The Fox primary: complicated, contractual; Politico

The opening line in this news story reads

With Sarah Palin, Newt Gingrich, Rick Santorum and Mike Huckabee all making moves indicating they may run for president, their common employer is facing a question that hasn’t been asked before: How does a news organization cover White House hopefuls when so many are on the payroll?

The answer is a complicated one for Fox News.

Link to story

the deal is, With the exception of Mitt Romney, Fox now has deals with every major potential Republican presidential candidate not currently in elected office and no one else...NBC, ABC, CBS, CNN MSNBC and C-SPAN is allowed access to this folks.

Fox, in an e-mail to POLITICO, indicated that once any of the candidates declares for the presidency he or she will have to sever the deal with the network.

But it’s such a lucrative and powerful pulpit that Palin, Gingrich, Santorum and Huckabee have every reason to delay formal announcements and stay on contract for as long as they can.

So what do you all think... is it fair for FOX news to monopolize candidates in this fashion? is FOX doing this to up their own appearance as a political powerhouse? Or has maybe the GOP taken controlling interest of the FOX network and used this as the place to groom their up and coming want-a-be's?

reply to post by DaddyBare


Monopolize? It is a monopoly when you own all the business.

I think the Dems have the closest thing to a monopoly when it comes to Television media.

Can you say Journ-O-list?

Has anyone else noticed the conflagration of the school rhetoric lately on the propaganda tube? Almost every channel has the "save our schools" rhetoric going on right now.

I wonder who that would benefit on the political sphere?

As for a Fox component, hell that would be more detrimental in my opinion. You would have ABC, NBC, CBS, MSNBC, CNN, PBS, NPR, CNBC and every other liberal media outlet screaming against them. Just yesterday I was discussing the coverage of public media on another site. The members on the forums, for those public media centers, are calling out the obvious bias in those locations.

People are beginning to understand that the government is becoming a self perpetuating entity. The public unions, the reporters, the bureaucracies all see the evidence that those in government do not care about the constituency, they only care about their own ever increasing salaries, pensions and benefits to the detriment of those of us in the private sector.

We are the ones being hit by this depression whereby they are insulated from it.

I see a tsunami coming. I can see it from my house.

One thing for sure, Fox news is fair and balanced...they hire the best and brightest right wing, and far right wing...and give a fair and balanced view of both viewpoints (right and hard right).

however, those right wingers may be a bit too left for the taste of the average fox viewer...

once Oreilly is seen as a lefty liberal, you know your in a interesting place.

Interesting mess they got themselves in though, ya...which corporate shill in a suit will fox send forth from that group...my guess would be gingrech to be the likely frontrunner.

I honestly dont see Palin being anything else than a fundraiser monkey in the runup

reply to post by saltheart foamfollower


With the exception of msnbc, the media does not have a liberal bias...it has a facts and history bias..it assumes that the people watching may have a bit of knowledge on what they are reporting about. There was a study done by a independent group awhile back that was investigating any platform leanings in the media and thats what they concluded.

now, the study did find that journalists themselves tend to be liberal, because its a liberal field overall...once you travel around and educate yourself a bit, start talking to victims and other such people your job requires you to talk to, your views start to become more worldly naturally, and you start adopting some so called liberal viewpoints

a worldly viewpoint is often attributed to a liberal viewpoint.

reply to post by SaturnFX


Well yes, I guess being taught propaganda techniques as a journalist in the US colleges, would tend to make someone liberal.

Always have to put that liberal slant on something to dumb it down for the masses.

Address the Journ O List once and tell me there is not a concerted propaganda effort in most every media outlet.

Tell me why in 350 of 351 media releases, on the 8 officials arrested in Bell California, the party affiliation was not even mentioned. Oh, and by the way, Fox was NOT the one that stated they were all Democrats.

Also, maybe the FACT that AP and other main sources of information is parroted on all the networks and other MSM sources.

Sorry to tell you this, and you may not believe it, but the MSM pushes the government agenda. Period.

Fox is a controlled opposition operation. Kinda exactly the same as the Dem/Repub component.

It is just more proof that Republicans are funded and have obligations to large corporations. I wonder if large corporations (Like FoxNews) would benefit from one of these toons being elected...hmmmmm?

Are we suprised by this?

George Stephanopoulos Strategizes With Old Boss Bill Clinton: How Can Obama Regain His 'Gut Connection?'

Interviewing Bill Clinton for Tuesday's Good Morning America, George Stephanopoulos' nine minute segment mostly amounted to a strategy session that was devoid of tough questions. Stephanopoulos stuck to softball comments, such as inquiring of the Clinton Global Initiative. He also speculated how Barack Obama could regain his "gut connection" with the American people.

Some people, if they were interviewing their former boss, might feel an extra responsibility to ask probing, grueling questions. Instead, Stephanopoulos brought up Sarah Palin: "Is she qualified to be president?" He followed up, "What's your gut on that?"

The former Democratic operative turned journalist could have pressed the ex-President about the details of his charity, the Clinton Global Initiative (CGI). Considering that the international group deals with several world leaders, he might have asked if there was any conflict of interest for Bill Clinton's Secretary of State wife. Stephanopoulos could have queried as to the funding for CGI. He did not.

Clinton Global Initiative being pushed by the MSM. Hmmm, no collusion whatsover.

Oh another one-ABC News Exec Joins Left Wing Firm Which Boasts 'Far-Reaching Role' in Electing Obama

Emily Lenzner, Executive Director of Communications at ABC News for its DC-based shows, who spent eight months in 2007-2008 as editorial producer for This Week with George Stephanopoulos (for whom she also toiled inside the Clinton White House), has left ABC News for Anita Dunn's “strategic communications firm.” SKDKnickerbocker announced Monday she'll be a Managing Director with the firm led by Dunn, the Obama administration's Communications Director in 2009. SKDKnickerbocker's “About” page boasts:

We helped Barack Obama by being the only firm in America to do direct mail and television advertising for his 2008 presidential victory. We helped SEIU fight to stave off millions of dollars of healthcare cuts.

Their “Case Studies” page, which touts work for a bunch of liberal candidates, highlights “FAR-REACHING ROLE IN ELECTION: Obama for America.” That page trumpets: “No other firm had as far-reaching a role in President Obama's election...with Anita Dunn serving as one of the top officials of the campaign and the firm producing both television advertising and direct mail for the campaign.”

This site is an EXCELLENT SOURCE for the liberal bias in media-NewsBusters

Hell, looks like all the journalists are gearing up for the election campaigns, wonder who they will be pushing to win? Statists or Individualists. That is the question.

Originally posted by saltheart foamfollower
reply to post by DaddyBare

 

Has anyone else noticed the conflagration of the school rhetoric lately on the propaganda tube? Almost every channel has the "save our schools" rhetoric going on right now.

I wonder who that would benefit on the political sphere?

Well Liberals actually want smart children, just the concept itself is part of our core ideology. Like you don't want to pay taxes, have your guns... Its that type of thing... I know conservatives have to find the motive of gain, from a strictly ideological point this is where you are wrong, it might even be projection, IDK because I can't relate to you constant suspicion. Same things for healthcare as a concept, the environment, living wages, etc... I don't really think conservatives care about these things as things of core importance probably because the only way to address these things in a meaningful why is with governance. Or because the focus is exclusively on self -

If these type of thing ever have any political gain, it is because these things ring true with people. Also, I am not sure how "save our schools" is a political campaign, unless you are implying Conservatives want to "destroy our schools!"? Or conservatives "could give half a crap about education"? If you guys want to get rid of public
schools and socialist liberalisms marxisms education, put it out there, this manner is weak, all moan no motion.
I mean the fact that so often people regard education as a Liberal thing is a very interesting thing in general.
What would conservative education teach? Special math? Special Science? Would the professors wear uniforms?

Anyways I hear this charge all the time,,, Once again, liberalism = education??? WTF?

reply to post by Janky Red


Who do the school employees work for? Government right?

What has been the result of dumping of dollars into the public school system? Better grades, better graduation rates, higher intelligence in our children, or what?

Seems like the standard government format of burning dollars is not working.

What is it again, oh yeah, can't fix stupid, by giving stupid; money.

That is what I am saying about the school campaign.

Plus the all pervasive, "What about the children", argument.

reply to post by DaddyBare


I think it is rather unfortunate that both Fox and these candidates resort to signing such contracts in the backround when running for office. However the actions of those candidates in signing those deals with Fox will only provide opportunity for voters to rethink their stances, and I doubt voters for the likes of Sarah Palin and Gingrich will give a damn as Fox news is the nightly messenger for them and they are loyal watchers.

It comes down to the politicians who sign these deals with fox. They know where their priorities lie and people make decisions based on that.

reply to post by Southern Guardian


What? Boy did you twist that one good.

Fox stated that if they run, the contracts are done. Did you miss that or you just pulling the misread tactic?

Originally posted by saltheart foamfollower
reply to post by DaddyBare

 

Has anyone else noticed the conflagration of the school rhetoric lately on the propaganda tube? Almost every channel has the "save our schools" rhetoric going on right now.

I wonder who that would benefit on the political sphere?

I don't know...the our children maybe?

Is this the far right's plan for education?....Screw our future, damn the children....blockaide any improvements to education...otherwise it runs the risk of making Democrats look good?...Seriously? WTF is wrong with you people? It is a sickness.

reply to post by saltheart foamfollower


Wow, Saltheart endorsing the two party system.

Can't say I'm too shocked by this though, you come off as the big 'anti-two party guy', but turns out you are probably a registered Republican. Preaching against the Two Party system on one thread then endorsing it on a different thread. At least I was honest when I endorsed the Democrats, until I learned neither side actually gives a rats ass.

reply to post by Misoir


Where did you get the endorsement of the two party system?

From me stating that I think the federal government should have NOTHING to do with education.

Also, I have never registered to any party. Non committed.

Also, for your info. The elections that I have voted, it is right now about a 4 to 7 Dem to Repub ratio. Remember the guy I ragged on awhile back, ol Russ, voted for him. Use to be a worthwhile candidate until he started to COMPROMISE.

Like I have said before, I will never vote for the lesser of two evils, unless of course one of them is Pelosi.
Woooo, I did not even vote for McCain. WOW! Actually hoped Obama would be elected to wake up the rest of the sheeple. WOOO boy has he, Reid, and Pelosi woke up the country. Gotta thank them for that. Even pushed the RINO's out into the light.

Ronnie was my man if he would of followed his damn ideals. But no, he had to COMPROMISE. No one should compromise on their ideals. That is how all the crap happens. Gotta hope ol Ron Paul or others can fire up the true conservatives, and stop the neos and progressives from going further down the tyranny corridor.

I want that federal government to have the powers laid out in the Constitution and NO MORE!

That is my philosophy. If I have to hold my nose and vote for a Dem or Repub, I will.

reply to post by saltheart foamfollower


The reference to the tsunami means that it will be a Republican landslide and you seemed quite happy about that.

reply to post by Misoir


Well, tsunamis can be devastating, I am hoping Al Gore is at his beach house.

Tell me, do you agree with the things going on?

Computer tapping, cap and tax to institute global government (by the way, Bush was against that, cannot be all bad), wars, government growing out of control, federal reserve expansion to a whole other bureau, crony capitalism continued, etc etc etc.

The only thing I can see that may stop and reverse this is this election forcing a wave of freedom that we have to force down THEIR throats. It seems the Dems have turned into Bush on steroids. Calling for control and invasion of the internet now. Hmmm, what is your stance on that?

You know me pretty good. I think that states should be able to run any type of system they want. I believe this wave coming is inevitable. I will not back any increase in powers of the government, to enforce their ideas any longer. I am ready, are you?

Originally posted by saltheart foamfollower

Like I have said before, I will never vote for the lesser of two evils,...

Isn't this a perceivable admission that you are intending on voting for and are a proponent of the Greater Evil?

Was this an admission and a publically overt confession or a Freudian Slip I wonder...


,
-ET

Originally posted by Esoteric Teacher

Originally posted by saltheart foamfollower

Like I have said before, I will never vote for the lesser of two evils,...

Isn't this a perceivable admission that you are intending on voting for and are a proponent of the Greater Evil?

Was this an admission and a publically overt confession or a Freudian Slip I wonder...

Nice try, I think what you just stated was a false dilemma.

two choices are given when in fact there are three options

With a little false analogy.

the two objects or events being compared are relevantly dissimilar

With maybe a little Fallacy of Exclusion

evidence which would change the outcome of an inductive argument is excluded from consideration

Also a possible Too Narrow Fallacy

The definition does not include all the items which should be included

I hope this puts to end any further question that FOX is 'no different than the other networks'. Clearly they are not Fair, Not balanced, they are 100% Republican propaganda.

reply to post by spiritualzombie


i hope this puts to end any further question that the cnn,msnbc,abc,nbc,cbs is 'no different than any other networks'
they are clearly not fair,not balanced, they are 100% democratic propaganda.


they control horizontal they control the verical and they are clearly taking you to the outer limits of insanity.



as to the op yup like its been said no monopoly of the republican candidates it clearly says termination if they want to run.