In Depth: Grandstanding in Style…
The Huffington Post’s Sam Stein writes about the story, or non-story, of News Corp. giving 1 million dollars to the RGA and the DGA trying in vain to get on FNC to talk about it…
In an email after the interview, Emily Bittner, a spokeswoman for the DGA, said that the committee had “sent more than a dozen emails and voicemails” to hosts and producers “for every weekday show” on Fox without a single bite. Bittner showed an email sent to Fox’s Shepard Smith, perhaps the most sympathetic voice at the network on a matter like this, that she sent at roughly 1:00 p.m. on Tuesday.
Asked to respond to Daschle’s charge that he was being denied a chance to challenge Fox on its donation, Fox News spokesperson Eva Synalovski offered the following: “We understand Nathan’s desire to get face time on the most watched news network. And when he can offer insight on a legitimate news story instead of conducting a dishonest publicity stunt, we will consider having him on as a guest.”
Typical FNC response with just a dash or two of snark tossed in. However the FNC response is accurate enough. This isn’t a story worthy of their airtime and the DGA is grandstanding knowing full well that it never had a chance of getting on the network even before it carpet bombed its staff with requests. It’s one thing to be be sitting on the sidelines and have a network decide to bring you on and you give them crap. Then the network has nobody but themselves and their naivete to blame for what happens next (see: MSNBC and John Ziegler). It’s another thing entirely to take the initiative and try to bully your way on to a network’s air in order to give them crap. You think they’re that stupid that they’d seriously consider allowing you on just to trash them?
Besides it’s News Corp. that made the donation and not FNC. It’s like holding CNN responsible for whatever Time Warner does or MSNBC for what GE does (well, technically, O’Reilly does sort of try to do that on occasion but in his case it’s not taken seriously by anyone who isn’t a partisan).
FNC was totally correct in not wanting to get into a lose-lose scenario with the DGA. And why the Huffington Post wants to make hay of this non-story is a beyond me. Yeah, I know it’s the “liberal website” but still…
August 17, 2010 at 4:39 pm
True, I can’t see any reason why news people at FNC should have on a rep from the DGA to discuss the story, because that would put them in the position of having to explain/defend News Corp on this.
But I think News Corp giving $1 million to one political party is significant and definitely a legitimate story. I think it was a pretty poor decision on the part of News Corp because of the appearances – is whatever you’d get for $1 million to the RGA worth it, if the tradeoff is a hit to your credibility as a news organization?
August 17, 2010 at 5:57 pm
“if the tradeoff is a hit to your credibility as a news organization?”
You would first have to believe FNC had any credibility as a news organization.
I don’t think this story is any big deal; just another brick in the wall; but it will be fun to hear the Fox apologists tie themselves in knots trying to show it doesn’t affect the perception that FNC is not ‘fair & balanced’.
Imagine for a second GE giving a million dollars to the DGA. You think Fox News would say it was OK and wouldn’t affect the news coverage on MSNBC & NBC. I don’t think so.
August 17, 2010 at 6:03 pm
We know Murdoch has given plenty of money to both Democratic & Republican campaigns and PACs in the past, so no big deal. This election is looking to be especially good for Republicans so it’s a good business move.
August 17, 2010 at 6:11 pm
Besides it’s News Corp. that made the donation and not FNC. It’s like holding CNN responsible for whatever Time Warner does or MSNBC for what GE does (well, technically, O’Reilly does sort of try to do that on occasion but in his case it’s not taken seriously by anyone who isn’t a partisan).
Spud: Are you seriously comparing the News Corp/ FNC relationship to the GE/ NBC-MSNBC or Time Warner/ CNN relationship? It’s like comparing your relationship with your parents to your relationship with your boss’s parents. Sheesh.
August 17, 2010 at 6:13 pm
^LOL Al Your the smartest right-winger out there and your not even going to try and defend it other than that limp reasoning. Come on you can do better.
August 17, 2010 at 6:15 pm
I don’t know if it’s a good business move in the long run. FNC has the oldest audience on cable news. They have a niche and tell their audience what they want to hear but are they picking up new viewers? Is it a good business move to reinforce the belief among many that FNC is something they would never be interested in watching because it’s heavily and unabashedly biased toward the GOP. I don’t know.
fritz3 you have a point, though I’d argue they have some good reporters (Herridge, Garrett, Griffin, Smith, Goler come to mind, there are more).
August 17, 2010 at 6:20 pm
It is a big deal. Any corporation that owns a news channel should not be donating to partisan causes. And I don’t care if they donate to both sides, it still reeks of being “in the tank” for the weasels you’re reporting on.
August 17, 2010 at 6:37 pm
Newscorp is a business. Democrats are (rightly or wrongly) perceived as being hostile to business.
GE’s “Green is Universal” nonsense was a greater offense, since they used their news operations to promote an aspect of their business (green energy). Plus positive coverage of TARP and GE Capital got bailout funds.
August 17, 2010 at 6:42 pm
They all donate to partisan causes. It’s a big enough deal that it should be reported, but that’s all that can be done.
Fritz: NewsCorp (or GE or Time Warner or any other company) donates to political causes for business reasons. Murdock or Immelt or whoever may have executive control, but they still have investors and boards of directors to contend with and answer to. In ’08 GE donated $400K to the Obama campaign and $80K to McCain’s – I’d say that was a good business move.
August 17, 2010 at 6:49 pm
On a strictly PR level, NewsCorp’s donation was stunningly tone deaf. The right wing doesn’t need a million dollar reminder whose side they’re on, and the rest of us would appreciate not having to hear “fair and balanced” while they brazenly laugh in our faces. I’m sure Shep and Carl Cameron thought it was just awesome..
August 17, 2010 at 6:52 pm
“Shep and Carl Cameron thought it was just awesome..”
And poor Major Garrett is probably just getting over the Billo WHBR gaffe. Now he’ll have to hear all about this from the WH gang.
August 17, 2010 at 6:55 pm
“Plus positive coverage of TARP and GE Capital got bailout funds.”
Gee I missed that. When did that happen?
August 17, 2010 at 7:06 pm
Ok lets get this over with once and for all….FOX leans right so any reports it dose will be more favorable to the GOP…..NBC,ABC,CBS,PBS,MSNBC and CNBC leans left so any reports they do will be more favorable to the Dems.
got it?…good.
August 17, 2010 at 7:11 pm
Trying to navigate the FEC’s database isn’t going so well for me tonight, but I was wondering if this was a half report. I’m not yet convinced they didn’t donate a large sum to Democratic campaign committees other than the DGA.
August 17, 2010 at 7:12 pm
“NBC,ABC,CBS,PBS,MSNBC and CNBC”
You forgot CNN and BBC and ESPN and TBS and MTV and; oh yeah; the Food Network.
August 17, 2010 at 7:16 pm
“I was wondering if this was a half report. I’m not yet convinced they didn’t donate a large sum to Democratic campaign committees other than the DGA.”
It’s an interesting idea Al but if Murdoch gave any money to the DGA I think someone would have picked up on it by now.
August 17, 2010 at 7:24 pm
^ You slightly misread me, Fritz. I doubt NewsCorp gave much (if anything) to DGA, I said other than.
August 17, 2010 at 7:42 pm
Spud, I disagree with you about Bill O’Reilly going after GE shouldn’t be taken serious when GE which owns NBC had to settle with SEC.
General Electric (GE) today announced that it had reached a settlement with the Securities and Exchange Commission over charges of illegal kickbacks its subsidiaries paid to win contracts in the United Nations’ Oil-for-Food Program. As a result, GE has agreed to pay a $1 million penalty and give up the estimated $22.5 million in profits plus interest earned on the transactions.
http://www.dailyfinance.com/story/ge-settles-kickback-allegations-in-oil-for-food-program-with-sec/19570281/
And let’s not forget in February 2009, Immelt (GE) was appointed as a member to the President’s Economic Recovery Advisory Board to provide the president and his administration with advice and counsel in fixing America’s economic downturn.
August 17, 2010 at 7:47 pm
“NBC,ABC,CBS,PBS,MSNBC and CNBC”
You forgot CNN and BBC and ESPN and TBS and MTV and; oh yeah; the Food Network”
Well if I kept listing all the media outlets that lean left I be here all day.
August 17, 2010 at 8:12 pm
Go to OpenSecrets.org for federal campaign contributions and lobbying data in US politics…
August 17, 2010 at 8:21 pm
^ I did. The data is incomplete – I wasn’t listed.
August 17, 2010 at 8:37 pm
Spud, I disagree with you about Bill O’Reilly going after GE shouldn’t be taken serious
It shouldn’t be taken seriously because O’Reilly wouldn’t normally go near this subject if it wasn’t for Keith Olbermann. Everyone knows this is O’Reilly’s way of trying to get to Keith. It worked for a while too. Then the truce fell apart.
August 18, 2010 at 5:27 am
Joe,
I agree that it looks bad when companies that own major media outlets contribute to political parties.
I thought this story was particularly effective, however, at displaying that politicians and media conglomerates are in bed with each other and happy to share a blanket.
http://tinyurl.com/35wfjuz
August 18, 2010 at 6:57 am
“I thought this story was particularly effective, however, at displaying that politicians and media conglomerates are in bed with each other and happy to share a blanket.”
jwe3; I don’t think anyone disputes this.
Media corporations give money to politicians and political organizations all the time. Usually it gives somewhat more to the party in power as they have more influence. They probably give more to politicians that share their policy positions than those opposed if they have a chance of defeating the one opposed. And, of course they give much more to lobbyists & 527′s to try and influence policy.
That’s all normal and will be even more prevalent after the SCOTUS ‘citizen’s united’ decision.
The Murdoch donation is very large by even corporate standards and is solely to to Republican candidates.
Fair or not; it hangs a cloud over the remaining straight news reporters (Smith, Hemmer, Cameron, Garrett etc.) at Fox News.
It is particularly problematic for Chris Wallace whose show already has a difficult time being taken seriously as a straight news Sunday morning program.
I think Wallace is unbiased, but it will be easier now for people like the POTUS to say they don’t have to appear on his show because FNC is biased towards the Republicans.
Garrett too will face the same line of attack when they ask questions at WH press briefings that are based on some FNC made up story like the NBPP.
Now Murdoch may think the chance to elect Republican governors is more important that FNC being perceived as a real news organization or maybe he just doesn’t care whether they are or not.
August 18, 2010 at 7:06 am
“important that FNC being perceived”
^that > than
August 18, 2010 at 8:12 am
NewsBusters: WaPo Highlights Dem Outrage at FOX Donations to GOP, Downplays Reality of 50-50 Contributions
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/tim-graham/2010/08/18/wapo-highlights-dem-outrage-fox-donations-gop-downplays-reality-50-50-co
August 18, 2010 at 8:55 am
“NewsBusters: WaPo Highlights Dem Outrage at FOX Donations to GOP, Downplays Reality of 50-50 Contributions”
This is yet another truly dumb analysis of a good WAPO story. Yes, Murdoch has been fairly even handed in his political donations; around $2-300,00.00 total – even giving to Harry Reid; up until recently when he gave $1,000,000,000.00 to the RGA.
This is why it is story now and wasn’t before. The Newsbuster article suggests that the numbers are still about even which is a total misrepresentation of the known facts.
They must have a really low opinion of their readers to even try and put forth such easily dis-proven c***.
August 18, 2010 at 8:58 am
^$2-300,00.00 > $2-300,000.00
Sorry.