CRUISE SHIP CONFESSION: Top Fox News Executive Admits Lying On-Air About Obama

[The Hitman]

Source: Media Matters for America

In newly uncovered audio, a Fox News executive boasts that he lied repeatedly during the closing days of the 2008 presidential campaign when he speculated on-air "about whether Barack Obama really advocated socialism."

Speaking in 2009 onboard a pricey Mediterranean cruise sponsored by a right-wing college, Fox Washington managing editor Bill Sammon described his attempts the previous year to link Obama to "socialism" as "mischievous speculation." Sammon, who is also a Fox News vice president, acknowledged that "privately" he had believed that the socialism allegation was "rather far-fetched."

"Last year, candidate Barack Obama stood on a sidewalk in Toledo, Ohio, and first let it slip to Joe the Plumber that he wanted to quote, 'spread the wealth around,' " said Sammon. "At that time, I have to admit, that I went on TV on Fox News and publicly engaged in what I guess was some rather mischievous speculation about whether Barack Obama really advocated socialism, a premise that privately I found rather far-fetched."

Read more: http://mediamatters.org/blog/201103290006

---

Newsworthy? Yes. Surprising? No. Fox "News" is nothing but propaganda. How do these people sleep at night?

[sinkingfeeling]

1. But who will call for this guy's resignation and when will Congress defund Faux News?

[The Hitman]

2. I hope the other 98%, Maddow, Olbermann, and others pick up on this.

And we aren't actually funding News Corp, except maybe through PSAs, right?

[blm]

8. What is the 'other 98%' you refer to in your post?

.

[The Hitman]

12. A liberal PAC. Pretty active on facebook.

http://other98.com/

[blm]

13. thankyou!

.

[freshwest]

48. Bodacious TARGET protest in the video on the page~

[yurbud]

10. by allowing them to have broadcast licenses which are worth far more than we charge

[KansDem]

20. Didn't TV consider the airwaves "public?"

I suppose that's not an issue with cable...:shrug:

What about satellite?

[yurbud]

26. cable companies have gov't sanctioned monopolies

And satellite uses broadcast spectrum that needs to be allotted by the FCC.

The same is true of old fashioned broadcast TV. If the gov't didn't give licenses, someone with a stronger antenna could start walking on your signal as happened in the early days of radio.

[onenote]

39. government sanctioned monopolies?

Interesting notion. Currently,virtually everyone in the US can get pretty much the same array of satellite transmitted programming from at least three multichannel providers: their local, franchised cable operator; DirecTV; and DishTV. In addition, a growing number of viewers can choose from a fourth provider -- a wireline competitor such as Verizon FiOS, ATT U-Verse, or RCN, WOW, or another overbuilder. The percentage of homes that receive service from the "incumbent" franchised cable operator has dropped from over 90 percent in the early 1990s to around 60 percent today. In addition, since 1992, it has been illegal for a local government to grant an exclusive franchise to a cable operator and a few years ago the FCC adopted rules that impose standards on local governments when they consider competing franchises.

Once upon a time your cable operator might have been a "gov't sanctioned monopoly" but that day hasn't existed for a long time, unless you have a different concept of what the word "monopoly" means than most regulators and economists.

Finally, the government doesn't allocate spectrum to specific programmers like Fox News. They allocate it to the owners of the satellites who then lease the transponders to those who pay for those leases.

[freshwest]

49. ...

[plumbob]

58. Vocabulary. They are, of course, government sanctioned oligopolies.

Actually better than a monopoly, because you can free yourself of mandatory service requirements. After all, now there's "competition."

These licenses are as good as gold.

[onenote]

60. self-delete

[onenote]

62. what "mandatory service" requirements are cable operators freed from?

Incumbent cable operators are subject to redlining prohibitions. Local stations have the same mandatory carriage rights they had back in 1992. Local governments can and still do impose public access obligations on cable operators. Cable operators are still generally subject to "franchise fee" payment obligations The only regulatory relief that cable operators have gotten because they now face competition from providers that have captured a substantial portion of the market is rate regulation.

[plumbob]

64. When Time-Warner was the only cable allowed in town, they were

obligated to provide basic cable at no charge to the schools here. Their rates were also regulated, and if you got everything they offered, you'd pay about $80/month.

But ten years ago, "competition" was allowed, and so schools have to pay, and rates are now subject only to "competition." So now the top rate is just a tad under $220/month for what cost $80 ten years ago. Even allowing a hefty tap for inflation (which the government assures me is almost absent the past decade), REAL rates have climbed greatly. Both companies charge exactly the same for exactly the same packages, proof that "competition" is working.

Of course, what it really proves is that one of the companies is a price maker and the other a price taker, standard practice for oligopolies.

[Enthusiast]

66. Okay

Then how about a law like they have in Canada that forbids networks from intentionally lying to their viewers? I could go for that.

Telling viewers that the president is a racist, a Muslim, a socialist or worse should at least have a bit of evidence to back up the claim.

[onenote]

76. Do you know how often that law has been enforced in Canada?

Never. Do you really think that there is no skewing of information by the media in Canada, that its a complete "no-spin" zone? Its not workable and given that the number of people relying on the broadcast media for news is dropping and will eventually be passed by those relying on the internet (distributed increasingly over wireless spectrum) we'd be going down a pretty slippery slope with a "no lying" in media rule.

[Enthusiast]

80. There is skewing of information

in any media system. But compared to U.S. media, Canada's is a paragon of virtue. Our media is a corporate right wing sewer. At least we should have a new fairness doctrine.

[onenote]

38. what funding does Fox News get from the government?

I hadn't heard that.

[sinkingfeeling]

74. It's kind of indirect, but here are two links about it.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/03/17/congressman-tries-ban-federal-ad-spending-fox-news/

Congressman Tries to Ban Federal Ad Spending on Fox News
March 17, 2011

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/03/21/958783/-End-The-Federal-Funding-Of-Fox-News

End The Federal Funding Of Fox News
March 21, 2011

[The Nexus]

42. How can they? Advertisers fund them. nt

[ck4829]

3. K&R

[OHdem10]

4. If firing were the standard, Fox would have very few on air personalities

left.

[Name removed]

5. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[daggahead]

6. Wow. I'm totally shocked ...

[freshwest]

78. That covers it all. They get paid to talk and write about it, too!

[NoodleyAppendage]

7. They sleep well because they are devoid of a conscience. n/t

J

[blm]

9. Figures Carville was there...and that he'd pretend he didn't know what kind of cruise it was.

The Matalin-Carville distraction only serves to benefit ONE side.....the fascist elite who have paid them highly for their services.

[freshwest]

11. Yup. Thanks for the mention. Not our friends.

[polichick]

17. Carville and Matalin deserve each other.

[freshwest]

50. And they're both cleaning up pushing division.

[polichick]

55. So true - and really disgusting!

[No Elephants]

67. A neocon and a traitor, even to the DLC---IOW, 2 neocons.

[Kingofalldems]

14. Special Prosecutor needed--investigate and subpoena all Fox records

[onenote]

40. really? what crime would they be prosecuted for?

It no longer surprises me that the First Amendment gets so little respect from some DUers. But it still saddens me.

[Kingofalldems]

43. Well for one thing--read up on Fox's activities in Europe

That's a starter.

[onenote]

53. A US "special prosecutor" should be appointed because of Fox's activities in Europe?

Really? And under what authority would such a "special prosecutor" be appointed? I have no use for Fox News. I don't watch it. I don't visit its website. And if I had the editorial control over the line up of my cable system, I would be inclined not to offer it or to offer only as a separate pay channel. But that doesn't mean that I think the government has any business regulating speech.

[Kingofalldems]

56. Who said anything about regulating speech?

Nice strawman.

[onenote]

57. so the suggestion for a "special prosecutor"

has nothing to do with the content of Fox News' speech and is not based on anything they've done in the US. And I noticed that you didn't explain what the authority for this "special prosecutor" would be.

[Kingofalldems]

65. It 's based on the same company allegedly hacking emails

in Europe. Look it up.

[onenote]

77. So if a person or company is accused of committing a crime in one country

they should be subject to a prosecutorial investigation everywhere else they operate? Should that investigation be limited to the same alleged offense or would it be a complete fishing expedition? And I'm still waiting to find out where the authority exists for the appointement of such a "special prosecutor."
I assume the email hacking story you refer to is actually the reports that reporters from News of the World, a News Corp. owned UK newspaper, hacked cell phone voicemails of various members of the royal family, celebrities, and others.

[Oak2004]

68. I'm willing to "go there"

The problems with absolutist ideas of free speech -- and yes, even with the First Amendment-- is that their presumption that free discourse will follow from unregulated speech is wrong. It was a reasonable guess in the 18th century, but it defies what we know from modern cognitive science.

The problem is that there are really two broad kinds of speech: speech intended to discuss, inform, amuse, or persuade without engaging in a systematic pattern of research-based manipulation techniques, and "speech" using such techniques intended to undermine any rational analysis (including flagrant lies to the public with the intent to sabotage public discourse). The latter presents a severe threat to democracy.

The unregulated marketplace of ideas works about as well as the unregulated marketplace of goods and services, which is to say it doesn't. Most people grossly overestimate how capable they are at resisting modern propaganda and marketing techniques, including on this board. Research shows that virtually all of us can be manipulated. I know how to recognize manipulative techniques, and made a point of deliberate alertness when I saw a television commercial, and despite that I know that the subtext of commercials got under my skin (that television is a hypnotic medium doesn't help). Finally, I dumped the set.

What we need is a new First Amendment that distinguishes between the two kinds of speech. It should be a serious crime to knowingly lie to the public, and an aggravated offense if those lies were delivered using scientific techniques of manipulation. Certain types of media (i.e., media which produce trance states in their audience) need much more regulation than others (print requires very little regulation (skillful rhetoric doesn't present a hazard), video the maximum regulation (because the audience is largely in a trance state). The regulation must be tailored to target flagrant lies and the systematic use of sophisticated manipulation techniques to influence public attitudes, and not the content of speech.

While bad ideas can be fought with good ideas, it's not possible to fight bad campaigns of manipulation with "good" campaigns of manipulation, nor is it reasonable to think that a big, media driven, lie can be offset by simply telling the truth (a truth delivered often without benefit of widespread dissemination), at least not before it does considerable damage.

[No Elephants]

70. Our SCOTUS has distinguished among kinds of speech, using our good old 1st Amend. No new one

needed or desired.

[No Elephants]

71. Our SCOTUS has distinguished among kinds of speech, using our good old 1st Amend. No new one

needed or desired.

[brindis_desala]

75. I wish I could recommend this post 1,000,000 times

before our democracy can be repaired we need teachers trained and committed to showing students how to spot and dissect these manipulative techniques.

[freshwest]

51. There's always Freepers.

[onenote]

52. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt

and assume that you are suggesting that some of those on DU that don't respect the First Amendment are Freepers trolling here. Probably some are. But some, sadly, are not.

(Of course, you wouldn't be calling me a Freeper simply for pointing out that the First Amendment would seem to be a pretty obvious bar against government action in this instance).

[No Elephants]

69. Intentional lies, even about a public figure, are not speech protected by the First Amendment.

Respect for the First Amendment requires some study.

[onenote]

81. That is an overstatement

Intentionally false statements that harm a person's reputation (i.e, slander or libel) are not protected by the first amendment. But if I want to go on television or publish a book that declares that the sun rises in north and sets in the south, even though I know that isn't true, I cannot be barred from making that statement or punished in any way by the law for having made it. Similarly, I can defame the heck out of a dead person in many jurisdictions since harming the reputation of a deceased person has generally not been considered to be actionable.

[UpInArms]

15. Sammon was the Moonie Times lying mouthpiece for years

bleh

[Leftist Agitator]

16. "How do these people sleep at night?"

On top of a pile of money, with many beautiful women (or men, as the case may be)...

[GoneOffShore]

18. Recced, Tweeted and Facebooked.

Plus a :kick:

[forty6]

32. Great idea... Facebooked and Tweeted to my 1000 subs

all of whom will NOT be surprised, half of whom read their news here.

[alp227]

19. well duh! n/t

[lumberjack_jeff]

21. Their "mischevous speculation" is known as "The Cavuto"®

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/wed-september-13-2006/the-question-mark

[HughBeaumont]

36. The Master of the Loaded Question.

Neil Cavuto A Massive Slobbering GOP Lap-Bitch?

I'm not SAYING he is . . I'm . . . JUST ASKING! Is that so wrong???

[JHB]

22. A reminder of other cases of Sammon's "mischievous speculation"...

...and "far-fetched" opining:

http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51KC4F7JEPL._SL160_PIsitb-sticker-arrow-dp,TopRight,12,-18_SH30_OU01_AA160_.jpg
At Any Cost: How Al Gore Tried to Steal the Election by Bill Sammon (Sep 1, 2002)

http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51BTZJK8C0L._SL160_PIsitb-sticker-arrow-dp,TopRight,12,-18_SH30_OU01_AA160_.jpg
Fighting Back: The War on Terrorism - From Inside the Bush White House by Bill Sammon (Aug 18, 2003)

http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/41KMTPRYABL._SL160_PIsitb-sticker-arrow-dp,TopRight,12,-18_SH30_OU01_AA160_.jpg
Misunderestimated: The President Battles Terrorism, Media Bias, and the Bush Haters by Bill Sammon (Jun 28, 2005)

http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51TXMJQKB3L._SL160_PIsitb-sticker-arrow-dp,TopRight,12,-18_SH30_OU01_AA160_.jpg
Strategery: How George W. Bush Is Defeating Terrorists, Outwitting Democrats, and Confounding the Mainstream Media by Bill Sammon (Feb 27, 2006)

[Corruption Winz]

23. This is like OJ admitting guilt to the murders. n/t

[Keith Bee]

24. Let me go way out on a limb, here

The audio was not recorded by James O'Keefe, right?

[Initech]

25. I'm shocked shocked I tell ya!!!

[MilesColtrane]

27. "How do these people sleep at night?"

On huge piles of comfy corporate and GOP cash, with serene smiles on their faces...


Fuckers!

[freshwest]

79. In coffins with a handful of soil from their homeland and a guy named Igor to protect them.

[Ramulux]

28. Not one news network will cover this

My only hope is that Cenk covers it, but that might not even happen.

[PSzymeczek]

47. Cenk covered it

this afternoon.

[SemperEadem]

29. how do the presstitutes who defended fux

when Obama rightly said they weren't legitimate sleep at night?

They should have all collectively taken a step back and left fux standing out front to take the hit... but now, it seems they all deserve to take the hit.

[No Elephants]

72. No worries. More recently, Obama said he respects FOX News.

[sakabatou]

30. If only more of these assholes told the truth about their network

[forty6]

31. People like this guy should be fined a hundred million dollars and placed in

GTMO for 10 years, until they are totally irrelevant to the American cable network news.

At least a perjury charge, and a few hundred thousand dollars... and corporate fines for hiring and allowing this man to get away with more than one lie.

[onenote]

33. perjury? was he under oath when he spouted off his bs?

[AsahinaKimi]

34. I can tell you how they sleep at night....

They sleep on large dollar bills. It makes them feel all warm and cozy inside. They have replaced their morals with the god of Cash.

[fascisthunter]

35. They Have no Sense of Morality... it's why they cling to dogma

a rule to follow... they don't understand how crippled they are in comparison to those with a moral compass and empathy. In order to counter this, they claim empathy is for wimps.

They sleep well at night

[The Hitman]

44. Right on.

The Almighty Dollar Bill.

[Doctor_J]

46. Because they have no fear of retribution

Some day...

[avaistheone1]

37. K&R

[Blacksheep214]

41. How can we allow these cretins

access to our armed forces media network?

This is the propoganda which tears at unit morale and aids the enemy who is also listening.

Pull the plug NOW!

[Doctor_J]

45. There is no real reason for them to deny lying any more

No one is going to do anything about it. OTOH, I am pretty sure that within a few years some sort of IED is going to be delivered to Fox, at which time the revolution will begin.

[The Hitman]

54. Revolution has already begun

terrorism or not.

[Doctor_J]

59. I mean a real one, where we respond with activities that might

actually make a difference. As you have seen, protests, marches, petitions, and even laws & court orders are useless against fascism and bullies. At some point the sane majority will wake up to the fact that this is war. Then it will be on, and there will be a great deal of regret among the fascists.

[OwnedByFerrets]

61. Yes, we can only dream that he was actually telling the truth.

[Nothing Without Hope]

63. "How do these people sleep at night?" - Answer: NO CONSCIENCE

They really are different from most of us in their motivations and psychological makeup. Life is simpler without a conscience - just do whatever the hell you want, no matter the harm to others, and keep score with power or money.

[myrna minx]

73. K&R n/t