Bozell Column: Here Come the Ailes Haters
By Brent Bozell | May 31, 2011 | 22:54
One part of the liberal media’s Obama re-election effort is well under way: trying to destroy the reputation of Fox News and its president, Roger Ailes. Two long new magazine “exposes” have attempted to demonize Ailes and his allegedly brain-dead minions as the antithesis of good journalism.
The funnier one came from Rolling Stone magazine, which ran the title “How Roger Ailes Built the Fox News Fear Factory.” How little does this rag understand good journalism? It took only a few lines before staff writer/fantasist Tim Dickinson fell on his face. After painting a picture of employees loyally cheering the boss at a holiday party, Dickinson entertained comparisons to...Mao Zedong.
“It was as though we were looking at Mao,” said disgruntled ex-employee Charlie Reina. “It’s like the Soviet Union or China: People are always looking over their shoulders,” added “a former executive” with News Corporation. Dickinson also said Ailes runs “the most formidable propaganda machine ever seen outside the communist bloc.”
Put aside that Ailes isn’t responsible for 70 million deaths and mass cannibalism, and that his politics are essentially the philosophical opposite of communism – and OK, he’s Mao.
More journalistic idiocy: Rolling Stone vaguely reported this Chairman Roger holiday party took place the year Fox overtook CNN in the cable ratings. That would be...2002. A nine-year-old useless anecdote isn’t “news” – unless you’re Rolling Stone and need to discuss journalism.
Like every other leftist rag, Rolling Stone asserted Ailes wasn’t running a news network, but a permanent campaign. “The network, at its core, is a giant soundstage created to mimic the look and feel of a news operation, cleverly camouflaging political propaganda as independent journalism.”
It’s amusing to see a magazine express tender concern about the state of journalism while its cover story is “Monster Goddess: A Wild Week with Lady Gaga,” with Gaga in a black lace bra on the cover.
So let’s ask if Rolling Stone has the sense of fairness and balance that allows it to denounce Fox News as too political. This is the same magazine that ran two worshipful Obama covers last time, one without any words and the other with a worshipful, glowing aura around Barack (could we reverse the Mao analogies, anyone?).
In the summer of 2008, Rolling Stone founder Jann Wenner ended an interview with Obama -- whose campaign he financially supported -- by saying, "Good luck. We are following you daily with great hope and admiration."
Fox News being criticized by Rolling Stone is a little like being mocked as unserious journalists by Tiger Beat.
The other anti-Ailes story came from New York magazine. The cover read “Fox News made a circus out of the Republican Party. And boy, does Roger Ailes regret it now.”
Reporter Gabriel Sherman blamed Fox for ruining the GOP primary field. “So it must have been disturbing to Ailes when the wheels started to come off Fox's presidential-circus caravan. All he had to do was watch Fox's May 5 debate in South Carolina to see what a mess the field was – a mess partly created by the loudmouths he'd given airtime to and a tea party he'd nurtured.”
So in two sentences it’s established as empirical truth that a) the GOP will not capture the White House in 2012 because b) its candidates are disasters because c) Fox created them because d) Ailes wants to control the world (or something like that). Two sentences.
The hot quote in the Sherman story was someone claiming Ailes thought Sarah Palin is an “idiot.” Here we go with those anonymous sources again. Ailes is trashed by “a person close to Ailes,” “another Republican close to Ailes,” “a GOPer who knows Ailes well,” “a person familiar with his thinking” and “a former Fox executive.” These sources could all be the same individual, for all the reader knows. Or the author. Or nobody. (Ask Jayson Blair or Janet Cooke how this works.)
Roger Ailes is not the “head of the Republican Party,” as these writers claim. One can question Ailes for hiring a pile of potential presidential candidates as on-air analysts. But it’s downright bizarre that liberal reporters would pretend that Fox is glaringly unique with Clinton press secretary George Stephanopoulos anchoring at ABC, and Eliot Spitzer anchoring at CNN, and Jay Carney moving effortlessly from Time magazine to the Obama-Biden press operation.
Since when has there not been a transparently partisan liberal media elite much larger and more numerous than Fox, “cleverly camouflaging political propaganda as independent journalism”? Did we just imagine all the “historic” promotional hot air and leg-thrill orations that inflated Obama’s balloon in 2008?
The major named sources in Sherman’s story were Obama spinners David Axelrod and Anita Dunn. She insisted Ailes is “great at making the mainstream press feel guilty about their liberal bias.” Okay, so they got one thing right.
- Brent Bozell's blog
- Login to post comments
Comments
Rolling, Stoned Frum
Submitted by Tim Graham on Tue, 05/31/2011 - 11:09pm.
Who does Rolling Stone end their Ailes tale with? David Frum, of course, the liberals' favorite critic of conservatives:
The only thing that remains to be seen is whether Ailes can have it both ways: reaching his goal of $1 billion in annual profits while simultaneously dethroning Obama with one of his candidate--employees. Either way, he has put the Republican Party on his payroll and forced it to remake itself around his image. Ailes is the Chairman, and the conservative movement now reports to him. "Republicans originally thought that Fox worked for us," said David Frum, the former Bush speechwriter. "Now we're discovering that we work for Fox."
But wait...
Submitted by Phryj1 on Wed, 06/01/2011 - 12:26am.
...I thought it was Rush Limbaugh who controlled the Republican Party. Remember? And while most of them are STILL claiming the GOP controls Fox, a few of them are now claiming Fox controls the GOP. So, which is it? I'd like to know.
Just a little free advice for the proggies reading this, you might want to get your lies straight before you start spouting them. Just a thought. The fact that your claims are all over the place on this makes it really obvious you're making crap up. Then again, the fact that you're PROGRESSIVES makes it obvious you're lying too, so I digress.
Progressives seem to be completely averse to facts and logic. Apparently, reality has a conservative bias.
Typical liberal bilge
Submitted by SaguaroJack on Wed, 06/01/2011 - 12:32am.
Liberals have no imagination. As Ann Coulter says, they show us what they're doing by what they accuse US of doing.
No originality. No truth. No journalism.
So... Ailes is "like Mao
Submitted by ant on Wed, 06/01/2011 - 12:56am.
So... Ailes is "like Mao Tsedong"...... but leftists have said with their own words how much they admire Mao.....so... what's the problem? The left's MAJOR problem having former libs like myself cross over to conservatism, inconsistency in their actions, statements and tenants. A big factor in recognizing RINO's as well. The people know when the wool is being pulled over their eyes, just as they are quick to recognize inconsistency and hypocrisy, we don't ALL sedate ourselves watching Snookie and Entertainment Weekly.
I am not sure how this hurts
Submitted by jdhawk on Wed, 06/01/2011 - 1:43am.
I am not sure how this hurts Fox News. It seems that the competition should keep their mouths shut and hope that Fox goes away before it destroys leftists cable news and opinion makers with its fair and balanced approach to delivery of news and its lineup of opinion makers both left and right.
Meanwhile, me thinks they can't distinguish between news reporting and opinion journalism. The Becks, Huckabees, Krauthammer, Rove, Hannity, and O'Reilly, et al are clearly distinguished by Fox News as conservative and/or center right opinion makers. Nevertheless, it also feature liberals like Beckel, Williams, Hirshfield, Ratner, Geraldo, et al which are clearly identified as liberal opinion makers.
The Saturday business shows have equal part conservative and liberal takes on economic and market news.
Ailes has crafted a terrific lineup of journalist and opinion makers that out does the competition on a regular basis.
Watch out ABC, CBS, and NBC. You're next!
This just in: DNC Chair: Republicans Believe Illegal Immigration 'Should be a Crime.' Huh? I thought Jews were supposed to smart. The DNC has chosen a real dufus with this kid.
Rolling Stoned thinks FOX is a propaganda operation?
Submitted by Mark81150 on Wed, 06/01/2011 - 1:49am.
New York Magazine,...... uh, yeah... citing two of the biggest known liars and spinners for Obama as "experts" on what's wrong with the GOP,... well Hell,.. why not just cut to the chase and accuse FOX of boiling pets, and stealing social security checks as well..
I mean,.. the Lame Stream Media has been busy calling the single largest self identified group in the country, (Gallop.. 42% of the country is conservative, 20% progressive)...... Stupid, crazy, blood lusting racist hate mongers for so long now.. why not double down on making stuff up for fun and profit. They keep on doing this,.. and their numbers continue to fall... and now you'd have to be a Congressman to have a lower job approval rating than the media does...
and they insist, it's FOX's doing, when they know as big as Fox is,.. they still have many more viewers under their thumb... so if a majority watches liberal media and still says they suck eggs at their jobs..
Who pray tell, is that the fault off?
Not everyone is smart,.. (there are still democrats), not everyone is wise, (democrats again), and there are some really bigoted people stuck in a prejudice so deep, you'd need a Nuclear sub to hit bottom, (dems, sigh,... again).
But the bulk of voters, what they hate most, is being talked down too like they were really dimwitted children who must be told what to think by elitist snobs who'd never touch a beer, if there any chance, they'd be contaminated by, (shudder) the baser tastes of the great unwashed masses, who didn't attend an ivy league school..
Some were too busy,.. fighting for freedom, or building, making things, policing the streets, and raising the next generation.. and none were born to money like the average limousine liberal snob. So busy in fact doing the mundane, dirty, messy and heroic things that needed doing.. they just kind of resent being given zero respect for it.
The public hates being scolded by fools in media, and mit's getting brighter every time, they get a little more exposed to the ugly lie that is independent journalism.
So absurd
Submitted by America47000 on Wed, 06/01/2011 - 3:51am.
This is what I posted at the TVNewser forums in response to their bit about the Rolling Stone article, which took me all of five minutes to debunk:
That Rolling Stone article is so absurd it would be funny if it weren't so sad that people actually believe the crap they write. Is the Rolling Stone even credible anymore?
Let's see, here's how they title the piece: "How Roger Ailes Built the Fox News Fear Factory ...
The onetime Nixon operative has created the most profitable propaganda machine in history. Inside America's Unfair and Imbalanced Network" So they aren't even making a pretense of fairness or trying to hide the fact that this is nothing more than a political hit piece filled with "truths" stitched together from the frazzled liberal delusions of the author's mind. What's the point, to say "well, Fox News pretends to be news but is really pushing talking points … as opposed to us, who are just going to push talking points without pretending to be news."
This one sentence tells you all you need to know about how idiotic that article is:
"Fox News tilted the electoral balance to George W. Bush in 2000, prematurely declaring him president in a move that prompted every other network to follow suit."
Um, yeah. OK. Overlooking the fact that all the networks called Florida for GORE, and then had to pull back on that. And I suppose Fox News called up the Supreme Court and told them how to decide the recount case, right? Does Rolling Stone even know how elections work? The only way a network can call election results early is if they think their polling indicates it. Guess what? POLLING CAN BE WRONG. Here's a more reasonable explanation. Fox News declared that George W. Bush had won the election of 2000 BECAUSE HE WON THE ELECTION OF 2000!!!
Bush would have won by a bigger margin had not news of his 20-year-old DUI been released a few days before the election. Who released that info? Oh, right. A Fox station. Not mentioned by Rolling Stone, I'm sure.
You want a real laugh check out their little sidebar about how talking points are filtered into the news coverage. Yeah, that's a credible piece. Conveniently ignore all the liberal voices who come on to debunk what the conservative talking heads say. But why do that when it's easier just to make ad hominem attacks against the anchors.
Liberals like to say birthers are delusional, but if you want to find the real whacked out conspiracy nuts in this country, just look at the Anti-Fox News attack machine and all its followers who have been delivered their new gospel via the pages of Rolling Stone.
The whole thesis of these people is not really that Ailes is a Republican operative. It's that he isn't an outright Liberal. And he's successful in not being one. Two deadly sins in their book. After all, to them, if you aren't with them, you shouldn't exist.
Attacks like this are in many ways more insidious than what we experienced on 9/11 because they go to the very core of what drives the engine of freedom in this country. The freedom to think for ourselves.
---
Another telling statement from the article: "According to a study of voting patterns by the University of California,
Fox News shifted roughly 200,000 ballots to Bush in areas where voters
had access to the network"
Not to endorse the credibility of the study or anything, but even taking it on the level, this demonstrates the true danger Liberals see in Fox News. Given viewers access to the broader truth allowed 200,000 people to free themselves from the clutches of a Liberal structural advantage in the news media and other sources of information. Fox News didn't "shift" the votes so much as it convinced those people not to follow the entrenched BS.
---
"According to insiders, the morning show’s anchors, who appear to be
chatting ad-lib, are actually working from daily, structured talking
points that come straight from the top."
I remember turning on Fox & Friends once and seeing them interview Emmy Rossum about her Showtime series and singing with Dolly Parton. Naturally the sight of such obvious talking points made we want to join the Tea Party.
Not that we can trust the author of the smear piece, since he equates anything with the hint of a conservative tinge as "venom."
The irony is that Tim Dickinson is doing the very thing he accuses Fox News of.
---
More BS from Dickinson:
"Since becoming governor, Kasich has repealed collective-bargaining
rights for 350,000 state workers and killed a stimulus-funded project
to develop high-speed rail for the state."
In the context of the article, this statement is to be seen as Kasich's actions being bad. A fair-minded reader would get to this sentence and ask, "so? How are those things bad?" But Dickinson just stops there. He doesn't lay out why Kasich's actions are necessarily bad, he just leaves it as though the stated policy is bad in and of itself (in other words, "Kasich is opposed to Liberal causes, and is therefore automatically bad with no further explanation required"). Really shameful stuff, and it really doesn't bolster this guy's case to be making statements about what "journalism" should be.
The Liberal Strategy
Submitted by America47000 on Wed, 06/01/2011 - 4:00am.
Liberals would prefer Fox News existed, and articles like the Rolling Stone smear piece play into a concerted strategy of shaping the discussion about media. In fact, in a lot of ways the Democrats would prefer Fox News remains as successful as it is.
To wit, when a story that Democrats don't like pops up, they inevitably say that it is a distraction being caused by Fox News.
But they say that Fox News isn't really a news organization, and as evidence point to how successful it is. A real news organization, they say in their trademark twisted logic, wouldn't be concerned about actually making money, since its first duty must be to the truth.
So by attacking Fox News' credibility, they think they can deflect any criticism with the argument that "if Fox News thinks it is true, it must not be." Then they link Fox News to right wing fringe elements, thus convincing independent voters to side with them against what would ordinarily be their better judgement.
Articles like those cited here which unashamedly bash Fox News for blatant political reasons can only serve to rile up the hardcore Liberal base that is already entrenched in its opposition to Fox News, while at the same time serving as a rallying cry for Fox News supporters and conservatives who are fed up with Liberal bias in the media.
In other words, deepening an already wide political rift, which only services an "our way or the highway" attitude on both sides.
Must be Ailes wasted his money...
Submitted by Red Jeep on Wed, 06/01/2011 - 9:31am.
...on a network that not even 1% of America watches. Some influence!
How any of these cable news outlets survive and pay anchors millions is a mystery to me unless they are overcharging advertisers..
they hate Fox news
Submitted by ohio granny on Wed, 06/01/2011 - 9:52am.
They hate Fox news because for the most part Fox does not cater to the democRATs. I NEVER watch the so-called MSM because mostly all they spout is lies, lies and more lies. They cover for the democRATs and rarely have anything good to say about any Republican.
Fox does have some libs who I refuse to watch, such as Shep Smith. O'Reilly, Hannity, and Greta as well as most of the day time shows almost always have some lib, such as Alan Colmes (fool), Bob Beckel and others to balance the conservative.
MSM = dying breed. Hurry up and go away. You still pollute too many minds.
The DVR, to my mind, is the the greatest accessory invented...
Submitted by jawebster1 on Wed, 06/01/2011 - 10:39am.
for the TV since the remote control. I DVR Beck, O'Reilly and Hannity. Thanks to my DVR, I zap commercials and...Liberals. Alan Colmes and Juan Williams are my favorite targets to 'zap'. I agree with you about Sheptard Smith. It annoys me that when I DVR O'Reilly and I catch the last few seconds of Sheptard's show. I zap it, but I still can't stand seeing his 'smirking' face even if it has been speeded up.
I have never purchased either magazine mentioned here.
Submitted by jawebster1 on Wed, 06/01/2011 - 10:26am.
I don't remember ever even looking inside either magazine mentioned here. Why? Because their reputation precedes them. I watch Fox News every night and DVR Beck, O'Reilly and Hannity every Monday through Friday. According to these magazines, that makes me a Conservative. How awful!
There must be an election coming!!!
Submitted by pbthinker on Wed, 06/01/2011 - 10:52am.
Once again, the Democrats and their liberal enablers, are trying to delegitimize Fox News so they can NOT cover the Democrats and Obama once again. The Democrats, because of their liberal cohorts, were allowed to avoid any debates on Fox News and Fox was the ONLY network that asked anything resembling a tough question, and they did it against Republicans.
The Democrats are cowards, plain and simple. They can't pass a budget and they can't debate on Fox News, what do you expect from them.
They already have convinced their audience of it
Submitted by timej31 on Wed, 06/01/2011 - 12:43pm.
No one watches any outlets that even have faint messages from the left so no one will see it.
"One can question Ailes for
Submitted by classicliberal2 on Wed, 06/01/2011 - 3:05pm.
"One can question Ailes for hiring a pile of potential presidential candidates as on-air analysts. But it’s downright bizarre that liberal reporters would pretend that Fox is glaringly unique with Clinton press secretary George Stephanopoulos anchoring at ABC, and Eliot Spitzer anchoring at CNN, and Jay Carney moving effortlessly from Time magazine to the Obama-Biden press operation."
Bozell says it's "downright bizarre" to suggest Fox is "glaringly unique" in hiring the "potential presidential candidates as on-air analysts," then fails to come up with a single example of anyone else ever doing this, much less doing it with virtually the entire presidential stable of one of the major parties.
(None of those mentioned are or ever will be presidential candidates; two of the three had left government posts before going into the press.)
Talking points
Submitted by Model850 on Wed, 06/01/2011 - 3:24pm.
"According to insiders, the morning show’s anchors, who appear to be chatting ad-lib, are actually working from daily, structured talking points that come straight from the top."
Oh, you mean like this?
edit: Opening quote lifted from America47000's post above quoting the Rolling Stone(?) article.
Blessed are those who expect nothing, for they shall not be disappointed.