More on FOX, the GOP

First, let’s get something out of the way. The man is the 117th richest person on the planet. Does anyone really think Rupert Murdoch gives a hoot about what goes on at FOX News? Sure, he’s leans, quite V8-ish, toward the right. Sure, the top guy at FOX is none other than Roger Ailes, whose own V8-ness precedes him. Does anyone think Murdoch, who most likely has Stewie’s stuffed bear named after him in the often sardonic and very non-conservative FOX Family Guy cartoon and who owns the longest running American sitcom, The Simpsons, cares about anything other than heading up successful (Read: lucrative) projects, whatever they may be? If MSNBC were as successful as FOX News currently is, I don’t think it’s a far stretch to guess that Murdoch might consider eyeing that network as well, with or without Ailes’ support.

That not withstanding, regarding this business about News Corp donating $1M to the GOP, took an unsurprising twist today when some sources have reported that Ailes, indeed, was possibly behind the decision to grant the gift:

Just say a little bird told me … the money doesn’t come from Rupert.

… the central advocate for giving the dough has been none other than Fox Chief Roger Ailes. In the past, Ailes has been stymied or neutralized in his quest to have the company put its corporate money where its mouth is, because the No. 2 in the company until last summer, Peter Chernin, was a Democrat.

With Chernin gone, and with Fox News outperforming most other parts of the company, Ailes is the central voice. What’s more, Chernin’s sidekick, corporate PR-guy Gary Ginsberg, who could be counted on to use the threat of bad press to keep Murdoch from giving in to Ailes’ none-too-politic schemes and demands, is also gone—purged, in part, by Ailes.

It’s one of the major inter-office issues at News Corp.: how to keep Roger from bullying Rupert. ((http://www.newser.com/off-the-grid/post/527/whos-really-giving-away-rupert-murdochs-money.html))

Of course, I would be hard-pressed to say how credible that “little bird” is but still, if it’s true, it’s fairly unexceptional.

The following excerpt from The Washington Post sheds more light on the marriage between FOX News and the GOP, and I agree on the point about FOX hereafter needing to add a disclaimer:

Fox News, the home of such hosts as Glenn Beck, Sean Hannity and Bill O’Reilly, has long been at odds with the Democratic Party. During the 2008 campaign, Murdoch and Fox News Chairman Roger Ailes held a secret meeting with candidate Barack Obama in an effort to clear the air. “I wanted him to understand that we’re a real journalism organization and we’re going to cover what’s there. We’re not out to get him,” Ailes said in a subsequent interview.

But the relationship blew up last year. The White House refused for months to make top officials available for interviews and assailed Fox as an arm of the Republican Party — an attack that was revived Tuesday.

“Any pretense that may have existed about the ties between Fox News and the Republican Party has been ripped violently away,” said Hari Sevugan, spokesman for the Democratic National Committee. “Any Republican that appears on Fox should now have a disclaimer that they are financially supported by the network and any coverage of the elections this fall on Fox should be reported with disclaimer for what it is — partisan propaganda.” ((http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/08/17/AR2010081704338_2.html))

News Corp. gives 1M to GOP. Surprised?

You know, the good folks over at News Corp. and FOX News really do a terrible job at concealing their unbelievably obvious bias toward the (once) Grand Old Party, almost as terrible a job as they do presenting the news in a fair and balanced format.

According to this report from The New York Times and many others, New Corp. has passed along a contribution in the amount of $1 million to the Republican Governors Association, which is one of three amounts over a million given to the Republican group in the last quarter. The largest donation to its Democratic counterpart, as it happens, was $500,000 from the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees.

According to News Corp. spokesman Jack Horner,

News Corp. has always believed in the power of free markets, and organizations like the R.G.A., which have a pro-business agenda, support our priorities at this most critical time for our economy.

Horner also said the gift would bear no impact on the newsgathering side of the company (They gather news?). Horner, seemingly anticipating the waves of criticism said, “There is a strict wall between business and editorial.”

Sure there is. I suppose that’s why there is no mention on FOX News’ website about the contribution. Only one of three largest contributions to the group this quarter and not a sentence on the donation? Enlightening.

According to The Times report,

In an e-mail to reporters, the Democratic National Committee said the donation showed that Fox News’ well-known mantra, “Fair and Balanced,” had been “rendered utterly meaningless.” Hari Sevugan, a D.N.C. spokesman, added that Fox News’ political coverage “should have a disclaimer for what it truly is — partisan propaganda.”

And when New York Times attempted to find a story on FOX’s site?

While many news organizations reported Tuesday on the $1 million gift, a late-afternoon search of Fox News’ Web site produced no mention of it.

A search at midnight on Wednesday by me produced no mention of it either. ((http://www.foxnews.com/search-results/search?q=news+corp+$1+million+GOP))

Still need evidence about FOX News?

It’s incongruous to me that the same company (Rupert Murdoch’s own tower of capitalism, News Corp.) that hosts The Simpsons, Family Guy and other gems of social commentary, also funds its flagship news channel, FOX News, which is simply awash with all things Republican, or at least, anti-leftism. This, by the way, would be A-OK, as long as lemons were called lemons and limes were called limes. But there at FOX News, “fair and balanced” is the calling card, yet over and over commentators have proven the coverage at that network to be something other than non-biased. So much so that there is no need to point readers to links here. It’s not an understatement that this network deserves none of our attention, unless you want to get good and angry and dissident about the state of the national media in America. Journalistic principals have long been tossed out the window, that is, if they were ever there to begin with. Once, journalism was a proud trade. Once, heck, even broadcast journalism was a noble field. Today, it seems as if we are, in some respects — and FOX News is taking us there quicker than many other outlets — returning to the 19th century version of newspapering that hinged around ideology rather than fact. On FOX’s inadequacies, Google any number of other examples for yourself.

Or, witness this video:

httpv://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xv0ge6ltyLA

During a segment about how some were claiming the economy was sound, FOX News piped in a clip of Vice President Joe Biden (then Sen. Biden) saying, “the fundamentals of the economy are strong.” The problem is that Biden was not saying, speaking for himself, that the fundamentals of the economy were strong. He was relaying an earlier line from Sen. John McCain in order to speak against such a notion, and of course, to make a political point . See here:

httpv://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G7CRDSZ3Pl4

Bill O’Reilly goes nutso on Barney Frank

Bill O’Really short-circuited recently when talking with Congressman Barney Frank on the Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac debacle. Here is the video:

httpv://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yrfPMa3lONU

Now, O’Reilly, blinded by his seeming anger (Did he personally invest in Freddie and Fannie after Frank’s projection?), O’Reilly didn’t want to talk about Frank’s success in getting a regulatory bill passed after becoming head of the House Financial Services Committee. O’Reilly only wanted to focus on this statement by Frank:

“I think this is a case where Fannie and Freddie are fundamentally sound, that they are not in danger of going under. They’re not the best investments these days from the long-term standpoint going back. I think they are in good shape going forward. They’re in a housing market. I do think their prospects going forward are very solid. And in fact, we’re going to do some things that are going to improve them.” — CNBC interview, July 14, 2008

O’Reilly, again and again, accused Frank of telling people to invest in Fannie and Freddie, when he did not make that statement. As the quote states, Frank expressed optimism about the future of the company but stopped short of telling people to invest in that company’s stock. Obviously, Frank’s projections were off target.

“That’s great,” O’Reilly said about Frank’s work for more regulation, “but you still went out in July and said everything was great, and off that, a lot of people bought stock and lost everything they had.”

Frank: “Oh No.”

O’Reilly: Oh yes, oh yes!”

This was the point in the interview where O’Reilly began to unravel. Regardless, after reading up on this, Frank and O’Reilly’s boss, Rupert Murdoch, have an interesting history. From Wikipedia’s entry on Frank:

Amidst the 2008 financial market turmoil, billionaire Rupert R. Murdoch has repeatedly pointed blame at Frank and a few others as the root cause of the recent housing crisis. In a recent interview, Murdoch claimed that Frank’s plan in the early nineties pushed Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to make “bad” loans to “underprivileged” families. An anonymous opinion piece published in The Wall Street Journal (owned by Murdoch’s News Corp) on September 9th 2008 further describes Barney Frank as the Patron Saint of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

As late as 2003 Frank rejected Bush administration proposals for increased oversight of Fannie Mae. The market at the time was reaping great profits and further regulation of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac would have opened the very lucrative sub-prime mortgage products to Wall Street firms. As sub-prime loans started to falter a year ago, the administration worked to move the loans back. According to the New York Times, “The White House also pitched in. James B. Lockhart, the chief regulator of Fannie and Freddie, adjusted the companies’ lending standards so they could purchase as much as $40 billion in new subprime loans. Some in Congress praised the move.”.

I find it interesting how so many of these companies , politicians and pundits are intertwined: O’Reilly continuing the argument of his boss and Frank possibly in a conflict of interest with Fannie and Freddie:

Frank, like many elected Representatives, has collected tens of thousands of dollars from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac in campaign contributions — $42,350 since 1989. Also, Frank’s former lover, Herb Moses, was an executive at Fannie Mae from 1991 to 1998, where he “helped develop many of Fannie Mae’s affordable housing and home improvement lending programs.” The relationship ended around the same time Moses left the company to start a pottery business, and Frank continued support of the companies after the relationship ended. Fox News reported that in 1991, “the year Moses was hired by Fannie, the Boston Globe reported that Frank pushed the agency to loosen regulations on mortgages for two- and three-family homes, even though they were defaulting at twice and five times the rate of single homes, respectively.”