Politico astutely pointed out the other day that Fox News now employs four of the leading Republican presidential candidates: Sarah Palin, Newt Gingrich, Mike Huckabee, and Rick Santorum.
It’s hardly news that Fox News is more propaganda outlet than news organization. But this ought to be a more troubling development than it seems to have been thus far. Here’s the broader media angle from Politico:
With the exception of Mitt Romney, Fox now has deals with every major potential Republican presidential candidate not currently in elected office.
The matter is of no small consequence, since it’s uncertain how other news organizations can cover the early stages of the presidential race when some of the main GOP contenders are contractually forbidden to appear on any TV network besides Fox.
C-SPAN Political Editor Steve Scully said that when C-SPAN tried to have Palin on for an interview, he was told he had to first get Fox’s permission — which the network, citing her contract, ultimately denied. Producers at NBC, ABC, CBS, CNN and MSNBC all report similar experiences.
And here’s the more insidious one Paul Krugman points out today:
Now, media moguls have often promoted the careers and campaigns of politicians they believe will serve their interests. But directly cutting checks to political favorites takes it to a whole new level of blatancy.
Rupert Murdoch: Never subtle.
Murdoch, at least, is a naturalized American citizen, and who can forget the heart-warming story of why he became one: To get past legal requirements so he could snap up TV stations here.
But I’ve never understood why the UK allows a foreigner like Murdoch to have so much control over its press—he controls some 40 percent of newspaper circulation and has huge influence over television, too, with his big stake in BSkyB. Here’s The Observer:
Blair’s deputy director of communications, Lance Price, called Murdoch the 24th member of the cabinet. “His presence was always felt,” he wrote. “No big decision could ever be made inside Number 10 without taking account of the likely reaction of three men – Gordon Brown, John Prescott and Rupert Murdoch. On all the really big decisions, anybody else could safely be ignored.” That is almost certainly true of the new government and Andy Coulson is seen as the key facilitator of Rupert’s habitual privilege.
Andy Coulson is the former News of the World editor who headed the paper while it hacked the royal family’s—and hundreds’ and perhaps thousands of others’—phones and listened to their voicemails.
That News of the World scandal and coverup continues to unravel, and Murdoch’s influence is one of the key stories there. It looks for all the world as if Scotland Yard was so in debt to and/or scared of News Corporation that it wouldn’t investigate the crimes properly—and even helped cover them up.
Guess who’s also on the Murdoch payroll? The Scotland Yard cop who headed up the failed investigation.
The Guardian quotes from an upcoming Channel 4 documentary, which reports that the influence is hardly limited to the indirect “you-don’t-know-what-I-might-do-so-watch-out” variety:
Adam Price, one of the MPs from the media select committee which last year investigated the phone-hacking scandal, described how he stopped voting to compel News International’s chief executive, Rebekah Brooks, to be called as a witness.
“I was told by a senior Conservative member of the committee, who I knew was in direct contact with executives at News International, that if we went for her, they would go for us – effectively that they would delve into our personal lives in order to punish them.”
The Labour MP Tom Watson said he was threatened in 2006 after he called for Tony Blair to resign at a time when News International was supporting him.
“A very senior News International journalist told me that Rebekah would never forgive me for what I did and that she would pursue me through parliament for the rest of my time as an MP,” he said.
Adam Price: a modern-day Profile in Courage! But I digress.
This is the corporation that has more than half of the leading candidates for president of the United States on its payroll.
Surprising article. No mention of decades of liberal influence 'hidden' inside CBS... NBC... ABC... and now no longer even attempted to be 'hidden'. What about Dan Rather and his hit attack on George bush? Ezra Klein and his 'journolist'? The Associated Press and their declaration that they will enter "Advocacy journalism"...
Today's 'journalist' are broken - polls show the complete disrespect that the public has for journalism...Seems like Columbia would work at healing themselves, rather than take pot-shots at Murdoch.
#1 Posted by Bill Sanford, CJR on Mon 4 Oct 2010 at 01:25 PM
The difference between so-called 'liberal media bias' and Fox News is that Fox's mission statement is get Republicans elected.
News sources other than Fox news may offer stories that only 'liberals' find newsworthy, but Fox suppresses information that run counter to its goal (again, electing Republicans).
Fox news spreads via word-of-mouth & chain e-mails and its influence is far greater than the limited audience of cable news.
People don't like to hear that they're narrow-minded, but people who rally behind talking heads that present only one side of issues and events cannot be described as broad-minded (liberals as well as conservatives).
#2 Posted by arapaho415, CJR on Mon 4 Oct 2010 at 02:18 PM
Funny, I thought the threat to democracy was a sitting president taking aim at the only news outlet willing to criticize him.
By abdicating its responsibility, the MSM has created and empowered Fox News. More than that, the MSM has time and again deliberately spiked stories that didn't meet its liberal narrative. Ever heard of the Rev. Wright? If not for Fox, you never would have - and he was a significant story.
CJR is egregiously unbalanced, with Prof. Gitlin still there (unbelievable!) and Soros money flowing in. But it's hardly different from the rest of the MSM that sent 88% of its campaign contributions to Democrats.
Compare Fox's interviews with Obama and any conservative's on the MSM. It's night and day.
What sickens me is seeing otherwise respectable journalists cheering on Obama in this truly undemocratic campaign. And all because you want to suppress the conservative point of view you happen to disagree with?
Would you like a President McCain to pull the plug on the Times? Then why support the demonization of any news outlet?
#3 Posted by JLD, CJR on Tue 5 Oct 2010 at 03:48 AM
Media bullies and bought politicians are nothing new. In the UK, Mr Murdoch's Sky News recently chose not to report a story about a law firm and copyright and privacy:
http://www.theinquirer.net/inquirer/news/1736800/isps-admit-taking-money-handing-subscribers
So what else are they hiding?
#4 Posted by Tim C, CJR on Tue 5 Oct 2010 at 10:34 AM
Rev Wright a significant story? An angry black man against white America? How can that be? How can the Reverend think that way? The only "story" is that America forgets its origins asperpetuating injustice to blacks, and that Fox would do anything to get Obama in some way. So why not portray him as hating white people as GB likes to think? Meanwhile Fox is perpetuating an single, isolated incident of some faux black pantherin Philly trying to get voters to change their minds; they id'ed Gov. Sanford as a democrat for several hours before they changed it while he discussed his hiking adventures. They do it over & over and they end up saying "I'm just saying..." It's like saying Limbaugh is a political commentator. Why not just admit you are the republican news center and get it over with instead of trying to maintain some kind of "balance." I thought all presidents took potshots at those who disagreed with them. To be int he business of effecting change for a particular party is a far more serious action.
#5 Posted by JW, CJR on Tue 5 Oct 2010 at 11:06 AM
This is real nasty stuff: The British Parliament and police being bullied by a powerful media organization not to investigate. The US is not far behind. Fox News is now even a major donor to NPR. We ignore the influence of Rupert Murdoch on both sides of the Atlantic at our peril, as the New York Times is learning fast.
Another problem in Britain is that only one Parliamentary Committee, The Standards and Privileges Committee, has subponea powers, so very few matters are ever properly investigated by Parliament. It is apparently going to investigate the laws around phone-hacking, but not News International specifically. This is a typical British solution of appearing to address a problem without actually addressing it!
There are many in Britain seeking for a more transparent democracy, such as the MPs Adam Price and Tom Watson, but as quoted above, they are up against strong threatening forces. They need all the help they can get. From my experience, there is alot more corruption lurking beneath the surface.
The same Media Select Committee, actually called the Culture, Media and Sport Select Committee, was likely pressured not to investigate matters I raised as well, such as secret hearings for my libel claims and the use of legal costs to stymie my claims. I have also been libeled by Murdoch's Sunday Times and despite filing a lawsuit and complaining to Britain's useless Press Complaints Commission, my claim went nowhere and I never received a correction and apology. They even libeled the U.S. Supreme Court in the same article.
Atleast the Parliamentary Committee published the Memoranda I submitted to them and one court judgment. It makes for painful reading as to how the British system of justice works in practice when rich and powerful interests are at stake (think BP and the release of the Lockerbie bomber):
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200809/cmselect/cmcumeds/memo/press/ucps3902.htm
My one public judgment in one of my libel claims:
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200809/cmselect/cmcumeds/memo/press/ucps5302.htm
#6 Posted by Elaine Decoulos, CJR on Thu 7 Oct 2010 at 12:35 AM
No wonder Mike Royko called him "the beast."
#7 Posted by Pat Kelley, CJR on Thu 7 Oct 2010 at 01:53 PM
Fox New is "the only news outlet willing to criticize him"? Since when? I've heard criticism from all quarters. The MSM created Fox news? Fox new is the MSM for millions of benighted folks, and for those who think the ardency of their beliefs trump facts.
#8 Posted by Thomas Walker, CJR on Fri 8 Oct 2010 at 11:55 AM
What a joke, Palin, Gingrich, Santorum, and Huckabee have zero chance of becoming the next Republican nominee. The leading candidate right now is Mitch Daniels, if he decides to run, and even then he's no shoo-in. Publishers influencing politicians is nothing new, read some history. It's not going to last because the internet is about to put the news barons out of business, so your suggestion of silly laws to limit their influence is both unwarranted and reactionary.
#9 Posted by Ajay, CJR on Mon 11 Oct 2010 at 05:08 PM
This is no joke, the second largest shareholder of News Corp is none other than Prince Al-Waleed bin Talal a prince of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. It is also interesting to note that 15 of the 19 terrorist that propagated the 9/11 attacks on the United States were also from Saudi Arabia.
These guys are pitting Americans against each other and spreading hate through viokent speech. Before you know it they will be causing riots and people will be getting hurt.
#10 Posted by Joseph M Radmacher, CJR on Fri 15 Oct 2010 at 01:24 AM