John Edwards is going after Hillary Clinton for taking contributions from News Corp. executives. News Corporation is Rupert Murdoch’s company, owner of Fox News, among others. This obviously feeds into the Hillary is not a real Democrat storyline that could really hurt Hillary in the primaries.
“The time has come for Democrats to stop pretending to be friends with the very people who demonize the Democratic Party,” Edwards said in a statement.
He has a point. If you’re in a prisoner’s dilemma type situation, the prudent strategy is to treat an adversary nicely at first, then, if they treat you poorly, you respond in kind until they stop. Go for the handshake first, then, if they whack you on the head, you whack them right back until they play nice. So, for Hillary to play nice with Fox News probably isn’t a long term winning strategy. There is an old adage that you should never pick a fight with someone who buys ink by the barrel; but, in the case of Faux News, I think the fight has already been picked.
Most of Murdoch’s donations go to Republicans, but he gave $4,200 to Clinton’s Senate campaign in 2006 and held a fundraiser for her at News Corp.’s midtown headquarters. He also donated $2,300 to her presidential campaign, according to online campaign donation database Political MoneyLine. Murdoch’s son James, who is seen by many as a likely candidate to eventually succeed his 76-year-old father, gave $3,450.
Silky Pony’s sudden war against Fox is nothing more than a quick grab at headlines before the Kos convention. Just flexing flashing nutroots cred.
Also, my experience has been, most people that bash Fox News have never watched Fox News.
I’ve watched Fox News plenty, and it sucks the big one.
Demonstrably false stories, stupid old asses like Cal Thomas (seriously, Cal Thomas?), and Bill Kristol (how serially wrong do you have to be to lose your seat on Fox News?), the “All-Stars”, etc, flashing little graphic swooshes between every story–it’s just so cartoonish. There is rarely a story that isn’t pure commentary, start to finish, presented to the faithful in such a way that it practically advertises that they know their audience will buy just about anything they say.
And what the hell kind of “news” outlet would have “some people” as its most popular “source” for stories? If you had to drink every time they said “some people say”, you’d be drunk or in a coma. It’s just a joke of a network.
But your experience is really that they’ve *never* watched it? Not that maybe they watched it for five minutes once and knew that they didn’t like what they were seeing (in much the same way that just one whiff will tell you that crap has an unpleasant odor)? They just had never seen it *at all*? Well then they definitely shouldn’t judge. My experience is that most people who think it sucks can describe the moment of viewing when they first realized it sucks, and subsequent moments when that notion was reaffirmed.
My favorite aspect of Fox News right now is how their “honest mistakes” always end up serving the purpose of making Democrats look bad. Carl Cameron filing a story chocked full of John Kerry quotes about how much he loves manicures… oops, didn’t mean to file that story–honest mistake. Labelling all the predatory, boy-chasing, or woman-chasing, or Bush-criticizing Republicans with a (D) after their names… aw, that’s just an honest ol’ screw-up, honest! Funny how William Jefferson was never in any danger of getting mislabeled a Republican, was he? Nope… all their little “errors” conveniently reenforce the narrative they feed the viewers daily anyway. Face it… Fox News thinks their viewers are stupid. And their viewers apparently don’t know the difference, or don’t care.
Now T, Don’t sugarcoat it, tell us how you really feel!
It’s not good to hold back.
So are all the Republican candidates supposed to boycott anything sponsored by CNN, NBC, CBS or ABC. Give me a break, Doug. This crap about Fox treating Democrats unfairly is complete bullshit. I watch it regularly and Democrats are given an equal opportunity to be heard. When CNN first started, it had a reputation, unlike CBS, ABC and NBC, of being fair. It eventually become just like the other networks with an extremely liberal, Democratic bias and its ratings plunged. Like it or not, Fox is number one in the ratings by a long shot. Why do you think that is?
I question what ‘fair’ means.Every issue doesn’t have equal scope: ‘6 soldiers killed/ new text books for Iraqi students’ is a good example .The concept of ‘fair and balanced’ tends to equalize every issue.In the case of Fox news it simply means an administration spokesman or a ‘social conservative'( depending on issue) must present their side based on belief and agenda..So it makes the spokesperson more often the issue at the expense of the issue being examined..The next step then has often been by many committed to a certain belief to discredit the opposition and win the argument based on ‘backdoor moral default’.Only the ‘good people’ are worthy presenters,so we win… It’s just a terrible way to examine issues.This is the Fox news legacy (imo).
The Weather Channel became the issue in this way recently rather the issue of Global Warming,which they presented with various differing expert views,all of which were presented as theories.
They have a product that people want. But, “fair and balanced” news it is not. I don’t actually mind the lack of objectivity — what I mind is the pretense of objectivity with no apparent aspiration to it.
In my opinion, Fox News is pro-Republican and anti-Democrat. Air America, on the other hand, is pro-Democrat and anti-Republican. Those other news organizations you mentioned may frequently be wrong, but I don’t get the sense that they are pro-Democrat. I think they’re just bad at news, for the most part. But, then, I don’t have a lot of use for television news at all these days.
‘Fair and balance’ has served Republicans well: Bush is asked for an accounting for one of his blunders so let’s pair that with something Clinton did that Republicans didn’t like and discuss them simultaneously. They’re equal issues because Bush is a Republican and Clinton is a Democrat.
Fox is more biased along the Conservative-Liberal line than along party lines, I think.
When looking for bias, the mix of ‘straight’ news, commentary, and personality-driven shows on most of the ‘News’ channels muddies the water considerably.
On any given network, there are things I see as useful, and other things that seem to be wholly agenda-driven.
The nice thing about the modern era is that you can do your own research on topics you care about, and drill down to original source material.
Doug, I assume you’re OK with Silky’s book being published last year by a Newscorp publisher? He claims the $800k earned went to charity (no proof yet though) but the premise is the same, no? Taking money from Ruperts companies for ANY reason is bad, right??
Of course Republicans may boycott what they wish…
Let’s face it–the election revolves around a small portion of the electorate that claims to be “undecided”. Even as polarized as today’s politics is, there are still people who can’t decide between these two polar opposites. The Republicans could limit their debates to Fox News, and the Democrats could limit theirs to CNN, and it probably wouldn’t change their vote totals one bit. The “undecideds” can flip the channel to whichever network the debate is on, if it isn’t too much trouble. Although usually it seems any effort spent on them by campaigns more than 36 hours before the election seems to be wasted effort anyway.
Weren’t the Republicans pretty much boycotting the YouTube debate format? If you can’t face YouTube, how can you face Al Qaeda?
Silky?
A favored wingnut ad hominem referring to Edwards’ hair:
“Silky Pony”
(and I mention that AS a wingnut…)
Ah. Undue attention to another man’s hair seems a little fruity. Not that there’s anything wrong with that.
In any event, I’m not going to get overly worked up over News Corp. I figure Murdoch is more motivated by profit than by right-wing politics. If he can put the two together, so much the better, but when push comes to shove, I think Murdoch takes money over ideology.
In a similar vein, I think Edwards is going to combine conservative bashing with political strategy. Where the two part ways, I imagine he’s going to go with the political strategy and not be too much of an ideologue. I think his current strategy is reasonably sound in that it feeds into the narrative that Hillary isn’t a “real” Democrat. And, I don’t think it harms Edwards to any great extent because Fox News was never going to be a friendly forum for him.
But, to answer Tim’s question, I’m not really looking for political purity. I’m too cynical to think that someone entirely free of moneyed interests could win federal office. Not to mention that I would be a bit concerned about someone who took too dim a view of money — figuring out efficient ways to provide people with services and products they want in a level marketplace is the American way.
I get the sense that, Edwards more than some of the other candidates, shares my concern that large concentrations of wealth distort markets and democracies. Such distortions enable inferior businesses to profit and inferior leaders to get elected.
And no, I don’t have a silver bullet. I don’t think Edwards does either. But, I see in him at least a recognition of the problem. And maybe with him in office, we can keep the distortions to a dull roar rather than the growing cacophony I think we have currently.
For further reading on the subject of the distortions concentrated wealth has on markets and democracies, a lot my ideas come from Wealth & Democracy by Kevin Phillips.
From today’s New York Post:
John Edwards, who yesterday demanded Democratic candidates return any campaign donations from Rupert Murdoch and News Corp., himself earned at least $800,000 for a book published by one of the media mogul’s companies.
The Edwards campaign said the multimillionaire trial lawyer would not return the hefty payout from Murdoch for the book titled “Home: The Blueprints of Our Lives.”
The campaign didn’t respond to a question from The Post about whether it was hypocritical for Edwards to take money from News Corp. while calling for other candidates not to.
In addition to a $500,000 advance from HarperCollins, which is owned by News Corp., Edwards also was cut a check for $300,000 for expenses.
Edwards claimed $333,334 in royalties from last year’s release of the book, according to media accounts. The campaign said last night that those funds were part of the advance.
He says he gave that amount to charity, which would also provide tax benefits for Edwards. “We’re more than happy to give even more of Murdoch’s money to Habitat for Humanity and other good causes,” spokesman Eric Schultz told The Post yesterday.
He declined to show proof, however, that Edwards had donated the $500,000 advance or $300,000 expense checks to charity.
Meanwhile, Edwards yesterday attacked Hillary Rodham Clinton for taking more than $20,000 in donations from News Corp. officials, arguing that the company’s Fox News Channel is tilted to the right. News Corp. also owns The New York Post.
How sweet of Murdoch’s New York Post to agitate on Mr. Murdoch’s Newscorp’s behalf.
[To be fair, Edwards does seem to pay a lot of attention to his hair, and spend a lot of money on it. But it’s like Hillary’s clothing – only talked about because there’s a lot of media channels to fill, and gossip sells. And his hair is gorgeous. Not that there’s anything wrong with my saying that.]
If Edwards has released his tax returns, that should answer the question of his charitable donations.
I’m not too concerned about this whole thing – I think he is trying to keep his name among those considered ‘serious contenders’, and hammering Fox always gets ink (pixels?) from its competitors.
If you offer even odds, I’ll bet that he does not wind up on the ballot, either top or bottom spot – and I’ll think that I have the better end of the bet, by far.
I’m sorry, I suppose I’m dense (& someone here will tell me I am), but isn’t there something fundamentally different about a publishing business deal, i.e. Edwards gets paid by a publishing company for writing a book (shocker!), & seeking & accepting a political donation from Murdoch for doing nothing except being a high-profile candidate???
Glenn –
You are not dense.
The analogy is not terribly close, although it is there – the actual degree of difference you perceive will depend on your viewpoint, to some extent.
Myself, I think the two cases are far enough apart that I don’t find this criticism of him terribly compelling – although I do get a slight vibe of ‘biting the hand that feeds you’ from it.
I think his initial call to boycott Fox-related contributions was not a strong move – but this is just a lazy way to ‘rebut’ his proposed boycott, rather than putting together something based on the merits of his proposition.
It is interesting to me to hear Fox so routinely bashed, when NPR gets a free pass. I don’t really take ABC, CBS, NBC to task nearly as I do NPR.
Fox is a private enterprise, as is Air America. Let them swing as far to the extremes as they care to. NPR is the government, for crying out loud. If there should be any watchdog concerns, it should be directed towards the Public Broadcasting Corporation, which should be unbiased to a fault, but isn’t. In fact, it lives up to all the criticisms “T” made about Fox News, except it goes against the Republicans and for the Democrats. NPR’s reporting is the most obviously slanted stuff you can find, and yet it never draws the criticism Fox News gets.
My drive time is considerably shorter, so I don’t listen to NPR like I used to. But, back in 2002 – 2004, it seemed like every time I turned on the radio, Cokie Roberts was being a concern troll toward the Democrats. Either that or Juan “Fox News” Williams was sounding very Friedmanesque about Iraq or patronizing toward Howard Dean.
But, you know, perceptions vary.
I guess if NPR is so egregiously biased, it wouldn’t be hard to cite examples as I did about Fox. I think the most offensive thing NPR does is deal in facts–which of course causes it to appear to have a liberal bias.
As Mr. Colbert has observed, the facts have a known liberal bias.
Bias lies less in false reporting than it does in choosing what is reported. With its endless doomsday features on global warming, the woes of the economic downtrodden in the current economy, condemning the U.S. military over torture in Iraq while ignoring just about anything positive on any of the above fronts, NPR gives the impression that its reporters tend to have a leftleaning, overly pessimistic-toward-capitalism-and-America editorial bias.
On the other hand, FoxNews tends to focus on issues that cast free-market capitalists favorably and the indicators that the U.S. economy is robust in a more favorable light and give less airtime to that about which NPR wrings its hands.
On the whole, both NPR and FoxNews reflect bias. As a generally conservative person, I’m not smug enough to deny the bias of conservative news outlets simply because they coincide with my point of view. To be so myopic would put me in danger of becoming intellectually lazy and self satisfied.
Someone should point out that the doomsday, liberal reporting of our entry into Iraqi war has been right on target, right from the start,and the most liberal biais of 2003 has now become common assessment.
That brings to mind one of my concerns about making a fetish of objectivity in journalism. Creating some sort of false balance doesn’t really serve anyone too well. You want to get your facts right and you want to approach things with an open mind, but sometimes both sides of a story aren’t equally valid.
“Some people say that the sky is blue; others claim that it is green.”
Yeah, why would anyone report on global warming? It’s much less of a threat to our way of life than is a posting on the Daily Kos, as evidenced by the reporting on Fox News.
Steve: Is global warming not happening–or is it just not newsworthy?
T- Maybe it’s not newsworthy because it’s not happening?
I felt like NPR had a slight liberal bias, then I heard someone call in and call them “National PENTAGON Radio” for their Rumsfield supporting. I guess everyone is a critic.
Again, the biggest problem with CNN, Fox and sometimes NPR is the short amount of time given to a story. When covering a complex issue, 3 minutes is NOT enough time to even attempt a balanced reivew.
Good point Doug. Churchill’s “little Eichmanns” comment about Septemeber 11th comes to mind. I wouldn’t have wanted every report about 9/11 followed with “Fair and Balanced” comments from some other whack-job like that! (Or reports about CIA sidewinder missles taking out the towers)
Sometimes the opposing view only deserves a passing mention. When you have 3 minutes to give the “whole” story, the opposing view’s time is reduced to nothing. Sometimes that is ok, sometimes it is bias.
A key misconception is to think that the networks are in the news business.
They are in the business of selling advertising that people will watch.
Thanks tim. Your denial of global warming is making me feel cooler already. Before long, we’ll get those glaciers back, too.
Glad to be of help, T.
It WAS cooler than predicted this weekend.
Go, Tim, Go!
(Have you studied under Al Gore? (see “Gore Effect”)).