Exclusive Excerpt: Roger Ailes Off Camera

Exclusive Excerpt: Roger Ailes Off Camera

Roger Ailes is one of the most powerful—and controversial—characters in television media, pilloried by critics and many in the mainstream media and lionized by conservative viewers who can’t get enough of his posse of charismatic hosts. His Fox News was accused of being the “communications arm of the Republican Party” in 2010 by then White House communications director Anita Dunn and has been criticized by Barack Obama himself (criticism that Ailes publicly countered with gusto, claiming the president “just has a different belief system from most Americans”)

www.vanityfair.com...

People do love to vilify Fox News and Rupert Murdoch, but Roger Alies doesn't get mentioned too often.

He is plainspoken, wryly profane, caustic, and above all competitive, whether he is relating how he told NBC not to name its cable channel MSNBC (“M.S. is a damn disease”) or, in an appearance before a student audience, trying to recall the name of a CNN anchor “named after a prison.” (Soledad O’Brien.)

Yeah he is plan spoken read the rest of the article to see wonder how many people knew this?

During the presidential campaign of 2008, candidate Barack Obama was upset by Fox News, which by then was in its sixth year of cable dominance. A sit-down was arranged with Murdoch and Ailes, who recalls that the meeting took place in a private room at the Waldorf Astoria hotel in Manhattan

This is true Fox News has been single out by the current admin.

After some pleasantries, Obama got to the point. He was concerned about the way he was being portrayed on Fox, and his real issue wasn’t the news; it was Sean Hannity, who had been battering him every night at nine (and on his radio show, which Fox doesn’t own or control). Ailes didn’t deny that Hannity was anti-Obama. He simply told the candidate not to worry about it. “Nobody who watches Sean’s going to vote for you anyway,” he said.

True those who watch Fox News didn't vote for the current potus there are snips in the article I think it is all hearsay.

Still entertaining tho what say you?

Flame away.

Sometimes I find myself thinking that a lot of the Presidents power is directly linked, dare I say derived from the Media and a particulars news outlets ability to sway public opinion.

These exclusives certainly seem to support this line of thinking.

Then again, many of us have always assumed that the powers to be have unseen control over politics anyways

Can you imagine being a person of such influence that the respective leader of your country has to consider your intentions for their political future....must be thrilling.

Politics and power struggles are always fun to watch for those who know where to look.

Thanks for the post.

ETA

Obama then asked Ailes what his personal concerns might be. It is a politician’s question that means: What can I do for you?

This line right here. THis is when you know you have a politician in your hands.

ETA part deux

“Well, why are you going around talking about making cuts in weapons systems?” asked Ailes. “If you’re going to cut, why not at least negotiate them and get something in return?”

Obama said that Ailes had been misinformed; he was not advocating unilateral cuts.

“He said this looking me right in the eyes,” says Ailes. “He never dropped his gaze, which is the usual tell. It was as good a lie as anyone ever told me. I said, ‘Senator, I just watched someone say exactly that on my computer screen before coming over here. Maybe it wasn’t you, but it sure looked like you and sounded like you. I think it was you.’ ”

At that point, Gibbs stood and announced that the session was over. “I don’t think he liked the meeting very much,” says Ailes.

I will admit, that was pretty funny.

And yet, Roger Ailes wanted Petraeus to run for president in 2012 and would have used his FOX News as leverage.

Source: www.washingtonpost.com...

And an extension of Ailes is Ed Henry - the White House Senior Correspondent for FOX News. The White House Press Secretary once accused Henry of using “talking points issues by the Republican Party,” and saying that "I know you're creating a thing here for FOX."

And Obama himself has said about Henry, “I didn't know you were the spokesperson for Mitt Romney."

Why do I bring this up in the context of the OP? The administration certainly singled out FOX News, and for good reason - Ailes was trying to buy the presidential election with Petraeus, and Henry lost his contract at CNN so bitterly joined FOX as one of Ailes' news weapons.

Edit:

...an extraordinarily private and security-conscious person who once personally safety-tested the thickness of the glass at the network’s Manhattan studios.

That tells me he's purposefully *not* running a standard, forth estate, news organization since he's so concerned with security measures. And anyway didn't James Murdoch, before Parliament and under intense questioning, own up to the fact that yes, FOX is "news entertainment."

reply to post by Jason88

Why do I bring this up in the context of the OP? The administration certainly singled out FOX News, and for good reason - Ailes was trying to buy the presidential election with Petraeus, and Henry lost his contract at CNN so bitterly joined FOX as one of Ailes' news weapons.

Try?

History showed who bought 2 presidential elections to the tune of 2 billion dollars

own up to the fact that yes, FOX is "news entertainment."

When will those other "news entertianment" organizations own up to that "fact".

reply to post by Jason88

And anyway didn't James Murdoch, before Parliament and under intense questioning, own up to the fact that yes, FOX is "news entertainment."

I am not sure if he said that regarding Fox news, but he said something similar about Britain's Sky News.

“I am sure he will help us build Sky's reputation as the nation's number one entertainment choice,”

Its always fun to catch damning statements from the progeny of these powerful media moguls.

reply to post by MDDoxs


I stand corrected (makes sense, FOX isn't in the UK it's Sky).

I agree, it's interesting to when damning statements come to light within the media elite.

reply to post by neo96


Care to elaborate on who bought two presidential elections for $2 billion dollars?

As for the other TV news media... well, when these things are owned by 3 or 4 people I expect nothing less than an agenda. FOX is just more blatant about it. And I fully expect that the reshuffling now at NBC under Zucker will have that network taking a more "FOX" approach to things for ad dollars.

reply to post by Jason88

Care to elaborate on who bought two presidential elections for $2 billion dollars?

American presidential elections are won by who spend the most money take a good look at the oval office right now.

The last 2 elections were bought in more ways than one.

As for the other TV news media... well, when these things are owned by 3 or 4 people I expect nothing less than an agenda. FOX is just more blatant about it. And I fully expect that the reshuffling now at NBC under Zucker will have that network taking a more "FOX" approach to things for ad dollars.

Other media outlets are the same even tho some people refuse to admit that Fox News was such as threat we would not have the administration we do.

reply to post by neo96


And yet Ross Perot or Mitt Romney, with all their money couldn't "buy" the highest office. I'm not saying it doesn't take loads of cash in the form of supporters or personal wealth to get in there, but claiming one can outright purchase the presidency is a crude claim. Really, it takes lots of promises to powerful people, the "you scratch my back, I'll scratch yours" approach -- such as the Vanity Fair Article cited in OP - Obama asked what he could do for Ailes.

We have the administration we have now because America voted for it. If anything, FOX News scared away the moderates and independents - most of America.

reply to post by Jason88

And yet Ross Perot or Mitt Romney, with all their money couldn't "buy" the highest office

Romney was out raised, he did not have the left wing attack machine working for him 24/7

Social media,news organizations not Fox News all put the current dude in office, that 6 trillion spent during the last term no one can match.

Originally posted by neo96
reply to post by Jason88

 

And yet Ross Perot or Mitt Romney, with all their money couldn't "buy" the highest office

Romney was out raised, he did not have the left wing attack machine working for him 24/7

Social media,news organizations not Fox News all put the current dude in office, that 6 trillion spent during the last term no one can match.

And yet Romney, with the support of Ailes and FOX, outspent Obama. Source: elections.nytimes.com...

More:

In addition to these committees, nonprofit groups that do not have to file with the Federal Election Commission and other super PACs have spent at least $65 million more on television advertising, almost all of it against President Obama or in support of Mitt Romney.

Could have simply been the majority of Americans didn't identify with Romney no matter how much FOX News wanted him to be president (or the money spent)?

Edit:


This screen grab from the NYTimes source also tells me Romney had loads more of wealthy donors than regular folks.

reply to post by Jason88

And yet Romney, with the support of Ailes and FOX, outspent Obama. Source:

No he didn't hell that 800 billion dollar stimulus doesn't even begin to cover it.

Originally posted by neo96
reply to post by Jason88

 

No he didn't hell that 800 billion dollar stimulus doesn't even begin to cover it.

Obama's plan worked to shock the U.S. economy out of its steep 2008-2009 recession. He stopped the bleeding.

Just yesterday the Dow Jones industrial average closed at 14,253.77, a new record for the index. And the S&P closed yesterday only 1.6 percent below its all-time high.

While this is great news (for the already wealthy and stock holders), the economy is still not on track - and who's to blame? Congress. It sits on its hands and avoids anything that sounds like a “stimulus" by playing politics (surprise).

reply to post by neo96

Good point regarding Obama's first term spending habit...
Don't forget that Obama has also gotten it for free from the MSM since 2007. That money saved on promotion was spent elsewhere (attacks) to further power his machine. Romney had to battle the media and Obama throughout the entire campaign. Talk about a stacked deck.

reply to post by Jason88

Obama's plan worked to shock the U.S. economy out of its steep 2008-2009 recession. He stopped the bleeding.

Hardly

Just yesterday the Dow Jones industrial average closed at 14,253.77, a new record for the index. And the S&P closed yesterday only 1.6 percent below its all-time high.

so what?

The dow hit 14k under Bush look how that turned out besides for those who are paying attention the fed is on a buying spree artifically inflating the dow.

What goes up always comes down.

reply to post by Jason88


Yesterday's Dow blip has nothing to do with recovery. Nothing. If anything, its a sign of darker days ahead. Look at consumer confidence and retail sales figures...

-- Confidence is a distinctly American quality, but are Americans dusting off the gloom of poor economic conditions and moving on? According to the latest research by Mintel on consumers' attitudes about the economy, folks in the US are not looking at the future through rose-colored glasses. Indeed, almost three in four (72%) US consumers think younger generations will have a more difficult time than they had, and nearly half (49%) think that other countries offer better opportunities than the US.

(Logo: photos.prnewswire.com...)

Mintel's research also shows that it's not just younger generations who have had a hard time in the current economic climate. It is actually younger Baby Boomers—those aged 45-54 and at the peak of their earning years—who are the least likely to say that their finances are healthy. In fact, 41% of this group indicate that their household financial situation is "tight," "struggling" or "just getting by" five years after the recession, compared to 37% of Gen X (35-44 year olds) and 33% of consumers overall.

Susan Menke, VP, financial services at Mintel, said:

"The fact that younger Boomers are struggling with their household finances is bad news for economic growth, as it is this age group which is usually at the peak of their earning power, and has traditionally been a primary driver of consumer spending and therefore of the economy. This is also problematic for younger generations, as these younger Boomers will likely delay retirement for financial reasons, which will impact the already difficult job prospects for Millennials and Gen Xers."

finance.yahoo.com...


The Dow is Great for Obama and his cronies...

reply to post by jibeho


Delusional. Romney was his own worst enemy. The MSM was stacked against him sure, but on the same token the MSM couldn't have saved Romney from himself if it wanted to (and ignoring things, as FOX did, is not an actionable plan). He had no ideas, just attacks and said some awful stuff in private about Americans. I think the conspiracy hat should come off for a moment - the majority of Americans couldn't identify with Romney. Period.

I'm thinking you two live in an echo chamber local where everyone self affirms each other void of reality.

reply to post by Jason88

MSM couldn't have saved Romney from himself

Why would they?

They were too busy saving the current potus.

I am sure the top Democrats are very pleased with what Ailes has accomplished.

Originally posted by neo96
reply to post by Jason88

 

Obama's plan worked to shock the U.S. economy out of its steep 2008-2009 recession. He stopped the bleeding.

Hardly

Just yesterday the Dow Jones industrial average closed at 14,253.77, a new record for the index. And the S&P closed yesterday only 1.6 percent below its all-time high.

so what?

The dow hit 14k under Bush look how that turned out besides for those who are paying attention the fed is on a buying spree artifically inflating the dow.

What goes up always comes down.

edit on 6-3-2013 by neo96 because: (no reason given)

The Fed is one tool, and the only one in the box that is working right now. But it's a blunt tool, so most of that money ends in the hands of the rich, whereby the Fed is attempting to spurn spending and job growth from a top down approach. Congress NEEDS to be doing more, and invest its time in creative solutions to help the middle and bottom classes of America.

Originally posted by jibeho
reply to post by Jason88

 

Yesterday's Dow blip has nothing to do with recovery. Nothing. If anything, its a sign of darker days ahead. Look at consumer confidence and retail sales figures...

This time of year confidence and spending are always down - it's a trend. Just like employment picks up around the holidays with temporary workforces to service customers. Year after year...

And the Dow blip is good news for the wealthy - let's hope trickle down economics (Reaganomics) really works.

Edit. Back on topic and in response to Neo96 - FOX, Ailes and Murdoch have legions of devoted fans. But a vocal legion does not equate to majority rule - which is why Obama is president. Ailes picked a loser in Romney, even fellow republicans don't like him and reluctantly supported him.

As for conspiracies - I've always wondered why the republicans didn't float a better candidate - there's about 9 of them that could have won and weren't certifiably crazy (scaring Americans and all).