Internal Fox Memos

[LardLord]

Memos leaked by FOX news indicate an attempt by the news network which calls itself "fair and balanced" and represents itself as being non-partisan, to skew debate on the issue of healthcare, when that legislation was undergoing the process of legislative scrutiny earlier this year. I find this particularly damning because it comes across as a direct contradiction of their public statements and projected persona which all center around the "fair and balanced" moniker. While MSNBC clearly has a liberal slant, it makes no attempt to identify itself as "fair an balanced." CNN claims to be tough on both sides in its straight news reporting, and for the most part it makes an effort to be aloof and unattached to any one side, letting pundits argue without asserting any beliefs on the part of the network itself.

Here is the leaked transcript, which shows FOX news attempting to skew debate by introducing partisan terms to replace non-partisan ones in the healthcare debate:

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."

It is frankly dishonest for FOX news to continue to perpetuate the lie that it is "fair and balanced." It is, like MSNBC, an opinion network, not a news network. It is not "fair and balanced." It is "skewed and partisan."

[CaptinChu]

Yellow journalism is still journalism. Who needs the truth of one news network when you can have name-brand political truths from all networks and piece together the real story?

The Lost Art of Argument By Christopher Lasch.

As much as I hate Fox News, and as skewed as it is, their misinformation opens up healthy public debate. If the other side were as biased, maybe there would be more debate open. (I haven't seen much MSNBC.)

[Athlas]

At 12/9/10 05:06 PM, CaptinChu wrote: Yellow journalism is still journalism. Who needs the truth of one news network when you can have name-brand political truths from all networks and piece together the real story?

True. Sadly enough, there are plenty of people out there who simply cannot be bothered. They're content to have their information spoon-fed. Many have forgotten how to chew, they simply swallow.

[Korriken]

I ponder how such things are validated. anyone with enough time, and a little thought could create a "damning leaked email/memo/etc" and "leak" it on the web. for example...

From: Madoff, Bernard
Sent: Tuesday, February 1, 2007 8:23 AM
To: Ruth Madoff, Peter Madoff, Shana Madoff, Mark Madoff, Andrew Madoff, Charles Weiner
Subject: Lavish Party.

As you all know, tonight we will be hosting a party for some of our wealthiest clients. Do try and dress up a little better for this occasion than last time Mark. The clown outfit, while funny, was completely inappropriate. The children may have loved your juggling and balloon tying tricks, but I was embarrassed as hell.

[orangebomb]

This really isn't a surprise, Fox News has never been "fair and balanced", and the release of these memos proves that they are not only skewed, but hypocritical liars. {Even though everyone who hates Fox News knows that much.} Even though MSNBC is just as worse as Fox News when it comes to spin and bias, at least they "admit" that they are pretty far left, and they make no attempt to be fair and balanced.

As for CNN, for a long time it leaned towards the left a lot of times with issues and candidates, although they have moderated over the years with election coverage and allowing big Republican names to say their peace without being blindsided, usually.

[Gunner-D]

Da no spin zone...

On O'Reilly tonight.

1. Julian Assange says he is " 'exposing world corruption'. Sure, and I'm Justin Bieber."

- So 'Wikileaks :: Exposing World Corruption' is like 'O'Reilly Factor :: Concert for Tweens'?

2. "Federal Cyber Police Force"

- You mean 1st Amendment Police?

3. "Obama Tax Compromise"

- Or Hostage Negotiations?

My head is spinning

[KemCab]

Fox News' slanting is almost Orwellian really. Their motto is an example of doublethink in practice -- they call themselves "fair and balanced," while neither they nor their viewers really believe that it is really so. If they do, they're probably morons for thinking that any news network could not have any bias whatsoever.

[poxpower]

Anyone who's slogan is basically "you should trust me!" is probably full of shit.

[Memorize]

Funny how when people call it for what it is, ie "Government run Health Care" (Which we've already had for years), you dumbasses consider it "slanted".

No, perhaps we should call it for what the Government calls it as a means of making it sound good (like the Patriot Act), with "public option".

lol, you idiots never think it through.

[Memorize]

At 12/10/10 03:34 AM, poxpower wrote: Anyone who's slogan is basically "you should trust me!" is probably full of shit.

Amazing how you never apply that same rule with the Government.

[KemCab]

At 12/10/10 03:37 AM, Memorize wrote: Funny how when people call it for what it is, ie "Government run Health Care" (Which we've already had for years), you dumbasses consider it "slanted".

This topic is pointless, really. Political language is always inherently biased, and this is often reflected in nonsensical terms and phrases such as "pro-life," "pro-choice," "sustainable growth," and "homophobia." I could care less how it's called as long as people don't end up either calling it "the Satan plan" or something stupid like that.

[poxpower]

At 12/10/10 04:09 AM, KemCab wrote: I could care less how it's called as long as people don't end up either calling it "the Satan plan" or something stupid like that.

Well what do you think they were doing when they constantly hammered "socialized medicine" on their shows?
The goal was pretty obvious: show how Obama is like Stalin and Mao. There's one blubbering oaf who doesn't even try to hide it, he's called Glen Beck and his metabolism has the unique ability to convert his excrement into filler for the gaps in his skull.

Or how about the "death panels"?
Or how they constantly oppose the idea of "tax cuts" with "redistributing wealth". Or how, instead of saying "the rich" they've started saying "small business owners" and "the affluent" when in fact they're talking about multi-millionaires and billionaires?

And this recent Wikileaks thing where they're calling Assange a terrorist.
Or how they used to stress the "Hussein" part of Obama's name during the elections and how they tried to make it seem like he was secretly a muslim ( and therefore probably sympathetic to terrorists ).

Those people are rotten man.

[Memorize]

At 12/10/10 04:29 AM, poxpower wrote:

Well what do you think they were doing when they constantly hammered "socialized medicine" on their shows?
The goal was pretty obvious: show how Obama is like Stalin and Mao. There's one blubbering oaf who doesn't even try to hide it, he's called Glen Beck and his metabolism has the unique ability to convert his excrement into filler for the gaps in his skull.

Because you always came to the defense of Bush when people called him Hitler.

Funny thing, Obama's policies are identical to Bush's, yet you still cling on to his dick like his nutsack.

The lulz are hilarious!

[KemCab]

At 12/10/10 04:29 AM, poxpower wrote: Well what do you think they were doing when they constantly hammered "socialized medicine" on their shows? The goal was pretty obvious: show how Obama is like Stalin and Mao.
Or how about the "death panels"?

More generally, their goal is to discredit their political opponents. Not a big surprise. It's a bit mind-blowing how absolutely moronic the people they're pandering to are though, because most of them have absolutely no sense of proportion if they actually believe that his actions are anywhere close to those of Stalin or Mao. Regardless of whether or not he has socialist tendencies, it's really just a rehashed version of Godwin's law.

Or how they constantly oppose the idea of "tax cuts" with "redistributing wealth".

The worst part about this is that the simpletons don't understand that any change in tax policy is a redistribution of wealth. Then again, maybe they do understand and they just like favoring the wealthy.

Or how, instead of saying "the rich" they've started saying "small business owners" and "the affluent" when in fact they're talking about multi-millionaires and billionaires?

Ha, "small business owners." That's quite disingenuous. When the morons who eat this stuff up hear that, they must think, "Small? I'm small. These 'small business owners' must be regular guys just like me. They also own businesses, which means that they're hardworking, enterprising people." I'm not saying that they're evil, of course, but it's a great example of their tilting of political language.

And this recent Wikileaks thing where they're calling Assange a terrorist.

By that definition, I'm aiding and abetting a terrorist organization for downloading a hard copy of Wikileaks' site.

Or how they used to stress the "Hussein" part of Obama's name during the elections and how they tried to make it seem like he was secretly a muslim ( and therefore probably sympathetic to terrorists ).

That was hilarious. It's hard to believe that there are idiots out there who actually think like that.

Those people are rotten man.

Well, they're certainly dishonest, I'll give you that.

Left-wing media also has its share of biases and spins. It's just that instead of pandering to dribbling idiots, they're pandering to pretentious know-it-alls and pseudo-intellectuals. One word that always comes up that I really hate is "sustainable growth." It's absolutely ridiculous. You can't have growth that is sustainable because constant growth is inherently unsustainable. Oh well. Most journalists are terrible writers anyway.

[gumOnShoe]

At 12/9/10 05:06 PM, CaptinChu wrote: Yellow journalism is still journalism. Who needs the truth of one news network when you can have name-brand political truths from all networks and piece together the real story?

The Lost Art of Argument By Christopher Lasch.

As much as I hate Fox News, and as skewed as it is, their misinformation opens up healthy public debate. If the other side were as biased, maybe there would be more debate open. (I haven't seen much MSNBC.)

Is it healthy when it is ultimately dishonest? Fox has been caught how many times outright lying? The people who fund and back them are clearly supporting specific political messages. The entire network is an attempt at entertaining propaganda.

The result has been an extremely polarized political base in this country. One which has deadlocked congress and at times prevented things from happening that a clear majority of people support. 75% of the U.S. populace believe DADT should be repealed, and yet only 57 members of congress could attempt to pass it, and they were rebuffed. And that's just that issue. The health care debate was dramatically affected by Fox News and its commentators, and mainly under he pay of the health care industry.

Fox News does not serve as a catalyst for GOOD public debate. Misinformation used as fact is, in my opinion, the very antithesis of a good debate.

[Memorize]

At 12/10/10 06:49 AM, gumOnShoe wrote:

Fox News does not serve as a catalyst for GOOD public debate. Misinformation used as fact is, in my opinion, the very antithesis of a good debate.

So if people don't like something, just blame it on misinformation and that "we know best".

[wildfire4461]

Everybody keeps talking like Fox is the only news source that is biased. All of the other stations (except maybe ABC) are also.

[LardLord]

At 12/10/10 10:40 AM, Memorize wrote: So if people don't like something, just blame it on misinformation and that "we know best".

FOX news represents itself as being a PURE news station. "Fair and balanced" implies unbiased, fair reporting. This memo gives clear evidence to the contrary. MSNBC does not represent itself as a pure news station. That's why this is a big deal. Because FOX news is perpetuating a lie about its own credibility.

[Vousielle]

At 12/10/10 01:10 PM, wildfire4461 wrote: Everybody keeps talking like Fox is the only news source that is biased. All of the other stations (except maybe ABC) are also.

Abc is owned by Disney and a coalition of christian conservative groups. It has it's own share of bias.

[orangebomb]

At 12/10/10 01:10 PM, wildfire4461 wrote: Everybody keeps talking like Fox is the only news source that is biased. All of the other stations (except maybe ABC) are also.

Every major news network has some type of bias, the only difference is that ABC and MSNBC don't claim to be fair and balanced, they are big towards the left, and they both know it, but don't out and out admit it. CNN is the one major news network that doesn't have a heavy lean towards either the left or right, but most of the time they tend to lean towards to the left on a lot of the issues.

[Warforger]

At 12/10/10 03:37 AM, Memorize wrote: Funny how when people call it for what it is, ie "Government run Health Care" (Which we've already had for years), you dumbasses consider it "slanted".

No, perhaps we should call it for what the Government calls it as a means of making it sound good (like the Patriot Act), with "public option".

lol, you idiots never think it through.

And so its ok for Fox to do it?

At 12/9/10 08:51 PM, Korriken wrote: I ponder how such things are validated. anyone with enough time, and a little thought could create a "damning leaked email/memo/etc" and "leak" it on the web. for example...

Oh please if this were MSNBC you would be all over it and wouldn't question the validity of the source.

[TDwizBang]

you people act like your going to make people get rid of slogans based on the actions they take...

while we are at it why dont we strip the police of "to protect and serve" we all know that ones a sham...

or maybe "we care" - BP...

not to mention the many slogans tried by the Monsanto corp. with gems like... "We pledge to be a part of the solution" or "Food, Health, Hope" or "Produce more, Conserve more"

the fact of the matter remains the same... anybody can say whatever they want about themselves and only suckers think corporations are not going to be faithful to its own interests

[Slizor]

I always find it interesting when this debate about news station bias comes up and people say "other stations are biased too!" The implication is that there is some form of news bias plurality that ensures balanced coverage overall. Frankly, this viewpoint is bullshit, for two main reasons.

First, while it is the case that all news outlets have some political ideology that guides what news is selected and how issues are reported, there is a major difference between having a perspective on a story and distorting the facts of a story to fit in a political argument. Good news outlets and good journalists do not seek to soapbox but to investigate and present information in a reasonably neutral way. So, yes, while all news stations are biased, not all actively manipulate information or try to effect public policy, which is what the memo above suggests Fox was doing.

Second, there is a whole side of the political spectrum that is missing; there is no "far left" news station, or even a "left" news station. This distortion is indicative generally of American politics but really does mess up any idea of plurality. Instead of plurality the overall political bias of American media is right-wing, as you have far right-wing outlets and centerist outlets; left wing soapboxing is non-existent.

[Memorize]

At 12/11/10 07:12 AM, Slizor wrote:

Second, there is a whole side of the political spectrum that is missing; there is no "far left" news station, or even a "left" news station. This distortion is indicative generally of American politics but really does mess up any idea of plurality.

Which only goes to show how much of a dumb fuck you really are.

[KemCab]

At 12/11/10 07:12 AM, Slizor wrote: left wing soapboxing is non-existent.

Keith Olbermann.

[Korriken]

At 12/11/10 11:49 AM, KemCab wrote:

At 12/11/10 07:12 AM, Slizor wrote: left wing soapboxing is non-existent.

Keith Olbermann.

Chris Mathews

[KemCab]

At 12/11/10 01:36 PM, Korriken wrote:

At 12/11/10 11:49 AM, KemCab wrote:

At 12/11/10 07:12 AM, Slizor wrote: left wing soapboxing is non-existent.

Keith Olbermann.

Chris Mathews

Not like I watch either one of them.

Frankly, American media disgusts me.

[aviewaskewed]

At 12/11/10 11:02 AM, Memorize wrote: Which only goes to show how much of a dumb fuck you really are.

Seriously...quit picking apart posts to troll already. Either add to the discussion or just fuck off. I'm so sick of you picking and choosing and missing the entire point of what people are saying (most likely deliberately) so you can troll.

[CaptinChu]

At 12/11/10 01:39 PM, KemCab wrote: Frankly, American media disgusts me.

NPR is nice.

[KemCab]

At 12/11/10 05:03 PM, CaptinChu wrote:

At 12/11/10 01:39 PM, KemCab wrote: Frankly, American media disgusts me.

NPR is nice.

SUPPORT PUBLIC RADIO! DONATE NOW!

It's all right. CNN is tolerable sometimes. I prefer BBC.