Hot Topics
What is a Media Watchdog?
- FactCheck.org is run by the Annenberg Public Policy Center of the University of Pennsylvania. FactCheck.org describes itself as a “nonpartisan, nonprofit ‘consumer advocate’ for voters that aims to reduce the level of deception and confusion in U.S. politics.”
- PolitiFact.com is run by the St. Petersburg Times. It aims to “help you find the truth in politics” by using a straightforward “Truth-O-Meter” to evaluate the veracity of political statements in the news.
- Media Matters For America is a liberal media watchdog that is “dedicated to comprehensively monitoring, analyzing, and correcting conservative misinformation in the U.S. media.”
- Media Research Center is a conservative website that works to uncover any liberal bias in the media’s political coverage. MRC bills itself as “America’s Media Watchdog.” The MRC has several subsidiaries. These include: Cybercast News Service; the Business & Media Institute; the Culture and Media Institute; and the News Analysis Division, which includes NewsBusters and Times Watch.
Indictments of the Media
Date: May 27, 2010
Watchdog: Media Research Center
The Charge: "Crackpot Helen Thomas Demands Obama Exit Afghanistan, Lectures: 'Don't Give Us' a 'Bushism'"
The Finding: "President Obama didn't call on CNN, but he decided to provide Helen Thomas with the privilege of being one of ten members of the White House press corps allowed to pose a question at this afternoon's presidential news conference. She came through with one of her usual crackpot rants - with the inevitable dose of gratuitous Bush-bashing mixed in: 'When are you going to get out of Afghanistan? Why are we continuing to kill and die there? What is the real excuse and don't give us this Bushism if we don't go there they'll all come here.' "
Date: October 5, 2009
Watchdog: Media Research Center
The Charge: "Couric Relies on Albright to Blame Obama's Afghanistan Conundrum on Bush."
The Finding: "On Monday's CBS Evening News, Katie Couric delivered a 'How We Got Here' review of Afghanistan after eight years of U.S. troops on the ground, culminating with Couric conveying as fact - based on the view of Clinton administration Secretary of State Madeleine Albright - the relatively simplistic liberal critique of how Iraq distracted the U.S. from the more important battle in Afghanistan. 'With Hamid Karzai in place as the interim leader of Afghanistan, the drum beat of war moved west to Iraq,' Couric recalled in using the loaded 'drum beat of war' language, leading into Albright's scolding of former President Bush: 'The problem was that he took his eye off the ball and linked two things that didn't go together, which is al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden and so things got much worse.' Couric pounded home the point: 'By October of 2006, there were 148,000 U.S. troops in Iraq and just 21,000 in Afghanistan....' Couric concluded with how President Obama is following through on his pledge to fix the misjudgment: "Making good on a campaign promise, President Obama called for a troop increase in Afghanistan, bringing the number of U.S. forces there to a record 68,000." [emphasis in original].
Date: November 3, 2009
Watchdog: Media Research Center
The Charge: "Matt Bai Praises Obama's 'Dithering' in Afghanistan."
The Finding: "Times contributing writer Matt Bai defended Obama's 'dithering' over strategy in Afghanistan (a conflict he called 'a war of necessity' in August) as maturity in his Sunday Magazine essay 'Escalations: How Afghanistan might be Vietnam -- and Obama the real Kennedy.' Bai's rationale? It shows Obama has 'the capacity to take his time...' Bush often seemed to measure leadership by the number of seconds it took to make a decision. Obama displays a different kind of spine -- the capacity to take his time, even when allies and critics are pounding at the door.' National Review's Ramesh Ponnuru succinctly mocked Bai's spin: 'Flip-flopping: It's the new selflessness.' " [emphasis in original].
Indictments of Democrats
Date: December 2, 2009
Watchdog: PolitiFact.com
The Charge: Representative John Murtha fudged the facts when he claimed, "We're going to have more troops [in Afghanistan] . . . than the Russians had."
The Finding: "Estimates of the Soviet troops vary. In 1989, when the last Soviet soldiers left Afghanistan, the New York Times reported that there had been 115,000 troops at the height of the war. Other estimates peg the number at 118,000 and 120,000. Currently, the United States has approximately 68,000 troops in Afghanistan, and is planning to send 30,000 more, bringing the total number to about 100,000. So, Murtha is off by at least 15,000 troops. The Soviets had more. We asked Murtha's office about his statement, and his spokesman, Matt Mazonkey, said the congressman is right if NATO allies are included. Indeed, including foreign troops would bring the number up to 140,000. Murtha did not make this clear on Hardball; we believe most viewers would interpret his 'we' to mean the United States...So we rate his statement Barely True."
Date: November 30, 2009
Watchdog: PolitiFact.com
The Charge: Representative Alan Grayson (D-FL) overstated his case when he contended, "In the past year, more than 20 percent of Americans have changed their mind about the war in Afghanistan. They conclude we shouldn't be there."
The Finding: "We wondered if Grayson was right about a dramatic shift in the polls on the war in Afghanistan. As usual with polls, a lot depends on how you ask the question. We asked Grayson's staff what polls he was referring to, and they pointed us to a USA Today/Gallup poll taken from Nov. 20-22, 2009. The poll question: 'Do you approve or disapprove of the way Barack Obama is handling the situation in Afghanistan?' The poll showed a 20-point drop in approval for Obama. In July, 56 percent of respondents said they approved of how he was handling Afghanistan. In November, 35 percent approved. But we don't think approving of Obama's handling of Afghanistan is quite the same as saying Americans 'have changed their mind about the war in Afghanistan' and think we 'shouldn't be there.' More on point might be the Gallup poll that asked the question, 'Thinking now about U.S. military action in Afghanistan that began in October 2001, do you think the United States made a mistake in sending military forces to Afghanistan, or not?' The answer to that question has been relatively stable. In November, 60 percent said no, we didn't make a mistake. In July, it was 61 percent, and in August 2008, it was 63 percent...So we rate the statement Barely True."
Date: August 29, 2008
Watchdog: FactCheck.org
The Charge: Obama "twisted McCain's words" to distort his position on Afghanistan.
The Finding: "He twisted McCain's words about Afghanistan, saying, 'When John McCain said we could just muddle through in Afghanistan, I argued for more resources.' Actually McCain said in 2003 we "may" muddle through, and he recently also called for more troops there."
The quote from McCain in 2003:
I think Afghanistan is dicey. I think that there are certain areas of the country, particularly along the Pakistani border, that are clearly not under the control of either Pakistan or the Afghan government. ... There has been a rise in al Qaeda activity along the border. There has been some increase in U.S. casualties. I am concerned about it, but I'm not as concerned as I am about Iraq today, obviously, or I'd be talking about Afghanistan. But I believe that if Karzai can make the progress that he is making, that - in the long term, we may muddle through in Afghanistan.
So I'm guardedly optimistic, but I am also realistic that the central government in Kabul has very little effect on the policies and practices of the warlords who control the surrounding areas.
Indictments of Republicans
Date: March 2, 2010
Watchdog: PolitiFact.com
The Charge: Mitt Romney's claims about Obama's actions on Afghanistan "run counter to his campaign positions."
The Finding: On NBC's TODAY show, Romney said, "He [Obama] has done several things well. Most of those things are places where he changed his view from where he had during the campaign. So, for instance, he's left our troops in Iraq and they're being more successful there. He boosted our effort in Afghanistan..." But PolitiFact pointed out that Obama never changed his position on Afghanistan, as Romney contended. "As a candidate, Obama promised to send 'at least' two additional brigades to Afghanistan. And he repeatedly said during the campaign that Afghanistan required more troops and attention than it was receiving from the Bush administration. He said the United States 'had taken our eye off the ball' by invading Iraq instead of concentrating on Afghanistan. At one point, the Obama campaign even mocked the McCain campaign for following Obama's lead on increasing troop levels in Afghanistan."
Date: October 6, 2008
Watchdog: FactCheck.org
The Charge: "McCain-Palin ad distorts Obama's remark on Afghanistan and support for troop-funding bills."
The Finding: Amidst the 2008 campaign FactCheck reached this conclusion:
- A McCain-Palin ad calls Obama 'dishonorable,' while distorting his words and votes on troop funding:
- It accuses him of saying 'our troops in Afghanistan' are just bombing villages and killing civilians. What Obama said, in context, was a criticism of U.S. military strategy, and not of American troops.
- It accuses Obama and 'Congressional liberals' of voting repeatedly to cut off funding for troops, 'increasing the risk on their lives.' In fact, the votes were for bringing the troops home, cutting off funding only if the president failed to comply.
Date: July 22, 2008
Watchdog: FactCheck.org
The Charge: A McCain TV ad accused Obama of not supporting troops serving in Afghanistan and Iraq since he "voted against funding our troops."
The Finding: "The claim that Obama 'voted against funding our troops' is true. He did, once, last year. But that's hardly the whole story...Every other time he voted in favor." FactCheck reviewed in detail 10 Obama votes on five separate war funding measures and found he voted in favor nine times.
