Originally Posted by FloggingSully

Opinion people should be expected to pursuade people that their opinions are correct (this often involves using certain terms to sway an argument in their favor). In my opinion it is inapprorpriate for 'opinion people' to present information they know is false. Constantly bringing up 'the public option' or 'the government option' which are not included in the bill is intentionally deceptive and dishonest.

Below, is what Ban posted from media matters. The first few lines clearly say that it was at the height of the debate which is exactly when they were trying to pass the public option. You and Ban are trying to sway people into thinking that this is what they are saying now. Read the article if you didn't. If you did, then you are doing what you claim is wrong. Here is the first sentence from the article Ban posted.

December 09, 2010 7:31 am ET by Ben Dimiero

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."

Originally Posted by ban basketball

quinn14,

Yes and no, in regard to your question..

Sean McVeigh Hannity is exclusively my own.
Party boss Rush Koresh Limbaugh is half of my own (Koresh). Party boss is from Keith Olbermann, after a poll of republicans showed that they consider Party boss Rush Koresh Limbaugh to be their party leader.

However, no one was directed from the top in those cases to deliberately mislead people. The poll says what it says, and until I see a memo that shoes that Olbermann was instructed by his superiors to say that, I'm good with it.

Are you okay with you statements in post #5 where you said there was no public option, yet fox news was calling it that? The article you posted was referring to the debate when the public option was on the table. You formed your email to suggest that they were saying that after there was not public option. Wasn't this thread started because you "found" proof that fox news was skewing an argument? Isn't that what you did in post #5? If I am wrong, please let me know.

And for what it's worth, I coulda swore I had heard those nicknames on tv or the radio. If not, props to you. I don't know what Hannity has to do with Mcveigh or Limbaugh with Koresh, but they do make people think of Hannity and Limbaugh in a bad way.

They were probably instructed to call it government option instead of public option because you wouldn't be able to buy it from the public and it wouldn't be ran by the public. It would have been overseen and ran by the government with the general public being able to buy into it. Semantics is all it was.

Here is what my google search of Hannity/McVeigh revealed:

http://knowledgeczar.blogspot.com/20...s-mcveigh.html

I don't see the connection you were trying to make.

Here is what the Limbaugh/Koresh search showed me:

http://mediamatters.org/mmtv/201101140033

I am sure there are plenty of sites you could find, too, that say something different. Fact is, the nicknames you give like that, give you less credibility. I know you mean well, but when you post things like that and then claim the other side are bad people, it makes you look less credible.

Originally Posted by ban basketball

And I'm ok with that. For one, I'm accountable to no one; I'm not an elected official, so I'm good with that.

Second, the problem lies with THEM for saying such irresponsible things, not me. In Sean McVeigh Hannity's case, it wasn't so much what he said, but how his audience cheered when they referred to as that. YIKES!

So you disagree with Quinn when he says that the time line matters. At the time there was a government option and many people feel that the government option is still on the table due to the inability for the Insurance companies to run their companies and that they will fail due to new regulation. So saying government or public option was not false, it was a debating point.

Just as the MSNBC crew calls the tea party teabaggers when they are clearly not, that party does not exist they do it to change opinion. They also misrepresent many stories. Maddow lied about a publicity company being the creator of the Obama Hitler picture, just flat lied because she did not do the research to find out the truth. When the Okeefe did the ACORN report undercover, David Shuster said that he was arrested for trying to bug a senators phone, when in fact he was charged with a misdemeanor of entering under false pretences, that is a flat misrepresentation of the truth. Maddow deemed the incident as Water Gate Jr. when it was clearly not. Every night Ed Schultz say that the republicans are racist and that they hate Americans and people who are laid off, that is a false statement yet he repeats it everyday.

If you dont think that the style of reporting or what is reported comes from the top in all the news organizations I think you are a bit naive. I dont witness racism where I live but I am sure it exists where I live.

Again Hannity is not news he is opinion.