So Fox decided to do a little story on the tax returns of Romney and Obama. The headline blares "Obama Gave 1 Percent To Charity, Romney 15 Percent."
Of course, the one percent figure that they give for Obama is from 2000-04 (after their readers are worked up into a frenzy, they throw in that their donations went up over five percent in 2005 after their income soared from book sales). The 15 percent for Romney is from obviously the last two years, because that's all we have from him, and most of that was donated to the Mormon Church (which is fine - he can donate his money however he chooses, but let's not pretend that there's not a self-serving element to that).
If we compare current charitable figures, they are virtually identical (Obama donated 14 percent last year). Of course, you can't compare 2000-04 between the candidates because we don't have those years for Romney. The Obamas are much more visible now, and are probably donating money with that in mind, but Romney has been planning this presidential run for a long time, so his last two years worth of donations have just as much of a public relations motive.
And this is more subtle, but look what else they did. They lumped the five years from 2000-04 together to say that the Obamas made $1.2 million - if you read it quickly without much thought (or like a Fox News reader), you'd immediately think they were millionaires back then, donating a tiny fraction of their wealth.
Now a lot of us would like to make $200,000 a year, and perhaps one percent isn't terribly generous in hindsight. But to put those tax returns in context, think about what life-changing events may have happened in the Obama household around those years (hint: Malia is currently 13 and Sasha is 10). Both parents had good careers at the time (Barack was a state senator, Michelle was the assistant dean of student services at the University of Chicago), but I can't condemn people who only donate $2000-2500 to charity a year when they are in the middle of starting a family - on either side of the aisle.
I just thought this was a particularly weak attempt at cherry-picking statistics and blaring a misleading headline. Even by their standards.