Media

Dept. Of Bad Headlines: Daily Herald Edition

Adam Doster — Fri, 20 Nov 2009 09:07:46 -0800

Take a look at this headline from today's Daily Herald:

Reading that, you might guess that the west suburban town of about 150,000 passed a referendum opposing an income tax increase in Illinois. Or perhaps someone polled Naperville residents' on the various tax hike proposals being discussed at the state level. Well, not exactly:

Naperville's business community on Thursday had a chance to voice its concerns about jobs, taxes and the economy directly to Gov. Pat Quinn. [...]

Some [Naperville Chamber of Commerce] members said Thursday an income tax increase would be detrimental to the business community.

John Schmitt, president and CEO of the chamber, said he was not prepared to comment specifically on Quinn's income tax proposal but that the chamber doesn't typically support tax increases. But he was glad the business community had a chance to share its concerns and called the visit productive.

Last we checked, the Naperville Chamber doesn't represent the entire town ...

Some Illinois Media Misfires

Adam Doster — Thu, 12 Nov 2009 16:07:42 -0800

Combing through the Illinois political coverage today, we found ourselves frustrated by a handful of things. Here's a rundown:

Stantis on early prisoner release

Tribune political cartoonist Scott Stantis published a brutal cartoon about the state's early prisoner release plan this morning (you can view it here). It depicts a pack of snarling dogs leading a group of ominous-looking animals -- snakes, bats, etc. -- out of a prison cell. On a stool next to the door, a quivering piece of jello with the label "Quinn for Illinois" says "I'm pretty sure this will work ... unless it doesn't."

Where to begin ...

On the merits, the cartoon is wildly sensationalistic. The 1,000 inmates being released (62 this week) are nonviolent offenders serving sentences less than one year long. These are not hardened criminals -- many are likely in for drug offenses -- and they were scheduled for release anyway.

And why are the animals so darkly colored? "Without knowing the race of the prisoners being released," quips The Beachwood Reporter's Steve Rhodes, "it's never a good idea to depict criminals as dark animals when the incarcerated are disproportionately people of color." Indeed.

Sweeny on Jim Ryan

Next up is the latest column from the Rockford Register Star's Chuck Sweeny, which runs down Republican gubernatorial candidate Jim Ryan's "proposals to return the state to solvency."

Among Ryan's ideas is a constitutional cap on state spending pegged to population growth and the rate of inflation. Nowhere does the column note that restrictive spending gaps have devastated state services elsewhere and were voted down in two states more conservative than Illinois this past election.

Ryan also provides several pie-in-the-sky estimates about the potential savings his reforms would generate. For instance, Sweeny repeats his projection that instituting a two-tiered pension system would save "$1 billion to $2 billion annually" (in fact, such savings wouldn't be realized for several decades). Sweeny also reports his estimate that "putting Medicaid patients on managed care" would save "more than $1 billion a year" (it wouldn't).

Next time, the Register-Star should just throw Ryan's name in the byline.

Greg Hinz on state pension debt

Finally, we have Crain's Greg Hinz, who outlines a new "study" on the state's pension system by the National Taxpayers United of Illinois. Our problem with the piece is two-fold. First, Hinz fails to mention that the report is basically just a rehash of the Sun-Times investigation published in September. This report only repackages old data.

Then there's this paragraph:

[T]he state's five big pension funds have $80 billion to $100 billion in unfunded liability, depending on when and how the total is computed. Groups like Mr. Tobin's argue that the base problem is excessively high benefits, but labor groups blame the Illinois General Assembly for grabbing money that was supposed to be set aside for pensions and instead blowing it on more popular things.

Instead of this he said-she said reporting, it would be helpful to look at the data.

In response to Tobin's claim that "excessively high benefits" are to blame for the debt, it's important to note that the average retired Illinois state employee takes in just $17,112 a year through their pension. Much of that money is generated from employee contributions and interest -- rather than taxpayers.

Meanwhile, the General Assembly's responsibility for the growing debt is irrefutable and widely-accepted. For instance, BusinessWeek's 2005 article on state pensions cites the Civic Federation's finding that "since 1970 Illinois has not once paid its annual pension bill in full." More from the piece:

Through bull markets, bear markets, and sideways markets, the state has consistently lagged, and over time those delays have become more and more expensive. The culprit: reverse compounding. A pension plan's obligations are determined in part by the expected investment return on its assets. In the case of Illinois, that is 8%. So for every dollar not added to assets in time, the state is effectively borrowing from the pension plan at 8% interest.

Last we checked, the Civic Federation doesn't qualify as a "labor group."

Health Care Headaches, Thanks To Fox Chicago

Adam Doster — Fri, 30 Oct 2009 14:56:11 -0700

It was a big day for health care on Capitol Hill yesterday. The leadership of the U.S. House officially unveiled its health care package and the Congressional Budget Office offered its preliminary score of the measure. To mark the occasion, Fox Chicago whipped up a quick report on the developments. Unfortunately, it was a pretty partisan presentation. Watch it:

Let's start with the CBO's score of the bill, which FOX says "will cost $1 trillion over 10 years." According to the budget wonks in DC, the legislation’s coverage cost will be closer to $894 billion over that stretch. It is also projected to cut the deficit by more than $100 billion during that period and cover 96 percent of legal residents by 2019, providing comprehensive insurance to more people at a cost equal to the Senate bill. In other words, it meets all of the president's main criteria.

How does it achieve those goals? For starters, there is a considerably strong employer mandate. A Medicaid expansion, which would be extended to folks at or below 150 percent of the federal poverty level, is also larger than previously anticipated. That saves money because Medicaid pays providers less than private insurance and is therefore cheaper than offering subsidies to private insurance policies. And a $240 billion provision shielding doctors from cuts in Medicare in the next 10 years was stripped from the bill and will be dealt with at a later date.

One major concern with the House version was that it would not "bend the curve," meaning it would do a poor job of significantly curbing costs in the years following the CBO's initial 10-year budget window. Indeed, because of the Senate bill's reliance on taxing high-cost health insurance policies as opposed to a surtax on the wealthy, it would limit costs more sustainably in the long-term. But this version still reduces deficits. It is fiscally responsible.

Where is FOX's $1 trillion figure coming from? It's the cost of the bill if you include additional improvements in the health care system, including raising Medicaid reimbursement rates for primary care and boosting prescription drug assistance for seniors. The New Republic's Jonathan Cohn explains why that distinction isn't important:

President Obama, of course, has said that the reform should cost around $900 billion. As such, there's bound to be a lot of complaining that the House went "over" Obama's threshold.

I'm not sure that's entirely true. It's perfectly reasonable to interpret Obama's $900 billion target--which he proposed in his September address to Congress-- as describing the cost of expanding coverage alone.

But, really, who cares? The issue here is whether the House produced a fiscally sound bill that puts health insurance within reach of most Americans while starting to reform the system. And, based on everything we're hearing, it does.

There's also some bizarre bullet points in FOX's introductory screenshot. The first is "End of Life Counseling," which anchor David Novarro describes as "the provision that led to talk of death panels over the summer." Of course, the only reason that entirely non-controversial provision is newsworthy at all is because critics of health care reform like GOP Rep. Judy Biggert deliberately lied about its intent. Without providing that relevant context, Fox is implicitly legitimizing the fraudulent claims about "death panels." Then there is the phrase "Medicare cuts." "It will bepaid for," Novarro says, "with $400 billion in cuts to privately-run policies in Medicare known as Medicare Advantage." Why is this problematic? Because Medicare and Medicare Advantage are not the same thing. The latter is a failure -- it costs 114 percent more than Medicare and Democrats are attempting to eliminate these inefficiencies. No seniors will experience major benefit cuts because of health care reform.

And we can't let this video go without mentioning FOX's "math" at the end of the clip. Did they calculate how many Americans will now receive subsidies to pay for costly private insurance? How many people with preexisting conditions will qualify for coverage? Nope. Instead, they found out -- literally -- how much the bill itself weighs, as if that has any relevance at all.

Why Is Fox Chicago's Jeffcoat Repeating GOP Talking Points?

Angela Caputo — Thu, 08 Oct 2009 15:03:48 -0700

While making the rounds on FOX's morning news shows, former Mississippi Republican Sen. Trent Lott appeared on Good Day Chicago this morning to give his two cents on health care reform. We watch the show regularly and have seen the often under-informed anchor Jan Jeffcoat let her guests get away with some tall tales. Unfortunately, today was no different. Instead of calling Lott -- who's now a lobbyist for the pharmaceutical industry -- on his false claim that health care reform will cut Medicare benefits for senior citizens, Jeffcoat reaffirmed it. Watch:

JAN: You mentioned that there will be cuts in Medicare and for the elderly. So are we taking away health care from one group to fulfill another group?

LOTT: That's what this bill and other bills would do. And I just don't think fundamentally that it's fair or that it will happen. It does in effect tell doctors that they're not going to get increases based on inflation. It tells seniors that you're not going to have some of the coverage that you might have had. They say they are going to do it by eliminate waste and fraud in Medicare. Well goodness gracious, if that were something easy or could be done, why haven't we done it sooner? I do think that there's a little bit of a mentality ... that we're going to be taking from older generations and passing it on to future generations. I don't think it's fair and that's one of the problems that they have.

While Lott scoffs at eliminating waste in Medicare program, the largest cut -- Medicare Advantage -- would actually do just that. As we've pointed out before, the corporate-run Medicare Advantage program has become the single most expensive plan, largely because the government has been subsidizing insurance company profits. As the New York Times editorial board recently pointed out "coverage for a vast majority of Medicare recipients, those in traditional Medicare, should actually improve under health care reform." Like fellow Republican Mark Kirk, who is also fighting the reform effort using those dubious arguments, it's not surprising that Lott would stoop so low. What's frustrating is the spin that Jeffcoat lets her guests get away with because she's unprepared.

The Daily Herald's "Special Interests"

Adam Doster — Thu, 01 Oct 2009 09:38:08 -0700

Even as it has acknowledged that the state faces monstrous debts, the Daily Herald editorial board has not hidden its skepticism about raising income tax rates in Illinois. What's frustrating about their editorial yesterday, however, is the way in which they discount the motives of progressives who support such a policy.

In the piece, the paper targeted members of the Responsible Budget Coalition for acting out of "self-interest" and lawmakers calling for new revenue for failing to identify programs unworthy of state funding:

AFSCME Council 31, which Bayer heads, is among the 90 special interest groups that make up the coalition. Others include Arts Alliance Illinois, Chicago Jobs Council, Illinois Alliance for Retired Americans, Protestants for the Common Good, the YWCA of Metropolitan Chicago, the Legislative Education Network of DuPage and many more. All, no doubt, serve a positive societal function. Many provide critical services. But some, we're willing to venture, bring little more than self-interest to the debate.

The hard fact is that the state's special interests do not hold the answer to our budget woes. On that point, we must count on our political leaders to define terms that are clear and unequivocal. And they must realize that until they provide those, no other response, whether for cuts or for tax increases, will be acceptable. [Emphasis added]

Let's take this one by one, shall we? First, it's pretty bizarre to describe Responsible Budget Coalition members as "special interests." It's true that a few key unions are members of the group, but those organizations exist to advocate for thousands upon thousands of workers and their families (both inside and outside of their ranks) who can't do so individually. Suggesting that they are on par with corporations, which use their resources and government contacts to protect or increase profit margins, obscures the primary mission of the labor movement.

More to the point, the large majority of the Coalition members have no clout at all. They do not raise money for campaign contributions. They do not hire professional lobbyists. They work hard to provide adequate resources in communities across the state so working families can live fruitful and productive lives. They are now joining together to preserve those very services -- on which millions rely. Their interests aren't "special." To the contrary, they are shared by countless Illinoisans.

Second, if the board wants to rail against "self interest," perhaps they should focus their ire on the state legislators who failed to vote for new revenue last spring out of pure political cowardice. In the interest of putting off any votes that may threaten their popularity, both Democrats and Republicans left social service agencies in peril, college students without any tuition assistance, increased the state's debt burden, and failed to reform a tax and education funding system that's dangerously outdated and unfair. All in the hopes of avoiding resistance at the ballot box next year. As the Herald board wrote itself back in July: "political self preservation still rules the day in Springfield."

Lastly, if the paper is challenging Gov. Quinn and legislative leaders in favor of a tax increase to provide a "clear and unequivocal" definition of "essential" state services, it seems only fair that the Daily Herald should do the same. Given how little the state actually spends per capita, we'd be interested to find out what the paper deems wasteful. And simply citing one earmark -- as they did in yesterday's editorial -- isn't going to cut it.

Sun-Times Pension Reporting Continues To Lack Context

Adam Doster — Mon, 14 Sep 2009 09:20:32 -0700

Over the weekend, the Sun-Times continued its investigative series on the state pension system. In the latest installments, the paper rolled out more examples of clout-heavy bureaucrats and pols who have retired from one job only to land another covered under a separate pension plan. Additionally, five dozen pensioners are collecting payments based on salaries from labor unions, lobbying groups, and other non-governmental organizations. While their reporting should certainly spur debate about how to close certain loopholes in the system, the Sun-Times leaves out important context, failing to point out yet again that rank-and-file workers -- the majority who pay into the pension funds -- aren't reaping anywhere near these sorts of rewards.

Yesterday, columnist Mark Brown attempted to imagine some potential legislative reforms that could bring the pension payouts "under control." Some of his suggestions deserve consideration. Raising the retirement age five years to 55, which is in line with most private sector jobs, could save the state money in the long-run. He also proposes taxing any retirement income over $75,000, which would "capture some of the excessive public pension income -- as well as more well-to-do private sector retiree benefits." Lawmakers could then use the resulting revenue to pay down the state's hefty and long-ignored pension obligations.

But one of Brown's ideas is notably off-base. "Next, we could get rid of the automatic 3 percent annual increases for government retirees," he suggests, "and replace it with a capped, inflation-based cost-of-living factor." In its original primer on the state pension system, the Sun-Times reporters laid the groundwork for this proposal:

It's rare for private pension plans to provide automatic raises. Social Security payments began automatically going up each year in 1975, but that's based on the actual cost of living, which has usually been less than 3 percent. And those automatic increases now face the possibility of being suspended for two years.

But the paper's suggestion that the state pension system offers more generous annual increases than Social Security is just plain false. Take a glance at the Social Security Cost of Living Adjustment stats to see why. Over the past 10 years, the average annual COLA increase was 3.03 percent. Stretch all the way back to 1975 and and the average is even higher (4.43 percent). The argument that the Illinois increases are too large simply doesn't hold water.

Let's be clear: Lawmakers and other powerful players in state government should not be able to abuse the system and bilk taxpayers for benefits they did not earn. But well-intentioned reforms need to be structured so as not to unfairly strip benefits from the state's honorable employees.

Memo To Fran Spielman: What About TIF?

Josh Kalven — Tue, 25 Aug 2009 08:55:25 -0700

Kudos to the Sun-Times for their headline on today's article previewing Mayor Daley's public budget hearing tonight: "A Meter Culpa From The Mayor." Heh.

But then come these passages from Fran Spielman's actual article:

With a $520 million shortfall that can only be filled by tax increases and spending cuts, three nights of public hearings on Daley's preliminary 2010 budget are expected to turn into giant gripe sessions before City Hall lowers the boom. [...]

Even after wringing concessions from organized labor and drying up a "rainy day" fund created by the parking meter deal, Chicago has a $520 million budget shortfall in 2010.

With no obvious untapped sources of revenue, Civic Federation President Laurence Msall has warned that city government will be "forced to re-invent itself in the way it delivers services and eliminates services not critical." [Emphasis added]

By asserting that tax increases and spending cuts are the sole avenues available to close next year's budget deficit, Spielman reinforces the myth that Mayor Daley's overgrown tax increment financing (TIF) system simply can't be used to relieve pressure on the city's operating budget. It's a myth the mayor has worked hard to erect and preserve. Indeed, any mention of dipping into his TIF piggy bank is met with red-faced derision.

But as we laid out earlier this summer, there are several avenues available to Chicago aldermen to free up TIF funds for operating expenses. Here's the short version:

1) Release some surplus funds: Daley’s 150-plus TIF districts ended 2008 with $1 billion in aggregate unspent revenue. Numerous other Illinois municipalities have shown how easy it is to release these surplus funds back to local taxing bodies. Yet that possibility is rarely discussed when it comes to the Chicago system.

2) Retire some elderly TIFs: Under Illinois law, TIF districts have a lifespan of 23 years and individual municipalities can extend them up to 35 years if they wish. But assuming a TIF district has served its purpose (i.e. spurred redevelopment), there is no reason it can't be expired early, thereby providing a boost in revenue.

3) Index the tax base: At the time a TIF district is created, the amount local taxing bodies can levy from the enclosed properties is capped. Over the ensuing decades, as inflation rises, the value of that capped revenue erodes. One easy fix would be to index the TIF tax base to inflation, just as Massachusetts and California do.

The 2010 budget process will hopefully spur a lively debate among the mayor, aldermen, and the public about the city's priorities in these tough economic times. Scaling back and reforming the TIF system should be part of that conversation, no matter how badly Daley wants to keep it out.

AP Misses The Point On July Foreclosure Spike

Josh Kalven — Wed, 19 Aug 2009 10:51:09 -0700

This lede from the AP -- in their article on July foreclosure filings in Illinois -- is just terrible:

A new law in Illinois that aimed to help give homeowners facing foreclosure more time apparently led to a spike in problems during July, according to data released today by RealtyTrac.

"Led to a spike in problems" leaves the impression that the Homeowner Protection Act had unintended consequences which ultimately exacerbated the foreclosure crisis. The takeaway is that state legislators and Gov. Quinn did something wrong by approving this legislation. But that's just not the case.

As we noted yesterday, the law did exactly what it was supposed to do: bought struggling homeowners some time while federal policymakers debated how best to help stem the spread of foreclosures. The problem is that the programs in place at the national level are underperforming and Congress is yet to push for more aggressive measures.

Here again is the Woodstock Institute's Geoff Smith, as quoted in yesterday's Tribune article:

"The 90-day window is good but only good if you can help the borrower get into a better loan and theoretically that would be through the [federal loan modification] program," said Geoff Smith, Woodstock's vice president. The grace period "seems to have achieved its goal of delaying the foreclosure process. What happens next is where the big question mark is. Are those people whose foreclosure was delayed, are they now getting the help they need?"

The federal program Smith refers to had only produced 50,000 successful mortgage modifications by the end of July. Meanwhile, over 1.5 million homeowners have filed for foreclosure since the beginning of the year. The banking lobby, meanwhile, has stood in the way of more meaningful legislation. Their motivations are mixed. As the New York Times recently reported, some banks are simply "waiting and hoping the economy will improve and delinquent customers will resume making payments," while other interests -- particularly mortgage servicers -- continue to "collect lucrative fees on delinquent loans."

For instance, Sen. Dick Durbin's judicial modification proposal would accelerate the process by taking the control away from the lenders themselves and putting it in the hands of bankruptcy court judges. Watch for him to revive that measure this fall once more data is released on the White House's voluntary program.

Health Care Roundup: Public Plan Troubles, Biggert Whacked by Sun-Times

Adam Doster — Mon, 17 Aug 2009 09:27:24 -0700

The August recess is in full swing. Here's the latest health care news:

More Hedging On The Public Option

The big news nationally is that the White House hinted again yesterday at a willingness to drop a public insurance option from the health care reform packages if it means ultimately passing a bill. While progressives activists have pushed hard for a robust government-run program to compete with private insurers, Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius told CNN that a public option was “not the essential element” for reform. This isn't the first time the Obama administration has hedged on this point, but at this stage in the negotiations, it should send a strong signal to moderate and liberal Democrats where the president currently stands.

In its place, Senate Democrats will likely turn to non-profit cooperatives, an alternative already favored by the Gang of Six senators on the Finance Committee. Ezra Klein's June interview with Sen. Kent Conrad is a good place to get caught up on the specifics. The New York Times' briefly explains the idea here:

The co-op, modeled after rural electric and agricultural cooperatives in Mr. Conrad’s home state, would offer insurance through a nonprofit, nongovernmental consumer entity run by its members. Mr. Axelrod said one downside of a co-op, from Mr. Obama’s point of view, was that it might be unable to “scale up in such a way that would create a robust” competitor to private insurers.

Will that concession go far enough to win the support of moderate Democrats who remain on the fence? None of Illinois' still undecided lawmakers -- including Reps. Debbie Halvorson, Bill Foster, and Melissa Bean -- have explicitly identified the public option as the major problem with the bills working through Congress. However, if they felt the inclusion of a government-run plan left them vulnerable to overblown conservative attacks about expanding government, co-ops could give them some leeway while preserving some choice on the private market. Of course, the full House would still face a vote on a bill that includes the public option; it would likely be gutted in the Senate version, where moderate votes are really needed, and then negotiations would begin over specifics in conference committee. And the entire package could crumble if progressives in the House revolt, like Rep. Jan Schakowsky and her colleagues vowed to do last month. Stay tuned.

Sun-Times Whacks Biggert Over Scare Tactics

Last week, Rep. Judy Biggert deliberately distributed literature at a town hall falsely claiming that the health care bills working through Congress would lead to end-of-life euthanasia. Admitting that the statement was "a little inflammatory," she told the Daily Herald that "I probably wrote it when I was mad." Today, the Sun-Times editorial board nails Biggert and other conservatives for promoting these ridiculous lies:

Democratic health-care reform will require "end-of-life counseling for seniors that might encourage them to give up when facing serious illness," read a flier passed out by U.S. Rep. Judy Biggert of Hinsdale. Now, [Iowa Sen. Chuck] Grassley and other conservative Republican politicians want to make sure seniors are denied what is in fact a reasonable and desirable benefit. They have removed coverage for end-of-life counseling from the Senate's version of the health reform bill.

Shame on all of them. [...]

When mainstream, usually respected politicians pick up the lie, repeat it and lend it their credibility, they do a massive disservice to the very people they claim they are helping -- senior citizens who have an understandable anxiety about any potential changes to their health-care benefits.

During WTTW's Chicago Tonight week in review show on Friday, the first 10 minutes were devoted to health care. The segment focused in large part on what Obama can do to combat the misinformation about his administration's health care proposals. Conspicuously absent from the debate was any mention of the media's role in fact-checking politicians who play fast and lose with the facts. Watch it here:

While the national media has put out a few decent pieces on this front as of late, they were slow to respond and are still fumbling with the details. Locally, the media isn't doing much better. As a result, it's going to be tough for the truth to catch up with the lies.

Edit Boards Call For More Town Hall Meetings

Sen. Dick Durbin is taking some shots from editorial boards in the state for his decision not to hold a town hall meeting on health care reform. From the Daily Herald:

But it also seems like it's such a transcendent issue for all of us that our representatives in Washington ought to make an attempt to listen to their constituents. It also seems to us that any public hearing could be controlled easily enough by rules of decorum that are stated in advance and then enforced. Local government does this all the time.

Sen. Durbin is, presumably, the second most powerful person in the U.S. Senate.

If that's the case, what is he afraid of?

The State Journal-Register agrees, arguing that Durbin and fellow congressmen Rep. John Shimkus "should reconsider and face their constituents." But the paper also notes that town hall participants need to change their temperament if they want lawmakers to take their concerns seriously:

This is one of the most complex and important issues to face the American people in decades. This page doesn’t have an opinion today on which approach will work best. We do know the American people need to rationally talk with their representatives and senators, continue to educate themselves and be willing to listen when answers are provided.

Trib's Pearson: Sean Hannity "Hijacked" My Credibility

Josh Kalven — Fri, 07 Aug 2009 08:27:02 -0700

Earlier this week, we highlighted a segment from Sean Hannity's nightly Fox News program that spent over six minutes smearing State Treasurer Alexi Giannoulias. What we found perplexing about the piece wasn't that it included numerous distortions and omissions -- that's par for the course, after all -- but rather that Tribune political reporter Rick Pearson had submitted to such a lengthy interview with Hannity. How could he "possibly be confident the resulting report will be fair and accurate?" we asked.

Well, it turns out that Pearson didn't actually know his analysis was going to end up on Hannity's show. To the contrary, he taped the interview under the impression it would be used as part of a straight news report on the U.S. Senate race -- one that examined both Giannoulias and GOP candidate Mark Kirk. He only later found out that he would be appearing as part of a Hannity hit-job on Giannoulias and that his comments regarding Kirk would be left out entirely.

On Steve Cochran's WGN Radio show yesterday evening, Pearson shared his thoughts about the segment, saying that he felt "hijacked" by Hannity because his presence in the report had been used to "lend them credibility." "[I]t's almost like an identity theft kind of thing in a way," Pearson added, "because all I have is my credibility. And I know that show doesn't have any." Listen:

Internal mp3

Pearson's experience is a good lesson for reporters as the campaign season ramps up: Before you submit to a national news interview, be sure you know who is ultimately going to be slicing and dicing your words.

An abridged transcript of the Pearson interview appears below:

PEARSON: I got hijacked the other night. Actually, my credibility got hijacked and I'm not happy about it. [...]

A week ago, I was contacted by a producer for Fox News and was asked if I would mind coming over to tape a segment for a newscast -- a news segment about the upcoming U.S. Senate race in Illinois, with Democratic Treasurer Alexi Giannoulias and Republican congressman Mark Kirk as the respective candidates of their parties.

Went over there, sat for an interview, talked about both Treasurer Giannoulias and also about Mark Kirk. And they said, "Thank you very much. We'll send you a note when your segment airs." Two nights ago, I get an email from a producer saying, "Your segment will air on Sean Hannity's show."

COCHRAN: And I would guess that it did not air in context.

PEARSON: It was a six-minute, twenty-second attack on Alexi Giannoulias. Now, I'm not going to defend the treasurer. And frankly, what I said in the interview is what I would say as far as any interview. But it was billed as a "special investigation" featuring grainy photos of Bill Ayers and various assorted misdeeds -- did not mention Mark Kirk at all, except of course that he was the leading Republican. [...]

I'm there to lend them credibility is what they did. And that's why I feel my credibility was hijacked by this. [...]

Frankly, Hannity has had people on before that were not qualified to really tell you what the price of a loaf of bread is in a grocery store. I'm not a politically ideological person. I don't pick sides to root for here -- any of that stuff. And for a legitimate news segment, I have no problem with that. But to really, kind of, have had this happen to me -- I mean, it's almost like an identity theft kind of thing in a way, because all I have is my credibility. And I know that show doesn't have any.

Follow us on Twitter. Receive our daily email update. Subscribe to our RSS feed.