Fox News gets talking points from the White house

[Fern]

Originally posted by: HomerJS
Try this

Chris: You fed talking points to these commentators?...

Scott: Certainly

skip to around 4:15


video

I saw the interview at the time he was on Matthews show. I've also seen others (Olberman etc) try to exaggerate what was said.

Scot McClellen also said they do this with all the MSM. He also said it was not the news people (journalists), but the commentators.

And no, they weren't given any script or anything. McClellen said the commentators likely already personally held those views anyway.

Let's face it, all sides are constantly trying to push their message through the MSM, and other source they can too.

McClellen's comments look to be much ado about nothing. Mostly, it struck me as another example of his, ahem, "limited capabilities". He almost let Matthews talk him onto a corner, bait him into expressing an opinion he doesn't hold. It's not for no reason that people in his position are usually careful about how they say things.

Fern

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: TechAZ

Originally posted by: eskimospy

So now that he's come out and done the right thing...?

Begs the question on motive and credibility.

What motive did he have, and why does cause his credibility to be questioned?

It's the right's blanket attack on pretty much anyone who shapes up and exposes their wrongs, 'they're lying for the money in selling more books!'

It was funny to watch the old clips of McClellan using the same attack on Richard Clark, when he was the paid spokesman for Bush.

'Why is Clark only now revealing these things, when he has a book out to sell?' Of course, both Clark and McClellan did the right thing in revealing things.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: loki8481

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: TechAZ

Begs the question on motive and credibility.

What motive did he have, and why does cause his credibility to be questioned?

the right thing would have been to expose Bush before the 2004 reelection.

what he did was wait until after his buddy was in office and then wrote a book to make some money. do you think the book would have been as widely reported on as it has if Bush wasn't president right now?

To make some money? He got a $75,000 advance and a small (probably very small) percentage of sales. This book will not make him rich. Most officials who write books get much much larger advances. Do you honestly think he thought he would get more money from the book then he will lose from the friendships he destroyed with a whole host of incredibly powerful people? That just strains credulity.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: Fern
I saw the interview at the time he was on Matthews show. I've also seen others (Olberman etc) try to exaggerate what was said.

Quotes/links?

Scot McClellen also said they do this with all the MSM. He also said it was not the news people (journalists), but the commentators.

No, he only said that the White House did this with Fox. He said that that other politicians do it with friendly journalists.

And no, they weren't given any script or anything.

Does that make it any less an issue, whether they were told what point to make and allowed to pick their words, or told what point to make with a script?

McClellen said the commentators likely already personally held those views anyway.

No, he said "they'll say" that.

Let's face it, all sides are constantly trying to push their message through the MSM, and other source they can too.

Let's face it, the White House isn't in the habit of sending 'talking points', however wrong, to other networks as part of how they get their message out.

They'll put out their points, which other networks report on as White House statements, and can question the accuracy of the points.

 

[TechAZ]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: loki8481

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: TechAZ

Begs the question on motive and credibility.

What motive did he have, and why does cause his credibility to be questioned?

the right thing would have been to expose Bush before the 2004 reelection.

what he did was wait until after his buddy was in office and then wrote a book to make some money. do you think the book would have been as widely reported on as it has if Bush wasn't president right now?

To make some money? He got a $75,000 advance and a small (probably very small) percentage of sales. This book will not make him rich. Most officials who write books get much much larger advances. Do you honestly think he thought he would get more money from the book then he will lose from the friendships he destroyed with a whole host of incredibly powerful people? That just strains credulity.

Fame is more important than money to many people. He certainly is a POS in my book. Not because I think he's lying or spinning so much as he didn't have the balls and convictions to do what was right in his mind. I wonder if there's more to the story here about McClellen than we know about.

 

[TechAZ]

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: Fern
I saw the interview at the time he was on Matthews show. I've also seen others (Olberman etc) try to exaggerate what was said.

Quotes/links?

Scot McClellen also said they do this with all the MSM. He also said it was not the news people (journalists), but the commentators.

No, he only said that the White House did this with Fox. He said that that other politicians do it with friendly journalists.

And no, they weren't given any script or anything.

Does that make it any less an issue, whether they were told what point to make and allowed to pick their words, or told what point to make with a script?

McClellen said the commentators likely already personally held those views anyway.

No, he said "they'll say" that.

Let's face it, all sides are constantly trying to push their message through the MSM, and other source they can too.

Let's face it, the White House isn't in the habit of sending 'talking points', however wrong, to other networks as part of how they get their message out.

They'll put out their points, which other networks report on as White House statements, and can question the accuracy of the points.

This wasn't addressed to me but....

McClellen said both sides do this type of thing.
How can anyone prove that the commentators didn't already agree with what was pushed to them? "They'll say that" doesn't say anything at all. Is he suggesting that said commentators didn't agree with those talking points and just whored themselves out? That seems very unlikely.

 

[nick1985]

Originally posted by: Harvey

Originally posted by: nick1985

Someone has seen 1 too many olbermann rant

AFIC, there can't be "too many" Olbermann rants. He's very bright, very articulate and very right, and he's got the documentation to back up the opinions in his "Special Comment" pieces.

If you don't think so, go to his page, click the Special comment link on the left side of the page, and listen. When you're done, get back to us with anything he says that you believe is not supported by the facts. :light:

lol. priceless...Olbermann is a fitting hero for you Harvey. Are the special comment pieces where he goes on 8 minute tangents where he screams and cries (he literally was crying during one)?

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: TechAZ

Originally posted by: eskimospy

To make some money? He got a $75,000 advance and a small (probably very small) percentage of sales. This book will not make him rich. Most officials who write books get much much larger advances. Do you honestly think he thought he would get more money from the book then he will lose from the friendships he destroyed with a whole host of incredibly powerful people? That just strains credulity.

Fame is more important than money to many people. He certainly is a POS in my book. Not because I think he's lying or spinning so much as he didn't have the balls and convictions to do what was right in his mind. I wonder if there's more to the story here about McClellen than we know about.

Can you point to any evidence whatsoever that fame was more important to Scott McClellan then money and that it was the motivation for his book?

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: TechAZ

Originally posted by: eskimospy

To make some money? He got a $75,000 advance and a small (probably very small) percentage of sales. This book will not make him rich. Most officials who write books get much much larger advances. Do you honestly think he thought he would get more money from the book then he will lose from the friendships he destroyed with a whole host of incredibly powerful people? That just strains credulity.

Fame is more important than money to many people. He certainly is a POS in my book. Not because I think he's lying or spinning so much as he didn't have the balls and convictions to do what was right in his mind. I wonder if there's more to the story here about McClellen than we know about.

Can you point to any evidence whatsoever that fame was more important to Scott McClellan then money and that it was the motivation for his book?

Eskimospy, it comes down to the ability to use good judgement about people and motives, to tell the difference between 'decided to tell the truth' and 'lying for fame'.

I don't see how you are going to get through to someone who is so ideological as to just react that if McClellan says something bad about the Bush administration he's lying.

 

[nageov3t]

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: TechAZ

Originally posted by: eskimospy

To make some money? He got a $75,000 advance and a small (probably very small) percentage of sales. This book will not make him rich. Most officials who write books get much much larger advances. Do you honestly think he thought he would get more money from the book then he will lose from the friendships he destroyed with a whole host of incredibly powerful people? That just strains credulity.

Fame is more important than money to many people. He certainly is a POS in my book. Not because I think he's lying or spinning so much as he didn't have the balls and convictions to do what was right in his mind. I wonder if there's more to the story here about McClellen than we know about.

Can you point to any evidence whatsoever that fame was more important to Scott McClellan then money and that it was the motivation for his book?

Eskimospy, it comes down to the ability to use good judgement about people and motives, to tell the difference between 'decided to tell the truth' and 'lying for fame'.

I don't see how you are going to get through to someone who is so ideological as to just react that if McClellan says something bad about the Bush administration he's lying.

well, he wrote an entire book about how much he lied...

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: nick1985

lol. priceless...Olbermann is a fitting hero for you Harvey. Are the special comment pieces where he goes on 8 minute tangents where he screams and cries (he literally was crying during one)?

You can laugh all you want. That's one good way to distract yourself from the truth.

I'm still waiting for you to prove any of the points he makes in his editorials isn't a valid conclusion based on well documented facts.

 

[nick1985]

Originally posted by: Harvey

Originally posted by: nick1985

lol. priceless...Olbermann is a fitting hero for you Harvey. Are the special comment pieces where he goes on 8 minute tangents where he screams and cries (he literally was crying during one)?

You can laugh all you want. That's one good way to distract yourself from the truth.

I'm still waiting for you to prove any of the points he makes in his editorials isn't a valid conclusion based on well documented facts.

Please, I can go to youtube right now and find clips of obvious Olbermann mistatements/mistakes/lies. He isnt a God, although you seem to feel he is one.

 

[shira]

Originally posted by: loki8481

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: loki8481
Scott McClellan is such a bastion of truth, honor, and integrity, let me listen and believe everything he says...

would it surprise me? of course not.

does McClellan need to find a rock to crawl under and never be heard from again until he dies an ignoble death and someone finally finds him 2 weeks later only because the stench of his rotting rat carcass got so bad that we couldn't ignore his pathetic ass anymore? yes.

Why?

because he purportedly knew all these things and did nothing until after it was too late to do anything about it.

And please provide us with one example of ANYONE speaking out to the press and revealing damning information about ANY Administration that they were a then-current member of.

 

[nageov3t]

Originally posted by: shira

Originally posted by: loki8481

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: loki8481
Scott McClellan is such a bastion of truth, honor, and integrity, let me listen and believe everything he says...

would it surprise me? of course not.

does McClellan need to find a rock to crawl under and never be heard from again until he dies an ignoble death and someone finally finds him 2 weeks later only because the stench of his rotting rat carcass got so bad that we couldn't ignore his pathetic ass anymore? yes.

Why?

because he purportedly knew all these things and did nothing until after it was too late to do anything about it.

And please provide us with one example of ANYONE speaking out to the press and revealing damning information about ANY Administration that they were a then-current member of.

why?

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: nick1985

Please, I can go to youtube right now and find clips of obvious Olbermann mistatements/mistakes/lies. He isnt a God, although you seem to feel he is one.

I didn't say he was a god. I said his opinion pieces are well reasoned and based on the truth.

I linked to the youtube video of Olbermann's story about Matthews' interview with McClellan because it was a cleaner presentation of the actual interview than putting up with the obligatory commercials of the same footage on Matthews' page on MSNBC and because MSNBC's links don't work with browsers other than IE.

Start with the facts relating to the OP. Try refuting Scott McClellan's own admissions that Faux was and is a mouthpiece for Bushwhacko propaganda. Those weren't Olbermann or Matthews or MSNBC's words. They were McClellan's own statements on live TV.

If you can't refute them, your pissing and moaning about Olbemann or MSNBC is meaningless diversionary bullshit.

 

[shira]

Originally posted by: loki8481

Originally posted by: shira

Originally posted by: loki8481

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: loki8481
Scott McClellan is such a bastion of truth, honor, and integrity, let me listen and believe everything he says...

would it surprise me? of course not.

does McClellan need to find a rock to crawl under and never be heard from again until he dies an ignoble death and someone finally finds him 2 weeks later only because the stench of his rotting rat carcass got so bad that we couldn't ignore his pathetic ass anymore? yes.

Why?

because he purportedly knew all these things and did nothing until after it was too late to do anything about it.

And please provide us with one example of ANYONE speaking out to the press and revealing damning information about ANY Administration that they were a then-current member of.

why?

Your statement implies that McClellan's behavior is dishonorable to the extent that he should crawl under a rock and die. I haven't seen that reaction to any of the other ex-Administration insiders who've written unflattering portraits of what went on behind the scenes.

It is the unbreakable rule of Washington that insiders remain loyal until they leave. And considering that McClellan was at that time a true believer in an ends-justify-means Administration, why would his failure to "do the right thing" come as any surprise to anyone? Since you are clearly outraged by McClellan's behavior, I'm wondering what you see as being so special about McClellan's ethics - as compared with those of kissers and tellers that have come before - that would relegate him to a special rock.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: loki8481

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: TechAZ

Originally posted by: eskimospy

To make some money? He got a $75,000 advance and a small (probably very small) percentage of sales. This book will not make him rich. Most officials who write books get much much larger advances. Do you honestly think he thought he would get more money from the book then he will lose from the friendships he destroyed with a whole host of incredibly powerful people? That just strains credulity.

Fame is more important than money to many people. He certainly is a POS in my book. Not because I think he's lying or spinning so much as he didn't have the balls and convictions to do what was right in his mind. I wonder if there's more to the story here about McClellen than we know about.

Can you point to any evidence whatsoever that fame was more important to Scott McClellan then money and that it was the motivation for his book?

Eskimospy, it comes down to the ability to use good judgement about people and motives, to tell the difference between 'decided to tell the truth' and 'lying for fame'.

I don't see how you are going to get through to someone who is so ideological as to just react that if McClellan says something bad about the Bush administration he's lying.

well, he wrote an entire book about how much he lied...

You realize that at this point your argument is little more then the mind blowing 5th grade paradox of saying 'this statement is false' right?

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: loki8481

well, he wrote an entire book about how much he lied...

First, he didn't write any such book.

Second, books admitting to lying are usually telling the truth, especially when they are written at the personal cost of alienating his whole presidential-level network.

Your trying to argue that he's lying *now* is a bit like saying that Clinton was lying when he *admitted* the affari, not when he denied it.

He simply did the stain on the dress and gave it to Monica as a big plan to frame himself.

 

[ranmaniac]

MSNBC gets their talking points from the Obama campaign, so they may indeed be the next "Fox News" should Obama get elected. Though I'm not sure who's the bigger megalomaniac, Olbermann or Obama.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: ranmaniac
MSNBC gets their talking points from the Obama campaign, so they may indeed be the next "Fox News" should Obama get elected. Though I'm not sure who's the bigger megalomaniac, Olbermann or Obama.

Evidence? None.

 

[ranmaniac]

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: ranmaniac
MSNBC gets their talking points from the Obama campaign, so they may indeed be the next "Fox News" should Obama get elected. Though I'm not sure who's the bigger megalomaniac, Olbermann or Obama.

Evidence? None.

There's plenty of evidence unless you're deaf, or just willfully ignorant, which is probably the latter if you're a kool-aid drinking Obama supporter.

 

[RY62]

Hannity and Limbaugh are Republican hacks.
Mathews and Olbermann are Democrat hacks.
O'Reilly hacks on everyone.
Fox uses Republican talking points.
PMS-NBC uses Democrat talking points.
CNN uses Democrat talking points (but also whores itself according to the polls).
The list goes on...

What's new here? Every "news" organization has a bias and every honest person knows it.
The "news" from Fox is closer to the center than any other major outlet. The commentators at Fox are further right than any other major outlet. Without Fox there would be no balance for televised news.

 

[Red Dawn]

Fox is run by Roger Ailes, what do you expect?

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: ranmaniac

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: ranmaniac
MSNBC gets their talking points from the Obama campaign, so they may indeed be the next "Fox News" should Obama get elected. Though I'm not sure who's the bigger megalomaniac, Olbermann or Obama.

Evidence? None.

There's plenty of evidence unless you're deaf, or just willfully ignorant, which is probably the latter if you're a kool-aid drinking Obama supporter.

You talk a lot about evidence. You post none.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: RY62
Hannity and Limbaugh are Republican hacks.
Mathews and Olbermann are Democrat hacks.
O'Reilly hacks on everyone.
Fox uses Republican talking points.
PMS-NBC uses Democrat talking points.
CNN uses Democrat talking points (but also whores itself according to the polls).
The list goes on...

What's new here? Every "news" organization has a bias and every honest person knows it.
The "news" from Fox is closer to the center than any other major outlet. The commentators at Fox are further right than any other major outlet. Without Fox there would be no balance for televised news.

Hitler killed Jews. RY62 kills Hindus.

Without them, there would be no balance for the massive slaughters of Christians.