Fox News is corrupt.

[Direckshun]

To quote a conservation I had with patteeu about Fox News months ago:

Originally Posted by Direckshun

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.washingtonpost.com/blogs/...us-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.” 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 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.

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, 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.

[JonesCrusher]

Originally Posted by HonestChieffan

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]

Originally Posted by JonesCrusher

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

[RNR]

Originally Posted by HonestChieffan

On OReilly tonight......poor bob

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

[Shaid]

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.

[scott free]

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.

[RNR]

Originally Posted by Shaid

These "news" outlets are destroying our democracy.

Did you mean political entertainment outlets?

[Shaid]

Originally Posted by RedNeckRaider

Did you mean political entertainment outlets?

Yes, that's exactly what I mean.

[BucEyedPea]

Originally Posted by Shaid

These "news" outlets are destroying our democracy.

What democracy is that?

[Shaid]

Originally Posted by BucEyedPea

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]

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.

[Branden Albert's Huge Balls]

Every ****ing major news organization in the world is corrupt, dude.

Come on.

[Mr. Flopnuts]

Originally Posted by Cassel's Reckoning

Every ****ing 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]

Originally Posted by JonesCrusher

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]

Originally Posted by Shaid

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]

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.