PDA

View Full Version : Media Fox News is corrupt.


Direckshun
12-04-2012, 06:10 PM
To quote a conservation I had with patteeu about Fox News months ago:

Fox News is a different beast. They are financially and professionally intertwined and interdependent on the Republican Party. The phrase "conflict of interests" doesn't begin to describe that outlet.

That said, Bob Woodward has a recorded excerpt of a Roger Ailes underling enlisting David Patraeus for a Presidential run, and then asking the general to edit what I'm going to charitably call their "news coverage." This isn't new territory for Ailes, he has former and future GOP Presidential condenders on his payroll -- this is all very commonplace at Fox News.

This is what I mean when I say Fox is distinctly different from MSNBC and other liberal outlets: there is a difference between bias and unethical corruption. MSNBC is the former, Fox News embodies the latter.

The conservative media is lying to you (http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showthread.php?p=9097844).

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/erik-wemple/wp/2012/12/04/five-lessons-from-fox-news-roger-ailes-david-petraeus-conspiracy/

Five takeaways from the Fox News-David Petraeus conspiracy
Posted by Erik Wemple
December 4, 2012 at 12:45 pm

The Washington Post’s Bob Woodward has dropped a nice little headline for the world’s media nerds. “Fox News chief’s failed attempt to enlist Petraeus as presidential candidate (http://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/style/fox-news-chiefs-failed-attempt-to-enlist-petraeus-as-presidential-candidate/2012/12/03/15fdcea8-3d77-11e2-a2d9-822f58ac9fd5_story.html).” Turns out that Roger Ailes, who runs Fox News, was terribly impressed with the political credentials of Gen. David Petraeus. So in the spring of 2011, Ailes entrusted Fox News analyst K.T. McFarland to pass along a message from Ailes to Petraeus while the general was stationed in Afghanistan: If the president offers you the chairmanship of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, grab it; if not, bag the military and run for president. I might even quit and join your campaign.

This is no flimsy allegation here, either. Woodward scored a 13:46 audio excerpt (http://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/style/transcript-kathleen-t-mcfarland-talks-with-gen-david-h-petraeus/2012/12/03/c0467cd4-3d8b-11e2-a2d9-822f58ac9fd5_story.html) of the chat between Petraeus and McFarland. It yields several discrete lessons about Fox News.

Lesson 1: Fox News is corrupt.

The top executive at a cable news network passed along unsolicited advice to a general — boosterish, adoring advice. Mind you, the person to whom he passed along this boosterish, adoring advice was at the center one of the country’s most stubborn and critical news stories. No need to consult Poynter.org to determine whether this was a colossal conflict of interest. Don’t get too breathless about this spasm of Ailes political activism, however: It’s not the first time. (http://nymag.com/news/media/roger-ailes-fox-news-2011-5/)

Lesson 2: Fox News is corrupt.

The audio of the conversation between McFarland and Petraeus is a must-hear, if only because you can hear the Fox News analyst telling Petraeus: “Everybody at Fox loves you.”

Wonder how that adoration might affect Fox News coverage of the good general. Here’s a notion (http://mediamatters.org/blog/2012/12/04/fox-analyst-praised-petraeus-on-the-air-while-p/191665), from a McFarland piece:

I spent 90 minutes with General Petraeus at his office in Kabul last week. He is truly a asset to our country. Petraeus is a brilliant general and tactician. He’s an inspirational leader. And finally, he’s also got that indescribable something “extra.” His earnest demeanor and intensity make everyone around believe in him and want him to succeed, including all of us here at Fox News.

Bolded add-on inserted for purposes of retroactive accuracy.

Lesson 3: Fox News is corrupt.

Ailes’s craving for the respect and admiration of a military hotshot like Petraeus emerges with Memorex clarity in this recording. For instance, McFarland tells Petraeus that she has a request “directly from [Ailes] to you: First of all, is there anything Fox is doing right or wrong that you want to tell us to do differently.”

Unpacking the depravity in that one is a multi-part process.

No. 1: Real journalists don’t act as supplicants, no matter how wonderful and powerful may be the official they’re interviewing. Real journalists publish their journalism and move on to the next story. If people have problems with or plaudits for the work, they can send an e-mail.

No. 2: Note the promise in McFarland’s proffer. She invites the general to “tell us” to adjust coverage in whatever way he may see fit, in effect soliciting an order from a general. What an affirmation of journalistic independence.

No. 3: To which individuals has Ailes “indirectly” advanced this offer?

Lesson 4: Fox News is corrupt.

The counterarguments against the allegations of corruption above aren’t hard to summon: Ailes is a former Republican operative, so he’ll always have a hand in the game. A journalist buttering up a source in an off-the-record interview is common practice. Hey, all journalists need feedback.

Now, try to fashion an excuse for the offer that McFarland advanced in this exchange:

Petraeus: I actually thought in a sense sort of the editorial policy of Fox had shifted. Now, that…

McFarland: On the online or on the news channel?

Petraeus: Well, I only watch the—I mean, it’s your stories that are online here. But it just struck me it was almost as if because they’re going after Obama, they had to go after Obama’s war as well, actually. And I told that to Bret [Baier] when he was out here. That, again, some of it was headlines….

McFarland: The headlines are easy to fix because the lady who does that is the desk next to mine….

There’s an idea: Invite the general to edit your headlines.

Lesson 5: Fox News is corrupt and nasty.

To listen to the exchange between McFarland and Petraeus is to come away with the distinct impression that McFarland was under specific and binding orders from Ailes. She repeatedly invokes Ailes’s name, his advice and his interest in the career of Petraeus. The mandate to return to Ailes’s New York office with a mouthful of feedback from Petraeus rings from these words of McFarland’s: “So what do I tell Roger when he says…?” She continues spelling out the rules of engagement — how she was supposed to present the advice, and how she was supposed to report back.

Given that dynamic, have a look at how Ailes responded when Woodward asked about the advice-giving mission:

In a telephone interview Monday, the wily and sharp-tongued Ailes said he did indeed ask McFarland to make the pitch to Petraeus. “It was more of a joke, a wiseass way I have,” he said. “I thought the Republican field [in the primaries] needed to be shaken up and Petraeus might be a good candidate.”

Ailes added, “It sounds like she thought she was on a secret mission in the Reagan administration. . . . She was way out of line. . . . It’s someone’s fantasy to make me a kingmaker. It’s not my job.” He said that McFarland was not an employee of Fox but a contributor paid less than $75,000 a year.

Such noble and classy details there from the head of Fox News. Woodward nails you sullying your employer and the industry of journalism, and you tar the messenger. That’s outrageous enough that it could dog someone as untouchable as Roger Ailes.

BucEyedPea
12-04-2012, 06:11 PM
So are the other networks who fawn over Obama.

Dallas Chief
12-04-2012, 07:27 PM
Yep. The Dems never consort with those independent media types. Nope. Never.

stonedstooge
12-04-2012, 07:29 PM
George Zimmerman says "hey"

La literatura
12-04-2012, 07:48 PM
That's interesting to read. I'm not sure it's a game-changer, but it's a deep notch on their belt.

BigMeatballDave
12-04-2012, 08:07 PM
Direckshun is a bleeding vagina

HonestChieffan
12-04-2012, 08:08 PM
Its official. Direck is now a complete and total nitwit. For Gods sake. This is pathetic. You have surpassed Frankie and Jaz as the biggest jackass of the century.

teedubya
12-04-2012, 08:10 PM
No. No. No. Fox News is legit. LOL. Rupert Murdoch has no corporate interests AT ALL.

La literatura
12-04-2012, 08:14 PM
I think we can all agree that the moral of this article is that Direckshun is a bad person. In fact, that was Bob Woodward's conclusion, too.

BigRedChief
12-04-2012, 08:37 PM
Boy would they be surprised to find out that Petraeus is a Democrat.

Pitt Gorilla
12-04-2012, 10:16 PM
Its official. Direck is now a complete and total nitwit. For Gods sake. This is pathetic. You have surpassed Frankie and Jaz as the biggest jackass of the century.when you've got nothing, attack the messenger. ROFL

stevieray
12-04-2012, 10:17 PM
when you've got nothing, attack the messenger. ROFL

see example above

Pitt Gorilla
12-04-2012, 11:06 PM
see example abovesee example above

Pants
12-04-2012, 11:38 PM
see example above

That doesn't even make sense, stevieray.

Ugly Duck
12-05-2012, 05:53 AM
Its not too hard to figure out. Roger Ailes started the idea for something called "GOP TV" during the Nixon admin.... also tried to peddle it to Bush I. It was a way to spread Republican propaganda to millions. Ailes couldn't convince the Repubs to come up with the cash. Murdoch finally decided to bankroll the idea, but insisted that they drop the "GOP" moniker and peddle it as actual "news." Thats how the "Fair & Balanced" slogan was spawned - to blantantly disguise GOP TV (renamed FOX NEWS) as "unbiased news." Only the densest among us actually fall for it. Anyone can look up the history & see it.


http://htmlimg3.scribdassets.com/52f1k8hz7k10v3qs/images/1-169505d08f.jpg

Read the entire plan here: http://edge-cache.gawker.com/gawker/ailesfiles/ailes1.html

Ugly Duck
12-05-2012, 05:55 AM
Here they ask if the RNC itself should fund it:

http://htmlimg3.scribdassets.com/52f1k8hz7k10v3qs/images/2-a02bf05fb3.jpg

Ugly Duck
12-05-2012, 06:00 AM
Notice that the purpose of GOP TV (now FOX NEWS) is "to provide pro (Republican) administration news"

http://htmlimg4.scribdassets.com/52f1k8hz7k10v3qs/images/3-e0ef668ca3.jpg

stevieray
12-05-2012, 06:12 AM
see example above

imitation is the highest form of flattery, one Ptit wonder.

stevieray
12-05-2012, 06:13 AM
That doesn't even make sense, stevieray.

neither do the circle jerks.

blaise
12-05-2012, 06:39 AM
MSNBC's journalistic bias is more noble.

patteeu
12-05-2012, 08:20 AM
I read the entire transcript and didn't find it troubling at all. Why is it bad that Fox staff love Petraeus, but it's not troubling that a vast majority of political reporters adore Barack Obama and carry his water on a daily basis?

Direckshun
12-05-2012, 09:07 AM
I read the entire transcript and didn't find it troubling at all. Why is it bad that Fox staff love Petraeus, but it's not troubling that a vast majority of political reporters adore Barack Obama and carry his water on a daily basis?

There is a difference between bias and unethical corruption.

blaise
12-05-2012, 09:13 AM
There is a difference between bias and unethical corruption.

Well, if you believe that there shouldn't be a bias in the reporting then bias would be a form of corruption by itself.

patteeu
12-05-2012, 09:20 AM
There is a difference between bias and unethical corruption.

I see no evidence of unethical corruption. There's no reason why Roger Ailes can't be a participant in the political process. He's not even a reporter. Jeffrey Immelt, CEO of the parent company that substantially owns MSNBC, worked closely with the Obama administration for a while. That doesn't mean that MSNBC is corrupt (at least not for that particular reason).

Direckshun
12-05-2012, 09:22 AM
I see no evidence of unethical corruption.

Fox News' parent company donates millions to the RNC.

There's no reason why Roger Ailes can't be a participant in the political process. He's not even a reporter.

He is in charge of what hits the air. And he's asking a Republican/general/government employee to actively edit coverage.

patteeu
12-05-2012, 09:31 AM
Fox News' parent company donates millions to the RNC.

Link?

Meanwhile, here's a more balanced assessment (http://thehill.com/blogs/hillicon-valley/technology/172321-report-obama-top-recipient-of-news-corp-donations) from last July of political activity associated with News Corp:

Political donations by News Corp., its employees and their families were evenly split between Democrats and Republicans, with President Obama the all-time leading recipient, according to a report from the Sunlight Foundation.

The transparency watchdog noted Tuesday that Democrats received 51 percent of contributions while Republicans received 49 percent, despite the firm's highly publicized links to the GOP, such as a $1 million donation to the Republican Governors Association in August.

He is in charge of what hits the air. And he's asking a Republican/general/government employee to actively edit coverage.

No, he's asking for General Petraeus' perspective on coverage. That feedback may or may not alert him to a problem with his channels' news operation and it may or may not lead him to take remedial action if such a problem is identified. He's not offering editorial control.

blaise
12-05-2012, 09:33 AM
The "tell us" line could be interpreted as nothing more than asking him for feedback on what they're doing.
The, "in whatever way he may see fit" was added by the article writer.

Direckshun
12-05-2012, 09:38 AM
Link?

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/44/2010/08/fox-parent-news-corp-donates-1.html

No, he's asking for General Petraeus' perspective on coverage.

He's asking for adjustments the general would prefer the organization to make.

Worlds, and worlds, and worlds of difference.

It also included a prodding for him to run for office -- and that Ailes might work for his campaign if he did.

patteeu
12-05-2012, 09:42 AM
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/44/2010/08/fox-parent-news-corp-donates-1.html



He's asking for adjustments the general would prefer the organization to make.

Worlds, and worlds, and worlds of difference.

Correction: Words and words of difference.

Just different words. The meaning is the same though. He's asking for feedback, not granting editorial power.

It also included a prodding for him to run for office -- and that Ailes might work for his campaign if he did.

So what? Obviously Ailes thinks Petraeus would have made a good POTUS candidate.

Direckshun
12-05-2012, 09:47 AM
He's asking for feedback, not granting editorial power.

He's absolutely granting editorial power.

is there anything Fox is doing right or wrong that you want to tell us to do differently

Editorial power, in a sentence.

Outside of putting him behind Camera 1, that's editing the news.

blaise
12-05-2012, 09:48 AM
He's absolutely granting editorial power.



Editorial power, in a sentence.

Outside of putting him behind Camera 1, that's editing the news.

He doesn't say editorial power. That could be nothing more than a poor choice of words with the intention of soliciting feedback.

You sound like some MSNBC or FOX news person yourself.

BigMeatballDave
12-05-2012, 09:54 AM
LMAO at the petty liberals with nothing better to do with their time.

If you do not like Fox news, DON'T FUCKING WATCH IT!

Petulant children.

patteeu
12-05-2012, 09:55 AM
blaise is right.

Direckshun
12-05-2012, 09:58 AM
If you do not like Fox news, DON'T ****ING WATCH IT!

I have no idea how that is supposed to be a rebuttal to the OP.

BigMeatballDave
12-05-2012, 10:00 AM
I have no idea how that is supposed to be a rebuttal to the OP.

Yeah, it is.

You CLEARLY do not like them. Why bother with any of this?

Exercise in futility.

Don't like, don't watch.

I don't.

patteeu
12-05-2012, 10:01 AM
I have no idea how that is supposed to be a rebuttal to the OP.

If you stop watching Fox, it might not drive you to the hysterical levels it takes to post an OP like this.

J Diddy
12-05-2012, 10:01 AM
I have no idea how that is supposed to be a rebuttal to the OP.

If you don't like Dave's posts than DON'T FUCKING READ THEM!!!

:D

La literatura
12-05-2012, 10:07 AM
If you don't like rape, don't it!

Direckshun
12-05-2012, 10:09 AM
You CLEARLY do not like them. Why bother with any of this?

Exercise in futility.

Because this isn't a response to Fox News' corruption.

Direckshun
12-05-2012, 10:10 AM
If you stop watching Fox, it might not drive you to the hysterical levels it takes to post an OP like this.

If I stop watching Fox News, they stop being corrupt?

patteeu
12-05-2012, 10:16 AM
If I stop watching Fox News, they stop being corrupt?

You might stop having fever dreams about the subject.

BigMeatballDave
12-05-2012, 10:22 AM
Because this isn't a response to Fox News' corruption.

Why do you care?

They aren't harming the public.

Are they systematically killing liberals?

What is the corruption? It's fucking TV.

BIG_DADDY
12-05-2012, 10:23 AM
With all the massive liberal bias and spin out there it is hillarious to see somebody upset when it goes the other way.

La literatura
12-05-2012, 10:26 AM
Why do you care?

They aren't harming the public.

That's debatable.

mikey23545
12-05-2012, 10:35 AM
It's incredible what a tyrannical government and its henchmen will do to wipe out the last vestiges of media opposition.

Trying to find any reason to consolidate power, huh, Ereckshun?

BigMeatballDave
12-05-2012, 10:38 AM
That's debatable.

How?

mlyonsd
12-05-2012, 10:44 AM
Laughable. If you're really worried about media corruption you'd be hypocritical by not mentioning GE/Immelt/MSNBC/NBC, and Obama.

blaise
12-05-2012, 10:45 AM
Laughable. If you're really worried about media corruption you'd be hypocritical by not mentioning GE/Immelt/MSNBC/NBC, and Obama.

No, no. Nuance. It's just more evil when FOX does it, see?

La literatura
12-05-2012, 10:46 AM
How?

They harm the public with their right-wing bent.

Dallas Chief
12-05-2012, 10:47 AM
How?

It depends on what the meaning of "is" is.

JonesCrusher
12-05-2012, 10:50 AM
That's debatable.

Show us on the doll where the Fox News touched you.

listopencil
12-05-2012, 10:58 AM
http://cdn.theatlanticwire.com/img/upload/2012/11/08/Screen_Shot_2012-11-08_at_8.15.11_AM/large.png

CoMoChief
12-05-2012, 10:59 AM
Direkshun needs to be shipped off to a FEMA re-education camp where they do nothing but praise about how govt is good and can do no wrong. I'm sure it'd be heaven for him.

bevischief
12-05-2012, 11:51 AM
All major news is corrupt.

Dave Lane
12-05-2012, 11:51 AM
Rain is wet.

GoChargers
12-05-2012, 01:56 PM
ALL cable news is a joke. Newspapers aren't much better. Journalism is really slipping away in this country.

BucEyedPea
12-05-2012, 02:34 PM
All major news is corrupt.

Yup! They are the gatekeepers for the state to maintain state power.

Inspector
12-05-2012, 02:41 PM
The democrats should be outraged that they don't have any media outlets pimping them like the republicans have. Seems there should be some type of media that would see things their way.

It's just not fair. Or balanced. The darn republicans have all the advantages with the news outlets.

Ugly Duck
12-05-2012, 04:23 PM
There's no reason why Roger Ailes can't be a participant in the political process.

Roger agrees. Thats why he saw no problem with having Karl Rove be his election night analyst. Rove was responsible for hundreds of millions of other people's dollars spent on the election, yet Ailes had him doing the "unbiased" analysis of the returns. We all saw how that turned out....

<iframe width="420" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/7JznkF9s6po" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

HonestChieffan
12-05-2012, 04:25 PM
Bob Costas going on Fox tonight will ruin his career.

JonesCrusher
12-05-2012, 05:07 PM
Bob Costas going on Fox tonight will ruin his career.

Not going to happen. Fox has one and only one viewpoint and bringing one of "them" in would not play well in their vast right wing conspiracy.

HonestChieffan
12-05-2012, 05:10 PM
Not going to happen. Fox has one and only one viewpoint and bringing one of "them" in would not play well in their vast right wing conspiracy.

On OReilly tonight......poor bob

RedNeckRaider
12-05-2012, 06:58 PM
On OReilly tonight......poor bob

Talk about idiots who should stick to the script :shake: tell us the score of the game dipshit and leave the personal political views at home~

Shaid
12-05-2012, 07:13 PM
The problem with both MSNBC and FOX is they pander to one perspective and feed people's opinion so that the extremist elements in our society start to become the norm. Our country has become more and more divided and unwilling to work with each other. Both sides are now just terrified or alienating their base, I believe repubs more so then dems at the moment but you see it on both sides.

If your primary source of news are either of those channels or any of the radio broadcasts for either side, you are tainting yourself. You are making yourself incapable of hearing anything from the other side and it makes you infinitely less likely to compromise to come to a solution.

After all, hearing secession talk after an election shouldn't be normal should it? That's extremist thinking, not normal thinking. These "news" outlets are destroying our democracy.

Easy 6
12-05-2012, 07:17 PM
You cant call out fox without calling out msnbc, just cant, they're two sides of the same coin, neither attempts to hide the fact that they are skewed to one side.

Even that revered liberal institution SNL, calls out msnbc for blatant bias.

RedNeckRaider
12-05-2012, 07:22 PM
These "news" outlets are destroying our democracy.

Did you mean political entertainment outlets?

Shaid
12-05-2012, 09:08 PM
Did you mean political entertainment outlets?

Yes, that's exactly what I mean.

BucEyedPea
12-05-2012, 09:25 PM
These "news" outlets are destroying our democracy.

What democracy is that?

Shaid
12-06-2012, 12:56 AM
What democracy is that?

The one we're living in unless you want to get into semantics and say it's a republic, etc. Point is, our inability to pass meaningful legislation that moves this country forward is in many cases a direct result of these propaganda machines.

WoodDraw
12-06-2012, 03:07 AM
MSNBC and Fox News are not news. They are ratings whores. Get over it. The people that watch it want what they see, and they can get off on it.

Count Alex's Losses
12-06-2012, 05:27 AM
Every fucking major news organization in the world is corrupt, dude.

Come on.

Der Flöprer
12-06-2012, 06:05 AM
Every fucking major news organization in the world is corrupt, dude.

Come on.

Every last one. Getting real, honest to goodness, news anymore is damned near impossible. Everyone has interest's, and sponsors, to cater too.

Radar Chief
12-06-2012, 09:56 AM
Not going to happen. Fox has one and only one viewpoint and bringing one of "them" in would not play well in their vast right wing conspiracy.

They have liberal panel members on daily even if their opinion is shouted down.

GoChargers
12-06-2012, 12:22 PM
The one we're living in unless you want to get into semantics and say it's a republic, etc.

It's not just semantics, there's a pretty major functional difference between the democracy people want us to have and the republic we used to have.

A republic, if executed correctly, caters to the interests of both the majority and the minority. It should be a fair system of compromise where everyone feels like their voices can be heard.

In a democracy, 51% of Americans can hold all the power over the remaining 49%. That's not always a good thing, and frankly, considering how dumbed-down and blindly partisan our electorate has become (the mainstream media deserves a LOT of blame here), it's pretty consistently awful.

By chasing a majority-rules democracy, we ironically undermine the American dream of liberty and justice for all. Now it's all about extortion and validation for the 51%.

But I digress.

KCWolfman
12-06-2012, 01:42 PM
Are people still harping on which news agency is more corrupt than the others?

They are ALL corrupt, period. There is plenty of proof against the big 3, fox, cnn, and msnbc.

Since the advent of neilsen usage for the nightly news, the bent is to get more viewers and still stay viable. The more fox or msnbc push the envelope of reality, the more the other side gets to leap. This is just a stupid argument.

KCWolfman
12-06-2012, 01:46 PM
BTW - Direckshun, when employees of MSNBC leave due to their corruption like Cenk Uygur I tend to believe them more than you.

mikey23545
12-06-2012, 02:20 PM
The situation described in the op is in no way corruption...It is simply a rationalization by the idiotic tyrants running this country to try to eliminate the last bit of media opposition they face in the consolidation of their power.

Corruption would be more along the lines of using modern technology to attempt to fabricate documents to be used to prove a superior officer was forced to lie about the performance of duties by one of the candidates in the race for the presidency when he was in the military.

And let's say it was actually a national network news producer and the the most well-known national news anchor in the country who were behind the scheme to fix the election of the most powerful man in the world! Now that's corruption, ehh?

Actually, you would think in a case like that the producer and news anchor would stand trial for treason and face execution for such heinous crimes.

Meh...when you're a liberal you don't even get a slap on the wrist...

Radar Chief
12-06-2012, 04:14 PM
Are people still harping on which news agency is more corrupt than the others?

No one with a shred of common sense is.

|Zach|
12-06-2012, 04:19 PM
I rather enjoy watching them make idiots of themselves.

Chief Henry
12-07-2012, 07:18 AM
Did you hear the one about a hispanic man slapping a lawsuit on NBC for selective editing a 911 tape ? You won't either if you watch NBC or MS-NBC.

GoChargers
12-07-2012, 10:09 AM
For the record, MSNBC is just as unethically corrupt as Fox News.

http://amerpundit.com/2010/08/19/msnbc-parent-company-has-given-democrats-1-1-million-in-2010-cycle/