‘Friendly Reminder’: Fox’s Unbalanced Ethics Threatens Democracy

Faux News
Image copyright P. Thompson (fauxnewschannel.com)

Anyone who still clings to the notion that Fox News is actually a news organization rather than a propaganda machine for special interests — and that it actually is led by journalists who adhere to the code of ethics of the Society of Professional Journalists — must read the leaked memos Media Matters for America disclosed this morning.

Under the heading of “Fox boss caught slanting news reporting,” Media Matters shared on its Web site an internal memo that Bill Sammon, Fox News’ Washington managing editor, sent a memo “at the height of the health care reform debate” to his network’s so-called journalists, directing them not to use the phrase “public option.”

Instead, Sammon told them, they should use focus-tested Republican and insurance industry talking points “to turn public opinion against the Democrats’ reform efforts.”

In his October 27, 2009 memo to his staff, Sammon offered what he call a “friendly reminder: let’s not slip back into calling it the ‘public option.'” Instead, he ordered:

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.

As I wrote in my book, Deadly Spin, PR firms representing the health insurance industry routinely furnished conservative pundits and so-called journalists with talking points their consultants developed to scare people away from reform.

The insurance industry has spent millions of our premium dollars over the years on linguistic research and message testing to assist it in disseminating false and misleading information to manipulate public opinion.

I devoted an entire chapter to the industry’s “playbook.” Here is one of the tactics I said included in the playbook:

Feed talking points to TV pundits and frequent contributors to op-ed pages. They will know how to get talk show hosts with big audiences like Rush Limbaugh or Bill O’Reilly or Glenn Beck to say things on the air to support your point of view and discredit your opponents.

This morning grassroots advocacy coalition Health Care for America Now asked its supporters to “reject Fox News and its attempts to continually attack the Affordable Care Act and the people who support it under the guise of legitimate ‘reporting.'”

I am calling on Rupert Murdoch to fire Sammon, and I am calling on Fox’s so-called journalists and the network’s producers, many of whom I know and have worked with over the years, to denounce Sammon’s partisan approach to reporting and commentary. I am further calling on them — and the news staff at the Wall Street Journal, also owned by Murdoch, to dedicate themselves to truly being “fair and balanced” and to familiarize themselves with the profession’s code of ethics.

Northing short of our democracy is at stake here, folks.

[Update 4:43PM ET: Added mention of HCAN’s action.]

Share this:Share on FacebookTweet about this on TwitterShare on LinkedInEmail this to someone

3 thoughts on “‘Friendly Reminder’: Fox’s Unbalanced Ethics Threatens Democracy”

  1. Thank you so much for your book and the work that you’re doing. Your book came at a time when my sense of powerlessness was moving from smoldering to exploding. It continues to be an anchor for me in my no longer quiet outrage. I’ve tried to reach a reporter at the Hartford Courant. Did reach Susan Campbell who said that she would send my email to the reporter covering the insurance industry. I’ve not heard from that person so I wrote a Letter to the Editor and sent it yesterday. I refer to you in my letter. I don’t know if it will be published and it may be edited if it is published. Whichever way it goes I feel better for having finally expressed my self and not just sitting by quietly watching the undermining of my ability to care for my patients/clients and my own livelihood. You are my hero. Thanks again.


  2. Thank you SO much for writing this book. Finally, I understand what has been happening and the changes that have occurred in health care. I hope and pray that people read this and see that only by having a public option can we return to health care sanity.

  3. I appreciate the book, and have every intention of reading it. In my opinion, it is somewhat disingenuous to single out Fox for spin on the healthcare legislation. All news agencies had their own interpretation of this legislation and offered a misrepresentation on many of its aspects, in my opinion. A public option that has a means test for taxpayer subsidies is in fact a government run-health option. The American people are not ignorant, and realized this was a door opener for a national health system. If we want to have a discussion on a national health plan then let’s do so intelligently. But for our president or congress to be telling the American people we will insure 30 million new people without a reduction in services and or price increases and we will reduce our deficit at the same time quite simply is untrue. Prime Minister Cameron this week in a press conference is outlining his plan to “privatize” parts of the UK healthcare system, so one can only conclude that a national health system has its own set of problems.

Comments are closed.