Jackson Free Press

I know, nobody is shocked that Fox News slants their coverage; at least, no one who isn't already a slobbering fan-boy. (See the inevitable comments below this entry for examples.) But for those of us who might run up against such folk at a holiday gathering this season and could use a handy retort, Media Matters offers simple, concrete evidence that Fox's news operation specifically slanted its coverage during the healthcare debate in the form of a leaked memo from the news operation.

What's in the memo? Back in 2009, Fox News executives put the kibosh on allowing its anchors to use the term "public option." Effective immediately (on Oct 27, 2009) Fox News staff had to call the "public option" the "government option" or "government-run health care" or similar qualifiers that always included the word "government."

From the memo:

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.

How come? Because "public option" polled well with the general public, while "government option" did not, according to Frank Luntz, GOP pollster, who had explained the polling on Sean Hannity's August 18, 2009, program.

So... why is this interesting? Because Fox fanboys will hide behind the idea that -- sure -- Hannity and Beck and O'Reilly are unapologetic wingnuts spending most of their time pimping their books and t-shirts -- but they're in the "entertainment" portion of the Fox news days. The Fox 'News' operation prides itself on, supposedly, remaining above that fray.

But here's the news director telling them exactly the spin-tested language that they're allowed to use to describe something that was in the lexicon and on the tip of everyone's tongue.

End result, according to the Media Matters piece:

Sammon's email appears to have had an impact. On the October 27 Special Report -- unlike on the previous night's broadcast -- Fox journalists made no references to the "public option" without using versions of the pre-approved qualifiers outlined in Sammon's and Clemente's emails. Reporting on health care reform that night, Baier referenced the public option three times. In each instance, he referred to it as "government-run health insurance" or a "government-run health insurance option" -- precisely echoing the first wording choice laid out by Sammon.

So chew on that while you're chewing the fat with Uncle Cletus over stuffing and cranberry sauce.

Previous Comments

ID

161258

Comment

Fox news slants to the right, just like CNN and JFP slant to the left. No big surprise here.

Author

RobbieR

Date

2010-12-10T11:25:57-06:00

ID

161259

Comment

Watched Olberman last night and he discussed this as well, simply amazing - how fair and balanced Fox News really is?

Author

Duan C.

Date

2010-12-10T13:36:18-06:00

ID

161262

Comment

Fox news slants to the right, just like CNN and JFP slant to the left. No big surprise here. RobbieR: Think how much more powerful your assertion would be with evidence to support it instead of simply stating your opinion as fact. That's what we have here -- evidence that Fox does, in fact, tell its newscasters how to frame their news-reading to fit GOP talking points -- despite their (ever quieter) claims that they don't slant their news.

Author

Todd Stauffer

Date

2010-12-10T14:44:43-06:00

ID

161263

Comment

But it doesn't matter to people who watch Fox News anyway. It's still the truth to them. Which makes it all the more sad because think of how many people who are being misled on various issues on a daily basis.

Author

golden eagle

Date

2010-12-10T15:02:19-06:00

ID

161273

Comment

Just read the post above. Wow. And for your information, Robbie, we actually try to use terms in news stories that do not take either side: for instance, pro-abortion rights and anti-abortion instead of either pro-choice or pro-life. And we reject phrases like "illegal immigrant" or "illegals" precisely because they are inaccurate in many cases. I also guess you're not aware of how many Democrats are mad at us because we don't automatically take their position. And we don't even pretend to be "fair and balanced," as FOX does: we work toward accuracy, and that can tip either way, depending on the issue. You and everyone should really be worried about what FOX is doing to so-called "news" coverage.

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2010-12-13T10:10:54-06:00

ID

161275

Comment

As someone wo sits squarely in the middle of the political spectrum as an independent I think I can offer an objective opinion. (I tend to lean more left on social issues and more right on fiscal/ defense issues). There is no doubt that Fox's far right crew of Beck/ Hannity are only different from Olberman/Maddow in which way they lean. Both sides are guilty of promoting their side's agenda for the most part...and frankly the far right and left leaning of both camps are sometimes too nauseating to watch . The fact that Fox is told to by Directors to present the news a certain way is no surprise. And if anyone believes MSNBC is any different then I say wake up. Both networks have a juvenile approach at times...but I have to say the mid term election covergae on msnbc was probably more biased than any I have ever witnesses, even resorting to mocking and laughing at guests/ candidates from the Republican side while they were actually speaking on air. And it goes without saying that FOX will interrupt at will to repeatedly cut off a discussion they dont like either. Too many times, both sides believe the "I am right and you are wrong and you are an idiot for disagreeing with me" angle. As someone who thinks both are equally biased, it's not always black or white (not talking race). There is a lot of gray in this world too. Peace, signed, a resident of Jackson for 26 years ( NE, Fondren. Belhaven ) until I couldnt take the taxes, roads and infrastructure anymore....

Author

interested observer

Date

2010-12-13T10:56:21-06:00

ID

161277

Comment

I've said it before: The whole right-left paradigm is a huge problem. I see what you're saying observer, but I don't think being in the "middle" is "objective," although it can be more reasonable if informed, that is. Agreed on the juvenile approach of "both": That's why I don't watch *any* cable news. However, it is true that MSNBC commenters tend to pass factchecks more often than the Beck-Hannity crew. Even if they're both often juvenile, facts do still matter. And if there has been one thing true in recent years: too much conservative commentary just makes up stuff to support the ideology. You'll see that on the "left," too, but not nearly as often. Regardless, though, I find the whole left-right thing way too limiting.

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2010-12-13T12:51:06-06:00

ID

161292

Comment

Whatever you think of her politics, Rachael Maddow is a real journalist. Anyone who compares her with someone like Glenn Beck or Sean Hannity obviously hasn't watched her program. Saying that the left is equal to the right is a way of writing a blank check for the sort of abusive practices described above. Fox News stands in a category all its own.

Author

Brian C Johnson

Date

2010-12-15T14:48:39-06:00

ID

161293

Comment

Brian, you are wrong about Rachel Maddow being a "real journalist", and I have watched her show many times. Just because she doesn't launch off in to crazy rants like Beck does not negate the fact that is clearly liberal, and everything she says comes from just that viewpoint. No, being a journalist and being an advocate are not the same thing at all, and she is clearly the latter.

Author

bill_jackson

Date

2010-12-15T15:43:22-06:00

ID

161312

Comment

Bill, I disagree. Maddow is clearly a liberal, and her journalism comes from that perspective. Having a perspective does not disqualify a person from being a journalist, especially if the journalist is up-front about their politics, as she is. But Maddow does original, investigative work. That distinguishes her from commentators such as Olbermann and Beck.

Author

Brian C Johnson

Date

2010-12-17T10:08:41-06:00

ID

161314

Comment

Note that Fox News has also been exposed for distorting coverage of global warming. Until critics can produce similar memos from MSNBC or other news organizations, Fox News stands alone in its overt manipulation of news coverage. There really isn't debate among rational adults about whether the earth has warmed significantly in the last 30 years. Everyone from NASA to NOAA to the World Meteorological Organization agrees on that basic fact. People can dispute whether human activities are driving that change, though an overwhelming majority of climate scientists agree that huge increases in carbon dioxide are causing global warming. But Fox News meddles with the truth, falsely suggesting to millions of Americans that the fact that we have just experienced the warmest decade on record is somehow controversial. It is not.

Author

Brian C Johnson

Date

2010-12-17T10:22:10-06:00

ID

161315

Comment

In case you haven't seen it, apparently there's another memo. This one is Fox boss ordered staff to cast doubt on climate science: The directive, sent by Fox News Washington managing editor Bill Sammon, was issued less than 15 minutes after Fox correspondent Wendell Goler accurately reported on-air that the United Nations' World Meteorological Organization announced that 2000-2009 was "on track to be the warmest [decade] on record." The directive told Fox news reporters (not commentators, but reporters) that: ...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. The problem... warming is not really in doubt. It's a fact. The cause of warming is a bit more controversial (with the overwhelming consensus acknowledging the role of burning fossil fuels) but the warming itself is 100% established.

Author

Todd Stauffer

Date

2010-12-17T10:26:50-06:00

ID

161318

Comment

Brian, I couldn't agree more. You just typed my thoughts before I could. Also, I have heard Maddow and Olbermann criticize the president and the dems in congress. You will never hear anybody at FoxNews say a negative word about one of their own.

Author

Tre

Date

2010-12-17T15:25:05-06:00

ID

161319

Comment

Keith has been eating Obama alive on the tax cut deal. Heck, so have I when talking to other people about it.

Author

golden eagle

Date

2010-12-17T15:28:43-06:00

ID

161320

Comment

"You will never hear anybody at FoxNews say a negative word about one of their own. " Actually from what I've seen, they throw the "RINO" term around there quite a bit when referring to centrist Republicans. If you aren't far right enough for their liking, they have no tolerance for that. Much like Olbermann coming down on the President for actually compromising on an issue.

Author

bill_jackson

Date

2010-12-17T19:06:24-06:00

ID

161322

Comment

I want to dwell for a moment on what Fox News has done here. Corporate has directed its reporters to "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." Fox News interprets "fair and balanced" as casting know-nothing doubt on temperature records from NASA, NOAA, and thousands of independent observers. Here is NOAA: More than 300 scientists from 160 research groups in 48 countries contributed to the report, which confirms that the past decade was the warmest on record and that the Earth has been growing warmer over the last 50 years. Here is NASA's main climate change page. Note that it measures atmospheric carbon at 391 parts per million, an increase of 40 percent over the last two centuries. Skeptics must somehow explain away the greenhouse effect or the carbon measurements. NASA has found 2010 to be the warmest year on record. An analysis of average global temperatures through November by NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies shows 2010 on pace to become the warmest year since the collection of temperature data began 130 years ago. NASA previously ranked 2005 as its warmest year ever. The National Snow and Ice Data Center found that this year's summer minimum in Arctic sea ice was the third lowest ever recorded. The record was set in 2007, and the sea ice has never really recovered. "All indications are that sea ice will continue to decline over the next several decades," said NSIDC Director Mark Serreze. "We are still looking at a seasonally ice-free Arctic in twenty to thirty years." So what does it mean when corporate management orders reporters to "IMMEDIATELY" pretend that there are credible critics of the records collected by NASA, NOAA, and thousands of independent observers? Is that fair and balanced? Or is it manufacturing doubt?

Author

Brian C Johnson

Date

2010-12-17T21:14:36-06:00

ID

161323

Comment

The main question is why is this news to begin with? Did anyone ever watch the documentary "Outfoxed"?

Author

bill_jackson

Date

2010-12-17T21:53:54-06:00