LEAKED EMAIL: Fox boss caught slanting news reporting

Post Reply New Topic

At the height of the health care reform debate last fall, Bill Sammon, Fox News' controversial Washington managing editor, sent a memo directing his network's journalists not to use the phrase "public option."

Instead, Sammon wrote, Fox's reporters should use "government option" and similar phrases -- wording that a top Republican pollster had recommended in order to turn public opinion against the Democrats' reform efforts.

Journalists on the network's flagship news program, Special Report with Bret Baier, appear to have followed Sammon's directive in reporting on health care reform that evening.

Sources familiar with the situation in Fox's Washington bureau have told Media Matters that Sammon uses his position as managing editor to "slant" Fox's supposedly neutral news coverage to the right. Sammon's "government option" email is the clearest evidence yet that Sammon is aggressively pushing Fox's reporting to the right -- in this case by issuing written orders to his staff.

As far back as March 2009, Fox personalities had sporadically referred to the "government option."

Two months prior to Sammon's 2009 memo, Republican pollster Frank Luntz appeared on Sean Hannity's August 18 Fox News program. Luntz scolded Hannity for referring to the "public option" and encouraged Hannity to use "government option" instead.

Luntz argued that "if you call it a 'public option,' the American people are split," but that "if you call it the 'government option,' the public is overwhelmingly against it." Luntz explained that the program would be "sponsored by the government" and falsely claimed that it would also be "paid for by the government."

"You know what," Hannity replied, "it's a great point, and from now on, I'm going to call it the government option."

On October 26, 2009, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid announced the inclusion of a public insurance option that states could opt out of in the Senate's health care bill.

That night, Special Report used "public" and "government" interchangeably when describing the public option provision.

Anchor Bret Baier referred to "a so-called public option"; the "public option"; "government-provided insurance coverage"; "this government-run insurance option"; the "healthcare public option"; and "the government-run option, the public option." Correspondent Shannon Bream referred to "a government-run public option"; "a public option"; "a government-run option"; and "the public option."

The next morning, October 27, Sammon sent an email to the staffs of Special Report, Fox News Sunday, and FoxNews.com, as well as to other reporters and producers at the network. The subject line read: "friendly reminder: let's not slip back into calling it the 'public option.' "

Sammon instructed staff to refer on air to "government-run health insurance," the "government option," "the public option, which is the government-run plan," or -- when "necessary" -- "the so-called public option":

Fox's senior vice president for news, Michael Clemente, soon replied. He thanked Sammon for his email and said that he preferred Fox staffers use Sammon's third phrasing: "The public option, which is the government-run plan."



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.

On the same show, correspondent Jim Angle referred to "a government insurance plan, the so-called public option"; "a government insurance option"; and "a government insurance plan."

The wording of Sammon's email -- a "friendly reminder" not to "slip back into calling it the 'public option' " -- suggests that someone in the Fox News chain of command had previously issued similar instructions.

And indeed, the issue had surfaced before in Fox's newscasts.

On the September 3, 2009, Special Report -- three weeks after Luntz told Hannity to call it the "government option" -- Baier discussed the potential inclusion of a public option during the show's nightly commentary segment.

During the segment -- after Baier himself had referred to a "public option" -- NPR's Mara Liasson also referred several times to the "public option," prompting Baier to interrupt her to clarify that it is the "government-run option of health insurance."

As the conversation continued, The Washington Post's Charles Krauthammer and The Weekly Standard's Steve Hayes both used "public option." When Liasson mentioned a "triggered public option," Baier again interrupted, asking, "Should we say 'government option,' by the way?"

"Government option, OK," replied Liasson.

"Everybody gets it," Baier explained.

On-screen text during the segment also used "Government Option."

The owner or management of a news organization is free to slant the news anyway they feel like. There is no law requiring truth or objectivity.

So let the consumer or buyer of the news beware.

ruveyn

Ya, it's a private company so they can do what they want. I'd say that's a relatively subtle example of bias tho compared to others examples since the terms are pretty much interchangeable.

Where did he say that "fox broke the law"?

Hes implying that that Fox is advocacy group masqerading as a news organization.
And thus the viewer "should beware". But he never said they broke the law.

At most, maybe false advertisement with "Fair and Balanced" as their company motto but I don't think that's a crime anymore.

I don't think there's any such thing as an unbiased news source. It isn't safe to put all of your trust into one source. It's best to look at several different sources and then form a more well-rounded opinion. "Fair and Balanced" is just a marketing ploy, like all of the processed and chemically enhanced food products that claim to be "natural and organic".

Fair and balanced by Fox News standards (such as they are). As Fox News used to advertise --- News at the Speed of Lies.

ruveyn

I remember when they forced reporters to refer to suicide bombers as "homicide bombers" which just sounds ret*d to my ears.

Really? This is Media Matters's smoking gun on Fox? This is like the difference between calling someone a public servant vs a government employee; even as a guy that pay attention to framework and other linguistic semantics this seems pretty thin. I'll muster up some indignation as soon as the rest of the major media stop referring to my semi automatic target rifles as "assault weapons" and calling anti-TSA protesters juvenile whiners...

It is accurate since the intent of the bombing was to kill people.

ruveyn

But they kill themselves in the process, so it is indeed "suicide bombers". "Homicide bombers" would be people who bomb a place without knowingly killing themselves.

Slanting is slanting.

"Public option" = "government option." The politicians used "public option" so people wouldn't get so upset about the concept.

This should not be a surprise to anyone in PPR.

We all know what they do and why they do it. There's already been plenty of proof before this. This is just yet another example, not a damning statement.

Not a surprise, I just wish people would actually understand the semantic differences and how it's used to manipulate them. Inoculation through observation, as it were.

Bullocks them killing others with bombs makes them homicide bombers regardless of whether or not they are suicide bombers.

It's all Word play. A bit of a underhanded tactic to generate negative bias. Political pundits have been doing this for a long time now. Why do think conservatives like calling health care reform "Obamacare"? Because it generates a negative bias in their favor right off the bat despite the fact Obama isn't taking care of anyone. Liberals are no longer just "liberals", they're socialists and Marxists, terms that are being used specifically to generate negative bias despite whether there is any truth to it or not.

It's been shown over and over again that "wording" makes a big difference in people's perceptions. This is why you have to pay attention to the wording of pollster questions. Many times, poll questions are slanted by their wording to garner a particular response.

Like if you had two separate polls on gun ownership. One poll would be "Are you in favor of people owning guns?" and the other one would be "Are you in favor of people owning killing tools?" Those questions would get drastically different answers because "killing tools" has a negative bias. A gun is a killing tool. No one can debate that, but if the wording is changed, the perception is changed.