ABC Obama health care special brings out Fox News' hypocrisy
SUMMARY: In criticizing a former ABC News correspondent now working in the Obama White House and ABC's refusal to air an advocacy ad during a program to be broadcast from the White House, Fox News guests and hosts have ignored Fox's own history of refusal to air advocacy ads that criticized the Bush administration, or that Tony Snow left Fox News to be President Bush's press secretary.
Since news broke that ABC News plans to broadcast a June 24 prime-time special, "Questions for the President: Prescription for America," from the White House, Fox News guests and hosts have repeatedly ignored Fox's own history and blasted ABC News over its planned broadcast by claiming, among other things, that ABC News is excluding opposition voices both from appearing in and advertising during the special. Some Fox News hosts and guests have also suggested a "conflict of interest," pointing to the fact that former ABC News correspondent Linda Douglass is now communications director of the Department of Health and Human Services' Office of Health Reform. Fox News' concern over the ABC News special is noteworthy given Fox's history.
As Media Matters for America noted, the network enjoyed "unprecedented access" during the Bush administration. But further reinforcing the hypocrisy of Fox's reaction to the ABC News broadcast are two other facts: Fox News itself has refused to air advertisements critical of Bush administration policies and appointees, and in 2006, Tony Snow, then-Fox News anchor and radio host, left Fox to serve as President Bush's White House press secretary.
On the June 17 edition of his show, Fox News' Sean Hannity described the ABC special as a "Mickey Mouse-sponsored infomercial," and said: "Now, it's bad enough that the White House is taking over a broadcast network for a full hour, but we were also reminded today that the White House director of communications for health care spin is none other than former ABC correspondent Linda Douglass." He added: "Now that cannot be a coincidence. We also learned that ABC has declined a request by a conservative health care group to buy ad time during the infomercial. Now, the group says that, at the very least, they had hoped that ABC would let the other side pay for airtime. But, no, apparently Mickey was not interested." Hannity hosted Karl Rove, former Bush adviser and current Fox News contributor, to discuss the issue.
Similarly, on the June 18 edition of Fox News' Fox & Friends, co-host Brian Kilmeade stated that ABC is "now refusing ... to air a paid TV ad representing the opposing conservative view when it comes to health care," and added that the special "sounds like it is going to be one big infomercial." Kilmeade went on to note that the "director of communications is Linda Douglass, former ABC News reporter," who is "now at the White House Office of Health Reform," and asked Fox News contributor Michelle Malkin: "You think there's a connection there?" Malkin replied, "It certainly seems like it, and, of course, these conflicts of interest don't matter to the liberal media and to the -- their government masters and overlords."
In criticizing ABC News, neither Hannity nor Kilmeade noted that Fox News previously refused to air an ad produced by the Center for Constitutional Rights that criticized the Bush administration for "destroying the Constitution" by the use of renditions, torture, and other tactics. In an email provided to Media Matters by the center, Fox News account executive Erin Kelly told Owen Henkel, the center's e-communications manager, that Fox would not run the ad, but said that "[i]f you have documentation that it [the constitution] is indeed being destroyed, we can look at that." Moreover, in 2005, Fox News refused to run an ad critical of Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito, who Bush had nominated to succeed retiring Justice Sandra Day O'Connor. Fox News does, however, repeatedly air anti-health care reform ads from the Conservatives for Patients' Rights, the group whose ad was reportedly rejected by ABC.
Additionally, in allowing a contributor to claim without challenge, as Malkin did, that there is a "conflict of interest" in ABC's airing a health care special with Obama since a former ABC News correspondent now works for the Obama administration, Fox News ignored the fact that Snow went from being a Fox News host to White House press secretary under Bush. Bush announced Snow as his new press secretary on April 26, 2006.
From the June 17 edition of Fox News' Hannity:
HANNITY: President Obama's love affair with the mainstream media continues. But as we learn more about next week's Mickey Mouse-sponsored infomercial, one thing is becoming clear, and that is our headline this Wednesday night: "Journalism in America is Dead."
Now, it's bad enough that the White House is taking over a broadcast network for a full hour, but we were also reminded today that the White House director of communications for health care spin is none other than former ABC correspondent Linda Douglass. Now, that cannot be a coincidence.
We also learned that ABC has declined a request by a conservative health care group to buy ad time during the infomercial. Now, the group says that, at the very least, they had hoped that ABC would let the other side pay for airtime. But, no, apparently Mickey was not interested.
And joining me tonight with more is Fox News contributor Karl Rove. Karl, it seems rather unprecedented. You were there in the White House for the better part of eight years. This ever happen while George W. Bush was president?
ROVE: You know, look, it's normal for the networks to want to come in and do an interview inside the White House or to get a glimpse behind the curtain as to what goes on there. But let's step back for a minute.
This is an unprecedented access to the White House and, more importantly, an unprecedented use of the White House. I can't remember a time when a network came in and was going to devote a significant block of time to covering an issue that was on the president's agenda.
And it's a brilliant use of the White House by the Obama-ites because it is -- you know, they can put a dozen critics in the audience and the president is still going to win the evening and win the debate, because he's playing on the ultimate home court, in the East Room of the White House, with all the power of the presidency, with all the majesty of the White House. And this is going to be a big sort of PR victory for him that night.
However, there are going to be two losers in this thing. One is going to be the network, and ultimately, one is going to be the White House itself. I'm astonished at ABC, and I don't think the White House has thought through the implications of what it's doing either.
HANNITY: Well, the National Republican Committee has requested -- and President Obama has requested also -- he wants a robust, vigorous debate. So, the question is: Why won't they at least allow a Republican that is well-versed on the issue to be there to counter some of the arguments that are being made -- number one --
ROVE: Yeah.
HANNITY: -- and why not let this group buy ads?
ROVE: Well, this is why ABC is a loser. Because no matter what happens now, people are going to look at the -- the critics of the president's health care approach are going to look at this and say this was a fixed deal. You put it on his home court, you controlled it. This was all made for glorification of the president of the United States.
And look, ABC ought to be doing more. But even if they were doing these things, at the end of the day, the American people would be legitimate to look at this thing and say, "You know what? The fix was in right from the get-go." And as a result, ABC's journalistic credibility is going to be hurt.
From the June 18 edition of Fox News' Fox & Friends:
KILMEADE: Straight ahead, ABC promising its special prime-time program with the president, yes, broadcast from inside the White House -- from the Blue Room -- the nightly news. Will it be fair and balanced? Really? Then why were they refusing to air a paid ad from the opposition?
DOOCY: Yeah, we're going to talk about that straight ahead.
[...]
KILMEADE: ABC News preparing to broadcast live from the White House for a prime-time special on health care. And ABC now refusing for a -- to air a paid TV ad representing the opposing conservative view when it comes to health care. Fox News contributor Michelle Malkin joins us live from Denver. Michelle, this is going to be -- sounds like it's going to be one big infomercial. What would -- why would ABC do this?
MALKIN: Well, the "All Barack Channel" wants to help Obama as much as it can, and this is basically government-controlled stenography. They're going to sit there and nod their heads, while all of these government takeover advocates make their case for free. And it's my position that ABC really should be required to register as a federal lobbyist, because that's what they're doing.
KILMEADE: Well, you know, NBC got that wonderful tour that even The Daily Show mocked with [NBC Nightly News anchor] Brian Williams as they spent countless hours and 32 cameras to give everyone --
MALKIN: Yeah.
KILMEADE: -- a feeling of what it's like in the White House, for TV, and now this happens right on the heels of that. But ABC News says, we promise the town hall will be balanced.
MALKIN: Yeah, that's right. They promised that there would be a representation from, quote-unquote, "diverse and thoughtful points of view," and yet, they rejected calls by conservatives to run paid ads during this infomercial, which I think gives lie to any diversity that they say they're going to represent.
KILMEADE: The director of communications is Linda Douglass, former ABC News reporter. She's now at the White House --
MALKIN: Yep.
KILMEADE: -- Office of Health Reform. You think there's a connection there?
MALKIN: It certainly seems like it, and, of course, these conflicts of interest don't matter to the liberal media and to the -- their government masters and overlords. And I really will be very curious to see who they have who will show any appreciation for the free market and demonstrate any opposition at all to what's being planned here. If they did have a real commitment to diversity, Brian, they would put [co-anchor of ABC's 20/20] John Stossel on.
John Stossel is one of the few at the ABC News operation who has been able to voice any kind of appreciation and support and defense of the free market. I'd like to see him on the show.
KILMEADE: Now, [ABC World News anchor] Charlie Gibson will play a major role. In fact, he's doing the nightly news from there. Remember he had those tough questions for Sarah Palin? Will he have some tough questions for Barack Obama?
MALKIN: Well, I think if enough people make a stink about this infomercial that there will be an incredible amount of public pressure on ABC to show some sort of questioning and challenging of ObamaCare, and I think that you have to look at the context here. The fact is that this plan is in trouble. And it's not just conservatives who are opposing it; there are many moderate Democrats who are questioning the ballooning costs of this plan, and that has to be incorporated if they have any credibility as a, quote-unquote, "news organization" at all.
KILMEADE: Michelle, if people want to take action, they don't want to sit by, what do they do?
MALKIN: They call Congress. It's 202-224-3121. And they get very well-versed and informed on what's actually in the plan, and they can do that by reading my site or Hot Air, going on the Internet, 'cause they're not going to get this news from ABC, that's for sure.
KILMEADE: Right. And it's just too important of an issue to take a partisan stand. It's too complicated to get a hold of or make a poster for. Michelle Malkin, thanks so much. Always great.
MALKIN: Thanks, Brian.
Fox News found nothing at all ironic about asking the former WH advisor Karl Rove, now working for Fox News about a conflict of interest between the WH and a network!!
That is too, too funny!
Of course Fox championed Bush at every opportunity, propped him and his administration up - but those that criticized that as inappropriate bias should have the same concerns with ABC's WH infomercial for health care. Ok, wait until it airs before slamming it to the walls, that is a good point. But it certainly appears at this point to be from a decidedly pro-administration point of view. We'll see.
Andrew Sullivan (no bleeding heart liberal):
“The loser was ABC News: one of the worst media performances I can remember - petty, shallow, process-obsessed, trivial where substantive, and utterly divorced from the actual issues that Americans want to talk about.”
It won't be an infomercial. It'll be as tabloid and Gibson can make it.
That is ridiculous. It shouldn't be debated? By your logic neither should the Iraq War, or the economy, or any other vital issue facing this country.
If it shouldn't be debated, then who is the decider? And who pays, and how much, and on and on and on. Amazing.
I saw that many of the posters who are here now were here then too, Pete among them. And FunnyManPants was there too, and guess what he said all those years ago? That Tommy and RightOn were one in the same.
So it's a new, old name for an old poster. And why is this important to point out? Because this new (old) screen name is trying to act like he isn't simply following the worn-out pattern of changing the topic, playing WITH games, and other derailing attempts. I guess Tommy lost his mojo eventually, then JamesB did, and now RightOn is trying to rejuevenate those same tired tricks as though it's not the same actual person with a different name.
And Tommy, I'd be happy to provide those links to readers here and to Media Matters too.
We know that your house of cards falls apart. We're not the ignorant ones in this back and forth.
They already enjoy the best healthcare plan in America. Do you really think that will change, and if so, why?
I wonder if it bothers you more that a rich person can afford better health care than you and me or that we all pay for our representatives to have that same level of expensive care?
No. Not if we have a similar plan for everyone. Health care naysayers are just that.
Neither bothers me.
Why don't you stop asking rhetorical questions and simply engage in an honest debate?
Direct me to a link that can instruct me in a method of communication that you would better appreciate.
I don't mind learning and I might even remember to incorporate it if I bump into you somewhere else.
:)
>>>Bingo! It's not just about the absolute amount of stuff the wealthy have. It's also about their RELATIVE position to others.
Funny -- that wasn't what Bubble Boy or his supporters said prior to Iraq . . .
1.)right
2.)wrong
Fox should definitely follow the basic journalistic rules and not report opinion and/or bias as fact.
News commentary is its own animal... a very, very wild animal.
I wish I could live in such a simple world.
*heavy sigh*
Every issue has two sides.
Wrong. That's Fox News-style thinkin' for ya. Bring out one guest with the facts and the other with the lies and talking points and let 'em go at it. The viewer - still grossly uninformed.
But there's no side to the statement that health care is important.
Funny how you don't understand either concept.
The Sham Wow guy doesn't do an infomercial about why washing, drying and polishing surfaces is important. The infomercial is about how *his* product is the best to use in order to wash, dry and polish.
Just saying...
I like your point below, about having not seen it yet and therefore can't say if it's an infomercial.
:)
ABC is not being critical of Fox for having been so. Fox IS criticising ABC for being so.
It's almost never the vice, dude, it's almost always the hypocrisy.
It's not okay for FoxNews to criticize those things which they do themselves.
It's not okay for Senator Ensign to suggest that a marital affair is something that Clinton should resign over, and then have one himself!
It's the hypocrisy.
Fox News is pretty well known to be a biased news source. Ask 100 people living in your city if Fox News leans to the right or left and you will be surprised how many people know it is a news network biased to conservatives.
If you were to ask those same 100 people if ABC was biased to the right or left, what do you think they would say? My suspicion is that most people do not think ABC is a biased news source.
Why is this point important? If you know the person you're getting a story from has an agenda, you are more likely to research the points you are given before believing them. If you think you are listening to an unbiased source which is actually reporting biased opinions, you are more likely to believe what you are told with no enquiry of your own.
What do you think about this move by ABC? Do you think it means they are acting on a political bias? Do you think it's wrong for a news source to report based on political bias?
Don't know. I haven't seen it yet.
No. Disney owns ABC and is a notoriously conservative company.
{quote]Do you think it's wrong for a news source to report based on political bias?[/quote]
Yes
Any more questions? I feel like I'm taking a Facebook quiz.
However, the fact that Disney owns ABC means nothing in this debate. The question is about ABC and its reputation politically. It doesn't necessarily follow that a parent company and its affiliates will have the same overall political agendas.
The main reason for that last question is that I had trouble discerning whether or not the person I responded to thought Fox was wrong not excepting opponents advocacy adds, and therefore ABC would be wrong in this instance; or if they thought that ABC and Fox should have the freedom to do so and Fox was just wrong by being hypocritical about the subject.
:)
We shall see if the questions are softballs or not. If so, it's hard to believe that no one would call up to ask questions about the detriments of his healthcare plan.
Always smells fishy (on any side) if there aren't any dissenting voices allowed to question or speak.
This implies *limited* government, not *take my money and disburse it* government.
I'd advise all libertarians to found their own country. They could call it Rand Land. All of the libertarians can move there. Let's see how stable such an anti-democratic society can be over the long haul, maybe two or three generations. My prediction: it isn't stable.
Libertarianism isn't anti-republic!
:)
This implies *limited* government, not *take my money and disburse it* government." - rowena
Well, I hope you whined as loudly when Bubble Boy "dispersed" $700 Billion of your money to Wall St., and $12 Billion/month over five years in a failed attempt to locate WMDs in Iraq.
And, make no mistake: it was YOUR money, it couldn't have been that of the rich -- he gave them a big tax cut.
So if you didn't whine as loudly then, please stfu . . .
I assume you mean the past president.
It's a shame that any of our tax monies went to bail out a business that should have been left to fail.
War is one of the few expenditures that our federal government was originally set up to handle.
Btw, you guys do know that it gets more impossible to ensure democracy the larger the area governed, right?
That's one of the best things about how the US was setup. Smaller states have individual constitutions and rules to govern their people and then a federal government to protect the smaller states and help allow interstate travel and trade.
Also, I've been looking for a place to talk to people who have different ideas then I do. I've tried very hard to draw out your ideas here but I get the idea that you would rather I continue my quest for a place to talk nicely and learn from those with differing viewpoints. Is that true? If so (and don't start being shy now!) I'll mosey on down the road.
:)
Oh, goody -- another "States Righter"!
"States Rights," along with "no gov't interference", seems to be a favorite theme of both the rightwing neoKKKons and the libertarians.
Thing is, in this modern era, "states rights" -- as Tricky Dick so amply demonstrated in his "Southern Strategy" in '68 -- is really just a code for racism . . .
Y'know, it'd be nice if we could rely on the federal gov't SOLEY for defense . . . unfortunately that might leave each state free to do things like treat people like me [African American] however they want; by enslaving them, lynching them, or both . . . and, even if I were to leave one state that did that for another one that didn't, who's to say the state that didn't might have a provision in place whereby they'd return me to the state that did?
So the thing you mentioned about smaller states having individual constitutions is fine -- but remember, this country is called the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, not the FIFTY SEPARATE REPUBLICS OF AMERICA. And, in case you're advocating secession next -- another new favorite theme of the right -- look up something called the Civil War; that should answer that question . . .
Rowena is a representative of a type of troll which has yet to be named but shows up every once in awhile. They are the type of con that likes to appear to sound reasonable. They drown you with what appears to be accurate information with the hopes that the opposition won't spend the time to look up the real facts. At first people try to engage these folks but their troll nature eventually shows itself and they are rightfully castigated.
And the way it can do that is because it is limited. It especially helps that it's limited in terms of social issues.
I think Freedom implies that a nation is governed by the Democratic Party. How about that? I think Liberty "implies" that we have a Nationalized, Single-Payer Health Care system. I don't have to explain it, it's Obvious (to me.)
Hey, it's fun using your brand of logic!
If you are too uneducated to even know that, then you should not try to be part of this discussion!
:-D
Apparently I bug you though. Bug you by shooting down your nonsense like your comment that you don't want to pay for other people's health care. It's not my fault you're too ignorant to understand that unless you're unlucky enough to have a house fire, your homeowner's insurance premiums go to pay for other people's fire damage. Unless you have a catastrophic illness, you (and your employer) are likely to pay a lot more in health insurance premiums than you and your employer will ever recoup! That's the way insurance works.
In the case of health insurance, though, it's even worse, because there are a lot of uninsured people who get sick. Most homeowners have fire insurance, but if they don't, they are SOL. However, if someone gets sick, they are still cared for. And you pay for that now. You and your employer pay for those uninsured people's healthcare. Your taxes help pay to support county hospitals too, or support the care that those uninsured people receive.
But you're apparently too uneducated to even know that. And so you shouldn't try to shoehorn your way into this discussion unless you want to have your butt handed to you in that same discussion.
It seems to bug you to have your butt handed to you. It doesn't bug me at all to hand your butt to you. I quite enjoy it. And I'll keep doing it, as will others here, until you either get better educated or get lost.
Our nation's President, not our Democratic Party leader or the Republican Party leader, is going to address an issue. He gets to do that, as the nation's leader. And ABC is hosting the event, so they get to decide who will be hear as dissenting voices, and what questions will be answered.
What smells fishy is when strawmen argument are thrown out there to muddy the waters. FoxNews has a history of supporting Bush and giving him preferential treatment. ABC, on the other hand, doesn't have that history, and is simply covering a big story. Until we see that they're biased, you don't have a leg to stand on.
If ABC says there will be dissenting voices, I guess I better believe what I'm told... for now.
We'll see what the questions are.
Do you believe there are any legitimate problems with the legislation Obama will be discussing?
Thanks for answering despite your annoyance at doing so.
Single-payer plans do sound more promising than other options. The doctors wouldn't be directly working for the government, which would be a plus.
What do you think about the cost of Obama's plan? Do you think the committee overshot the estimate?
"If you know the person you're getting a story from has an agenda, you are more likely to research the points you are given before believing them." That quote certainly does not hold true of the Fox defenders we read on here daily.
What move by ABC? To air a story on healthcare? To interview a president inside the White House? I'm not sure what political bias you are pointing at other than the one that Fox News is assuming. Please enlighten me.
But if you would like to talk about how airing advocacy ads at all is the real problem, I don't mind. :) It is a problem, when news sources do so. News commentators? That's a different question.
ABC is not airing a story on healthcare. They are airing a story on Obama's healthcare plan. They are not reporting facts and figures about the healthcare situation in America. They are not doing a special on all possible healthcare legislation proposed and the pros and cons of each.
*That* would be real reporting.
And you've seen ABC's report, and know that they aren't going to include facts and figures and dissenting voices?
I mean, we know that FoxNews behaved that way when covering Bush, limiting the info they gave to their viewers to skew opinions and to match the mindset of their viewers. And we know that those on the right have a huge predisposition towards projection, so it's not unusual that you would indict ABC without a whiff of proof of doing the same thing that we KNOW FoxNews did over and over again!
I just see their hypocrisy and their claim against ABC as two different subjects. Both can be true at the same time. It's not an either/or kind of thing. To dismiss the idea that ABC is airing a biased special because the people saying it have aired biased specials before is not very logical.
You're right, I overstated my position by saying they would not include facts and figures. That was a prejudical statement. I need to wait and see what facts and figures are used before making a judgement. :)
Tsk, tsk, Lulu: IOKIYAR.
Sure it did, Sean -- doncha remember? It was YOUR OWN NETWORK that did it!
Here's a screenshot --
Talk about a "Mickey Mouse-sponsored infomercial" -- hey look, there's Goofy himself!!
Btw, don't forget that the Republicans don't have a real answer or plan for the Healthcare Reform Plan. But, it appears that Pres. Obama and the Democrats may roll out their Healthcare Reform Plan on June 24, 2009. So, what do Republicans do to hide the fact of (once again) "NOT" having a solid plan..."distract and smear". Just shameful indeed.
http://www.insurancejournal.com/news/national/2009/05/20/100709.htm
I'm not saying it's a great plan or we should do it, just saying that there are two plans out there.
:)
*shrugs*
I could be wrong... it happens to us all. ;-p
The Republicans *do* have a plan that they have already unveiled.
http://www.insurancejournal.com/news/national/2009/05/20/100709.htm
I'm not saying it's a great plan or we should do it, just saying that there are two plans out there.
Do they have a plan, as you claimed, or don't they even have a draft that'll be ready to view until July? Which is it?
There are many more than 2 plans out there. We've already covered this. You are in so far over your head that you can't see daylight. Give it up.
Go learn some stuff and then you can come back and play with the adults.
I've only heard invective spewing from you.
But if you've read what I typed, you could have read about 6 other posters above who debunked the there are two plans out there talking point.
I'll say it again. If you are bugged by having your butt handed to you in every argument, then you need to either educate yourself or leave. It's not our job to coddle morons and ignore their nonsense. MMfA was created because for too long, people were allowed to spout such nonsense unchallenged.
And do you know what happened to people here who make personal attacks like you did above? They get banned. I haven't only spewed invective, and so that's a personal attack. You, on the other hand, have exposed your inexperience and lack of knowledge, and so me saying that you're a moron is describing the weakness of your message. Attack the message, just fine. Attack the messenger, long-standing problematic behavior from those on the right.
Or continue your ignorant ways. Your choice.
You'll see there all the different options for resolving the healthcare crisis in our nation. There are not just two plans, and two options. There are many potential combo's.
Isn't that what all traditional media did for the Bush administration?
Sometimes those events are going to be biased in favor of the President, and sometimes, they're not. Look, Obama is trying to pitch his health plan to the country. I have no doubt that ABC is going to give him the opportunity to do so. I also have no doubt that there will be questions that disagree with his approach, and that is more then fine as well.
I think it's funny that FoxNews is hyperventilating over this, but I expected no less. It's especially funny given their glowing tributes to Bush and exclusives with him late in his second term when just about everyone in the country (except those 20 percenters) finally figured out what a crappy President he was. I didn't care that they did it though. It's their choice.
This is all a big stink, about nothing.
The second part would be on FOX News their staff and the Republican leaders taking question about the republicans' plan. The callers would be screened by MSNBC staff.
I bet that would be interesting, fun and enlightening!
:)
It does mine! *giggle*
It does mine! *giggle*" - rowena
Well, if its entertainment you want from your news programming, by all means, continue watching the Fox Comedy Channel . . . the rest of us, who like actual news, will go elsewhere . . .