McClellan Confirms Fox News Use of Administration Talking Points

File this under "Nice to Have It Official, But ... Duh!"

Via Think Progress, Chris Matthews on Hardball last night got former White House press secretary Scott McClellan to admit that "the nighttime guys" on Fox News routinely used White House talking points:

MATTHEWS: So, you wouldn’t use Brit Hume to sell stuff for them, but you’d use some of the nighttime guys?

MCCLELLAN: Yeah, I would separate that out, and certainly I, you know, they’ll say, that’s because they agree with those views in the White House.

MATTHEWS: Well, they didn’t need a script though, did they?

MCCLELLAN: No, well, probably not.

Keith Olbermann pursued the revelations as well, with McClellan conceding "it was done frequently."

In March 2007, as Democratic presidential candidates considered attending a Fox News-hosted debate (and Dennis Kucinich called the outlet "a legitimate news agency"), kos asked:

The question is, why lend legitimacy to an operation that is trying to actively working in concert with the Republican Party to destroy Democrats and everything progressive?

Are Democrats convinced yet?

(Ongoing discussion in progress in eclecticbrotha's recommended diary as well.)

•  Color me shocked!

  Not.

  by MaskedKat on Sat Jul 26, 2008 at 03:23:08 PM PDT

  •  Like I've been saying for the past year...

    Starve The Beast

    Rupert Murdoch and his media megaphone is openly hostile to our agenda and our representatives. They will only use your appearance to distort your message and derail our mission. Studies have proven that their audience is unreceptive, and even antagonistic, to us. Your appearance will be rewarded more with ridicule than respect.

    by KingOneEye on Sat Jul 26, 2008 at 06:34:03 PM PDT

•  I would love to see the face

  of someone who is actually surprised by this.

  by Spiffydigs on Sat Jul 26, 2008 at 03:23:33 PM PDT

  •  I have a brother-in-law....

    by ROADRUNNER DEM on Sat Jul 26, 2008 at 03:28:26 PM PDT

  •  And that's not directed at you my dear.

    Although it gives all of us a tiny bit of credibility, it's still a wonder to me that FOX is still able to function.

    by Spiffydigs on Sat Jul 26, 2008 at 03:28:48 PM PDT

  •  Maybe Brit Hume? Since he seems to be

    a True Believer (and Jon Stewart has his depressed Bassett face down pat)?  Some of those people at FOX had to be true believers; Faust to the contrary, there is not enough money to buy your soul.

    by entlord1 on Sat Jul 26, 2008 at 03:54:35 PM PDT

•  Why do people do the

  "via ThinkProgress" or whatever other blog when the topic has been on the rec list for nearly 24 hours? This happens all the time.

  by lapis on Sat Jul 26, 2008 at 03:25:46 PM PDT

  •  If you use a quote--give the source.

    Doesn't matter if it has been diaried 20 times---sources still need to be recognized.

    by Phil S 33 on Sat Jul 26, 2008 at 03:28:06 PM PDT

    •  but the source

      could just as easily be the other diary. Think Progress, after all, didn't transcribe the Hardball interview -- they linked to it.

      SusanG explained below, though, that the transcription link was not in the dkos diary.

      by lapis on Sat Jul 26, 2008 at 03:42:47 PM PDT

  •  Because the material in the blockquote ...

    is not in the diary. It's at Think Progress. And it is linked so people can verify the source.

    by SusanG on Sat Jul 26, 2008 at 03:28:54 PM PDT

    •  Thanks

      Nothing at wrong with being , uh, professional.  I appreciate the link.

      by Othniel on Sat Jul 26, 2008 at 03:59:14 PM PDT

•  Crime #1,001 that will go unpunished at either

  end.

  FOX should have "News" forcibly removed from its brand at the very least.

  ::::

  by nowheredesign on Sat Jul 26, 2008 at 03:27:49 PM PDT

  •  re

    Can we at least try this one for treason?

    --Cookiesandmilk

    No. That's off the table.

    --Nancy

    by cookiesandmilk on Sat Jul 26, 2008 at 03:31:10 PM PDT

•  Which makes Obama's recent interviews with FOX

  all the more reprehensible. There's no compromise with this right-wing mouthpiece - they must be destroyed.

  by Shane Hensinger on Sat Jul 26, 2008 at 03:30:12 PM PDT

•  Well look who just caught up

  We, of course have suspected all of this for years. The shame is that nothing will happen because of the revelation.

  by MargaretPOA on Sat Jul 26, 2008 at 03:30:23 PM PDT

•  You mean Chris Matthews, right?

  Because he's "never been told what to say" by anyone. :)

  by rdxtion on Sat Jul 26, 2008 at 03:30:31 PM PDT

  •  Cripes, yes

    Thanks so much for the catch, and fixed.

    by SusanG on Sat Jul 26, 2008 at 03:34:19 PM PDT

    •  No problem!

      That was my favorite part - when he started just going off on Scott about how no one ever told him what to say.  As much as we make fun of Chris, he is his own man...

      by rdxtion on Sat Jul 26, 2008 at 03:40:22 PM PDT

•  Opinion Media

  And I hope that when Obama is President and the Democrats have 56-62 Senate Seats and 240-265 House seats that they treat Fox News as opinion media and refuse to credential them.

  by davefromqueens on Sat Jul 26, 2008 at 03:30:32 PM PDT

  •  Or just give them a special

    "opinion media" credential like Cenk Uygur once suggested.

    Then again, when the Obama Administration gets going and they're no longer getting their talking points from the White House, they'll actually have to go out and work to find stories to report on...maybe it'll be too expensive to do that and Murdoch will shut it down! :)

    by Cali Scribe on Sat Jul 26, 2008 at 03:42:58 PM PDT

    •  Nah. They'll just make shit up

      like they do now. Maybe they'll do stories on Bat Boys and aliens, with bad Photoshop work.

      by jck on Sat Jul 26, 2008 at 04:36:44 PM PDT

•  Sadly...

  as long as Fox keeps hiring "News Babes" they'll always have an audience.

  People like my father cant get enough of Fox News.

  by PLU Tim on Sat Jul 26, 2008 at 03:30:54 PM PDT

  •  then just ask him to turn the sound off

    that way he can 'look' and not be ruined for life.

    by ROADRUNNER DEM on Sat Jul 26, 2008 at 03:32:40 PM PDT

  •  Then the next step has to be...

    ...creating an FCC that will strike Rupert Murdoch & Co. down hard!

    The Obama administration and the 111th Congresss must expand the FCC back to seven member (from its current five), allowing Obama to appoint two commissioners quickly to insure that action will be taken against these SOBs.

    If it means going after the licenses of Fox-owned stations and those of their fellow right-wing allies who are Fox affiliates, so be it.  I am certain the message will be heard quite clearly and quickly.

    by Randall Sherman on Sat Jul 26, 2008 at 03:37:25 PM PDT

•  Unethical Outsourcing?

  Seems to me that the GAO should look into this. I wouldn't be surprised to find that there is an agreement (verbal/unofficial) between FOX News and the White House Communications Office whereby they directly push "word for word" news articles to be broadcast for the White House. That isn't reporting the news. That is called Advertising, Marketing, or Lobbying for the White House. If they are found to be tied that closely to the Communications Office it could be a violation of government ethics or contracting rules.

  As a government employee, I couldn't "ask" a company to do work for me with or without some sort of compensation without a helluva lot of contracting paperwork on record. What FOX News might be up to is something that could be considered unethical in the eyes of the GAO.

  Wynter

  by Wynter on Sat Jul 26, 2008 at 03:32:30 PM PDT

  •  sorta like paying Armstrong Williams for

    spinning 'no child left behind' or the fake reporter at the daily WH briefings.

    by ROADRUNNER DEM on Sat Jul 26, 2008 at 03:35:05 PM PDT

    •  but Armstrong is still going strong

      In the GOP tokens are hard to come by; it is so much so that the GOP in SC had a fundraiser for his brother who is a Democratic state senator.

      And people wonder why SC stays so red.......

      by entlord1 on Sat Jul 26, 2008 at 03:56:48 PM PDT

  •  it's completely unethical...

    I gave the subject a cursory google and was reminded about how the Bush administration also used retired generals to promote opinions about the strategy and the validity of the Iraq war:
    (I think you'll agree that this is pertinent)

    http://www.prwatch.org/...

    "The Pentagon military analyst program unveiled in last week's exposé by David Barstow in the New York Times was not just unethical but illegal. It violates, for starters, specific restrictions that Congress has been placing in its annual appropriation bills every year since 1951. According to those restrictions, "No part of any appropriation contained in this or any other Act shall be used for publicity or propaganda purposes within the United States not heretofore authorized by the Congress."

    As explained in a March 21, 2005 report by the Congressional Research Service, "publicity or propaganda" is defined by the U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) to mean either (1) self-aggrandizement by public officials, (2) purely partisan activity, or (3) "covert propaganda." By covert propaganda, GAO means information which originates from the government but is unattributed and made to appear as though it came from a third party.

    It goes on....
    "These concerns about "covert propaganda" were also the basis for the GAO's strong standard for determining when government-funded video news releases are illegal:

    The failure of an agency to identify itself as the source of a prepackaged news story misleads the viewing public by encouraging the viewing audience to believe that the broadcasting news organization developed the information. The prepackaged news stories are purposefully designed to be indistinguishable from news segments broadcast to the public. When the television viewing public does not know that the stories they watched on television news programs about the government were in fact prepared by the government, the stories are, in this sense, no longer purely factual -- the essential fact of attribution is missing."

    by foolmanchoo on Sat Jul 26, 2008 at 06:02:46 PM PDT

    •  and then I found this too...

      ughhhh

      http://www.youtube.com/...

      by foolmanchoo on Sat Jul 26, 2008 at 06:10:39 PM PDT

•  Harold Ford, are you listening?

  by steelman on Sat Jul 26, 2008 at 03:35:06 PM PDT

  •  hmph

    Like he doesn't know already.

    by bythesea on Sat Jul 26, 2008 at 04:30:38 PM PDT

•  The fact that FOX has been playing the role of...

  that once "credible" media source known as PRAVDA comes as no surprise.  What does concern me is that nobody all these years has had the tennis balls to accuse them openly.  

  Come to find out, Murdoch sits on the board of the A.P. as well....

  Such strange bedfellows...Yes?

  by LamontCranston on Sat Jul 26, 2008 at 03:39:39 PM PDT

  •  Come on now Pravda usually got the date

    right and maybe the weather; also if you didn't write as told, they shot you.  Wonder how Fox punishes disobedience?

    by entlord1 on Sat Jul 26, 2008 at 03:58:04 PM PDT

    •  I imagine

      things work their kind of like that law firm on the TV show Angel.

      by bythesea on Sat Jul 26, 2008 at 04:31:52 PM PDT

      •  er, "there" not "their" n/t

        by bythesea on Sat Jul 26, 2008 at 04:32:17 PM PDT

•  D'uh is right.

  And, I would ask further, what are honest reporters - the few that may exist in television journalism doing about their own networks?

  Here's a little diary pimping of my diary from this a.m. on that topic.

  by michele2 on Sat Jul 26, 2008 at 03:43:31 PM PDT

•  "Are Democrats convinced yet?"

  depends on what dems we are talking about.
  the ones that took it off the table?
  the DINO's?
  the 3+ years legacy ones?

  by pickandshovel on Sat Jul 26, 2008 at 03:46:33 PM PDT

•  Okay, we always knew this

  But to have confirmation from someone who was in on it is huge...especially when we're trying to make the case to people who don't pay as much attention to what's going on.

  It will be one of the supreme ironies of this administration if Scotty McClellan becomes the John Dean of a new generation.

  by GrouchoKossak on Sat Jul 26, 2008 at 03:48:40 PM PDT

•  Beating Fox

  You have to beat Murdoch first....with Bushco controlling all gov agencies right now he is safe to continue....the question will be how soon after Jan 2009 does the heat come on....not if...but when.  However the news will be what is being found as leftovers from Bushco within the various agencies leaving the Murdoch deals to page 3....and giving him some time while the ratings continue to fall...more senior on=air talent moves to the side...and I suspect Ailes will be Murdoch's big sacrificial lamb but will it be enough??

  by radiomarti on Sat Jul 26, 2008 at 03:49:46 PM PDT

•  What *Does* Matthews Get?

  I watched Matthews a lot during Scotty McLiar's tenure (then cut way down, switching over to Olbermann for my political news). Matthews kissed a lot of Republican ass during those days - ever the unprincipled opportunist. But he also often seemed uncannily on the same page as his Republican friends.

  In that McLiar interview, Matthews went out of his way to deny that he'd ever received any of that White House "crap" (then shifted his eyes to look into the camera to make the point). But Matthews is a Republican himself. He's currently running to succeed Specter as Pennsylvania's senator in 2010, as Matthews blurted on Colbert's show when Colbert was telecasting from Philadelphia during PA primaries (as penance for blurting the surprise that Clinton would guest later in the week). And Matthews spent a lot of airtime pimping his Republican brother who was running for PA lt. governor in 2006 (he lost). How much of Matthews' talking points during the peak of Rove's PR operation, 2000-2006, did Matthews actually get from the White House? And does he really think that getting it secondhand from a "friend" like Tom Delay makes it (or him) any less "crap"?

  by DocGonzo on Sat Jul 26, 2008 at 03:51:18 PM PDT

•  The "Obama is too young" argument:

  I want to point out that the Republican Party chose Richard Nixon to run for President in 1960.  He was an overwhelming choice over nearest rival Nelson Rockefeller.

  On Election Day, Nixon was forty-seven years old (and nine months...).

  On Election Day, 2008, Barack Obama will be forty-seven years old (and three months...).

  Nixon, of course, was beaten by a younger man.  He made up for it eight years later by beating an older man.

  by algebrateacher on Sat Jul 26, 2008 at 03:56:36 PM PDT

  •  However the underlying "logic"

    is that the younger presidents got us into hot water due to their inexperience. I have seen no one analyze what follies were committed by the oldest presidents which would be interesting.

    by entlord1 on Sat Jul 26, 2008 at 04:00:49 PM PDT

    •  Yeah start with "Reagonomics"

      The big assault on the middle class, the dollar and fiscal responsibility.

      Reagan and the 2 Bushes robbed America blind and will leave it in debt our grandchildren will still be paying off.

      by vanguardia on Sat Jul 26, 2008 at 04:14:57 PM PDT

    •  Five oldest Presidents (on day one)

      5.  Zachary Taylor (64, died in office after about a year and a half)

      4.  George Bush I (64)

      3.  James Buchanan (65, Bleeding Kansas, secession and creation of the Confederacy)

      2.  William Henry Harrison (68, died in office after a month)

      1.  Ronald Reagan (69)

      Four of the five defeated Democrats to become President.  The lone Democrat, Buchanan, was part of the "doughface" faction of the Democratic Party that favored southern interests over northern.

      by algebrateacher on Sat Jul 26, 2008 at 04:25:51 PM PDT

      •  yep that answers that particular meme

        seems like age is more likely to bring death in office than it is to bring wisdom.

        by entlord1 on Sat Jul 26, 2008 at 04:32:56 PM PDT

        •  Five youngest Presidents on day one:

          1.  Theodore Roosevelt (42 when he succeeded; re-elected)

          2.  Kennedy (43, arguably on his way to re-election)

          3.  Bill Clinton (46, re-elected)

          4.  Ulysses S. Grant (46, re-elected)

          5.  Grover Cleveland (47, lost first re-election bid but won the second)

          That's why the Republicans are terrified of Obama!  They're worried they'll be out of the White House for eight years!

          by algebrateacher on Sat Jul 26, 2008 at 04:46:49 PM PDT

•  Just a comment on Tweety

  My brilliant stepdaughter, who may one day save the planet, was invited to this thing called the Academy of Achievement. It travels, apparently, but she, lucky one, was invited to this year's event which was held in Kona on the Big Island. (She's a Rhodes Scholar and 125 students were invited.)

  Anyway, aside from the students, there were 50 or so celebs from all walks of life -- Wes Clark, Sally Field, Rick Atkinson, Nick Kristoff, George Lucas)

  And Tweety. Of all the people she met -- and she has become email pals with Sally Field, how cool is that? -- she said Tweety was the least impressive. She basically thought he was a dick.

  She said he was, more than anyone including George Lucas, amazingly impressed with himself.

  She has not been on the anti-Tweety bandwagon, being in Oxford and all, but I thought her take was spot on. He is, according to her, a self-important dolt.

  That pretty much sums it up.

  by AtlantaJan on Sat Jul 26, 2008 at 04:05:30 PM PDT

  •  That line up

    of celebs sounds like something from the Surreal Life reality show.

    by bythesea on Sat Jul 26, 2008 at 04:35:10 PM PDT

•  10 TO 1

  Obama goes on Fox.

  by Limelite on Sat Jul 26, 2008 at 04:14:29 PM PDT

  •  Didn't he already?

    Besides, remember, he went (via video) on the 700 Club(!).  FNC is nothing compared to that.

    by bythesea on Sat Jul 26, 2008 at 04:36:43 PM PDT

•  That %$#@*$% Kucinich

  (and Dennis Kucinich called the outlet "a legitimate news agency"),

  Why continue to assail a fellow democrat? And practically the only one in the house willing to take on this screwed up administration. You won't have to look long are hard to find a stupid statement by any politician. Why demean Dennis Kucinich just to make a point about Faux News?

  by Klick2con10ue on Sat Jul 26, 2008 at 04:28:06 PM PDT

•  Dealing with Faux News

  This may have already been said, but for what it’s worth, here’s what Democrats need to do to Faux News.

  1. A complete boycott of all party officials speaking to or appearing on any Faux News show.

  2. No credentials for the convention (unless they’re designated as an opinion, not news, organization).

  3. No news releases from the party, and that includes local affiliates. See how long local stations stay with these jokers when democrats all over the country stop talking to them.

  3. When Obama wins the White House, pull their credentials for daily WHite House briefings.

  They are to the Republican party what Pravda was to the Soviet Polit Bureau, and have forfeited their role as a legitimate news gathering organization. I say, play hardball with these bastards -- throw a couple high and tight, knock them down and then cut them off. Let’s see then how long they want to keep playing this little game. The aided in enabling the worst (p)resident this country has seen in 150 years and they need to pay.

  by Holly Martins on Sat Jul 26, 2008 at 04:43:04 PM PDT

•  I'm gonna fucking disappoint you all!

  So the White House sent out talking points to Fox News.  So?  That does not mean that these are "marching orders."  They have a clear and good defense.  They can say:  "Hey, we looked at the White House positions and talking points, we made an independent journalistic evaluation of them, and we decided which elements of these talking points had validity so we would use them, and which ones did not.  That's what everyone does."

  In other words, this is so inside the beltway.  This is soooo petty.  This is sooo fucking pointless.

  All of us who know that Fox Noise is a fucking propaganda outlet that spews forth lies, big lies, and smears, and all of us who know that Fox Noise employs no journalists, only partisan hacks who mouth the party line and click their heels for money, and all of us who know that most people on Fox Noise barely made it through high school by playing sports and taking Basketweaving 101 and really don't give a shit about education or history or political science or government or the constitution, well all of us do not need any further information to convince us.

  You hear me?  The case has been made.  Like years ago.  

  For those people who watch Fox Noise and think that it is news, they are in trouble because their membership in the Flat Earth Society is expiring and they need to come up with another 35 cents for another ten years of membership.  And living in your mother-in-law's single-wide with no job and the Ford Escort on blocks, that's not easy these days.

  by Dustbowl Observer on Sat Jul 26, 2008 at 05:08:15 PM PDT

  •  I dunno

    this still worries me for some reason..

    Fox News Channel once again ended the year as cable’s top news network, followed by CNN, with few radical ratings dips or surges for either network. But among the channels with smaller audience totals -- MSNBC, CNBC and CNN Headline News -- 2007 was a year of growth.

    There's simply no way to degrade this fact.

    by Spiffydigs on Sat Jul 26, 2008 at 05:34:33 PM PDT

    •  I am afraid you are right

      of course the good news is that this is still with a relatively small fraction of the general population, but the devoted viewers they have - it's kind of a chilling thought.

      by Dustbowl Observer on Sat Jul 26, 2008 at 05:43:07 PM PDT

•  just FYI

  everybody, knew this already.  this is being treated as a revelation, but does anyone remember the story from 2002 I believe, when people in Orrin Hatch's office were caught red-handed hacking into Dems' computers and sending their findings on to Fox?

  its not a question of Fox News' legitimacy, and Obama's appearance there, for example, isn't about its legitimacy, although people try to make it about that. they have none. its just about reaching viewers.  they have many, many regular viewers.  there are many ways to try to wake them out of their slumber.  calling them out is one.  appearing there and disrupting their narrative is another.  if FoxNews could be brought down by the sheer force of will of those who hate what they do for a living, it would certainly have happened by now.  fighting against the entrenched right winginess in our media will take a multi-pronged approach, for a sustained period of time.

  by itsbenj on Sat Jul 26, 2008 at 05:20:45 PM PDT

  •  Amen!

    Though I predict this will be treated with the same puppy-gloves that the Imus thing did.  It's sad.

    by Spiffydigs on Sat Jul 26, 2008 at 05:37:03 PM PDT

•  I agree with what you say, though i do not

  watch TV news and haven't done so since 1984 so i would not differentiate FOXnews from CNN if you hide the logos.

  Having said that, i just think that boycott has never been led to anything good. Boycotting is not an efficient way of discrediting a news channel or agency. I think the best way is to engage them and talk to them and let them broadcast their bias. If they have viewers, well they would stay around and if their market share dwindles, well they would go out of business sooner or later.  

  by Mutual Assured Destruction on Sat Jul 26, 2008 at 05:32:15 PM PDT

•  Fox did it AGAIN this morning!....

  I stumbled on the channel while brushing my teeth, and the Fox reporter in London had just completed a 10-minute interview with Obama, which will be aired Monday morning.  The two questions this reporter wanted answered the most were (drumbeat).....

  Why can't you utter the three words, "The Surge worked"???
  What made you decide not to visit the military installations?
  I guarantee you those were not questions coming from the mind of the Fox reporter.  These were handpicked questions meant to put Obama on the defensive, probably given straight from the McCain campaign (or the White House) to Fox.  

  It truly is sickening that even the "journalists" at Fox News frame every reference to Obama from a conservative "neo-con" point of view.  There is no objectivity from those posing as reporters, let alone from Hannity and O'Really.  It really is America's version of Pravda or Tass.

  by Roxpert on Sat Jul 26, 2008 at 05:36:35 PM PDT

•  They executed Julius Streicher didn't they?

  Rupert Murdoch seems cut from the same cloth.

  The rise of Der Stürmer

  Beginning in 1924, Streicher used Der Stürmer as a mouthpiece not only for general anti-semitic attacks, but for calculated smear campaigns against specific Jews.

  Compare:

  The Most Powerful Name in Propaganda

  Beginning in 1996, Murdoch used Der News Corp. as a mouthpiece not only for general anti-liberal attacks, but for calculated smear campaigns against specific Democrats.

  by LanceThruster on Sat Jul 26, 2008 at 07:25:33 PM PDT