PDA

View Full Version : Fox Noise Chooses Rudy


ECW
11-17-2007, 06:23 AM
The aura of invincibility that has surrounded Rudy since 9/11 is slowly being peeled away. Scandals upon scandals are ripping at the heart of Rudy's campaign and there is little that Rudy's chosen channel, and the channel of choice for this administration, Fox News, can do about it. It's what you get for playing favorites.

Of all the allegations contained in former ReganBooks Publisher Judith Regan's lawsuit against her one-time employers at Rupert Murdoch's News Corp., the most explosive is the first. Regan charges that News Corp. executives wanted to destroy her reputation because she knew too much about her ex-boyfriend, former New York City Police Commissioner Bernie Kerik, and that what she knew could be harmful to the presidential hopes of Rudy Giuliani -- whom she depicts as the preferred candidate of News Corp. and its subsidiary, Fox News. According to Regan's suit, "This smear campaign was necessary to advance News Corp.'s political agenda, which has long centered on protecting Rudy Giuliani's presidential ambitions."

Regan and the married Kerik had a well-publicized yearlong affair. Their assignations often took place in a lower Manhattan apartment that had been specifically reserved for the use of workers in the aftermath of 9/11. After Giuliani left the mayor's office on January 1, 2002, Kerik went to work for him as a consultant at Giuliani Partners. Kerik and Regan broke up later in 2002. In December 2004, according to Regan's complaint, when President Bush tapped Kerik, at Giuliani's recommendation, to head the federal Department of Homeland Security, Regan was pressured to keep quiet, and asked to lie on Kerik's behalf. "[A] senior executive in the News Corp. organization told Regan that he believed she had information about Kerik that, if disclosed, would harm Giuliani's presidential campaign. This executive advised Regan to lie to, and to withhold information from, investigators concerning Kerik. ... [D]efendants knew they would be protecting Giuliani if they could preemptively discredit her."


This is not the first time that News Corp. has been accused of having a political agenda. Fox News is often accused of favoring Republicans. In the current presidential election cycle, however, there have also been repeated suggestions, from critics on both the right and the left, that the network prefers Giuliani over the other GOP contenders.

As it happens, Giuliani and News Corp. do have a history. Giuliani has several personal and financial connections to News Corp. and Fox News -- beginning with Fox's top executive -- and those connections seem to have proven mutually beneficial:

Roger Ailes: The head of Fox News, Ailes was a veteran Republican operative long before he was a news executive, having worked as a media consultant in the presidential campaigns of Richard Nixon, Ronald Reagan and the first President Bush. In 1989, he worked as a media consultant on the unsuccessful first mayoral campaign of a former federal prosecutor named Rudy Giuliani, with whom he had bonded at dinner parties over their shared admiration for Ronald Reagan. Since then, Giuliani and Ailes have remained good friends. Giuliani officiated at Ailes' wedding and brought presents to Ailes' room when Ailes was hospitalized in 1998. The New York Times has reported that aides to the two men say they don't see each other often, but they did sit together at the White House Correspondents' Dinner in April 2007 -- which Giuliani attended as a guest of News Corp. (Ailes has also socialized with Bernie Kerik.)

The Time Warner lawsuit: In 1994, according to the New York Times, Giuliani prepared a speech for a reception honoring Ailes in which he wrote, "Roger has played an important role in my own career." In 1996, Giuliani had an opportunity to repay the favor. Fox News was launching, with Ailes at the helm, and Time Warner, which provided cable service to 12 million homes nationwide, had decided it would not carry Fox News. Time Warner was the dominant cable operator in New York City, meaning that not only would 1.1 million city homes not get Fox, but the fledgling network would go unseen by media powerbrokers in the nation's media capital.


Three days after Murdoch learned of Time Warner's decision, a call from Ailes to Giuliani set in motion a series of unprecedented moves in favor of a cable network by the Giuliani administration. As calls and meetings continued between Fox and city officials, including Giuliani, the Giuliani administration reportedly threatened Time Warner executives with the loss of their cable franchise if the cable provider didn't accept a deal in which the city would give up one of its own government channels so Fox News could take the slot. (Some 30 other cable networks had tried and failed to win channel space on Time Warner.) When Time Warner refused to take the deal, the city announced that it would go ahead with the plan anyway and force the cable provider to carry Fox News. A legal battle ensued.

more...

~link~ (http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2007/11/15/regan/)

http://i32.photobucket.com/albums/d36/BaronVonEsslingen/QuoteOfTheDay.jpg
"It is not a coincidence that the two fields most commonly accused of being liberal - journalism and academia - are two fields whose central purpose is the pursuit of truth."
~Kenneth Quinnell

Scorpion
11-17-2007, 09:59 AM
Scandals upon scandals are ripping at the heart of Rudy's campaign

What "scandals upon scandals?"

PatrickHenry
11-17-2007, 11:46 AM
I think the CEOs favor the Rude man... http://www.usatoday.com/money/companies/management/2007-11-12-ceo-election_N.htm

But that's not how I make my Presidential choice, by looking how the CEOs think...

Rudy was in on the 9/11 coverup...

ECW
11-17-2007, 02:50 PM
Scandals upon scandals are ripping at the heart of Rudy's campaign

What "scandals upon scandals?"


I'm not sure if you are being sarcastic or not so I'll just list the most recent ones for you:


firefighters in NYC coming out against Rudy because of his broken promises made to them
one of his children posting on MySpace listing another candidate as their preference for president
lying about his prostate cancer and the statistics
his association with Bernie Kerik
the favoritism displayed by Faux Noise towards Rudy in payment for his support in the creation of the network


I'm not up on my NYC scandals that occurred during his reign as mayor that will be spilled if he becomes the nominee of the Republicans but I can do the research and toss those out there as well. There are books being written abouit them so I know he wasn't virginal.

Scorpion
11-17-2007, 03:16 PM
Scandals upon scandals are ripping at the heart of Rudy's campaign

What "scandals upon scandals?"


I'm not sure if you are being sarcastic or not so I'll just list the most recent ones for you:


firefighters in NYC coming out against Rudy because of his broken promises made to them
one of his children posting on MySpace listing another candidate as their preference for president
lying about his prostate cancer and the statistics
his association with Bernie Kerik
the favoritism displayed by Faux Noise towards Rudy in payment for his support in the creation of the network


I'm not up on my NYC scandals that occurred during his reign as mayor that will be spilled if he becomes the nominee of the Republicans but I can do the research and toss those out there as well. There are books being written abouit them so I know he wasn't virginal.


I'm not being sarcastic. It's that "scandals upon scandals" tends to imply an unusually large number of scandals. It might more objective to provide a firm figure of incidents which are by definition scandals.

By the way, the definition of scandal is, "A widely publicized incident involving allegations of wrong-doing, disgrace, or moral outrage. A scandal may be based on reality, or the product of false allegations, or a mixture of both." (Source: Princeton University).

Out of the list which you provided in your post the only incident which might remotely fit the definition of a scandal is Gulianni reference to prostate cancer. His reniging on some off hand promises to NYFD personnel is a labor issue. His child selecting a different choice for president infers that the child dislikes dad. His selection and association with Kerik can't be considered collusion on his part in anything that Kerik did unless one believes in guilt solely by association. Lastly, any consideration by Fox News to the Gulianni campaign is incidental, ethical and legal.

Gulianni has had his problems but nothing that rises to the inference of his political history or campaign being scandal ridden.

ECW
11-18-2007, 06:08 AM
I'm not being sarcastic. It's that "scandals upon scandals" tends to imply an unusually large number of scandals. It might more objective to provide a firm figure of incidents which are by definition scandals.

By the way, the definition of scandal is, "A widely publicized incident involving allegations of wrong-doing, disgrace, or moral outrage. A scandal may be based on reality, or the product of false allegations, or a mixture of both." (Source: Princeton University).

Out of the list which you provided in your post the only incident which might remotely fit the definition of a scandal is Gulianni reference to prostate cancer. His reniging on some off hand promises to NYFD personnel is a labor issue. His child selecting a different choice for president infers that the child dislikes dad. His selection and association with Kerik can't be considered collusion on his part in anything that Kerik did unless one believes in guilt solely by association. Lastly, any consideration by Fox News to the Gulianni campaign is incidental, ethical and legal.

Gulianni has had his problems but nothing that rises to the inference of his political history or campaign being scandal ridden.


Well, in fact, the article that I posted that you probably did not read all the way thru, Scorpion, illuminates the Faux Noise connection pretty clearly and it does rise to the level of a scandal. Favoritism on the part of any major media outlet for one candidate over all the others is scandalous on its face. His support of Kerik is scandalous. His connection with Kerik during the time that Kerik was misusing the Manhattan apartment for his little trists is scandalous.

No other GOP candidate has so many scandals bubbling either on or right beneath the surface as Rudy does. THAT was the point.

preservanation
11-18-2007, 01:20 PM
The fact that Rudy is being touted as the only one who can beat Hillary by the Beltway pundits and talking heads makes me suspicious.
Last I checked, the American voter determines who the candidate will be, not the media elites.

AnnEsthesia
11-18-2007, 01:21 PM
Gee preservation, you mean you feel it is wrong for someone to say that the voters do not have any say over who they elect? Interesting. *rolls eyes*

Scorpion
11-18-2007, 01:32 PM
Gee preservation, you mean you feel it is wrong for someone to say that the voters do not have any say over who they elect? Interesting. *rolls eyes*


Doing an awful lot of eye rolling aren't you?

AnnEsthesia
11-18-2007, 01:44 PM
There is a lot to roll my eyes at lately.

Elrathin
11-18-2007, 02:09 PM
Last I checked, the American voter determines who the candidate will be, not the media elites.


You are betrayed by your own party. Guiliani will be the Republicans pick because that is what your Republican Elite wants and will not allow anyone else to be picked over him. Boy you guys have been had LOL.

preservanation
11-18-2007, 02:30 PM
I'm not to sure about that El,
Romney and Huckabee are making some real headway.
Unfortunately Hillary will be your nominee, like it or not.
Talk about being had, you've been railroaded by the Clinton Inc express, with George Soros as conductor.

Elrathin
11-18-2007, 02:39 PM
Guiliani will be YOUR nominee, like it or not. Fox News and the RNC will see to it. You've been had and you can't even see it till it is too late. LOL

Oh and BTW I am not a registered dem so she won't be MY nominee.

preservanation
11-18-2007, 02:45 PM
Who do you support, El?

Elrathin
11-18-2007, 03:44 PM
Who do you support, El?


Good question. Nobody. It's come down to more along the lines of who I can tolerate. Still looking into that one.

preservanation
11-18-2007, 03:46 PM
Thanks, El.
For the record I'm not a huge Rudy fan, and have a deep distrust of McCain, but will vote for whomever the GOP puts up.

Scorpion
11-18-2007, 04:17 PM
Thanks, El.
For the record I'm not a huge Rudy fan, and have a deep distrust of McCain, but will vote for whomever the GOP puts up.


At this point I'm interested in Fred Thompson and very interested in Mitt Romney. But I'm with you, whoever the GOP nominates is who I'll vote for.

PatrickHenry
11-18-2007, 06:03 PM
Haha!

GOP drones!