webodec3ARCHIVEPreview
Open in TheBrain

Payne Bak

no lnx anno 4/24

merri ok

fox biz big on FF

see api frack

useful idiot tool, see renta-toms

“prosperity” 2 spkr bureau

bak 4 24

===

MMA 5 24

Fox Business host pushes conspiracy theory that energy efficiency standards are intended to end private home ownership

Fox & Friends neglected to inform its audience that the new standard would save homeowners nearly $1,000 per year on energy costs

Special PROGRAMSCLIMATE & ENERGY

WRITTEN BY ZACHARY PLEAT

PUBLISHED 05/30/24

On the May 30 edition of Fox & Friends, co-host Steve Doocy and Fox Business host Charles Payne discussed a Biden administration proposal to increase the heating and cooling efficiency standards of new homes, focusing on a Department of Housing and Urban Development analysis that found it would add $7,200 to the average price of a new house but improve energy efficiency by 37%, leading to long-term savings for homeowners.

According to the Environmental Protection Agency, “direct and indirect greenhouse gas emissions” from homes and businesses are responsible for 31 percent of the United States’ total emissions. Politico reported that homebuilders oppose the implementation of new energy standards, citing cost concerns, while supporters point to the long-term cost savings homeowners will enjoy in addition to the environmental benefits. Politico also reported that the new standards conform with the “latest international standards for energy efficiency,” as “many U.S. homebuilders now use standards that are over a decade old and have weaker requirements for insulation, lighting, heating and cooling.”

During their segment, which glossed over the benefits of the new standards, Doocy and Payne completely ignored that the same HUD analysis found that the policy would lead to “average annual energy savings of almost $1,000 per household per year for single family homes and more than $400 per household in low-rise multifamily housing.”

Instead, Payne launched into a baseless conspiracy theory that the policy isn’t designed to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and save homeowners on energy costs, but is instead meant to fulfill a progressive agenda to end home ownership:

Video

CitationFrom the May 30, 2024, edition of Fox News' Fox & Friends

CHARLES PAYNE (FOX BUSINESS HOST): Hey, listen. I'm going to tell you right now, progressives don't like ownership. They really — the ultimate goal is for you to not to own a home. That's the real ultimate goal. They love everyone to congregate around major cities and live on top of each other in apartments and share things. They have pushed for a sharing society.

Related

New water heater standards provide a new front in right-wing media's manufactured “war on appliances”

07/27/23

Fox networks fearmonger over the Biden administration's new vehicle tailpipe emissions proposal

04/18/23

Right-wing media attack new EPA rule aimed at cutting coal pollution

05/06/24

===

===

new producer kara

Fox Business NetworkFox Business Network Full-time · 12 yrs 1 moFull-time · 12 yrs 1 mo

new 4 24

charles V. Payne (born 15 November 1962) is an American Fox Business Network financial journalist[1] and host of Fox's Making Money with Charles Payne.

Early life and education

At 17 years old, he enlisted in the United States Air Force and went on to serve as a security policeman stationed at Minot Air Force Base in Minot, North Dakota.[2][3] Payne attended Minot State University and Central Texas College while in the service.

Career

Finance industry

Payne began his career on Wall Street as an analyst at E. F. Hutton in 1985.[4] Payne is the chief executive officer and principal financial analyst of Wall Street Strategies,[5] a stock market research firm he founded in 1991.[6]

In 1999, Payne settled with the SEC over a complaint alleging that on at least eight occasions, Wall Street Strategies recommended that its clients purchase members stock through recorded messages on its telephonic stock recommendation service. The complaint also alleged that Payne failed to disclose that he received payments from members to promote members stock. Without admitting or denying the alleged violations, Payne consented to the entry of a permanent injunction against violations of Section 17(b) of the Securities Act of 1933. In addition, Payne agreed to pay a civil penalty of $25,000.[7]

In 2007, Payne released his first book titled Be Smart, Act Fast, Get Rich: Your Game Plan for Getting It Right in the Stock Market.[8] He has made several appearances on C-SPAN.

Fox Business

In 2007, Payne joined Fox Business as a contributor.[9] In 2014, he became the host of Making Money with Charles Payne.[9]

In June 2019, Payne claimed, "When President Obama was elected, the market crashed … Trump was up 9%, President Obama was down 14.8% and President Bush was down almost 4%. There is an instant reaction on Wall Street."[10] PolitiFact described the claim as "mostly false", noting that while the numbers put forth are correct experts dismiss the causal claims put forth by Payne, and instead attribute the market crash to broader economic forces and long-term trends.[10]

In July 2017, Payne was suspended by Fox Business pending an investigation after a former network guest, Scottie Nell Hughes, accused him of rape.[11] Payne denied the charge, but acknowledged having had a three-year-long "romantic relationship" with Hughes before the accusation was made. Hughes, who kept an apartment near Fox's Manhattan headquarters for the duration of the affair, claimed she believed it would help her obtain a permanent position at the network.[12] Her appearances were drastically reduced after she ended the affair in 2015 and reported Payne to Fox.[13] On 8 September 2017, Payne's suspension was lifted.[14]

Personal life

Payne is a resident of Teaneck, New Jersey.[15] He is married to Yvonne Payne.[16][17]

See also

References

  1. ^ "Charles Payne: Cramer's Never Wrong, and That's the Problem!". Fox Business. March 4, 2016. Archived from the original on November 25, 2020. Retrieved March 4, 2022.
  2. ^ "Charles Payne Speech: Marist College". Marist College. Archived from the original on March 14, 2014. Retrieved August 8, 2014.
  3. ^ Charles Payne (July 19, 2011).*Charles Payne presenting at NYSCIO conference, July 2011, Marist College*. YouTube. Marist College. Archived from the original on March 4, 2022. Retrieved March 4, 2022.
  4. ^ "Charles Payne – Personality Bio". Fox Business. Archived from the original on August 27, 2011. Retrieved August 31, 2011.
  5. ^ "Corporate Information". Wall Street Strategies. Archived from the original on June 12, 2021. Retrieved March 4, 2022.
  6. ^ Neal, Jeff (November 21, 2008). "Interview Central: Charles Payne, Part I". Forbes. Archived from the original on November 12, 2014.
  7. ^ "Litigation Release No. 16248 / August 11, 1999". U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. August 11, 1999. Archived from the original on July 23, 2021. Retrieved August 8, 2014.
  8. ^ Payne, Charles V. (May 2007). *Be Smart, Act Fast, Get Rich: Your Game Plan for Getting It Right in the Stock Market*. Hoboken, New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons. ISBN 978-0-470-07501-2. LCCN 2006039467. OCLC 769042806 – via Google Books.
  9. ^ Jump up to:^a b(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Payne_%28television_personality%29#cite_ref-:0_9-1) Concha, Joe (June 7, 2017). "Fox Business re-signs Charles Payne to multi-year contract". The Hill. Archived from the original on December 11, 2020. Retrieved July 2, 2019.
  10. ^ Jump up to:^a b(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Payne_%28television_personality%29#cite_ref-:1_10-1) McCarthy, Bill (June 25, 2019). "Fox Business host wrongly claimed market crashed as 'instant reaction' to Obama's 2008 election". PolitiFact. Archived from the original on April 8, 2021. Retrieved July 2, 2019.
  11. ^ Steel, Emily (September 19, 2017). "Woman Says Fox News Banned Her After She Accused Charles Payne of Rape". The New York Times. ISSN 1553-8095. OCLC 1645522. Archived from the original on January 30, 2022. Retrieved March 9, 2019.
  12. ^ Ali, Yashar (July 6, 2017). "Conservative Analyst Scottie Nell Hughes Accuses Fox Business Host of Sexual Harassment". HuffPost. Archived from the original on December 16, 2021. Retrieved July 7, 2017.
  13. ^ Battaglio, Stephen (July 6, 2017). "Fox suspends business news host Charles Payne amid sexual harassment allegations". Los Angeles Times. Archived from the original on January 26, 2022. Retrieved July 7, 2017.
  14. ^ Steinberg, Brian (September 8, 2017). "Charles Payne Will Return to Fox Business Following Sexual Harassment Investigation". Variety. ISSN 0042-2738. OCLC 1165448508. Archived from the original on May 4, 2021. Retrieved September 8, 2017.
  15. ^ Curry, Suzanne (June 6, 2014). "Teaneck's Charles Payne Now Host of Making Money With Charles Payne on Fox Business Network". Suzee's Behind the Scenezz. Archived from the original on April 12, 2021. Retrieved August 8, 2014.
  16. ^ Moss, Linda; Williams, Barbara (June 8, 2014). "Teaneck heart recipient walks to raise awareness of organ donorship". North Jersey Media Group. Archived from the original on June 10, 2014. Retrieved December 20, 2014.
  17. ^ Moss, Linda; Williams, Barbara (June 9, 2014). "Heart recipient making great strides: Teaneck woman is raising money, awareness with inspirational story". The Record. Vol. 120, no. 5 (Passaic-Morris ed.). Hackensack, New Jersey: North Jersey Media Group. p. A1. Retrieved March 4, 2022 – via Newspapers.com.

External links

|

Fox News](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fox_News "Fox News") personalities

Categories:

===

2023

Making Money' host Charles Payne joins 'Mornings with Maria' to discuss his new book "Unbreakable Investor," investment strategy, ...

Fox Business · Nov 3, 2023

===

Charles Payne: Here is what corporate greed does not look like

'Making Money' host Charles Payne argues advocates for raising the minimum wage are supporting higher food prices.

Fox Business' Charles Payne uses workers killed in Baltimore bridge collapse as an example of migrants “destroying the country”

04/08/24

RSS

===

Fox Business’ Charles Payne blames poor people buying Louis Vuitton items for the death of the American dream | Media Matters for America

[### Charles Payne On How He Became A Successful Stock ...

Fox Business

https://www.foxbusiness.com › video](https://www.foxbusiness.com/video/6078706281001)

[

7:09](https://www.foxbusiness.com/video/6078706281001)

Charles Payne joined Brian Kilmeade to talk about the democrats plan to tax American's overall wealth and his new book “Unstoppable ...

Fox Business · Aug 28, 2019

ggl ad

Sponsored

[Get Charles' New Book For Free | Charles Payne Book Giveaway

unbreakableinvestor.com

https://www.unbreakableinvestor.com](https://www.unbreakableinvestor.com/optin-s/)

---

You Can Learn How To Invest Like Fox Business Host And Professional Investor Charles Payne. Financial Expert Charles Payne Teaches You His Investing Strategies In This Free Book. Charles Payne's Free Book.

Claim Your Free Book Now · ‎Charles Payne's Podcast · ‎Learn Charles's Strategy

===

Payne's Unstoppable Prosperity Podcast

FOX News Radio

https://radio.foxnews.com › charles-paynes-unstoppable-...](https://radio.foxnews.com/charles-paynes-unstoppable-prosperity-podcast/)

Host of Making Money on FOX Business and Wall Street expert, Charles Payne, wants to help you start making money right now. On the limited series “Charles ...

---

===

mma 2 24 LNG export freakout

The fossil fuel industry and right-wing media are losing their minds over Biden's decision to pause part of a dangerous LNG buildout | Media Matters for America

:{..

:{..

:{--

https://www.foxbusiness.com/video/6317508379112

Making Money With Charles Payne

December 19, 2022

08:23

CLIP

Sam Bankman-Fried diverted tons of money from his customers to use on lavish spending: Deneen Borelli

:{Fox News contributor Deneen Borelliweighs in on the FTX scandal and Path Trading Partners co-founder Bob Iaccino weighs in on Elon Musk's Twitter takeover on 'Making..

:{--

:{--

an 12 22

When the U.S. Supreme Court under Chief Justice Earl Warren handed down its unanimous decision in New York Times v. Sullivan back in 1964, it established a tough standard that plaintiffs have to meet in defamation lawsuits. Plaintiffs, according to the Warren Court, have to prove “actual malice.” And that is what Dominion Voting Systems is trying to prove in the defamation lawsuits it filed against Fox News, Newsmax TV, One America News (OAN) and others in response to the false claims they promoted about the 2020 presidential election.

:{:{After Donald Trump lost the 2020 election to now-President Joe Biden by more than 7 million votes, many far-right MAGA Republicans at Fox News, Newsmax and OAN promoted the false claim that Dominion’s voting equipment was used to help Democrats steal the election — a conspiracy theory}: that has been repeatedly debunked. Fox News, in response to Dominion’s defamation lawsuit, has maintained that its hosts weren’t saying the claims about Dominion were true, and that they were just asking questions

:{:{Dominion, meanwhile, is trying to show, in its $1.6 billion lawsuit, that hosts at Fox News acted with actual malice and promoted claims they knew were nonsense. And on Wednesday, December 21, attorneys for Dominion pointed to Fox News host Sean Hannity as an example of someone who knew that the Big Lie was a lie but promoted the claims of Trump attorney Sidney Powell anyway.}: Powell, who is also facing a defamation lawsuit from Dominion, falsely accused Dominion of helping Democrats steal the election from Trump. Another MAGA Republican who made that false claim and is being sued by Dominion is MyPillow CEO Mike Lindell. Dominion has sued former Trump lawyer Rudy Giuliani as well

READ MORE: Supreme Court allows Dominion’s $1.3 billion defamation suit against Mike Lindell to go forward

Reporting for the New York Times on December 21, journalist Jeremy Peters explains, “On November 30, 2020, Sean Hannity hosted Sidney Powell on his prime-time Fox News program. As she had in many other interviews around that time — on Fox and elsewhere in right-wing media — Ms. Powell, a former federal prosecutor, spun wild conspiracy theories about what she said was ‘corruption all across the country, in countless districts,’ in a plot to steal reelection from the president, Donald J. Trump. At the center of this imagined plot were machines from Dominion Voting Systems, which Ms. Powell claimed ran an algorithm that switched votes for Mr. Trump to votes for Joseph R. Biden Jr. Dominion machines, she insisted, were being used ‘to trash large batches of votes.’”

But when Hannity gave a deposition two years later on Wednesday, December 21, 2022 and was under oath, he admitted, “I did not believe it for one second.”

According to Peters, “The hearing was called to address several issues that need to be resolved before the case heads for a jury trial, which the judge has scheduled to begin in April. Mr. Hannity’s disclosure — along with others that emerged from court on Wednesday about what Fox News executives and hosts really believed as their network became one of the loudest megaphones for lies about the 2020 election — is among the strongest evidence yet to emerge publicly that some Fox employees knew that what they were broadcasting was false.”

Under the New York Times v. Sullivan standard established by the Warren Court 58 years ago, defamation is very difficult to prove. An honest mistake doesn’t fit the definition of defamation — the plaintiff has to show actual malice. Former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin filed a defamation lawsuit against the Times and lost because Palin and her attorneys couldn’t prove actual malice.

READ MORE:Fox News chief Lachlan Murdoch to be deposed in $1.6 billion dominion defamation case

“The high legal standard of proof in defamation cases makes it difficult for a company like Dominion to prevail against a media organization like Fox News,” Peters notes. “Dominion has to persuade a jury that people at Fox were, in effect, saying one thing in private while telling their audience exactly the opposite.And that requires showing a jury convincing evidence that speaks to the state of mind of those who were making the decisions at the network. In Delaware Superior Court on Wednesday, Dominion’s lawyers argued that they had obtained ample evidence to make that case.”

Peters adds, “One lawyer for Dominion said that ‘not a single Fox witness’ so far had produced anything supporting the various false claims about the company that were uttered repeatedly on the network. And in some cases, other high-profile hosts and senior executives echoed Mr. Hannity’s doubts about what Mr. Trump and his allies like Ms. Powell were saying, according to theDominion lawyer, Stephen Shackelford. This included Meade Cooper, who oversees prime-time programming for Fox News, and the prime-time star Tucker Carlson, Mr. Shackelford said.”

Citing Cooper and Carlson as examples, Shackleford told the court, “Many of the highest-ranking Fox people have admitted under oath that they never believed the Dominion lies.”

READ MORE:Right-wing media outlets continue to rage against Dominion’s defamation lawsuits: report

:{--

mma 12 22 ted mcd

:{2022 was a banner year for the fossil fuel industry. Fueled by the rise in energy costs due in part to the war in Ukraine, major oil and gas companies brought in massive profits. By the end of 2022, the net income of the seven largest oil corporations is projected to hit a record high of $4 trillion

:{Yet Fox News used major events in 2022 to claim that the industry is suffering under a vicious “war” on energy waged by the Biden administration

:{Fox defended the industry’s profits and ran cover for its role in limiting oil production, on many occasions advancing the idea that the world needs to invest more heavily in oil and gas. This latter point flies in the face of what the global climate scientific community is saying about climate change: Emissions from fossil fuels are rapidly altering the Earth’s temperature, and the only way to stop this from worsening is to rapidly reduce our dependence on these fossil fuels. And it advances the wrong takeaway from the energy crisis resulting from Russia’s aggression. Rather, moving toward clean energy is the only way to shield the U.S. from the vagaries of the global oil and gas market

Throughout the year, Fox used the same debunked narratives to both defend and promote the fossil fuel industry

One of Fox’s main narratives in 2022 has been that the Biden administration is crippling or trying to destroy the fossil fuel industry through burdensome climate regulations. This talking point does not reflect reality. Just last year, the U.S. set a record for natural gas production. Meanwhile, U.S. crude oil production has steadily risen under Biden, and there is expected record oil production in 2023. And instead of the administration telling companies not to drill, oil producers are holding back from even more drilling primarily due to Wall Street pressure.

:{As part of this contrived “war on fossil fuels” narrative, Fox has been pushing the Biden administration to allow companies to drill more in the U.S. to help alleviate high domestic energy prices. But since oil prices are set on the global market, the Biden administration’s energy policies make little impact on what we pay at the pump

:{With each major climate and energy-related event this year, these narratives got recycled as Fox doubled down on its longstanding defense of the fossil fuel industry

A timeline of major 2022 events which saw Fox defend the powerful fossil fuel industry

The Russian invasion of Ukraine

Fox News was quick to blame the Biden administration’s climate policies for emboldening Putin in his decision to invade Ukraine. As the invasion roiled global energy markets, the network launched a full-throttled defense of the fossil fuel industry and attacked the administration for its supposed crippling regulations on the industry.

In March, the administration banned Russian energy imports to the U.S., and Biden critiqued the industry for not drilling enough after finding out that companies are sitting on thousands of untapped oil leases. In response, Fox defended the industry and gave a platform to its biggest boosters:

Gas price spikes and efforts to reduce the pain at the pump dominated energy news during the spring and summer

:{Month after month, Fox hammered Biden’s policies as supposedly the primary reason gas prices were increasing. A number of events during this time period saw Fox trot out such claims as that the fossil fuel industry is being unfairly maligned and that increased production would help alleviate high energy prices

In April, the House Oversight and Investigations Subcommittee held a hearing on Big Oil’s record profits and its role in driving high gas prices. In response, Fox carried the industry’s water:

In May, Biden suggested that high gas prices, which had reached a record high, are part of “an incredible transition that … when it's over, we'll be stronger and the world will be stronger and less reliant on fossil fuels.” In response, Fox came out firmly on the side of fossil fuels:

In July, in an effort to stabilize global oil supplies, the administration conducted an entirely noncontroversial sale of oil from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, a move that actually helped temporarily alleviate gas prices. Additionally, Biden visited top oil producer Saudi Arabia in order to strengthen diplomatic ties. Fox responded with attacks:

:{Finally, in July, Biden made a major climate announcement in Massachusetts

Extreme weather and OPEC+ oil cuts pushed gas prices back into the headlines in early fall

:{Punishing extreme heat, fires, and drought affected vast swaths of the globe during the summer, with climate scientists saying that these events were made worse by the burning of fossil fuels, and a major hurricane hit the U.S. in September. Additionally, a major OPEC oil decision roiled gas prices again. Fox once again defended and promoted the fossil fuel industry

In September, as Hurricane Ian hit Florida, Biden warned oil companies not to use the storm “as an excuse to raise gasoline prices or gouge the American people.”

:{In October, OPEC+ cut oil production

The COP27 climate negotiations and oil sales to Venezuela in November provided fodder for Fox to boost the fossil fuel industry

:{:{The United Nations Climate Change Conference, known as COP 27, yielded an agreement for a global fund in which richer nations, which are vastly responsible for climate change, would contribute money to poorer nations to help the latter rebuild from climate-fueled extreme weather disasters. Fox heavily criticized the plan, instead claiming that more fossil fuel usage is the way to move forward. Additionally, the Biden administration allowed Chevron to resume drilling operations in Venezuel}:a

:{--

:{--

https://www.mediamatters.org/fox-news/fox-business-host-charles-paynes-latest-lie-about-clean-energy-jobs

:{--

jessie jane duff freq guest sgt nat security?

:{--

the fossil fuel industry has been using the ongoing Russian war against Ukraine as a pretext to call for continued, and deepened, reliance on its dirty and dangerous products. Fox News’ coverage throughout the crisis has largely echoed the industry’s talking points, specifically the idea that America needs to drill and produce more oil. Critiques from President Joe Biden and his administration related to the industry's untapped leases and record profits have also prompted Fox and guests to leap to Big Oil’s defense in recent weeks. 

:{In the face of another onslaught of fossil fuel talking points from Fox News, other cable news networks have not held the industry accountable by reporting on its role in driving the climate crisis, polluting the environment, and exacerbating geopolitical conflicts. In pivotal moments like this, viewers deserve to learn how our reliance on fossil fuels is leaving us more vulnerable to crises ranging from climate change to foreign wars

Fox News has absolved Big Oil of any responsibility for energy price increases, while accusing the Biden administration of scapegoating

:{The fossil fuel industry has waged a billion-dollar campaign to erode the public consensus on climate change, fool the public about its commitment to addressing the climate crisis, and thwart any climate action that could impact its bottom line. The industry’s spin campaign has continued as the crisis in Ukraine escalated, causing economic disruption around the world. Faced with public majorities that are outraged at Russian aggression against Ukraine and “favor developing alternative energy, including wind and solar, over increasing production of fossil fuels like oil, coal and natural gas,” the industry has instead chosen to obfuscate its refusal to produce more oil and gas, pad its record 2021 profits via anti-consumerist practices, and move to deepen the world’s reliance on its products

:{And one of its biggest media cheerleaders has been Fox News

As tensions between Russia and Ukraine ratcheted up, Fox has been nearly unrelenting in pushing a narrative that the Biden administration’s climate policies emboldened Russian President Vladmir Putin to invade. This push includesFox figures mentioning the canceled Keystone pipeline approximately 141 times in segments about the Ukraine crisis from February 22-28 and mentioning “energy independence” or “energy security” – industry talking points to promote more domestic drilling for oil and gas – at least 329 times from February 24 through March 9.

After Biden’s March 8 announcement that the United States was banning Russian fossil fuel imports, Fox News hosts and guests blamed him for instituting the same policy that they had previously demanded – all while praising oil and gas companies as “the greatest industry around the world,” deflecting criticism of them as “unpatriotic,” and arguing they are “basically our national defense.”

On the March 8 episode of **:{America’s Newsroom, for example, anchor Sandra Smithparroted the American Petroleum Institute’s (API) debunked talking point about the Biden administration discouraging fossil fuel investment.Fox host and former Trump adviser Larry Kudlowattacked the Biden administration for criticizing the industry’s price gouging and record profits on the March 8 episode of **America Reports. }:

Later that evening on Hannity, host Sean Hannity amplified API talking points that the Biden administration is making it hard to produce more oil; allowed fossil fuel shillDaniel Turner to claim that the Biden administration “wants to send a message to the environmental left” by attacking the industry; and gave energy analyst Phil Flynn a platform to claim that “there’s absolutely no gouging” in gas prices and that the Federal Reserve has been “weaponized” against oil and gas companies. [vid 8th]

:{the drumbeat of Big Oil talking points continued in the ensuing days

On the March 9 episode of **The Faulkner Focus, anchor Harris Faulkner hosted API President Mike Sommersto blame Biden for high energy prices: “Some of the policies that are being pursued right now by this administration are putting us on a road to more dependence – not independence.”

Similarly, Fox host Jesse Watters hosted oil company CEO Dan Eberhart on the March 10 episode ofJesse Watters Primetimeto push for more domestic drilling and complained that the Biden administration has been treating the industry as “war profiteers.”

The narrative was still being pushed into this new week. On the March 15 episode of The Story with Martha MacCallum, Fox News anchor Sandra Smith suggested that the Biden administration should decrease energy prices for “the American family, the American consumer who is suffering right now” in part by taking a “friendlier approach to the oil and gas industry." Smith repeated this and other arguments to “increase and incentivize drilling” on the March 15 episode of **The Five, citing API’s claim that the Biden administration should demonstrate it's not out to “demonize oil companies.” 

Fox personality Charles Payne echoed the idea that the Biden administration was “demonizing” oil companies during the March 16 episode of America Reports. [vid]

there is a desperate need for cable news to ramp up its accountability journalism

:{Despite not promoting these false narratives during the Ukraine crisis as much as Fox News, CNN and MSNBC have largely failed to hold the fossil fuel industry accountable for exploiting geopolitical conflicts for profit while driving the climate crisis and degrading the environment for billions of people. The networks have also featured very little coverage about the myriad benefits of clean energy, which include economic stability and energy security (clean energy generation is more price stable and politically stable than fossil fuels)

There is a very clear story that needs to be told about the fossil fuel industry, especially in this moment of rising gas prices and wartime sanctions. As explained by the nonprofit environmental law organizationEarthjustice: “Gas prices are not dictated by White House policy, and the industry’s argument that federal leasing and permitting policies are the source of high gas prices is a flat-out lie crafted to deceive the American public.”

:{Chasing more fossil fuel leases on public lands and waters would increase industry profits but wouldn’t do anything to decrease today’s gas prices at the pump. It also would keep sending us down the same road of fossil fuel production that is the main driver of the worsening climate crisis. The industry gets the profits, and the American people get handed the resulting wildfires, droughts, hurricanes, and coastal flooding caused and exacerbated by climate change. There’s a better road to go down, and it’s the road of clean energy. For as long as we’re addicted to oil for energy, Americans will be subject to big cost increases when a foreign dictator decides to invade another country or there is a change in the world economy

:{As a key cog in the fossil fuel industry’sdisinformation network, Fox News will never cover this reality. But CNN and MSNBC can no longer afford to miss opportunities to hold the fossil fuel industry accountable in favor of echoing and **amplifyingBig Oil talking pointswhile the window for meaningful climate action is rapidly closing

https://www.mediamatters.org/fox-news/fox-news-heaps-praise-fossil-fuel-industry-russian-war-ukraine-rages

:{--

Lomborg’s book was given a scathing review in The New York Times by Nobel laureate economist Joseph Stiglitz,noting the “many contradictions within the book” and taking to task his “underestimation of the damage associated with climate change.” (Indeed, during Lomborg’s appearances on both Varney & Co.and Making Money with Charles Payne, he did not once mention the cost of inaction on climate change, which is estimated to be many trillions of dollars -- much greater than actually taking action.) The Times’ review closed by saying “Lomborg’s work would be downright dangerous were it to succeed in persuading anyone that there was merit in its arguments.

:{--

Fox Business VideosDecember 4, 2019

FOX Business' Charles Payne, Fox News contributor Deneen Borelli and liberal commentator and attorney Danielle McLaughlin discuss the Trump administration's plan to curb food stamps to encourage more people to work. "tough love?"?

:{dm asks legit q that payne [a money guy?!] doges, sez 7 mill open jobs// borelli more jobs than ppl to fill, then pivots to story anec about mall inept help..

==

==

https://www.mediamatters.org/climate-deniers/fox-news-year-climate-denial-and-conspiracy-theories

12/21/19 9:18 AM EST

In 2019, Fox took climate change denial to insane new levels even as global temperatures reached record heights, natural disasters wreaked havoc, and youth environmental activism led millions of people in protests around the world. Even if you just look at news of the past few weeks, Australia is on fire, the oceans are running out of oxygen, and the Amazon rainforest is at a “tipping point.”

:{The climate denial narratives on Fox run the gamut from claims that “there’s science on both sides of this issue” to:{ dismissals of the climate crisis as “medieval witchcraft.”}: Naturally, the hosts and guests also pushed a number of right-wing agenda items like government deregulation and protecting the wealthy

Of course, Fox host Tucker Carlson managed to bring discussion of the issue back to his own racist agenda, noting in one segment that “more people were killed last year in the United States by illegal aliens than were killed by climate change.”

[vid]

:{--

payne

https://www.mediamatters.org/charles-payne/fox-host-likens-action-climate-change-people-who-sacrifice-humans-volcano-god

:{--

==

https://www.mediamatters.org/charles-payne/fox-host-says-green-new-deal-unnecessary-because-capitalism-will-provide-cleaner

:{SANDRA SMITH (CO-ANCHOR): Meanwhile, on to Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and socialism, she says Republicans are using this anti-socialism message to scare voters

:{CHARLES PAYNE (FOX BUSINESS HOST): Someone should be using it to scare voters! Yes, she’s right, because it’s something to be scared of! Go throughout history, everywhere they took on socialism – you know what’s a great case study for Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez? The continent of Africa, as they [were] regaining their Independence from Europe, the majority of them went to Russia and socialism/communism. And, you know, in part because they saw that their former colonizers were capitalist, they wanted to reject that. They saw Russia as a rising power. And I think it set these countries back, on average, about two or three decades. And it hurt them, almost every single one of those countries ended up with dictatorships. The amount of deaths that came as a consequence of this. Look at the trail of blood, tears, and everything else from socialism. Someone should be making a clarion call on that

:{JON SCOTT (GUEST CO-ANCHOR): Her Green New Deal is one of those policies that is not exactly free market oriented

PAYNE: It's not free market oriented. One of the better stories I saw this week is the energy prices in Texas of all places. You know, certain wattage going from $15 to $9,000 because the windmills stopped working in the middle of a heat wave. Texas, oil country. And so, you know, listen, there's some serious issues with the Green New Deal, and it goes beyond the money part of it, I think. So -- you know, I think -- when you guys talked about all the jobs out there and how naturally employment and wages are going to go up -- the same thing with energy and everything else. We are naturally going to have cleaner energy, we're naturally going to have more efficient energy, as a consequence of capitalism. It's happening, it's been happening, and it will continue to happen.

:{SMITH: I hope it does

:{--

...bogus gnd study:

Considering the think tank’s connections to the fossil fuel industry, it’s not surprising that the American Action Forum’s report found the Green New Deal untenable. What is surprising is how flippant Holtz-Eakin, president of AAF and former head of the Congressional Budget Office, was about the rigor of the analysis he co-authored. When challenged about the accuracy of the report’s claim that the Green New Deal would cost some $93 trillion over 10 years, Holtz-Eakin told Politico, “Is it billions or trillions? Any precision past that is illusory.”

introduced by Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) and Sen. Ed Markey (D-MA) on February 7 is just a broad, 14-page outline of goals with no policy specifics, so determining a price tag was a fanciful exercise. AAF's claims of a $92.9 trillion total cost, or $653,000 per household, have no basis in reality. As Politico reporter Zack Colman put it:}:

:{When they set out to put a price tag on the Green New Deal last month, Holtz-Eakin and his associates had no real policy or plan to evaluate, so they made one up to perform back-of-the-envelope calculations

…

And the AAF study does not distinguish between government and private-sector spending, nor does it attempt to quantify the benefits of reducing pollution or other policies. For example, Stanford University civil and environmental engineering professor Mark Jacobson estimated that eliminating the electricity sector’s carbon emissions would avoid $265 billion in annual U.S. damages beginning in 2050.

:{Colman also pointed out that more than $80 trillion of the alleged $93 trillion total cost would come from implementing a jobs guarantee and universal health care -- policy ideas that have no direct relation to greening the economy, even though they are in the Green New Deal resolution

Politico declared that the $93 trillion figure is "bogus" -- or, in an earlier version of the article published behind a firewall, "essentially vapor."

The fact-checking project PolitiFact also found the $93 trillion figure to be untrustworthy, calling it "only about as strong as a clothespin in high wind." It noted that "the [AAF] report itself is full of assumptions, qualifiers and caveats," and when a fact-checker reached out to Holtz-Eakin, the AAF president "made it clear to us that the report aims to provide very rough estimates on a plan that’s only partially developed." PolitiFact rated as "false" this claim from Sen. Joni Ernst (R-IA): "At $93 trillion, the Green New Deal would cost more than the entire recorded spending of the U.S. since the Constitution went into effect in 1789."

Other journalists have also pointed out major problems with the AAF analysis. Paul Blest at Splinter noted that AAF used cost estimates for a universal jobs program ("$6.8 trillion to $44.6 trillion") and universal health care ("$36 trillion") that are vastly higher than estimates produced by other think tanks. AAF also failed to account for how much money programs like universal health care could save. According to Blest:

:{[AAF's] ballpark estimate on a federal jobs guarantee has a range of $38 trillion. The centrist Brookings Institution’s estimate last year, by the way, put the high end on a job guarantee at $543 billion a year, or $5.4 trillion over 10 years

:{:{On Medicare for All,}: too, the AAF’s number is substantially higher than previous estimates. The libertarian Mercatus Center’s estimate set out to prove last year that Medicare for All would bankrupt the country, and inadvertently found that Medicare for All would eventually save about $2 trillion in national health expenditures. Even Mercatus, however, put the cost of Medicare for All at $32.6 trillion over 10 years

The ClimateDenierRoundup column at Daily Kos pointed out another problem with AAF's jobs-program estimates:

:{The jobs price tag is wrong because it’s double counting: many of those jobs would be created by the other parts of the GND. Improving energy efficiency and building a clean energy economy will create a lot of jobs, which are counted in the GND’s green policy price tag tally. But then AAF simply counts those jobs again in the jobs guarantee portion, as though none of those promised jobs would be used to put the green in the Green New Deal

Green New Deal sponsor Markey called out major flaws in the report too, starting with the basic premise: "Putting a price on a resolution of principles, not policies, is just Big Oil misinformation." Markey pointed out that AAF calculated the cost of "policies that aren't even in the resolution," such as eliminating air travel:

Ed Markey

@SenMarkey

:{The AAF analysis of the #GreenNewDeal spends some time doing basic multiplication on the impact of making all air travel unnecessary, a concept mentioned nowhere in the resolution text

Ed Markey

@SenMarkey

:{Any so-called "analysis" of the #GreenNewDeal that includes artificially inflated numbers that rely on lazy assumptions, incl. about policies that aren’t even in the resolution is bogus. Putting a price on a resolution of principles, not policies, is just Big Oil misinformation

:{Markey also noted that AAF did not provide any support for its cost estimate for a low-carbon electricity grid

Ed Markey

@SenMarkey

:{Another example, the $5.4 trillion it estimates to transition our electric grid comes seemingly from thin air, as NO SOURCES are documented for their generation cost assumptions

Ed Markey

@SenMarkey

The AAF analysis of the #GreenNewDeal spends some time doing basic multiplication on the impact of making all air travel unnecessary, a concept mentioned nowhere in the resolution text. https://twitter.com/SenMarkey/status/1100099740316942336 …

As The New York Times recently put it, "For now it’s impossible to pin down dollar figures on the plan." FactCheck.org agreed, writing that "the experts we spoke to said it’s not possible to put a specific price tag on the Green New Deal."

Perhaps most egregiously, AAF’s analysis of the Green New Deal completely ignored the enormous cost of not fighting climate change. Just last year, climate disasters and extreme weather events cost the U.S. an estimated $91 billion. According to the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, a 1.5 C rise in the global average temperature would cost $54 trillion. Things only get more expensive (and catastrophic) from there. According to Axios:

:{You think $54 trillion is a lot? That number comes from research that also says that a 2.0°C increase will cause $69 trillion of damage, and a 3.7°C increase will cause a stunning $551 trillion in damage

:{$551 trillion is more than all the wealth currently existing in the world, which gives an indication of just how much richer humanity could become if we don't first destroy our planet

:{Current policies in place around the world have us on track for about 3.3 C of warming by 2100 if we don't dramatically change course

:{AAF's analysis also ignored the significant economic benefits that would come from taking addressing climate change. "Bold climate action could deliver at least US$26 trillion in economic benefits through to 2030, compared with business-as-usual," according to a recent report from the Global Commission on the Economy and Climate

Fox News and other right-wing outlets have been hyping the $93 trillion figure

Right-wing media have been heavily citing the AAF report since its release on February 25 -- and they have often used the $93 trillion figure without noting that it's at the top end of a range AAF provided. Fox News has been particularly eager to amplify the huge estimate. Hosts and guests have cited price tags between $91 trillion and $94 trillion on Fox News shows includingFox & Friends, The Greg Gutfeld Show, and Watters’ World, and on Fox Business Network shows including Varney & Co., Trish Regan Primetime, Making Money with Charles Payne, and Sunday Morning Futures withMaria Bartiromo. Sean Hannity has cited the AAF report at least three times on his Fox News show. He typified Fox's incurious reporting on AAF’s analysis during the March 5 episode of Hannity:

:{SEAN HANNITY (HOST): They are going to eliminate fossil fuels, gas, and oil. They're going to destroy the lifeblood of our economy. They're going to get rid of planes, mandate you rebuild your home. Who's paying for that? The estimates now are as high as $94 trillion in 10 years --that's their proposal

:{Many other right-wing media outlets have also uncritically amplified AAF's enormous estimate, including The Daily Caller, The Daily Wire, and the Washington Free Beacon

Some Republican politicians such as Wyoming Sen. John Barrasso have also latched onto the $93 trillion estimate and publicized it through mainstream and right-wing media. Barrasso issued a press release with the figure, wrote an opinion piece about it for USA Today, and made an appearance on Fox News to promote it. During Barrasso’s interview on Fox's America's Newsroom, co-host Sandra Smith falsely claimed that “the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office” was behind the $93 trillion figure and Barrasso failed to correct her error. (Fox & Friends co-host Ainsley Earhardt also falsely credited the report to the CBO.) From the February 28 episode of America’s Newsroom:

SANDRA SMITH (HOST): The Green New Deal, all the rage on the left. But a new study finds that it comes with a staggering price tag: the plan estimated to cost is as much as $93 trillion. That breaks down to $600,000 per household. Those are some big numbers. Joining us now, Sen. John Barrasso, a Republican from Wyoming who chairs the Committee on the Environment and Public Works. Been hearing you talk a lot about this, sir, and this price tag. It is a lofty one. This is the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office that did a study on this and came up with those numbers: $93 trillion, $600,000 per household. What do you think?

:{SEN. JOHN BARRASSO:Well, this Green New Deal is a big green bomb that will blow a hole in our strong economy. It will destroy the energy independence we now have from foreign countries. It will destroy what we’ve been doing to actually lower emissions. The cost to families -- electricity alone would go up by about $3,600 per family, per year.This is something, Sandra, that we cannot as a nation afford. The economy can't afford it. Our nation can’t survive it

Some Fox News personalities and Republican politicians, includingPresident Donald Trump, have cited an even larger unsubstantiated figure for Green New Deal costs: $100 trillion. As Dave Anderson recently reported for the Energy and Policy Institute, that number originated from a flippant Twitter thread by a Manhattan Institute senior fellow. The Manhattan Institute has been funded by ExxonMobil, and the chair of its board is also the CEO of a hedge fund that is the top shareholder in Peabody Energy, a major coal company. The $100 trillion figure was mentioned by Fox host Charles Payne during an interview with EPA chief Andrew Wheeler on March 4 on Your World with Neil Cavuto, and it was also cited on other Fox programs and right-wing sites like Townhall.

Right-wing echo chamber amplifies misinformation by design

:{The spread of the $93 trillion figure is a textbook example of how the right-wing media sphere disseminates misinformation to stymie climate action (and the spread of the $100 trillion figure too, for that matter). Conservative media outlets have been freaking out about the Green New Deal since even before the resolution was unveiled. AAF rushed out a quickie estimate of its potential costs that even its lead author won't robustly defend. Surely the think tank knew that its ready-made, sky-high number would be quickly picked up and regurgitated by conservative commentators, writers, and politicians -- and it was. It is not likely to matter that AAF's report has been called out as “bogus” and poked full of holes. You can expect right-wing media to keep on promoting it

Short Link

http://mm4a.org/4Br

:{--

[lotta pharma $ to AAF too

:{BETSY MCCAUGHEY (NEW YORK POSTCOLUMNIST): The fact is, this is the trial lawyers and ambitious politicians out to make a quick buck. Because the evidence shows that :{legitimately prescribed opioids are not to blame for this epidemic of deaths}:. For example, let me just give you some of the facts, Charles. High-dose opioid prescriptions are down 41% since 2010, even though the deaths are way up. And the National Survey of Drug Use and Health shows that 3/4 of opioid addicts and nearly all heroin addicts were never legitimately prescribed an opioid for their own pain

:{CHARLES PAYNE (GUEST HOST): Well that goes against early conventional wisdom, is that the majority of folks started with an overabundance of pain medicine. You're saying that's not true

MCCAUGHEY: That's right. But that's not true. In fact, the Annals of Internal Medicine has a new study showing that 87% of people taken to the ER for an opioid overdose were not prescribed opioids for pain themselves. They stole them. And let me ask you something. If a guy stole a Buick and robbed a bank, would you sue General Motors?

PAYNE: What's a legitimate amount of painkillers, though? You mentioned at the start of this conversation that, you know, that somehow too much wasn't prescribed. It feels like most people -- doctors, pharmacies, drug makers, Purdue in particular -- have acknowledged that maybe too many opioids were prescribed, going further back than to even 2010. Was there at some point too much of these pills being prescribed?

:{MCCAUGHEY: It's probably true that they were prescribed in too large quantities so that people didn't use the full quantity, put them in their medicine chest, their kids stole them, their neighbors stole them, somebody working in the home stole them. A lot of these pills on the street are stolen. Others, of course, are manufactured in huge quantities and flooding the marketplace

PAYNE: Was there a responsibility for Johnson & Johnson and others to talk about the possibility of addiction?

:{MCCAUGHEY: Perhaps. But in the law, there's something called proximate cause, and Johnson & Johnson has a bench trial, not a jury trial, for a very strong reason. That is, they can present the facts to the judge, and I give them credit for not just settling the way so many of the other pharmaceutical companies did. Just throwing money at these trial lawyers and saying leave me alone, because the fact is, they're not going to be able to prove proximate cause

:{PAYNE: If, though, you're wrong for whatever reason, and they lose this case, then that's -- I mean, listen, I'm with you, I hate when companies settle, I hate when people settle, I hate the whole thing, I hate the whole shakedown -

:{MCCAUGHEY: You think they should sue McDonald's for the obesity epidemic?

:{PAYNE: People want to do that. But this is different though, right? I mean, you know, listen, as much as I like a Big Mac I can never say I was ever actually addicted to one

MCCAUGHEY: That's right. But there are plenty of people who eat too much. And the fact is individuals, including teenagers or their parents, have a responsibility to monitor their own conduct.

Related:

Reuters: Oklahoma, Johnson & Johnson face off in first opioid crisis trial

Previously:

Fox & Friends blames Medicaid expansion and legalized marijuana for making the opioid crisis worse

On CNN, Trump supporter Betsy McCaughey calls sexual assault allegations against Trump "man-shaming"

Lou Dobbs guest: Americans "are getting raped by all of the expense of" immigration

:{:{--}: