For years ago Fox News helped turn ACORN into a dirty word among conservatives by leading an often-hysterical right-wing crusade against the community activist group, charging it time and again with “voter fraud” on behalf of candidate Obama. In order to bloster its flimsy “voter fraud” attacks, the network repeatedly harped on reports that ACORN canvassers had submitted questionable voter registration forms.
Yet this week Fox has shown virtually no interest in covering the unfolding story out of Florida, where the state’s Republican Party has cut ties with a consulting firm accused of handing in more than 100 dubious voter registration forms.
Note that in the unfolding Florida story, the firm in question was paid directly by the Republican Party and is accused of ACORN-like activities. But at Fox News, it’s crickets.
In fact this morning, Brian Kilmeade hosted a Fox & Friends panel discussion about voter fraud. In 2008, the allegation that ACORN submitted questionable registration forms was routinely referred to and condemned as “voter fraud” on Fox. (To this day, Fox treats misaddressed voter registration forms as “fraud.”) But this morning, Kilmeade and his guests made no mention of the fact that the Republican Party was just forced to fire a consulting firm for submitting potentially bogus voter registration forms; forms being reviewed by local law enforcement.
The existence of an email of “enormous significance” written by a News International executive that refers to the phone hacking of a “well-known individual” has emerged in the high court, in a hearing to discuss the progress of civil claims against the publisher of the News of the World.
Mr Justice Vos, presiding, said that the email was “sent by an executive whose identity you know” – but the name of the author, the precise content of the message, and who it was discussing remain confidential for legal reasons. But that did not stop lawyers representing hacking victims from asserting the importance of the communication.
David Sherbone, representing hacking victims in the high court on Wednesday, said that Vos should “understand the enormous significance of that email” which referred to a “well-known individual victim” and that the message contained “an instruction relating to an individual’s phone”.
Of course, this couldn’t possibly be related to this story:
Rupert Murdoch has resigned from the boards of several News Corp subsidiaries in the U.S. and UK. News Corp officials dismiss the resignations as mere “corporate housecleaning” in advance of the split of News Corp’s newspaper and books division from its film and television division.
Yeah. As soon as I read he was retiring I started making bets with myself on what the scandal was going to be.
Fox News and Jesus Christ.
- CHRISTMAS: Keep Christ in it.
- HELPING THE POOR AND IMPOVERISHED: Keep Christ out of it.
BIG BUSINESS: It’s capitalism and the economy and free markets! Don’t bring your personal beliefs into it!
ABORTION & GAY RIGHTS: Why won’t anyone respect our personal beliefs???
Another Example of Why All Public Officials Should Be Eligible For Recall
Liberals, progressives, fiscal conservatives, and government watchdog groups are in an uproar this morning, after the The Daily Beast reported that the NYPD spends approximately half a million dollars, annually, protecting Fox News’ headquarters.
from The Daily Beast:
Down at Rupert’s News Corp. headquarters on Sixth Ave.–which has never been a terrorist or protest target of any significance–the media empire is guarded by a 24-hour-a-day New York Police Department security detail seven days a week, a patrol that one security expert estimated costs the city at least half a million dollars a year.
No other news network gets comparable NYPD protection, although a police department spokesman suggested in an email to the Daily Beast that they did. As best we could decipher a rationale for this extraordinary sentry at the gates of the Fox empire, it appears to be fueled by the security obsession of Fox News chief Roger Ailes.
As HuffPo noted in their coverage, this story is troubling, primarily, because it seems dishonest at best. Several other major networks refute the claim, by NYPD Deputy Commissioner of Public Information Paul Browne, that the News Corp building and Fox News are not the only media outlets to receive police protection. Security experts from ABC, CBS, and NBC all confirmed that their respective networks private security at the expense of the network. The representative from ABC, according to the HuffPo reporter, seemed unaware of the program’s existence at all.
But in my personal opinion, the biggest problem here is that the constant, heightened, security detail is a result of Roger Ailes’ absurd levels of paranoia.
This is a man who installed bombproof glass in his office to protect him from “those gays”, possesses a “carry business” concealed weapon license in New York, moved the newsroom into an underground bunker of sorts, is convinced that Al Qaeda is targeting him for assassination, and built a subterranean research/panic room for good measure. The same man who’s network has become a conservative propaganda-machine, constantly railing against the evils of government spending.
The same government spending currently paying for News Corp’s security detail.
Now Police Commissioner Kelly, the same Police Commissioner who stood idly by on his Blackberry while his officers brutalize peaceful protesters, cannot possibly justify this misuse of taxpayers money and resources. The News Corp building has never been the target, or even threatened to be the target, of a credible terrorism plot. Other networks have managed to maintain safe, secure work environments while retaining their own security services. And while his son may not work in the same building, the fact that ‘Good Morning New York’-host Greg Kelly is on Ailes’ payroll does nothing to remove the perception that News Corp and Fox News are receiving special treatment from the NYPD.
Regardless of how this story ends, it’s another prime example of why American citizens should be able to recall any public official that they believe is unfit to continue in their position. Without anyone to hold them accountable, other than the official(s) who appointed them, why/how are we to trust that appointed officials are working in our best interests?
Perhaps Professor Eugene O’Donnell said it best:
“There are always questions when public money is being used that collide with this whole idea that there are legitimate reasons to not disclose why it’s being used, or how it’s being used,” he said. “It’s sort of a collision between the public’s right to know and their maintaining that they don’t publicly discuss security. I think that’s what they’re basically saying–they don’t publicly discuss security.
“And obviously,” O’Donnell said, “the important question would be, if they don’t discuss it with you, who do they discuss it with? Or is it the fact that they don’t discuss it with anyone, such as the council or some other oversight body? Is it just something that they have carte blanche to do as they see fit?
“The larger question of all is,” he said, “in an era of terrorism, is there no scrutiny at all of these things? And it sounds like there’s not. In a post-9/11 era, is no one allowed to ask the question, why is this detail here? Or is everything just tip-top secret and can’t be elaborated on?”