Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 AustonT wrote:
Yeah that was a serious question. I will attempt to frame it more clearly.

I think it was clear and I was just being stupid, actually. And it's a really great question.

It's an interesting question, but a minor diversion to the notion of a news channel, which tells a significant number of people what is happening in the world around them, manipulating what it tells them in order to promote a man that they have selected into becoming the most powerful man on the face of the earth.


TBH, it wouldn't surprise me if they had taped the thing themselves, for potential leverage later on and some disgruntled understudy had released it to 'the enemy'.

 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.

It's actually nothing remotely close to that. Individuals are allowed to have political views, and your hyperbole is extremely silly.

Also, since in the story in the OP Ailes said he would quit Fox to help Petraus run for president, this all makes even less sense.

 Monster Rain wrote:

Also, since in the story in the OP Ailes said he would quit Fox to help Petraus run for president, this all makes even less sense.

Because it's made clear that the money to fund his campaign would come from Murdoch and then, she asks the General if there's anything they can do to change reporting to suit the General more and then it's made clear that the news channel is rooting for him to run and they'd support him in anything he did.

That is not a news channel, that is a political propaganda machine that actually controls the candidate for it's owner, a private business man.

Considering how anti-Fox I am I also have to say that I feel pretty meh about this.

Same old fox bias, same old tired defence.

Did I missread that or was Pretraus offered a chance to run against Obama?

 d-usa wrote:
Considering how anti-Fox I am I also have to say that I feel pretty meh about this.

I guess, in all fairness, what is there to say at the end of the day? Any reasonable person already knows that FNC are partisans first and a journalistic outlet distant third (and they may or not be OK with that - I know MSNBC is hopelessly biased as well but still visit it as part of my daily news trawl; which takes me all over the place bias-wise).


The only people that really believe FNC isn't advancing it's GOP-based political agenda as it's primary role, rather then the business of journalism; probably wouldn't be convinced no matter what leaks.

The only concern would be if the FCC eventually decides to hit them with the equal-time rule; and judging by how craven the IRS is in pursuing even flagrant violations of church political endorsements, I wouldn't hold my breath on that.

I guess I remain absolutely boggled, mildly frightened and repulsed by this because I am a foreigner in your lands and I came here thinking that your version of democracy was the same as the British version or hoped it was more open and younger and more vibrant and honest. There is far less political or journalistic integrity here in the 'land of the free' than back in stodgy old monarchy land.

The massive private concern, that reports 'reality' to millions then offers to back a man to become president and report 'reality' to suit him as long as he suits the owner of the massive private concern. It's far from the ideals of the founding fathers I'll warrant.

 SilverMK2 wrote:

 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?

Look at his flag. Over here in europe we have political parties that span the entire political spectrum, rather than "right" and "further right". Also, "socialist" isn't a dirty word and a valid insult of someone who advocates something you don't like.

This merely means you sit in a different position than we do and have a different system, but is no means to demean an entire cultural group as being as rabid.

I didn't 'demean' an entire cultural group as rabid. The perception of politics from the far right big mouths that Fox love so much is that everyone who isn't as right wing as them is a lefty socialist. A more objective view finds that actually they are mis characterising moderate right wing people as left wing, such is their skewed views on things. The people who call Obama a socialist or communist are completely wide of the mark for example, just because he isn't Sarah Palin doesn't make him Gandhi. The US news media is not left wing in the main, yet many times I've read comments that it mostly is, according to some people on Dakka it's heavily biased in favour of left wing liberals. That's just rubbish.

I have to ask how this is different than any other news service endorsing a candidate and putting favorable stories out for them and stories that put their opponent in a bad light?
A presidential candidate, to my knowledge, is groomed and courted to run by those who like the potential of the person.

Relapse wrote:
I have to ask how this is different than any other news service endorsing a candidate and putting favorable stories out for them and stories that put their opponent in a bad light?
A presidential candidate, to my knowledge, is groomed and courted to run by those who like the potential of the person.

Because the owner of fox was going to fund the general, not choose from those who stepped forward but instead selected him and would have groomed him into the role then, according to the offer made, ensure they would report as he wanted.

If you really can't see the harm in it, if you really think other news corporations do this, then do please provide the citation of the multibillionaire owner of another media news group offering to create and control a president and control the reporting of news and events surrounding that person. We have the Koch brothers and Murdoch sitting behind the republican party, who is sitting behind the democrats and seeking to place a man they can directly control and control what the population hears about him?

 MeanGreenStompa wrote:
Does anyone else think this might be an unusual or partisan position for a 'journalistic news reporting' tv channel?

It may be partisan but it is hardly unusual.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/12/05/steve-doocy-brian-kilmead_n_2243935.html

 MeanGreenStompa wrote:

 Monster Rain wrote:

Also, since in the story in the OP Ailes said he would quit Fox to help Petraus run for president, this all makes even less sense.

Because it's made clear that the money to fund his campaign would come from Murdoch and then, she asks the General if there's anything they can do to change reporting to suit the General more and then it's made clear that the news channel is rooting for him to run and they'd support him in anything he did.

News outlets endorse political candidates all the time.

That is not a news channel, that is a political propaganda machine that actually controls the candidate for it's owner, a private business man.

Oh I agree with you.

I just don't perceive it as being unique, or worthy of the amount of internet rage that it gets. It's why I don't use it as a primary news source.

 MeanGreenStompa wrote:

Relapse wrote:
I have to ask how this is different than any other news service endorsing a candidate and putting favorable stories out for them and stories that put their opponent in a bad light?
A presidential candidate, to my knowledge, is groomed and courted to run by those who like the potential of the person.

Because the owner of fox was going to fund the general, not choose from those who stepped forward but instead selected him and would have groomed him into the role then, according to the offer made, ensure they would report as he wanted.

If you really can't see the harm in it, if you really think other news corporations do this, then do please provide the citation of the multibillionaire owner of another media news group offering to create and control a president and control the reporting of news and events surrounding that person. We have the Koch brothers and Murdoch sitting behind the republican party, who is sitting behind the democrats and seeking to place a man they can directly control and control what the population hears about him?

Every other day, MSNBC and other news agencies alomg their line, would some story or the other talking about the Mormons and how they were Satan incarnate or at the very best, shady, and in a by the way fashion, point out Romney was Mormon.
Mrs. Romney was castigated by these news agencies about wearing an expensive shirt while Michelle was praised for wearing a $4,000 plus coat.
She appeared on an interveiw show and had to defend why her husband didn't do military service whileabout the hardest question Obama's wife had to field from the same group was if he was romamtic or not.
Then there was all the talk about Romney's tax records and questions about what he might be hiding without a word about Obama's school transripts and what he might be hiding.
This is all not to mention that Romney kept being attacked for being wealthy by these same agencies.

I could go on, but the fact of the matter is that Obama had his backers among the news agencies, Romney had his. What Fox was apparently doing is just another chapter in the same book.

 Monster Rain wrote:
Oh I agree with you.

I just don't perceive it as being unique, or worthy of the amount of internet rage that it gets. It's why I don't use it as a primary news source.

It's unique because people watch it. The Washington Times, for instance, is even worse as far as overt political bias goes, but it's barely read and its opinions so extreme everyone just writes it off as moonie craziness. MSNBC set itself up to be the leftwing equivalent of FOX and is probably even worse than FOX*, but it's ratings are a fraction of FOX.

The end result of that FOX is actually politically relevant, in terms of influencing the political conversation and forming the opinions of voters. If to the point where they can approach a political candidate and tell him they'll back him and it means that person stands a serious chance of winning. If MSNBC did the same thing they'd be laughed at.



*A recent survey, I think it was by Pew, found that during the election just 10% of the FOX stories on Romney were negative, while just 10% of the Obama stories were positive (or thereabouts, I don't remember the exact numbers). Sounds pretty bad until you see that 100% of the MSNBC stories on Obama were positive, and 100% of the Romney stories were negative.

There is a very clear separation between endorsing a candidate and running a candidate.

People give money to politicians rather regularly.

Should people who work in the news business not be allowed to do so?

There is a difference between someone giving money to a politician and one of the world's biggest media corporations offering to fund, run and editorially support a politician's campaign.

Right, but I'm not convinced that this is what was happening.

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."

Another gem from this story.

Again, if you don't have a personal vendetta against these people it all seems significantly less sinister. It's entirely possible that Mr. Ailes is telling the truth in the above quote.

Fox can be downright insipid at times, as can any news outlet, but this conspiratorial story is reaching.

Who. Made. The tape.

 AustonT wrote:
Who. Made. The tape.

It was probably Ben Affleck and Matt Damon. Those guys are in to everything.

 Bromsy wrote:

 AustonT wrote:
Who. Made. The tape.

It was probably Ben Affleck and Matt Damon. Those guys are in to everything.

eww...

Have they made "Good Will Humping" yet?

 AustonT wrote:
Who. Made. The tape.

Some guy, not that it matters.

It kinda does.