October Surprise
 

Fox News brought up an interesting idea today... The usual "October Surprise" seems to be coming from the liberal media this year... The X-amount of ammunitions, etc. Is this something that has happened before? Or are CNN/MSNBC/the nets going overboard with their liberal agenda? Anyone have a theory?

Re: October Surprise
 

Uh, since 88% of the so-called mainstream press stated that they voted for Gore in 2000, I think they could safely be described as being very liberal. Left wing, actually.
This is the first time that a party, a newspaper, and a candidate have coalesced in order to effect an outcome. At least, in such a hands on way. They are focused and intent.
Evidence of that surrounds CBS, who should have been thoroughly discredited as a result of the bogus National Guard documents, is front and center again on the weapons at al Qaqqa ruse.

in 2000
 

In 2000, the weekend before voting, Gore and the media wing of the Democratic party popped a surprise - that Bush had a DUI some 30 years earlier.

That surprise made the race almost a tie.

There may be more and bigger surprises coming up.

The latest rumor, Osama will be captured about noon Mon. Bush can have an Oct. surprise too.

Re: Re: October Surprise
 

First, I saw the alleged numbers on that poll and find it highly questionable in terms of who was questioned, who responded, what percentage responsed and other methodology. And why would ANY member of the media, no matter which direction she/he leans admit to the public for whom they voted?

Second, even if a newsperson considers him/herself "liberal" or "conservative" most will try to find both sides of a story.

Third, Fox News is hardly an unbiased source. It's President ran the national campaign for Richard Nixon.

Fourth, according to Broadcasting and Cable magazine, the largest donor among Broadcasting executives to the Bush campaign was Rupert Murdoch, owner of Fox. The second (tied with several others) highest donor was Robert Wright, President of NBC whos network updated the story recently. Neither donated anything to the Democrats.

Fifth, the folks who brought the alleged "facts" of when and where the ordnance was are members of an international agency. They had allegedly warned our military about the presence of the wepons. Crews that were "imbedded" with the Third Infantry and the 101st Airborne and could only go where the military took them seem to document that the stuff was still there when these two units first visited the compound.

The timing is certainly interesting, and maybe suspect, but go attack the people who brought the story to the media -- not the members of the media -- they're just the messengers.

But, I forgot that the tactic of every political party since the 1950's has been to attack and label the media. It's a hell of a lot easier than facing the truth sometimes.

Re: Re: Re: October Surprise
 

Oh please!!!

Diane Sawyer was on the frigging PLANE with Nixon - she helped him write his memoirs - so are we to assume that every single piece she's done is skewed in favor of Republicans?

I'm not disagreeing that Fox favors the right, but believe it or not, sometimes people support the PERSON and not the PARTY. There are Nixon supporters out there who hated Reagan, and vice versa. Maybe some people hold their nose and vote for someone they detest because he's of their party, but there are LOTS of people who don't (thank God).

Let's not forget that Diane Sawyer is invited to just about every Kennedy wedding, either. That would balance out a plane ride with Nixon, IMHO.



BTW, from the news I saw tonight, I'd say that the October surprise would be if Yassar Arafat lives to see the election. He certainly doesn't look on the healthy side...

Re: Re: Re: Re: October Surprise
 

Here's the difference.

Sawyer is a reporter and her reportage must pass muster with editors and news managers.

Roger Ailes is the President and thus FINAL decision maker for Fox.

Is your election over with yet? When it is - can y'all go back to being nicer to eachother?

I'm sick of hearing about evil Democrats/liberals and evil Republicans/conservatives and how if you vote for either your country is going to self combust - and I don't even live in your country.

Then don't read these threads.

Personally, I think our campaign system has become really perverted in this election, and I'm not happy with all of the name calling and half truths either, but that's our problem to deal with.

I'm pleased that our neighbors to the North take an interest in our political process and am even happy to listen to any constructive criticism -- but, frankly, if you're "sick" of hearing about something -- don't listen.

This is our problem.

Oh, I'd love to ignore it... but the media up here is obsessed with y'all and I can't pick up a newspaper or watch tv without hearing about it.

Sorry, if that came off wrong. It's a pet peeve of mine (negative campaigning and stereotyping lib/con) on both sides of the border.

I'll leave y'all alone now.

You must be from the Southern part of Canada.

I know pretty much everyone is obsessed with this election and the process, and I'm embarassed by it this time around.

But it's still something we have to fix ourselves. If that's even possible.

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

You totally missed my point - maybe he campaigned for Nixon, but that doesn't automatically mean he'll love every Republican that comes down the pike. Not everyone votes on strict party lines.

I hate to quote Slick Willy, but at one point he said he was an Eisenhower Republican....and he was probably right.

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

He didn't just "campaign" for Nixon -- he RAN the entire campaign.

You have to know Ailes to understand how myopic he is about the Republican Party.

It's kind of interesting to me that Roger Ailes, Republican bulldog, and David Wilhelm, former chair of the entire Democratic Party in the US are both Ohio University graduates.

Talk about different.

Re: Re: Re: October Surprise
 

Why did you feel the need to bring up Fox? Did anyone say it was an unbiased source? No. Mainstream media was brought up and nobody said Fox wasn't a part of it.

It seems you just have a bias against Fox. I don't know the reason for it. You probably competed against their folks for whatever Network you served.

I do know that the only academic study comparing American networks for bias levels in several different categories found Fox to be the least biased network. While it is not unbiased, it is the least biased. You keep bringing up Fox's leadership which would be somewhat valid if the news proved to be incredibly biased. You don't bring up any other network's leadership...why? If the leaders of these orgs are correlated to the bias in the news then surely Fox would have the lowest correlation.

-Rudey

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

AGAIN, NOT MY POINT.

I have no idea who this guy is, nor do I care - just pointing out that everything on earth does not automatically run on party lines and you shouldn't assume that it does. If you had said "Fox's President is a major booster of the Republican party and gave them $45 million last year" that would be different. What someone did 30 years ago often has ZERO bearing on what they do now - witness the multitudes of hippies turned yuppies.

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.

So . . . as for this bin Laden tape.

Both sides seem to think it's an advantage for their side. Bush thinks that it will push people to vote for him since it's a reminder that terrorists are still out there and he has posited himself as the "strong on domestic security" candidate. Kerry thinks that it will push the undecideds to his side because it's a reminder of the fact that 9/11 happened on Bush's watch, that bin Laden might be in custody right now if it wasn't for Bush turning his attention to Iraq, etc. What does everybody else think?

Personally, I feel that it depends on how many of the undecided Bush has actually convinced with the whole "strong on terror" rhetoric. If he has managed to get them to believe this, then the tape probably works in his advantage. For those who are still thinking, "Well, I don't feel any safer than I did four years ago -- in fact, I feel LESS safe," it will probably work against him. It's hard to say what the percentage breakdowns for this are.

(And I know this is probably too much to ask, but can we be a little less partisan and a little more objectively analytical here?)

Re: in 2000
 

You mean, they'll pull him out of his cell at Gitmo, get him dirty to make it look like he was roughed up a little, then parade him around and say, "Look what we found, everybody!"

Seriously, if we could find Saddam in a hole in the ground in Iraq, why can't we find Osama in a cave in Afghanistan? I mean, I know there are a lot of caves in Afghanistan, but there are also a lot of holes in the ground in Iraq. :p

But haven't you been watching the CBC for the past week? Don't you know that America is "A COUNTRY DIVIDED"? ;)

But yeah. I actually think that things will get worse after the election. If people thought the cultural war waged by the Religious Right in the early 90s was hard, I'm afraid that you ain't seen nothing yet.

Yah have to admit though CBC has been running some very interesting interviews and investigative reports on the upcoming election.

I'm just hoping that no matter who wins, that the other side accepts the legitimacy of the election.

sugarandspice, regarding the Osama bin Hidin...er... Laden tape, there was a piece in the NYTimes that claimed that among Americans who have already made up their minds about which candidate to support, the tape made no difference whatsoever. I was kind of hoping that was the case, but I'm a little amazed that some Demos begrudgingly admitted that the tape might be a small plus for Bush.

Anyway, here's a link to that NYTimes story (reg. required).

They've been excellent. I've really enjoyed looking at my home country through the eyes of my adopted country. I especially enjoyed Mark Kelley's piece from Dayton, OH the other night, and the town-hall from Wilkes-Barre, PA. I was a little sad that some of the people almost turned on that American woman who gave up her citizenship to protest the war, but that was a pretty powerful moment.

Thing is I kinda empathized with those people... if I wanted to affect change or protest my country's actions, I wouldn't give-up my citizenship; you just remove yourself whatever power (no matter how small) and political process you had to influence the nation. I would have been angry with her for giving up on the nation and for being an idiot and surrendering her political power.

I don't know how to use the quote command:

According to Delt Alum, "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."


ABC News Political Director Mark Halperin's memo last Friday calling upon his colleagues to hold Bush more accountable since "the current Bush attacks on Kerry involve distortions and taking things out of context in a way that goes beyond what Kerry has done." After Friday's debate, ABC corrected two Bush claims but just one Kerry allegation and, in the first "fact check" since then, Tuesday's World News Tonight corrected two supposed Bush misstatements in a campaign speech, but just one Kerry charge.

There you go Delt Alum, news memos pushing a political agenda from someone other than Fox News.

That's not pushing a political agenda, that's pushing a journalistic agenda. They don't want their readers getting wrong information from the candidates. If one candidate is pushing more incorrect information than the other, he SHOULD be corrected more often. That's not pushing a political agenda.

As opposed to Fox, where former employees have said straight-out that they've received orders to "spin this piece pro-Bush."

Thank you. I think that's right. There's a difference between pointing out inaccuracies and a political agenda.

As for two to one in terms of responses -- couldn't that mean that one side made twice as many errors or mis-statements as the other?

Just wondering.