Fox News's Ed Henry challenged White House Press Secretary Jay Carney during a Tuesday briefing over the growing controversy surrounding the Obama administration's move on January 20 to force most employers to cover sterilization, abortion-inducing drugs, and contraceptives in their health care policies without co-pay. This new federal mandate would force Catholic institutions, like hospitals and schools, to decide whether to obey it or follow the Church's teachings against contraception.

Anchor Megyn Kelly trumpeted that "this is turning into a big deal, and the White House… [is] saying they believe they have struck the appropriate balance…the Catholic Church…saying, how is it the appropriate balance to delay…the time at which we'd have to violate our consciences?"  [video clip below the jump] The Big Three networks, on the other hand, have all but ignored the issue during the past 11 days. Only CBS This Morning on Tuesday briefly mentioned the growing controversy.

CBS anchor Charlie Rose noted  "a headline in USA Today says Catholics blast federal birth control mandate….The Obama administration says large religious institutions will have to include birth control in their employees' health care plans."

Just before the bottom of the 2 pm Eastern hour of Fox News's America Live, Kelley spotlighted how "priests during Mass this past Sunday read letters aloud from the pulpit, talking about how this [the new HHS mandate] infringes on religious freedom." The anchor continued by playing a clip from the exchange between White House correspondent Ed Henry and Carney. Henry raised the issue with a strongly-worded question [for video of the full exchange between Henry and Carney and expanded coverage of the controversy, read this article by Fred Lucas of CNSNews.com, a division of the Media Research Center]:

HENRY: …[M]y question would be, how does the administration justify having the federal government institute a law that basically forces people to violate their religious beliefs?

CARNEY: That misrepresents actually-
 
HENRY: How so?
 
CARNEY: What the decision about the implementation of the Affordable Care Act-
 
HENRY: How does that misrepresent-
 
CARNEY:  Well, let me answer. The decision was made, as we have said in the past- and Secretary Sebelius has said- after very careful consideration, and the administration believes that this proposal strikes the appropriate balance between respecting religious beliefs and increasing access to important preventive services. We will continue to work closely with religious groups during this transitional period to discuss their concerns.

It's important- to go to your point- that this approach does not signal any change at all in the administration's policy on conscience protections. The President and this administration have previously expressed strong support for existing conscience protections, including those relating to health care providers. That support continues. I also would just note that our robust partnerships with the Catholic Church and other communities of faith will continue. The administration has provided over $2 billion to Catholic organizations over the past three years, in addition to numerous nonfinancial partnerships that promote healthy communities and serve the common good.

Kelly then remarked that Carney's remarks were "clearly a written response that [he] was reading and had prepared. I mean, this is turning into a big deal, and the White House apparently knows it….So you can see the White House responding, saying they believe they have struck the appropriate balance…the Catholic Church had already spoken to that last week, saying, how is it the appropriate balance to delay, by eight months to a year, the time at which we'd have to violate our consciences?"

Even with the statement from Carney, and his exchange with Henry, the Big Three networks ignored the story completely on their evening news broadcasts on Tuesday. However, on CBS Evening News, Scott Pelley found time for a news brief on a recent recall of oral contraceptives by the drug maker Pfizer.

On Tuesday morning, Mollie Hemingway of GetReligion.org blog documented how the controversy was "surprisingly undercovered on Sunday and Monday" by the wider media. Hemingway ripped ABC News's online coverage of the issue, but complimented the "great piece" by CNN. She also made the following conclusion about the paltry coverage so far:

Obviously there are people in the Obama administration and elsewhere who believe in birth control, sterilization and abortifacient insurance coverage mandates and, further, that religious exemptions to these mandates are wrong. That's an important part of the story and one that has been fairy well covered. But underplaying how seriously the Catholic Church, its leaders and other religious groups are taking this is a disservice to readers of all persuasions.

Did the New York Times learn nothing about rushing to judgement and presumption of innocence from its Duke lacrosse “rape” hoax debacle?

More than any other media outlet, in 2006 the Times trumpeted black stripper's Crystal Mangum's rape accusations against three white Duke lacrosse players, accusations that quickly fell apart in a mass of contradictions and shifting stories.

Yet even as the case fell apart and other liberal media outlets backed away, the Times issued a now-notorious, error-riddled 5,000-word lead story by Duff Wilson, concluding that there was enough evidence against the players for Michael Nifong, the soon-to-be-disgraced-and-jailed local prosecutor, to bring the case to trial.

Perhaps most atrocious was former columnist Selena Roberts, who continued to smear the innocent Duke lacrosse players even after they had been all but formally cleared of assault.

Now, the Times has another college sports expose from another bastion of privilege, Yale University. Richard Perez-Pena’s Friday bombshell, based on anonymous sources speaking on confidential complaints, involves an informal campus accusation of sexual assault against Yale quarterback Patrick Witt, who made good-news headlines last fall for turning down the chance to becoming a Rhodes scholar to play against Yale’s arch-rival Harvard in "The Game."

On Nov. 13, Patrick J. Witt, Yale University’s star quarterback, announced that he had withdrawn his Rhodes scholarship application and would instead play against Harvard six days later, at the very time of the required Rhodes interview. His apparent choice of team fealty over individual honor capped weeks of admiring national attention on this accomplished student and his quandary.

But Witt was no longer a contender for the Rhodes, a rare honor reserved for those who excel in academics, activities and character. Several days earlier, according to people involved on both sides of the process, the Rhodes Trust had learned through unofficial channels that a fellow student had accused Witt of sexual assault. The Rhodes Trust informed Yale and Witt that his candidacy was suspended unless the university decided to re-endorse it.

Witt’s accuser has not gone to the police, nor filed what Yale considers a formal complaint. The New York Times has not spoken with her and does not know her name.

After waiting (as WP columnist Kathleen Parker notes) until paragraph 11 to note the accusations are anonymous, and paragraph 14 to admit “Many aspects of the situation remain unknown,” Perez-Pena used Witt’s membership in a controversial frat as part of the character assassination: “Last year, Yale overhauled its systems for handling such complaints and imposed a five-year ban on campus activities by a fraternity, Delta Kappa Epsilon, whose members and pledges had engaged in highly publicized episodes of sexual harassment. Witt was a member of that fraternity and lived in its off-campus house.”

As part of the smear Perez-Pena even added “two minor arrests” on Witt’s record, one for creating a public disturbance and the other for entering a residence hall without permission, nightly occurrences in college towns. (In similar fashion, the Times slimed the entire Duke lacrosse team for such chilling crimes as public urination and violating noise ordinances.)

Brooklyn College history professor K.C. Johnson, who led the charge in spotlighting the Times’s disgraceful treatment of the innocent Duke University lacrosse, has condemned Perez-Pena’s reporting, which he calls character assassination, in a series of articles at Minding the Campus. Johnson wrote: “In an ideal world, Richard Perez-Pena and the New York Times would have been subjected to widespread condemnation, even shame, for the character-assassination frame the paper gave to the Patrick Witt story.”

An earlier Johnson post revealed what he considered the story’s smear strategy.

Will the paper ever get around to giving former Yale quarterback Patrick Witt an apology? With a few days perspective, it's become clear that the Times' mishandling of the Witt story was, in two specific ways, even worse than originally believed.

First, Times reporter Richard Pérez-Peña strongly implied (though he carefully avoided ever coming out and saying so specifically) that Witt had withdrawn from Yale. In fact, according to a statement issued by a representative of the student, Witt has finished all academic requirements except for his senior thesis, and is off-campus this semester training for the NFL draft, as are many talented college football seniors.

Second, in what could only be deemed a deliberate attempt to smear Witt's character, Pérez-Peña devoted more than eight percent of his article (163 of 1956 words) to discussing what he termed "two minor arrests" in Witt's past. But the paper didn't even attempt to claim that these matters had any bearing on the article's ostensible topic–the suspension of Witt's Rhodes application. Negative insinuations, it seems, were all the news that was fit to print.
 

Witt’s camp responded via email the day the story appeared denying a connection between his Rhodes scholarship withdrawal and the assault accusation. 

Sad thing is, Ed Schultz thinks he's being clever.

Schultz repeatedly mispronounced the last name of Fox News' Steve Doocy on "The Ed Show" last night, saying it as "douch-y" instead of "DO-see" through indifference to accuracy or a sense of humor stuck in his high school locker room. (video after page break)

In what passes for Schultz digging deep, the MSNBC host was criticizing Doocy for citing new research that describes Fox News as most balanced network in its coverage of the 2012 presidential campaign –

SCHULTZ: And in "Psycho Talk" tonight, Steve Doocy insists Fox News is the most unbiased network around. As proof, Doocy proudly pointed to a study from the Center for Media and Public Affairs at George Mason University on press coverage of the 2012 presidential race.

DOOCY (from "Fox & Friends"): Interestingly enough, the most negative press comes from NBC. They have 73 percent negative to 27 percent positive stories about the race. Meanwhile, the most balanced coverage? Fox, 52 percent positive, 48 percent negative. So, fair and balanced not only a slogan, we actually live by it.

SCHULTZ (guffawing): I've shown you over and over again how fair and unbalanced Fox is.

This from a man who threatened to "torch this f***ing place" in a fit of pique after MSNBC gave him insufficiently reverent placement in a network promo. More aptly-dubbed psycho talk from the master –

SCHULTZ: Like when Eric Bolling accused "The Muppets" movie of trying to brainwash kids with an anti-capitalistic, liberal agenda.

The same Eric Bolling who bought Schultz a drink last summer at a Manhattan steakhouse, followed by Schultz thanking him and talking with Bolling for 15 minutes, followed months later by Schultz vehemently denying he had ever spoken to Bolling.

Continuing his ridicule of Doocy and Fox, Schultz then cited an "expert" who "weighed in on Bolling's accusation" — Miss Piggy. Fox News cites George Mason University, Schultz cites the Muppets, each keenly aware of their respective audience –

MISS PIGGY (at mock press conference): It's almost as laughable as accusing Fox News of, you know, being news.

SCHULTZ: I mean, even Miss Piggy is talking about how biased Fox News is, so obviously there's something fishy going on with this study that Doocy's talking about.

Or as Schultz actually said it, "something fishy going on with this study that Douchy's talking about."

Imagine, if you will, Schultz's openly gay MSNBC colleague Rachel Maddow marrying a woman who shares Doocy's last name and Maddow deciding to take Doocy as her last name. And imagine the uproar among liberals and feminists if a prominent media conservative denigrated Rachel "Douchy" for promoting her "fishy" agenda. The fire from those effigies would truly light the world.

MSNBC booted Schultz for a week last spring after he maligned Laura Ingraham as a "right-wing slut" and "talk slut." It's worth remembering that MSNBC did this after Schultz make his hateful remarks on his radio show — not on MSNBC.

Having paid for his misogyny in the past, Schultz now tries to fly under the radar with it. 

On Tuesday, for the second time in two weeks, CNN's Soledad O'Brien insisted that President Bush, not President Obama, is the "food stamp president" – even though data show her argument is ridiculous.

On January 19, O'Brien had opened up that "it was George Bush who was the food stamp president." Then on Tuesday, she stated that Bush oversaw a greater percent increase of food stamp recipients than Obama has, and thus was more deserving of the title "food stamp president."

However, the number of Americans on food stamps reached an all time high in September of 2011 – during President Obama's tenure – as almost 46.3 million Americans, or 14.83 percent of the estimated U.S. population, received food stamps, according to data from the Census Bureau and the Department of Agriculture (USDA).

And while the number of Americans on food stamps increased until the end of Bush's term, that number did not decrease or remain static under Obama. Rather, both the number of food stamp recipients and the percentage of the U.S. population on food stamps ballooned during Obama's time in office, as the graph below demonstrates.

The percentage of Americans on food stamps hovered around nine percent from 2005-2008, but then increased every year from 2009 through 2011. Between the fiscal years 2009 and 2010, the number jumped from 10.9 percent to 13 percent.

And according to data as late as October, the percentage of Americans on food stamps stood at 14.8 percent – an increase of over 4 percentage points from the January, 2009 amount.

In contrast, that number grew about the same amount during eight years of President Bush – over double the number of years Obama has held office. Around 6 percent of Americans benefitted from SNAP (Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program) at the outset of Bush's term, and that number climbed over eight years to 10.4 percent in January of 2009.

The number of Americans on food stamps also increased by a similar amount between the two presidents, as about 14.7 million Americans were added to SNAP under eight years of President Bush while 14.2 million were added in less than half that time under President Obama.

Almost 32 million Americans were on food stamps in January of 2009, but that number jumped to over 46.2 million in September of 2011.

"[Y]ou have said also that he [Obama] has increased food stamps 41 percent," O'Brien lectured Rep. Allen West (R-Fla.) on Tuesday. "And I know that you know that actually the bigger increase was under President Bush, right? This is under President Obama. But it went up 65 percent under President Bush," she stated.

"So explain to me why the food stamp president thing is a strategy when really the percentagewise is bigger increase – no one calls President Bush the food stamp president, right?" she challenged West.  

West retorted that it is "very apropo" to report an increase in food stamps under President Obama, and attacked his jobs record.

"The state of Florida is 9.9 percent foreclosures. The amount of storefronts, our small businesses that are closing up. So it is very, I think, very apropo, to say that we have seen an increase in the food stamp recipients. We've seen an increase of 16 to 17 percent increase of poverty roles as well," he maintained.

A transcript of the segment, which aired on January 31 at 7:07 a.m. EST, is as follows:

SOLEDAD O'BRIEN: Let me ask you another question. Newt Gingrich, as you know – and we spoke about this the last time we were in person, called President Obama the food stamp president. And then you have said also that he has increased food stamps 41 percent. And I know that you know that actually the bigger increase was under President Bush, right? This is under President Obama. But it went up 65 percent under President Bush. So explain to me why the food stamp president thing is a strategy when really the percentagewise is bigger increase — no one calls President Bush the food stamp president, right?

Rep. ALLEN WEST (R-Fla.): Well, no one called him the food stamp president, but I do remember people throwing eggs at his inaugural car and they called him many other different names. Look, let's be very honest. Down here in south Florida we have a high level of unemployment. The state of Florida is 9.9 percent foreclosures. The amount of storefronts, our small businesses that are closing up. So it is very, I think, very apropo, to say that we have seen an increase in the food stamp recipients. We've seen an increase of 16 to 17 percent increase of poverty roles as well.

We're not going in the right direction, Soledad. We have had an increase of our debt under President Obama more than from President George Washington to right up to President Bill Clinton, almost $5 trillion. But yet we're not hearing any plan of how we're going to reduce this debt or deficit. You didn't even hear it mentioned during the State of the Union address. The health care law is destroying our businesses. I sit on the Small Business Committee. I talk to these business owners down here. That's exactly what they're saying. So I want to see a different vision for this country.
 

A shocking YouTube video (uploaded by someone not friendly to the Tea Party) shows Memphis talk radio host Thaddeus Matthews insulting and humiliating Republican congressional candidate Charlotte Bergmann on air.

 [Video embedded after page break]

Before Obama became president, Chicago resident Tim O'Brien bought a 2005 Chrysler 300C that Sen. Obama leased. But when he tried to auction if off before the inauguration,  "jokers ran up the price to $100 million," so no sale.

The Washington Post gossips report that now O'Brien is the joker: he's put the Obama-leased car up for auction on eBay for a million dollars. (Insert Dr. Evil pinky to mouth here.) He claims to be serious. Is this a better way for an Obama fan to spend money, rather than helping out someone struggling in Obama's economy? He compares Obama's car to vehicles owned by Pope John Paul, Hitler, and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad:

Hoping to capi­tal­ize on the campaign season, O’Boyle got serious again two weeks ago and re-listed the car — with pre-screening and a $2,000 deposit required to bid. ”Please understand that the $1 million dollar starting price is not a joke,” reads the listing, noting that Pope John Paul II’s 1975 Ford Escort sold for $690,000; Iran’s Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s 1977 Peugeot went for more than $2 million, and Adolf Hitler’s Mercedes convertible for $8 million.

The current Blue Book value of the Chrysler is around $14,000. Last year, a Connecticut man paid $26,000 for Obama’s 2000 Jeep Grand Cherokee.

The auction ends Wednesday night. As of press time, exactly zero bids.

A few years ago, when FNC's Fox and Friends substitute co-anchor Peter Johnson, Jr., accidentally referred to left-wing Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez as "Cesar Chavez," the famous American labor and civil rights activist, the flub received attention from some of FNC's left-wing critics, even though the FNC host corrected himself moments later.

But Tuesday's World News on ABC demonstrates that you don't have to be a target of the left to make the same flub. (Video below)

During a report on recent warnings by National Intelligence Director David Clapper that Iran may target the U.S. for a terrorist attack in the near future, correspondent Martha Raddatz recounted:

He pointed specifically to last year's plot to assassinate the Saudi ambassador to the United States, and to reports that Iran has been supporting Hezbollah cells in Latin America. Iran's President Ahmadinejad recently traveled there, meeting leaders like Cesar Chavez of Venezuela and Fidel Castro, who have little love for the U.S.

Below is video of the relevant portion of the Tuesday, January 31, World News on ABC