General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsFox News knew about Stormy Daniels payments before election. Killed story.
Link to tweet
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Kingofalldems
(40,271 posts)
EndGOPPropaganda
(1,117 posts)Our mission should be to make sure EVERY Fox viewer knows who Rupert Murdoch is and what he wants— how he wants to fool Fox viewers so they’ll vote for his tax cuts.
Different Drummer
(9,083 posts)They are staunch adherents to The Gospel According to Rupert and it's useless to try to convince them to feel otherwise. You'd have more success snipe hunting.
babylonsister
(172,746 posts)their role, but so not surprised. Another example of why they are not a legitimate news source.
zaj
(3,433 posts)Last edited Mon Mar 4, 2019, 12:04 PM - Edit history (1)
(Edit: I revised my title to better reflect my intent. Fox still has 1st Amendment Protections like any person or entity, but the press aspects would end if they start being a political actor.)
Sounds like a suppoena ready situation.
Codeine
(25,586 posts)They’re not legally obligated to report anything. There could very well be payment in kind campaign finance violations here, but they still have all their Constitutional rights.
zaj
(3,433 posts)... start being a political operation or average company.
Facebook or the Koch Brothers Empire or the RNC/DNC all have a different set of free speech protections than "the press". If Rupert Murcoch has turned Fox into a political operation, as this suggests, then the protections entitled to the Press start to fall off.
MadDAsHell
(2,067 posts)Are you suggesting a news outlet should be required to report a story?
Because that isn't a free press. If you want that, hell let's just bring in state media and go full fascist.
Codeine
(25,586 posts)a story they don’t wish to report. I’m not sure where you learned about civics, but a refresher course may be in order.
zaj
(3,433 posts)... tell me the difference between the GOP and Fox News when Murdoch is ordering reporters to help Trump get elected?
Codeine
(25,586 posts)Media is free to shill for a candidate. Historically most media have been quite partisan, as is their right.
You’ve got some odd notions about the First Amendment.
zaj
(3,433 posts)It's about the definition of media, and what's involved in letting the label, and what's involved in losing it.
Ordering your journalist to help get someone elected by covering up a campaign ending story... I'd the thing that send to me could put your media identity at risk.
You Catalina saying one is a political party is a media company... Obfuscates the fact that one is starting to act like the other, and at dinner point, it loses its old label.
Here's an example...
What is Trump TV?
https://m.facebook.com/trumptvofficial/
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCHjMcohNRWFxsG-IYisfJkw
Is it campaign content of a political operation? Is it "the press"? What's features make it one vs the other?
What about Infowars?
Is it dangerous rantings of a mentally I'll conspiracy theorist (with citizen level 1st amendment rights)?
Or is it "the press" (with press specific protections)? What's features make it one vs the other?
Do we extend the "press" identity to every content creator with access to a cell phone? Do we limit the identity of the press to a certain set of s standards? What are they?
This is a much more complex question than you are making it out to be.
zaj
(3,433 posts)
Cuthbert Allgood
(5,339 posts)zaj
(3,433 posts)It's possible for "the press" to stop being "the press". What it takes, and when it has happened, is debateable, including in this case. But it's possible.
Mariana
(15,623 posts)Their customers, the advertisers, pay them to gather an audience. The advertisers then get to pitch their crap to said audience. That is their role. Therefore, they endeavor only to put on material their particular audience will find enjoyable. At that time, most members of their audience didn't want to hear anything negative about Trump. It makes perfect sense that this story would be suppressed.
cstanleytech
(28,462 posts)disseminating propaganda for the Repugnant party and its members that is disguised as news.
Maru Kitteh
(31,749 posts)Lock them up.
calimary
(89,951 posts)Maru Kitteh
(31,749 posts)Would LOVE to see a Congressional investigation start turning over those rocks. Hannity would self-combust on air.
Takket
(23,705 posts)If an entity is found to be tailoring its coverage to the benefit of one particular person or group, is that propaganda, and is propoganda protected by the 1A?
Dennis Donovan
(31,059 posts)
unblock
(56,188 posts)if there were actually hard proof that the story was killed specifically to benefit one candidate over another, then yes, it would very likely be considered payment-in-kind and, assuming it went unreported, a campaign violation.
most likely, though, there's no such proof, but foxnews would be free to claim that they killed the story for any of a number of editorial considerations.
for it to be a real problem it really has to be tied clearly to a specific campaign/candidate. it's not a campaign violation to kill a story to generically help the republican party or the right-wing movement or to avoid turning off their base.
thesquanderer
(13,001 posts)Well, the allegation literally contains, "Rupert Murdoch wants Donald Trump to win."
I suspect Congress can compel testimony protected by an NDA (at least in private session), but how do you find such people, who aren't talking? Even if they could find Jane Mayer's source, and shield her liability for revealing the contents of the NDA to Congress, they probably could not shield her for having revealed the contents to Jane Mayer, so she could remain civilly liable for that. So... not likely to come forward on her own.
unblock
(56,188 posts)yes, if foxnews admitted they did it to benefit donnie, then they'd be in big trouble indeed. but in practice, they're sure to claim they did it because they didn't find the reporter credible, they didn't have corroboration, or whatever.
frankly i doubt that foxnews management ever said anything as overt as the statement quoted. more likely it was the reporter complaining and reading between the lines. i'm not saying the reporter is wrong in that reading, not at all. i'm just agreeing with you that in legal terms it would be hard to make a real case out of this for lack of hard enough evidence.
Mariana
(15,623 posts)because they knew their audience didn't want to hear about it. At that time, they would probably have lost viewers, and therefore money, if they ran any negative stories about Trump, regardless of whether the stories were true.
unblock
(56,188 posts)it's hard to separate them. but yeah, "bad for business" is legally defensible, whereas "would have hurt donnie's chances to win an election" is not.
Mariana
(15,623 posts)Their audience pretty much demand that the Fox News programming always support and promote Republicans in general and, certainly at that time, Trump in particular.
unblock
(56,188 posts)arguably, protecting propaganda is the primary purpose of the first amendment.
well, in civics class or law school you're more likely to hear it called "political speech" or perhaps even "biased" political speech, but whatever you call it, the founders most definitely did not want *government* levying penalties on this sort of thing.
that's not to say they would have approved of all propaganda, just that they thought that other political speech countering it was the appropriate remedy, rather than government penalizing it one way or another.
FiveGoodMen
(20,018 posts)Propaganda works.
It has already damaged the country (and world) immeasurably.
In its final stages, it will obliterate democracy.
How long will the right to free speech of any kind last then?
If lying is not punished, liars will always win.
RIP, US.
thesquanderer
(13,001 posts)If there were, I think it would cover most advertising and a lot of documentaries...
Codeine
(25,586 posts)Why wouldn’t propaganda be protected speech? 
All media tailors their programming to fit their desired or intended audience.
Stuart G
(38,726 posts)
spanone
(141,542 posts)
salin
(48,958 posts)spanone
(141,542 posts)dem4decades
(14,038 posts)Not reputable, not really news sources? In fact, how ironic. They are fake news.
watoos
(7,142 posts)
Dustlawyer
(10,539 posts)when their biggest advertisers (fossil fuel industry) didn’t like the coverage. Capitalism got in the way of covering the news.
This is a really big problem for us beyond the Trump crap we have now!
watoos
(7,142 posts)Too many people don't understand that American oligarchs own cable news, well Australian oligarch owns Fox and WS Journal.
I have posted this numerous times, it never gets old;
Fox says that Obama beats his wife.
CNN says it needs more information.
MSNBC says no he doesn't.
It really doesn't matter, all three are talking about Obama beating his wife.
CNN and MSNBC merely put a progressive slant to the right wing narratives.
I do watch Nicolle Wallace and Rachel, and Don Lemon at times. Why put myself through agony watching the other paid shills?
kcr
(15,522 posts)cuz, like, 1st amendment means that's ok, right? And they're just another business, so that's how it works!
The press in America has died.
Mariana
(15,623 posts)The advertisers are their customers.
WeekiWater
(3,259 posts)All companies advertising on Fox News should have to report their spending as a political contribution.
lastlib
(28,216 posts)UniteFightBack
(8,231 posts)November I think....?????
Laura PourMeADrink
(42,770 posts)
murielm99
(32,972 posts)Who stopped tweeting?
tinrobot
(12,056 posts)zaj
(3,433 posts)It's not like Twitter is good news. It's one channel. I think they are mad at Twitter.
Achilleaze
(15,543 posts)Deplorable & deceitful (R).
Kurt V.
(5,624 posts)watoos
(7,142 posts)2 Fox reporters from Florida I think, did an expose' on steroids and hormones and GMO's. Monsanto stepped in and edited their report. The 2 reporters refused to air the doctored report because they knew it was a lie.
Fox fired them and they sued. They won the first law suit but lost the appeal case.
This case shows that reporters are required to report known lies on air or they can legally be fired.
yonder
(10,287 posts)that claimed they were not a news organization but rather an entertainment company?
And if so, does that outcome affect, with respect to press freedom, what they publish as news today?
Skinner
(63,645 posts)...said nobody ever.
malaise
(295,871 posts)Rec
forgotmylogin
(7,951 posts)I could be wrong, but I thought I heard it said the payments were 3 days before the election?
Laura PourMeADrink
(42,770 posts)Just don't have enough time and people to investigate everything this corrupt Admin is doing.
Poor Mueller. Every day he probably says, "oh man, thought I was done". Maybe Congress should investigate everything Mueller is not looking at. So MF45 doesn't get away with it.
Laura PourMeADrink
(42,770 posts)
wishstar
(5,828 posts)Wash Post admitted that because they thought Clinton was going to win anyway, they decided to not influence election by reporting what they knew about Bob Dole's affairs including with with a paid staffer who allegedly didn't do any real work and when he was married.
Covering up Bob Dole's indiscretions allowed the Repubs to go after Clinton more than if one of their own had been exposed too.
ZeroSomeBrains
(638 posts)Fuck Faux News.
we can do it
(13,024 posts)
Va Lefty
(6,252 posts)Sure this wasn't the first time they killed a story that would hurt the kgop and it won't be the last.
MontanaMama
(24,719 posts)The thing is that I don’t care one iota that the MF paid anybody off after he cheated on his wife. I do care that he is a filthy traitor that sold his soul and our country out to Russia.
dlk
(13,245 posts)Look at the damage he has done to our country. It's sickening.
Initech
(108,700 posts)It is a foreign propaganda outlet with hostile intentions to undermine the US government. We must start treating it as such. 
Me.
(35,454 posts)“In a stunning move, an arbitrator has demanded 21st Century Fox pay nearly $179 million to several key participants of Bones, the hit television drama that Fox both produced and aired for twelve seasons before the show ended in 2017. The decision was handed out earlier this year, but only revealed today, according to The Hollywood Reporter.”
And to top it off, as a further consequence to what the arbiter said was outright fraud and lying Hulu may be done for.
Quixote1818
(31,155 posts)They changed their tune.
Blue Owl
(59,040 posts)
mnmoderatedem
(3,906 posts)the deplorables knew about the Access Hollywood tape before the election but they did not bat an eyelash. They probably would have applauded the Stormy Daniels news.
Blue_Tires
(57,596 posts)God knows how many stories they killed to protect George Bush Jr. and that was back when most people still viewed them as halfway legitimate