Fox News’ Washington managing editor has been caught red-handed. As the health care debate was reaching a high point last year, a leaked e-mail shows Bill Sammon asked his news department to refer to the public option as the “government run option.” Later that evening, Fox News flagship news program, Special Report with Bret Baier , used the very phrase Sammon had requested. The e-mail, obtained by the liberal watchdog Media Matters , indicates that Sammon sent the request after Republican pollster Frank Luntz said that polls show the “government option” was opposed by the public. According to the report at Media Matters, in August of 2009 after Fox News’ Sean Hannity used the term “public option,” Luntz encouraged him to say “government option” instead. “If you call it a ‘public option,’ the American people are split,” Luntz said. “If you call it the ‘government option,’ the public is overwhelmingly against it.” “It’s a great point, and from now on, I’m going to call it the government option,” Hannity replied. Luntz also claimed that the “government option” would be “sponsored by the government.” In fact, the proposed public option bills would have funded the program with the fees paid by those who enrolled in it. Only a day before Sammon sent the e-mail, Brett Baier had referred to the “public option” as well as the “government-run option.” An e-mail titled “friendly reminder: let’s not slip back into calling it the ‘public option’” was sent to Baier and other Fox News reporters the next morning. “Please use the term ‘government-run health insurance’ or, when brevity is a concern, ‘government option,’ whenever possible,” Sammon wrote. “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,’” he continued. “Here’s another way to phrase it: ‘The public option, which is the government-run plan,’” Sammon said. That night, Baier and Fox News reporter Jim Angle followed Sammon’s script. Baier referred to the public option as “government-run health insurance” and “government-run health insurance option.” Angle called the proposed program “a government insurance plan, the so-called public option” and “a government insurance option.” Fox News has repeatedly said that Special Report with Bret Baier is an objective news program. “Fox argues that its news hours — 9 a.m. to 4 p.m. and 6 to 8 p.m. on weekdays — are objective,” The New York Times reported . Other hours of the day feature opinion shows like Glenn Beck and Hannity . “The average consumer certainly knows the difference between the A section of the newspaper and the editorial page,” Michael Clemente, the channel’s senior vice president for news, was quoted as saying. The Daily Beast ‘s Howard Kurtz asked Sammon to comment on the leaked e-mail. “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?’” Kurtz wrote. “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,” Sammon said. Prior to becoming Fox News’ Washington managing editor, Sammon was the White House correspondent for The Washington Times where he was often thought of as President George W. Bush’s favorite reporter. “Six-foot-seven inch Bill Sammon–nicknamed ‘Superstretch’ by President Bush–enjoys more access to the commander-in-chief than any other journalist,” Sammon’s bio bragged . “Sammon has spent hours with Bush in the Oval Office, aboard Air Force One–even in the President’s sprawling Texas ranch. As Senior White House Correspondent for the Washington Examiner, Bill Sammon travels with Bush wherever he goes and was with him on September 11, when his presidency was utterly transformed by the terrorist attacks.” In October, sources told Media Matters that since joining Fox News, Sammon’s pressure to “distort” and “slant news” had made some in the newsroom uncomfortable. “Since Bill Sammon assumed the role of Washington managing editor and vice president of news at the beginning of the Obama Administration, pressure from Fox management to produce stories that lean toward a conservative agenda, and distort news in some cases, has found its way into coverage, the sources said.” Text of Sammon’s leaked e-mail follows: 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.
Continue reading …
Media mogul Ted Turner, who founded cable networks CNN and TBS, wants a global child-bearing “cap and trade” system to combat climate change. He has thought up a bizarre take on China's one-child policy: let poor people sell credits for children they don't have! At the ongoing climate change summit in Cancun, Mexico, Turner told attendees : …environmental stress on the Earth requires radical solutions, suggesting countries should follow China’s lead in instituting a one-child policy to reduce global population over time. He added that fertility rights could be sold so that poor people could profit from their decision not to reproduce. read more
Continue reading …All Bets Are Off. Without A Real Unemployment Benefits Extension, This Tax Cut ‘Compromise’ Isn’t Worth Crap.
December 9, 2010 No Comment(H/T to maymay ) In the words of Emily Litella, “Never mind.” Never mind that I thought the rest of the tax cut deal was worth swallowing, because that was when I thought there were 13 months’ additional unemployment benefits in the picture. There aren’t. It only maintains the status quo. According to Calculated Risk , this is just the same kind of “bridge” legislation we’ve seen before, in which people who were eligible for the next level of extensions (but couldn’t get them because they expired) are now eligible to move on to the next extension level. It’s not another tier. There are no new benefits . You still can’t collect any more than 99 weeks. All it does is maintain the same system that was already in place. This deal isn’t worth a bucket of warm spit, as my mother used to say. Arthur Delaney at Huffington Post: The programs provide up to 73 weeks of federally-funded benefits for workers who exhaust 26 weeks of state benefits . The average weekly benefit is about $300, and the total cost of a yearlong reauthorization is roughly $60 billion. Republicans and conservative Democrats ostensibly concerned about the deficit impact of the benefits have blocked several attempts to renew them in the past couple weeks, but they’ve signaled they will relent if the benefits are attached to the even-costlier tax cuts for the rich. Some 800,000 laid off workers have already received cutoff notices, and another 1.2 million will stop receiving benefits by the end of the month unless Congress reauthorizes the recently-lapsed programs. . In other words, please curl up in your cardboard box and die. We wouldn’t want to upset the bond market, would we? It’s simply amazing that the White House is allowing the press (and the voters) to think otherwise. I mean, does Obama think they won’t notice when their checks are shut off? This is the same trick they pulled back in March. The 99ers weren’t able to rally the troops because the media (and the general public) thought Congress had approved additional aid, when all they did was fund the existing extensions. Yes, it preserves the existing benefits. Well, why the hell shouldn’t they? Obama expects applause for this? In the name of common decency, this shouldn’t even be an issue. And in exchange for this emergency support, basic humane aid, we’re supposed to give away the store so that millionaires and billionaires can make even more money? All this money for war, for banks, for big business, and nothing for the people getting buried by the economic fallout. Bah, humbug.
Continue reading …Anthony Weiner Shoots Down Megyn Kelly’s Assertion That the Estate Tax is Double Taxation
December 9, 2010 No Comment
Click here to view this media Rep. Anthony took Megyn Kelly to school when she tried pushing the lie that the estate tax is double taxation. This woman has a law degree so I’m sure she knows what she’s saying isn’t true as well, but facts don’t seem to matter much if you want a job at Fox News. From Think Progress — Rep. Weiner: ‘You Aren’t Paying’ Taxes On Your Estate ‘Because You’ll Be Dead’ : President Obama this week announced a tentative deal with congressional Republicans to extend the Bush-era tax cuts for all Americans for two years in exchange for a 13-month extension in unemployment benefits. While the deal included other popular tax credits and incentives, one provison in particular has drawn fire from progressives and Democrats in Congress: reinstating the currently-expired estate tax. In what the Washington Post’s Ezra Klein called an “ugly surprise” in the deal, Obama and the GOP agreed to exempt inheritances up to $5 million and to set the tax rate at 35 percent instead of an exemption at $3.5 million and the tax rate at 45 percent, which the House passed last year. Also today, Fox News host Megyn Kelly defended the estate tax deal in an interview with Rep. Anthony Weiner (D-NY) — who has also been critical of it — saying that these Americans shouldn’t be taxed twice. Weiner pointed out the obvious flaw in that line of thinking: KELLY: I don’t have a five million dollar estate, I’d like to someday, but if I work all my life and I pay my taxes on my income and then I die and I want to pass on what it would be great if it were a $5 million estate to my kids, why should I pay the government again? Why should there be a 35 or 45 or 55 percent tax on that again? WEINER: You aren’t paying anything in that case because you’ll be dead . … Do you know how much this adds to our debt? It adds an enormous amount. No one can be in favor of that and then come on your show and say, “Oh I’m so concerned about the debt!” As Congressman Weiner rightfully pointed out, the tax is on unearned income which heaven forbid Republicans don’t want to tax in the same manner they tax wages.
Continue reading …
Counting dollars and cents on the checkout counter really makes you feel the weight of every expenditure. Swiping a credit card or waving an NFC device over a sensor? Not so much. Enter the Proverbial Wallets from the Information Ecology group at the MIT Media Lab , three separate devices that use three haptic techniques to curtail your spending. First is the Bumblebee, which buzzes and vibrates whenever money comes into or goes out from your account. Next is Mother Bear, which becomes harder to open as you get closer to your spending goal. Finally is Peacock, which swells proudly as your bank balance does the same. Sadly none of these are actually available yet, but we have a feeling if they were they might put a bit of a hurting on our very real and very strict budgets. Proverbial Wallets make your metaphysical money a little more tangible originally appeared on Engadget on Thu, 09 Dec 2010 08:59:00 EDT. Please see our terms for use of feeds . Permalink
Continue reading …
Click here to view this media A huge cheer just went up from the House as Nancy Pelosi announced the House passage of the DREAM Act. 8 Republicans crossed the aisle and voted for it along with 208 Democrats. Here’s Howard Berman’s passionate floor speech closing the debate: And here is the announcement of its passage, with the cheer at the end:
Continue reading …Right-wing pundits all too happy to help Democrats tear each other apart over Obama’s tax-cut deal
December 8, 2010 No Comment
Click here to view this media Probably the most aggravating aspect of President Obama’s deal with the devil hostage-takers of the Republican Party is the way both the act itself — and Obama’s churlish spurning of the people who elected him at yesterday’s press conference — has been the opening it has created for the crass opportunists of the right-wing pundit class. Guys like Sean Hannity, whose greatest aspiration of the past couple years has been to separate Obama from his supporters, have been all too happy to take that wedge Obama has handed them and drive it right down our gullets. Take Hannity last night: HANNITY: All right. Amidst all the controversy on Capitol Hill surrounding the extension of the Bush tax cuts, one thing is crystal clear. This deal marks a major defeat for the anointed one who let political gamesmanship get the best of him. Well, now he’s backtracking on one of his central campaign promises. But apparently that’s not how he sees it. Let’s take a look at this exchange from his press conference earlier today. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) BEN FELLER, ASSOCIATED PRESS: You’ve been telling the American people all along that you oppose extending tax cuts for the wealthier Americans. OBAMA: Yes. FELLER: You said that again today. But what you never said was that you oppose the tax cuts, but you’d be willing to go ahead and extend them for a couple of years if the politics of the moment demand it. So what I’m wondering is, when you take a stand like you had, why should the American people believe that you’re going to stick with it? Why should the American people believe that you’re going to flip-flop? OBAMA: Hold on a second, Ben. This isn’t politics of the moment. This has to do with what can we get done right now. (END OF VIDEO CLIP) HANNITY: What can we get done right now? Now that sounds like the politics of the moment to me and the president’s base is fed up that he caved in. A brand new survey “USA Today” poll shows that a whopping 74 percent of those who contributed to the anointed one in 2008 oppose the president cutting a deal to extend tax cuts for small business and, quote, “higher income earners.” And even more frightening for the president, 51 percent of those contributors said that the tax cut deal will make them less likely to contribute to the anointed one’s reelection campaign in 2012. Well, that’s music to my ears. Hannity later invited on our favorite Faux defender of all things Democrat, Lanny Davis, who managed to point out that Hannity’s logic wasn’t exactly clear: Did he, as a conservative, really want Obama to stick to his guns? Remember, this is the same Hannity who just a couple weeks ago was declaring Obama too doctrinaire to ever compromise : Click here to view this media HANNITY: Well, look, I would argue and I have argued that Bill Clinton changed after ’94 and the Republican Revolution. I contend, and my analysis of President Obama is that he is a rigid, left wing, radical ideologue. And I’ve said it many times on the program. I’ve never seen any inclination in his adult professional life that he has a willingness to be pragmatic to move to the middle to change. Do you see that in him? Because I don’t see it. It’s clear that, in a right-wing field of pundits full of rank opportunists, Sean Hannity is one of the most rank and ham-handed in his obviousness. And it’s a reminder of what we all are up against. It’s too bad Obama doesn’t seem to have figured that out; he appears more than happy enough to castigate his thoughtful liberal critics as “sanctimonious” and hold his supporters up for ridicule, exposing them to this kind of garbage. But we mustn’t let our justifiable anger at Obama become a tool for right-wingers like Hannity and his fellow Fox pundits to divide and conquer. Obama may not be smarter than that, but the rest of us need to be.
Continue reading …Same Media That Fretted Over ‘No Compromise’ GOP, Now Distressed Obama ‘Caving In’ On Taxes
December 8, 2010 No CommentIn the wake of November's election results there was much discussion in the press over whether or not the newly strengthened Republican Party would be willing to compromise with Democrats. However, since Monday's announcement of a deal on extending current tax rates, many in the media have been critical of President Obama for giving in to the GOP. Before the votes had even been cast in the midterm election, on ABC's November 2 Good Morning America, former Bill Clinton advisor and co-host George Stephanopoulos worried: “[Republicans] have to make a choice, as well. Do they choose to cooperate with President Obama or stand firm on principle, which is going to guarantee gridlock?” read more
Continue reading …
Click here to view this media Sure, President Obama may have negotiated his tax-cut deal with the ostensible Senate minority leader, Mitch McConnell. But now the Teabagger King, Sen. Jim DeMint — the GOP’s real Senate leader — has come out saying “No dice.” A leading conservative voice in the Senate said Tuesday he will vote against the tax cut deal President Obama brokered with Republicans in Congress. Sen. Jim DeMint (R-S.C.) said that he will oppose a potential cloture vote on the accord and a final vote if the package advances past a possible filibuster. “No,” the senator said his votes will be on the conservative Hugh Hewitt Show. DeMint’s stance indicates that a number of Republicans are not yet on board with the proposal in addition to a seemingly large bloc of Democrats in the House and Senate. Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) said earlier Wednesday he is “pleased” with the deal and hoped that “a large majority of members of the Republican conference will find this a proposal worth supporting.” Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), who has lead liberal opposition to the plan in the Senate, reiterated Tuesday that he is prepared to filibuster the deal after Obama held an afternoon press conference to sell the plan to skeptics. The senator explained the timing of his announcement by saying that he was, “kind of holding my fire to let the liberals blast this thing first.” DeMint is following the propaganda line being laid out by the Club for Growth, the right-wing millionaires’ political arm, in their attacks on the deal, as you can see from watching the Club’s president, Chris Chocola, natter on endlessly this morning on Fox about how tax cuts have supposedly been proven to be the be-all and end-all of economic stimulus plans (when in fact just the opposite is true ). Dave Weigel thinks that DeMint’s not putting that great a stake into this position, but David Waldman at DKos wonders if it means Obama’s tax-cut deal is effectively defunct: DeMint said that “the biggest problem” he has with the plan is that it does not extend the tax cuts permanently. But would it matter if it did? Last week, DeMint ally Tom Coburn (R-OK) objected to and sunk another “deal” that “Senate Minority Leader” Mitch McConnell (R-KY) thought he’d negotiated and that would have given the Senate a chance at a vote last Saturday on just such a plan. Why? Because doing so gives Republicans more opportunities to screw with Democrats, that’s why. Is it true that all Republicans want is to serve the rich? Well, maybe. But if there’s anything they want even more right now, it’s to show the world the sight of Democrats losing as often and on as many fronts as possible. Who gives a crap about the taxes and whatnot? That’ll all come soon enough. Is it all just so totally chaotic and unpredictable that there was just no avoiding it? Well, I certainly haven’t considered Mitch McConnell to be the minority leader for some time now. And you know what? Neither has McConnell … Most likely this is just political theater thrown up for the benefit of the Tea Partiers. But we’ll see how this shakes out in terms of Senate votes.
Continue reading …Stay Classy, Tweety: In Discussing Elizabeth Edwards’ Death, Books Smear Merchant And Focuses On Infidelity
December 8, 2010 No CommentMost people who met the late Elizabeth Edwards would describe her as fiercely intelligent, dynamic and the epitome of grace under pressure. She endured hardships that none of us would wish to deal with and had to do so under the unforgiving glare of the media spotlight. With her sad passing yesterday, the country lost a passionate advocate for universal health care. I personally would go so far as to say that much of my support for the John Edwards presidential candidacy in 2008 had to do with the appeal of getting Elizabeth Edwards as part of the package. Hell, if she had decided to be the candidate herself, I would have supported her. Which is why I was ready to throw my shoe at Chris Matthews last night. A man who was not immune to the charms of Elizabeth Edwards, egregiously booked Mark Halperin to mark her passing. Mark Halperin. Author of “Game Change”. WTF??? “A very tough person” is what Halperin called her today, on “Hardball.” When she was still with us, here’s what the relentlessly smarmy Halperin wrote about Elizabeth Edwards: What the world saw in Elizabeth: A valiant, determined, heroic every-woman. What the Edwards insiders saw: An abusive, intrusive, paranoid, condescending crazy-woman. While usually careful to attribute the characterization to “insiders,” Halperin’s “Game Change” painted Edwards as, in Jason Linkins’ words, “a shrill monster,” guilty primarily of the crime of being intelligent and ambitious. “The culture kicked Elizabeth Edwards when she was already down,” Jonathan Alter just wrote at the Daily Beast. And booking Halperin was just another kick. Note too, that the bulk of the airtime discussing her death, deals not with own achievements, her triumphs, her undeniable spirit, but of her husband’s infidelity. All the things about Elizabeth that could be discussed, knowing her family is grieving and may actually be looking to see how this event is being covered in the media and what Matthews wants to talk about is the public humiliation she was subjected to as she fought cancer. Really sensitive, Tweety. Way to honor a remarkable woman.
Continue reading …