Fox News chairman Roger Ailes urged Gen. David Petraeus to run for president last year, according to a digital recording of a conversation between Petraeus and an Ailes emissary obtained by the Washington Post.

The Post's Bob Woodward reported that Petraeus, then the U.S. Commander in Afghanistan, was contacted by Kathleen T. McFarland, a Fox news national security analyst and former Pentagon aide, during McFarland's visit to Afghanistan in 2011 and was given a message from Ailes: If President Obama offered Petraeus the job of CIA Director instead of the chairmanship of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Ailes urged Petraeus to decline the offer, resign from the administration, and run for president as a Republican.

McFarland implied that Ailes, who was a Republican political consultant for decades prior to running Fox News, could resign from his position at Fox to run Petraeus' presidential campaign. McFarland and Petraeus also discussed the possibility that Rupert Murdoch, the head of Fox News parent Newscorp, would "bankroll" the campaign, according to the Post.

Petraeus did not heed Ailes' advice, saying he would entertain the idea of being CIA Director if Obama offered him he job, which the president did a few weeks later. Petraeus was sworn in as director on September 6, 2011, a post he held until November 9, 2012, when he resigned due to fallout from an extramarital affair with his biographer.

CIA Director David Petraeus resigns
Petraeus resignation takes WH by surprise
Of a presidential bid, Petraeus told McFarland, according to the Post, "It's never going to happen," explaining, "My wife would divorce me, and I love my wife. We have a beautiful house...I just want to live in it. I've never spent a night in it." Though disinclined to follow Ailes' counsel, Petraeus praised the Fox News head, saying, "I love Roger...he's a brilliant guy." He continued, "If I ever ran, I'd take him up on his offer."

When McFarland first told Petraeus she had been sent with a message from Ailes, Petraeus responded, "With no one else in the room, I hope."

McFarland explained, "I'm only reporting this back to Roger...his deal with me was that I was only supposed to talk to you, and he is a little paranoid, so believe me, he doesn't have anybody in that room."

Perhaps the most salacious detail to emerge from the conversation was an exchange in which Petraeus told McFarland that if he ran for president, Ailes would "quit Fox...and bankroll it."

"Bankroll it?" asked McFarland.

"Or maybe I'm confusing that with Rupert," said Petraeus, referring to Newscorp head Rupert Murdoch.

"I know Roger, he's done okay," replied McFarland. "But no, I think the one who's bankrolling it is the big boss.

"The big boss is bankrolling it, Roger's going to run it, and the rest of us are going to be your in-house."

Ailes denied any breach of propriety, insisting that while he did ask McFarland to pitch Petraeus on a presidential run, "It was more of a joke, a wiseass way I have." He told the Post he thought the Republican primary field "needed to be shaken up, and Petraeus might be a good candidate."

Ailes also disavowed McFarland's involvement, pointedly explaining that she is not an employee of Fox News but just a contributor who is paid less than $75,000 a year. "It sounds like she thought she was on a secret mission in the Reagan administration," scorned Ailes. "She was way out of line...It's someone's fantasy to make me a kingmaker. It's not my job."

Petraeus did have some editorial advice for Fox News. McFarland asked Petraeus whether there is "anything Fox is doing, right or wrong, that you want us to do differently?"

The general responded, "The editorial policy of Fox had shifted. It was almost as if, because they're going after Obama, they had to go after Obama's war as well," adding that he had discussed the problem with Bret Baier, a primetime anchor on the cable news channel.

Baier did not recall discussing Fox's coverage with Petraeus, but disputed the premise of the general's critique. "That's B.S.," he told the Post. "We cover the war the same way no matter what administration is in power."

The conversation between Petraeus and McFarland eventually made its way into an April 2011 piece McFarland wrote on FoxNews.com in which she wrote, "Our discussion was off the record, and to respect that I will not quote the general." The piece, which was written after it was obvious that Petraeus was headed for the CIA, continued, "I can't help thinking that the Obama administration has done something a bit underhanded but politically shrewd by tapping Petraeus for the CIA." In so doing, McFarland argued, Obama had removed a "potential rival" from the presidential race.

On Monday, Ailes offered perhaps the simplest explanation of why he would not have deputized McFarland to speak as she did. The Fox News head said there was "zero chance" he would reenter politics because in his current job, "The money is too good."

Petraeus did have some editorial advice for Fox News. McFarland asked Petraeus whether there is "anything Fox is doing, right or wrong, that you want us to do differently?"

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
I remember Fox once said that they are fair in balanced in a way. That since EVERY other news station is liberal, they are conservative to make up for it.

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
I remember Fox once said that they are fair in balanced in a way. That since EVERY other news station is liberal, they are conservative to make up for it.

 Lt. Coldfire wrote:
I don't watch much Fox News or any news for that matter, but I will say it's nice to see someone going against the left wing political machine, which is obviously very powerful when they can get a nobody from Chicago elected not once, but twice.

 Lt. Coldfire wrote:

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
I remember Fox once said that they are fair in balanced in a way. That since EVERY other news station is liberal, they are conservative to make up for it.

lol sounds about right to me. I don't watch much Fox News or any news for that matter, but I will say it's nice to see someone going against the left wing media machine, which is obviously very powerful when they can get a nobody from Chicago elected not once, but twice. And people complain about Fox "trying" to get Petraeus to run for Prez? Please.

 Lt. Coldfire wrote:
And people complain about Fox "trying" to get Petraeus to run for Prez? Please.

 MeanGreenStompa wrote:

 Lt. Coldfire wrote:
And people complain about Fox "trying" to get Petraeus to run for Prez? Please.

Do you understand the ramifications of the largest 'media machine' in the business bankrolling and promoting a presidential candidate and portraying what they are doing on television as 'reporting' instead of 'promoting'?

Five takeaways from the Fox News-David Petraeus conspiracy
By Erik Wemple , Updated: December 4, 2012

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.

 AustonT wrote:
Who taped the conversation?

 Ouze wrote:

 AustonT wrote:
Who taped the conversation?

How did that argument work for Mitt Romney when the 47% comment came to light?


Unless this was less a feint, and more a question? Which, after re-reading it, seems likely. And also, mysterious since no place does it say so.

 Lt. Coldfire wrote:
lol sounds about right to me. I don't watch much Fox News or any news for that matter, but I will say it's nice to see someone going against the left wing media machine, which is obviously very powerful when they can get a nobody from Chicago elected not once, but twice. And people complain about Fox "trying" to get Petraeus to run for Prez? Please.

KNOCK OFF THE PROFANITY-Mannahnin

 Monster Rain wrote:
That makes sense.

Still, and I don't watch or listen to Fox any more than any other news source, but I think if you read the statements in the story in the OP without prejudice you might see them as simply the words of a reporter who genuinely admires their interviewee. Also, without context, some of those statements could pertain to any number of things.

 Howard A Treesong wrote:
People who think there's a left wing bias that needs balancing out in the American media simply have a distorted sense of the political spectrum. If you're a frothing right winger everyone seems to the left of you, it doesn't mean they are actually left wing...

 Luco wrote:

 Howard A Treesong wrote:
People who think there's a left wing bias that needs balancing out in the American media simply have a distorted sense of the political spectrum. If you're a frothing right winger everyone seems to the left of you, it doesn't mean they are actually left wing...

Honestly, can you not see your own bias in your posts at all? Any of you? Are the insults aimed at the other side necessary?

Monster Rain wrote:Well...

I mean, we could separate an individual's behavior from the over-arching goals of the company they own though, couldn't we?

 azazel the cat wrote:

Monster Rain wrote:Well...

I mean, we could separate an individual's behavior from the over-arching goals of the company they own though, couldn't we?

Only in the sense that you can tell your limo driver to run someone down, and claim the car's behaviour was separate from your own.