So in spring 2011, Roger Ailes asked a Fox News analyst headed to Afghanistan to pass on his thoughts to Petraeus, who was then the commander of U.S. and coalition forces there. Petraeus, Ailes advised, should turn down an expected offer from President Obama to become CIA director and accept nothing less than the chairmanship of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the top military post. If Obama did not offer the Joint Chiefs post, Petraeus should resign from the military and run for president, Ailes suggested. The Fox News chairman's message was delivered to Petraeus by Kathleen T. McFarland, a Fox News national security analyst and former national security and Pentagon aide in three Republican administrations. She did so at the end of a 90-minute, unfiltered conversation with Petraeus that touched on the general's future, his relationship with the media and his political aspirations — or lack thereof. The Washington Post has obtained a digital recording from the meeting, which took place in Petraeus's office in Kabul. The Washington Post uncovered a tape with a representative for Fox News president Ailes and then-General Robert Petraeus in Spring of 2011. Ailes pretty much puts his full support behind Petraeus to run for president with himself running the campaign, Rupert Murdoch funding it, and perhaps more of the staff helping in some way. Does this give the public any doubt as to what Fox News' intentions are? What about Ailes' "It was a joke" response; would people buy that? Cenk Uygur of The Young Turks comments the audio recording of the discussion between the general and the Fox News liaison.
People that watch FOX News support their intentions. It's the type of person that is fine with being a hypocrite about big money in politics.
I read about this today and, to be honest, I'm not even really surprised. Roger Ailes is human shit in an expensive suit.
Say FOX "news" did back a presidential candidate. Does it change their status a news organization? Are there rules against it? I know there's the "Equal time" thing. If you think about it, makes you wonder why it took FOX so long to try and run their own candidate.
They did back one. Nope. Nope. That only applies to broadcast stations, and it doesn't apply exclusively to "news" broadcasts. Fox isn't a political entity unto itself, it's an adjunct of the Republican Party. The Republican candidates are their candidates; there's no need to run "their own candidates" because by nature they're reflective of the Republican Party.
I guess the ludicrous pretense of "Fair and Balanced". Yeah, I get that they do "back" GOP candidates, I was implying more like bankrolling them but guess they already have.
I dunno, hasn't it been like ten years since anyone believed that? If you even do a Google search for the phrase "Fair and Balanced," foxnews.com is only the third result and the rest of the first page is sites about how fair and balanced Fox News isn't. And anyway, the bias implied by Ailes's extracurricular dealings would be a lot more damning if it weren't for the explicit bias that actually plays on their channel every minute of every day.
