 11 at 10:51 pm
Did you just delete my comment?!
Sharyl
21 Jul 11 at 10:52 pm
According to your own chart, Obama's debt as a percentage of GDP was 93.2% by the start of 2010. Our debt today is an even greater percentage of GDP. So…I dunno…Fox doesn't seem all that incorrect especially in light of your chart which does not cover all of 2010 or any of 2011…."know what I mean, Vergne???" Maybe you should be a bit more inquisitive yourself, Skippy.
Scott
22 Jul 11 at 12:32 am
The following comments are also from Sharyl. Something weird was going on with the comment application:
—
"FOX plays tricks like these all the time with the supposed “data” it presents as “fact.” So, by presenting no source information, FOX excuses itself from having to answer for the figures it throws up on the screen."
If that is true, then they must have learned it from the president… Where were his facts (or truth) with "jobs created or saved, there might not be money to pay social security", or one of my favorites, that the new health care bill will actually reduce the deficit?
Oh wait, I forgot – he doesn't have to tell the truth – because those that buy his lies don't seem to bother to look things up or hold him accountable.
jeremystyron
22 Jul 11 at 11:17 am
@Scott: I recognize the debt on Obama's watch is high (How could it not be with wars in Afghanistan, Iraq, the recession and stimulus package and everything else he inherited from Bush?)
My point wasn't that it was incorrect. My point was that there's no way to tell one way or the other because FOX didn't present any source information, and this is a routine practice. If you look at the chart, every single Democratic president dating back to Truman oversaw decreases in the debt as a percentage of GDP, with Reagan and Bush I and II adding seismic increases to the debt. It's unfortunate that the debt has increased that much under Obama, but I don't know if were any alternatives. Most economists even argued that the stimulus packages didn't go far enough: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/12/28/ftn/mai…. In any case, debt isn't necessarily a bad thing. Debt makes the world go round. It's how most people can afford cars and houses, and debt signals to creditors that you are economically viable.
jeremystyron
22 Jul 11 at 11:27 am
Thanks for fixing the snag… was it something I did? Anyway, you didn't respond to what I said above about Obama, Reid, and Pelosi spouting off all kinds of outrageous claims… with absolutely no way to back up or even prove what they say to be remotely true… funny how that doesn't seem to bother you, since you claim to have such a thing for documentation! They just pull numbers out of thin air, and not one person in the media ever asked for proof (to my knowledge). Amazing. "Jobs saved or created" means absolutely nothing. It is like saying "Pounds lost or avoided gaining". One number (jobs created or pounds lost) could be statistically reported… but "jobs saved and pounds avoided gaining" are not absolutes… you could pick ANY number to represent that… how absolutely misleading – no – downright lies to make him look like he is actually doing something. He couldn't report on the miserable number of jobs created – so he had to put in some kind of obscure facade to hide the truth.
As far as "most economists" arguing that the stimulus package didn't go far enough… Where are your facts please… can you PROVE your statement? No… and that is misleading of you to say "most" in trying to prove your point! There are also economists who are screaming "Wrong way" – but of course mainstream media doesn't seem to like to present that side to the public.
And Jeremy, debt is a bad thing. The borrower is slave to the lender. It puts one in bondage. Look at the word "mortgage"… Comes from 2 Latin words that means "death grip". It can destroy and choke the life out of you… The kind of debt the democrats ran up when they controlled both houses was awful. And the republicans that ran it up were just as bad. Bush made a huge mistake in my opinion, and Obama is only picking up the ball where GW dropped it. He is just advancing the ball faster than anyone else ever has… unfortunately he is running toward the wrong goal line.
Yes, there are alternatives, but Obama doesn't want to go there because (in my opinion) he is hell bent on destroying our economy. He is following Saul Alinsky's "Rules for Radicals" perfectly. He could care less about crushing debt for our children. He doesn't care about the poor, and he doesn't care about health care. What he does care about is himself, and power. He refuses to put "his" plan – any plan on paper, and he refuses to address the plan that was passed in the House. Then he has the audacity to get on national tv and say it is the republican's fault?! This man is very scary.
Sharyl
23 Jul 11 at 1:01 am
@Sharyl: I didn't respond because it was off-topic. The post was about FOX and the media, not about Obama and further, you referenced only Obama making outrageous claims, not Pelosi and Ried, etc. As for Obama, he has a whole team of economic advisers behind him. When Obama makes a claim in some speech, although he certainly has final say, he didn't really write every word you hear on TV. When "Obama" makes a claim about the economy, it's really a claim from his administration. No one can claim to know with 100 percent certainty what's best for the economy in five or 10 years, Dems or Reps. Dems have one theory, Reps have another. Tax cuts for people making more than $250,000 as a means to get revenue sounds like a reasonable path to me because people in that tax bracket aren't hurting for money at all. But this is what Reps are so against. And as a person who sympathizes with people who are struggling right now, the Reps stance on that is contemptible to me. Reps make it sound like they are the heroes on this issue by saying: "Obama is going to raise taxes. We want to cut them." What they mean is they want to cut them for investment bakers and CEOs. That is contemptible policy in my view.
As for economists saying the stimulus didn't go far enough, I provided a link. What more do you want? You want me to find 50 or 100 economists? It's funny how when I make a claim and take care to provide a source, it's not enough, but when FOX or you yourself make a claim, I'm supposed to take you at your word. You have no proof that Obama has consciously lied about anything and have yet to provide any. I'm sure he has fudged numbers now and then. At least I admit it. I've never come across a politician who hasn't fudged numbers on occasion. To pain Obama as a lying scoundrel as you do is ridiculous. Take a stroll through this site to investigate the true or false claims of politicians: http://www.politifact.com/
OK, I will pretend your last paragraph even deserves a response. What would Obama possibly gain from destroying the economy? If things don't get significantly better, he's probably going to be voted out anyway. And then he has no more power. Why is it not in his best interest to see that the economy succeeds? Because if it does, he is credited with bringing us out of the greatest recession since the 1920s (Technically, he is already credited with this since the recession officially ended in 2009) and finding the man behind the worst terrorist attack on this nation in history. How is that not in his best interest? He gains nothing from destroying the economy in his remaining two years. Did you hear about "Rules for Radicals" through Glenn Beck? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cBGEOTMDWqA He's nuttier than squirrel poop on Sunday, and it's extra nutty on Sunday.
jeremystyron
23 Jul 11 at 11:53 am
I hit the "thumbs up" by mistake… and it wouldn't let me undo. (Perhaps you could fix that)
No time to respond to your above post right now, but I will quickly address your last question. I had Rules for Radicals long before Glenn Beck talked about it.
Sharyl
26 Jul 11 at 12:34 pm
No Jeremy, it wasn't off topic. You find fault with Fox news not backing up their reporting with "proof", and yet you (and other supporters) don't hold the President of the United States to the same standard. He, Pelosi, Reid, and Biden, have all served the public outrageous numbers pulled out of thin air, about the "number of jobs saved or created". Unbelievable, that they could do that with a straight face.
I've said it before, it would be like me saying I have lost or prevented myself from gaining 1,000 pounds. No way to prove that point, but when grouped together, the "prevent myself from gaining" covers over the failure of the miserable 3 pounds lost. No way for anyone but me to really know how much I lost when I group the two together.
People often do this trick when shopping. They see one item they want for say, $100. But they can't justify spending that much on "one" thing… so they add 3 more items that cost under $3.00. Now instead of 1 item at $100, we have 5 items for less than $110. What a deal!
Now for someone who claims to have such an intellectual and inquisitive mind, demanding proof before he will believe anything, why wouldn't you question his outrageous claims? He also has repeatedly come out with glowing reports about how much the health care bill would reduce our debt. This was contrary to stats the CBO put out. He said the stimulus package was a success, that there were "shovel ready jobs" – then comes back laughing and says "guess they weren't as shovel ready as we thought". Fraud and waste.
He blames the republicans for "leaving him at the altar" – when he did the same thing just a few days before. He talks down to the American people, like they are stupid, and he is the king. He said we didn't need to understand the economics of Washington, because that was what the "professional politicians" were for. Dear Lord, that is why we are in the mess we are in. The darn politicians on both sides. He talks about "shared sacrifice" which is nothing more than reframing his true motive of redistributing wealth. The sad thing is, the money isn't even going to the poor that I can tell… I think it is all about getting more money flowing through the hands of Washington. Bigger government, more power. He is drunk with it. Like an addict that needs a fix… he wants more – raise taxes… raise taxes… but he never stops spending. There is no end.
It doesn't take but a 3rd grade level of education to understand that you can't (or shouldn't) spend more money than you take in. He plays a shell game – a cheap magical illusion hoping Americans aren't watching, so he can gain more and more control. And he has the audacity to continue to blame every ill and every bad decision of his on Bush or now, the House. Certainly Bush has his share of the blame, but Obama does everything but blame the fall of man on him. The House has passed 2 bills, but Obama and Reid quickly tabled even discussing it. Obama refuses to put anything in writing, but arrogantly stands back and demands that the two parties compromise.
When we were facing our debt crisis in our house, we cut up the credit cards. We put a plan down on paper, and we budgeted and stuck with the plan. If we had continued on – we would have either ended up in bankruptcy or worse. Had Randy told me – I'm just going to compromise – I'll only keep borrowing half as much, we would still be in a mess. I am convinced that the only ones in Washington right now that are standing between our country and the cliff are the new Tea Party reps.
Sharyl
28 Jul 11 at 2:40 am
I probably got "off topic" again. The media is in the tank with the progressives. That is a fact. There is an obvious liberal bias and outright hostility to Christians, or anyone who is conservative or believes in the Constitution. There is a double standard that is glaring. Fox is one of the few news outlets that at least has some kind of balance, though it is certainly not perfect – and I believe it certainly leans to the right… But I use it as a springboard to do my own research. Yes, there are inquisitive minds that watch Fox. At least they have progressives on to represent their side. I don't ever remember seeing conservatives on Olberman, Ed, or Rachel's show. (But in fairness I could only watch so much before my blood pressure rose). You quote sites that are consistent with your world view, as I do with mine. So you find my questionable – and I find yours the same.
Of course I know Obama has speech writers, and I also know that without his prompter, he stands and stutters, so I wouldn't say he is a great orator, I would say he is a good reader. But he is responsible for the truth of any message he delivers, regardless of who wrote it.
Taxing those making over $250,000 "A reasonable path"??? What gives you (or anyone) the right to say that someone making over $250,000 needs to pay more taxes because he "isn't hurting for money at all". You have no idea if they are hurting – just because they make a certain amount. They could be paying down their own debt, helping less fortunate people, or putting their kids through college. Maybe they are taking care of a terminally ill child… you just don't know. That is arrogant and wrong to say that they need to pay more. That is punishing the ones who are successful and flourishing in their business. To say they should pay more (higher bracket) than someone who makes less is wrong. Perhaps they are working 100+ hours to earn that income. From everything I have seen – about 50% of people don't pay any income taxes… yet they want the handouts on the backs of those that are working. That is why socialism doesn't work… never has, never will. When you take away the incentive for a man to be rewarded for his labor, by giving it to others where he has no say, he will eventually lose the motivation to work. Add to that extreme government regulation, demands and red tape, and no business will want to continue, let alone expand.
"Fudged numbers now and then"? Give me a break! I don't need to look at politifact to know that politicians lie. And it is wrong – period – for ANY of them to. But the President has the power to sign or veto bills that will affect our country, so I want the truth from him, and I would expect the same from whoever was in office.
I also sympathize with people who are struggling, and we personally as a family help when we can. I know people working multiple jobs, and others just trying to find one. I know people who have lost a spouse, and have children to support. We have personally taken in people that were homeless. We have given to those who asked for help on the street. We give because God has given to us. We are also part of a church that exists to give – not just the Word of God, but also help with physical/emotional needs. We have a huge outreach at our church – local community and international. Teams of people go out when disasters hit, feeding and clothing the homeless and those needing help, installing clean water wells and food in developing countries where the people are so desperate and diseased because of filthy water. Our church also takes care of those within. Single parents are helped and supported, medical and dental care for many who need assistance, vehicles given to others who need one, job training and mentoring, the list goes on. Our church does a much better job of helping others (with no waste) than the government does. That is how I believe God wanted us to be all along. It is a pleasure to tithe to a church that makes a difference in the lives of so many people. The government can NEVER do what our church does – that is not its job. They squander the money, and keep wanting more. Yes, there are churches out there that are cesspools – and consume only on themselves, and those make me sick. But I believe the primary burden of care is on the church and local community – not the government.
Okay, I have rambled about as long as I can for one night. I did respond to this 5 days ago, so I'm not sure why you said I didn't. I don't even remember where you said that – perhaps it was on a different post. I have trouble going backwards. Sorry this is so long and choppy, and I'll probably see 100 things I failed to address. But then as my husband sweetly reminded me… I'm not an editor.
Sharyl
28 Jul 11 at 2:40 am
On proof: In an ideal world, American politicians would cite sources every time they made a claim. But this has never been the case across the board in every political speech … ever. Media outlets are not doing journalism if they fail to cite sources for their information. I am a journalist, so forgive me if I hold FOX's lack of integrity in contempt. Neither FOX or MSNBC has any credibility with me.
As for the health care debt issue, I don't know where your claim comes from that the CBO said the health care bill would not reduce the deficit since you didn't provide a link. Here's the director of the CBO saying it would, in fact, reduce the deficit by $143 billion: http://cboblog.cbo.gov/?p=546. I'm not qualified to speak on the success of the stimulus package other than saying that it was a success in that the country did not fall into an outright depression. The recession officially ended in 2009. If you don't accept that, I don't know what to say. Bush had the country headed toward economic meltdown with his unconstitutional war in Iraq, which was off the mark from the real target: bin Laden, whom Obama had killed. Those are huge accomplishments. If you don't see them or recognize them, you're politically blind.
On debt: Credit cards are not the only manifestation of debt. Do you or have you had a mortgage or a car? Then you have benefited from the debt by having a place to live and a car to drive because you may not have had the cash on hand to pay for these things outright. Myself, I don't want to go $120,000 or more in the hole, so I rent. I don't like debt either, but it makes the world go around. If a person has no credit whatsoever, he simply can't buy a car or a house. Debt makes a person economically "good for it." The Tea Party reps are as nutty as Glenn Beck. I can shred their arguments as well (I have done this some on my site anyway), but you don't want to hear it, and I don't think it's a worthy use of my time.
I'll get to the second part of your reply later.
jeremystyron
28 Jul 11 at 10:53 pm
How can you say that FOX attempts some kind of balance and then admit in the next sentence that it leans to the right? MSNBC leans to the left. CNN is more balanced than either and NPR and C-SPAN are as straight laced as it gets. If there is a bias at CNN or The New York Times it's for sensationalism. They are businesses, so of course, some celebrity dying is going to get coverage just like some boring but very important political issue because they need readership and viewers. If you want unfiltered news, follow NPR. Of course, FOX and other right-wing outfits are going to tell you that NPR is liberal as well because they want you to believe that so you'll keep tuning in to FOX and drinking the Kool-Aid, but they would be wrong there as well: http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=1180
A person making more than 250k is not hurting. If he is hurting, he should downsize. I don't know, sail a boat or two or some other assets. If he is hurting and making that much, I would say he's a very poor money manager. Even Warren Buffet admits that the rich should share a larger portion of the burden: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-11-21/warren-b… precisely because they are successful. They should play a hand in helping others be successful.
"The rich are always going to say that, you know, just give us more money (tax cuts) and we’ll go out and spend more and then it will all trickle down to the rest of you. But that has not worked the last 10 years, and I hope the American public is catching on.”
Because if they don't pay more, the only other option is to increase taxes for the lower and middle class as well, some of whom are actually hurting. People making more than 250K have worked the system, and they won. Good for them. I don't think it's too much to ask them to chip in a little extra. They can downgrade from Starbucks mocha latte to regular old coffee like everyone else. You won't find me defending them. As for leachers, there will always be lazy minority of people who will try to leach off the system. Does this mean we should cut the services for everyone?
Here's an article to explain your 50 percent figure: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/14/business/econom…
No one is talking about socialism, and progressives never have. Conservatives have been whining about socialism forever, from FDR to LBJ to now. We have yet to become a socialist state, and we never will. Rich people will see to it that that never happens. Ever. They have too much to lose and too much power to let that happen. Each time conservatives whine about socialism, they completely miss the point. The point is for the government to be effective. If we are going to have a government at all, it should be the best that it can be and serve the people if it has the resources to do so. Germany, England, France, Canada, the Netherlands and other modernized countries with universal health care routinely prove that their systems produce healthy, happier people than America's. Yet, we spend the most on health care, and have the least healthiest people among wealthy nations: http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2010/mar/…. This should tell you that something isn't working. Insurance companies have the lives of many people who were denied coverage on their hands.
That's great that communities, churches and individuals help others, but people fall through the cracks. No church or community is equipped to meet the needs of every single person or child even if they wanted to. Not everyone goes to church or even wants help from a church. Again, people fall through the cracks and only the government is ubiquitous enough to accommodate everyone.
jeremystyron
29 Jul 11 at 1:12 pm