Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: October Surprise
 

Two points - one good, one not:

1 - the emphasis on 30 (and even 40) years ago was drug into this campaign by the guy who served in Vietnam (he accepted the nomination with a salute) and by repeated questioning of Bush's National Guard service. The Democrats and the media wing of their party have tried to say that Vietnam service qualifies Kerry for office, even though the record of his years in the Senate is pretty much blank.

2 - Some hippies did turn yuppie, but many more never left the campus. They now are the socialists and lefties who are the instructors and professors, dominating academia. They live the good life, and hate yuppies.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: October Surprise
 

Oh, agreed. There were enough hippies (or hippie wannabes) to begin with that I think it's pretty evenly spread between the two options. :)

Re: Re: Re: Re: October Surprise
 

I didn't bring up Fox. The first post in the thread did. In fact, it is the very first word in the thread.

ETA, and I believe I did bring up Bob Wright, President of NBC who also contributes to the GOP.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: October Surprise
 

OK, the owner of FOX is a major booster of the Republican Party and give them $25,000 last year. (You can't give $45 Million under the law) That was the highest number given to the GOP by any broadcaster. Lowry Mays, President of Clear Channel was the second highest at $24,500.

There were no major contributors to the Kerry Campaign who are in a direct path to influence news decisions. The list went down to those giving as little as $2000.

I don't know if Roger Ailes donated or not -- but I have met him in person and I know his political views -- as do the rest of the members of the industry.

His "service" to the GOP didn't end with Nixon. He was also a high level advisor to Ford (might have even been his campaign manager, but I'm not sure of that), Reagan and Bush I.

"The new book "[Bush] at War," by Washington Post assistant managing editor Bob Woodward, says Fox News Chairman [Roger Ailes] offered advice to President Bush in the aftermath of the Sept. 11 attacks." This from the LA Times.

From his resume found on the internet:

ROGER (EUGENE) AILES. Born in Warren, Ohio, U.S.A., 15 May 1940. Graduated from Ohio University, Athens, Ohio, BA. 1962. Began television career as property assistant, The Mike Douglas Show, KYW-TV, Cleveland, Ohio, 1962; producer, 1965; executive producer, 1967-68; media adviser to Richard M. Nixon Presidential Campaign, 1968; founder Ailes Communication, a media production and consulting firm, 1969; producer, Broadway plays, Mother Earth, 1972, Hot-L Baltimore, 1973-76; producer, various television specials, 1974-82; media Consultant, Ronald Reagan Presidential Campaign, 1984; George H. W. Bush Presidential Campaign, 1988; various senatorial and Congressional campaigns; president, CNBC, cable television network, 1993-96; president and program host, America's Talking, and all-talk cable television network, 1994-96; chair and chief executive officer of FOX News and the FOX News Channel, from January 1996. Honorary Doctorate, Ohio University. Recipient: Obie Award, Best Off-BroadwayShow, 1973; EmmyAward, 1984.

He was also, at one time, Executive Producer of Rush Limbaugh's TV show.

Now, to be "fair and balanced," the amount of donations given to the Democratic party by entertainment people tended to be in much higher amounts -- starting with producer Marcy Carsey at $1 Million. However, none of the "high rollers" who donated to the Democrats was in the news/management end of any of the networks. They were producers/actors, etc. such as Aaron Sorkin, Dennis Hopper, Jerry Seinfeld, Rob Reiner and others.

I also said somewhere above that Bob Wright, President of NBC was the second highest contributor to the GOP from the media ranks. That was incorrect. He was fourth.

http://www.mydd.com/story/2004/10/28/172336/87

ETA: I think that the Bush admin knows that they couldn't pull off a major October surprise this year. For example, if they decide to "have Osama captured" this weekend, the liberals have already predicted that so many times that NOBODY would think it was a coincidence, and Osama's capture would end up working against him. Ditto for almost anything else that might work as an October surprise for the Republicans.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: October Surprise
 

Wasn't he saying he just heard about the idea on Fox news?

I don't know where you worked and where the animosity towards Fox comes from but it seems that if people want the least biased news network, Fox might qualify. To me it doesn't seem as if the leadership is determining bias levels.

-Rudey

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: October Surprise
 

May I ask what this has to do with anything?

Even you say that NBC's president donated to the GOP but it's still considered more liberal than Fox is considered conservative, and hence more biased.

-Rudey

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: October Surprise
 

Because I said I didn't know who this Roger person was or his resume (nor do I give a rat's rump). My only point was that saying someone did so and so in politics 30 years ago often doesn't have JACK to do with what they're doing now. Also that not everyone holds their nose and votes party line.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: October Surprise
 

I have no animosity toward Fox. As I've said before, I have a number of friends who work for them. I've been to their newsroom. I've interviewed for jobs with the entertainment (owned stations) division (which has nothing to do with Fox NewsChannel) in New York and Chicago.

What I have animosity for is people who look at something FOX and consider it gospel.

I don't buy your "less biased" survey because it started off with the US Congress as its midpoint. Congress is basically conservative itself, so I think the survey leans right to begin with. Again, as I said many posts ago, you can make a survey say pretty much anything you want it to. I'll be you or I could take their same data and come to totally different conclusions. Ask the drug industry.

I would agree that in MOST situations leadership doesn't influence bias levels. FoxNews is the exception -- along with Sinclair Media. While this is not a scientific survey, Fox is the ONLY organization I have ever heard of where current and former employees have said that it is the only place they have worked where the management's political agenda was know and pushed through the editorial process.

None of the networks is perfect -- consider what happened recently to CBS -- but none of the others have been charged with being a "mouthpiece" for a political party.

I have worked for TV stations that belong to each of the major networks -- and worked for NBC for 14 years. I think NBC and GE (its corporate owner) are fairly conservative. Certainly Bob Wright (whom I've also met) is. It just isn't as blatant.

ETA -- I didn't read your signature, Rudey, but think that you did just fine asking for positive thoughts and prayers for your uncle and I will hope for the very best for him and the rest of your family.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: October Surprise
 

Go back and take a look at Ailes resume which I was hunting for while you posted your last. Ailes strong ties to the GOP didn't end thirty years ago. Or even while he held editorially responsible positions with both CNBC and Fox.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: October Surprise
 

Who used Fox as gospel? Regardless, it's funny that only Fox gets this treatment but nobody scream if people use any other network as gospel.

You don't have to buy a survey (not mine so don't try and throw ownership on anyone) but a) it is not a survey b) it is the best study if not the only study so you can't seem to show your point through any strong tangible piece of evidence (btw if congress is "basically conservative itself" perhaps you should consider the Americans who voted for congress to be that way, but this matters not one bit) c) if you can make these statistics say anything you want and do magical things with numbers I do encourage you to run a simple regression on excel (no need for SPSS or anything).

You say Fox news is the exception and that "leadership doesn't influence bias levels" at other networks based on "not a scientific survey". I think that the moon is based on cheese based on a couple pictures I saw and not on a scientific survey.

And I'm not even endeared to Fox. WTF do I care about Fox? Fox Sports is great. TV news media itself aside from a few programs depleted the brain of any intelligence. I am not a die-hard, I love Fox fan.

-Rudey

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: October Surprise
 

Quite a number of folks on this board do. I worry about anyone who uses ANY media as gospel. I think I said that somewhere, too.

By the way, I added and edit to my response above to say that I hope things go as well as possible for your uncle. I want to be sure you know that.

Then you should have said that in the first place instead of just playing the Nixon card. I'm not talking about him specifically...honestly, do I have to spell this out??

What does it matter? Each side is heavily financed and will be buying America in a matter of days.

-Rudey

Oh, then who were you talking about when you said that something someone did thirty years ago doesn't apply to what he does today in reply to my comment about Ailes. Seems to me that there's a pretty direct link.

As for saying the stuff in the resume before -- I did, but I didn't know for sure, which I also said, until I did the research. That's why it appeared as a clearly marked edit.