About us Login Get email updates
Research
Print

Fox chyron asserted as fact that Walpin was "fired for protecting taxpayers"

June 17, 2009 6:58 pm ET
image

SUMMARY: Fox & Friends aired on-screen text asserting as fact the claim -- disputed by the Obama administration -- that former inspector general Gerald Walpin was "fired for protecting taxpayers."

18 Comments

During the June 17 broadcast of Fox News' Fox & Friends, Fox News aired on-screen text asserting as fact the claim -- disputed by the Obama administration -- that Gerald Walpin, former inspector general at the Corporation for National and Community Service, was "fired for protecting taxpayers."

Since Walpin's suspension from his position as inspector general was announced on June 11, conservatives and Fox News hosts have claimed that he was fired for investigating an Obama ally. The White House has since provided a list of reasons for Walpin's June 11 termination, including but not limited to the Board of the Corporation's concerns over Walpin's behavior and conduct, as well as a complaint filed by acting U.S. attorney for the Eastern District of California Lawrence G. Brown regarding Walpin's actions during his investigation into the misuse of AmeriCorps grants given to a nonprofit organization in Sacramento, California. Other chyrons that aired throughout the report asked whether Walpin was "dismissed for doing his job" and if there was a "cover-up at AmeriCorps."

Walpin was reportedly informed of his termination on June 11. In a June 16 letter to members of Congress, special counsel to the president Norman L. Eisen explained Walpin's termination:

Mr. Walpin was removed after a review was unanimously requested by the bi-partisan Board of the Corporation. The Board's action was precipitated by a May 20, 2009 Board meeting at which Mr. Walpin was confused, disoriented, unable to answer questions and exhibited other behavior that led the Board to question his capacity to serve. Upon our review, we also determined that the Acting United States Attorney for the Eastern District of California, a career prosecutor who was appointed to his post during the Bush Administration, had filed a complaint about Mr. Walpin's conduct with the oversight body for the Inspectors General, including for failing to disclose exculpatory evidence. We further learned that Mr. Walpin had been absent from the Corporation's headquarters, insisting upon working form his home in New York over the objections of the Corporation's Board; that he had exhibited a lack of candor in providing material information to decision makers; and he had engaged in other troubling and inappropriate conduct. Mr. Walpin had become unduly disruptive to agency operations, impairing his effectiveness and, for the reasons stated above, losing the confidence of the Board and the agency. It was for these reasons that Mr. Walpin was removed.

In an April 29 letter to the chair of the Integrity Committee of the Counsel of the Inspectors General on Integrity and Efficiency, which the administration cited in explaining Walpin's termination, Brown "express[ed] ... concerns about the conduct of the Corporation for National and Community Service (CNCS) Inspector General, Gerald Walpin, and his staff in the handling of United States v. St. HOPE Academy, Kevin Johnson & Dana Gonzalez," a case which "resulted from the alleged misuse of AmeriCorps grant funds by St. HOPE Academy" and its "then Chief Executive Officer Kevin Johnson, and Executive Director Dana Gonzalez." Brown noted that Johnson "is a former NBA basketball player and was a Sacramento mayoral candidate, subsequently elected Mayor, when this matter first came to light during fall 2008." In his letter, Brown wrote:

In our experience, the role of an Inspector General is to conduct an unbiased investigation, and then forward that investigation to my Office for a determination as to whether the facts warrant a criminal prosecution, civil suit or declination. Similarly, I understand that after conducting such an unbiased investigation, the Inspector General is not intended to act as an advocate for suspension or debarment. However, in this case Mr. Walpin viewed his role very differently. He sought to act as the investigator, advocate, judge, jury and town crier.

Brown further alleged that Walpin and his staff "did not include" or "disclose" relevant information regarding the case to Brown's office; that Walpin repeatedly discussed the case in the press after being advised "under no circumstance was he to communicate with the media about a matter under investigation"; and that Walpin's "actions were hindering our investigation and handling of this matter." Brown concluded: "Although I recognize that a strong IG is necessary to ensure that allegations of wrongdoing are investigated, I believe that Mr. Walpin overstepped his authority by electing to provide my Office with selective information and withholding other potentially significant information at the expense of determining the truth. I believe that rather than ensuring protection of a respected federal agency, he tarnished its reputation."

The following on-screen text appeared during the June 17 Fox & Friends report:

walpin1

walpin2

walpin3

Expand All Expand 1st Level Collapse All Add Comment
    • Author by dgreatone (June 17, 2009 7:40 pm ET)
        2
      The integrity of the IG office must have been upheld since the US Attorney agreed that St. Hope Academy must reimbrurse almost half of the fed dollars granted through Americorp. President Obama violated his own law he co-sponsored while a Senator giving IGs 30 day notice of dismissal and the reason for dismissal. Only when Democrat Sen. Claire McCaskill fire off a letter to the White House did the president's staff "remember" the reason.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by NiceguyEddie (June 18, 2009 10:31 am ET)
        1  
        You have any credble source to back up that last bit? It seems to contradict what been posted here.
        Report Abuse
    • Author by eweston8542983 (June 17, 2009 7:47 pm ET)
      5 2
      Faux Gnus, all any political party could desire in a propaganda outlet.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by loonz (June 17, 2009 7:54 pm ET)
        6 2
        The only problem with that is about two million people [on the fringe] actually believe the tripe coming from that so called news channel.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by jeffg (June 18, 2009 2:18 pm ET)
             
          Let's see, 25% of the country watches Fox and only 11% watch MSNBC. More Americans watch Fox than any other news Channel. CNN is the next closest at 22%. Maybe it's you who's on the fringe!

          As of three days ago 40% of americans called themselves conservative, 35% moderate and only a FRINGE 21% were liberal.

          I find it funny that people come to a web site that is a puppet of Soros and his fringe left and only targets those who don't follow it's policies and complain that Fox News is biased. Have you looked in the mirror latley?
          Report Abuse
          • Author by OilemFirchen (June 18, 2009 6:55 pm ET)
               
            From Nielsen

            P2+ Total Day
            FNC – 1,190,000 viewers
            CNN – 573,000 viewers
            MSNBC –393,000 viewers
            CNBC – 195,000 viewers
            HLN – 301,000 viewers

            25% of the population is about 75 million people. So your... nevermind.

            But looky here! If all the other cable channels are "liberal", looks like the public prefers that:

            FNC – 1,190,000 viewers
            All Others - 1,462,000 viewers.

            And that doesn't count the commie networks, either.

            Wanna know what I find funny? People coming to a web site that is a "puppet of Soros", not reading the mission statement, publicly whining about what they find, and then having the temerity to challenge others to "look in a mirror".

            That's a bit of a hoot, that's what that is.

            Report Abuse
          • Author by eweston8542983 (June 18, 2009 7:32 pm ET)
               
            And your sources for all that lovely information would be? That of the second paragraph in particular.
            Soros controlled how? Point to what Soros said to do on any particular issue and show MMfa's compliance with that directive
            This site is up front about what they do. Check the mission statement, as far as I know they've never issued a policy statement for the nation.
            The complaint isn't about bias. You can be biased and still be correct.
            Report Abuse
    • Author by my4cents (June 17, 2009 8:46 pm ET)
      5  
      Fox News has committed itself to be the mouthpiece of Republicans.
      I have no problem with that (free speech and all that) except that they cannot continue to exist as a news channel.
      If I claim I am providing news but all I do is present a one sided view, does that qualify me as a news caster (with privileges that come with it)?
      The problem with Fox News claiming to be a news channel is that there could be gullible people (26% of Americans) that could watch the channel and truly believe they are getting news and not Republican propaganda.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by fantagor (June 18, 2009 3:20 pm ET)
           
        A Florida court upheld the right of the news to LIE.

        http://www.relfe.com/media_can_legally_lie.html

        Randy
        Report Abuse
    • Author by tman418 (June 17, 2009 9:53 pm ET)
      1  
      Well, failing to exclude exculpatory evidence ain't good, even if the defendant is Ted "series of tubes" Stevens.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by wizbor4654 (June 18, 2009 8:25 am ET)
        3
      So no one is arguing the issue. Then you all agree that he was in fact fired for being a whistle blower. Just that it happened to be a friend of Obama that he caught so of course Obama has to fire him. Even though the law says he cant. Its congress's job.. But he... hes our new king... he can do what he wants.

      Your hate for Fox has blinded ya...
      Report Abuse
      • Author by OilemFirchen (June 18, 2009 9:08 am ET)
        1  
        Au contraire. The only "issue" is Fox asserting that Walprin was fired for nefarious reasons, without any basis for said assertion.

        As far as I can tell, the posters have been "arguing" the point.

        Care to offer a counter?
        Report Abuse
      • Author by all your eyes (June 18, 2009 9:55 am ET)
           
        It's not that no one is arguing the issue. The US attorney was critical of the IG's report, and declined to prosecute. The White House decided the IG was not doing his job properly, and fired him. Was the firing proper, and within the law? That's not a question I've seen answered in a satisfactory way yet. However, Fox is only reporting part of the story, the part that would seem the most damaging, without reporting the US attorney's criticism of the IG's report. It is also curious that this IG has been parading around on Glenn Beck's program, among other places, and inserting himself into politics now. It would seem this is not the type of fellow you would want as an IG, one who certainly seems to have a political axe to grind. Of course Fox doesn't even mention that side of the story..
        Report Abuse
        • Author by wizbor4654 (June 18, 2009 11:06 am ET)
            2
          Spin anyway you want, but when the hammer of oBAMa drops on ya...whats your recourse? Politics is WHY he got fired...him showing up on any network AFTER the fact and calling him political is ludicrous.
          Report Abuse
      • Author by mikehuck1976 (June 18, 2009 1:28 pm ET)
           
        Has he been fired or suspended? I have not yet seen anything that says he was fired. What I have read says that he is suspended.

        Also, - "In our experience, the role of an Inspector General is to conduct an unbiased investigation, and then forward that investigation to my Office for a determination as to whether the facts warrant a criminal prosecution, civil suit or declination. Similarly, I understand that after conducting such an unbiased investigation, the Inspector General is not intended to act as an advocate for suspension or debarment. However, in this case Mr. Walpin viewed his role very differently. He sought to act as the investigator, advocate, judge, jury and town crier."

        Brown further alleged that Walpin and his staff "did not include" or "disclose" relevant information regarding the case to Brown's office; that Walpin repeatedly discussed the case in the press after being advised "under no circumstance was he to communicate with the media about a matter under investigation"; and that Walpin's "actions were hindering our investigation and handling of this matter." Brown concluded: "Although I recognize that a strong IG is necessary to ensure that allegations of wrongdoing are investigated, I believe that Mr. Walpin overstepped his authority by electing to provide my Office with selective information and withholding other potentially significant information at the expense of determining the truth. I believe that rather than ensuring protection of a respected federal agency, he tarnished its reputation."

        - this was written by a Bush appointee. Do you actually think this man did not pursue charges against Kevin Johnson because of Obama?

        I know this may not compute with you but sometimes people are just incompetent. If the board of directors for the company I work for wanted one of my people gone unanimously and I did not suspend him while I investigate the claims against him I would be incompetent.
        Report Abuse
    • Author by sluggo (June 18, 2009 12:47 pm ET)
      2  
      Fox Newscasters: Hiding Guns beneath their desks?
      Report Abuse

my.MediaMatters.org

Login  Sign Up

Push Back

Phone calls, emails and letters from the public do make a difference. Remember that to be effective you must be polite, and professional. Express your specific concerns regarding that particular news report or commentary, and indicate what you would like the media outlet to do differently in the future.