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.
The best thing would be to not create humans all willy nilly.
You have to have children to understand. Once you have children you realize that every time a human egg is fertilized a distinctive and unique individual is created.
I am not a religious person or god person and I find the only real social issue that is difficult to reconcile is the fact that a unique person is created every time a human egg is fertilized.
Call me silly all you want but I am always really curious what that person would have looked like and what their personality would have been. No easy answers on this issue.
You clearly have a right up until the point that you create a human. You can argue where that line is but from my life experience once an egg is fertilized a unique person has been created.
However the real issue isn't when the soul enters the body. That's a spiritual question and not for the government to decide.
The issue is the criminalization of abortions. I saw what that was like back in the day, and nothing anyone says would convince me that it was a better path.
Putz. Like all Becky and Limpy based "facts" yours is erroneous. Life cannot begin until that fertilized ova attaches to the womb. Idiot.
And, apparently right up till that person passes out of the birth canal. Once that happens, society's obligations to that person are over and done with, right? Otherwise we wouldn't have all these so-called pro-lifers advocating for war and screaming out about how social programs are evil.
So you clearly have the right to condemn EVERY WOMAN who uses the birth control pill and has had sex more than a few times. I think, really, Extremist, that you and your kind need to shut the f up and crawl back under whatever rock yall slithered out from under. IT IS NONE OF YOUR BUSINESS if a woman who is not pregnant BY YOU wants or doesn't want an abortion. And it can be argued that, even if YOU were the one that fertilized that ova, you STILL have no say EITHER WAY. Men have been trying to control women ever since the first one realized they were "weaker", and you CONServatives just can't stop trying to.
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?
THE POLITICAL MISUSE OF THE BIBLE OR ANY MISINFORMATION RELEASED BY THE MEDIA REGUARDING ANYTHING WHICH CAN MISLEAD THE CITIZENS SHOULD BE WHAT WE WRITE LAWS AGAINST. PSYCHOLOGICAL WAREFARE (ADVERTIZING) SHOULD BE ILLEGAL WHEN USED AGAINST THE AMERICAN PEOPLE. THE ABOVE USE OF THE NATIONAL TV MEDIA IS CRIMINAL IN ITS INTENT TO MUDDY THE WATERS OF INDIVIDUAL AMERICAN,S UNDERSTANDING OF WHAT THE GOVERNMENT IS TRYING TO LEGISLATE FOR THE GOOD OF THE PEOPLE. WORD'S DO MATER WHEN TRYING TO ENGENDER UNDERSTANDING OF A TOPIC. (IE. PUBLIC NOT EQUAL TO GEVERNMENT)
YOU can live your life following whatever MAN-WRITTEN manifesto you desire to, as long as your actions and choices do not impact me or anyone else. Where I have the problem is with you guys forcing your beliefs down everyone else's throats. If you believe that an action you perform is evil in the eyes of your god, then do not perform that action. But you emphatically do NOT have the right to force anyone else to live by your book, which is what a lot of religious people try to do. It almost invariably leads to bloodshed. Not all of us believe in your god. Not all of us believe in ANY god. Yet, there is and has been a persistent thread, throughout history, of one religion of another trying, through force all too often, to force others to believe as they do. From what I have read of your bible, that isn't exactly what it tells you to do. I don't know if the Muslim's book tells them to do it or not, nor do I really care. Even if your book came right out and said "force people to believe" it would still be inherently wrong. Since many people do NOT believe in your god or your book, then yes, we do indeed need to pass laws in respect to how we treat each other. Otherwise we end up in a truly Darwinian society, where anything you can take or do is ok. The strongest survive, and the weak be d@mned.
Now, while some aspects of that appeal to me, there is no way for a healthy society to exist with only that law.
I do lament the fact that, 50,000 years ago, if you were stupid enough to poke a stick at a saber tooth cat, you got eaten. Nowadays, we attempt to legislate the length of the cat's teeth and the size of the stick you can poke at it.
And yes, I did say 50,000 years ago. I am well aware that your book tells you that the world was created only 6000 years ago. That is only one of a myriad reasons I think you cannot assume that everything between those covers is correct.
Thank you.
Composing a thread in all caps is not only rude it shows just how ignorant you are.
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?
I saw a little clip of Ted Nugent (who I used to admire, before he started getting all political. And I still listen to his mucic, you would think White Buffalo would indicate his liberalness) standing in front of what looked to be the Alamo, saying "we don't want anything from the government." I have to assume he meant aside from the roads he drove on to get there. Or the police that ensured he was not assaulted while he held forth in a "peaceful" rally. Or maybe clean water to drink. Clean air to breathe.
"What have the Romans ever done for us"
The best thing would be to not create humans all willy nilly.
You have to have children to understand. Once you have children you realize that every time a human egg is fertilized a distinctive and unique individual is created.
I am not a religious person or god person and I find the only real social issue that is difficult to reconcile is the fact that a unique person is created every time a human egg is fertilized.
Call me silly all you want but I am always really curious what that person would have looked like and what their personality would have been. No easy answers on this issue.
Life begins at conception, perhaps -- but human life? Not so much. A fetus isn't viable for many months. Humans are self-sustaining, whole organisms; it takes many months for a fetus to become wholly self-sustaining. Saying that a human begins at conception is akin to saying a butterfly begins when it becomes a larva; it will become a butterfly, but it isn't one yet.
That being said, I think taking incipient life is hardly a trivial decision, but it's not one that can be mandated by semantic sleight of hand. I don't know when a human life begins, but I think the courts are right in striking a balance between when the life inside is not fully human, and that time at which we can no longer be morally confident that it is not.
Um. Chief. Man I can "hear" the smarmy tone of voice you use when you say that. I really wish you could stand in front of me and use it. Becky has no clue.
By every scientific/medical definition there is, whether you have seen it or not, a spermatozoa is alive as well. So I am guessing that you want to prosecute me every time I wash millions of them down the shower drain or flush a condom full of them.
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!
-------------------------------
RIP, George.
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.
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?
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.
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.
Who decides that? Do we force her to have a child, then wait till she does harm to that child to determine if she is fit to be a parent?
How many people are there out there right now raising kids, who are unfit to be parents?
How many children are abused every hour of every day by truly unfit parents who publicly do "all the right things"? You know, they go to church religiously (pun somewhat intended), they have good jobs with good pay, they live in good neighborhoods and provide their families with all the amenities. Just, when no one can see, they subject their families to physical and/or mental abuse.
How about teaching kids to hate? Would that qualify one as "unfit"?
How about when both parents have to work to make ends meet so the kids get raised by daycares and school teachers? Would that put someone on the "unfit" list?
Certainly adoptions should be easier to happen. Sex education should be comprehensive, as well. But, truly, if it isn't YOUR womb, I don't see where you have any say in what happens with it. Convenience or whatever.
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.
Social safety net is deteriorating because those who have been philosophically against it have been trying to destroy it from their inception.
Not every woman who has made that very difficult choice ended up losing her mind or her marbles.
How very generous of you. The assumption from the right (and here I mean the actual real people) on the right seems to be that people on the left are all for abortion right up until the moment the child is actually born. I can only assume that you think this because this is what your leaders (Limbaugh, Beck, Hannity, Gingrich and others) have told you to think. Let me assure you that, for most liberals, nothing could be further from the truth. I cannot speak for anyone other than myself, but I can tell you what I believe, and I think you will find that most are close. I believe that if a woman becomes pregnant accidentally, she has an obligation to herself and to that fetus to decide IMMEDIATELY upon the discovery which way she is going to go with it. I know a woman who had a menstrual cycle for 4 months after she got pregnant. By your argument, she should not then have had any choice in the matter, since "time's up" had already been called. My wife got pregnant when a condom broke, and by your argument she would have been forced to carry that pregnancy to term, regardless of her or my wishes on the matter. Before you flame, know that in both these cases, the pregnancies were carried out. But also, in both cases, the right to make a choice was there.
The moment of conception, huh? So you think that, when the condom broke and my wife became pregnant even though we were practicing safe sex, we still should have been forced by the government to have that child, regardless of whether we wanted to or not. Whether we could even afford to or not. Sweet.
For you to say is either disingenuous or a lie or totally stupid of you. The same public figures who loudly proclaim how evil choice is are the same public figures who loudly proclaim how evil Social Security, Medicaire, Welfare, and even the Veteran's Administration are. So either you agree with these folks (which is what you say every time you vote for one or tune into his show) or you need to vote for other people and watch and listen to different shows.
Again, since you guys seem to be all about "keep the government out of my business" and you decry "the nanny state" claiming that government wants to make our decisions for us, it seems somewhat duplicitous to then say that the government has the right to make a woman carry out a pregnancy.
Sheesh, are all of you wingnuts this out of touch?
May I assume that, since you are all about the rights of that "innocent baby" (which actually isn't a "baby" until it is born) then you have no problem with helping it out once it is born? Maybe a little money to the parents so they can afford things like food, shelter, and transportation? Maybe some help with education would be in order as well. How about a couple of doctor visits? May I also assume that you would never attempt to send that "innocent baby" off to war once it has grown into adulthood, for it to die in a foreign land fighting for the rights of Halliburton to make an insane amount of money?
Because if not "all of the above" then you are a "pro death zealot" who wants women to carry out unwanted pregnancies so that you will have plenty more cannon fodder in 18 years or so.
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
Take the alternative, would you suggest that a pro-choice advocate cannot consistently be either a pacifist or against capital punishment? Of course they can. The problem with tu quoque arguments is you inevitably have to dig two graves.
---------------------------------------------
*rolls eyes*
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.
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.
I laughed so hard I snotted myself.
***Turn off faux news and get evereyone (and every business) to do likewise. If only brainless people watch, they will lose their power.
Or calling the War of Northern Aggression the Civil War, right?
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
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.
These wingnuts want the government out of their lives, but have no problem legislating what a person doe in their private life
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.
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?
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.
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.
We can only hope - it would be VERY enlightening...
:)
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.
----------------------
LOL
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.
...both sides do it so don't act shocked.
FOX is just as bias as MSNBC, CNN, ABC, CBS, NPR, New York Times, etc....
...both sides do it so don't act shocked.
FOX is just as bias as MSNBC, CNN, ABC, CBS, NPR, New York Times, etc....
The both sides do it stuff is ridiculous. Progressive/liberal may mean different things to different people, and is honest. Saying that progressives are "socialists" is dishonest. And "climate change" is an apt description less likely to confuse people than "global warming". Both are accurate terms, but weather extremes caused by global warming may mean more severe snowstorms for example, and unusual weather in certain areas.
You just don't understand what "fair and balanced" means.
From the Free Online Dictionary:
fair 1 (fÃr)
adj. fair·er, fair·est
1. Of pleasing appearance, especially because of a pure or fresh quality; comely.
Dispute that, I dare you. There are no ugly Fox employees.
Again, from the Free Online Dictionary:
bal·ance (blns)
2. A state of equilibrium or parity characterized by cancellation of all forces by equal opposing forces.
How does this not apply?
WE REPORT, YOU DECIDE Yeah, right.
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".
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
We all know that isn't true. You are a FOX puppet. Admit it, embrace it, own it.
This is the definition of "public option" and it is true.
Thank you very much
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.
Facts matter. All of them.
No, that's what ALL polls do. I gave this example before, as I was, at one point in my life, a pollster. Only for like two weeks, because I have too much respect for myself.
Phone rings... You answer.
You: "Hello"
Caller: "Good evening! I am doing a survey today, do you have time for a few questions?"
You: "Sure"
Caller: "Do you vote Republican?"
You: "No"
Caller: <click> *dial tone*
Phone rings... You answer.
Phone rings... You answer.
You: "Hello"
Caller: "Good evening! I am doing a survey today, do you have time for a few questions?"
You: "Sure"
Caller: "Do you vote Republican?"
You: "Yes"
Caller: "Great! How do you feel about...?"
If you meet the criteria of who they want to talk to (Republican or not, minority or not, drinker or not, smoker or not, etc) they will continue to ask questions, if you do not, they will not waste any more time.
The privatized military contractors are even more costly and less accountable to the public.
I really don't believe the government can administer health care to 320 million people in a efficient manner.
And to believe this, you have to ignore all the other countries that serve all of their citizens health care needs for less cost... or is it that American government can't function by definition...
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.
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.
This is an interesting assertion. Do you have a source?
Another interesting assertion. Do you have a source for this one?
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.
We have until the 2030's or 2040's. Plenty of time to deal with the problem, assuming it's even as bad as Mr. Aaron argues.
Again from your own source:
See, one of the reasons for health care reform was to curb the cost of health care and insurance both. We already spend twice what other first world nations spend, and get on average worse care. Reining in these costs with sensible regulation of what is a rapacious industry will ensure the long term solvency of Medicare.
Depends on the question, but in this case I was curious about the basis for YOUR assertion that they were both bankrupt. Even your own source admits the problem is not near as bad as you painted it.
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?
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.
You owe me a cup of cofee and a new keyboard.
-------------------------------------------
Your [entire] post is one of the funniest things I've read in a long time. Well done.
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?
Oh wait. The only choice you have for insurance company is the one the company you work for chooses. Never mind.
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.
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.
I have private company health insurance. For myself, my wife, and my daughter, our premiums just jumped to over $7500.00 a year. My copay to see my GP just went from $20.00 to $30.00 per visit. They don't pay a cent for medication, and if I have to go to the hospital (as I did in August) they pay nothing until I first meet a $1500.00 deductible. After that, they pay 20%. So, aside from paying anything over $30.00 for 3 doctor visits a year (after that, they only pay for ER visits), I have to spend 9 grand before they spend anything. Yeah, great private insurance I have there.
You should really educate yourself a little before you open your mouth (or begin to type, whichever the case may be) and show how truly uneducated you are.
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?
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...
..
Seriously, if that is all you can do, perhaps you should learn how to actually be witty.
Scary.
How quickly you've forgotten.... :(
Case in point.
August, 2009, Denton, Texas.
Republican Representative Michael Burgess held a "town hall" meeting. A woman asked him a question, the gist of which was "since we all know our health care system is broken, why didn't the Republicans fix it when they had control of Congress" and his answer was basically that the Republican leadership's take was that it was easier to poke holes in someone else's idea than to produce your own.
Fox "News" in introducing the story that "lots of Americans are upset about this legislation" SHOWED the woman talking and looking upset, but the "reporter" talked over her. They never showed Mr. Burgess' answer. Neither did ANY of the so-called "liberal media". CNN, somewhat to it's credit, showed her and aired her question to Mr. Burgess, but they didn't air his answer either. You have to go to youtube or The Daily Show for that.
Is that slanted enough for you?
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?
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.
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".
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.
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
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?
Examples of those laws restricting freedom? I ask because I'm interested in exactly which among your freedoms are restricted.
Traffic signals actual facilitate movement.
Food safety laws facilitate the market for restaurants.
Environmental laws protect the air you breath and the water you drink.
Not touching that one, I see. Religion restricts personal freedom FAR more than our government does. Unless, of course, you can come up with some examples, then I will concede your point.
As to the charity thing. It is the non-profits that are actually making a difference, not government programs. Do you know how much money the government has spent on the so called "war on poverty"? How much money has been put into community redevelopment, that never gets redeveloped? I don't know where you are from, but I am from Los Angeles and currently reside in Oakland, and I know that's true for those cities. It is the non-profits that make a difference in those communities. Not the government, though the governments money is welcome, by some. Especially the drug dealers, who see a big increase in demand around the time the government checks are cashed. That is a reality that needs to be addressed.
As to your freedom thing, well, freedom doesn't trump freedom. If you understood what freedom meant, you wouldn't even have made such a statement. The government is the only entity that makes laws. regardless of the form a government takes, it is still the entity that will make laws. And any law will tend to erode freedom. For the sake of common interest, people tend to give up part of their freedom, by agreeing to abide by certain laws. Not every group of people agree to give up the same freedoms in pursuit of this communality. In other words, countries have differing laws. That's called civilization. You big brother lovers what to give up more of our freedom than others are comfortable with.
The last thing you wrote is pure nonsense. Everything you do is subject to scrutiny by the government. Try to remodel you home, than get back to me, ok?
Steele made his remarks at DePaul University on Tuesday night. He acknowledged that “we haven’t done a very good job” of giving African Americans a reason to vote Republican. That’s actually unremarkable. But here’s what he also said:
“We have lost sight of the historic, integral link between the party and African-Americans,” Steele said. “This party was co-founded by blacks, among them Frederick Douglass. The Republican Party had a hand in forming the NAACP, and yet we have mistreated that relationship. People don’t walk away from parties. Their parties walk away from them.
“For the last 40-plus years we had a ‘Southern Strategy’ that alienated many minority voters by focusing on the white male vote in the South. Well, guess what happened in 1992, folks, ‘Bubba’ went back home to the Democratic Party and voted for Bill Clinton...”
The surrogate, Ken Mehlman, is chairman of the Republican National Committee. Perhaps he meant well. But his words were worse than meaningless. They were insulting. The G.O.P.'s Southern strategy, racist at its core, still lives.
"Some Republicans gave up on winning the African-American vote, looking the other way or trying to benefit politically from racial polarization," said Mr. Mehlman. "I am here today as the Republican chairman to tell you we were wrong.The important thing to keep in mind was how deliberate and pernicious the strategy was. Last month a jury in Philadelphia, Miss., convicted an 80-year-old man, Edgar Ray Killen, of manslaughter in the slaying of three civil rights workers - Andrew Goodman, Michael Schwerner and James Chaney - in the summer of 1964. It was a crime that made much of the nation tremble, and revolted anyone with a true sense of justice.
So what did Ronald Reagan do in his first run for the presidency, 16 years after the murder, in the summer of 1980? He chose the site of the murders, Philadelphia, Miss., as the perfect place to send an important symbolic message. Mr. Reagan kicked off his general election campaign at the Neshoba County Fair in Philadelphia, an annual gathering that was famous for its diatribes by segregationist politicians. His message: "I believe in states' rights."
And in both of Mr. Bush's presidential campaigns, his supporters, especially his brother Jeb, the governor of Florida, have gone out of their way to prevent or discourage blacks from voting. In a particularly vile episode last year, Florida state troopers conducted a criminal investigation that zeroed in on black voter turnout efforts in Orlando. A number of people were indicted, including the mayor, Buddy Dyer, a Democrat who was then suspended from office.
In April, with the election safely out of the way, the indictments were dropped and Mr. Dyer was reinstated as mayor.
At its heart, the Southern strategy remains the same, a cynical and remarkably successful divide-and-conquer strategy that nurtures the bigotry of whites and is utterly contemptuous of blacks.
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/07/18/opinion/18herbert.html?_r=1
I suggest you read the whole article because it quite clearly shows that conservatives have rarely been the friends of minorities and the Republican
party of Lincoln is not the party of today. i didn't even mention G.H.W.Bush use of Willie Horton or Trent Lotts weepy good-bye to segregationist Strom Thurmond where he reminded us paraphrasing that; we wouldn't had all these problems throughout all these years if only we had elected the racist Thurmond who by the way hid from the public his daughter conceived from a tryst with the underage daughter of his Afro-American housekeeper for over 19yrs. Nope this Republican party is not the party of Lincoln and even they so.
It's called a change we you go from one to the other and then back or in the words of republicans a "flip-flop." Too funny chief.
Oh and you raise the tired argument of Barry was against it based on ideology not race as having some significant reasoning. Pffffffffff! It's laughable coming from a "black man."
You start with this sentence that I guess is written in stone and for all history and proclaim for all time:
"It was the democrats that supported segregation laws, not republicans..."
Then you move to:
"...However, in 1883 the Supreme Court, then it its most libertarian phase, knocked down the 1875 act as well as many other Republican measures passed during Reconstruction designed to aid African Americans. The Court's philosophy in these cases led logically to Plessy v. Ferguson in 1896, which essentially gave constitutional protection to legal segregation enforced by state and local governments throughout the U.S..."
But earlier you said this:
"...You still haven't address the fact that all the hateful race based legislation has come from the democratic side of the aisle, not the republican side. Goldwaters opposition to the civil rights act was rooted in the fact that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 essentially replicated the Civil Rights Act of 1875, which was enacted by a Republican Congress over strenuous Democratic opposition..."
so goldwater was against it because it replicated the 1875 act which gave the newly freed slaves new freedoms which the bad democrats were against and the good republicans suported. This same legislation overturned in 1883 by a libertarian court you say led logically in your words to the Plessy v. Ferguson seperate but equal finding that codified segregation and inequality into law. So how does Goldwater and the Republican party that supported him come out clean?
And WHY are YOU are trying gloss over the FACT the Republican party PAST is just that PAST!
Since the 1960's, the current Republican party has filled it's ranks with many of the old racist Southern White Democrats.
African Americans started leaving the Republican party around the time of Roosevelt's New Deal. And as they left and the number of Blacks in the Democratic party increased, those same racist Southern Democrats found they didn't want to be a part of the so called "n****r lovers" party.
And the Republican party realized their party numbers were decreasing, they started to court a new group of voters, the Southern White Democrats.
And the "Southern Strategy" was born. Campaigns run with code words like "states rights" and "welfare queen" and "forced busing", were essentially designed to run against African Americans.
Ronald Reagan starting his presidential campaign at the place where civil rights workers were murdered with the Dixicrat rallying cry of "states rights forever", Strum Thurmond and Trent Lott by his side.
There is a reason that the Republican party can only claim 2% African American representation. And there is a reason that the current GOP/Tea Party can only claim 1% African American participation.
No matter how many ways you try to insult us, we are NOT stupid. And we didn't need Lee Atwater, Ken Mehlman or Michael Steele to tell us Republican party campaigns were ran against us.
So you have every reason, as a Republican, to be proud of your past. But YOU also have every reason to be ASHAMED at the direction the party has taken since the 1960's.
4 officers indicted in post-Katrina bridge shootings
2 others charged with participating in a cover-up
NEW ORLEANS — In a case that rocked a city already torn by the horrors of Hurricane Katrina, four police officers accused of gunning down two unarmed people in the storm's chaotic aftermath could face death themselves.
"The officers who could face the death penalty were charged along with two others in a 27-count indictment unsealed Tuesday. Five former New Orleans police officers already have pleaded guilty to helping cover up the shootings on the Danziger Bridge that left two men dead and four wounded just days after the August 2005 hurricane. In one instance, a mentally disabled man was shot in the back and stomped before he died.
Prosecutors say officers fabricated witness statements, falsified reports and planted a gun in an attempt to make it appear the shootings were justified..."
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/38228986/ns/us_news-crime_and_courts/
Judge in Danziger case sickened by 'raw brutality of the shooting and the craven lawlessness of the cover-up'
Published: Wednesday, April 07, 2010, 9:27 PM
"...Hunter, who resigned last week after he was charged in federal court, contends that fellow officers shot at people they should have seen were unarmed. The account of events Hunter signed Thursday afternoon, called a factual basis, provides the most specific details to date about officers' actions on the bridge, which spans the Industrial Canal at Chef Menteur Highway.
Hunter, 33, said a New Orleans police sergeant fired an assault rifle at wounded civilians at close range after other officers stopped shooting and after it was clear that the police were not taking fire. He also says he saw another officer in a car fire a shotgun at a fleeing man's back, although the man did nothing suggesting he was a threat to police. That man, 40-year-old Ronald Madison, who was severely mentally disabled, died of his wounds."
I don't think you can listen to that account without being sickened by the raw brutality of the shooting and the craven lawlessness of the cover-up," said U.S. District Judge Sarah Vance after the factual basis was read aloud in the still courtroom by prosecutor Bobbi Bernstein, deputy chief of the U.S. Department of Justice Civil Rights Division.
http://www.nola.com/crime/index.ssf/2010/04/judge_sickened_by_raw_brutalit.html
The testimony was part of his guilty plea bargain deal. So your example of race relations being better? Not soooo much. It seems their are racist cops everywhere.
Oh yeah, we don't get called a n****rs to our face as often in the South, but subtle and indirect racism still exist.
Black folks and White folks may work for the same company, attend the same school, but THAT is the limit of their interaction.
Sunday church services, dinners, parties and housing are still mostly segregated.
White folks in the South, like many other places in Americas perception of Blacks is still generally negative based on their Limited interaction with Black folks.
I would not deny there are racist Democrats but put both parties side by side and you can't help but see a glaring difference.
The Republican Party is 89% White and had FEWER than 2% African American delegates at the 2008 Republican convention.
The Republican Party, until 2010 had NOT elected an African American to Congress since J.C. Watts back in 1994 and NOW you've elected TWO!
The ONLY African American Republican Senator was Ed Brooke back in 1966.
Limbaugh/Beck and others are allowed to spew racist comments and NO ONE, even Black Republicans, EVER speaks out AGAINST what they've said. Which must mean, THEY, Limbaugh/Beck and others, speak for the Republican party.
And looking at the 2008 presidential campaign, and the 2 years since Obama was elected sees racism has come out of the Republican closet. The ONLY thing Republicans haven't done is call President Obama the "N" word in public....yet
Lynching was used to control Black folks and deny them political and social equality.
Anyone could choose to gather a mob and murder Black folks. They could be actual police officers or the owner or clerk of the local corner store owner. In fact a lot of lynching of Black folks occurred on Sunday, right after church. White folks dressed in their Sunday best, standing under some tree where the body of someone Black hanged.
And The list of African Americans murdered by police officers are long and have taken place in cities all accross the United States!
The fact that YOU have the nerve to use the term "modern day lynchings" to discuss the police killings of Oscar Grant and Deandre Brunston tells me that YOU don't have a clue!
"...The Southern strategy meant much, much more than some members of the G.O.P. simply giving up on African-American votes. Put into play by Barry Goldwater and Richard Nixon in the mid- to late 1960's, it fed like a starving beast on the resentment of whites who were scornful of blacks and furious about the demise of segregation and other civil rights advances. The idea was to snatch the white racist vote away from the Democratic Party, which had committed such unpardonable sins as enacting the Civil Rights and Voting Rights Acts and enforcing desegregation statutes..."
So no this silly liberal/progressives=democrats and conservative=republican is a creation of Beck and you have swallowed this ahistory hook-line and sinker. Life and history are more compicated and not easily sculputured to fit into such neat good v. evil categories.
I would love to have some.
Go learn yourself some history on the evolution/transformations our political parties.
Once again, GIVE ME AN EXAMPLE OF A LIBERAL MEDIA OUTLET. Go back and re-read ALL of my original post on this subject so that you can answer my question coherently, or DON'T MUDDY THE WATERS WITH NON ANSWERS.
(emphasis added)
Pretty much a "talking points" attack add on anything that might be liberal.
I find it funny (and ridiculous) that you site him as some kind of authority. C'mon, you ain't even trying here.
Which as you know and ignore, includes exact quotations and audio/video links to prove that they are accurately reporting. Opinion based upon fact is not equivalent to opinion based upon lies.
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?
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!!
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.
I watch Ed Schultz and if you as me he is the biggest fool on TV
we need a mole on the inside of foxPAC more.........
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.
"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."
See how I "Fox quoted" myself there?
In other news, the sun is hot.
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
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!!!
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.
Slimy Bill has been pulling this crap for years.
In 2003, Scoobie Davis gave us this example.
"We Distort, You're Deceived"
There's this from Crooks and Liars.
..but if we HAD the audio/digital technology to do so, you bet your trust fund that we would!
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.
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.
If Roger Ailes wanted to declare Focksnooze a church for tax purposes, he could probably get his audience to tithe.
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.
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.
It's neither a "states rights" issue or a "government" issue, IT'S A WOMAN'S CHOICE issue!
We, as women should have COMPLETE CONTROL of OUR OWN bodies!
NO question, NO discussion!
Call yourself whatever makes YOU happy, but unless YOU have a uterus, it's NONE of YOUR damn business!
Did YOU notice you said "YOUR UTERUS"?
When YOU get a uterus, YOU can decide whatever YOU want.
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?
You got nothin'.
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.
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.
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.
The Public/government option would give people a choice and and more competition for the market.
Tell me, what does insurance have to do with "corporate run health care"?
Insurance companies are for profit corporations that often find denying coverage in their best interest. Government regulations at least keep this impulse in check. Its we the people vs management and shareholders.
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.
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.
See, originally, it was called the 'public' option because it would be open to the public and administered by the government, and also to contrast it with private insurance options, of which there are many.
So, from now on, kindly call the 'public' option the 'government' option. But don't forget to call private insurance 'for-profit death panel ridden corporate rip off' insurance.
see how that works?
Single payer, which never was considered would have made paying for our societal health maintenance costs similar to the highways, military and education.
Yes, NPR definitely has a leftward tilt, but at least it tries to be balanced.
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.
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.
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.
Obviously, that is "fair and balanced".
http://www.slate.com/id/2277401/
http://chickaboomer.blogspot.com/2010/12/our-komrades-at-media-matters-are.html
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.
http://bit.ly/gtdiCG
Sounds like a good deal to me.
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.
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.
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.
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. ]
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.
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/lachlan-markay/2010/12/09/liberals-outraged-labeling-bias-only-if-it-involves-fox
http://swampland.blogs.time.com/2010/12/09/in-defense-of-the-fox-news-ban-on-public-option/
"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.
Public option is deceptive speech. I find it refreshing that they chose to refer to it properly.
Insiders have had enough of the higher-ups and will continue to warn people what goes on inside Fox News Channel.
http://hotair.com/archives/2010/12/09/fox-news-scandal-they-called-the-public-option-the-government-option-instead/
"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.
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.
What words should I say to sound like a brainless parrot?
Is there a story here?
Seems like FOX was careful to explain it very accurately.
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.
Jackwad.
The trolls, as usual, fail to see how their defense of Fox is based on a logic that they would detest if it was used to promote an agenda they didn't like. So shallow it all is.
The way issues are labeled, defined and framed needs to be acknowledged and addressed. Someone up above referred to private insurance companies as death panels. Why not if all is fair in the game of framing? Private insurance deny coverage all the time. Somehow the death panel thing only counts if its from the government.
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.
Mentalgiant you've come up short once again!
The correspondents all used to joke about the slogan. "We distort, and take sides." Shep, Baier, Emmanuel, well, okay, the guys in the NE part of the country didn't joke so much. They lived it. But the guys on the west coast, Dallas, Miami, Chicago, they knew exactly what was going on, and they cashed their checks. They didn't care, they were young and working at the network level, and getting paid at the network level.
If I had known how out of hand this was going to get, I would have saved anything I could to leak.
http://mediamatters.org/research/200807020002
Why should anyone believe anything Faux News says? It doesn't even enforce it's own policy:
http://mediamatters.org/blog/200912080051
BTW, you do know the HC legislation is 2,700 pages don't you?
Sorry, Weeener is such an idiot I got of track when you talked about dead.
You should read the post below and go to the HufPo link. An entire article about how deceptively naming things makes it easier to sell crap to the mindless masses who are too stupid to figure it out.
I've already read that Lakoff article. It's great. What is especially great is if you keep citing it. That's good irony.
And read the other Lakoff article that I cited too. It would be even better if you cite both of them.
The article was an absolute hoot. Pure Obama fantasy. The people are not going along with my crap so it must be how often or the way I am saying it.
Maybe the people of America reject it because it is a crap idea and they are smart enough to see thru it. Why do the progressives all think it must be because the people are stupid, not that maybe their progressive social nirvana has never worked and the people are smart enough to see thru it no matter how cleverly you try to name it.
Its a great place because there are lots of opportunities. I like to work in a target rich environment.
Here is George Lakoff speaking of his own accord:
Obama, Tea Parties, and the Battle for Our Brains
Even if you insist that Soros' donation WAS a purchase, it was at most only a purchase of services, not buying the store. And since that donation wasn't enough to do a whole lot of running of the store, I would assume that his "purchased services" have long since run out. I like the way you run with your Becky talking points though, nice that you live up to your name.
- Government parks
- Government schools
- Government libraries
- Government streets/bridges
- Government bathrooms
- MediGovCaid
Here's something off topic that I think Fox would just love to do a major Obama debunking story. Have you heard about the Obama phone? I hear and read about it everywhere. The Obama Admin is using tax payer money to give free cell phones to welfare people. Here's your chance Fox to expose this widely circulated story as a hoax. Go for it! Let's see that F&B journalism at its best.
Who provides everything you just listed. That's right the government. The only difference between calling it a Government park and a Public park, is you are referring to it by its provider as opposed to its beneficiary.
Whether you call it a public option or government option, it is all the same thing. The government is providing the public with health care.