About us Login Get email updates
County Fair
Print

LEAKED EMAIL: Fox boss caught slanting news reporting

December 09, 2010 7:31 am ET by Ben Dimiero

At the height of the health care reform debate last fall, Bill Sammon, Fox News' controversial Washington managing editor, sent a memo directing his network's journalists not to use the phrase "public option."

Instead, Sammon wrote, Fox's reporters should use "government option" and similar phrases -- wording that a top Republican pollster had recommended in order to turn public opinion against the Democrats' reform efforts.

Journalists on the network's flagship news program, Special Report with Bret Baier, appear to have followed Sammon's directive in reporting on health care reform that evening.

Sources familiar with the situation in Fox's Washington bureau have told Media Matters that Sammon uses his position as managing editor to "slant" Fox's supposedly neutral news coverage to the right. Sammon's "government option" email is the clearest evidence yet that Sammon is aggressively pushing Fox's reporting to the right -- in this case by issuing written orders to his staff. 

As far back as March 2009, Fox personalities had sporadically referred to the "government option."

Two months prior to Sammon's 2009 memo, Republican pollster Frank Luntz appeared on Sean Hannity's August 18 Fox News program. Luntz scolded Hannity for referring to the "public option" and encouraged Hannity to use "government option" instead.

Luntz argued that "if you call it a 'public option,' the American people are split," but that "if you call it the 'government option,' the public is overwhelmingly against it." Luntz explained that the program would be "sponsored by the government" and falsely claimed that it would also be "paid for by the government."

"You know what," Hannity replied, "it's a great point, and from now on, I'm going to call it the government option."

On October 26, 2009, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid announced the inclusion of a public insurance option that states could opt out of in the Senate's health care bill.

That night, Special Report used "public" and "government" interchangeably when describing the public option provision.

Anchor Bret Baier referred to "a so-called public option"; the "public option"; "government-provided insurance coverage"; "this government-run insurance option"; the "healthcare public option"; and "the government-run option, the public option." Correspondent Shannon Bream referred to "a government-run public option"; "a public option"; "a government-run option"; and "the public option."

The next morning, October 27, Sammon sent an email to the staffs of Special Report, Fox News Sunday, and FoxNews.com, as well as to other reporters and producers at the network. The subject line read: "friendly reminder: let's not slip back into calling it the 'public option.' "

Sammon instructed staff to refer on air to "government-run health insurance," the "government option," "the public option, which is the government-run plan," or -- when "necessary" -- "the so-called public option":

From: Sammon, Bill
Sent: Tuesday, October 27, 2009 8:23 AM
To: 054 -FNSunday; 169 -SPECIAL REPORT; 069 -Politics; 030 -Root (FoxNews.Com); 036 -FOX.WHU; 050 -Senior Producers; 051 -Producers
Subject: friendly reminder: let's not slip back into calling it the "public option"

1)      Please use the term "government-run health insurance" or, when brevity is a concern, "government option," whenever possible.

2)      When it is necessary to use the term "public option" (which is, after all, firmly ensconced in the nation's lexicon), use the qualifier "so-called," as in "the so-called public option."

3)      Here's another way to phrase it: "The public option, which is the government-run plan."

4)      When newsmakers and sources use the term "public option" in our stories, there's not a lot we can do about it, since quotes are of course sacrosanct.

Fox's senior vice president for news, Michael Clemente, soon replied. He thanked Sammon for his email and said that he preferred Fox staffers use Sammon's third phrasing: "The public option, which is the government-run plan."

From: Clemente, Michael 
To: Sammon, Bill; 054 -FNSunday; 169 -SPECIAL REPORT; 069 -Politics; 030 -Root (FoxNews.Com); 036 -FOX.WHU; 050 -Senior Producers; 051 -Producers 
Sent: Tue Oct 27 08:45:29 2009
Subject: RE: friendly reminder: let's not slip back into calling it the "public option" 

Thank you Bill

#3 on your list is the preferred way to say it, write it, use it.

Michael Clemente

SVP-News

212.XXX.XXXX

Sammon's email appears to have had an impact. On the October 27 Special Report -- unlike on the previous night's broadcast -- Fox journalists made no references to the "public option" without using versions of the pre-approved qualifiers outlined in Sammon's and Clemente's emails.

Reporting on health care reform that night, Baier referenced the public option three times. In each instance, he referred to it as "government-run health insurance" or a "government-run health insurance option" -- precisely echoing the first wording choice laid out by Sammon.

On the same show, correspondent Jim Angle referred to "a government insurance plan, the so-called public option"; "a government insurance option"; and "a government insurance plan."

The wording of Sammon's email -- a "friendly reminder" not to "slip back into calling it the 'public option' " -- suggests that someone in the Fox News chain of command had previously issued similar instructions.

And indeed, the issue had surfaced before in Fox's newscasts.

On the September 3, 2009, Special Report -- three weeks after Luntz told Hannity to call it the "government option" -- Baier discussed the potential inclusion of a public option during the show's nightly commentary segment. 

During the segment -- after Baier himself had referred to a "public option" -- NPR's Mara Liasson also referred several times to the "public option," prompting Baier to interrupt her to clarify that it is the "government-run option of health insurance."

As the conversation continued, The Washington Post's Charles Krauthammer and The Weekly Standard's Steve Hayes both used "public option." When Liasson mentioned a "triggered public option," Baier again interrupted, asking, "Should we say 'government option,' by the way?"

"Government option, OK," replied Liasson.

"Everybody gets it," Baier explained.

On-screen text during the segment also used "Government Option."

Watch: 

Fox executives regularly defend the network by claiming that the right-wing propaganda on Hannity and its other opinion shows is entirely separate from its news programming, which they insist is objective. But Sammon's email gives credence to allegations that news from Fox's Washington bureau is being deliberately distorted to benefit conservatives and the Republican Party.

In October, Media Matters reported that sources with knowledge of the situation had raised concerns about the direction of Fox's Washington bureau under Sammon, who took over as managing editor in February 2009:

"[There is] more pressure from Sammon to slant news to the right or to tell people how to report news, doing it in a more brutish way," one source with knowledge of the situation said. "A lot of the reporters are conservative and are glad to pick up news. But there is a point at which it is no longer reporting, but distorting things."

"[Former Fox News Washington managing editor] Brit Hume was also encouraging people to look at things with other points of view. Brit was smart to see that a lot of mainstream media ignore certain points of view," the source added. "That was a smart and effective way to build the Fox brand.

"But if you come in to say, 'ignore points of view and ignore facts,' then you are straying away from being a legitimate news reporter."

Asked about the first source's allegation, a second source with knowledge of the situation said, "I wouldn't disagree with it from this standpoint: Brit was the 800-pound gorilla who could pick up the phone and say he will not do that. Bill Sammon is no 800-pound gorilla within the organization. He doesn't have that much sway."

The second source also said of Sammon, "He is not going to buck the bosses in New York. The D.C. bureau chief [Brian Boughton] and managing editor in D.C. [Sammon] are not as powerful as they once were. They are not going to raise objections and fight hard. They will just pass on the message."

Since then, a Fox source has told Media Matters:

"People are allowed to have opinions when they espouse opinions. But when news is being tampered with, you have to worry. I keep hearing things from staffers about Sammon."

"I think Sammon comes up with this himself. It takes a conservative slant; it is his news judgment. If things are being classed as news that aren't, that is a problem."

Media Matters contacted Sammon, Clemente, and two Fox spokespeople for comment and we have not received a response.

Update:

Sammon spoke to The Daily Beast's Howard Kurtz about the leaked email and reportedly told him:

Sammon said in an interview that the term "public option" "is a vague, bland, undescriptive phrase," and that after all, "who would be against a public park?" The phrase "government-run plan," he said, is "a more neutral term," and was used just last week by a New York Times columnist.   

"I have no idea what the Republicans were pushing or not. It's simply an accurate, fair, objective term." 

Joe Strupp, Jeremy Schulman, and other Media Matters staff contributed to this report.

Expand All Expand 1st Level Collapse All Add Comment
    • Author by timesthree (December 09, 2010 7:41 am ET)
      23 1
      It has been obvious all along. Substance doesn't matter in the media world. All that matters is what you call it.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by pointofview (December 09, 2010 8:46 am ET)
        9 49
        This is no different than the media deciding to call those favoring abortion pro choice, as opposed to pro death. MMFA seems to have no issue with that. Unless the baby decides it wants to be killled, there was no choice involved.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by timesthree (December 09, 2010 8:50 am ET)
          35 4
          That is because nobody in their right mind is pro-abortion. People believe that women have the right to make their own choices when it comes to their bodies. So no, it is not an example of semantics being used to slant the news.
          Report Abuse
        • Author by soze169880 (December 09, 2010 8:53 am ET)
          27 3
          Shorter pointofview: Who cares that Fox is deliberately slanting news when there are women out there who actually think they control their own bodies?!
          Report Abuse
          • Author by progressivevoicedaily (December 09, 2010 9:15 am ET)
            26  
            The fact that norationalpointofview thinks a woman's right to choose is his decision versus FoxPAC making things up and collaborating to actively mislead the public is outrageous. These people act like little children. They always point to the "other side" and site some transgression that doesn't even compare. 'I know you are but what am I'!....pathetic, simply pathetic.
            Report Abuse
            • Author by MARKKEMP (December 09, 2010 4:04 pm ET)
                 
              Thank you too!!!!
              Report Abuse
            • Author by eb (December 09, 2010 5:38 pm ET)
              3  
              Yup! Fox is on record that it perfers the government option term because it fits their agenda.

              Most news organizations use both terms, pro-life and pro-choice to describe their various factions. Would Mr. pointofview be ok with a network that just refered to abortion as baby killing?

              Report Abuse
          • Author by MARKKEMP (December 09, 2010 4:03 pm ET)
               
            EVERYBODY controls their own body because God gave us Free Will!!!!
            Report Abuse
        • Author by bear.law6353 (December 09, 2010 9:14 am ET)
          27  
          As usual, the wingnuts have it ass-backwards. The term "pro-life" is the manipulative one. "Pro-choice" is a perfectly appropriate way to describe the belief that the government should keep its nose out of a woman's personal affairs. Nobody is pro-death, except maybe the anti-choice zealots who think it's okay to murder abortion providers.
          Report Abuse
          • Author by curiousindependent (December 09, 2010 12:59 pm ET)
            11  
            Interesting, isn't it, that these folks who claim to want the government to stay out of their business think the government should regulate someone else's business.

            Report Abuse
            • Author by grlbhvingbadly (December 09, 2010 1:12 pm ET)
                 
              @curiousindependent:

              Thank you! I've been saying that same thing for so long! I actually asked an uber-conservative guy a question regarding that same matter -- and he walked out of the room in anger.

              Amazing isn't it?
              Report Abuse
            • Author by MARKKEMP (December 09, 2010 4:06 pm ET)
                 
              Amen!!!
              Report Abuse
          • Author by RustyCannon (December 09, 2010 1:28 pm ET)
               
            Exactly. The most descriptive language in that debate is "Pro-choice" and "anti-choice". Any other language is simply skewing the facts.
            Report Abuse
          • Author by MARKKEMP (December 09, 2010 4:05 pm ET)
               
            Thank you, thank you and thank you again!
            Report Abuse
        • Author by NiceguyEddie (December 09, 2010 9:19 am ET)
          39 1
          What a load. The pro-choice position is just that: PRO-CHOICE. The "pro-life" postion? Is anti-choice.

          This epithet is especailly apt when you consider how many of these "pro-lifers," these "SANCTITY of life" people, (1) support the use of capitial punnishment, and (2) support war in general, and supported the VOLUNTARY (Iraq) Was in particular. (Not to mention their love of firearms and their opposition to gun control measures.)

          If you are strictly against all three? Fine, THEN you can call yourself "pro-life" without the adults in the room shickering at you. Otherwise? You're ANTI-CHOICE. Period.

          And hey: "Anti-Choice" fits pretty well with these same people's views of LGBT people, Atheists, Non-Christians... it's really pretty remarkable just how anti-choice they are!

          ------------------------------------------
          LOL - Have a nice day!
          Report Abuse
          • Author by realamerica (December 09, 2010 9:26 am ET)
            16  
            *<applause>*
            Report Abuse
          • Author by progressivevoicedaily (December 09, 2010 9:26 am ET)
            23 1
            Not to mention most people who claim to be "pro-life" are all for the death penalty. And not only that but they are against any sort of social safety net in society, such as Social Security or Medicare. So basically there all about making sure your born, be it rape or incest, but once your out your on your own kid! These people also claim to be Christians. Figure that one out!!
            Report Abuse
            • Author by kalentros (December 09, 2010 10:52 am ET)
              18 1
              Carlin said it best: "Conservatives want live babies so they can grow up to become dead soldiers."
              Report Abuse
              • Author by NiceguyEddie (December 09, 2010 11:18 am ET)
                17  
                Carlin said it best: [Insert anything Carlin has ever said, ever.

                -------------------------------
                RIP, George.
                Report Abuse
                • Author by Conchobhar (December 09, 2010 1:43 pm ET)
                  3  
                  D@mn forkin' right.
                  Report Abuse
                • Author by dazednamused (27 minutes ago)
                     
                  Carlin on the sanctity of life: "If everything that's ever lived is dead, and everything alive is going to die ... where does the sacred part come in?"
                  Report Abuse
              • Author by MARKKEMP (December 09, 2010 4:08 pm ET)
                   
                Especially babies of color!!!
                Report Abuse
            • Author by MARKKEMP (December 09, 2010 4:07 pm ET)
                 
              EXACTLY!!!!
              Report Abuse
            • Author by sharpshooter57 (December 09, 2010 9:49 pm ET)
              2 5
              most people who claim to be "pro-life" are all for the death penalty.


              Really, you don't understand the difference between the two? Christians believe in the sanctity of life. And we believe that life begins at conception. You can argue that it is just a blob and I will allow you your opinion. But when does it become viable? Do you believe in late term abortion? Do you think that after 2 trimesters of pregnancy the Mother can still get an abortion? You call that choice? Ever do any research to the mental conditions of women that do have an abortion? I don't want to take away their choice as you like to call it, but, the government ought to make it easier for adoptions to parents that can't have a child of their own. Ever look at the statistics of how many abortions are done each year. Are you proud of that statistic?

              And to say we don't believe in a social safety net? How stupid of a comment is that? Most people want a social safety net, but the way the government is running it, it is destined to go bankrupt. Get off your liberal mantra.
              Report Abuse
              • Author by yoiksaway (15 hours and 25 seconds ago)
                1  
                Sanctity, viable, mental conditions, adoptions, safety net, bankrupt... Wha...?

                I don't care if life begins when someone thinks about conception. Mother has priority, end of story.

                How about we let all the females hash this one out?

                Safety net? Sure, it will go bankrupt if you try not to fund it. Of course it will fail given enough of those who want government to fail.

                Hey, are you pro-death penalty?
                Report Abuse
                • Author by GreenLantern (7 hours and 20 minutes ago)
                    1
                  Real practicing Christians also believe that you help the children after they are born, the people that have a harder time helping themselves, the "widows and orphans", the "least of those, you do unto me", render unto Caesar that which is Caesars, etc. I see very little of that from the voting records of national and now even state local repuglicans.
                  We have one of the best social safety nets in the world that has about 3% overhead. That is also Christian. but you wouldn't know it from the rhetoric of what comes from what I have to call the hate-wing.
                  Report Abuse
              • Author by progressivevoicedaily (6 hours and 15 minutes ago)
                   
                I would only support abortion as the last option, either threatening the mother's health or terminating because of rape or incest. I couldn't agree with you more that we need to make it easier for people to give up their children for adoption. Abortions for convenience or because the mother isn't fit to be a parent should not be allowed, adoptions should be the alternative.

                If your a right wing nutjobber, then yes you don't believe in a social safety net. At least not one that you can't profit off of. If you personally don't think that way then your in the wrong party. Giving uber-rich folk money they don't need, and then holding up unemployment benefits of which those people pay into is ridiculous, and immoral. Especially when republican deregulation and the incentivising of shipping jobs over seas has created the mess in the first place. So, until I'm proven wrong I'll continue with my Liberal mantra. Sorry that facts and reality get in the way of your self righteous outlook on life.
                Report Abuse
              • Author by yoiksaway (5 hours and 14 minutes ago)
                1  
                Anyway, related to the topic, Luntz and his ilk are so amazingly successful at sloganeering, that the term "government" has negative connotation for a huge number of people. And what do you know, sharpshooter57 uses it that way.

                So the word "government" is implied to be a bad thing, then it is used to derail the merits of a proposal. Luntz and Sammon and sharpshooter57 don't want debate, just derailment. What an outstanding example of leadership.
                Report Abuse
              • Author by yoiksaway (5 hours and 29 seconds ago)
                   
                See progusa's comment below. It should be at the top of the thread for all to read.
                Report Abuse
          • Author by mcgovern2 (December 09, 2010 11:46 am ET)
               
            Once again the "Pro Choice Zealots" will not defend the life of an innocent baby who has done nothing to deserve to die. But they will defend the rights of Jeffery Dalmer (?). Who has done unspeakable things to people. Once again, who is the zealot.
            Report Abuse
          • Author by empi324 (December 09, 2010 1:38 pm ET)
               
            I posted something similar. Thank you for your post. You said it better than I.

            This is a privacy issue. No one can tell me what to do with my body and if I chose to not have a baby it is my choice - period
            Report Abuse
          • Author by MARKKEMP (December 09, 2010 4:07 pm ET)
               
            Thanks Eddie - good points!
            Report Abuse
        • Author by wookie (December 09, 2010 9:49 am ET)
          14  
          The abortion issue is right wing PC. You guys doing the whole "saving the babies" shtick to deflect attention from your losing arguments.
          Report Abuse
          • Author by NiceguyEddie (December 09, 2010 2:14 pm ET)
            11  
            Poor women can't have an abortion, for the sake of the child, but god forbid we help them get any decent pre-natal care. (That would be socialist!)

            ---------------------------------------------
            *rolls eyes*
            Report Abuse
          • Author by highlyunlikely (December 09, 2010 4:07 pm ET)
            6  
            and speaking of semantics, how about the phrase "killing babies"? That's not the slightest bit slanted or misleading. Yes, sarcasm.
            Report Abuse
        • Author by coldteablues19577325 (December 09, 2010 10:19 am ET)
          16 1
          "This is no different than the media deciding to call those favoring abortion pro choice, as opposed to pro death. MMFA seems to have no issue with that. Unless the baby decides it wants to be killled, there was no choice involved." --pointofview

          Why, oh why, is abortion ALWAYS brought into the picture? There's a HUGE difference. I am pro choice but not necessarily pro abortion. If pro lifers had their way, there would be NO CHOICE whatsoever. As it stands now, they have a choice NOT to abort. But rather than being satisfied with that, they want to take that choice away from women. As for the "baby's" choice, it depends upon a person's point of view of when a fetus becomes a baby.

          I could go on and on, however, I won't as hijacking threads is not productive at all.

          As for the outright lying about public option, anyone with half a brain could see what FOX was doing with renaming it "government" option. Seems FOX likes contolling people with fear rather than respect. Shame on them, and shame on those who are too ignorant to see it for what it is.

          Learn to think folks ... a thinking person is much more dangerous than a sheep.
          Report Abuse
          • Author by kalentros (December 09, 2010 11:00 am ET)
            12  
            Ask these "pro-life" people how old they are, then ask them from which point they determine that.

            I also ask them if they can show their "conception certificate", to prove they were the result of pure American fornication, not some Caribbean vacation.
            Report Abuse
          • Author by curiousindependent (December 09, 2010 1:02 pm ET)
            3  
            I saw a baby wearing a t-shirt once that said "now that I am safe, I am pro-choice."
            I laughed so hard I snotted myself.
            Report Abuse
          • Author by MARKKEMP (December 09, 2010 4:14 pm ET)
            1  
            Abortion is brought into it because it gets a lot of Sunday Christians riled up and on their side even when those people don't really agree with much else the conservatives push.
            ***Turn off faux news and get evereyone (and every business) to do likewise. If only brainless people watch, they will lose their power.
            Report Abuse
          • Author by wesley_fpt (6 hours and 33 minutes ago)
               
            For real..thought this thread was about Fox getting more damning internal memo's leaked. I've read so many articles and watched so many clips that prove Fox's bias that this revelation is hardly news anymore.
            Report Abuse
        • Author by vysotsky (December 09, 2010 10:30 am ET)
          11 2
          "This is no different than the media deciding to call those favoring abortion pro choice, as opposed to pro death."

          Or calling the War of Northern Aggression the Civil War, right?
          Report Abuse
        • Author by Nihilist (December 09, 2010 11:20 am ET)
          10 1
          another goober, love the fetus, hate the child.
          Report Abuse
        • Author by curiousindependent (December 09, 2010 12:55 pm ET)
          7  

          ...as opposed to pro death.

          Yeah, no. The only people that are pro-death are those that are pro-war and pro-death penalty.

          More accurate would be to say that the media "decided" to call those opposing abortion pro-life, rather than anti-choice

          Report Abuse
          • Author by curiousindependent (December 09, 2010 3:59 pm ET)
            2  
            Oh, by the way, I would have to classify myself as at least partially pro-death, as I truly believe that if someone has demonstrated that he or she is willing to take another human's life for absolutely no reason, then that person should be put down like a rabid dog.

            I will temper that by saying that, while I would council my wife to not go the abortion route if she was pregnant, I still believe that the final decision would be hers and HERS ALONE. And the only reason that I would even feel as though I had the right to offer counsel on the matter of any kind is that (presumably) that baby would be mine too.
            Report Abuse
            • Author by highlyunlikely (December 09, 2010 4:54 pm ET)
              2  
              not to be too fawning, but your wife is lucky to have you. As for the death penalty, as an Ill. resident, I wrote a scathing piece in defense of it when my now-a-convict Gov. declared a moratorium on it - probably my one departure from down-the-line liberalism - because, as I said, only death is the death of hope.
              Report Abuse
          • Author by MARKKEMP (December 09, 2010 4:17 pm ET)
               
            Well put - thanks!
            Report Abuse
        • Author by empi324 (December 09, 2010 1:36 pm ET)
             
          This is about privacy. No one should be able to tell me what to do with my body. No one. It is my decision. I wonder how men would feel if someone told them they couldn't have a vasectomy. Plain and simple, it is about privacy and the person who decides to have an abortion has to live with that decision. It is no one else's business.

          These wingnuts want the government out of their lives, but have no problem legislating what a person doe in their private life
          Report Abuse
        • Author by pete592 (December 09, 2010 1:42 pm ET)
          3  
          "This is no different than the media deciding to call those favoring abortion pro choice, as opposed to pro death"
          Except for one tiny difference: no incriminating e-mails or any other evidence of a top-level directive.
          Report Abuse
        • Author by MARKKEMP (December 09, 2010 4:01 pm ET)
             
          Pro choice DOES NOT mean "favoring abortion", it means "to choose" between aborting or not . It DOES NOT imply the choice of death while pro life gives those that were raped, victims of incest, etc. NO CHOICE!
          Report Abuse
        • Author by dhertzfe (15 hours and 15 minutes ago)
          1  
          It's Pro-Choice of the woman to decide what to do with their bodies. You, your religion and the government do not have power over the birth canal.
          Report Abuse
        • Author by kamrom (1 hour and 24 minutes ago)
             
          You use false weasel words, and its disgusting. You have no grasp of history, making your name quite ironic. ALL throughout history, those groups who saught to demonize their opponents had done this. Because if you're "Pro Life", that means you want people to say others are "anti-life" or "pro death" its a millenia old tactic, and it wasnt any better the 50,000th time I read it.

          You are INTENTIONALLY muddying thei ssue, in about as horrible a way as you can. You have NO UNDERSTANDING of our position, and for that, I find you horrid. You think liberals WANT abortions? Of course not, you lunatic! We just recognize that They will happen, regardless of the law so long as a woman wants a choice for her life. If we want abortions to STOP, we have to go to the rooot of the problem. Because we know unambiguously that trying to stop.

          And you dont have the first clue, the first place to go looking for the real problems. Nope, you just make stuff up in the most demonizing terms you can come up with .On purpose. because you are a disgusting human.

          You think you're better though. But you have no perspective: You cant send people off to die in war and die at the electric chair while claiming to be pro-life. All it shows is you are "Pro-My-Preconceived-Notions-Of-Life-and-Fairness" But never the less, you do it. Never the less, you elect people who support it. You dont call for the defunding of wars, you dont call for the defunding of the mercenari companies.

          You didnt get mad when Bush gave up looking for Osama bin Laden, even disbanding the group. This is the guy who kill 3K+ americans in one day, and Bush just stopped looking for him. There was no outcry, only silence from the right. You didnt get mad when Haliburton electrocuted our soldiers to death in their own showers. You didnt get mad when Watler Reed was shown to have cockroaches.

          And people wil lget abortions whether YOU like them or not. So long as you support tripe like "abstinance-only," which fails so bad even PALIN's kid couldnt abstain. Also, why do you hate Sarah Palin? Her daughter said that she had the choice of keeping or aborting, but decided to be pro-life. THAT GOES AGAINST EVERYTHING YOU SAID HERE. Dear god, get some help. Channeling dead crazy people is dangerous.
          Report Abuse
      • Author by whydoesntthiswork (December 09, 2010 12:04 pm ET)
           
        it is a government option. it doesn't matter if you call it public or government, the option is still coming from the government.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by dazednamused (19 minutes ago)
             
          And yet the actual choice either for or against this option would have been made by the public. Splitting hairs, but oh well ...
          Report Abuse
      • Author by markbfoot199 (December 09, 2010 1:12 pm ET)
        2 9
        What is the difference then the Government calling it man made disasters instead of terrorism? Please this is nothing new, move on.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by curiousindependent (December 09, 2010 2:03 pm ET)
          4  
          The term was "man-caused" disasters, and I agree with you, it is disingenuous.
          The term "man-made" disasters is used to reference things like the BP Gulf oil spill. You know, that little fracas that caused the "Honorable" Representative Joe Barton to apologize because we the people were going to make British Petroleum pay for the destruction they caused.
          Heinous, and how dare we?
          Report Abuse
          • Author by curiousindependent (December 09, 2010 2:16 pm ET)
            4  
            By the way, if you, too, feel as badly as Joe Barton, you can apologize to BP as well.
            Report Abuse
          • Author by MARKKEMP (December 09, 2010 4:18 pm ET)
               
            Thank you also!
            Report Abuse
          • Author by CoolSlaw (2 hours and 44 minutes ago)
               
            Remember when they were calling fanatics who blew themselves up along with random innocent people to inflict terror were being called "homicide" bombers by the Fox news ilk?

            That one was particularly weird because it was meant to evoke stronger emotions then the idea of a suicide bombing. First, I didn't think the public needed encouragement to be outraged by these types of vile acts. Secondly, it flat out distorts the story. Any bombing used to kill others in cold blood is a homicide bombing.

            The right wing media and politicians have been playing these weird language games for a while now. I'm sure you all know how they encourage republican lawmakers and advocates to use the term "democrat party" because they focus tested and found that the phonics were less pleasing to the ear then to call it by it's correct name "democratic party" which sounds more like democracy.

            I guess right wingers are more pleased with psychological wordgames then accuracy or truth.
            Report Abuse
            • Author by kamrom (1 hour and 20 minutes ago)
                 
              Well, thats the problem with being terrorists; your platform is wholly evil and vile that you have to lie in order to make sense of it.

              I take solace in the knowledge that, even if we could unambiguously prove right-wingers wrong on every topic, they would STILL lie about then.

              We all know they would.
              Report Abuse
    • Author by AC_Mem (December 09, 2010 7:51 am ET)
      21 1
      Could we possibly hope that one day there would be a "Foxie-Leaks" evidence dump on the republican run Faux network?

      We can only hope - it would be VERY enlightening...

      :)
      Report Abuse
      • Author by neon desert (December 09, 2010 9:33 am ET)
        12 1
        Probably less enlightening and more entertaining. Because most of us are already aware of the tactics - we recognize them every day. And those who champion ClusterFox would just defend it anyway (see pointofhead's comment above, and psycho3d's below).

        I suppose that it would be useful just to have all the evidence in one handy place for quick and efficient use in forums like this and friendly debates, though.
        Report Abuse
      • Author by NiceguyEddie (December 09, 2010 9:46 am ET)
        6 1
        What could it possibly tell us that we don't already know?

        ----------------------
        LOL
        Report Abuse
      • Author by empi324 (December 09, 2010 1:39 pm ET)
           
        Maybe a real liberal could pose as a right winger and get a job at Fox and then become a foxleaker.
        Report Abuse
      • Author by xdream (December 09, 2010 4:07 pm ET)
           
        I agree, it would be useful to see a secret memo dump from Fox... And from all news organizations regardless of the political ideology they are pushing.

        Citizen Kane, which deals with the compromise of the newsroom, remains one of my favorite movies, and RKO 281 is always nice to watch afterwards, where we find what Kane (Hearst) had been looking for all those years.
        Report Abuse
      • Author by maxconrad (7 hours and 50 minutes ago)
        1 1
        Kind of like how Liberals changed their name to Progressives when the former made them sound like the socialists they really are, like how Liberals changed it from "global warming" to "climate change" when the data proved there was no warming, like how Journolist proved the Liberal media was in league to sabaotage conservative candidates....

        ...both sides do it so don't act shocked.

        FOX is just as bias as MSNBC, CNN, ABC, CBS, NPR, New York Times, etc....
        Report Abuse
      • Author by maxconrad (7 hours and 50 minutes ago)
        1 2
        Kind of like how Liberals changed their name to Progressives when the former made them sound like the socialists they really are, like how Liberals changed it from "global warming" to "climate change" when the data proved there was no warming, like how Journolist proved the Liberal media was in league to sabaotage conservative candidates....

        ...both sides do it so don't act shocked.

        FOX is just as bias as MSNBC, CNN, ABC, CBS, NPR, New York Times, etc....
        Report Abuse
    • Author by GreenLantern (December 09, 2010 8:31 am ET)
      16 2
      Joseph Goebbels would be proud!
      Report Abuse
    • Author by mmfa.fan (December 09, 2010 8:40 am ET)
      6  
      Fair and balanced!
      Report Abuse
      • Author by Iceguy (December 09, 2010 9:38 am ET)
        8  
        Correction..."Far and Unbalance"
        Report Abuse
      • Author by Conchobhar (December 09, 2010 1:48 pm ET)
        5  
        Luntz argued that "if you call it a 'public option,' the American people are split," but that "if you call it the 'government option,' the public is overwhelmingly against it." Luntz explained that the program would be "sponsored by the government" and falsely claimed that it would also be "paid for by the government."

        "You know what," Hannity replied, "it's a great point, and from now on, I'm going to call it the government option."


        WE REPORT, YOU DECIDE Yeah, right.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by curiousindependent (December 09, 2010 2:05 pm ET)
          4  
          WE REPORT, YOU DECIDE

          Yeah, I think that, in the interest of truth in advertising, they should probably be made to change to "We Report, Then Tell You What to Think".
          Report Abuse
    • Author by Psycho3D (December 09, 2010 8:56 am ET)
      2 37
      Well call a spade, a spade!!!
      whether you agree with health care or not, it is going to be overseen and run by our government, not the public. I think government option is a more honest term for it. So what is the big deal? If you support it that's fine, but a government run insurance company to compete directly with private run insurance company is anything but public
      Report Abuse
      • Author by realamerica (December 09, 2010 9:02 am ET)
        19 3
        I think ~Psycho3D

        We all know that isn't true. You are a FOX puppet. Admit it, embrace it, own it.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by Psycho3D (December 09, 2010 9:16 am ET)
          4 27
          The public health insurance option is a proposed government-run health insurance agency which competes with other health insurance companies. It is not the same as Publicly-funded health care. Called the public insurance option or public option, for short, it is a proposed health insurance plan that could be offered by the federal government of the United States. It has been featured in two bills considered by the U.S. House of Representatives: the proposed Affordable Health Care for America Act (H.R. 3962), passed by the House in 2009, and its predecessor the proposed America's Affordable Health Choices Act (H.R. 3200). Another bill, the Public Option Act, also referred to as the Medicare You Can Buy Into Act, (H.R. 4789), would allow all citizens and permanent residents to buy into a public option by participating in the public Medicare program.

          This is the definition of "public option" and it is true.

          Thank you very much
          Report Abuse
          • Author by neon desert (December 09, 2010 9:39 am ET)
            22 1
            All that might mean something, if ClusterFox was directing their terminology in the interest of accuracy. But they went to court to defend their right to lie to their viewers. You know they're just doing it because it "sounds bad" and sways public opinion.
            Report Abuse
            • Author by curiousindependent (December 09, 2010 1:06 pm ET)
              6  
              Not only that, but the court of appeals unanimously found that Fox has no obligation to tell the truth.
              Report Abuse
            • Author by sharpshooter57 (December 09, 2010 10:29 pm ET)
              2 5
              You know they're just doing it because it "sounds bad" and sways public opinion.


              Well, the original reason for calling it the Public Option was to gain public opinion. Why didn't they come forth with the truth to begin with. The public Option run by the government. Then we wouldn't be having this argument. It's all about words, and what sounds good.
              Kind of like the change from global warming to climate change.
              Report Abuse
              • Author by The_Cat (December 09, 2010 10:35 pm ET)
                5 1
                'Public' option as in 'public' library, sharpshooter57. As in, open for enrollment to the general public. A public option. Is this a difficult concept to grasp?
                Report Abuse
                • Author by sharpshooter57 (December 09, 2010 11:17 pm ET)
                  3 4
                  Why don't liberals admit it's run by the government. Because it would sway public opinion? Can you grasp that or is it over your head.
                  Report Abuse
          • Author by ccreadme (December 09, 2010 10:57 am ET)
            10  
            You are missing the point. The directive from "Fishboy" was meant to change public opinion. Strangely, polls do move people and Clutz himself said that he can get any answer he desires based on the way he frames the question. This was a "set-up" and it worked for many of the FlopNewz minions. (like yourself)
            Report Abuse
          • Author by empi324 (December 09, 2010 1:40 pm ET)
            1  
            We already have a government run health care system called the VA and it does very well thank you very much.
            Report Abuse
          • Author by MiddleLeft (December 09, 2010 1:54 pm ET)
            4  
            Psycho said:The public health insurance option is a proposed government-run health insurance agency which competes with other health insurance companies. It is not the same as Publicly-funded health care.

            Come on Physco get with it! You are screwing up "pointofviews" successful derail of the thread. He had stimulated over 30 posts in a row that were completely off topic and now you have come back to it.
            Report Abuse
      • Author by wookie (December 09, 2010 9:54 am ET)
        22 1
        The government IS the public, as in "of the people, by the people and for the people". The right demonizes the concept of government to kill popular ideas they don't like. If they do like them then the ideas become "pro America"
        Report Abuse
        • Author by sharpshooter57 (December 09, 2010 10:15 pm ET)
          1 5
          The government IS the public


          Bottom line, the government would have run the public option and the majority of voters have had it with the way government has run SS, Medicare and Medicaid. Their all broke or soon to and to put another pig in the pen is just dumb.

          Report Abuse
          • Author by The_Cat (December 09, 2010 10:48 pm ET)
            2 1
            the majority of voters have had it with the way government has run SS, Medicare and Medicaid.


            This is an interesting assertion. Do you have a source?

            Their all broke or soon to . . .[sic]


            Another interesting assertion. Do you have a source for this one?
            Report Abuse
            • Author by sharpshooter57 (December 09, 2010 11:15 pm ET)
              2 4
              It's not really rocket science. How do you usually find an answer to a question? I hope not on this site.

              http://www.brookings.edu/multimedia/video/2009/0514_social_security_aaron.aspx


              The latest report on the solvency of the Social Security and Medicare trust funds reveals that these entitlement programs will likely run out of money sooner than expected. Senior Fellow Henry Aaron assesses the future of these two programs.

              Report Abuse
      • Author by NiceguyEddie (December 09, 2010 10:21 am ET)
        20 1
        Umm... actually? The GOVERNMENT? IS the "public." Government programs and resources are, by definition, PUBLIC programs and resources.

        PRIVATE Companies? PRIVATE Resources? PRIVATE Insurance? Is just that: PRIVATE. By definition the exact OPPOSITE of "public."

        Mein gott, you'd think at least a few of the "english only" crowd might actually SPEAK the gott damned language!

        (And before you waste anyone's time: Even a publicly owned comapny is still only made up of and answerable to a handful of individuals, while the Government is still answerable to (and made up of) the ENTIRE public.)

        ----------------------------------------------
        Is the double-speak on your part intentional, or are you just that brainwashed?
        Report Abuse
        • Author by curiousindependent (December 09, 2010 1:13 pm ET)
          11  
          Well, I have to say, I actually LIKED the fact that my privately owned insurance company was able to refrain from paying for the colonoscopy that my doctor thought I needed(mostly because I can't see any scenario where I would be happy about someone running a machine or anything else up my exit only) . I much prefer to pay 6 grand a year to a for profit company to be declined medical coverage when I need it than to pay probably half that to a government agency. I love the way foxbots are brainwashed.
          By the way, the CEO of that benevolent private insurance company raked in 18 million last year. I have a feeling that a government agency, which pays NOWHERE NEAR that to anyone, ought to be able to provide the same lack of coverage for far less. Heck, maybe they could charge me the same and provide even better coverage. Since they wouldn't have to pay in excess of 10 million a year to the top 15 executives while still making enough profit to keep investors interested in parking their money in stock.
          Report Abuse
      • Author by kittycreek (December 09, 2010 1:31 pm ET)
           
        Actually "public" and "Government" are used interchagebly, such as "government employee" or "public employee". However, since the righties constantly ram down everyone's throats how evil the government is and how we need smaller government...blaa blaa blaa- The word "government" now has a negegative cannotation.
        Report Abuse
      • Author by RustyCannon (December 09, 2010 1:37 pm ET)
           
        Government run is exactly public run. You vote for your leaders in government and if things aren't going well, you vote them out. The bureaucrats that run the various governmental departments are answerable to the elected officials. What could be more public than that?

        Now if your health insurance company is treating you badly or not responding to you, I suggest you see just how far you can get by trying to get the president of the company to respond to you. And when they don't respond to you, do you get to vote on whether or not they get to keep their jobs?
        Report Abuse
      • Author by cugagcmu805031 (December 09, 2010 6:26 pm ET)
        4 1
        Well, then, why aren't conservatives like yourself kicking all of the elderly off the Medicare rolls? Medicare is really a government run healthcare program, but none of the conservatives are calling for it to be abolished. In fact, they endorsed its existence by adding the Medicare Part D Prescription Plan.

        As long as I have to continue to make premium payments to United Healthcare, I'm going to disregard your illogical rant about "government" taking over the healthcare industry.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by sharpshooter57 (December 09, 2010 10:20 pm ET)
          1 5
          kicking all of the elderly off the Medicare rolls


          For as much as we pay for Medicare in payroll taxes you'd think it's coverage would be better.
          My Mother in Law has to carry an additional policy for over $250 a month to get coverage. Yeah, great government insurance we have there.
          Report Abuse
          • Author by Lord of Light (December 09, 2010 10:54 pm ET)
            3  
            For as much as we pay for Medicare in payroll taxes you'd think it's coverage would be better. My Mother in Law has to carry an additional policy for over $250 a month to get coverage. Yeah, great government insurance we have there.

            You might want to do some research on who's constantly discussing cutting Medicare even more as they discuss adding $500 billion to the deficit thanks to unnecessary tax breaks for the top 2 percent.

            And yeah, I just love private-sector healthcare. Having 45,000 people die for lack of insurance, one million go bankrupt due to medical bills, and being ranked 37th in the world (behind Costa Rica and Chile!) is sure something to be proud of. So glad we're not stupid like the Canadian government, who actually cares about the welfare of its citizens.
            Report Abuse
      • Author by chARLIE (December 09, 2010 7:31 pm ET)
           
        no it want it will be re4pealed count on it
        Report Abuse
    • Author by frank1569 (December 09, 2010 8:56 am ET)
      18  
      Shocking... from a 'news' organization who's dear leader considers NPR Nazis - I mean, insensitive bigots.

      Other FOXpublican propaganda terms: 'obamacare' instead of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, and 'jobless benefits' instead of Unemployment Insurance for involuntarily laid off American workers.

      'Death tax' anyone?
      Report Abuse
      • Author by SteevK (14 hours and 40 minutes ago)
        2  
        I remember when "suicide bomber" became "homicide bomber". Hume played a clip of Bush (not sure if it was live or delayed) worrying that calling them the former might generate public sympathy. From that moment forward, Hume (and almost everybody on Fox) has adopted the "homicide bomber" language...

        Besides being just stupid (all terrorist bombers are "homicide bombers") it overlooks the reason for the distinction: the "suicide bomber" is suicidal - you can't scare them like you would a non-suicidal homicide bomber. A lesson BushCo never learned...

        ..
        Report Abuse
    • Author by blk-in-alabam (December 09, 2010 9:15 am ET)
      20 2
      Koch/saudi/fox republican party media knows they have committed many legal,and ethical violations.They know people who want to,and will get at them will only be allowed to during a second Obama term.This has nothing to do with the individual in the White House.That is just the way it is.Pay back for dirty deeds comes in the second.This is part of the reasn for disruption of the civil rights era.Lyndon Johnson never got 2 full terms for pay back.He got a term,and a half.Nixon knew,took advantage,whent to far,and set us up for Reagan.Nixon was his own man.Reagan's creators,and handlers used his second term to rob the USA,while setting up,and compounding, the practice of robbing future generations while driving them in the ground.........Fox news has a stated survival mission "Stop a second Obama term at any cost"..................Sorry anout the history lesson,but sometimes you have to explain before you get accused of being on an Obama high,speaking another language,or something like that.
      Report Abuse
        • Author by blk-in-alabam (December 09, 2010 9:28 am ET)
          12  
          I have no knowledge of if.Maybe you can tell me about your experience with it.........We play the dozens hard in Alabam,care to continue???
          Report Abuse
        • Author by curiousindependent (December 09, 2010 4:04 pm ET)
          5  
          Wow, notveryproud, could you maybe come up with some kind of coherent opposing view rather than just tossing out barbs and "witticisms"?
          Seriously, if that is all you can do, perhaps you should learn how to actually be witty.
          Report Abuse
    • Author by mandersenri (December 09, 2010 9:16 am ET)
      7  
      This barely qualifies as the typical fabrication of truth that normally is the problem with FoxNews political stories. However it does bring me back to Noam Chomsky's "Media Control".
      Scary.

      Report Abuse
    • Author by proudconservative (December 09, 2010 9:17 am ET)
      1 30
      Gee, media matters (for even less since 11/2/10), it seems to me that there was a plan hatched by leftists to do much more than slant the news.............

      The Daily Caller reports ABC News's "tough questioning" of Obama at a 2008 debate with Hillary Clinton "left many of [the Journolist participants] outraged":

      "George [Stephanopoulos]," fumed Richard Kim of the Nation, is "being a disgusting little rat snake."
      Others went further. According to records obtained by The Daily Caller, at several points during the 2008 presidential campaign a group of liberal journalists took radical steps to protect their favored candidate. Employees of news organizations including Time, Politico, the Huffington Post, the Baltimore Sun, the Guardian, Salon and the New Republic participated in outpourings of anger over how Obama had been treated in the media, and in some cases plotted to fix the damage.
      Most damning is a long quote from a Spencer Ackerman, who worked for something called the Washington Independent:

      I do not endorse a Popular Front, nor do I think you need to. It's not necessary to jump to Wright-qua-Wright's defense. What is necessary is to raise the cost on the right of going after the left. In other words, find a rightwinger's [sic] and smash it through a plate-glass window. Take a snapshot of the bleeding mess and send it out in a Christmas card to let the right know that it needs to live in a state of constant fear. Obviously I mean this rhetorically.
      And I think this threads the needle. If the right forces us all to either defend Wright or tear him down, no matter what we choose, we lose the game they've put upon us. Instead, take one of them--Fred Barnes, Karl Rove, who cares--and call them racists. Ask: why do they have such a deep-seated problem with a black politician who unites the country? What lurks behind those problems? This makes *them* sputter with rage, which in turn leads to overreaction and self-destruction.


      How quickly you've forgotten.... :(
      Report Abuse
      • Author by blk-in-alabam (December 09, 2010 9:23 am ET)
        13 1
        When you take your list,of slanting the news by the left,and put next the the time fox news is documented doing this.Which is the longer list?The problem is fox news takes it to the extream
        Report Abuse
        • Author by whydoesntthiswork (December 09, 2010 12:08 pm ET)
             
          does fox "slant" news because they disagree with every other news organizations? Or is it because all of you insecure liberals want to be told everything is going great?
          Report Abuse
      • Author by realamerica (December 09, 2010 9:24 am ET)
        18  
        How is what you posted even CLOSE to what FOXs managing editor has done?
        Report Abuse
        • Author by proudconservative (December 09, 2010 9:33 am ET)
          2 27
          un,

          Encouraging lib mainstream media types, (is there any other kind) and fellow axis members, to just call someone who disagrees with obama a racist when in a debate or reporting in order to stop accurate reporting about rev. wright and obama? that is outrageous!

          Moving the term from a public option to government option to clarify who is in charge? Which is more sinsister?
          Report Abuse
          • Author by realamerica (December 09, 2010 9:42 am ET)
            24  
            I would say that an internal memo from the big boss that is steering the rhetoric in a certain direction has ceased to be 'news' and moved into the 'opinion' category. Telling the entire 'news' cannel to use certain self-serving language is way more sinister, to me, than one journalist from one publication encouraging other 'journalists' to use a certain tactic when asking questions.
            Report Abuse
            • Author by neon desert (December 09, 2010 10:05 am ET)
              18 1
              Awww, how can you say that, realamerica? Just take a look at how they introduce Newt Gingrich as "the thrice married adulterer and disgraced former Republican speaker of the house Newt Gingrich" and Ollie North as "former Republican arms supplier to Iran and drug trafficker Ollie North", in the interest of clarifying who's opinion you're about to hear regarding the Democrat-sponsored health insurance bill.
              Report Abuse
              • Author by RustyCannon (December 09, 2010 1:59 pm ET)
                   
                And don't forget how they always introduce Dick Morris as the "GOP mole, adulter, hooker and foot fetishist turned lobbyist/FOX news promoter of his lobbying clients."
                Report Abuse
          • Author by bear.law6353 (December 09, 2010 12:32 pm ET)
               
            That's easy. The more sinister communication, by far, is the directive that comes from Fox management, if for no other reason than they actually have the power to enforce it. For you to compare this to an e-mail from an obscure blogger (Spencer Ackerman of "Wired") to members of a defunct mailing list (Journolist) that was roundly criticized by many of its recipients -- Kevin Drum of the Washington Monthly, among others, tore Ackerman a new one over this -- is laughable at best, and nothing more than a lame attempt to trivialize Fox's base manipulation of public opinion.

            The old "you guys do it, too" argument is the standard conservatard fallback for every piece of dishonest crap that you guys pull, but that dog stopped hunting a long time ago.
            Report Abuse
          • Author by curiousindependent (December 09, 2010 1:21 pm ET)
            7  
            So, I assume that you have a link to an unbiased website (and I have said before that this one is not one) that documents the heads of any media outlet other than Fox telling their "journalists" to present the "news" in a way that shines a better light on President Obama, Democrats, liberals, progressives, or their agendas?
            Report Abuse
          • Author by curiousindependent (December 09, 2010 4:22 pm ET)
            4 1
            Encouraging lib mainstream media types, (is there any other kind)


            I posed this question once before, and never did get an answer to it, so I will ask again.

            Can you please give me an example of liberal media? I would accept any mainstream network that shouts over and belittles conservative guests, cooks up half truths and misinformation, and has a directive from on high to slant the news to the left. Should be relatively easy to find, it would be the network that repeatedly posed the question of why, in 2000, the only state that had a problem counting its votes just happened to be run by the brother of the guy that was given the presidency because of that counting problem. Or maybe the network that hammered day in and day out about how it was odd that the Republican dominated congress and supreme court decided to stop counting the votes and call it for W.
            How about the one that points out frequently that, in 2003, We The People sent troops into Iraq for the sole purpose of finding and removing WMD's, NOT to overthrow Saddam or "liberate the people". "Mission Accomplished" indeed.

            By mainstream network, I would prefer one that is available with the rabbit ears that I use, like FOX is.
            Oh, and if it's not too much trouble, some links to the stories would be nice. I, unlike Becky and his fans, like to actually check "facts".
            Report Abuse
            • Author by GreenLantern (December 09, 2010 8:23 pm ET)
              1 1
              According to definition
              Liberal viewpoints include:
              Equal Rights
              Civil Rights
              Assisting the poor and indigent
              Human rights
              Individual freedom
              Fairness
              Government can help with these issues
              Conservative viewpoints are:
              Guns
              Capital punishment
              Defense (and now pre-emptive war)
              Resistant to any change
              Forced Religion.
              ==============================================
              So liberals believe in equal rights and fairness and if you believe that you are LIBRUL
              Cons believe in guns and capital punishment and killing.
              Maybe that is why they hate media.

              Report Abuse
              • Author by project21reps (December 09, 2010 11:29 pm ET)
                1 5
                According to definition
                Liberal viewpoints include:
                Equal Rights, opposed by the democratic party until 1964
                Civil Rights, opposed by the democratic party until 1964
                Assisting the poor and indigent,by using other people's resources
                Human rights, opposed by the democratic party until 1964
                Individual freedom, opposed by big government democrats,(and some b/g republicans) who believes in more government control of the individual
                Fairness, as define by who, those who take, or those who give?
                Government can help with these issues, by getting out of the individuals way.

                Conservative viewpoints are:According to definition

                Fought for Equal Rights since the inception of the union. Ended slavery,fought against jim crowe laws, proposed numerous civil rights legislation,sent troops to enforce school desegregation.
                Fought for Civil Rights for all Americans since the inception of the union.
                Assisting the poor and indigent, by their support of charities.
                Fought for Human rights since the inception of the union.
                Individual freedom is the mantra of all true conservatives

                Report Abuse
                • Author by yoiksaway (14 hours and 21 minutes ago)
                  4  
                  That's a laugher.

                  Fought for equal rights of white heterosexual males maybe. When such legislation is offered, who gives the argument that gays, women, minorities, etc., are getting more rights than everyone else? Wah.

                  Just how many of the poor and indigent are helped by charities? 5%? 10%? Maybe 100%? Uh, no. Of course they don't want to address the whole problem of poverty. It's just token gestures, because otherwise, they'd be in over their heads.

                  Please tell me when my individual freedom trumps your individual freedom. I want to take advantage of that. Oh, wait, we have laws. This results in something called "civilization."

                  Also, please list all (any?) of those cases in which government has control of the individual. Are you unable to paint your barn red or something?

                  Report Abuse
                  • Author by project21reps (4 hours and 41 minutes ago)
                       
                    YOIK: Obviously you do not know your history. And more are helped by charities than are helped by the government. And it is the government that MAKES laws, and those laws restrict freedom.
                    Report Abuse
                    • Author by yoiksaway (41 minutes ago)
                         
                      Aw shucks, I just don't know my history. Please enlighten me with details, especially the names of the progressives behind each cause you state.

                      Examples of those laws restricting freedom? I ask because I'm interested in exactly which among your freedoms are restricted.
                      Report Abuse
                • Author by marksewell (11 hours and 49 minutes ago)
                  1  
                  You are confusing democrat with liberal, and republican with conservative. While the parties may currently be dominated by these ideologies, it does not mean that it has always been so.
                  Report Abuse
                • Author by wesley_fpt (6 hours and 8 minutes ago)
                     
                  You're pretty mixed up. It was republicans who were against slavery and pro civil rights, but republicans were LIBERAL back then and democrats were conservative. MLK was a republican and Bull Connor was a democrat..can you guess which one was liberal and which one was conservative? Look up some info on the southern strategy that resulted from Barry Goldwaters failed election bid.
                  Report Abuse
                  • Author by project21reps (4 hours and 35 minutes ago)
                       
                    Tell me, since the sixties, when the republicans started to make inroads in the south, has race relations improved or gotten worse? What you are trying to do is gloss over the horrible past of the democrats, and blame the republicans for the misdeeds of the democrats, by saying that the republicans of today and the same as the democrats of yester year.
                    Report Abuse
            • Author by project21reps (14 hours and 41 minutes ago)
                2
              Here you go, chief:http://www.akdart.com/media.html
              Report Abuse
              • Author by GreenLantern (7 hours and 26 minutes ago)
                1  
                Not a good source, every entry has words like "love-fest" "bleeeding-heart" etc.
                Pretty much a "talking points" attack add on anything that might be liberal.
                Report Abuse
      • Author by jjcomet514 (December 09, 2010 10:00 am ET)
        21 1
        False equivalence, friend. Spencer Ackerman is a writer for Wired. He has no say in setting their news agenda or anyone else's, and his influence in the media at large is vanishingly small. Bill Sammon is the managing editor of Fox's Washington bureau, in which position he has the power to set the agenda for a major television network news operation. Only someone exceedingly dim or one arguing in bad faith could make such a comparison with a straight face.
        Report Abuse
      • Author by jjcomet514 (December 09, 2010 10:10 am ET)
        15 1
        Also, friend, your own post offer the real tell that you know you are engaging in a BS comparison. You wrote "Most damning is a long quote from A Spencer Ackerman, who worked for SOMETHING CALLED the Washington Independent."

        You clearly had never heard of either Ackerman or the Washington Independent before you read the MMA piece and Googled your quote. Do you really think someone you've never heard of, working at a media outlet you've never heard of, has the same influence as the editor Fox's Washingon bureau?
        Report Abuse
      • Author by coldteablues19577325 (December 09, 2010 10:49 am ET)
        12  
        "The Daily Caller reports ABC News's "tough questioning" of Obama at a 2008 debate with Hillary Clinton "left many of [the Journolist participants] outraged":" --from proudconservative's cut and paste

        The Daily Caller?

        I thought sure I'd see Rita Skeeter listed as a contributing reporter but saw that Tucker Carlson is one of the 'creators.' OMG!!

        Report Abuse
      • Author by curiousindependent (December 09, 2010 1:18 pm ET)
        5  
        Gosh, it would be really difficult for anyone to classify the daily caller as right leaning.
        Report Abuse
      • Author by RustyCannon (December 09, 2010 1:50 pm ET)
           
        What you've posted is a report that some people were angry about what questions were asked. It mentions Stephanopoulos which is hilarious because he was one of the people during the campaign who kept asking Obama why he didn't always wear a flag pin. That was when I stopped watching that moron. He is to journalism what Snooky is to entertainment.

        Bottom line about your post: Who cares? Give us some facts. What questioning wasn't allowed? Or was it just that some reporters didn't get their egos stroked by getting the time they thought they deserved? Can't tell from what you posted.
        Report Abuse
      • Author by JackInEC (December 09, 2010 9:39 pm ET)
        3  
        Your citing Tucker Carlson's website to show liberal media bias? That's good. That's as good as Fox News analysts touted some fictional item, and then Fox News "journalist" saying "Some people say...."
        Report Abuse
        • Author by highlyunlikely (December 09, 2010 11:39 pm ET)
          2  
          vp Cheney feeding information to the NYT then citing it to bolster his case for invading Iraq.
          Report Abuse
    • Author by David2010 (December 09, 2010 9:32 am ET)
      7  
      Golly, what a shock.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by mmfanboy (December 09, 2010 9:43 am ET)
        5 1
        Glenn Beck is a fool
        Report Abuse
        • Author by whydoesntthiswork (December 09, 2010 12:11 pm ET)
             
          watch his show, you may disagree with him, but you would probably learn something.

          I watch Ed Schultz and if you as me he is the biggest fool on TV
          Report Abuse
    • Author by Nihilist (December 09, 2010 9:56 am ET)
      11 1
      foxPAC has been using luntz' talking points since day one. also brent bozell's and of course roves edicts to guide the days meme.... and you need to hand it to foxPAC and the rest of the reichwing noise machine, they all follow in lock step and use the same term o' the day. MMFA, jon stewart, and others have run clips of all the talking heads,including GOP minions who use the same term all day long..... watch boner and friends stay on message all thru the 24hr news psycho....

      we need a mole on the inside of foxPAC more.........
      Report Abuse
      • Author by latichever (December 09, 2010 11:22 am ET)
        10  
        "quotes are of course sacrosanct"

        That's a good one too. I'm sure there's another memo about how to slant direct quotes. They do that all the time.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by curiousindependent (December 09, 2010 1:29 pm ET)
          6  
          Yeah. Here you go. Try to follow along, foxbots:

          "While I don't believe that killing another human being in self defense deserves the death penalty, I do believe that cold blooded murder does."

          "...I don't believe that killing another human being...deserves the death penalty..."

          See how I "Fox quoted" myself there?
          Report Abuse
    • Author by Margaux38 (December 09, 2010 10:11 am ET)
         
      FOX figured out "soundbyte" brainwashing almost 10 years ago and have grown because of it.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by curiousindependent (December 09, 2010 11:18 am ET)
      12  
      Fox boss caught slanting news reporting


      In other news, the sun is hot.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by cassandravert (December 09, 2010 11:19 am ET)
         
      The media calls pro-lifers pro-lifers because that is what they call themselves. Thus, the media is making no judgments. It has always been known that part of winning any debate is framing the question in a way that leads to your answer. We could all see that the framing of issues and languaging at Fox was too tight and consistent to be coincidental--it had to be orchestrated--but it's nice to have written evidence of it. Go whistleblowers!!
      Report Abuse
    • Author by E_Joyce (December 09, 2010 11:30 am ET)
      7 1
      Fox has been slanting/remixing/changing the "news" they report all along http://www.aim.org/press-release/saudi-billionaire-boasts-of-manipulating-fox-news-coverage/ , with the help of the FCC whose rules don't state that news programs or networks are required to tell the truth, at least according to the Florida Supreme court. http://forums.macrumors.com/archive/index.php/t-674024.html http://www.relfe.com/media_can_legally_lie.html So Fox News followers get biased content that speaks to and supports their biased views. Maybe someone should sue them for fraud and maybe that will stop them.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by whydoesntthiswork (December 09, 2010 12:13 pm ET)
           
        is fox not the truth for the simple fact that they are the only conservative news organization?
        Report Abuse
    • Author by beejeez (December 09, 2010 12:05 pm ET)
         
      Memo to Fox news staff:

      Please remember to refer to the Democratic Party platform as "the agenda to destroy America," as we have advised before. Also, it has come to our attention that some of you have been using the term "Democratic" as an adjective instead of "Democrat."

      Thank you,
      Bill Sammon
      Report Abuse
    • Author by SJJ (December 09, 2010 12:06 pm ET)
         
      You libs are just so bitter that Fox News owns the news biz...

      There is no question that most of us in the "real world" find their coverage fair and balanced. Check the scoreboard: TV ratings and election results!!!
      Report Abuse
      • Author by roland (3 hours and 28 minutes ago)
           
        Election results?

        How do you then account for the fact that Dems won in 2006 and 2008? Or that McCain got the Republican nomination even though FOX HATED him with a passion? Or that the Senate didn't go Republican?

        One midterm election does not a proof-of-influence make.
        Report Abuse
    • Author by draftedin68 (December 09, 2010 12:41 pm ET)
      5  
      Nothing new...

      Slimy Bill has been pulling this crap for years.

      In 2003, Scoobie Davis gave us this example.

      "We Distort, You're Deceived"

      Report Abuse
    • Author by CoolSlaw (December 09, 2010 1:20 pm ET)
      3  
      When newsmakers and sources use the term "public option" in our stories, there's not a lot we can do about it, since quotes are of course sacrosanct.



      ..but if we HAD the audio/digital technology to do so, you bet your trust fund that we would!
      Report Abuse
    • Author by Who_knew (December 09, 2010 1:35 pm ET)
      1 10
      I DON'T BELIEVE ANYONE WAS SURPRISED BY THIS REVELATION. I do wonder if this public knowledge will make any kind of a difference in then reporting of actual NEWS stories……

      Lastly, it's become quite obvious that fox is NOT the only source of doctored NEWS, all the networks travel in this pack as well. As NEWS consumers it's up to all of us to turn OFF these propaganda sources and find our NEWS from alternative sources on the Internet.

      As an example, go to other nations like England, Australia, France, Germany, Japan for your national and international NEWS stories. I find I get a more well rounded view of our nation's NEWS from sources in these nations. See for yourself.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by curiousindependent (December 09, 2010 2:13 pm ET)
        8 1
        it's become quite obvious that fox is NOT the only source of doctored NEWS

        I'm sorry, something seems to be wrong with my browser. It is not even letting me SEE the links you posted to examples. Could you please re-post it?

        Then again, maybe spooky dude puppet master had the links deleted.
        Report Abuse
      • Author by mrstootsie101 (December 09, 2010 8:35 pm ET)
           
        I will go to other nations. I don't believe anything on the news anymore, all lies. What are they so afraid of? I think the Democrats and the Republicans are all the same, just a different name. They look out for themselves and we don't have a chance in this country, because it is all about profit at any cost.
        Report Abuse
    • Author by RustyCannon (December 09, 2010 2:05 pm ET)
         
      Focksnooze viewers are cult members, plain and simple. They believe that their nooze source is the only one that tells them the truth and they believe that all other news sources available are slanted to the left and untrustworthy.

      If Roger Ailes wanted to declare Focksnooze a church for tax purposes, he could probably get his audience to tithe.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by average american (December 09, 2010 2:08 pm ET)
         
      i often wonder what the total effect fox has had on shaping our political process.

      they are very good at what they do.

      when all the lies, half-truths and the fact that they are the #1 political front for the gop, but gotta give limbaugh credit, are added together the effect is massive.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by shuxclams (December 09, 2010 2:15 pm ET)
         
      "great news brothers and sisters your chocorat has been raised to 25 grams"
      Report Abuse
    • Author by progusa (December 09, 2010 3:01 pm ET)
      2  
      This all started much earlier than October. Frank Luntz issued these talking points in late April or early May. Fox and the GOP started using them immediately. It's clear how "government run" evolved. This is typical at this point. Conservatives test their language and gain the upper hand a framing the issue. Fox leads the way and the legitimate media pick up the same language. Democrats and progressives argue agains the frame instead of reframing. They don't have the singular narritive that Conservatives and their media have.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by project21reps (December 09, 2010 3:28 pm ET)
        1 11
        I don't get it. How is using the correct terminology slanting the news? As to the abortion thing, well so people believe that a fetus is a human life, and should have legal protections. Some people do not believe a fetus is a human life, so can be destroyed by whim. It's mostly those of you on the left who see's nothing wrong with using abortion as a means of birth control.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by progusa (December 09, 2010 3:43 pm ET)
          7 1
          You've just reinforced how effective reframing is. In this case, calling it "government run" healthcare triggers many paradigms that just are not true. You didn't even take the time to see what the public option was. If you would, you would have seen that it didn't fit this paradigm. This is not the correct terminology, it's the beginning of a propaganda technique called "the big lie". Since you don't trust many news sources that don't fit your ideology, you choose to be lied to and don't take the effort to figure out what's really happening. Part of the problem is that Fox News lies. A bigger problem is that many Americans don't take the time to figure that out. All news outlets are biased. Fox News is pure propaganda.
          Report Abuse
        • Author by progusa (December 09, 2010 4:03 pm ET)
          5  
          See the posts above for the arguments about abortion. No rational person is pro-abortion or thinks there's nothing wrong with using abortion as a means of birth control. Although it is an example of reframing, the term pro-choice does not mean pro-abortion. However, using the term pro-life instead of anti-abortion is a great example of using reframing to espouse a more ideological viewpoint. Also, conservatives don't want to be seen as anti-freedom on any issue. They want freedom from government on just about everything but abortion.
          Report Abuse
          • Author by project21reps (15 hours and 33 minutes ago)
              3
            One correction: Most, not all, believe that it is a states rights issue, not a issue that should be forced upon the entire nation by the judicial branch of the government.

            And attacking the label "pro-life" is just ludicrous. Those who oppose "abortion" do so because they believe in the sanctity of human life. That is a viewpoint that deserves respect, even if you don't hold the same viewpoint.
            Report Abuse
          • Author by project21reps (15 hours and 22 minutes ago)
              3
            One thing you seem to conveniently leave out is that since abortion has been legal a great many women have had abortions as a means of birth control. It's not a re framing of the debate, it is a big part of the debate, that pro choice's don't seem to want to address. Look, honestly, I believe each state should decide for itself. And if my statess decides to allow abortions, I won't oppose it. But I do believe we, as a society should be working overtime to stop the madness that abortion has become. Do you know how many abortions there have been since it was legalized? That has to change, and laws won't do that, beliefs, education and attitude will.
            Report Abuse
            • Author by mmfa.fan (7 hours and 4 minutes ago)
                 
              Do you know how many abortions there have been since it was legalized?
              No, do you?
              Report Abuse
            • Author by yoiksaway (4 hours and 51 minutes ago)
                 
              And how many abortions occurred before it was legalized? Who had those abortions?

              How many abortions were a means of birth control before and after legalization? And who had them?

              What does states' rights have to do with the price of eggs?

              What does this have to do with "government run" and "public option"?

              What else are you conveniently leaving out?
              Report Abuse
            • Author by progressivevoicedaily (4 hours and 41 minutes ago)
                 
              That's a pretty expensive form of birth control. I bet all the poor woman are doing it.
              Report Abuse
        • Author by highlyunlikely (December 09, 2010 4:13 pm ET)
          5  
          maybe the reason you don't get it is in the framing of your question. "Correct terminology," for starters. "Saving babies" in a post above. In order to conduct a fair debate, both sides must agree on various stipulations. You're assuming the other side will allow you to frame the debate and not object to your terminology if you really don't get it.
          Report Abuse
          • Author by project21reps (15 hours and 16 minutes ago)
              2
            Allow? Hummm, so I am constrained by what others allow me to do, or say? I don't think so.
            Report Abuse
        • Author by curiousindependent (December 09, 2010 4:29 pm ET)
          4 1
          . It's mostly those of you on the left who see's nothing wrong with using abortion as a means of birth control.

          I hate to beat a dead horse, but I am, once again, going to have to ask for some bona fide examples. I find it very difficult indeed to believe that ANYONE, let alone anyone except the rich elite, can AFFORD to use abortion as birth control. Especially considering that a condom costs like a buck. Give me links, and not to anecdotal felgercarb.
          Report Abuse
          • Author by project21reps (December 09, 2010 5:24 pm ET)
            1 7
            Hummmmm, take you head out of the sand, chief. Look around you and tell me why most woman get abortions?
            Report Abuse
            • Author by curiousindependent (December 09, 2010 5:40 pm ET)
              6  
              My guess would be there are probably multiple reasons. One might be a discovered defect that the parents might not be emotionally or financially willing to shoulder. Another one might be that she was raped. One might be incest. These two circumstances, by the way, your goddess Sarah "I can't believe my daughter got pregnant, I taught her abstinence-only birth control" Palin would not see as a valid reason for an abortion. One might be, I dunno, the birth control that they WERE (almost all of which states, on the package, that it is not 100% proof against pregnancy) failed. As happened with my wife and I.
              Again, abortions are freaking EXPENSIVE, and if a woman is rich enough to use that as her primary means of birth control, how is that my business, or yours, anyway?

              Sing "Keep the Gummint Outta my Bidness" while you try to ensure that the government stays in other peoples'.

              But, back to the original point CHIEF. You have examples of women using abortion as their primary means of birth control, I take it? Link them.
              Report Abuse
              • Author by project21reps (14 hours and 34 minutes ago)
                  2
                Expensive, huh? Sounds like there may be a profit motive involved, is that what your alluding to? By the way, Planned Parenthood, how much do they bill the government for each year. As to Palin, every american is entitled to their own beliefs, with someone else disparaging them. It is the totality of the person and their beliefs that matter, not how they feel on just one matter. No one agrees on everything, not even the group think wing of the democratic party.
                Report Abuse
                • Author by mmfa.fan (7 hours and 2 minutes ago)
                     
                  Sounds like there may be a profit motive involved
                  Do right wingers understand any other motive?
                  Report Abuse
            • Author by curiousindependent (December 09, 2010 5:49 pm ET)
              4  
              I see you passed up my earlier invitation to link me to the "liberal mainstream media", I am guessing I'm not going to get any links on this one either.
              Report Abuse
            • Author by curiousindependent (December 09, 2010 9:20 pm ET)
              3  
              OH COME ON!!! This "abortion as birth control" thing has been a Republican talking point my entire adult life. And I assure you that I am no spring chicken. Surely, over all this time, you can come up with at LEAST one example of it.
              Report Abuse
          • Author by project21reps (15 hours and 14 minutes ago)
              1
            If that where only true, than there would be no need for abortions, except, maybe in very rare instances. Condoms have been around a lot longer than on demand abortions. How many have there been since it was legalized? Do you even know?
            Report Abuse
      • Author by project21reps (December 09, 2010 3:39 pm ET)
        1 12
        Frank Luntz is a pollster. He doesn't issue talking points.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by progusa (December 09, 2010 3:48 pm ET)
          5 1
          He is a polster that was trained in a GOP think tank in the late '80's and early '90's. He is an expert at the use of language to frame issues. He tests language for each issue using polls and focus groups to identify what works the best in supporting or arguing against policy. He is very intelligent and the language he recommends works. Conservatives listen to him and follow his advice.
          Report Abuse
          • Author by project21reps (December 09, 2010 4:59 pm ET)
            1 6
            So, he has expertise in his field. He's good at what he does. And because what he does is make you on the left look silly, you want to demonize him.
            Report Abuse
            • Author by eb (December 09, 2010 5:51 pm ET)
              5  
              Be honest project21reps, we have proof that Fox is agenda driven. The memo request using the language that will tweek Fox's conservative audience and please fox's wealthy and powerfull sponsors.

              Read the memo again. They are bending the news by framing the terms.

              Subject: friendly reminder: let's not slip back into calling it the "public option"

              1) Please use the term "government-run health insurance" or, when brevity is a concern, "government option," whenever possible.

              2) When it is necessary to use the term "public option" (which is, after all, firmly ensconced in the nation's lexicon), use the qualifier "so-called," as in "the so-called public option."

              3) Here's another way to phrase it: "The public option, which is the government-run plan."

              4) When newsmakers and sources use the term "public option" in our stories, there's not a lot we can do about it, since quotes are of course sacrosanct.


              Go ahead and make excuses. Fox wants your health to be determined by an authoritarian corporate run health care system that requires profits before people. Even the idea that the public could sponsor a non-profit competitor is off limits. Competition, my a$$. It would get in the way of making money at our expense. Fox wants to dupe you and I guess your OK with that.
              Report Abuse
              • Author by project21reps (15 hours and 54 seconds ago)
                  3
                Are you naive? Who or what is not "agenda driven". They just have a different then yours. Or MM, MSNBC, Soros, etc. And as to you diatribe about what fox wants, you don't speak for fox so I really don't think you know what they want. What they don't want, which you do want, is the government taking over the health care system. Tell me, what does insurance have to do with "corporate run health care"? It doesn't. It only pays for the health care provided by the "corporate run health care system" that you don't like. Tell me, what exactly will obama care do about the corporate run health care system except make sure they get paid? Just asking?
                Report Abuse
                • Author by project21reps (14 hours and 58 minutes ago)
                    2
                  I should have said:What they don't want, which you do want, is the government taking over the PAYMENTS to the corporate run health care system
                  Report Abuse
                • Author by pot (10 hours and 15 seconds ago)
                  2  
                  Great, the "soros" card
                  Report Abuse
                  • Author by progressivevoicedaily (4 hours and 37 minutes ago)
                       
                    The Coke brothers own this fool, and he doesn't even know it. This guy doesn't know who George Soros is. Neither does Glenda Beck obviously. But FoxPAC says so, so it must be true!! Project21 is a failure, time for a new project.
                    Report Abuse
            • Author by The_Cat (December 09, 2010 7:13 pm ET)
              2 1
              Luntz argued that "if you call it a 'public option,' the American people are split," but that "if you call it the 'government option,' the public is overwhelmingly against it."


              This word choice was not done in the interest of 'clarity' or 'accuracy', project21reps. It was done specifically to negatively affect public opinion about legislation that Fox Propaganda and the Republicans/Faux Cons were opposed to. Therefore, it is, by default, propaganda.

              Luntz does not make us look silly, and I for one feel no need to 'demonize' him. However, I will point out, as often as possible, when he or Fox is indulging in blatant propaganda. And they certainly are in this case.
              Report Abuse
              • Author by project21reps (14 hours and 53 minutes ago)
                  2
                I don't understand your problem. If you are on the left you use the term public option,if your on the right you use the term government option. By the way, which one conveys the legislation best? WTF does "public obtion" mean anyway, especially when it won't be an "option" but will be a requirement.
                Report Abuse
                • Author by yoiksaway (3 hours and 8 minutes ago)
                     
                  Who told you "public option" would be a requirement? Any answer? And where did they get their info?

                  You're a test case, a perfect candidate for a Luntz focus group. Good thing you're here, because it's great to see walking, talking examples of Luntz's goal.

                  Obama campaigned on mandatory insurance, and his plan included the public option with the dozens of private options. Because of the use of certain language, you are informed by a slogan, a phrase (government option), and you run with it. No research, no desire to answer your own question. You therefore would also be a model respondent to a Luntz poll.

                  Okay, WTF does "government option" mean anyway? Your answer will be useless. But why will it be useless? Those posting in reply to you are answering that question (that it's an empty term to begin with), but you have to deflect it, because you're caught not being able to define it.

                  Try reading this about the effect of different wording.
                  Report Abuse
        • Author by curiousindependent (December 09, 2010 4:35 pm ET)
          3  
          Also, too, they seem to have followed his advice quite well.
          Report Abuse
    • Author by PastyJournalist (December 09, 2010 3:45 pm ET)
      4  
      ...and yet the Obama administration still gave the White House press seat to Fixed News over NPR.
      Yes, NPR definitely has a leftward tilt, but at least it tries to be balanced.

      Report Abuse
      • Author by draftedin68 (December 09, 2010 4:12 pm ET)
        4  
        Left of what?

        Truth has a liberal slant.

        Thinking "we" and not "me" has a liberal slant.

        Managing our planet's resources has a liberal slant.

        The list of all things beneficial to man and our planet has a liberal slant.

        The most holy of holy conservatives, Saint Ronnie The Forgetful, went whole hog with partial truths, distortions and out-and-out lies the instant he switched from the left to the right.

        Show me someone who invokes Saint Ronnie, I'll show you someone who plays fast and loose with the truth.

        Report Abuse
      • Author by curiousindependent (December 09, 2010 4:37 pm ET)
        4  
        Yes, NPR definitely has a leftward tilt

        As evidenced by the fact that, when they have discourse, they have people advocating for both sides of an issue, and the host doesn't talk over or ridicule anyone's statements.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by eb (December 09, 2010 6:02 pm ET)
          2  
          Yes, this is disturbing. NPR isn't just one big informercial for corporate dominated libertarianism. I guess for conservatives, if it doesn't parrot Fox, its biased.
          Report Abuse
      • Author by project21reps (December 09, 2010 5:22 pm ET)
        1 6
        Fixed news? Is that a new lefty news site? By the way, I am glad you admit that a tax payer funded organization is biased. Fox news on the other hand, doesn't just try to be balanced, it is balanced. As is the political makeup of its viewers.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by curiousindependent (December 09, 2010 5:44 pm ET)
          5  
          Fox news on the other hand, doesn't just try to be balanced, it is balanced.

          As evidenced by the fact that the hosts shout over, belittle, and ridicule any point of view that doesn't match that of their master's.
          Report Abuse
          • Author by project21reps (December 09, 2010 6:14 pm ET)
            1 8
            Obviously you don't watch fox news much, do you?
            Report Abuse
            • Author by cugagcmu805031 (December 09, 2010 6:34 pm ET)
              4  
              Since I call myself an adult, I don't believe in fairy tales, and I firmly believe that it's impossible to solve real world problems using faulty information. That would be like having $3,000 in the bank and believing I could meet my $7,000 monthly budget. It would never work.
              Report Abuse
            • Author by curiousindependent (December 09, 2010 7:25 pm ET)
              5 1
              No, actually I do tune in occasionally. Thus I know that when they do invite a "liberal" to come on, they invariably shout them down and ridicule them, rather than allowing them to participate in a rational discourse. I wish I knew how to find more than my last 15 posts, I could then link you to video of Azman (is that his name?) talking over the pretty democrat lady he had asked a question of, as she tried to answer it. I am sure someone can remember what that thread was and link it? Pretty please? You will notice that the Fox host goes first to one of the conservative guests, and politely allows her to answer his questions without interruption. Then, you will see him ask a question of his Democrat guest, and if I remember correctly, she gets almost two whole words out of her mouth before he starts talking over her.
              Obviously, that is "fair and balanced".
              Report Abuse
              • Author by project21reps (14 hours and 50 minutes ago)
                  1
                Hummmm so again I say, you don't watch fox news, you only watch videos of parts of segments that prove your bias.
                Report Abuse
                • Author by mmfa.fan (6 hours and 57 minutes ago)
                     
                  I've watched Fox and I can confirm that they do talk over and shout down liberal guests. They also editorialize on-air when they are covering news. This has been well documented. I'm surprised you're even trying to dispute it.
                  Report Abuse
    • Author by StewartIII (December 09, 2010 4:15 pm ET)
      1 5
      Slate: In Defense of FOX News
      http://www.slate.com/id/2277401/
      Report Abuse
    • Author by StewartIII (December 09, 2010 4:22 pm ET)
      1 6
      ChickaBOOMer| Negative Patient Outcome: Declare War On Deliberately Ambiguous Doublespeak! Amortize Media Matters!
      http://chickaboomer.blogspot.com/2010/12/our-komrades-at-media-matters-are.html
      Report Abuse
      • Author by bilbo_dies (December 09, 2010 4:56 pm ET)
        4  
        Great, an article on slate by Jack Shafer:

        Shafer is, by and large, a textbook libertarian. In 2000, he explained his vote for the party candidate like this: "I agree with the Libertarian Party platform: much smaller government, much lower taxes, an end to income redistribution, repeal of the drug laws, fewer gun laws, a dismantled welfare state, an end to corporate subsidies, First Amendment absolutism, a scaled-back warfare state."
        Nothing right leaning there, huh?

        And your personal blog posting.

        That is pretty lame, even for a troll.
        Report Abuse
    • Author by MRobs (December 09, 2010 4:46 pm ET)
         
      How can you say fox is slanting the news when they are calling the government option exactly what it is a government option - shouldn't the news tell the truth and not run cover for an administration. MSNBC, ABC, CBS all slant to the left - in fact they slant so far to the left I'm surprised they haven't fallen off a bridge by now. If the left wing news organizations can try and deceive the public I see nothing wrong with fox outing what the government is doing.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by imau2fan (December 09, 2010 4:56 pm ET)
         
      When will Media Matters call out NPR for slanting wording? *crickets*

      http://bit.ly/gtdiCG

      Report Abuse
    • Author by roland (December 09, 2010 4:56 pm ET)
      4  
      Public option = health insurance where your premiums don't go to CEO multi-million dollar salaries and bonuses, advertising budgets and lobbying firms, but, instead, to actual health care coverage.

      Sounds like a good deal to me.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by project21reps (December 09, 2010 5:26 pm ET)
        2 8
        Sounds like you have fallen for the spin. The government does nothing that is cost efficient. What right does the government have to take over what is private enterprise?
        Report Abuse
        • Author by curiousindependent (December 09, 2010 5:57 pm ET)
          4  
          See my previous post, about halfway up. I know it SOUNDS like a joke when you read it. Sadly, it is 100% true. My doctor wanted me to have a colonoscopy to see why I was in excruciating abdominal pain. My insurance company (privately owned corporation), in order to ensure that it could continue to pay the CEO 18 million dollars a year, along with about 15 folks under him in excess of 10 million a year each, AND continue to pay shareholders enough to keep them interested, declined to cover said colonoscopy.
          Who is it in the government that makes an 18 million dollar a year government salary?
          Because, apparently you believe that paying that kind of salary is more "cost efficient" than anything the government could do.
          By the way, gotta grandma or grandpa? Ask them how they would feel about giving up their Medicaire. Inefficient it might be, but it is FAR better than the sham I have. Or worse, nothing.
          Report Abuse
        • Author by eb (December 09, 2010 5:59 pm ET)
          7 2
          The government does nothing that is cost efficient

          Proof!!!! and compared to what? Some things the private sector does poorly in general. Compare top 40 radio to music on public radio. How about all those great reality shows on television. Yes they make money efficiently... Privatization of the military has not reduced cost or improved accountablity.

          What right does the government have to take over what is private enterprise?

          Project21 is in love with the straw man. The point was that there would be a public option to compete with the private options. You know, kind of like the US postal service and UPS and Fedex.

          Back to health care... Even in countries with single payer systems, there are still private for profit health care providers.

          Your posts reveal you to have been suckered into the conservative media misinformation machine. Don't be surprise if that will upset you someday. I for one don't appreciate being lied to.
          Report Abuse
        • Author by JackInEC (December 09, 2010 9:58 pm ET)
          1  
          Medicare/Medicaid/Tricare insurance administrative costs: 4%

          Union/Taft-Hartley plans: 6-7%

          Blue Cross+Blue Shield/United/Cigna/Aetna administrative costs: 12-15%.

          Also, Medicare and Medicaid have satisfaction rates more than 50% higher than private insurance. ]

          To address your question about "what right the government [has] to take over what is a private enterprise": That is not at all what is occurring. The public option gives the consumer an option to buy a plan from the government. It is not mandated; in fact, the consumer may still opt to purchase private insurance. The government is not "taking over" insurance companies.

          I will say, however, that I believe in this case, the Big Four health insurance companies (Blue/United/Cigna/Aetna) stopped providing health insurance a long time ago. What they call health insurance now is functionally less than a "stop-loss" program which insures the insurance companies won't lose money if their patients get a terminal illness.
          Report Abuse
        • Author by roland (December 09, 2010 10:09 pm ET)
          1  
          All private insurance is is an unnecessary middle man between doctor and patient that siphons off money for profits that should be used for health care services.
          Report Abuse
      • Author by eb (December 09, 2010 5:33 pm ET)
        3  
        The privatized system could be considered "profit based health care rationing".

        Instead of free market based health care, you could call it a "Greed based health care"

        Really it should be presented as government option vs corporate option.
        Report Abuse
    • Author by StewartIII (December 09, 2010 5:08 pm ET)
      2 6
      NewsBusters: Liberals Outraged by Labeling Bias, But Only If It Involves FOX
      http://newsbusters.org/blogs/lachlan-markay/2010/12/09/liberals-outraged-labeling-bias-only-if-it-involves-fox
      Report Abuse
    • Author by StewartIII (December 09, 2010 5:09 pm ET)
      2 6
      TIME: In Defense of the FOX News Ban on "Public Option"
      http://swampland.blogs.time.com/2010/12/09/in-defense-of-the-fox-news-ban-on-public-option/
      Report Abuse
      • Author by GreenLantern (December 09, 2010 8:53 pm ET)
           
        That is really a false equivalency that hate-wingers love.
        "We call them pro-abortion rights and anti-abortion rights because it's the right to abortion that we're talking about,"
        That is a factual way to describe it.
        "Pro-life" is a ridiculous way to describe "anti-abortion" especially when those same people espouse how wonderful war based on lies is, how great the death penalty is, (even if the case had horrible problems and the person is probably innocent), Automatic weapons for everybody, let children starve because they are not born rich, etc.
        So YES, framing the rhetoric that way and saying they are equal is not true and you know it. You just won't admit.
        Report Abuse
    • Author by Brutus (December 09, 2010 6:17 pm ET)
      3 1
      And yet, even with this evidence, the Fox groupies will still claim that Fox is fair and Balanced.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by Extremist (4 hours and 56 minutes ago)
        1  
        What evidence ? That they were careful to use the proper term to describe a government health care program.

        Public option is deceptive speech. I find it refreshing that they chose to refer to it properly.
        Report Abuse
    • Author by fox_insider (December 09, 2010 6:39 pm ET)
        1
      I remember this missive when I worked at Fox News. It went to everyone in the news division and forever changed how we referred to the public option. "Government option" or "government-backed option" became the the standard rule of reference, especially in lower third chyrons.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by FNC Liberal (December 09, 2010 7:38 pm ET)
      2 2
      Fox News should be sued for calling themselves a news channel. They are not a legitimate news outlet, but a front for the GOP.

      Insiders have had enough of the higher-ups and will continue to warn people what goes on inside Fox News Channel.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by StewartIII (December 09, 2010 7:57 pm ET)
      2 2
      Hot Air| FOX News “scandal”: They called the public option the “government option” instead
      http://hotair.com/archives/2010/12/09/fox-news-scandal-they-called-the-public-option-the-government-option-instead/
      Report Abuse
      • Author by GreenLantern (December 09, 2010 8:54 pm ET)
        1 2
        Did you thumbs up yourself? :)
        Report Abuse
      • Author by mmfa.fan (6 hours and 54 minutes ago)
          1
        Care to post anything other than links to rightwing blogs? Like maybe some actual thoughts of your own?
        Report Abuse
    • Author by blk-in-alabam (December 09, 2010 9:01 pm ET)
         
      Wonder what kind of coaching Bret Baier got for his interview with President Obama???
      Report Abuse
    • Author by Jess76 (December 09, 2010 9:18 pm ET)
      1  
      So they have no problem twisting words, editing clips etc., but:

      "When newsmakers and sources use the term "public option" in our stories, there's not a lot we can do about it, since quotes are of course sacrosanct."

      Ok then quotes are sacrosanct. Whew! And I thought Fox had no journalistic integrity left.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by Aries411 (December 09, 2010 10:28 pm ET)
      1  
      I only have one word for this topic, "DUH" !!!!!!
      Report Abuse
    • Author by PEACEAUTHOR (December 09, 2010 10:52 pm ET)
      1  
      This is only the tip of the iceberg. Wendell Potter reveals in his book, DANGEROUS SPIN, that he wrote a lot of the public relations spin that was used to change the debate. Frank Luntz used to focus groups to find out the best wording that could
      change public opinion to help the insurance industry defeat
      health care reform. The same company that kept the tobacco industry going for 50 years was involved with the health care debate. We learned today that cigarettes are not only carcinogenic over time, but they kill by transforming the DNA even if one cigarette is used and second hand smoke is equally dangerous. These people who use mass propaganda to serve the wealthy and powerful are truly enemies of the people. They should be treated like any criminal with malice and intent. The first amendment doesn't protect all forms of speech, especially the kind that is attempting to kill people.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by hopalong (8 hours and 17 minutes ago)
         
      Hey Bill Sammon,

      What words should I say to sound like a brainless parrot?
      Report Abuse
    • Author by Extremist (5 hours and 24 minutes ago)
      3 1
      Government Option seems to be an accurate and correct way to define it. Not sure what the issue is here. Public option is ill defined. Government option defines what it is.

      Is there a story here?

      Seems like FOX was careful to explain it very accurately.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by RavenRog (4 hours and 18 minutes ago)
      3 1
      LOL....

      The real slant is the term "public option".

      How is "government option" a slant when it is MORE ACCURATE a term than "public option"???

      4 out of every 5 attacks MMFA levies on Fox News are laughable (and almost ALWAYS hypocritical when compared to the mainstream media)....but every now and then, MMFA has a legit story on Fox's bias. This certainly isn't one of them.





      Report Abuse
      • Author by tbone (1 hour and 16 minutes ago)
          1
        So as a purist for "accuracy", I'm sure you don't let your kids play in those evil "government" parks. After all a slide in the public square is really the (evil, liberal/Marxist inspired) slippery slope to Communism.

        Jackwad.

        Report Abuse
    • Author by onementalgiant (1 hour and 43 minutes ago)
         
      I challenge anyone in favor of Obamacare to go to this link:

      http://www.house.gov/apps/list/press/tx08_brady/pr_100728_hc_chart.html

      The chart you see in this link represents only 1/3 of Obmacare!

      Nuff said.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by congero6189599 (5 seconds ago)
           
        You fell for that fake chart by a partisan republican congressmen from Texas.
        Mentalgiant you've come up short once again!
        Report Abuse
    • Author by LagalLeft (1 hour and 14 minutes ago)
         
      There has got to be an e-mail out there in cyber space with the words ''job killing'' and ''uncertainty''. Notice that all of the GOP and it's FoxNewsPAC use those terms.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by Extremist (4 minutes ago)
           
        Orrrrrrr Maybeeee its what is actually happening.
        Report Abuse
    • Author by progusa (39 minutes ago)
         
      This article is relvant to this discussion. George Lakoff - Untellable Truths
      Report Abuse

my.MediaMatters.org

Login  Sign Up

About the Blog

Feed Icon
  • County Fair is a media blog featuring links to progressive media criticism from around the Web as well as original commentary, breaking news and rapid response updates to major media events from Media Matters senior fellows and other staff.