FOX News gives $1 Million to republican Party

Somehow, this doesn't surprise me. It's both revealing and confirming.

Media outlets have always donated to political parties, both sides, a few thousand here and there...it was mainly a way to make sure their reporters phone calls got returned.

But this one appears to be geared more toward influencing elections, which would appear to cross the line media set for themselves. But then, Murdoch has always been the type to simply ignore anything he feels shouldn't apply to someone as divine as himself.

My guess is the big question here is, how are his shareholders of all walks of life and political affiliations going to react to his spending their money this way?

There's no way I'd give any amount of money to either the Republican or Democratic parties. They all need to be tarred and feathered.

And this means exactly what?

Who do you suppose NBC funds?

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19113455/#

Oh, and Look! What do we have here?

Both sides, just like a mentioned earlier. A few thousand here, a few thousand there...

So, when do the democrats get their million?

Oh, and Look! What do we have here?

Quote:
(D) Fox News Channel, Codie Brooks, researcher for Brit Hume's "Special Report." Click for details.
(D) Fox affiliate in Omaha, KPTM, Calvert Collins, reporter. Click for details.
(D) Fox affiliate in Minneapolis, KMSP, Alix Kendall, morning anchor. Click for details.
(D) Fox affiliate in Washington, D.C., WTTG, Laura Evans, anchor. Click for details.

Yes, and if you go beyond that article and research it yourself, you'll find where they give money to both camps, as "access payments"...it gets their phone calls returned and the occasional "good scoop".

So, when do the Democrats get their million in "access payments"?

So what's the story? That Fox gave some cash to Republicans? Big whoop.

While I'm sure this entire thread is meant as a slam to both Fox and the GOP, the donation was actually made by NewsCorp. NewsCorp is the parent company of Fox News, AOL, Wall Street Journal and a host of other media outlets. It wasn't just FOX that paid their dues.

I'm sure that donations will be made to the other side as well, for all the reasons that Mike has already pointed out.

Just to set the ground rules... Are you saying that a news organization whose owner donates to a politician or political party is unable to cover that party fairly? Would you go so far as to accept that a news organization that receives financial support from a politician, party, or political group is unable to fairly cover them?

It doesn't mean they're unable. It does mean that their desire to be fair is suspect. It would be nothing less than naive to think that anyone would stay long on the payroll without toeing Murdoch's line. Newscorps own statements are now confirming that this isn't "forget me not" payments, but an actual donation to a political party in hopes of promoting them to victory in the upcoming elections.

Yep, very suspect. My guess is the million dollars is merely a tiny amount of the actual support the Republican party will get from him and his.

Does that mean the Democrats don't get a million too? How "fair and balanced" is that?

Do you wonder how much Turner gave to the Democrats? If so, do you think the same thing about CNN as you do about Fox?

Turner can give all he wants, to whomever he wants. So can Murdoch, for that matter. So can you, and me, and the guys at the VFW.

But when the controlling corporation of a News Outlet donates corporate dollars to a specific party to attempt to secure a specific outcome, it's another matter entirely.

If it's worth a million in cash, then having some of his talking heads bend a truth or two would be small potatoes.

So you don't think Turner does the same thing? Or any of the big wigs at NBC, CBS, ABC? They all do it, and they probably all give $$ to both parties. I really don't see an issue here. You seem to think that the tail is wagging the dog. Sorry, but I just don't see it that way. I can agree that in general Fox News Channel is more conservative than the other main stream news channels, so then it would follow that they would support the Republican Party. But Fox also has liberal leaning hosts and guests - Geraldo, Shep Smith, Bob Bechel, Kirsten Powers, Greta - to name a few. I can't see anything scandalous or even unusual.

Oh, it's very unusual. In fact, it's never happened before. All the media outlets do the "forget me not" payments to both sides, basically buying access to politicians. This is the first time such a donation has come with a statement of "taking sides". As I said, any individual can donate any amount of their own money they want. A media corporation making such a donation is unprecedented.

And all their hosts, each and every one, toe Murdoch's line. Those that don't, those that made a little too valid a point, or tried a little to hard to talk over the conservation host yelling at them, or had their microphones turned off because they were "one upping" their bread and butter hosts, quickly and permanently disappeared.

But, personally, I think the only reason for the donation was to try to draw attention away from the Immigrant hating, gay hanging Mosque monster the Republicans have created for themselves. Murdoch realizes it won't just go away, and it will come back to haunt them in a big way in general elections with all sorts of little political goodies, like playing on the Niemöller speech; so, he's using the "unfair and unbalanced" visage to change the subject. He is such a good little company man.

But Mike, you forget...Rupert Murdock is an Australian. So he, as an individual, can't donate freely to US political candidates or parties. Part of that pesky Campaign Finance Reform thingamajig. So while Ted Turner could give unlimited cash to Democrats, or use his wife's name (Jane Fonda) and not get the press coverage, Murdock can't do it. Maybe he previously donated to the GOP as an individual for key elections, I don't know.

I thought he became a US Citizen back in the 80's. Now I have to do research.

eta: Forbes has him listed as a US Citizen on their 2007 "Top 100" list.

http://www.forbes.com/lists/2007/10/...doch_639W.html

That is just utter BS. I watch Fox on a regular basis - both during the day and in the evening, and have for the past 15 years or so. I have NEVER, not even ONCE seen someone's mike cut because they disagreed with the host. The only very occasional times I've seen that happen is when the guest ignores the questions and starts fillibustering without stopping to breathe. As said, it is extremely rare, and I only recall maybe twice that it's ever happened. And how are you even in a position to know what Fox does or doesn't broadcast since you admittedly hate the network and don't watch it?

You are entitled to your opinion,of course, but to label Republicans as "Immigrant hating, gay hanging Mosque monsters" is just plain ridiculous, wrong, hateful and frankly HURTFUL. No one of my Republican friends hates immigrants or gays or muslims. We hate the illegal way people are sneaking into this country. We are considerate of the 9/11 victims and their families in opposing a mosque/cultural center being built where it is planned to be. We are not opposed to equal rights for gay partners - it is the "marriage" label that bothers us. And for the record, I voted "NO" on Prop. 8 in California. I also voted for Clinton TWICE. But I can tell you that I DID NOT and NEVER WOULD vote for Obama in any capacity. And from what I can tell by watching the polls and listening to the pollsters, I am not alone. Even well known and respected Democrats are exhibiting buyer's remorse.

Oh, and as to this portion of your post, I can only say, PROVE IT! I simply don't believe a word of it, especially without substaniation and links.

I never said I hate it. In fact, it's on in the cafeteria every night at work. Alan Colmes was a good example. He was their "hard hitting liberal" who would barely talk, rarely ask any kind of lucid questions, and let Hannity shout over him day after day.

I didn't say disagree, I say "one upping" which is what "filibustering" is. And you said in the same paragraph you've seen that happen.

Nooo, they've created a Immigrant hating, gay hanging Mosque monster. Republicans are actually willing to start tampering with the constitution out of hatred for immigrants. That's very extreme. A sign being carried by good little NOM trooper Larry Adams at one of their rallies gave their very graphic "solution" to gay marriage...a pair of hangman's nooses. A huge uprising is insisting that New Yorkers abandon a building they own, and have permits to expand, simply because they are Muslim, and this mob considers the simple status of being Muslim "disrespectful"...no other reason whatsoever. That's hatred.
There's nothing to link, because it's never happened before. Remember, the Supreme court ruling allowing corporations to give donations of this magnitude was only handed down a few months ago. And it's the very same ruling that already has Best Buy and Target in damage control mode. They now appear to have some media in the boat with them. Thanks to that ruling, it is completely legal, but the general perception of it is, "fair and balanced" is now laughable

You are putting words in my mouth AGAIN! I only saw a person's mike cut maybe twice because they were fillibustering and not carrying on a dialog. That's like TWICE in 15 years! And only when the guest was rude and obnoxious and wouldn't let the host ask questions and DIALOG.

I agree that Hannity can be a bully and Colmes is a wimp. Wasn't a good show, and Hannity is my very least favorite person on Fox.

But you said:
And that statement is blatantly false. Alan Colmes is a lousy example because he wanted to leave the show, and he is now a "contributor." If he hated Fox then he has a funny way of showing it since he's on the air there 3 or 4 times a week!

And finally, Republicans don't hate immigrants! That is such a stupid statement as to be laughable. Many Republicans, myself included, do believe that the way the 14th Amendment is interpreted to allow citizenship to all born on American soil, actually cheapens our citizenship and was not the original intention of the amendment. When the amendment was written and ratified, no one expected "birthing tourism" from China and other countries to produce a rash of baby citizens who's only connection to American soil was their mother's intent to give birth in the US for the sole purpose of gaining citizenship for an infant. That is just downright fraud and needs to be corrected to prevent it. All our welfare programs and generosity are bankrupting our country, and it needs to stop.

I think that there are some who are wary of Muslims only because of the vocal and obnoxious ones you see protesting on American soil because they aren't free to protest in their own country. Doesn't help their cause that the 9/11 terrorists were radical Muslims either. But being wary doesn't mean HATRED. I chalk it up to more fear of the unknown.

But I'll admit that I am getting damn sick and tired of everyone in the world expecting and insisting that we open our borders to drug dealers, criminals and those unwilling to go through proper channels to immigrate. I'm damn sick and tired of the world and even our own PRESIDENT apologizing for all our freedom-fighting efforts of the past 100 years. We have done more and given more money to fight world hunger, illness and terrorism than any nation on earth, past or present, and we have forgiven more FOREIGN debt than any nation on earth. And for all we've done to help less fortunate nations and peoples, we get kicked in the teeth by OUR OWN CITIZENS, INCLUDING OUR PRESIDENT, WHO IS A DISGRACE TO ALL AMERICANS WHO HAVE GIVEN THEIR LIVES IN THE NAME OF FREEDOM.

February 4th, 2003. Microphone cut off on Jeremy Glick
May 24th, 2004. Microphone cut off on Ron Daniels
January 9th, 2003 Microphone cut off on Isabel Garcia
August 6th, 2004 Microphone cut off on Nick Gillespie
April 17th, 2003 Microphone cut off on Mark Weisbrot
September 3rd, 2002 Microphone cut off on Patricia Roush
August 5th, 2002 Microphone cut off on Lance Williams
July 15th, 2002 Microphone cut off on Nedra Ruiz
January 15th, 2002 Microphone cut off on Eric Vickers
September 13th, 2001 Microphone cut off on Sam Husseini
May 31st, 2001 Microphone cut off on Kevin Curtis

And there were 4 instances of threatening to cut the microphone if the "guest" didn't "shut up".

Odd. Who said he hated it? I said he was one of their "line towing" token liberals, and he excels at that.

Why should I bother separating "many Republicans" from the more vocal and hateful ones? If all Muslims are Muslims and all liberals are liberals, then all Republicans are Republicans...sounds like a pretty simple formula to me.


Lashing out in fear (you can't build it there!!), and often based on lies (gay sex leads to beastiality) is little to no better than hatred. Islam being "unknown" is their own fault. I had to fight Islamic radicals in Beirut, but it didn't stop me from learning about the good people there.

How is asking for respect and equality kicking anyone in the teeth? And what does Obama have to do with cutting off microphones, altering the bill of rights to make criminals out of natural born citizens, or offering hangman's nooses as a solution to gay marriage?

It still comes down to; Murdoch is not a stupid man. In fact, he is very, very crafty and politically savvy. He knew full well before taking this little plunge that it would draw fire, and the only reason I can think of where Murdoch would draw fire on purpose, is for political gain. He knows alienating so many sub-sects of the population is going to backfire, and he is trying to siphon as much of the heat off the GOP as he can, perhaps even get the rest of the media outlets to change the subject.

Me, however, along with numerous others, are quite happy to let them keep Gay Marriage, Mosque mobbing and arming the border as campaign issues, to the point of our making sure everyone we can reach has it fresh in their mind up to zero hour of the elections.

I was going to reply to this in particular earlier, thought better of it, but couldn't quit thinking about it.

If what little I said is ridiculous, wrong, hateful and hurtful...can you imagine how the New Yorkers being told (wrongly and hatefully) their faith is responsible for killing their friends and relatives must feel?

Just as a minor point, Colmes still works for Fox, just on a radio program.

But he and Hannity both drive me crazy, because they won't let anyone finish a sentence. I can't stand to listen to them.

I just came across this interesting list. It's the list of the top 124 political donors from 1989 to 2010.

Open Secrets

You'll note that of the top 20 donors, only 3 gave predominantly to Republicans. Three more were more or less balanced.

And Time Warner, #29 on the list, donated $19,932,413, of which 72%, or over $14,500,000, went to Democrats. This is over and above Ted Turner's donations and Jane Fonda's donations.

Farther down, you'll find Newsweb Corporation gave 100% of their $9,672,850 to the Democratic Party. Who are they? They are one of the largest publishers of minority and alternative newspapers in the country.

And NewsCorp didn't even make the list. Nor did Westinghouse, the owner of CBS. GE, the owner of NBC, donated some $19,000,000, of which 51% went to Democrats.

I still think it was for the "controversy" value to draw some heat off the GOP's current course.

Apparently, it didn't work...the late-nighters had their fun with it, now it looks to be falling under the radar. All the attention is going back to who the GOP is going to offend next.

Oh, I don't know.

I think most Republicans have gotten used to having most of the media assume they're evil, rich, stingy war mongers. After all, they've just endured eight years of such things as the Diane Rehm Show on NPR, which was essentially the "What illegal, immoral, or stupid thing has the Bush administration done this week" show.

I think for most conservatives, it's nice to have a news channel that doesn't approach every story with the mindset that conservatives are evil and stupid, which is a pretty good way to offend 50% of the audience. That doesn't mean, by the way, that Fox doesn't criticize the right. Bill O'Reilly absolutely flayed Rumsfeld for years, and I think anyone would be hard pressed to say that (for example) Juan Williams of NPR as being pro-conservative in much of anything. I personally don't like Alan Colmes. But I also don't like Sean Hannity, and both for the same reason: They don't allow guests to finish their sentences, and they always throw out completely irrelevant factoids and justify bad behavior on their side by quoting bad behavior on the other side.

I've found that there is a certain percentage of people who can't stand to hear anything positive about the political opposition, and those people are conservatives who can't listen to NPR and liberals who can't listen to Fox. As soon as someone (from either side) tells me they "can't stand" one or the other, I don't have any trouble knowing just about where they stand politically, and just about how useless it would be to try to discuss anything reasonably with them.

I've heard O'Reilly say "I like Obama"...he just thinks his policies and performance is . And we actually come pretty close to agreeing there.

But I'm not talking about how the GOP is perceived, I'm talking about things they're actually doing, alienating gays (even giving Ann Coulter the boot at one of their functions because she dared to address the Gay Republicans? Geez, their on the same side), Hispanics and Muslims. Roll them all together, and that starts to become a large voting block, with the potential to backfire in general elections when moderates and undecideds will be worth their weight in gold. Murdoch knows that, and I think he's trying to get the conversation off all those subjects.

Alienation is not owned by the Republicans. Obama has done his fair share of alienating his base supporters by breaking campaign promises like:
1. Closing Gitmo
2. Ending the war in Iraq
3. Ending the war in Afghanistan
4. Ending off shore drilling - ok there is a temporary halt, but there is nothing Obama or any American can do about drilling in international waters.
5. Not increasing taxes on middle-low income earners
6. Increasing employment - nope, still on a downward slope

And if that wasn't enough, he has alienated most of all gulf shore inhabitants with his poor performance following the great oil spill. And he enraged Americans of both parties by his ill-founded and rapidly passed health care bill that is opposed by the majority of Americans of both parties.

Also, it's been proven that there are Democrats that are pretending to be Tea Party people displaying themselves in public shouting racist remarks and carrying racist signs to try to make the Tea Party look bad. So much of what you are accusing the Republicans of doing is actually being done by Democrats! How low is that?

And finally, I live in an area where the majority is Hispanic, many of whom can trace their ancestry back to the Spanish American War. And these long term LEGAL AMERICAN CITIZENS are just as angry as us white folks about the never-ending influx of illegals crossing our southern borders. This is not a race issue even though the Democrats would like it to be. The Hispanics I know are conservative American voters. And they are just as outraged as I am that illegals are stealing jobs at lower wages and driving down the economy in an area already hurt by high unemployment topping 16%.

And thank you mrblanche for being a voice of calm reason!

They're doing this in Congress??? Democrat politicians disguised as Republicans?? How are they getting away with that? John Kyl, Lindsey Graham, Mitch McConnell...they're all really Democrats in disguise.

Who whould have thought?