Better late than never Michelle. Just because FOX is to the Right of leftist networks, has never been proof hey are Conservative. No, they have always been an appendage of the GOP'e.
By the way, there is an alternative, one news now network.

For the past two decades, Rupert Murdoch allowed Fox News chief Roger Ailes to occupy one of the most unique — and powerful — perches in American politics and media: running a right-wing political operation under the guise of a 24-hour news network. As long as the profits rolled in, Murdoch virtually never meddled in Ailes's world — even when his own family protested. "He lets me run it, he doesn't bother me much," Ailes boasted of Murdoch as recently as April 2015. But that laissez-faire era seems to be over.

According to four high-placed Fox sources, Murdoch is upping his presence at Fox while Ailes has become less visible to anchors and producers, signaling a shift that marks a new chapter in the network's history. The most visible change is that, since June, Murdoch has been attending Ailes's daily executive meeting held on the second floor of Fox headquarters. The secretive afternoon gathering in Ailes's conference room is attended by about a half-dozen of the network's most senior lieutenants. It's where some of the most sensitive decisions about running the channel are discussed.

Now more than ever Fox needs a firm hand on the wheel. In many ways, the channel faces the same rebellion from the grassroots that's cleaving the GOP. "I can tell you, my base is fed up with Fox," conservative commentator Michelle Malkin told me. Malkin, who quit Fox as a contributor, actually goes after Murdoch for supporting immigration reform in her new book Sold Out (she calls him a "treacherous bedfellow"). Rush Limbaugh, whom Ailes first put on television in the early '90s, has said he "no longer watches cable news." A Limbaugh friend told me the dig was made explicitly about Fox.

Several other prominent conservatives I've spoken with grumble that Murdoch is pushing Fox to be openly hostile to Trump and Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX)97%
at the same time the channel boosts Establishment candidates, most prominently Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL)79%
. "I've joked to people that they'll be doing a segment about kumquats in China and somehow they'll mention Rubio," one Cruz ally told me. Another conservative activist pointed out that Fox gave Rubio the first interview opportunity following Obama's Oval Office address on ISIS last month. Murdoch's Wall Street Journal, it should also be noted, has been one of the most aggressive Trump and Cruz critics.

http://www.breitbart.com/big-journalism/2016/01/15/michelle-malkin-my-base-is-fed-up-with-fox-news-channel-murdoch-treacherous-bedfellow/

Quote from: Solar on January 16, 2016, 07:20:43 AM
Better late than necer Michelle. Just because FOX is to the Right of leftist networks, has never been proof hey are Conservative. No, they have always been an appendage of the GOP'e.
By the way, there is an alternative, one news now network.

For the past two decades, Rupert Murdoch allowed Fox News chief Roger Ailes to occupy one of the most unique — and powerful — perches in American politics and media: running a right-wing political operation under the guise of a 24-hour news network. As long as the profits rolled in, Murdoch virtually never meddled in Ailes's world — even when his own family protested. "He lets me run it, he doesn't bother me much," Ailes boasted of Murdoch as recently as April 2015. But that laissez-faire era seems to be over.

According to four high-placed Fox sources, Murdoch is upping his presence at Fox while Ailes has become less visible to anchors and producers, signaling a shift that marks a new chapter in the network's history. The most visible change is that, since June, Murdoch has been attending Ailes's daily executive meeting held on the second floor of Fox headquarters. The secretive afternoon gathering in Ailes's conference room is attended by about a half-dozen of the network's most senior lieutenants. It's where some of the most sensitive decisions about running the channel are discussed.

Now more than ever Fox needs a firm hand on the wheel. In many ways, the channel faces the same rebellion from the grassroots that's cleaving the GOP. "I can tell you, my base is fed up with Fox," conservative commentator Michelle Malkin told me. Malkin, who quit Fox as a contributor, actually goes after Murdoch for supporting immigration reform in her new book Sold Out (she calls him a "treacherous bedfellow"). Rush Limbaugh, whom Ailes first put on television in the early '90s, has said he "no longer watches cable news." A Limbaugh friend told me the dig was made explicitly about Fox.

Several other prominent conservatives I've spoken with grumble that Murdoch is pushing Fox to be openly hostile to Trump and Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX)97%
at the same time the channel boosts Establishment candidates, most prominently Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL)79%
. "I've joked to people that they'll be doing a segment about kumquats in China and somehow they'll mention Rubio," one Cruz ally told me. Another conservative activist pointed out that Fox gave Rubio the first interview opportunity following Obama's Oval Office address on ISIS last month. Murdoch's Wall Street Journal, it should also be noted, has been one of the most aggressive Trump and Cruz critics.

http://www.breitbart.com/big-journalism/2016/01/15/michelle-malkin-my-base-is-fed-up-with-fox-news-channel-murdoch-treacherous-bedfellow/

11/8/2016 is closing in on them, so out comes the big guns. 

I like Malkin, but she didn't "quit" per se...  You sign a year, or 2-year contract to provide commentary.  She berated a guest on The Factor in an over-the-top reaction.  O'Reilly booted her off, then Ailes just let her out of the contract.

Zealotry isn't an ideal companion...  They rush head-long into situations where stealth is called-for.  And make you look less fervent to your-own ideology... which can sway you into defending the zealot rather than using your arguments against the adversary.

Malkin says everything I believe in.  But she's too firey for warroom-planning.  Give me free-market capitalists.

Quote from: kit saginaw on January 16, 2016, 08:19:26 AM
I like Malkin, but she didn't "quit" per se...  You sign a year, or 2-year contract to provide commentary.  She berated a guest on The Factor in an over-the-top reaction.  O'Reilly booted her off, then Ailes just let her out of the contract.

Zealotry isn't an ideal companion...  They rush head-long into situations where stealth is called-for.  And make you look less fervent to your-own ideology... which can sway you into defending the zealot rather than using your arguments against the adversary.

Malkin says everything I believe in.  But she's too firey for warroom-planning.  Give me free-market capitalists.

The story isn't about Malkin, I just used her link to show that people are fed up with Fox, of which has always been an appendage of the Establishment.

Quote from: Solar on January 16, 2016, 07:20:43 AM
Better late than never Michelle. Just because FOX is to the Right of leftist networks, has never been proof hey are Conservative. No, they have always been an appendage of the GOP'e.
By the way, there is an alternative, one news now network.
....

Murdoch's Wall Street Journal, it should also be noted, has been one of the most aggressive Trump and Cruz critics.

http://www.breitbart.com/big-journalism/2016/01/15/michelle-malkin-my-base-is-fed-up-with-fox-news-channel-murdoch-treacherous-bedfellow/

Why I quite the WSJ years ago, all I wanted was NEWS.   The morning Radio show (Gordon Deal) is gradually turning leftward... and we're listening less and less.  My kids said, "Mark Levin sounds so angry!" ... His thanks to the military, police and fire fighters, kept their attention, he's quickly becoming a "regular".

 

Quote from: Solar on January 16, 2016, 08:36:20 AM
The story isn't about Malkin, I just used her link to show that people are fed up with Fox, of which has always been an appendage of the Establishment.

The establishment and the conservative-base bleed into each other continuously on a wide range of issues.  The fact that the Blaze, Newsmax-network, and that new one: PoliticsOne(?) are going strong with ad-revenue speaks volumes about who is fed-up where. 

Quote from: kit saginaw on January 16, 2016, 08:47:38 AM
The establishment and the conservative-base bleed into each other continuously on a wide range of issues.  The fact that the Blaze, Newsmax-network, and that new one: PoliticsOne(?) are going strong with ad-revenue speaks volumes about who is fed-up where.

I'd love to see the real numbers on FOX, and just how much viewership they've lost.
No doubt they can spin the numbers showing growth in certain sectors, but shows like the Kelly file have take a huge hit, while trolls like O'Reily may have picked up a few libs, but overall, I know they have to be off by 20 to 30%, a number that matches the hardcore base Right.

Quote from: Solar on January 16, 2016, 07:20:43 AM
Better late than never Michelle. Just because FOX is to the Right of leftist networks, has never been proof hey are Conservative. No, they have always been an appendage of the GOP'e.
By the way, there is an alternative, one news now network.

For the past two decades, Rupert Murdoch allowed Fox News chief Roger Ailes to occupy one of the most unique — and powerful — perches in American politics and media: running a right-wing political operation under the guise of a 24-hour news network. As long as the profits rolled in, Murdoch virtually never meddled in Ailes's world — even when his own family protested. "He lets me run it, he doesn't bother me much," Ailes boasted of Murdoch as recently as April 2015. But that laissez-faire era seems to be over.

According to four high-placed Fox sources, Murdoch is upping his presence at Fox while Ailes has become less visible to anchors and producers, signaling a shift that marks a new chapter in the network's history. The most visible change is that, since June, Murdoch has been attending Ailes's daily executive meeting held on the second floor of Fox headquarters. The secretive afternoon gathering in Ailes's conference room is attended by about a half-dozen of the network's most senior lieutenants. It's where some of the most sensitive decisions about running the channel are discussed.

Now more than ever Fox needs a firm hand on the wheel. In many ways, the channel faces the same rebellion from the grassroots that's cleaving the GOP. "I can tell you, my base is fed up with Fox," conservative commentator Michelle Malkin told me. Malkin, who quit Fox as a contributor, actually goes after Murdoch for supporting immigration reform in her new book Sold Out (she calls him a "treacherous bedfellow"). Rush Limbaugh, whom Ailes first put on television in the early '90s, has said he "no longer watches cable news." A Limbaugh friend told me the dig was made explicitly about Fox.

Several other prominent conservatives I've spoken with grumble that Murdoch is pushing Fox to be openly hostile to Trump and Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX)97%
at the same time the channel boosts Establishment candidates, most prominently Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL)79%
. "I've joked to people that they'll be doing a segment about kumquats in China and somehow they'll mention Rubio," one Cruz ally told me. Another conservative activist pointed out that Fox gave Rubio the first interview opportunity following Obama's Oval Office address on ISIS last month. Murdoch's Wall Street Journal, it should also be noted, has been one of the most aggressive Trump and Cruz critics.

http://www.breitbart.com/big-journalism/2016/01/15/michelle-malkin-my-base-is-fed-up-with-fox-news-channel-murdoch-treacherous-bedfellow/

Solar you know something I really just do not understand is this.

How exactly is the "Gop" being split really?

I mean think about it, it's the base that is the party in the first place. The party may have some turncoat, liberal spies in the ranks.

Like Jeb or Marco or Chris. It may have a leadership currently that thinks they can just do with the party as they see fit. The base be damned.

In the end, it is the base who either cast's their vote for or against.

And thus it is the base that really and truly wields the power to start with. The problem is and has been as I see it, getting the base to turn it's gripes and complaints into actual votes.

But I think even that's going to change this election cycle. And it's why the party leadership is throwing such fits about candidates like Cruz or Trump.

They don't like the fact that the gig is up. The base has clearly decided and said, enough is enough.

I think what we are seeing with the popularity of Trump and Cruz is the base telling the RNC leadership this basically.

Ok, that's fine. If you guys running the party, want to lie to us the voters the base. You guys can also count on the fact that you won't be wining any elections anytime soon either.

Quote from: daidalos on January 16, 2016, 09:40:58 AM
Solar you know something I really just do not understand is this.

How exactly is the "Gop" being split really?

I mean think about it, it's the base that is the party in the first place. The party may have some turncoat, liberal spies in the ranks.

Like Jeb or Marco or Chris. It may have a leadership currently that thinks they can just do with the party as they see fit. The base be damned.

In the end, it is the base who either cast's their vote for or against.

And thus it is the base that really and truly wields the power to start with. The problem is and has been as I see it, getting the base to turn it's gripes and complaints into actual votes.

But I think even that's going to change this election cycle. And it's why the party leadership is throwing such fits about candidates like Cruz or Trump.

They don't like the fact that the gig is up. The base has clearly decided and said, enough is enough.

I think what we are seeing with the popularity of Trump and Cruz is the base telling the RNC leadership this basically.

Ok, that's fine. If you guys running the party, want to lie to us the voters the base. You guys can also count on the fact that you won't be wining any elections anytime soon either.

You're correct, it's not a split, it's just that 30% of us have always known the GOP'e was nothing but an appendage of the Marxist Dim party, but now that the other 70% finally woke up and said enough is enough, the Leftists spin it as a split.
One more reason to turn off FOX and the TV altogether.
They will never tell you the truth, and for viewers to assume they're actually getting news exposes just what kind of sheep we have in this country.

Why do people get upset at FOX for being something it never was?

Tells me they don't watch it or know who Murdoch is. 

As for Michelle saying this, I couldn't find a direct link to the horse's mouth, and it was originally a New York Magazine article. 

One more thing on Michelle, I've seen her recently on FOX, pushing her new book, so I guess getting free advertising is okay, no matter how disgusting she thinks the source is?  I just don't get people sometimes.

I all but quit Fox News when they ran John Gibson off and hired Glenn Beck. 

Quote from: Shooterman on January 16, 2016, 01:15:56 PM
I all but quit Fox News when they ran John Gibson off and hired Glenn Beck.

The ONLY time I watched Fox was when Beck was on. Haven't seen it since.

She's a bit late to the party. Any road I don't see the kerfuffle. Any one with half a brain can see past the chaff and focus on the wheat. Fox does some great reporting and you should be able to look past any of the establishment bias.

As long as we're talking about Fox News,
this seems like a good place to remind everyone that
TED CRUZ will be the featured interview
tomorrow morning on Fox News Sunday,
9am Eastern time on your local Fox station.

FOX's ad-revenue allows them to keep more foreign news-bureau HQ's open while the established networks have had to close theirs.  Which means more correspondents can be choppered-into the action quicker. 

Viewers get it.  Subconsciously over time, as well.

So Malkin is essentially illuminating that her base would prefer not to be universally informed.  FOX wouldn't bother funding so many foreign bureaus if they simply wanted to advance a domestic agenda. 

They'd save money by doing what the older networks have been doing the last dozen years... cloning Reuters and Associated Press reports.