Jackie22
Well-known Member
- Location
- Northeast Texas
That last sentence stood out to me too....what an evil man. It will be interesting to see what
happens at Fox after Hillary wins.
happens at Fox after Hillary wins.
Roger Ailes and the Shakeup at Fox News
- Thread starter Jackie22
- Start date
"the selling of the Iraq War, the Swift-boating of John Kerry, the rise of the tea party, the sticking power of a host of Clinton scandals, and the purported illegitimacy of Barack Obama’s presidency."
If reporting on the government's statements regarding foreign affairs, group statements about candidates, the rise of a political movement, and the selling of the office of SecState are a bad thing - you have to wonder what a person believing that considers the job of the press to be in a free society.
I don't recall Fox pushing any illegitimacy issue.
If reporting on the government's statements regarding foreign affairs, group statements about candidates, the rise of a political movement, and the selling of the office of SecState are a bad thing - you have to wonder what a person believing that considers the job of the press to be in a free society.
I don't recall Fox pushing any illegitimacy issue.
BlunderWoman
Senior Member
yeah me too. It's a very very informative read
BlunderWoman
Senior Member
Along this same topic..Murdoch whom employed Ailes has quite an interesting history himself. An excerpt from another article on Murdoch. Taken from article 'WHY RUPERT MURDOCH CAN’T BE STOPPED -The political empire of the News Corp chairman' :
source:https://www.themonthly.com.au/issue...ert-manne/why-rupert-murdoch-can-t-be-stopped
1979 Rupert Murdoch made his first takeover bid for the largest newspaper company in Australia, the Herald and Weekly Times, which he believed had mistreated one of its key architects, his father. The bid was resisted. Murdoch had a well-deserved reputation as a manipulator of the political process. He was known to have used his existing papers ruthlessly in 1972 to undermine the Liberal prime minister, Billy McMahon, and then in 1975 to help destroy Gough Whitlam, the Labor prime minister he had once enthusiastically supported. In fighting against the bid, the Melbourne Herald expressed the general understanding: “Mr Murdoch’s newspapers always respond in unison – as though to some divine wind – as they pursue their relentless campaigns in favour of current Murdoch objectives – particularly his political ones. Every journalist in Australia knows that.”
In 1986 Murdoch announced a second Herald and Weekly Times takeover bid. By this time the case for resistance was far stronger than in 1979. In order to pursue his television ambitions, Murdoch had become a citizen of the United States. The rules of the Foreign Investment Review Board made it clear that “foreign investment in mass circulation newspapers is restricted”. In 1981, Murdoch had taken control of the London Times and Sunday Times, we know now with the collusion of the UK prime minister, Margaret Thatcher. His bid had been spared reference to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission on the condition that he respected the newspapers’ editorial independence. Almost immediately, the condition was flagrantly breached and Murdoch threatened with a term in prison. Even more importantly, by this time it was clear that Murdoch was using his papers as standard-bearers for the Thatcher–Reagan radical-conservative revolutions that were undermining social democratic parties and progressive politics throughout the English-speaking world. The Hawke government’s opposition to the News Corp takeover bid for the Herald and Weekly Times ought to have been certain.
Bob Hawke, who had once advised Whitlam that he would rue the day he got into bed with Murdoch, was in fact a strong supporter. Hawke blamed the conservatives who ran the Herald and Weekly Times for keeping Labor out of power in Victoria between 1955 and 1982. Even more, he resented the light that Murdoch’s rival newspapers at Fairfax – both the Sydney Morning Herald and the National Times – had shone on real or supposed corruption in the NSW branch of the ALP. Hawke hoped to seize the opportunity occasioned by the Murdoch takeover bid to kill or weaken two of Labor’s media enemies. He also believed that he could use his best mate, Sir Peter Abeles, a News Corp business partner in Ansett Airlines, as a political bridge to Murdoch. In his Media Mates, Paul Chadwick records a telling exchange between the prime minister and Senator John Button. Button inquired: “Why don’t you tell us precisely how you want to help your mates?” Hawke replied: “Remember they’re the only mates we’ve got.”
As Colleen Ryan has documented recently in her Fairfax: The rise and fall, Hawke’s treasurer, Paul Keating, was even more enthusiastic about the takeover, in part for the same reasons as Hawke; in part because Fairfax had raised awkward questions about Keating’s relations with the property developer Warren Anderson; and in part because, as a radical reformer, Keating wanted to inject into the economy the energy of “new money” represented by Murdoch (and Kerry Packer) and to destroy moribund “old money” interests, represented for him by both the hated Fairfax enemy and the moribund Melbourne gentleman’s club he thought was running the Herald and Weekly Times. Keating was not merely a passive supporter of the Murdoch takeover. By secretly providing Murdoch with inside information about the government’s proposed new media laws – where the ownership of television and newspapers was to be separated – Keating actively sought to bury the Herald and Weekly Times, to thwart Fairfax’s ambitions and to facilitate News Corp’s domination of the Australian press.
source:https://www.themonthly.com.au/issue...ert-manne/why-rupert-murdoch-can-t-be-stopped
1979 Rupert Murdoch made his first takeover bid for the largest newspaper company in Australia, the Herald and Weekly Times, which he believed had mistreated one of its key architects, his father. The bid was resisted. Murdoch had a well-deserved reputation as a manipulator of the political process. He was known to have used his existing papers ruthlessly in 1972 to undermine the Liberal prime minister, Billy McMahon, and then in 1975 to help destroy Gough Whitlam, the Labor prime minister he had once enthusiastically supported. In fighting against the bid, the Melbourne Herald expressed the general understanding: “Mr Murdoch’s newspapers always respond in unison – as though to some divine wind – as they pursue their relentless campaigns in favour of current Murdoch objectives – particularly his political ones. Every journalist in Australia knows that.”
In 1986 Murdoch announced a second Herald and Weekly Times takeover bid. By this time the case for resistance was far stronger than in 1979. In order to pursue his television ambitions, Murdoch had become a citizen of the United States. The rules of the Foreign Investment Review Board made it clear that “foreign investment in mass circulation newspapers is restricted”. In 1981, Murdoch had taken control of the London Times and Sunday Times, we know now with the collusion of the UK prime minister, Margaret Thatcher. His bid had been spared reference to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission on the condition that he respected the newspapers’ editorial independence. Almost immediately, the condition was flagrantly breached and Murdoch threatened with a term in prison. Even more importantly, by this time it was clear that Murdoch was using his papers as standard-bearers for the Thatcher–Reagan radical-conservative revolutions that were undermining social democratic parties and progressive politics throughout the English-speaking world. The Hawke government’s opposition to the News Corp takeover bid for the Herald and Weekly Times ought to have been certain.
Bob Hawke, who had once advised Whitlam that he would rue the day he got into bed with Murdoch, was in fact a strong supporter. Hawke blamed the conservatives who ran the Herald and Weekly Times for keeping Labor out of power in Victoria between 1955 and 1982. Even more, he resented the light that Murdoch’s rival newspapers at Fairfax – both the Sydney Morning Herald and the National Times – had shone on real or supposed corruption in the NSW branch of the ALP. Hawke hoped to seize the opportunity occasioned by the Murdoch takeover bid to kill or weaken two of Labor’s media enemies. He also believed that he could use his best mate, Sir Peter Abeles, a News Corp business partner in Ansett Airlines, as a political bridge to Murdoch. In his Media Mates, Paul Chadwick records a telling exchange between the prime minister and Senator John Button. Button inquired: “Why don’t you tell us precisely how you want to help your mates?” Hawke replied: “Remember they’re the only mates we’ve got.”
As Colleen Ryan has documented recently in her Fairfax: The rise and fall, Hawke’s treasurer, Paul Keating, was even more enthusiastic about the takeover, in part for the same reasons as Hawke; in part because Fairfax had raised awkward questions about Keating’s relations with the property developer Warren Anderson; and in part because, as a radical reformer, Keating wanted to inject into the economy the energy of “new money” represented by Murdoch (and Kerry Packer) and to destroy moribund “old money” interests, represented for him by both the hated Fairfax enemy and the moribund Melbourne gentleman’s club he thought was running the Herald and Weekly Times. Keating was not merely a passive supporter of the Murdoch takeover. By secretly providing Murdoch with inside information about the government’s proposed new media laws – where the ownership of television and newspapers was to be separated – Keating actively sought to bury the Herald and Weekly Times, to thwart Fairfax’s ambitions and to facilitate News Corp’s domination of the Australian press.
BlunderWoman
Senior Member
Another article on Murdoch- 'Murdoch and his influence on Australian political life ' source:http://source:http://theconversatio...-influence-on-australian-political-life-16752
In 2007, journalist Ken Auletta spent a great deal of time with Rupert Murdoch while writing a magazine profile of him. Auletta observed that Murdoch was frequently on the phone to his editors and this prompted him to ask: “of all the things in your business empire, what gives you the most pleasure?” Murdoch instantly replied: “being involved with the editor of a paper in a day-to-day campaign…trying to influence people”.
Over the course of the 2013 federal election, Australia will experience a real time experiment which will demonstrate the degree of influence exerted by Rupert Murdoch and his newspapers on Australian political life.
That Murdoch has had an influence on elections previously, especially in the UK, is no secret. In the 1992 UK election, The Sun, his biggest selling tabloid in the UK and editorially a kissing cousin of Sydney’s Daily Telegraph, claimed victory on behalf of the Conservative party. As the headline famously bellowed: “It Was The Sun Wot Won It”
Papers owned by Rupert Murdoch have never been shy in using the front page as a political bludgeon. The Sun/News Corporation
On Day One of the campaign (the Monday just gone), the Daily Telegraph staked a claim for the most thuggish headline: “KICK THIS MOB OUT”. Two days earlier the Daily Telegraph’s headline was “PRICE OF LABOR: Another huge budget shambles”.
The headlines underlined the fact that when he chooses to, Murdoch uses his newspapers ruthlessly to make or break governments or parties. Given that he controls 70% of the capital city newspaper circulation in Australia, his moods and beliefs are a material factor during elections in Australia. Prime ministers and opposition leaders seek his favours but are grateful if they can just have his neutrality.
Political leaders do this because they have a keen sense of where raw power lies in election campaigns. They know that in the crucial state of Queensland that Murdoch’s Courier-Mail reigns supreme. In Adelaide, The Advertiser has no rival. In NSW and Victoria, he has the powerhouses of the Herald Sun and the Daily Telegraph.
After the 2010 election - which resulted in a minority Labor government - Murdoch summoned his Australian editors and senior journalists to his home in Carmel, California. He made clear that he despised the Gillard government and wanted regime change. In 2011, Murdoch met Abbott and told his editors he liked him. His newspapers (a couple of which had actually supported Gillard in the 2010 election) thereafter campaigned strongly against the Gillard government, particularly on the issues of asylum seekers and climate change.
Some regard newspapers as dinosaurs, but this is mistaken in my view. Newspapers continue to set a daily agenda, particularly in politics. They are responsible for the majority of online news which in turn feeds blogs and social media. Radio and television feed off newspaper coverage, creating an echo chamber, particularly in small state capitals. During election campaigns, the day begins at 4am when the party strategists review the morning’s newspapers and plan their campaign.
Daily Telegraph front page, August 5.
The arrival in Australia of New York Post editor Col Allan has aroused much comment. Allan is a radically conservative editor whose newspaper led the charge against Barack Obama in the 2008 and 2012 presidential elections. Allan is a loyal lieutenant of Rupert Murdoch’s and is particularly close to Lachlan Murdoch.
The reason for Murdoch’s dramatic intervention in the current election has caused some debate. One interpretation of Murdoch is that he acts only for commercial advantage. Reflecting this, Paul Sheehan in the Sun-Herald argued that Murdoch wants to destroy Rudd and Labor because they are building the National Broadband Network (NBN). The NBN’s capacity to allow the quick downloading of movies and other content would be a threat to Murdoch’s Foxtel TV operation, so the argument goes.
Whether true or not, this underestimates Murdoch and reduces him to a comic book capitalist. If commercial advantage was Murdoch’s real measure of success, he would have closed newspapers like The Australian, London’s The Times and the New York Post many years ago. All lose money. The Australian, for example, which lectures the nation about the need for a level playing field and free markets is reportedly subsidised to the tune of A$25-30 million for its losses per year. The New York Post has never made money under Murdoch. The Times has been in the red for many years.
Murdoch’s personal politics are more ideological than most people think. His pick for US president last year was Rick Santorum. Murdoch praised his “vision” for the country - yet Santorum opposed birth control and wanted to ban abortion. At one stage four of the likely contenders for the Republican nomination were on his payroll as commentators on Fox News.
In Australia, Murdoch’s newspapers - subsidised or not - give him a seat at the table of national politics. From this position he is determined to exercise the kind of influence which he was honest enough to admit to Ken Auletta.
In 2007, journalist Ken Auletta spent a great deal of time with Rupert Murdoch while writing a magazine profile of him. Auletta observed that Murdoch was frequently on the phone to his editors and this prompted him to ask: “of all the things in your business empire, what gives you the most pleasure?” Murdoch instantly replied: “being involved with the editor of a paper in a day-to-day campaign…trying to influence people”.
Over the course of the 2013 federal election, Australia will experience a real time experiment which will demonstrate the degree of influence exerted by Rupert Murdoch and his newspapers on Australian political life.
That Murdoch has had an influence on elections previously, especially in the UK, is no secret. In the 1992 UK election, The Sun, his biggest selling tabloid in the UK and editorially a kissing cousin of Sydney’s Daily Telegraph, claimed victory on behalf of the Conservative party. As the headline famously bellowed: “It Was The Sun Wot Won It”
Papers owned by Rupert Murdoch have never been shy in using the front page as a political bludgeon. The Sun/News Corporation
On Day One of the campaign (the Monday just gone), the Daily Telegraph staked a claim for the most thuggish headline: “KICK THIS MOB OUT”. Two days earlier the Daily Telegraph’s headline was “PRICE OF LABOR: Another huge budget shambles”.
The headlines underlined the fact that when he chooses to, Murdoch uses his newspapers ruthlessly to make or break governments or parties. Given that he controls 70% of the capital city newspaper circulation in Australia, his moods and beliefs are a material factor during elections in Australia. Prime ministers and opposition leaders seek his favours but are grateful if they can just have his neutrality.
Political leaders do this because they have a keen sense of where raw power lies in election campaigns. They know that in the crucial state of Queensland that Murdoch’s Courier-Mail reigns supreme. In Adelaide, The Advertiser has no rival. In NSW and Victoria, he has the powerhouses of the Herald Sun and the Daily Telegraph.
After the 2010 election - which resulted in a minority Labor government - Murdoch summoned his Australian editors and senior journalists to his home in Carmel, California. He made clear that he despised the Gillard government and wanted regime change. In 2011, Murdoch met Abbott and told his editors he liked him. His newspapers (a couple of which had actually supported Gillard in the 2010 election) thereafter campaigned strongly against the Gillard government, particularly on the issues of asylum seekers and climate change.
Some regard newspapers as dinosaurs, but this is mistaken in my view. Newspapers continue to set a daily agenda, particularly in politics. They are responsible for the majority of online news which in turn feeds blogs and social media. Radio and television feed off newspaper coverage, creating an echo chamber, particularly in small state capitals. During election campaigns, the day begins at 4am when the party strategists review the morning’s newspapers and plan their campaign.
Daily Telegraph front page, August 5.
The arrival in Australia of New York Post editor Col Allan has aroused much comment. Allan is a radically conservative editor whose newspaper led the charge against Barack Obama in the 2008 and 2012 presidential elections. Allan is a loyal lieutenant of Rupert Murdoch’s and is particularly close to Lachlan Murdoch.
The reason for Murdoch’s dramatic intervention in the current election has caused some debate. One interpretation of Murdoch is that he acts only for commercial advantage. Reflecting this, Paul Sheehan in the Sun-Herald argued that Murdoch wants to destroy Rudd and Labor because they are building the National Broadband Network (NBN). The NBN’s capacity to allow the quick downloading of movies and other content would be a threat to Murdoch’s Foxtel TV operation, so the argument goes.
Whether true or not, this underestimates Murdoch and reduces him to a comic book capitalist. If commercial advantage was Murdoch’s real measure of success, he would have closed newspapers like The Australian, London’s The Times and the New York Post many years ago. All lose money. The Australian, for example, which lectures the nation about the need for a level playing field and free markets is reportedly subsidised to the tune of A$25-30 million for its losses per year. The New York Post has never made money under Murdoch. The Times has been in the red for many years.
Murdoch’s personal politics are more ideological than most people think. His pick for US president last year was Rick Santorum. Murdoch praised his “vision” for the country - yet Santorum opposed birth control and wanted to ban abortion. At one stage four of the likely contenders for the Republican nomination were on his payroll as commentators on Fox News.
In Australia, Murdoch’s newspapers - subsidised or not - give him a seat at the table of national politics. From this position he is determined to exercise the kind of influence which he was honest enough to admit to Ken Auletta.
BlunderWoman
Senior Member
Sorry for sidetracking your thread some Jackie , Now back to the original article which is the topic of this thread. I found this excerpt from that article particularly interesting as well:
Then came Donald Trump. Kelly’s feud with the GOP nominee was one of the dominant story lines of the presidential election; it also exploded the fragile balance of relationships at the top of Fox News.
According to Fox sources, Murdoch blamed Ailes for laying the groundwork for Trump’s candidacy. Ailes had given Trump, his longtime friend, a weekly call-in segment on Fox & Friends to sound off on political issues. (Trump used Fox News to mainstream the birther conspiracy theory.) Ailes also had lunch with Trump days before he launched his presidential campaign and continued to feed him political advice throughout the primaries, according to sources close to Trump and Ailes. (And in the days after Carlson filed her lawsuit, Trump advised Ailes on navigating the crisis, even recommending a lawyer.)
Murdoch was not a fan of Trump’s and especially did not like his stance on immigration. (The antipathy was mutual: “Murdoch’s been very bad to me,” Trump told me in March.) A few days before the first GOP debate on Fox in August 2015, Murdoch called Ailes at home. “This has gone on long enough,” Murdoch said, according to a person briefed on the conversation. Murdoch told Ailes he wanted Fox’s debate moderators — Kelly, Bret Baier, and Chris Wallace — to hammer Trump on a variety of issues. Ailes, understanding the GOP electorate better than most at that point, likely thought it was a bad idea. “Donald Trump is going to be the Republican nominee,” Ailes told a colleague around this time. But he didn’t fight Murdoch on the debate directive.
On the night of August 6, in front of 24 million people, the Fox moderators peppered Trump with harder-hitting questions. But it was Kelly’s question regarding Trump’s history of crude comments about women that created a media sensation. He seemed personally wounded by her suggestion that this spoke to a temperament that might not be suited for the presidency. “I’ve been very nice to you, though I could probably maybe not be based on the way you have treated me,” he said pointedly.
After the debate, Trump called Ailes and screamed about Kelly. “How could you do this?” he said, according to a person briefed on the call. Ailes was caught between his friend Trump, his boss Murdoch, and his star Kelly. “Roger lost control of Megyn and Trump,” a Fox anchor said.
The parties only became more entrenched when Trump launched a series of attacks against Kelly, including suggesting that her menstrual cycle had influenced her debate question. Problematically for Ailes, Fox’s audience took Trump’s side in the fight; Kelly received death threats from viewers, according to a person close to her. Kelly had even begun to speculate, according to one Fox source, that Trump might have been responsible for her getting violently ill before the debate last summer. Could he have paid someone to slip something into her coffee that morning in Cleveland? she wondered to colleagues.
While Ailes released a statement defending Kelly, he privately blamed her for creating the crisis. “It was an unfair question,” he told a Fox anchor. Kelly felt betrayed, both by Ailes and by colleagues like O’Reilly and Baier when they didn’t defend her, sources who spoke with her said. “She felt she put herself out there,” a colleague said.
There's also a very interesting article here and one can see how the dominoes just keep falling
EXCLUSIVE: IS DONALD TRUMP’S ENDGAME THE LAUNCH OF TRUMP NEWS?
source: http://www.vanityfair.com/news/2016/06/donald-trump-tv-network
Here's another article:
Donald Trump's Next Move Could Be a Cable News Channel
source: http://fortune.com/2016/06/16/cable-channel-donald-trump/
Then came Donald Trump. Kelly’s feud with the GOP nominee was one of the dominant story lines of the presidential election; it also exploded the fragile balance of relationships at the top of Fox News.
According to Fox sources, Murdoch blamed Ailes for laying the groundwork for Trump’s candidacy. Ailes had given Trump, his longtime friend, a weekly call-in segment on Fox & Friends to sound off on political issues. (Trump used Fox News to mainstream the birther conspiracy theory.) Ailes also had lunch with Trump days before he launched his presidential campaign and continued to feed him political advice throughout the primaries, according to sources close to Trump and Ailes. (And in the days after Carlson filed her lawsuit, Trump advised Ailes on navigating the crisis, even recommending a lawyer.)
Murdoch was not a fan of Trump’s and especially did not like his stance on immigration. (The antipathy was mutual: “Murdoch’s been very bad to me,” Trump told me in March.) A few days before the first GOP debate on Fox in August 2015, Murdoch called Ailes at home. “This has gone on long enough,” Murdoch said, according to a person briefed on the conversation. Murdoch told Ailes he wanted Fox’s debate moderators — Kelly, Bret Baier, and Chris Wallace — to hammer Trump on a variety of issues. Ailes, understanding the GOP electorate better than most at that point, likely thought it was a bad idea. “Donald Trump is going to be the Republican nominee,” Ailes told a colleague around this time. But he didn’t fight Murdoch on the debate directive.
On the night of August 6, in front of 24 million people, the Fox moderators peppered Trump with harder-hitting questions. But it was Kelly’s question regarding Trump’s history of crude comments about women that created a media sensation. He seemed personally wounded by her suggestion that this spoke to a temperament that might not be suited for the presidency. “I’ve been very nice to you, though I could probably maybe not be based on the way you have treated me,” he said pointedly.
After the debate, Trump called Ailes and screamed about Kelly. “How could you do this?” he said, according to a person briefed on the call. Ailes was caught between his friend Trump, his boss Murdoch, and his star Kelly. “Roger lost control of Megyn and Trump,” a Fox anchor said.
The parties only became more entrenched when Trump launched a series of attacks against Kelly, including suggesting that her menstrual cycle had influenced her debate question. Problematically for Ailes, Fox’s audience took Trump’s side in the fight; Kelly received death threats from viewers, according to a person close to her. Kelly had even begun to speculate, according to one Fox source, that Trump might have been responsible for her getting violently ill before the debate last summer. Could he have paid someone to slip something into her coffee that morning in Cleveland? she wondered to colleagues.
While Ailes released a statement defending Kelly, he privately blamed her for creating the crisis. “It was an unfair question,” he told a Fox anchor. Kelly felt betrayed, both by Ailes and by colleagues like O’Reilly and Baier when they didn’t defend her, sources who spoke with her said. “She felt she put herself out there,” a colleague said.
There's also a very interesting article here and one can see how the dominoes just keep falling
EXCLUSIVE: IS DONALD TRUMP’S ENDGAME THE LAUNCH OF TRUMP NEWS?
source: http://www.vanityfair.com/news/2016/06/donald-trump-tv-network
Here's another article:
Donald Trump's Next Move Could Be a Cable News Channel
source: http://fortune.com/2016/06/16/cable-channel-donald-trump/
BlunderWoman
Senior Member
So, evidently now Trump feels FOX and all news he can no longer control is biased now that Ailes can't help him out like he was doing before
Now I ask you. In all honestly.. what could go wrong when a President or Presidential candidate has massive control over news and news reporting?
Now I ask you. In all honestly.. what could go wrong when a President or Presidential candidate has massive control over news and news reporting?
Jackie22
Well-known Member
- Location
- Northeast Texas
Yes, I've heard the rumors of a 'Trump News'...won't that be jolly.
Thanks for the Murdoch post, BW......we've had some long discussions on here before
about Murdoch and his empire manipulating politics and world governments. Wari is really up on Mr. Murdoch.
Keep up all the good informing material.
Thanks for the Murdoch post, BW......we've had some long discussions on here before
about Murdoch and his empire manipulating politics and world governments. Wari is really up on Mr. Murdoch.
Keep up all the good informing material.
BlunderWoman
Senior Member
I will go on the record right now and say that even if you show proof and information of all the mogul news manipulation to the followers it will not make a dent in their thinking processes. They are not searching for truth. They are searching for ways to back up ideologies they have at any cost. They are the people who believe that the end justifies the means. They want to win at any cost and will lie and spin their way out of anything ( that's what they think they are doing), but to some no matter what amount of ridiculous spin jobs they make up the truth will be abundantly clear. You can't reach them you cannot stop the spewing of paranoia and nuttiness & extremism. They like it. It suits their ideologies and the way THEY interpret religion and life. I don't bother trying to change them. Neither do I try to reach out to the Scientologists I don't have the skills to repair the brainwashed.
I don't have the skills to repair the brainwashed.
BlunderWoman
Senior Member
Thanks Jackie. Your article was very important & I didn't think it was anything to just gloss over and toss aside. Important stuff there.
Has provoked my worst sci fi imaginations-
Good morning Mr. Johnson here's your coffee. Oh no! You sat down before saluting the Donald flag and kissing his statue. Don't worry, I won't tell on you this time. Here's your Donald paper. Oh wait, it's time for our Donald news break. Silence everyone!
We do have a truly independent media, we have not for many, many years. It is not good - it is not bad - it just is. Accept it and get over it.
This is not something exclusive to Fox.
So - Ailes is a slime ball, the media is biased, let's move on. There is simply no "WOW, WOW,WOW" there. Nor an "LOL" and certainly not a "hahaha".
This is not something exclusive to Fox.
So - Ailes is a slime ball, the media is biased, let's move on. There is simply no "WOW, WOW,WOW" there. Nor an "LOL" and certainly not a "hahaha".
BlunderWoman
Senior Member
I will go on the record right now and say that even if you show proof and information of all the mogul news manipulation to the followers it will not make a dent in their thinking processes. They are not searching for truth. They are searching for ways to back up ideologies they have at any cost. They are the people who believe that the end justifies the means. They want to win at any cost and will lie and spin their way out of anything ( that's what they think they are doing), but to some no matter what amount of ridiculous spin jobs they make up the truth will be abundantly clear. You can't reach them you cannot stop the spewing of paranoia and nuttiness & extremism. They like it. It suits their ideologies and the way THEY interpret religion and life. I don't bother trying to change them. Neither do I try to reach out to the Scientologists
As I said
Attachments
Warrigal
SF VIP
- Location
- Sydney, Australia
This is self evident to any Australian who follows politics. Murdoch does not have a consistent political position. His political support is based entirely on self interest. He fosters the careers of those he thinks will be useful to his ambition and destroys those who disappoint him. If he is promoting Trump it is either because he thinks Clinton will be some sort of impediment to his future plans or because Trump will be compliant. I doubt he wants to facilitate Trump News unless there is some profit in it for the Murdochs.
BlunderWoman
Senior Member
No Ailes was the one using FOX to promote Trump and Murdoch finally ordered Ailes to have reporters hit Trump with some hard questions which is why we now see Trump looking to open his own cable news. He and Ailes were long time friends and when Ailes got the boot he lost his news mouthpiece.
Warrigal
SF VIP
- Location
- Sydney, Australia
Makes sense. He must see Hillary as being better than Trump for the economy and his own business interests and Ailes as a liability that he doesn't need any more. For Murdoch that is always the bottom line.
BlunderWoman
Senior Member
Yes. Murdoch saw Trump as a liability. It was Ailes that was promoting him.