bjbj P)dk David: Here's another way to phrase
it. The public option, which is the government-run
plan, also if guests say public option, we
can't really do much about that because quotes
are quotes. But if they could, they'd do something
about those damn quotes, too. So this is an
email, Louis, Sammon's email had an impact.
Next day on "Special Report", unlike the previous
broadcast, no references to the public option
without using versions of, you know, these
pre-approved talking points here, "the so-called
public option", "the public option, which
is government-run", so on and so forth. So
this is evidence, Louis, not that most of
us needed any confirmation, right, but just
for those... Louis: Confirmation of an agenda.
David: Confirmation that Fox News is literally
getting bright ideas from GOP talking point
experts. Frank Luntz is great at what he does,
right? Louis: Right. David: And it's no surprise
Republicans want to use those talking points.
But if you were trying to deliver fair and
balanced news, why would you use talking points
developed by Republicans, developed even by
people like Wendell Potter, who was on the
show, of course, the Cigna whistleblower.
They're taking advice based on what a Republican
pollster said is language that makes people
be against the public option, and they're
making it a rule, not on commentary shows,
Louis, but on hard news on Fox. What else
do we need? It's pathetic! Louis: There it
is. David: Now, this is exactly where many
people... many defenders of Fox News will
say the same things Fox says when you call
them out on bias. They say, 'Well, listen,
on the Bill O'Reilly show, we have 12 liberal
guests a week and 12 conservative guests a
week.' During the 12:00 news hour, to go to
hard news, we have just as many Democratic
congressmen as Republican congressmen. And
that's not a lie. What they won't mention
is this pervasive, active, proactive decision
to use language that has been hand-crafted
by GOP pollsters as more effective in turning
people against whatever it is, in this case
it's the public option, and towards the narrative
that Republicans and, lo and behold, big coincidence,
also Fox News wants to put out there. Now,
Bill Sammon claimed not to know it was a GOP
talking point. By the way, he's been introduced...
if you say he's just a news guy, he's been
introduced by Bill o'Reilly, by Chris Wallace,
as conservative, he doesn't dispute it. Here's
some of the names of the books he's written:
"At Any Cost: How Al Gore Tried to Steal the
Election". "Fighting Back: The War on Terrorism
from Inside the Bush White House". "Misunderestimated:
President Battles Terrorism, Media Bias, and
Bush Haters". These are the books he's written,
right? And it turns out that in this case,
Louis, not only was speculation right that
Fox News was just kind of casually against
the public option, they were taking GOP talking
points developed by Frank Luntz and passing
them around to reporters, I'm trying to make
this as clear as possible, and saying, 'This
is the rule for how we report on health care.'
We report on health care the same way that
GOP pollsters and talking point developers
have said helps Republicans. Louis: Right.
David: That's the policy. Louis: But anyone
with a good head on their shoulders who watches
Fox News could draw their... could come to
this conclusion, but... David: I'm not going
to say... Louis: But now we just have an email
that gives us proof. David: That's exactly
right. Louis: Yeah. David: But of course,
we can deny. People will deny this. I can
see the comments now: No, no, you guys are
wrong, that's not what it is, it's just that
it is a government-run option, so that's the
way that Fox decided to do it. They said this
was the most accurate way. That's what it
is. Louis: Perhaps whoever leaked this email
will be arrested for rape or molestation or
something like that, you know? David: That's
right. You know what? Julian Assange, there's
calls for Julian Assange to be taken dead
or alive, preferably dead, according to some.
Whoever leaked this email, Louis, these are
secrets! We can't be revealing that Fox News
is using GOP talking points as a point of
fact for hard news. Louis: Shouldn't have
pissed off Rupert Murdoch. David: It's treason,
Louis. It is treason, and we need whoever
leaked this email dead or alive. Louis: Whoever
leaked this email is anti-American. David:
[Laughs] That's right. They hate this country.
Louis: They do. They're terrorists. David:
They're also against, apparently, government-run
health care, which is... it's like... government-run
health care is like somebody who's pro-abortion,
they want as many abortions as possible. Louis:
Right. David: We laugh about it, but it's,
hey, if anybody knows how to use language
effectively, it's Republicans. Louis: The
language exists. David: Fox News is saying
what the hell, Republicans are controlling
language, let's just use the exact same language
on our airwaves. No reason to use unbiased
language, let's use the great biased language
that the Republicans have developed. Louis:
Sure. David: Should Qatar host the World Cup
in 2022, Louis? Louis: Definitely. David:
You say yes? Louis: Oh, yeah. David: Why?
Louis: I just think it would be great for
that area of the world. David: But they...
let me give you my arguments against you.
Louis: OK. David: Number one, they don't really
have a soccer history, and there's so many
other countries that have never had a chance
to host a World Cup that really have a richer
history of soccer. Louis: Yeah, but I mean,
are we really going to have the World Cup
in Iran? David: No, but why do we need that?
Louis: Well, there's a lot of history of soccer
there. David: Even without Iran, we can still
have many other places. Here's the real issue,
though... Louis: But if you had to pick somewhere
in the Middle East? David: Well, who says
we have to? Louis: Well, let's just say that's
the area, where would it be? David: Yeah,
I don't know. I'm not sure. What other teams...
what other Middle East teams, anybody back
there know, what other Middle East countries
have soccer teams that are somewhat... Louis:
Iraq? I'm pretty sure Iraq does. David: Yeah.
They're obviously not going to have one there.
Libya? Natan Paman: Iran. David: We can't
hear him. Natan: Iran does, and Israel. Louis:
Iran, Israel, yeah. David: Well, I don't think
we're getting any World Cup in Israel anytime
soon, that's for sure. Louis: See? David:
Here's my real issue with it. There are no
laws against domestic violence in Qatar. There's
no shelters, there's no women's groups offering
assistance to women who have been the victims
of domestic assault. Sexual violence against
women and children is rising in the country;
since 2004, there's been 3000 cases reported
to the Qatar Foundation for the Protection
of Women and Children, which is the country's
key group. And in a related issue, and this
impacts men and women, Qatar is a known transit
and destination point for human trafficking.
Is this a reason not to have a World Cup there?
Having a World Cup is a huge boom to the economy,
it is a huge honor. Should we be rewarding
countries that are doing that? Louis: But
think about it this way. Having the World
Cup there could have a social impact on the
area. David: I get that. Louis: It could be
a good thing. It could be a catalyst for change.
David: Here's the thing. I looked... I know
that this last World Cup was very recent.
South Africa? Women's rights exist on paper,
but there's significant violence and discrimination.
From the research I've done, there's no indication
that anything has improved. I know it's only
been a few months. We'll see some years from
now. Women continue to face discrimination
in law and in practice. They are inadequately
protected, violence within the family. Family
law discriminates against women. I don't know.
I mean, at the same time, you're right, having
the World Cup there could shine a light on
the country. But what's the line? I mean,
would we have a World Cup in North Korea to
shine a light on what's going on there? Because
you know, we do that, where's all the money
going? Louis: Right. David: It's going to
Kim Jong-il. Would we have a World Cup in
Iran? Is having a World Cup in any way complicit
of the way the country is run, of the government?
To some extent, it has to be, does it not?
Louis: Perhaps, I suppose. David: You don't
think there's any reflection on the opinion
of the country from who decides where World
Cups are based on what goes on in that country?
You believe they are completely disconnected?
Louis: No, they are obviously connected. David:
So where is the line? If it is not Qatar,
is it North Korea? Is it Iran? Louis: Well,
the country has to be willing to host the
event. And I'm not saying the world wants
one in North Korea, but I don't know. David:
If North Korea was willing to host it, would
we say, "Sure, we'll do it, it might shine
a light on what's going on there," or maybe
we don't even mention that, we say, "They
want it, we do a World Cup there." Louis:
You know what? I would be for a World Cup
in North Korea. David: You would be... you
think that it would expose what's going on
there? Louis: Definitely. Of course it would.
David: I don't know. Louis: It'll never happen,
though. David: I think it's a bad idea. I
don't think it should happen. Let's take a
break, we'll come back. Today on the bonus
show we will be talking about some interviews
that we're working on. You will be shocked
somebody that may be on the show soon. I don't
even want to mention it because I don't want
to ruin it. We will also talk about the global
cooling propaganda that's circulating, Tony
Perkins in a Fox News love-fest, so much more.
And much more on the show, too, so stay tuned.
Announcer: The David Pakman Show at www.DavidPakman.com.
Transcript provided by Alex Wickersham. For
transcription, translation, captions, and
subtitles, contact Alex at directtranslation@gmail.com.
Announcer: The David Pakman Show at www Normal
Microsoft Office Word Announcer: The David
Pakman Show at www tulo Documento Microsoft
Office Word MSWordDoc Word.Document.8
