Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
Welcome to Campfire Soapbox. We hope you enjoy your visit.


You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.


Join our community!


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
Still No Word From Fox's Brit Hume
Topic Started: Feb 18 2005, 01:22 PM (496 Views)
BuddyIAm
Member Avatar
Member
Still No Word from Fox's Brit Hume
On February 9, 2005 I posted: "http://www.newshounds.us/2005/02/09/brit_hume_resign.php". The post explains that on the air (on February 3, 2005), and without a disclaimer or explanation, Brit Hume, Fox News's most senior anchor, "quoted" from a paper President Franklin Delano Roosevelt delivered to Congress in l935. Hume's "quote" was a series of sentences taken from Roosevelt's paper and rearranged to falsely imply that Roosevelt favored private Social Security accounts.

Last night, President Roosevelt's grandson, James Roosevelt, Jr., was a guest on Countdown w/Keith Olberman on MSNBC. During the program, Roosevelt said this about Hume: "He rearranged those sentences in an outrageous distortion, one that really calls for a retraction, an apology, maybe even a resignation." Here is a transcript and a video clip of Roosevelt on Olberman's show from the website of "http://mediamatters.org/items/200502160003".
We reiterate our support for "http://www.airamericaradio.com/weblogs/alfrankenshow/", and now James Roosevelt, Jr., in their call for "a retraction, an apology, maybe even a resignation." In his capacity as Fox News's most senior newsman, Brit Hume is charged with delivering true and accurate information to the American public. Rearranging sentences written by a former president of the United States in order to falsely imply that he would favor the Bush administration's efforts to "privatize Social Security" is inexcusable. Contact "mailto:comments@foxnews.com" to express your outrage at their hypocrisy. Fox News delights in attacking CBS's Dan Rather or CNN's Eason Jordan for what they say or do. Urge Fox to hold its own employees to the standards it sets for everyone else.
"The truth lies in a man's dreams... perhaps in this unhappy world of ours whose madness is better than a foolish sanity."
"Facts are stupid things." - Ronald Regan
"Ideas are more dangerous than guns. We don't let our people have guns. Why should we let them have ideas?" --Josef Stalin
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
CalRed
Member Avatar
Member
Buddy

I don't know what you are trying to say but I read the entire statement of Roosevelts, watched the left-wing slant clip on MSNBC and Roosevelt positively outlined his three principles which recommended exactly what has been proposed.

What are you saying Brit Hume distorted? I don't see any conflict with what he said and what Pres. Roosevelt said.

Roosevelt said that first the government would have to bear the brunt of Social Security, old people did not have time to pay enough into it. That was true at the time. Now President Bush's proposal is that no one over 55 be affected by any changes. Secondly he said that the program would receive payments both from the people who worked and the employers, that has happened and thirdly he said there should be individual investing programs by those who wanted them and that would eventually the self-sustaining portion would phase out the government paid portion.

That is almost exactly the program suggested by Bush. Where is the conflict and why do you think Hume should be fired?

The real problem is that it has taken 70 years to get to the voluntary plan Roosevelt proposed. No politician has dared touch it until Bush had the guts to do it.

Are you denying Roosevelt proposed a voluntary program? If so then you are not reading his statement. He suggested it quite clearly.

This is what his grandon said:

"which said that Social Security, when it was enacted almost 70 years ago, ought to first of all have a part that took care of people who didn't have time to build up a Social Security account. And the government should fund that out of general revenues.

Secondly, Social Security should have a self-sustaining portion that was funded by contributions from both employers and employees. That's what we know and have known for 70 successful years as Social Security.

And thirdly, those who wanted and who needed to, as many -- almost everybody -- did, to have a higher income and retirement, should have accounts where they could pay in voluntarily, in addition to the guaranteed Social Security benefit.

And then my grandfather said that eventually, the self-sustaining portion of the guaranteed insurance would phase out the government-paid portion."


Do you suppose the grandson quoted him wrong as well ad Brit Hume???
Something instead of Nothing?

"I find it quite improbable that such order came out of chaos. There has to be some organizing principle.
God to me is a mystery but is the explanation for the miracle of existence, why there is something instead of nothing."
Alan Sandage

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
BuddyIAm
Member Avatar
Member
From the February 15 edition of MSNBC's Countdown with Keith Olbermann:

OLBERMANN: President Franklin Delano Roosevelt and, at minimum, midwife to the Social Security system, would have endorsed President Bush's plan to partially privatize it. Our third story on the Countdown -- that is the claim, anyway, of at least three conservative commentators and several Republican congressmen. But it turns out those guys pretty much just made it up. In a moment, FDR's grandson, himself a former associate commissioner for Social Security, joins us to discuss the fraud.

First, the background. It began on television with Brit Hume of FOX News, taking quotes from the three principles of security for our old people that FDR expressed to Congress on January 17, 1935. Not all the quotes, mind you, just some of them, and out of context. I'm reading from the transcript on the FOX website of Mr. Hume's newscast of February 3rd. "It turns out," Hume said, "that FDR himself planned to include private investment accounts in the Social Security program when he proposed it. In a written statement to Congress in 1935, Roosevelt said that any Social Security plan should include, 'Voluntary contributory annuities, by which individual initiative can increase the annual amounts received in old age,' adding that government funding, 'ought to ultimately be supplanted by self-supporting annuity plans.'"

As promised, I'm joined now by James Roosevelt Jr., now senior vice president of Tufts Health Plan, formerly associate commissioner for Social Security, and, of course, grandson of President Franklin D. Roosevelt. Great -- thanks for your time tonight, sir.

ROOSEVELT: Nice to be with you, Keith.

OLBERMANN: The argument is that Mr. Hume more or less twisted this entirely around. Can you explain it in layman's terms?

ROOSEVELT: I think I can. And it's really quite an amazing distortion. What they did was that they took a very simple statement that my grandfather made, which said that Social Security, when it was enacted almost 70 years ago, ought to first of all have a part that took care of people who didn't have time to build up a Social Security account. And the government should fund that out of general revenues.

Secondly, Social Security should have a self-sustaining portion that was funded by contributions from both employers and employees. That's what we know and have known for 70 successful years as Social Security.

And thirdly, those who wanted and who needed to, as many -- almost everybody -- did, to have a higher income and retirement, should have accounts where they could pay in voluntarily, in addition to the guaranteed Social Security benefit.

And then my grandfather said that eventually, the self-sustaining portion of the guaranteed insurance would phase out the government-paid portion. That's because we would have a fully functioning Social Security system as we do today.

What Brit Hume and others have done is take portions of that paragraph and rearrange it so that it says something entirely different from what he intended.

OLBERMANN: At the risk of doing a little too much reading, just to put it on the historical record, let me read the entire quote from which those quotes were pulled. The ones Mr. Hume pulled, only that he wanted to pull:

"In the important field of security for our old people, it seems necessary to adopt three principles: First, noncontributory old-age pensions for those who are now to old build up their own insurance. It is, of course, clear that for perhaps 30 years to come fund will have to be provided by the states and the federal government to meet these pensions.

"Second, compulsory contributory annuities which in time will establish a self-supporting system for those now young and for future generations.

"Third, voluntary contributory annuities by which individual initiative can increase the annual amounts received in old age." That's one of the Hume quotes there. "It is proposed that the federal government assume one-half of the cost of the old pension plan, which ought ultimately to be supplanted by self-supporting annuity plans."

So, where he raised the prospect of self-supporting annuity plans -- that was not to replace Social Security, it was to replace the money the government was contributing to Social Security for the people born in, say, 1870 and earlier. Is that about it?

ROOSEVELT: That is exactly it. And he rearranged those sentences in an outrageous distortion, one that really calls for a retraction, an apology, maybe even a resignation.

OLBERMANN: He may have been the only news reporter who did that. The other people who have made the comment on it were people like William Bennett, also in one of the live circus programs that they have over on FOX, and John Fund from The Wall Street Journal online political commentary Web site. Of course, the president referenced this vaguely in the State of the Union. What do you make, generally speaking, of what we might fairly call revisionist history?

ROOSEVELT: It is really quite amazing that all of the folks supporting privatization, from the president on down, keep invoking the name of my grandfather, Franklin Delano Roosevelt. I think it's, in a way, it is flattering to him. It's a testimony to how successful the program that he put in place has been and continues to be. And there's -- on the screen you just saw my dad standing next to my grandfather. There he is again.

OLBERMANN: But you are convinced from all that you know, and if anyone actually literally took all of the words of your grandfather and went through them with the proverbial fine-tooth comb, they would have never found anything in his mind, ultimate privatization, in whole or in part, of Social Security.

ROOSEVELT: I'm definitely convinced of that. And I'm convinced he never intended to phase it out. That indeed is why some of the greatest supporters of Social Security initially said it ought to be paid for out of general tax revenues. And Secretary of the Treasury [Henry] Morgenthau [Jr.], who headed the commission my grandfather appointed, said no, it has to have a payroll tax that's dedicated to Social Security. Because if it doesn't, it will either get to look like welfare, or it will be traded off against other good things. And the dedicated Social Security tax has been very successful over the years in raising almost all of our elderly citizens out of poverty, where half of them were in poverty before Social Security.

OLBERMANN: Indeed. James Roosevelt Jr., grandson of our 32nd president, former associate commissioner on Social Security, our great thanks for your time tonight, sir.

ROOSEVELT: Thank you.
"The truth lies in a man's dreams... perhaps in this unhappy world of ours whose madness is better than a foolish sanity."
"Facts are stupid things." - Ronald Regan
"Ideas are more dangerous than guns. We don't let our people have guns. Why should we let them have ideas?" --Josef Stalin
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
DanHouck
Member Avatar
Land of Enchantment NM
I have to agree with Buddylam here. To spin the supplemental annuity part of Roosevelt's comments into support for privatization is definitely stretching it to the breaking point. I have emailed Fox News and asked them to have Mr. Roosevelt Jr. on.

Dan
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Colo_Crawdad
Member Avatar
Lowell
Do remember, Fox News paid its attorneys to argue that "there is no hard, fast and written rule against deliberate distortion of the news."
"WE HAVE MET THE ENEMY AND HE IS US." --- Pogo
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
cmoehle
Member Avatar
Chris - San Antonio TX
As posted in another shotgunned thread, I'm not sure I read it that way. But all I have is this:

Brit Hume Lies About Social Security
Quote:
 
As Media Matters noticed: here’s Brit Hume, the Fox News Channel’s top news anchor, on February 3:

In a written statement to Congress in 1935, Roosevelt said that any Social Security plans should include, quote, “Voluntary contributory annuities, by which individual initiative can increase the annual amounts received in old age,” adding that government funding, quote, “ought to ultimately be supplanted by self-supporting annuity plans. Hume’s claim is that FDR wanted to replace Social Security with private accounts. Hume is lying.


Does someone have a fuller, more contextualized quote?

I guess I'm always skeptical when all I hear is what others say he said, their take on what they say he said, and their argument against their take on what they say he said.
Politics is the art of achieving the maximum amount of freedom for individuals that is consistent with the maintenance of social order.
--Barry Goldwater
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
BuddyIAm
Member Avatar
Member
ROOSEVELT: I think I can. And it's really quite an amazing distortion. What they did was that they took a very simple statement that my grandfather made, which said that Social Security, when it was enacted almost 70 years ago, ought to first of all have a part that took care of people who didn't have time to build up a Social Security account. And the government should fund that out of general revenues.

Secondly, Social Security should have a self-sustaining portion that was funded by contributions from both employers and employees. That's what we know and have known for 70 successful years as Social Security.

And thirdly, those who wanted and who needed to, as many -- almost everybody -- did, to have a higher income and retirement, should have accounts where they could pay in voluntarily, in addition to the guaranteed Social Security benefit.
"The truth lies in a man's dreams... perhaps in this unhappy world of ours whose madness is better than a foolish sanity."
"Facts are stupid things." - Ronald Regan
"Ideas are more dangerous than guns. We don't let our people have guns. Why should we let them have ideas?" --Josef Stalin
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
DanHouck
Member Avatar
Land of Enchantment NM
No Lowell, once again you are twisting a very specific point of law regarding the BASIS for a lawsuit against Fox which they won hands down, trying to make it into an admission of guilt when in fact there was no such admission given or proven.

For the rest of you, Lowell's distortion relates to a case that two disgruntled reporters that Fox news fired for insubordination brought under the Florida whistleblower law and got soundly trounced. It relates to a story they wanted Fox to run which alleged that Monsanto's BGH was carcinogenic. From the other board, here is what actually happened:

----------------
Let's get the facts on that one straight, shall we? For starters, no story ever ran. Two reporters were putting together a story on Monsanto's BGH claiming it was carcinogenic, Monsanto got wind of the story and protested to the network about the failure to include countering information in the story.

After review, it was concluded by the editors the reporters did not have adequate substantiation to claim that the FDA approved BGH drug was carcinogenic.

The news editor, as is their right and job, wanted to expand the story to include information from Monsanto that countered some of the claims. In other words, present both sides of the story and let the viewers decide.

Again, as is appropriate in a news organization, the story was held back and further investigated internally. (Something you'll notice that SeeBS did not do with Rathergate) On that basis, a revised script was proposed which supposedly everyone could live with. However, apparently the reporters backed out of the consensus and the story was never run and the reporters were terminated.

The reporters then threatened to go to the FCC and filed suit under Florida's whistleblower law. Now for their suit to even be eligible to be heard, the reporters would have to show that Fox violated a statute. In other words, before the court could even address the issue of whether or not there was a deliberate attempt to distort, it had to be determined whether or not the law under which the suit was brought was applicable.

Fox's lawyers correctly argued that there was no statute that could be violated by this allegation true or not, that there is only an FTC policy, that does NOT have the force of law, hence the case couldn't go further because the law didn't even apply. The Court upheld this and threw the suit out on that basis. The actual allegation was never proven or disproven in this court case.

The reporters suit was mostly disallowed but a jury gave them $425,000 anyway. This was quickly thrown out on appeal on the same basis as noted above, Fox's alleged distortion, which was never proven and never occurred since no story ran, did not meet the statutatory requirement of the Florida whistleblower law. Fox has countersued the reporters for their considerable legal cost in defending this frivilous lawsuit.

The left had continually tried to make the ruling in this case, which was based on the clear illegality of giving an FTC policy the force of law, into a proof that Fox actually distorted the news (impossible since the story never ran) or deliberately sought to do so, which has never been proven in court and has not been substantiated beyond the claims of the two reporters.
---------------------

Now this has nothing to do with the Brit Hume situation whatsoever, which I would also like to see explained.

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
cmoehle
Member Avatar
Chris - San Antonio TX
Gary, "a fuller, more contextualized quote" of what Hume said.

Still, Dan, legalese is easy to twist. For example, White House lawyers essentially argued in the Newdow case that God in the Pledge does not refer to a specific God and therefore does not establish, but many claimed it a Christian victory. Seems the left and right are wrong in that. How tiring.
Politics is the art of achieving the maximum amount of freedom for individuals that is consistent with the maintenance of social order.
--Barry Goldwater
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
DanHouck
Member Avatar
Land of Enchantment NM
Absolutely true Chris. However, Lowell's out of context statement, which is not even the wording used in the case, tries to convey the idea that there was any admission of guilt when in fact there was not nor were the allegations of the reporters ever proven in court.

Fox news paid its attorneys to argue correctly in court that there is no LAW against deliberate distortion of the news and hence, since the Florida whistleblower law required a violation of LAW, it could not apply and the case was moot.

Lawyers are paid to win cases by the most direct means possible. In this case, the Fox attorneys figured out the most direct route to acquittal was the clear non-applicability of the law.

In fact, all that happened here was that a loophole in the Florida whistleblower legislation was discovered and used to win the case. Remember, no news story ever ran so there was NO distortion.

Dan


Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
cmoehle
Member Avatar
Chris - San Antonio TX
I don't dispute what you're saying, just gave another example.

But back to this story.

Here is the full context in video form: Hume, Windows media (Quicktime). Not sure additional context is essential. Seems to me to boil down to the highlighted portions of the following...

FDR
Quote:
 
"In the important field of security for our old people, it seems necessary to adopt three principles: First, noncontributory old-age pensions for those who are now too old to build up their own insurance. It is, of course, clear that for perhaps 30 years to come funds will have to be provided by the States and the Federal Government to meet these pensions. Second, compulsory contributory annuities which in time will establish a self-supporting system for those now young and for future generations. Third, voluntary contributory annuities by which individual initiative can increase the annual amounts received in old age. It is proposed that the Federal Government assume one-half of the cost of the old-age pension plan, which ought ultimately to be supplanted by self-supporting annuity plans."


Hume
Quote:
 
In a written statement to Congress in 1935, Roosevelt said that any Social Security plans should include, quote, "Voluntary contributory annuities, by which individual initiative can increase the annual amounts received in old age," adding that government funding, quote, "ought to ultimately be supplanted by self-supporting annuity plans."


I see the elision, but not sure I see much difference.
Politics is the art of achieving the maximum amount of freedom for individuals that is consistent with the maintenance of social order.
--Barry Goldwater
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
BuddyIAm
Member Avatar
Member
Roosevelt said.

When the OLD FARTs die. The ones too old to pay in.

The government will no longer have to pay into the SS system for them.

Self supporting annuities means.

SS paid for by employee/employer contributions.

NOT PRIVATIZATION...

HUME

Clearly says:

That Roosevelt planned on including privatized accounts in the SS program.

It is at the beginning of the video..

That is a lie..

That is the lie everyone is complaining about.
"The truth lies in a man's dreams... perhaps in this unhappy world of ours whose madness is better than a foolish sanity."
"Facts are stupid things." - Ronald Regan
"Ideas are more dangerous than guns. We don't let our people have guns. Why should we let them have ideas?" --Josef Stalin
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
cmoehle
Member Avatar
Chris - San Antonio TX
FDR: "voluntary contributory annuities by which individual initiative can increase the annual amounts received in old age"

The diff?
Politics is the art of achieving the maximum amount of freedom for individuals that is consistent with the maintenance of social order.
--Barry Goldwater
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
BuddyIAm
Member Avatar
Member
Bush's Plan is a 'Forced Savings Plan" That subtracts from. Not adds to SS..

FDR spoke of 401k's and IRA's

We got them already..
"The truth lies in a man's dreams... perhaps in this unhappy world of ours whose madness is better than a foolish sanity."
"Facts are stupid things." - Ronald Regan
"Ideas are more dangerous than guns. We don't let our people have guns. Why should we let them have ideas?" --Josef Stalin
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
cmoehle
Member Avatar
Chris - San Antonio TX
Bush? Stick to Hume. What am I missing?
Politics is the art of achieving the maximum amount of freedom for individuals that is consistent with the maintenance of social order.
--Barry Goldwater
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · Soapbox · Next Topic »
Add Reply