(graphic borrowed from here; no idea who first created it)
Here's a thought-provoking article at Politico. With the exception of Mitt Romney, every major potential Republican candidate for president who's not already in an elected office works for Fox "News." Yes, Sarah Palin, Newt Gingrich, Rick Santorum, and Mike Huckabee are all pulling down fat paychecks from Fox.
The article goes on to wonder how a "news organization" can cover a White House election when they employ all the candidates. Of course, Fox isn't really a news organization. It's simply the propaganda arm of the Republican Party. After all, their parent organization just gave $1 million to the Republicans, and another $1 million to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce to lobby for Republicans. Would a "news organization" do that?
But it results in some weird things:
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.
At issue are basic matters of political and journalistic fairness and propriety. With Fox effectively becoming the flagship network of the right and, more specifically, the tea party movement, the four Republicans it employs enjoy an unparalleled platform from which to speak directly to primary voters who will determine the party’s next nominee.
Yeah, Mitt Romney doesn't need the money, but I'll bet he's desperate to get hired by Fox, don't you think? As it is, Republican candidates for U.S. Senate like Sharron Angle and Christine O'Donnell - those with the looniest views, in other words (although that could describe the entire GOP these days) - are staying well away from news stations,... all except for Fox, where they know they'll be handled with kid gloves.
Though pretending to be a news organization, Fox actually has an agenda to push - and no qualms at all in pushing it all the way to the White House. Will they control the next Republican president? Well, of course. Whether Fox employs a politician or not, no Republican officeholder dares to upset them. Heck, that would be even worse than criticizing Rush Limbaugh.
I really don't think it's an exaggeration to say that Fox "News" is destroying our country - or at least destroying our democracy. They're not the only organization working hard on that, but they might be the most effective. And now, quite likely, they're going to own the next Republican presidential candidate. Are we going to see a real-life Manchurian candidate?
Posts
7 comments:
I saw this article and thought it was fascinating too. But couldn't it work to the Democrates advantage? If the Republican canidates can't appear on other networks that means that the other networks will inevitably focus more on the Democrates.
I mean it doesn't help people evaluate candidates, but with the two parties such polar opposites most people must have choosen sides by now. So, the Republican canidates want to express their ideas on Fox where they get nothing but softball questions; And they can preach to their choir (Fox viewers) all they want.
And meanwhile the rest of us won't have to listen to it.
For those who don't know me, please forgive my misspellings. I'm actually a grad school graduate and intelligent. I just need to read over my posts more carefully.
I think this is all new territory (Fox as the voice of a political party) and we can't predict the ramifications downstream. Newspapers throw their support behind a candidate but I think that is usually a local effect. It is difficult to sit back and think "just let the yahoos watch their Fox while the rest of us smart folks get our information from more discerning sources." I've heard similar thoughts from different people. Well, some of those yahoos are regular, hard-working, church-going people...and they make up the majority of this country...whether we like it or not. I have to admit it frightens me. Obama won the election, I believe, because many of those same people couldn't identify with or support the Republican candidate...and they liked Obama. Who are they going to like in the next election? Fox is determined to help them make their decision.
You are right Ann, there are lots of regular, hard working people that watch fox news and/or are Republican.
However, as the last elect showed us they weren't the majority.
Maybe in the next election they will be the majority. (Though I hope not).
Yes. And the other networks will still try to provide balanced coverage. They won't just ignore the Republicans. But they won't be able to ask them the hard questions, either.
Furthermore, now that corporations can donate unlimited amounts (not necessarily directly to the candidate) to political campaigns, we'll see non-stop advertising in support of these candidates - on ALL of the networks. So viewers will be inundated with that kind of one-sided propaganda, and little else.
You think corporations have too much power now? The Democrats will be forced into going after this corporate money as well. I'm afraid we're looking at a time of oligarchy, rather than democracy. Yes, it's been bad in recent years, but I'm afraid it's likely to get worse.
I was trying to imagine if Palin had not given interviews like the Katie Couric interview where she was actually challenged, then Republicans would have been more successful in hiding a lot of her unpreparedness and lack of knowledge.
In this one-sided, softballs only, Fox news only environment you won't be getting a real picture of the candidates.
The funny thing is that Palin shouldn't have been "challenged" by Couric's low-key interview. I mean, Palin tries to pretend that it's "gotcha journalism" to ask her what newspapers and magazines she reads? Heh, heh. Why hasn't she been laughed off the political stage by now?
The only way you could get an easier interview would be by not asking her any questions at all - or maybe by getting the questions from Palin in the first place. Maybe that's how Fox "News" does it, I don't know (although Palin is better equipped for such things now - though, alas, no smarter).
Post a Comment