Fox News donates $1 million to GOP campaign organization

[JoeTheJuggler]

From the CNN story:

The Democratic National Committee called into question Fox News' objectivity Tuesday after it was reported that the cable network's parent company – News Corporation – recently donated $1 million to the Republican Governors Association.

So whenever a politician is on Fox News, we have to keep in mind that "fair and balanced" actually means unabashedly partisan.

Lest there be any doubt what the RGA is, this is from their own website:

The Republican Governors Association is the key to a GOP Comeback. Our primary mission is to help elect Republicans to governorships throughout the nation. . . .

and

Our political team has experience running state parties and winning gubernatorial campaigns. As a result, we understand that governors’ races take unique strategies and a comprehensive approach. The RGA runs political campaigns that go far beyond simply running negative TV ads in the last few weeks before the election.

 

[elbe]

And CNN's parent company, Time Warner, gives a lot of money to more left wing groups or people.

Starting 08, GE started giving more money to left wing groups, but before that it appeared to lean right wing. Opensecrets.org lists them as on the fence.

Newscorp doesn't show up in their top 124, but so what? Who doesn't know where Murdoch leans?

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

And CNN's parent company, Time Warner, gives a lot of money to more left wing groups or people.

But this isn't a case of a parent company doing something. This is Fox News (News Corporation) itself.

ETA: This would be analogous to CNN or CBS rather than Time Warner and GE making large partisan campaign contributions. Also, Fox is the news outlet that goes around claiming to be "fair and balanced". I think CBS makes no bones about its slightly left-leaning editorial position. (I don't know about CNN.)

Also, there's a difference between having an editorial position (such as "left leaning") and outright partisanship.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Newscorp doesn't show up in their top 124, but so what?

Could be opensecrets hasn't taken into account this recent $1 million donation yet.

Who doesn't know where Murdoch leans?

Apparently the people who still promote Fox News as "fair and balanced".

 

[elbe]

But this isn't a case of a parent company doing something. This is Fox News (News Corporation) itself.

ETA: This would be analogous to CNN or CBS rather than Time Warner and GE making large partisan campaign contributions. Also, Fox is the news outlet that goes around claiming to be "fair and balanced". I think CBS makes no bones about its slightly left-leaning editorial position. (I don't know about CNN.)

News Corporation is the parent company of Fox news. From your own quote:

after it was reported that the cable network's parent company – News Corporation – recently donated $1 million to the Republican Governors Association

Could be opensecrets hasn't taken into account this recent $1 million donation yet.

Could be, but the bottom of the "Heavy Hitters" list is $4,632,215 so maybe News Corp hasn't racked up that much.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

News Corporation is the parent company of Fox news.

You don't see any difference between the relationship between Fox News and News Corporation and CBS and GE?

News Corporation owns Fox News and little else.

At any rate, from the page you cited about Time Warner: their contributions reflect their interest in issues regarding their industry and have gone to both Republicans and Democrats (over the 20 year period the D/R ratio has fluctuated from 52/47% to 85/15%). Again the Fox donation is to an organization with a partisan agenda only.

 

[elbe]

You don't see any difference between the relationship between Fox News and News Corporation and CBS and GE?

News Corporation owns Fox News and little else.

At any rate, from the page you cited about Time Warner: their contributions reflect their interest in issues regarding their industry and have gone to both Republicans and Democrats (over the 20 year period the D/R ratio has fluctuated from 52/47% to 85/15%). Again the Fox donation is to an organization with a partisan agenda only.

First off, List of assets owned by News Corporation shows a lot more than just Fox News.

I'm not saying they aren't partisan, just that corporations make donations to parties and PACs that support their agenda or are in their own best interests. Singling out News Corp just seems counter productive. We all know Fox is biased, and News Corp is also, though probably less, biased. What new information are we to gain out of seeing them donate a "measly" million dollars to a partisan group when that's what we'd expect from them?

 

[mortimer]

News Corporation owns Fox News and little else.

Seriously?

Movie industry:
20th Century Fox
20th Century Fox Espanol
20th Century Fox Home Entertainment
20th Century Fox International
20th Century Fox Television
Fox Searchlight Pictures
Fox Studios Australia
Fox Studios LA
Fox Television Studios
Blue Sky Studios

Television:
FOX Broadcasting Company
FOX Sports
FOX Sports Australia
FOX Television Stations
MyNetworkTV

Cable:
FOX Business Network
Fox Movie Channel
FOX News Channel
FOX College Sports
FOX Sports Enterprises
FOX Sports En Espanol
FOX Sports Net
FOX Soccer Channel
Fuel TV
FX
Nat Geo Wild
National Geographic Channel United States National Geographic Channel Worldwide
Speed
STAR
Stats, Inc.

Satellite:
BSkyB
FOXTEL
Sky Deutschland
SKY Italia

Newspapers:

AUSTRALASIA
Daily Telegraph
Fiji Times
Gold Coast Bulletin
Herald Sun
NT News
Post-Courier
Sunday Herald Sun
Sunday Mail
Sunday Tasmanian
Sunday Territorian
Sunday Times
The Advertiser
The Australian
The Courier-Mail
The Mercury
The Sunday Mail
The Sunday Telegraph
Weekly Times
Big League
Inside Out
donna hay
ALPHA

UNITED KINGDOM
News International
News of the World
The Sun
The Sunday Times
The Times
Times Literary Supplement

UNITED STATES
New York Post

INTERNATIONAL
The Wall Street Journal
The Wall Street Journal Digital Network
Dow Jones

 

[McHrozni]

Oh my, an openly pro-Republican company dared to donate a significant amount of money to their reelection campaign. It's the end of the world as we know it I'm sure.

In similarly shocking news, Earth keeps orbiting the Sun, more at 11.

McHrozni

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

OK, I stand corrected. I didn't realize News Corp was indeed a real parent company for all of Fox's stuff.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

I'm not saying they aren't partisan, just that corporations make donations to parties and PACs that support their agenda or are in their own best interests.

But again, there's a difference between a news outlet being partisan and a company making donations in the company's self-interests. In other words, you're lumping donations in a company's interest and donations that support an agenda or political ideology.

Oh my, an openly pro-Republican company dared to donate a significant amount of money to their reelection campaign. It's the end of the world as we know it I'm sure.

First, I never claimed it was shocking or the end of the world or any such a thing. In fact, it's pretty much what I'd expect.

Second, Fox News at least is not openly pro-Republican. They still claim to be "fair and balanced".

 

[elbe]

But again, there's a difference between a news outlet being partisan and a company making donations in the company's self-interests. In other words, you're lumping donations in a company's interest and donations that support an agenda or political ideology.

Who's to say giving money to right wing groups isn't in their best interest? At the very least it helps support the Fox News viewer base's political agenda, and what's good for their costumers is good for them.

On the other hand, I think Fox News (via News Corp) should give money to the Dems, because when the Dems are in charge it's probably easier to rile up their viewers. But I doubt they'd get away with that.

ETA: If you want to see what people at News Corp are doing you can look at Campaignmoney.com.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Who's to say giving money to right wing groups isn't in their best interest? At the very least it helps support the Fox News viewer base's political agenda, and what's good for their costumers is good for them.

On the other hand, I think Fox News (via News Corp) should give money to the Dems, because when the Dems are in charge it's probably easier to rile up their viewers. But I doubt they'd get away with that.

Looks like you answered your own question there.

Again, I see a difference between partisanship and self interest. (Not that I think either are very ethical.) The fact that partisanship can be construed as self-interest and it can also be construed as contrary to self-interest sort of shows that it's not the same thing.

But mostly, I think Fox News should admit overtly that it is partisan and stop the "fair and balanced" charade.

For example, the St. Louis Post-Dispatch quotes the Pulitzer Platform as their editorial policy:

I know that my retirement will make no difference in its cardinal principles, that it will always fight for progress and reform, never tolerate injustice or corruption, always fight demagogues of all parties, never belong to any party, always oppose privileged classes and public plunderers, never lack sympathy with the poor, always remain devoted to the public welfare, never be satisfied with merely printing news, always be drastically independent, never be afraid to attack wrong, whether by predatory plutocracy or predatory poverty.

I would find it less problematic if they donated money to campaigns and causes that were consistent with this policy than if they claimed to be "fair and balance" yet donated to purely partisan organizations.

ETA: But again, I admit I was dead wrong on the relationship of Fox News to News Corporation. I really thought this was a decision made by the same people who set editorial policy.

 

[elbe]

Looks like you answered your own question there.

Again, I see a difference between partisanship and self interest. (Not that I think either are very ethical.) The fact that partisanship can be construed as self-interest and it can also be construed as contrary to self-interest sort of shows that it's not the same thing.

But mostly, I think Fox News should admit overtly that it is partisan and stop the "fair and balanced" charade.

For example, the St. Louis Post-Dispatch quotes the Pulitzer Platform as their editorial policy:



I would find it less problematic if they donated money to campaigns and causes that were consistent with this policy than if they claimed to be "fair and balance" yet donated to purely partisan organizations.

I agree that the Fox News "fair and balanced" claim is more about a catch phrase than any attempt at accuracy, but that make no statement about the parent company.

For comparison: How fair and/or balanced MSNBC might be says nothing about how politically balanced GE should be.

But I think this is going to just go 'round in circles. I consider News Corp's donation to be a non-story. Others, obviously, disagree with me.

ETA: But again, I admit I was dead wrong on the relationship of Fox News to News Corporation. I really thought this was a decision made by the same people who set editorial policy.

I don't know the structure at Fox News or News Corp but there could be some crossover between them.

 

[The Charnel Expanse]

There's far too much emphasis on balance and not nearly enough emphasis on conscientious reporting of facts. The problem with Fox isn't that it's slanted in one direction or another, or that it's brimming with opinion/commentary shows. The problem is that their hosts and guests routinely lie without consequence. And in addition to this they peddle fake scandals/controversies in order to drive the news cycle.
THAT is what makes them a propaganda outfit, and not a news network. Not the fact that they're obviously slanted. You can push opinion without constantly lying in the process. They haven't figured that out.

 

[Cleon]

There are few people who still maintain the fiction that Fox News is somehow objective and unbiased.

The reality is, whether you like it or not, the court ruling allowing for-profit entities to contribute directly to electoral campaigns pretty much opened the floodgates to this sort of activity. A few weeks ago, Target got some flack for contributing to Tim Pawlenty's campaign in Minnesota. (The GLBTQ community was particularly incensed.) The difference between the two is that Target angered many of its customers with its actions; however, I don't expect many Fox News viewers to angrily stop watching because FNC's propaganda support for the Republicans has finally translated into financial support.

 

[Spindrift]

There are few people who still maintain the fiction that Fox News is somehow objective and unbiased.

Those few would include Fox News itself.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Those few would include Fox News itself.

Exactly.

And probably also their most loyal audience.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

I consider News Corp's donation to be a non-story.

Now that I've been schooled on the relationship between Fox News and News Corporation, I rather agree with you.

Again, I wrongly thought this was a decision made by the same people making editorial policy decisions at Fox News.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Now I'm less sure. I just heard a piece on NPR where Murdoch was asked about whether or not News Corp should support the Tea Party, and he said that they shouldn't support the Tea Party or any other party. The piece also noted that News Corp's donation was the single largest campaign donation this year. It further noted that News Corp has not given anything to any Democratic campaign.