• Hello!

    Either you have not registered on this site yet, or you are registered but have not logged in. In either case, you will not be able to use the full functionality of this site until you have registered, and then logged in after your registration has been approved.

    Registration is FREE, so please register so you can participate instead of remaining a lurker....

    Please be certain that the location field is correctly filled out when you register. All registrations that appear to be bogus will be rejected. Which means that if your location field does NOT match the actual location of your registration IP address, then your registration will be rejected.

    Sorry about the strictness of this requirement, but it is necessary to block spammers and scammers at the door as much as possible.

What Now??

tyflier

tyflier

[Insert Witty Commentary]
FOX Owns Republicans

So...what happens when only one news agency has contractual obligations held over every major political candidate from a single platform?

Think about this...with contractual obligations over 4 of the major GOP candidates, FOX news now controls how, when, where, and to whom these candidates are legally allowed to speak and give interviews.

This means no more open debates, no more hard-hitting interviews, no more media exposure, and no more information about any of these candidates than what FOX News wants us to have.

So much for Freedom of the Press...:nope::angry01::bang:
 
But, people will stop watching "Fox" if they are blatanly right winged, well thats Fox's fault. So what if more republicans watch Fox. Are we going to be concerned when more African Americans watch BET, or when to many children watch CartoonNetwork?
 
African Americans watching BET and children watching Cartoon Network have NOTHING to do with Fox News doing something like this. They are basically taking away our rights to have an objective look at the Repub candidates. Let me ask you this....would you believe something Fox said about a candidate when they are the only ones who get to question them....when they are the only ones who set the standards for what is known about them? I sure the h*ll wouldn't.

This really is an outrage. Has anyone ever seen V For Vendetta? Yeah...we are quickly heading in that direction for government these days. They'll be telling you what you can and can't listen to...what you can and can not eat. These are scary times...and when we all just sit back and let it happen, well.....I suppose we get what we ask for. :\
 
Tyflier, you might be over reacting a little bit. I don't think this spells the end of freedom of the press. The media in general has been very liberal for many years and conservatives have complained they were not getting a fair shake in the news. The four candidates mentioned in the article you linked were under contract with fox before the became "potential candidates' so this may not be an indication of a right wing conspiracy.

Political candidates have always done what serves their campaign best. Businesses have done the same. I does Fox no good to have a bunch of people on contract if nobody has heard of them. If it is in the best interest of the candidate to go on CNN and engage in a debate, it will also be in the interest for Fox to allow it.
 
Leew said:
Tyflier, you might be over reacting a little bit. I don't think this spells the end of freedom of the press. The media in general has been very liberal for many years and conservatives have complained they were not getting a fair shake in the news. The four candidates mentioned in the article you linked were under contract with fox before the became "potential candidates' so this may not be an indication of a right wing conspiracy.
Click to expand...
Nobody said anything about conspiracy. It's about FOX controlling top political candidates, and FOX dictating what information can and will be released, and which other news agencies are and are not allowed to have interviews. It's about politicians that are high on the list of potential Presidency campaigns only being given public access through one outlet.

Oh, and at least one of the 4 was a recent Vice-President candidate...BEFORE her contract with FOX...

Political candidates have always done what serves their campaign best. Businesses have done the same. I does Fox no good to have a bunch of people on contract if nobody has heard of them. If it is in the best interest of the candidate to go on CNN and engage in a debate, it will also be in the interest for Fox to allow it.
Click to expand...
It's not about the fame of the politicians. It's about the ability of FOX news to control the information that becomes available to us during a Presidential Campaign.

If only FOX reporters are giving interviews, there will be no "hard questions". Everything becomes rehearsed, scripted, and pre-ordained. There will be no surprises, no expose, no discovery of secret lies or criminal activities. We will only know what FOX allows us to know about these polititicians.

Interviews with these candidates have already been denied by FOX. What happens when they start campaigning?
 
Tyflier, I don't want to argue with you. There are a lot of "what ifs" in your statements. Fox News is a right wing news agency. For decades the media has been controlled by left wing news agencies. The world didn't fall apart then and I don't think it will now.

Sarah Palin was a candidate before she came under contract with Fox but that has nothing to do with the next election. These are all right wing politicians who don't currently hold office working for a right wing news outlet. That doesn't seem strange to me, does it to you. Have you noticed that retired athletes are often commentators at sports events.
 
You know, I'm the new guy here. I really don't want to get into a battle with anyone. I think I will step out of this topic and let you all have it your way. Maybe we can meet again on a less controversial topic.
 
Gosh I don't want to argue, but it seems to me that the media in general tells the public what it wants the public to know.
No matter who you go to for the "news" it seems as though you are not only being told current events, but through the media spin you get told how you are supposed to think regarding whatever it is they are saying....

I don't watch Fox News, unless you count Stossel.
 
I think it's just more out in the open than usual. The Republicrats have danced with Fox for as long as Fox has been on the air. The Demopublicans usually danced with ABC, NBC & CBS, but now I don't know who they dance with. Same stuff different day except that the public KNOWS about these contracts.

Which should tell people something about these Republicrats, if they run for office again. Truthfully, I think Sarah Palin is having more fun doing what she's doing and that she won't be running again for anything, too likely to get hit with questions from CNN or the traditional networks.

Special interests hold the choke chains of every mainstream pol; why would anyone expect these to be any different?
 
I'm glad to hear that I am not the only one to feel this way. There is way too much them against us in politics. I like to think we all have the same goal in mind. Maybe I'm just too much in love with "America" to find conspiracies behind every action.
 
I dunno. Here of late, it only seems that politicians are their own class. Right along with Congress. It IS us against them, and it never used to be that way. Democrats AND Republicans both used to hold their offices FOR the people. But too many of them have their own agendas these days and don't give a rats butt what the middle man, or us lower class pee-ons as they like to think of us, think. Maybe the whole thing isn't one big conspiracy, but I definitely think we, as conscious thinking Americans, need to start doing some soul searching and asking ALL of these candidates some really hard, tough questions. And then we need to follow through and make certain that they LIVE UP TO their beliefs.
 
Leew said:
I'm glad to hear that I am not the only one to feel this way. There is way too much them against us in politics. I like to think we all have the same goal in mind. Maybe I'm just too much in love with "America" to find conspiracies behind every action.
Click to expand...

Really, I'm not looking at it as a conspiracy, and I welcome your opinions. I'm not here to argue with anyone, either.

This is the first time I have heard of potential presidential candidates being forbidden to give interviews because they are under exclusivity contracts with a single news source. Republican, democrat, or otherwise, I think it is only fair that all actively campaining politicians be equally available to all news agencies. This is the only way to ensure that we, The People, are able to sift through ALL of the BS, and form our own opinions based on a variety of sources.

Yes, all news media has bias, and yes all news media has their spin, and yes, all politicians make decisions about their news appearances based on what is best for them. I get that. I understand that the name of the news agency and the party of the politician are inconsequential. I really don't think it's necessary to point that out everytime a statement is made about certain politicians and news agencies.

For me, the bottom line is equal access to actively campaining politicians should be granted to all news agencies. No single news source should be able to completely control all of the access to ANY politician.

If this isn't something new, it is at least something I have never heard of. There is a difference between politicians preferring certain news casts that will help them look good, and news agencies being denied access to contractually obligated, actively campaining politicians. It seems like a conflict of interest, to say the very least...
 
tyflier said:
For me, the bottom line is equal access to actively campaining politicians should be granted to all news agencies. No single news source should be able to completely control all of the access to ANY politician.
Click to expand...

I do also agree with this too.
 
This statement from the article entices me to believe this is just one more pseudo journalistic political joke.

"At issue are basic matters of political and journalistic fairness and propriety."

I highly doubt fairness and propriety even exist in either big journalism or national politics!!!

I think the line here is with the word "potential". Somehow I think the contractual obligations would become null and void at the point of official candidacy. And at that point there should be equal access. But that's just a wild guess. Given their "potential not official" status if the complaint is that they(NBC, ABC, CNN, etc) can't talk one on one with Newt or Palin boo hoo for NBC and the rest. I am sure Rachael Olbermann will have no issues berating those individuals without talking directly to them.

If the implication is that the contributor contract will somehow extend to obligatory action after taking the office of the POTUS, then I agree it can't be allowed. :shrugs:

[sarcasm]At the end of the day it's just another fine example of inculpable journalism and distinguished politics.[/sarcasm]:grin01:
 
Although I don't particularly like the idea, I think I will withhold judgment until I see what happens when and if one or more actually declare themselves a candidate.

I already don't trust ANY politician further than I can throw him or her, so I am not at all surprised that some are trying something new to get an edge on the competition, whether or not I think it is a good ethical choice. I do tend to applaud creativity in any endeavor, business or otherwise. But this one COULD come back to bite them if they don't handle it properly.

If it is FOX against all of the other media, any questionable contracts will certainly be highlighted in various media outlets so that the public will be aware, and can judge for themselves. And of course, the non-FOX media will probably make it sound even more nefarious than it might really be. Whether or not the contracts help or hinder those potential candidates will probably depend a lot on how ALL of the media present the possibilities, and how the public PERCEIVES it, rather than whatever the true legal implications are in reality.

That is why I take a "wait and see" attitude - for now.
 
 
tsst said:
This statement from the article entices me to believe this is just one more pseudo journalistic political joke.

"At issue are basic matters of political and journalistic fairness and propriety."

I highly doubt fairness and propriety even exist in either big journalism or national politics!!!
Click to expand...
Can't argue with you on that...

I think the line here is with the word "potential". Somehow I think the contractual obligations would become null and void at the point of official candidacy. And at that point there should be equal access. But that's just a wild guess. Given their "potential not official" status if the complaint is that they(NBC, ABC, CNN, etc) can't talk one on one with Newt or Palin boo hoo for NBC and the rest. I am sure Rachael Olbermann will have no issues berating those individuals without talking directly to them.
Click to expand...
IF it works out that way, I really have no argument. I guess my "issue" is with the potential, all the way around.

If the implication is that the contributor contract will somehow extend to obligatory action after taking the office of the POTUS, then I agree it can't be allowed. :shrugs:

[sarcasm]At the end of the day it's just another fine example of inculpable journalism and distinguished politics.[/sarcasm]:grin01:
Click to expand...
I agree with this, but I would like to see it become a null contract upon acceptance of a nomination. I think that once a candidate is nominated, they should be "fair game", for all journalists, news outlets, and information channels. As messy and ugly as it usually is, I still find more palatable than a closed media.

I also agree that contractual obligations preventing in-person interviews won't do much to halt oppositional reporting and biased lambasting, from whichever side happens to be blocked from accessing whichever political candidates...
 
tyflier said:
I agree with this, but I would like to see it become a null contract upon acceptance of a nomination. I think that once a candidate is nominated, they should be "fair game", for all journalists, news outlets, and information channels. As messy and ugly as it usually is, I still find more palatable than a closed media.
Click to expand...

I totally agree. But do we know that these contracts will forbid CNN from interviewing Sarah Palin if she becomes a declared candidate for some elected office?

BTW, I have to go back to the top of the thread and find out who these people are because now I won't vote for them even if I would have otherwise. If I know for sure that someone is owned by a special interest, I won't vote for them, I'll vote Libertarian or Green Rainbow or None Of The Above before I will knowingly give my vote to someone I am certain is owned by a special interest. Not that it's terribly likely I would vote for a Republicrat, I find it harder and harder to do so every election cycle.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top