No comment.

I would be remiss not to mention that Bill Sammon, the network's managing editor, sent out memos to the news staff telling them to start calling the public option the "government option" because people respond more negatively to it. There was also this:

From: Sammon, Bill
To: 169 -SPECIAL REPORT; 036 -FOX.WHU; 054 -FNSunday; 030 -Root (FoxNews.Com); 050 -Senior Producers; 051 -Producers; 069 -Politics; 005 -Washington
Cc: Clemente, Michael; Stack, John; Wallace, Jay; Smith, Sean
Sent: Tue Dec 08 12:49:51 2009
Subject: Given the controversy over the veracity of climate change data...
...we should refrain from asserting that the planet has warmed (or cooled) in any given period without IMMEDIATELY pointing out that such theories are based upon data that critics have called into question. It is not our place as journalists to assert such notions as facts, especially as this debate intensifies.

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.

tkihshbt wrote:

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.

"Public option?" I thought it was called "Obamacare."
Speaking from the perspective of someone who lives in a state where Romneycare is law, I can attest mandatory health care hasn't and won't make a whit of difference in any practical way.

tkihshbt wrote:

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.

Shoot, I was hoping not to want to defend this.  I read your statement "because people respond more negatively to it" as something that was in the memo.  Now we have to wrangle about intent.  Obviously, you infer one reason and I want to believe he saw "public option" as not sufficiently clear.

I enjoy a conspiracy theory as much as the next guy, but these memos confirm Fox knows precisely what it's doing here. About 20 years ago, I wrote a column for the paper about some ugly monument that the city put in the middle of an intersection. The column was so obviously tongue-in-cheek that no one should have taken it seriously, but I ended up getting about two dozen angry phone calls and in one instance a threat. It taught me pretty quickly that if someone reads or sees something on TV that's branded as "news," people will tend to believe it, regardless of how intelligent they are. I save my sarcasm for you guys these days.

JV wrote:

As a Fox News viewer, as well as one of many other networks and a daily listener to NPR, I take offense at being called "stupid".  But I'm not mad; I just realize I'm going to have to find time soon to write the post I've been mulling over that will lay out what I see as the key differences between "left" and "right" as manifested on this board.  I think it will be fun if I can ever get around to it.

Make the time.  I am looking forward to reading it.

tkihshbt wrote:

Fox News responds with class:

Revenge of the public school graduates: "see this proves what those of us who graduated from UMSL have known all along, we can despise the Ivy League as a bunch of ignorant phony balonies."

Max wrote:

FWIW: Regarding his birth certificate, if there is such a thing as 'the real thing that they are not letting us see," I am pretty sure I know the reason why: it's quite possible that it says "religion: Muslim" somewhere on it.

Sounds like a reasonable assumption.  Although it wouldn't mean squat to me, I agree it's something you wouldn't want out there.

JV wrote:

Max wrote:

JV wrote:

I am no birther, but anyone who's researched this knows that what Hawaii has released isn't the actual birth certificate.  They could put an end to this stuff once and for all by simply doing so.  Since they still refuse to do that, citing state law, I couldn't respond with 100% certainty on this question, even though I'm pretty certain the certificate exists and that the witnesses and officials are telling the truth.  Can it not be argued that those who maintain a little bit of doubt are, in fact, BETTER informed or, at least, more skeptical (considered an admirable trait in other contexts), than those who do not?

I haven't researched it.   Why do you believe that what Hawaii has released isn't the actual birth certificate?

Max,
I had heard that and went to Snopes before the previous post.  Here's what they have to say:http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/birthcertificate.asp.  Dr. Fukino's statement near the end is what I referred to. 

Again, I don't subscribe to the "birther" business by any means.

But they have produced the sort of birth certificate that you or I would if we, say, applied for a passport.  And looking at Snopes, no reasonable person should conclude anything other than that Obama was born in Honolulu at the time and place indicated on his birth certificate.  Of course it is plausible that there is a more complete birth certificate, with more 'vital statistics', but no American ever needs to produce such a document.  I have never even seen anything for myself or my daughters that are anything but a very similar document to what Obama has already made public.

Compare that with the statistics from, say, North Carolina, where something like 75% of registered Republicans do not believe he is a natural born American citizen, and there is a serious disconnect.  Why should it be that some people are willing to believe any unbelievable fabrication in order to delegitimize the Obama presidency?  I have my guesses.  And what would be interesting to me would be to conduct a survey where we test the respondents confederate sympathies and their disbelief that Obama is a natural born American citizen.  My strong hunch is that closet racists do not feel comfortable questioning the legitimacy of the Obama presidency based upon his race, and thus they clutch at any feeble straw that accomplishes the same thing. 

Pitter-pat, whine-whine.  I am being called away just at the point that will get me in trouble.

Last edited by Max (12/18/2010 10:37 pm)

tkihshbt wrote:

Sorry if I offended you, J, but the whole birther argument is really just another Republican attempt to delegitimize a Democratic president. It's also so outrageous that even nutters like Hannity and Beck distance themselves from it.

And yet, their game of brinkmanship played, many of the rank and file continue to believe the lie, just as the rank and file conservatives were perplexed as to why anyone would stop someone from publicly burning the Quran, at least until the unassailable conservative voice of General Petreaus explained the obvious.

JV wrote:

as Max accused me of years ago - "defend the indefensible".

Did I do that?  Gosh, I am sorry if I came across that harsh.  I am trying imagine the context, and the one that I can think of is along the lines that I wish that mainstream conservatives would simply acknowledge their lunatic fringe for what it is, rather than try to defend the indefensible.  But I don't mean that in any more caustic way than when I try to get Artie to explain why he thinks the "Wins" should rank for much of anything at all when measuring a pitcher's effectiveness.