On Thursday, NBC’s Chuck Todd challenged Sen. Marco Rubio’s (R-FL) claim that the Obama administration has created a “culture of intimidation” in which “everything is about politics and destroying your opponent and dividing the American people for your electoral gain,” pointing out that the Rubio’s own PAC is actively fundraising from the ongoing scandals in Washington.

“Your PAC put out an e-mail raising money on IRS issue and doing a petition,” Todd said. “That’s campaigning. That’s politics too.” Rubio disagreed, saying that his PAC is merely trying to rally the American people against government abuse:

RUBIO: Here’s the point. I’m trying to get a petition of American citizens and Americans who support us in this endeavor to rally people. That’s different to say I’ll put on my website every donor to the Obama campaign and attack that individual, a private citizen by name, and I’m going to try to create this culture where people feel intimidated and oppose me. That’s two different things I’m talking about.

Watch it:

Rubio has also called for the acting IRS commissioner to be fired, introduced legislation creating criminal penalties for IRS officials who engage in political targeting and asked his supporters for money. In the eight days since the story broke, Rubio’s senate office put out seven different press releases about the IRS and he has granted numerous print, radio and TV interviews to discuss the matter.

Rubio’s Reclaim America PAC is running a petition asking supporters to “Stand with Marco and demand an investigation of the IRS” and is fundraising off of the story. “If there was ever a time for conservatives to take a stand against an expanding federal government, it is now,” his PAC’s fundraising pitch reads. “Together we can use this scandal to demonstrate to Americans of all backgrounds just how dangerous the status quo has become in Washington. But we’ll need all hands on deck. You can help by contributing to the Reclaim America PAC today.”

Rubio is widely considered a likely candidate to seek the Republican presidential nomination in 2016.

Though Karl Rove receives a salary from Rupert Murdoch’s News Corp for his work as a Fox News Channel “political contributor,” his compensation doesn’t end there. The network frequently airs ads by his American Crossroads and Crossroads GPS political committees, as “news,” free of charge.

A ThinkProgress review of Fox News Channel broadcasts over the past twelve months revealed that Fox News programs ran all or a significant part of Crossroads ads at least 34 times — an estimated value of more than $3.6 million in free air time. Frequently, the network’s hosts run the ads during Rove’s segments and then allow him to explain and repeat their charges.

On Monday, for example, Fox News aired a significant chunk of a new American Crossroads ad attacking former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton over her handling of the attacks in Benghazi, Libya. Noting criticism the ad received from conservative columnist William Kristol, host Martha MacCullum asked Rove: “What say you?”

Watch the video:

According to TVEyes Media Monitoring Suite, a subscription-only search engine for TV broadcasts, a 30-second slot on America’s Newsroom program has a “national publicity value” of $79,445.92. But because the ad was shown during the programming, Rove and American Crossroads got 20-something seconds of the ad for free, rather than having to pay Fox News Channel or local cable companies for the air time. What’s more, he was then paid to promote his own advertisement.

ThinkProgress found eight other recent Fox News broadcasts featuring Crossroads commercials in TVEyes, with an estimated value of about $580,000 combined. A Nexis search of other Fox News transcripts found at least 25 other times when hosts showed significant clips of ads. Estimating the value of these slots based on an average of recent “national publicity values” for each suggests they were worth more than $3 mllion. It is worth noting that ratings for Fox News (and all news networks) have been lower in 2013 than in the 2012 election year, so the value of the pre-election ad plays would likely have been even higher.
Read more

Rep. Adam Smith (D-WA) tore into Fox News’ Chris Wallace and House Intelligence Committee Chairman Mike Rogers (R-MI) for obsessing over the talking points U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice used when talking to the media in the days following the attack in Benghazi, Libya rather than focusing on identifying the perpetrators of the killings. “I think the desire of the Republicans to create a scandal here has really undermined any ability to have a credible look at what actually happened,” Smith said during an appearance on Fox News Sunday alongside Rogers.

While acknowledging that the administration’s initial assessment of Bengazi did not reflect what officials later learned about the incident, Smith criticized Fox for suggesting that that Rice’s remarks on five Sunday news shows presented a definitive picture of the events of Sep. 11, 2012.

“[The administration] didn’t reach conclusions the way you just presented that was that by the Sunday afterwards that the administration said here is what happened, here is our conclusion,” Smith explained. “But the president never said, no terrorism, no Al Qaeda. There was a dispute about how soon to lead to specific conclusions that now is being made into Watergate and Iran-Contra.” Watch it:

Indeed, during multiple appearances on the Sunday shows Rice said that the attacks were in part a response to the anti-Islam video that had spurred protests across the region, but did not offer a definitive answer as to what exactly took place in Benghazi and predicated the administration’s assessment as “based on the information that we have at present.” The CIA and State Department did initially believe that the attack was spontaneously inspired by the protests in Cairo, Egypt.

Still, in the days after the attack, both Obama and then Secretary of State Hillary Clinton described the events in Benghazi as an “act of terror” and pledged justice against the perpetrators.

Wallace responded to Smith pointing out that intelligence officials changed Rice’s talking points at least 12 times, taking out references to prior attacks and specific terrorist groups. “We’re talking about talking points,” Smith reminded the host. “There was no question this was a it terrorist attack. They didn’t deny it. I would much rather get into investigation of the groups that threatened the U.S., figure out how they are, and how to stop them instead of debating how one memo was put together in the immediate days after the attack.”

On Wednesday, in a moment of rich irony, Fox News invited Oliver North, a military official who was convicted of covering up the government’s role in the Iran-Contra scandal, to discuss the Obama administration’s alleged cover-up of the Sep. 11, 2012 attacks on the U.S. diplomatic mission in Benghazi. North joined host Megyn Kelly to analyze the House Oversight Committee’s hearing featuring three witnesses who claim that the government could have done more on the night of the attack to save American lives.

During the segment, North explained that the administration “falsified talking points provided to people who were going to speak publicly about it” in the days following the incident and manipulated the Accountability Review Board report, which came out months later, to escape political blame.

North specifically singled out Ambassador Thomas Pickering and Admiral Mike Mullen, who headed the review, and accused them of lacking “integrity.” Watch it:

In 1987, while testifying before a joint Congressional committee, North admitted that he lied to Congress about his role in the Iran-Contra scandal — in which officials secretly sold arms to Iran to fund a resistance movement to the government in Nicaragua — and shred documents to cover-up the government’s actions. North was indicted on 16 counts and convicted of three: accepting an illegal gratuity, aiding and abetting in the obstruction of a congressional inquiry, and ordering the destruction of documents.

Throughout Wednesday’s hearing, Republicans sought to portray the lack of military response during the Benghazi attack as evidence of the administration’s negligence in protecting diplomats overseas and a resulting cover-up to avoid scrutiny. But they produced no evidence of a conspiracy and the military has repeatedly said that there were simply no air assets close enough to Benghazi that would have arrived in time to make a difference.

Fox News’ morning show, Fox & Friends, is taking a surprisingly skeptical approach to GOP claims that the Obama administration and the entire U.S. government engaged in a massive cover-up of the attacks on the American consulate in Benghazi, Libya in an effort to re-elect the president and protect him from scrutiny.

On Monday, the trio of hosts invited Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R-UT) — a regular fixture on cable television and a critic of Obama’s handling of the September 11, 2012 attacks — to discuss the House Republicans’ upcoming hearing with three witnesses who claim that the administration prevented them from speaking out about the incident. “We were certainly misled at every step of the way,” Chaffetz said, arguing that officials manipulated the findings of the Accountability Review Board, U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice’s talking points, and told military officials on the ground not to interfere or protect American interests during the attack.

The hosts then tore into Chaffetz’s theory, wondering if Ambassador Thomas Pickering and Admiral Mike Mullen, who headed the review, the entire CIA, and Republican-appointed officials could all be “complicit” in such a massive conspiracy:

BRIAN KILMEADE: Are you saying that admiral Pickering and Mullen are complicit because they did the review board? Are you saying that the CIA is complicit because they allowed their talking points to be edited? … What about Admiral Mullen and Pickering? Why would they sacrifice their reputation for a report that isn’t accurate? [...]

STEVE DOOCY: Congressman, it sounds like what you’ve described, it sounds like there has been a cover-up, but what were they trying to cover up? [...]

GRETCHEN CARLSON: But Congressman, it’s an interesting question because it does involve so many high-level people. You had the former Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta — who was revered by both sides of the fence — coming out and saying, ‘hey, we couldn’t have gotten anybody there.’ So you have him on the line. You have former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, Susan Rice, President Obama, Admiral Mullen. Would all of these people go to bat just to get President Obama reelected?

KILMEADE: What about David Petraeus?

Chaffetz couldn’t offer a convincing answer, initially blaming the media for failing to report on the cover-up and then saying that the ongoing investigation will reveal the motive.

Watch it:

During a separate appearance on Fox News Sunday, Chaffetz accused the Department of State of repeated threats and intimidation against witnesses to the attack. But when pressed by Fox News Sunday host Chris Wallace for examples, he could offer none.

The House Oversight Committee will hold another hearing on the Benghazi attacks on Wednesday.

Credit: CNN

There’s no way around it: Religion plays an especially powerful role in American public life. More than 90 percent of Americans profess a belief in God, and one need only examine the recent religiously-infused national debates over religious liberty, access to contraception, and marriage equality to see how crucial religion is to millions of Americans.

Yet religion seems to be having an increasingly hard time getting a fair shake from another major player in American life: the media. The breadth and quality of religion reporting in the United States has atrophied in recent years, with once-robust religion sections now all but erased from the pages of the nation’s leading newspapers. Meanwhile, religion reporters have either been laid off or forced to re-shift their professional focus to covering religion “on the side.”

The result is a mainstream media sorely lacking in quality religion reporting, a fact that calls into question the press’ ability to paint an accurate picture of modern American life. In light of the recent confused coverage of the Boston Marathon bombing and Islam, it’s worth reminding the press why they (we) should try harder to get religion right. So, in the spirit of modern journalism, I’ve put together five reasons why journalists need to get working on their religion coverage:

1. Failure to understand religion can lead to embarrassingly inaccurate stories. When Roman Catholic cardinals descended on the Vatican in March to cast their vote for the next pope, journalists were quick to solicit the opinion of Sister Simone Campbell, a Catholic nun who rose to fame last year for her public opposition to Rep. Paul Ryan’s federal budget proposal and her rousing speech at the 2012 Democratic National Convention. But in midst of her interviews, Campbell was also repeatedly asked another question: Which papal candidate did she intend to vote for?

The question was, well, kind of awkward. Campbell is a woman, meaning current Catholic doctrine prohibits her from holding any priestly position, much less the role of cardinal, which is the only title afforded the right to cast a vote for the next pope. Campbell graciously corrected the reporters before they went to print, but the inane and ignorant questions exemplify the larger problem of facepalm-inducing religious illiteracy that continues to plague mainstream American journalism.

The New York Times, for instance, had to issue a correction in March for an article that botched the definition of Easter. Unfortunately, the correction itself was also wrong, sparking an avalanche of tweets and blog posts mocking the Times and their story. Vanity Fair even offered the Old Gray Lady a few pre-written faux-corrections for other religious holidays, such as, “An earlier version of this article mischaracterized the Jewish holiday of Chanukah. It is the Festival of Lights, not the Festival of Sprite™.”

These kinds of mess ups may seem small, but in a profession where reputation is built on accuracy and where backlash is swift, reporters can’t afford to play fast and loose with religious details.

2. Lazy religious reporting can make stories appear biased. Getting smart about religion requires more than the occasional trip to Wikipedia. Religion isn’t just a bulleted list of facts and names, but a perpetually contested space rife with heated debates over scriptural interpretation, theological nuance, and liturgical practice.

Granted, asking brevity-obsessed journalists to convey complexity is roughly as difficult as asking a southern preacher to shorten her Easter sermon. But when journalists fail to acknowledge the kaleidoscopic character of modern American theological life, they tend to overrepresent the loudest or most conveniently accessible religious voices and position them as the “authentic” representatives of all believers.

During the coverage of the papal selection, for example, MSNBC leaned heavily on the analysis of George Weigel, a Senior Fellow at the conservative Washington D.C.-based advocacy group Ethics and Public Policy Center who supported the Catholic bishops in their campaign against the HHS contraception requirement and continues to agitate against marriage equality. Significantly less airtime was given to representatives of progressive Catholic groups such as Catholics United, organizations that oppose the Catholic bishops on many issues but whose positions better reflect the views of most American Catholics according to polls on topics like marriage equality.

Journalists should obviously be able to recognize that a good story highlights different perspectives on the same issue, and having more voices in the room can have other perks: It wasn’t George Weigel but James Salt, head of Catholics United, who correctly predicted that Jorge Mario Bergoglio would become the next pope — on CNN.
Read more

Our guest blogger is Jack Jenkins, a Senior Writer and Researcher with the Faith and Progressive Policy Initiative.