tv All In With Chris Hayes MSNBC October 25, 2013 3:00am-4:00am EDT
is stocked with the backroom stories of my coming of age politically. you can get it right now online from amazon, of course, right now, or at barnes & noble and other bookstores when you're out there this weekend. so please get a copy of account tip and the gipper" and follow my trail from the senate to air force one to the back rooms of the u.s. capitol and see what makes me tick. as i said, it's the trail of how i got here and something every "hardball" fan will get a kick out of. that's "hardball" for now. thanks for being with us. "all in with chris hayes" starts right now. good evening from new york. i'm chris hayes and we begin with today's hearing on capitol hill. it could have been a constructive effort to get to the bottom of the serious problems with healthcare.gov, but was, instead, used by republicans to grandstand, to obfuscate, and to derail a law they want to destroy. and what made it even worse was that today's hearing focused on, let's say, a weak spot for lawmakers on capitol hill, the internet. >> and again, the internet is not something that you just dump something on, it's not a big truck. it's a series of tubes.
and if you don't understand those tubes can be filled, and if they're filled, when you put your message in and gets in line, it's going to be delayed by anyone who puts in that tube, enormous amounts of material. >> we know that every time congress investigates the internet, we're in for a good time. >> is anyone on these committees charged with regulating the internet understand how any of this internet stuff work? >> i'm not a nerd. >> i'm not a nerd. >> i'm not enough of a nerd. >> maybe we ought the to ask some nerds what this thing actually does. >> i think maybe the word you're looking for is experts. >> the goal of today's hearing before the house energy and commerce committee was to get to the bottom of the massive failure of healthcare.gov. and as one astute tweeter described it, imagine all of your grandparents interrogating a group of facebook product managers. >> so the american people can understand how complicated this is. this might help a little bit. you know, you can't recook eggs. >> i call them gaffes. they're much bigger than glitches, i believe. glitches are little hiccups. >> there's only so many
passwords that i have the mental capacity to make up. >> you really start with one in delaware. >> pardon me, sir? >> did you really start out with one in delaware? that's what i -- the liberal press is reporting. >> i'm not familiar. >> you're going into a restaurant and order two eggs over medium and the server brings you out two eggs scrambled, somebody loses. >> texas republican joe barton, a member of the infamous suicide caucus, who shut down the government for 16 days to kill obama care, spent his time today grilling witnesses on 47 lines of code from the healthcare.gov website related to health privacy rules known as hipaa. >> what that blue highlighted area that's been circled in red says is, you have no reasonable expectation of privacy regarding any communication or data transiting stored on this information system. and mr. -- mrs. campbell and mr. salafa, you all both said you were hipaa compliant.
how in the world can this be hipaa compliant? >> turns out the code barton focused on is irrelevant. tech journalist clay johnson noting, "the whole thing doesn't matter. if it's not displayed to the user, the user can't agree to it. it's not like apple can completely hide terms of service on itunes and still claim people accept the terms." but joe barton is less concerned with the facts than he is about destroying obama care. >> once again here we have my republican colleagues trying to scare everybody -- >> will the gentleman yield? >> no, i will not yield to this monkey court or whatever this is -- >> this is not a monkey court. >> do whatever you want. >> instead of trying to actually get to the bottom of what was wrong with the website, the gop spent their time decrying a broken government they worked day and night to break. >> the botched rollout is all the more reason that the individual mandate penalty should be delayed. >> but this is not the first time congress has overseen the botched rollout of a big new
health care program. in 2006, the house held hearings on the glitch-ridden medicare part "d" rollout under bush. democrats worked with republicans to improve the program. >> i found the newsletter that i sent out to my constituents after medicare part "d," in which i said, i oppose the law that created this program, but people need to be armed with the information requested. >> so imagine if the republicans who attended today's hearing, like, say, congressman tim murphy of pennsylvania -- >> given all these questions, congress should press pause on the it can surgeon and figure out what went wrong first before throwing good money after bad. >> had the same attitude he did when george bush struggled to roll out medicare part "d." >> anytime something is new, there's going to be some glitches. no matter what one does in life, if it's new while learning the ropes of it, it's going to take a little adjustment. >> joining me now, democrat sherrod brown, democrat of ohio. do you feel like you were edified by today's house hearing? are you confident that congress
and capitol hill are going to get to the bottom of this and get it sorted out? >> well, i don't think there was much interest in that hearing in getting to the bottom and sorting it out. look, first of all, there is far too much contracting out in this government. you can look at nsa, you can look at iraq, the privatization of far too much of the armed forces. you know, from foodservice to soldiers and you can look at contracting out here. the fact is, the administration, of course, should have been better prepared, but the opponent to obama care, the ones that shut the government down to get rid of it are now saying delay, delay, delay it. they're of course going to try to do that. in fact, the issue is the president and the white house and hhs have got to fix this. they've got to make it work. a million seniors in my state have already benefited from free checkups and screenings. 100,000 young people have benefited by being on their
parent's health plan. thousands of families have benefited already because they're not denied coverage because of a child's pre-existing conditions. i just spoke to the head of the biggest medicare company in the state, medicaid company in the state today. they are going to sign up at least 100,000 people, come january in the first few months of next year, that didn't have insurance before. this is going to work, we're going to look back on this five years from now and wonder what the fight was about. it's just like medicare. there was opposition in the beginning and people become very satisfied with it over time. >> what did you think of congresswoman beget's comparison to medicare part "d." i remember interviewing you right after the medicare part "d" vote passed. you were in the house and i was profiling you at the time. and i believe you were opposed to that. and i imagine you turned around and worked with your constituents to make sure it worked.
>> yeah, congresswoman degette showed the kind of public official she is in colorado, that she didn't like the bill, i didn't like the bill. i still think it could have been done so differently and so much better, instead of the giveaway to drug and insurance interests, as the bush administration wrote it. but i also knew that my constituents could benefit from a law that could have been better, but was adequate for the needs of some of them and we keep improving it. and you know the affordable care act, as you know, chris, in my state, and in most states, on the average, it saved a senior that stands -- that enrolls in this medicare program, medicare drug program, it saved them about $800 additionally, because of what we did in the affordable care act. that's another benefit that's come from this, as you know. >> and finally, senator, what is your reaction to the members of the house, the house of representatives, who are suing to block the medicaid expansion that republican governor john kasich has pushed there? >> i watched your interview last night. it was almost -- it was almost a painful mismatch to watch, chris. and connie, my wife and, connie schultz and i, were talking about it.
but i'm just amazed by this. i was with a group of people called the chamber of -- the cincinnati chamber of human services today, a group of people that provide for people with less advantage in the community. and they're just incredulous. as people i met yesterday in northwest ohio in brian were, that are taking care of patients with drug problems and mental illness. and they're just incredulous that people would want to deny these hundreds of thousands of people insurance. i was at a fast food restaurant in centerville, ohio, south of dayton today, talking to the workers. none of them had insurance. they're all making $9 and $10 an hour. most of them will be eligible for medicaid. they're going to finally have insurance, their going to live longer as a result, and have better lives, period, as a result of that. >> senator sherrod brown, thank you for your time. let's turn to olympia snowe from maine. senator, i'm curious your perspective on this medicare part "d" analogy. it seems quite germane to me insofar as a lot of democrats
opposed it. but democrats, as it was passed, really did as legislators tried to fix the program, make sure it worked, communicate accurately to their constituents. do you think we will see that from republican lawmakers as we go forward? >> well, you know, i hope so, because in the final analysis, we have to make the law work. and that, obviously, is going to be the responsibility and the obligation of members of congress, as it is to conduct obviously this oversight, to get to the heart of the matter in terms of what was underlined the implementation of this program, because of the enormity of it. but i do recall medicare part "d," because i worked on that initiative when i served in the senate finance committee. yes, there were problems with it in the original rollout, but everybody worked to identify and to address the problems. and the same should be true in this instance in the final analysis. >> what's your sense of where the republican party is on this, having just come through the kind of shutdown battle, having lost that.
are they still -- are the members of the republican party still focused on ending the law, on destroying the law, on gutting the law, or is there going to come a time where they just act as representatives, constituents who need help in signing up for the law or getting the kinks worked out or making the thing work? >> well, it's important, as a lawmaker, obviously, to respond to your constituents. and once a law becomes a law, you really do have, i think, an obligation to make it work. i can't obviously speak for our republicans and how they intend to move forward, but i do know this. that tying the strategy of delaying or defunding obama care was not the right strategy. obviously, was not a winning strategy, and it certainly wasn't an achievable one. and what's more, what is bothersome as well, is that when one party adopts the tactic, unfortunately, the next, you know, in the next term, the other party could adopt a similar tactic. depending on which position
they're in. >> that's right. >> if the majority becomes the minority or vice versa, they each employ the other's old tactics. and so we can see thissed a inany night elm. so that's why we ought to bring the government to a shutdown and near default. i think it's a sad state of affairs and it really was a megaoverreach in the financial analysis. >> former senator, olympia snowe, thank you so much for your time tonight. really appreciate it. >> thank you, chris. >> joining me at the table, clay shirky, author, professor, and expert on internet technologies. and clay, you've been incredibly critical. yes, unsparingly critical of the rollout of healthcare.gov. what has gotten you so frustrated watching this as someone who's a technologyist, written about it. >> what's gotten me so frustrated is that there are a set of managerial mistakes, separate from the technology,
separate from the challenge, that didn't have to happen. it looks to me like what the obama administration was doing was saying, we don't want to hand republicans hand grenades as we go along, if something messes up, if we have a mistake, if we have a glitch. and so they kept the whole thing under such tight wraps, but what they ended up doing in the end was hanging over a gift-wrapped bomb of a much larger size. >> your point is they weren't testing early enough, and the reason they weren't testing, and it must be such a bunker mentality inside there, precisely because of the reaction we're seeing now, which is that if you start testing a product and there are glitches, you're going to get killed for it. but, of course, your argument is that they were so scared of that, what they ended up doing was delaying this necessary testing process. >> right. in fact, one of the things that -- anyone who ships a large technology project recognizes that you have to get through a lot of failure to get to a working system. >> and it's the process of failure and feedback that makes a system work.
>> that's exactly right. so what they did in a way, they saved up all the failure more after the public launch. >> that's really important. >> and the real managerial failure, the thing that finally made me wloe my stack, as i did the other day, was recognizing that on october 1st, when obama was going to go out to the public to talk about healthcare.gov, no one could pull him aside and say, hey, chief, play it down a little bit. say we're testing it in public, only try it if we -- >> this is a soft launch. we just had a soft launch of a site. >> exactly, exactly. instead, obama goes out and not only compares to it amazon.com, which is insane, because amazon.com is the greatest, you know, transactional tool ever shipped on the internet. so already, he's raising people's hopes up. then he issues this challenge. you don't have to take my word for it. go take a look. the opposite of what he should be saying. >> and one of the things -- you had a very interesting interaction with the former chief technology officer of the obama for america -- >> harper -- >> that's right, harper, and
he's a famous guy on the internet, a real ninja coder. and you're basically saying, hey, man, you guys set up this incredible thing on the campaign, this could have been done right, and he was sort of replying back and i think there's a really interesting case study here about how government does big tech objects. and it struck me this is the first time that you have a government project dependent on shipping, a big, massive tech project. and we'll have to learn how to do this in the 21st century. >> in fact, what senator sherrod said earlier, which is the government needs to bring some of this in house, tim bray has also written a very interesting piece, saying, essentially, an increasing amount of government is going to be shipped via software. this is no longer something the government can buy on the open market. >> and there are certain capabilities, you know, building dams or building roads that have been moved in-house, and that we're sort of used to the government doing. this is something new.
that's what's so fascinating and worrying about this moment, we're on the frontier of something new. clay shirky of new york university, thank you very much. >> thank you. coming up -- >> no one spent more time trying to fix a broken immigration system than i am. i talked about it the day after the election and i've talked about it 100 times since. >> and yet today, while members of the house were talking about monkey courts and amorphous clouds, the president was putting immigration reform front and center. when we come back, i'll explain why the boehner strategy on immigration spells doom for the republican party. [ male announcer ] if you can clear a crowd but not your nasal congestion,
we always love hearing from you on facebook and twitter. we know what republicans think about the healthcare the.gov site. what do you think? tonight's question, if you could have spoken at the house hearing today, what would have said about the healthcare.gov rollout? tweet your answers @allinwithchris or post at facebook.com/allinwithchris. i'll share a couple at the end of the show, so stay tuned. we'll be right back.
it doesn't make sense to have 11 million people who are in this country, illegally, without any incentive or any way for them to come out of the shadows, get right with the law, meet their responsibilities and permit their families then to move ahead. it's not smart, it's not fair, it doesn't make sense. we have kicked this particular can down the road for too long. >> fresh off having successfully stared down the republican party over a government shutdown and a default, the president today eagerly moved on to the next fight, the big, unfinished business of his second term, immigration reform.
reform that provides a path to citizenship for more than 11 million undocumented immigrants. the conventional wisdom is that it's a fight that the president can't win because of opposition to a deal in the house driven by the tea party. but the contours of the immigration fight are strikingly similar to the contours of the shutdown fight that the president just won decisively. indeed, perhaps the best way to think about immigration reform is as an opportunity to end a nightmarish shutdown of the basic legal rights of millions of people. it turns out john boehner could potentially end that shutdown tomorrow, if he would simply let the democratic process play out. back in june, with mitt romney's 44-point loss among latinos, still fresh in their mind, republicans helped pass a bipartisan, immigration overhaul in the senate that included a pathway to citizenship. boehner has refused to allow that bill to come to a vote in the house, saying republicans prefer a piecemeal approach to
immigration reform, but he's not providing a lot of details. >> i still think immigration reform is an important subject that needs to be addressed and i'm hopeful. >> the easiest way to address immigration reform, of course, would simply let the house vote on the senate bill. and that isn't a pointless exercise. earlier this month, 184 house democrats signed on to an immigration reform bill, similar to the senate bill. meanwhile, the group, america's voice, is counting 28 house republicans who have offered support for a path to citizenship. that almost gets you to a majority. and it suggests the senate bill has a very real chance of getting enough votes to pass if only boehner would bring it to the floor. so why won't he do it? boehner has long insisted that he will not bring to the floor any bill that does not have the support of the majority of the majority, a concept known as the hastert rule. boehner has now broken the hastert rule so many times, he cannot hide behind that rationale anymore. just last week, he did it once again, with the bill to end the government shutdown and raise the debt ceiling.
it wasn't exactly under the cover of darkness. we all watched the roll call. we all watched republicans vote against it. so there is no longer any credible excuse for boehner not to bring the senate bill up for a vote. because john boehner will ultimately shut down the government and then john boehner who opened it back up, and it is john boehner currently shutting out 11 million people from full citizenship. joining me now, jose diaz balart and. jose, do you understand the basic con turs of this, as someone who covers this day in and day out, do you understand them in the same way? >> i do, indeed. but chris, you know something, let's forget about the senate bill for a minute. let's just -- >> throw it out. >> -- forget that the senate bill even exists. in the house of representatives, there has been a small group of four republicans, and that whittled down to essentially one now, that were working on their own version of immigration reform, which would have included some legalization for the 11 million undocumented, not
even dealing with the senate bill, and that fizzled away. where is leadership, both in the house, and i would question, in the republican party as a whole, when there are members, republican members in the house, that are dealing with their own immigration reform bill, and that was left to sit and wither is and die. the question is, does the united states of america and does the house of representatives really think that there is going to be absolutely no political cost -- >> that's the point, yes. >> if immigration reform does not happen. and don't they realize the economic costs of no immigration reform in this country? the president spoke very eloquently about the economic benefits of immigration rmp. and the republicans that are so worried about amnesty, there's an amnesty right now in this country. there are 11 million people in the united states that you and i don't know where they are, don't
know who they are, don't know who the good ones are, don't know where the bad ones are. that's amnesty. >> and here's the political strategy, as i've seen it, from observing this on the republican side. there was so much pressure that built up in the wake of the election and the senate passed the bill. and my read on this is the house and john boehner are just like, if we pretend this doesn't exist, if we ignore it, if we do other stuff, everyone's going to forget about it and it will go away. my question to you is, particularly in the spanish language media, is it going away? because hi sense is that it is not going away. they're not fooling anyone by not touching this. >> no, no. no, chris, no. and you know what? let's just -- can we talk about numbers for a minute? it's not just 11 million undocumented. it's 15.5 million latinos in this country and some of those latinos, if not most, know someone who does not have their documents, may have a cousin, a son, a daughter, a father, a mother who doesn't have their documents. every single month of the united states, 50,000 u.s.-born kids turn 18 years of age. that is voting age in this
country. i remind my political friends. and so that is a reality. that's not going away. it's getting bigger. the united states is getting -- there is more salsa sold than ketchup in the united states of america. that's not just because, you know, white people are enjoying taco bell. that's because the latino community in the united states is every day becoming more americanized, whether they like to recognize it or not. and you know what? there but for the grace of god go i is something that many latinos who have their documents think of when they see 11 million undocumented. there's another side to this coin, chris, which is there will be 2 million deor tees under the obama administration. a recent study at uc merced said up to 25,000 of them in 2011, up to 25%, have u.s.-born children. that is going on every single day and that's a reality that is dividing and destroying families. >> we are seeing families ripped apart. we are seeing tens of thousands of deportations. those have continued.
what is the political fallout from that? we're seeing tremendous activism, very courageous activism, to stand in the way of that. but that feels like it's falling on deaf ears in the same way that the senate bill sitting on the house's doorstep is. >> you know, if a tree falls in the forest and no one hears it, did it fall? i'll tell you something, that trees that falls in the forest is covered and it screams every single day in spanish. we're covering it, our community cares about it, because it's their cousins, it's their friends, it's their mothers, and it's their fathers. and every single day in this country, up to 1,400 people are zported. 1,400 day, 1,400 tomorrow, until something is done. but that's not the biggest issue. the biggest issue is it's an economic benefit to this country to have immigration reform. and once and for all, to know where the good people are, which is the overwhelming majority, and where the bad ones are. >> telemundo's jose diaz balart, a great pleasure, thank you. >> a pleasure, thanks. coming up, do you remember this guy? he spent untold millions on republican candidates in the 2012 elections. this week, he gave us a horrifying glimpse in an alternate future in which one of his candidates win, a truly
currently, as long as they forseized all enrichment of uranium? >> what are we going to negotiate about. what i see is, listen. do you see that desert out there. i want you to show you something. you pick up your cell phone, and there's a missile that goes in the middle of the desert that doesn't hurt a soul. maybe a couple of rattlesnakes and scorpions or whatever. and then you say, see, the next one is in the middle of tehran. so we mean business. you want to be wiped out. go ahead and take a tough position and continue with your nuclear development. you want to be peaceful? you want to be peaceful, just reverse it all and we will guarantee you you can have a
nuclear power plant for electricity purposes. for energy purposes. >> so a tremendous demonstration of american strength, so they would get the message? >> the only thing they understand. >> okay. let's note a few things here. first of all, a nuclear strike on iran's desert would, in fact, almost certainly kill a lot of people, not just a handful of scorpions and rattlesnakes. here's a population density map of iran. it's pretty hard to believe you could drop a nuclear bomb anywhere on this map and not kill a whole lot of humans. but second of all, nuclear weapons are not bb guns. they're not what you turn to when you're standing on your porch, trying to scare off an intruder. you don't use nukes for warning shots. and if you did, you'd shoot out more than just your eye. it is absolutely unequivocally not okay to use a nuclear weapon to send a message. a first strike nuclear tact is a war crime of epic, historic, horrific appropriations and is
unanimously viewed as such by everyone, seriously, not okay. but keep in mind, this is not coming from some powerless old crank. these might sound like the rantings of an anonymous basement dwelling commoner, but they're not. they're the rantings of an insanely rich and popular conservative, a top donor who poured almost $100 million into last year's election. a guy who hung out with republican nominee for president last year during his big foreign policy trip overseas. and he's not just powerful in conservative circles. he's also hugely active and influential in mainstream jewish organizations, his support has been crucial, for example, to the birthright foundation, which sends young adults to israel and has become a right of passage that tons of jewish americans from all political persuasions participate in. and this guy is instrumental in funding it. >> so there's an atomic weapon that goes over ballistic missiles in the middle of the desert. and then you say, see, the next
one is in the middle of tehran. >> and that is what's so scary about sheldon addleson. what would happen if you swooped in on some nutty troll and gave him billions of dollars in influence. he's a chief donor not just to the republican party, but to mainstream jewish organizations, and here he is sitting in new york city at a university getting applause for suggesting the united states launch a first strike nuclear attack on another country. this man is using his power and influence to spread the fantasy that with enough strength and power, there's no need for negotiation, no need for diplomacy. that peace comes about through conquest and domination and bullying. and it is a reminder, as the president moves towards open diplomacy with iran, that skepticism of their intentions and roadblocks to nonproliferation don't just run in one direction. imagine for a moment you saw this video, but instead of sheldon addleson in new york city, it was an influential mullah in new york calling for a
the journalist who who a new biography about rupert murdoch says a lot was done to prevent cooperation with him. that journalist will join me, along with a man who's been dubbed the fox man mole to talk about the murdoch media empire. but first, i want to share the three awesomest thing on the internet today. with the ridiculous sexy halloween costume trend, which has evolved so far beyond the sexy halloween vampire that buzz feed comes out with sexy mrs. potato head, the unfortunate sexy hamburger, and the truly upsetting sexy burt and ernie. and now sexy unemployed contract worker. sexy smelly old gym sock, and sexy inexplicable melon. but nothing really beats sexy remote control.
that's a real costume. second awesomest thing on the internet today, a web photo that will live in infamy, the resulting search for the mysterious buzz feed girl. frustrated girls were greeted by one face as they waited. that face was everywhere and even inspired the onions, people in healthcare.gov photo visibly panicking, as well as the obligatory cnn segment. so buzz feed found the filing, went down the rabbit hole trying to findary yantha. they called teal media, even called its employees's personal cell phones until a public relations person says the photos were provided for the centers for medicaid and medicare services. finally, a spokesman replied, the woman pictured on the website signed a lease, and to protect her privacy, we will not share her info with anyone. so adrianna now says she will reveal her true identity if enough viewers like the "all in" facebook page. it was worth a shot. and the third awesomest thing on the internet today, back to
halloween and cool l.e.d. lights. just add a kid and you get this. >> hi! >> uh-oh. >> hold on. that toddler seemed a bit scared. and what is that long, dark hallway that those parents used for their amusement when they could have been spending their money on a what does the fox say house. go easy on the spooky stuff at halloween or your kid could end up like this. you can find all the links for tonight's click three on our website, allinwithchris.com. we'll be right back.
the day we rescued riley was a truly amazing day. he was a matted mess in a small cage. so that was our first task, was getting him to wellness. without angie's list, i don't know if we could have found all the services we needed for our riley. from contractors and doctors to dog sitters and landscapers, you can find it all on angie's list. we found riley at the shelter, and found everything he needed at angie's list. join today at angieslist.com
that's a good thing, but it doesn't cover everything. only about 80% of your part b medical expenses. the rest is up to you. so consider an aarp medicare supplement insurance plan, insured by unitedhealthcare insurance company. like all standardized medicare supplement insurance plans, they pick up some of what medicare doesn't pay and could save you in out-of-pocket medical costs. call today to request a free decision guide to help you better understand what medicare is all about and which aarp medicare supplement plan works best for you. with these types of plans, you'll be able to visit any doctor or hospital that accepts medicare patients... plus, there are no networks, and virtually no referrals needed. there's a range of plans to choose from, too, and they all travel with you anywhere in the country. join the millions who have already enrolled in the only medicare supplement insurance plans
endorsed by aarp... an organization serving the needs of people 50 and over for generations... and provided by unitedhealthcare insurance company, which has over 30 years of experience behind it. ♪ call today. remember, medicare supplement insurance helps cover some of what medicare doesn't pay. expenses that could really add up. these kinds of plans could save you in out-of-pocket medical costs. you'll be able to choose any doctor who accepts medicare patients. and there are virtually no referrals needed. so don't wait. with all the good years ahead, look for the experience and commitment to go the distance with you. call now to request your free decision guide. this easy-to-understand guide will answer some of your questions and help you find the aarp medicare supplement plan that's right for you.
[ female announcer ] some people like to pretend a flood could never happen to them. and that their homeowners insurance protects them. [ thunder crashes ] it doesn't. stop pretending. only flood insurance covers floods. ♪ visit floodsmart.gov/pretend to learn your risk. we are wringing diversity of opinion. we are the diversity of opinion on fox news. you may disagree with that. we have many liberals there, many liberals invited. we have liberal commentators, as we have conservative ones. >> who are your liberal commentators? >> alan combs, for one. greta van susteren.
you know, it's in the eye of the beholder, i guess. >> back in 2008, here's the story. a media reporter here in new york, a guy by the name of matthew flan, wanted to do a story about how cnn beat fox news in the prime-time ratings for the month of february. fox had ended 2007 as cable's top news network. so when they lost to cnn in 2008, amidst the heat of the presidential campaign, the reporter thought it was worth writing about. fox didn't want to have anything to do with the story, saying, we will not participate, because they had no interest in talking about a story that includes other cable news networks. so after being stonewalled, the reporter got an e-mail from a producer for bill o'reilly's show from a private hot mail account, saying that fox execs were, indeed, worried about the ratings and had held a meeting to shake things up. they wanted to copy the success that msnbc had with their election coverage. "the washington post" got ahold of the rest of that e-mail saying o'reilly and not brett
hume will be in the anchor chair. to ask bill o'reilly to take over anchor duties would call into question the fox news question of fair and balanced. so even though he only had one source, he ran the story online. mistake, none of it was true. hours after it was post, fox news pounced to a statement, flamm is so off the mark, it's embarrassing. the notion that o'reilly would anchor electiocoverage of any kind is absurd and wildly inaccurate. by this time, the fox producer's hot mail account an shut down. in short, he had been set up. according to explosive new book, fox's pr teamed that baited flamm into publishing a false tip, so they could then discredit him and distract attention away from his story. and it worked. and that's just one tiny example of how things operated in the
complicated world of rupert murdoch, a man who's arguably the most powerful private citizen in the world. a man whose ruthlessness, win-at-all-costs mentality has shifted the politics to the right across three continents. he owns tv stations, several newspapers, and a publishing company. and a man who's very careful about how he's covered by the press. he declined our invitation to appear tonight. but we do have david folkenflik. so the big question, when you do a book about rupert murdoch is, how do you report it? because it's very hard to get anyone to talk to you. how did you find the experience of trying to break into this world? >> it certainly helped, i've been covering media for over 13 years now. originally with "the baltimore sun," since 2004, for npr news. and it means that i've done stories over the years on all these properties and all these events.
so that happens. it means i have the knowledge base to start with and a lot of sources to start with. and you build on that. in 2011, on july 5th, i looked online in a video and you saw prime minister cameron talking from afghanistan with the president of afghanistan, hamid karzai want some hacking scandal that was breaking out in london. and this struck me as incredibly important. and itself offered an additional incredible window ultimately over time through documentary and evidentiary path, to how news corp. worked behind the scenes. and in both these ways, through source work over many years, including intensely over the last two years, and through what we learned through the hacking scandal, even about what officials here didn't believe, you can listener a lot. >> so what do you learn through the hacking scandal? >> well, you learn through the hacking scandal is really in london, there was the purest version, perhaps, of the murdoch vision. you had a company that controlled roughly 40% of national newspaper circulation. you had a company that had politicians at the highest
levels of government vying for their support, because murdoch would swing the support of the papers like "the times" of the london and the sun tabloid between the two parties. he could do business. one of the misunderstandings about him is he's always conservative. well, he can do business with people in the center left like tony blair or when hillary clinton was running for president in this country as well, in the center left. and as a result, politicians will vie for his support. >> what comes through in the book, particularly the hacking scandal, is the raw sort of instrumentality in which the media outlet is wielded within these certain circumstances. i mean, it is a tool for power. it is a tool for influence that is wielded by rupert murdoch. i want to talk more about the murdoch empire, whether it is a dying empire or not. i think that's sort of an interesting throughline in the book, and talk to someone who worked at fox news and wrote a tell-all book about it along with the great ana marie cox after this break. le. le. to treat my low testosterone, i did my research. my doctor and i went with axiron, the only underarm low t treatment. axiron can restore t levels to normal
in about 2 weeks in most men. axiron is not for use in women or anyone younger than 18 or men with prostate or breast cancer. women, especially those who are or who may become pregnant and children should avoid contact where axiron is applied as unexpected signs of puberty in children or changes in body hair or increased acne in women may occur. report these symptoms to your doctor. tell your doctor about all medical conditions and medications. serious side effects could include increased risk of prostate cancer; worsening prostate symptoms; decreased sperm count; ankle, feet or body swelling; enlarged or painful breasts; problems breathing while sleeping; and blood clots in the legs. common side effects include skin redness or irritation where applied, increased red blood cell count, headache, diarrhea, vomiting, and increase in psa. ask your doctor about the only underarm low t treatment, axiron. a fox news mole and ana marie cox in just a minute. earlier in the show, i asked you what you would have said in today's house hearing about
failure of healthcare.gov rollout. got a ton of answers, including kelly cash from facebook says, "since when has any version 1.0 software release worked properly? heck, microsoft windows has been around since 1995 and it's still buggy as hell." teresa lane says, "phone still works." and repenting hipster says, "if i were in front of congress today, all i could have responded with was a face palm. thanks." we'll be right back.
talk about fox news, rupert murdoch and his right wing media empire. still with us, david folkenflik, and joining us, joe moveto, a former producer at fox news. joe gained some notoriety as the fox news mole. also joining us, ana marie cox, senior columnist for the guardian, and a longtime chronicler of the world of fox. here's another excerpt about fox pr staffers were expected to counter not just negative but
even neutral blog postings. and one former staffer recalled using twenty different aliases to post pro-fox rants. one employee had to provide a cell phone thumb drive to provide a wireless broadband connection that could not be traced back to fox news or news corp. account. is this paranoia a part of the culture over there? >> absolutely. there's a weird thin-skinnedness to anyone who works there. any criticism must be answered with strong force. and there were at times where people seemed like they had to feed stories, opposition research, basically, to outside media outlets like drudge report or the daily caller or something, attacking msnbc or attacking cnn. >> or anyone who goes after them. in the flamm story, they're circulating these blind quotes saying, we wonder if he's going to have a job the next day. they go nuclear on everything.
>> first, they're trying to forestall that coverage. a very aggressive pushback, even when you make the first call to inquire about ratings. let's remember, the story on which that occurred was on such minor import. >> it didn't matter. they had one month that was good. >> didn't matter. they went nuclear on it anyway. it's a warning, you do this, you could be in peril as well. >> ana marie, you're working for the guardian. and there is a really -- one of the things that comes through in david's book, that i think is interesting, is just the culture of uk newspapers is so different. and in some ways, they are so much more extra to the national conversation. here, in some cases, cable news ends up being something that drives it a lot more. but do you feel like murdoch's influence is on the wane or on the rise? >> well, that's an interesting question. i was actually thinking, as you've been talking about this, that murdoch himself is a lot more nimble than fox news is.
>> that's interesting. >> i think murdoch, to sort of reposition himself and reposition his business interests on the fly, like, he's actually a very amusing twitterer. >> oh, my god. his twitter feed is most hilarious thing in the world. here's a guy who's like the most powerful media mogul in the world, just tweeting like every other person who's frustrated watching the news. >> what more efficient way -- >> that's right. he's watching the news, he's online, on an airplane, whatever. but i think he's very nimble and a really interesting person. i think his opinions are that of almost like a normal person. like, he can contain two ideas in his head at the same time. fox news as an entity is actually not very nimble at all. i mean, they've sort of struggled under their own weight a little bit. they have one story decline that they push over and over and over. it's been kind of interesting to watch them sort of try to feel their way through the gop crackup, because they no longer have one boss, you know? they no longer have one story line to push. they have conservatives come on that are more gop and they wind up arguing with an anchor, and they have an anchor who's more tea party who argues with -- it can get a little confusing.
i think that's their sort of clay feet right there. >> does that scare you, that fox, there's a question how much it's a murdoch creation and how much it's a roger ailes creation? >> to play devil's advocate, from fox's perspective, which having been inside the building, i know, they are surrounded by, from their perspective, liberal media figures trying to tear them down. liberal npr, far-left msnbc, far-left "guardian" newspaper. so that's why they feel they have to be so sharp elbowed and defensive. >> but what i got from your book, that actual feeling of embattlement, which is a roger ailes trademark, is also kind of a murdoch trade. >> it's not kind of, it's fundamental murdoch. there's this sense of, we were the outsiders. we were the people excluded by the elites. don't forget, murdoch is a man who graduated from oxford, he's a man whose father was knighted for his service as a newspaper man in the commonwealth colony of australia before it was a country. and, you know, he has the
feeling that somehow he was secluded from the establishment. when david cameron in britain met with people who felt that the press should be more regulated as a result of these abuses, these, you know, corruption and bribery of the police, the hacking into phone mail messages in london, of victims and celebrities, his response was, well, these well-paid, privileged people are meeting in secret, and in fact, he has created the society in which prime ministers bend. >> that character trait comes through very strongly in your book and in reporting on roger ailes, with a very similar set of character traits, this idea of being one of the most powerful people in the world, that views yourself as a scrappy underdog. it is a very dangerous combination. but that is perfectly part of the dna of fox, ana marie. >> oh, it's a part of the dna of the tea party and the gop alike. that's one of the few things i guess they have in common. you know, they are members of the ruling class. they are the people, the last bastion of the great white male,
yet they are so aggrieved. and i think that's something that sort of keeps fox together right now. it keeps its story line together. i do wonder what's going to happen, you know, as that coalition becomes a minority. as the republican party sort of is unable to make a national party out of its using that coalition. i don't know what's going to happen to fox. they have not proven themselves able to do much else besides sort of push that story line along. >> and i would argue that fox, under roger ailes and news corp. and 21st century fox, the larger company under rupert murdoch, has a great gut feeling of what it's going to do. fox without roger ailes and news corp. without rupert murdoch, those news companies may not be around. >> what trend do you think this is headed in which direction? >> i think fox is going to keep doing what it's doing. it's reaching a wide audience, which makes it mind boggling that they still are able to strike this pose, like, we're the underdogs.
IN COLLECTIONSMSNBC Television Archive Television Archive News Search Service
Uploaded by TV Archive on