REPORT: Fox News' candidates "speak through Fox News" a whopping 269 times
Five potential Republican presidential candidates that serve as Fox News contributors or hosts have made at least 269 appearances on the cable channel - compared to a total of six appearances on all other major news channels combined.
"In-kind contribution": Potential 2012 GOP candidates "speak through Fox News"
Palin: "[S]peak to the American people. Speak through Fox News." Fox News contributor Sarah Palin appeared on the September 15 edition of The O'Reilly Factor and advised Christine O'Donnell, the Republican U.S. Senate candidate in Delaware, to "speak to the American people. Speak through Fox News and let the Independents who are tuning in to you, let them know what it is that she stands for, the principles behind her positions." [The O'Reilly Factor, 9/15/10]
Fox News candidates "speak through Fox News" at least 269 times in 2010. Media Matters for America searched the Nexis database through September 18 for network and cable television appearances in 2010 by five potential 2012 Republican presidential candidates who currently have relationships with Fox News. The five potential candidates -- John Bolton, Newt Gingrich, Mike Huckabee, Sarah Palin, and Rick Santorum -- have appeared 269 times on Fox News and a total of six times on CNN, MSNBC, ABC, NBC, and CBS combined:
Each Fox News candidate has appeared at least 36 times this year. Mike Huckabee, the former Governor of Arkansas and 2008 GOP presidential candidate who hosts his own Fox News show, appeared on Fox News 96 times through September 18. Fox News contributor Rick Santorum, a one-time Republican Senator from Pennsylvania appeared 52 times, and former Republican House Speaker Newt Gingrich has appeared 48 times on Fox News so far this year. Sarah Palin, the party's vice presidential nominee in 2008, appeared 37 times, while Bush's U.N. ambassador John Bolton appeared 36 times:
Only Gingrich has appeared on other major news outlets - and just six times. Gingrich is the only one of the Fox News candidates to have appeared on any other major news channel in 2010 - having shown up on CNN once, on ABC News twice and on NBC News three times:
GOP strategist reportedly calls Fox News appearances an "in-kind contribution." A September 27 Politico article highlighted the conflict Fox News faces in its contractual relationship with so many possible GOP contenders:
While they won't talk about it on the record -- no one wants to offend a news outlet with a potentially outsize role in determining the next GOP nominee -- officials with some of the other campaigns in waiting are plainly annoyed at the advantage they see the four potential GOP candidates have with Fox.
[...]
Jim Dyke, a veteran GOP strategist who isn't affiliated with any 2012 candidate, predicted that the issue would gain steam after the midterms, when the so-called invisible primary begins in earnest.
"As it becomes clear somebody is looking at running, Fox gets into a bit of a box because doesn't it become an in-kind contribution if they're being paid?" Dyke asked.
FoxPAC has an extensively documented history helping GOP candidates
Fox News has well documented history of raising money for and promoting GOP candidates. Media Matters for America has extensively documented Fox News' role in opposing Democratic policies, promoting and fundraising for GOP candidates, raising millions of dollars for Republican candidates and causes in the 2010 election cycle and donating $1 million to elect Republican gubernatorial candidates.
*Media Matters' search was limited to transcripts available in the Nexis database, so it covers all CNN shows; most evening shows on FNC and MSNBC; and morning shows, evening news, and Sunday shows on the broadcast networks. Since Huckabee hosts his own weekly Fox News show that does not have transcripts in Nexis, Media Matters added 37 appearances to Huckabee's Fox News total to account for his weekly program.
Media Matters counted pre-taped interviews as appearances, but not brief statements by the potential candidates that aired as part of news packages.
If they can't handle what they whine about is the bias against them and their message on other outlets, how are they going handle rough and tumble global responsibilities if they are president?
And if you watch Fox, don't you get sick and tired of seeing these same complaining mouthpieces on every show saying the same things every day? It would nauseate me.
The point I was making was directed at these "candidates" and their spineless and obvious attempts to stay away from anyone who may dish up a little heat to their rhetoric. Even if I loved them like family I would wonder why.
It's not a slam against the viewers . . . they can't help it. It's a slam against Fox for USING this phenomenon.
But I was speaking to the glaring obvious cowardice of these personalities as they swap chairs only on Fox's shows, I was agreeing with MMfA as they detailed it.
In general these Fox news brand commentator/candidates are re-creating the same conditions that defined President George W Bush. They live in an echo chamber full of sycophantic yes-men, never having their ideas debated or challenged.
If they never stray from the Fox Studio, they never have to answer for anything they say. They never have to defend or justify a position.
This is the new media model ladies and gentlemen. Billionaires with an agenda and market dominance using the public airwaves to look out for their best interests.
If people can't see the sham that that is, then we get the "leaders" we deserve.
Interestingly, there is an article at Politico highlighting the contractual factors involved.These GOP hopefuls all all have legal cover for avoiding other networks.
It would be one thing if Fox just came out and renamed their call letters to "GOP" and dropped the whole "fair and balanced" lie. Claiming to be "fair and balanced" leads to voters thinking they are a legit, factually based news outlet. I'm not suggesting they should be shut down (although I would love to see them fail), it's time to call a spade, well, a spade.
I have no problems with conservative opinions (a little disagreement can be good), but Fox is not interested in a well rounded discussion of the issues. By extension, their viewers also get a distorted view of what is happening - this in turn shuts down any discourse of what is good for the country.
so you must feel the same way about the alphabet networks as well since more than 90% of their employees contribute and vote for democrats in most elections. And, previous research shows that while democrats get a majority of favorable and positive news coverage from these alphabet lapdogs, republicans get a majority of negative coverage.
So, essentially you have every other news network giving democrats a positive forum and one cable network for republicans.
RIght on-either be a conservative or don't. Just dont pretend to be. Liberals don't want to find common ground with you unless your giving up your principles for thiers.
See, the funny thing is, I can pull up reference material that refutes your supposition. Try Erik Alterman "What Liberal Media?" for example. Or Al Franken in "Lying Liars".
You've made the claim that the other networks are in the bag for the Dems. Let me see - the witch hunt for Clinton's bj was covered as nauseum by the so called "liberal" media. And all the lies about Gore were repeated to no end by the "liberal" media. But miraculously Bush's AWOL, his lying to congress in order to initiate a war warrant less coverage by comparison.
So, Bush commits a felony, but pretty much gets away scott free. Clinton breaks his wedding vows and gets run through the ringer; Gore gets misquoted and yet those two by far and way get the most negative coverage.
Shove that "liberal media" BS where the sun don't shine. Just because you don't like what's being reported reflects poorly on what you believe in doesn't mean you get to have your own alternate reality. Remember, it's a known fact the facts have a liberal bias.
Please, don't scold me about principles while defending the shameless antics of Fox News. They have nothing to do with conservatism, my principles are intact. As for finding common ground, if anyone, lib or con, makes a fair point it should be acknowledged. What sjw said was perfectly reasonable.
I agree with right on quite often. He knows that.
Of course it's bad in many ways, but it seems understandable to me that a FoxNews employee wouldn't appear too often on other networks.
Now, it's truly despicable that FoxNews would gave these potential candidates so much airtime.
That was the sound of the point going over your head.
It is a big deal - really.
To hell with being "despicable", "In kind" has legal ramifications in that the potential candidates are receiving what amounts to campaign contributions without reporting them as such.
And that's not surprising, since they're employed by FoxNews.
Did you FAIL to read where I said that it was bad in MANY ways? Huh?
The way you list above is ONE of the MANY ways it's bad.
But MMFA's point falls flat IN ONE WAY when one understands that an employee of FoxNews isn't likely to appear on other networks.
And that's one of the reasons WHY FoxNews employs these fools - so they CAN give them plenty of airtime without them having to get tough questions!
All I did was mention how, "(i)n one significant way, this really isn't the big deal that MMFA is making it out to be."
It's a HUGE deal in some ways. It's not a big deal in one significant way.
Thanks for missing that, everyone.
Thanks for showing your lack of understanding of the piece.
And, as usual, you couldn't control your personal animus towards me.
I understood MMFA's point, but thought they failed to acknowledge that the reason we don't see those folks on other networks is because they are direct employees of FoxNews.
And you think you're telling me something by saying "They are "employees of Fox" for that purpose"? Did you NOT read where I wrote
"And that's one of the reasons WHY FoxNews employs these fools - so they CAN give them plenty of airtime without them having to get tough questions!"
I mean really, could you have done a poorer job reading what I wrote? Could you have done a worse job hiding your personal animus?
I understand that they're getting free air time on FoxNews. I understand, fully, that this is a bad thing, which shows us that FoxNews is not a legitimate news organization. And I understood ALL this before I posted my first post.
Your assertion that I didn't understand "the point" is totally bogus.
No, DellDolly, you completely missed the point and, no, I have no "personal animus" against you. I feel genuine pity for you, DellDolly. Your need to be right, to be "in charge," to be the "boss," is very sad, DellDolly. This is a public internet comments board. That's all.
You need to get over your need to tell us all how important you are. You're not. None of us are . . . we're just anonymous posters on an internet comments board.
Now, go look up "animus." And quit using it every time someone disagrees with your self-important BS.
I don't have the need to be right, doofus - you should stop holding up a mirror when you post, silly.
You're the one who repeatedly and dishonestly claimed that you HAD provided links that you never provided. You THEN tried to claim that OTHERS had provided the requested and promised links, even after it had been explained MULTIPLE times that those specific links had NOT been provided!
I don't need to get over ANYTHING. You're the one who needs to get over your personal animus towards me, dummy.
I already KNOW what "animus" means, stupid.
From dictionary.com, since YOU seem clueless...
strong dislike or enmity; hostile attitude; animosity.
What an idiot!
Good, you should know what "animus" means, since it consumes your life.
Face it, you weren't bright enough to understand the point of this article the first time around, and when others pointed out that undeniable fact, you lashed out in uncontrollable rage.
Too bad, so sad. . . .. Keep digging, dummy.
LOL! Too funny!!
Why should they risk going on air someplace else and risking running into someone who might actually do their job and ask a tough question or two? They have safe haven in Fox, one where they get the exposure they crave without some Katie Couric type asking gotcha questions like which newspapers you read...
It's a tough decision.
Oh, and Fox's evening programming has about 3 million viewers a night . . . "America's Got Talent" has 6 times that many viewers. NCIS about 7 times that many viewers. Not very many people are actually watching ANY of the cable opinion networks.
The problem is that what Fox is doing is unethical and potentially violated FEC regulations regarding campaign finance.
CNN, ABC, NBC, and CBS did nothing but push Obama everyday for a year. That was four against one.
There are so many regulations that I'm sure all of them have multiple potential violations.
That will never work again.
Oh yeah? How do you know? Did you do an exit poll?
Obama is sending the message that if you elect a minority to the Presidency you will get massive wealth redistribution.
As I said before, this isn't going to happen again - well at least until the memory of it is gone in 50 years or so.
I don't believe you. Prove it.
------------
I know. They were constantly talking about how he could possibly be the first black president...like they wanted to rub our noses in it. The thought was already distasteful enough.
==============
Actually, a Nexis database search will reveal that up until the economy melted down right before the election 9thereby b]forcing the media for the first time ever/b] to concentrate on an actual issue instead of promoting Republican talking points and smears0; the number one "issue" covered by the media was.......................................... The Reverend Jeremiah Wright and how his words in church (that Obama wasn't even present to hear)reflect negatively on Obama's character and thus his ability to be President.
Guilt by association was the most popular theme CNN, NBC, ABC, CBS, and FOX NEWS were engaged in. They were NOT fawning over the thought of the first black president. They did cover "race", but they actively promoted racial division by constantly referring to The Black Vote and The White Vote. By setting up themes like "The Race is about Race" complete with contrived ethnic political analysis and predictions of doom by the likes of Chuck Todd on MSNBC, Candy Crowley and John King on CNN, Bob Shieffer and Chip Reid on CBS, and Jake Tapper on ABC the media managed to smear Obama at every turn while maintaining that John McCain's "Maverick" status was still in tact despite his reversal on nearly every position. The OLD MMFA pointed that out every week (easy to forget now that they are only covering the Far Right).
That all of this escaped the American audience is understandable. Unlike in other countries Americans learn by The Ivan Pavlov Method (Training by Repetition). It doesn't have to be accurate. It doesn't even have to make sense. It merely has to be repeated several times to Americans even if it is the b]exact opposite[/b] of what the exact same people said before. You can't expect Americans to remember something that happened five minutes ago let alone months ago.
At that point Americans will be sufficiently trained to repeat it back to others on forums or in political discussions with those of equal mental facility all the while patting themselves on the back for their ability to repeat stuff well.
John
Did you really just say that the thought of a black president was distasteful? Are you effing for real?
Makes me think he is
What a stupid article! And you have charts!!!! You are a laugh!
Dummy.
Reading is fundamental.
Truth to libtards!