21-02-2005 15:02									#1
	Fox News apparently has trouble accurately quoting people Put an end to popups!

A bonus double pair of items here:

http://mediamatters.org/items/200502040010

quote: Distorting FDR: Bennett and Hume claimed father of Social Security system wanted privatization In an attempt to promote President Bush's plan to partially privatize Social Security, nationally syndicated radio host and former Reagan administration official William J. Bennett and FOX News managing editor and anchor Brit Hume falsely claimed that President Franklin Delano Roosevelt advocated replacing Social Security with private accounts. In fact, while Roosevelt advocated "voluntary contributory annuities" to supplement guaranteed Social Security benefits, he never proposed replacing those benefits with private accounts. On the February 3 edition of FOX News' Hannity & Colmes, Bennett declared: "Franklin Delano Roosevelt, the guy who established Social Security, said that it would be good to have it replaced by private investment over time. Private investment would be the way to really carry this thing through." Earlier that evening, on FOX News' Special Report with Brit Hume, Hume provided the alleged historical basis for Bennett's claim: HUME: 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." But Roosevelt was not advocating that the present system of guaranteed Social Security benefits "ought to ultimately be supplanted by self-supporting annuity plans." Rather, he was proposing that both mandatory contributions and voluntary annuities would eventually eliminate the need for a different fund which was established to provide pension benefits to Americans who were already too old in 1935 to contribute payroll taxes to the Social Security system. Roosevelt outlined the three major tenets he envisioned for Social Security in the January 17, 1935, speech that Hume quoted. As the Social Security Administration (SSA) has noted, these tenets are: 1) "non-contributory old-age pensions for those who are now too old to build up their own insurance"; 2) "compulsory contributory annuities which in time will establish a self-supporting system for those now young and for future generations"; and 3) "voluntary contributory annuities by which individual initiative can increase the annual amounts received in old age." The second element, "compulsory contributory annuities," is the backbone of Social Security's current system of guaranteed retirement benefits, which are funded with payroll taxes that employees pay throughout their working years. But it was the first element, a retirement benefit fund for those who would never pay into the new system due to advanced age, that Roosevelt said would eventually be "supplanted" -- or made unnecessary -- by both voluntary annuities and compulsory contributions like those in the current system. In his January 17, 1935, speech, he noted: "It is proposed that the Federal Government assume one-half of the cost of the [non-contributory] old-age pension plan [the other half coming from the states], which ought ultimately to be supplanted by self-supporting annuity plans." As the SSA noted, "It was the President's view ... that ultimately the welfare pensions funded by the states with federal contributions would become unnecessary as the two programs of annuities would gradually come to obviate any need for such welfare type programs." During 1935 congressional hearings on Roosevelt's Social Security bill, Edwin Witte, executive director of the Committee on Economic Security (CES), clearly stated that the voluntary accounts were intended as a "separate undertaking" meant to "supplement" the compulsory system, not replace it: "The voluntary system of old-age annuities we suggest as a supplement to the compulsory plan." Further, voluntary annuities would be "similar to those issued by commercial insurance companies" -- as Witte explained -- but they would differ from private accounts in that their funds would be deposited into and paid out of the Social Security trust fund, and they would provide a government-guaranteed benefit like mandatory contributions. Prominent contemporary Democrats support Roosevelt's idea of supplemental government-sponsored investment accounts that are paid for by non-Social Security funds, although unlike Roosevelt's plan, these accounts would not be linked to the trust fund.* Former Social Security associate commissioner James Roosevelt Jr., Roosevelt's grandson, noted in a January 31 Boston Globe op-ed piece: "The implication that FDR would support privatization of America's greatest national program is an attempt to deceive the American people and an outrage." *Correction: When this item was first published, it incorrectly suggested that Roosevelt's plan for "voluntary contributory annuities" was similar to Democrats' proposal for supplemental private investment accounts funded by non-Social Security funds. In fact, the two proposals differ as noted above. Thanks to a reader for pointing this out. — A.S.

They have trouble quoting living people, too, apparently:

quote: "Not one polling place was shut down or overrun and the fact that you have these homicide bombers now, wreaking such hatred and violence while people pray, is to me, an indication of their failure,"

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,148142,00.html

And the real quote from the AP:

quote: "Not one polling place was shut down or overrun and the fact that you have these suicide bombers now, wreaking such hatred and violence while people pray, is to me, an indication of their failure,"

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tm...o/iraq_senators

Oh Fox News

	21-02-2005 16:12									#2
	Inflate your Upload Space

I'd be careful about putting any stock into what a hack partisan outfit like Media Matters has to say. The whole Brit Hume thing is much ado about nothing. Lefties are just desperate to get their Dan Rather and/or Eason Jordan...

	21-02-2005 16:49									#3
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

Media outlets misquoting! OMG!!!

I hate the practice, but is this the best you could come up with?

	21-02-2005 17:08									#4
	Increase Your PM Length

The FDR thing isn't even a misquote. They're just upset that Hume selectively quoted an unclear FDR statement in a way that supports private SS accounts.

	21-02-2005 20:45									#5
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

haw haw, righties got their panties in a bunch because FOX got pwned

	21-02-2005 20:47									#6
	Remove this text

Was Eason Jordan wrong?

	21-02-2005 21:12									#7
	Got spare money?

quote: Originally posted by Drake Tungsten I'd be careful about putting any stock into what a hack partisan outfit like Media Matters has to say. The whole Brit Hume thing is much ado about nothing. Lefties are just desperate to get their Dan Rather and/or Eason Jordan...

Well, admittedly, this is really nothing like the Dan Rather incident. One expects FOX to be biased, to report facts selectively, and to be inaccurate. A couple of weeks ago, I was on Dayside, and before the show began, some producer type was joking around with us (us being a couple Democrats) saying that it didn't matter if FOX was incredibly biased, or anything, because more people watched it than CNN. This seems to be their motto. People watch it, therefore, they have a mandate to do anything they want. While that is their choice, they shouldn't delude the public by calling it "news."
However, Dan Rather, while being politically center-left, has a history of credibility. So, really, you're right. This is much ado about nothing. I mean, no one would be suprised, or anything...

	21-02-2005 21:17									#8
	Put an end to popups!

quote: Originally posted by chegitz guevara Was Eason Jordan wrong?

we don't know, the tape of the event was never released.

	21-02-2005 21:39									#9
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

Fox has a policy of never saying suicide bombers, since to their deluded minds it puts all the focus ont he attacker, making you ask why they would do so, vs. the victim, therebye making you denounce the attack.

The problem is, all bombs are "homicide bombs", so the term is equally valid for all bombings, including even aerial bombing (meant to commit homicide most of the time). Hence it is trully meaningless.

Obviously it has failed to catch on with anyone besides Fox.

	22-02-2005 02:46									#10
	Full PM-box? Change here!

quote: Originally posted by chegitz guevara Was Eason Jordan wrong?

Not only was the tape not released, he refused to give Barney Frank specific details in order to corroborate his claims. BF said he would vigorously investigate if only Eason would provide specificity.

W/o tape and without corroboration of claims the only thing left is to consider Eason was talking out of his ass considering the plethora of eyewitnesses that substantiate his boasts to anti-US audiences of US targeting journalists. Course his now claims were echoed earlier via the Guardian in Nov. 2004 wherein he claimed torture and execution. He got a pass then but this second time around he got caught.

As to whether Eason was right or wrong that would entail actual investigative work, something Eason was woefully short of providing on this issue even to what assumedly would be friendly ears such as Barney Frank.

	22-02-2005 02:51									#11
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

homocide bombers

Not too many minutes longer and someone will come and say well DUGH they KILL and the BOMB thus HOMOCIDE BOMBERS! These usually are the people who never learned to chew gum and walk the same time or eat with their mouths closed.

	22-02-2005 02:54									#12
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

Well its merely a matter of intent now isn't it. Their ultimate intent is not suicide is it? If that was the case they could do it in the privacy oif their own home out of the way of innocent people getting harmed.

	22-02-2005 02:57									#13
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

Ogie, you are not seriously suggesting that calling suicide bombers homocide bombers is a proper thing to do? Murdoch is waiting for you, remember to put on some lipstick

	22-02-2005 03:00									#14
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

quote: Originally posted by Ogie Oglethorpe Well its merely a matter of intent now isn't it. Their ultimate intent is not suicide is it? If that was the case they could do it in the privacy oif their own home out of the way of innocent people getting harmed.

Ya realize that Tim McVeigh was also a 'homicide bomber' when you get down to it? I don't think that is what is trying to be conveyed when naming them that term.

	22-02-2005 03:06									#15
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

quote: Originally posted by Pekka Ogie, you are not seriously suggesting that calling suicide bombers homocide bombers is a proper thing to do? Murdoch is waiting for you, remember to put on some lipstick

Coolio, $$$ galore.

	22-02-2005 03:07									#16
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

well.. I guess so... where's my lipstick damn it.. can't find it...