News or editorial? Fox News uses Luntz-approved term "govt option"
Demonstrating once again that the line between Fox News' news and opinion programming is blurred, The Live Desk aired a caption referring to the "govt [government] option," a term right-wing pollster Frank Luntz suggested Sean Hannity use on his program because the term doesn't poll as well as "public option." Featuring captions that use language endorsed by a Republican strategist is only the latest evidence that Fox News is actually a conservative political organization.
Luntz to Hannity: Use "government option," not "public option"
Luntz tells Hannity "the public is overwhelmingly against" the "government option." On the August 18 edition of Hannity, Luntz explained to Hannity that "If you call it a public option, the American people are split," but "if you call it the government option, the public is overwhelmingly against it." Hannity replied that "from now on, I'm going to call it the government option."
Fox News follows Luntz and Hannity, refers to "govt option"
The Live Desk uses caption referring to "govt option." Although it airs during the "news hours" that The New York Times reported Fox "argues" are "objective," The Live Desk featured the caption "SEN REID TO SPEAK ON GOVT OPTION DECISION" [emphasis added] during its October 26 edition.
Fox's "news" coverage is often indistinguishable from its "editorial" programming
In response to criticism, Fox News claims its "news hours" are objective. The New York Times reported on October 11 that in response to White House criticism, Fox News claimed that its "news hours" -- which it reportedly defined as "9 a.m. to 4 p.m. and 6 to 8 p.m. on weekdays" -- are objective, while its other hours consist of "editorial" programming.
But Fox's news programs echo its "editorial" shows: Smears, doctored videos, GOP talking points. Fox News' purportedly straight news programs echo its "editorial" programs: Media Matters for America has compiled numerous examples -- from this year alone -- documenting how Fox's news programming features smears, falsehoods, doctored and deceptive editing, and GOP talking points.
Fox News is a conservative political organization
"Voice of the opposition": Fox News openly advocates against Democratic Congress, White House. Since Barack Obama's inauguration, Fox News has frequently engaged in political advocacy against the Democratic Congress and White House. Specifically, Fox News personalities have promoted and encouraged viewers to "join" tea party protests, Glenn Beck's organization The 9-12 Project and its September 12 "March on Washington," and town hall meetings; engaged in a witch hunt seeking to "get rid of" Obama administration officials and nominees; implored viewers to call Congress and the White House to protest Democratic policies; and celebrated "victor[ies]" when Democratic legislation has been stalled.
Research and communications arm: Fox News is home to GOP in exile. A revolving door exists between the Republican Party and Fox News Channel, with a number of former Bush administration officials, former and potentially future GOP presidential candidates, and Republican strategists on Fox's payroll and airwaves. A Media Matters for America review of Fox coverage since September 1 reveals that these individuals, typically hosted alone or on unbalanced panels, often use their airtime to advance false and misleading claims about Democrats and progressives, as well as to fundraise, further demonstrating that Fox is effectively a conservative political organization and not a legitimate news outlet.
But leave it to liberals to say, whoa - people will support it more if we can just tweak the wording or the description of it. And then complain when it's exposed.
That is a fitting description of what Frank Luntz does for a living.
But leave it to the Party of No to say, whoa - people won't support it as much if we can just tweak the wording or the description of it. and then, when they are exposed, they accuse the other side of doing what they have done.
Been listening around and there are a lot of people in this country that thinks all their "public" monies come from the government (Cash for Clunkers is a good example, "I got $3000 from the government to help me buy my new car.") Luntz is wrong, Shamity is wrong, it won't be government money that funds the program (including subsidies), it will be the public.
Be interesting to see the latest CBO numbers, supposedly tomorrow.
The bottom line is that the Republicans don't want any kind of Obama victory. What is good for the party is far more important than what is good for the country.
Republicans are so desperate to regain power that the only thing they stand for is standing against the president.
The most telling aspect of the healthcare debate is the utter lack of Republicans to give any relevant solutions. Ya got nothing. Bring some ideas or get out of the way.
Despite what you say, liberals are out there making it very clear that we want medicare for all. It's really very simple. You can try to introduce all the fuzzy sets you want to in this issue, but the fact remains that you guys stand for nothing. You only stand against an American healthcare plan.
That's why you throw a hissy fit when I point out that you're trying to derail a thread. That's why you don't want FoxNews called out by the White House, because it gives the meme that MMFA has been pushing for years more credibility, and you can't stand that. You can't have regular people who don't keep themselves as well informed as MMFA would provide understanding and being aware of the shenanigans that are FoxNews.
The public option is called the "public" option because it is different than the "private" option that most people use now to get health insurance from private health insurance companies.
It's called the public option. The news dept of Fox, on a news show, used the misleading name in order to satisfy their viewers preconceived notions about this Dem-sponsored proposal. That's not what a legit news source does. That's what an illegitimate news organization does.
And why is this supposed to be some "liberal" thing, exactly? Do you really believe that if the "anti-choice" example I provided actually occurred that conservatives wouldn't be lighting up the blogosphere over it? Both sides choose their labels, and objective sources accept them.
Did news organizations call "Operation Iraqi Freedom" the "Invade Iraq" war?
Did news organizations use the name "DEATH TAX" or did they call it "ESTATE TAX" which is what the IRS code called it?
Do news organizations call it the "PUBLIC OPTION" or the "GOVERNMENT OPTION?"
Of course news organizations don't make those decisions. But FauxNoise is not a news organization so they name legislation whatever they want. News organizations don't choose the name, they allow the sponsors of legislation to choose the name, and then report what the sponsors said, even if buried in the body of the report is a restatement of the effects of the legislation.
They are partisan hacks.
Same thing for this. We've had this health care debate going on and on now for months. If you don't know that the Public Option is a government run portion of healthcare, then you haven't been paying attention. If you use the newer term folks from the democratic side have been using the past few days, Medicare for All, and you don't know that Medicare is a government run plan (from some of the tea party protesters, I'd say they don't know actually), then again, can't help you there.
It's not as if democrats are hiding the facts in this case, they're just rebranding something.
(BTW, the money my parents left was termed an 'estate', though it was far below the point where any taxes would be due)