Posted on 10/15/2006 10:13:37 PM PDT by Impeach98
MEDIA MATTERS WorldNetDaily Exclusive
Fox News accused of lying about anti-Clinton ad ban
Spot in dispute challenges ex-president's assertion he strongly fought terror threat --WND
The nation's largest pro-troop organization claims Fox News is lying about the reason the network rejected an ad countering ex-President Bill Clinton's recent assertions about his efforts to combat Islamic terrorism.
.jpg)
A spokesman for Fox News previously told WND that the advertisement made a claim about Clinton that wasn't documented, so the ad wasn't accepted.
"That's standard operating procedure for Fox News," he said. "If there's something (like that) in an ad, we ask for documentation for it."
"The claim by the Fox News Channel spokesman is not correct," said Move America Forward spokesman Joe Wierzbicki. "They did not ask for substantiation. "In fact, they told us there was no way to defend the allegations."
The ad in dispute can be seen at the group's website, or via YouTube.
As WND reported, Clinton erupted several weeks ago in a televised interview on Fox when he was asked whether his administration had done all it could to capture or destroy Osama bin Laden
Jabbing his finger at his interviewer he heatedly said that he had done more and gotten closer to destroying bin Laden than anyone else. That statement has since been contradicted by former CIA experts, who said Clinton probably missed at least eight opportunities for removing bin Laden from the terror war.
That was the issue, the Fox official said, that caused the rejection. Documentation about Clinton's knowledge of bin Laden's location during his presidency was required for that ad to air, he said.
"We asked for documentation to back up that claim, and the organization was not able to provide it," he told WND.
But the comment to WND is prompting a harsh response from Move America Forward.
Wierzbicki stresses, "Fox News Channel did not ask at any time for documentation, otherwise the organization would have been happy to provide it, and stands ready to do so. Including, for example, the 9/11 Commission report, recent statements by CIA bin Laden group agent, Michael Scheuer, and endless news accounts detailing the Clinton administration's actions following several terrorist attacks against United States interests."
MAF provided WND an excerpt of an e-mail from a Fox News representative, which reads: "Just got word from NY that we cannot run the Clinton commercial as there is no way to defend the allegations."
This is an excerpt... the article continues CLICK HERE!
Please FReepmail me if you want on or off my FoxFan list. *Warning: This can be a high-volume ping list at times.
Thanks for the PING. Should be interesting to see what happens now and how Fox handles this. They should have learned that "the coverup is worse than the crime!"
You got to wonder what the deal is with Rupert and Hillary.
That's the whole ad and FOX won't run it? All it says is that he didn't make WOT his top priority and
"he didn't have his eye on the ball".
Ailes is losing it.
Bump!
And after I stood up for them on the other thread. If the call for verification was horse hockey and they simply didn't want to face the Clintonistas, shame on them!
I have seen attack ads this quarter that make that thing look like a hallmark card.
*shrug*
Okay, I viewed the ad - - it's terrific and to the point. And now that I've seen it, Fox's refusal to air the ad is even more inexplicable than I had previously believed. Something stinks to high heaven and the stench is overwhelming. Somebody at Fox has some explaining to do.
Yet Fox plays the ad which seems to imply that Bush is responsible for genocide in Darfur all the time!
It may not be Ailes' fault, but Murdoch's.
Per freeper durasell:
"Over the past year or so Murdoch has donated big to Clinton's charity, hosted Hillary at a breakfast meeting with editors and invited Bill as a paid speaker to a corporate retreat."
I have read previously that Murdoch is chummy with Mrs. Clinton. Perhaps this explains things?
I am disgusted.
Clinton really did drop the ball & miss many opportunities to capture bin Laden & the so called War on Terrorism was nowhere on his radar.
Why disgusted? Murdoch is in business. That is to say, his ideologies and loyalties are not fixed. Please tell me this doesn't come as a surprise to you.
You're not disgusted that the owner of Fox is in bed with corrupt scum like the Clintons? I guess you have a higher threshold for disgust than I do.
When Bush has done more to push action against Sudan on this issue at the UN than anyone else!!
Bill Clinton's Terrorism FAILURES!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XzTQMjkVtcI
Ditto :
"... the owner of Fox is in bed with corrupt scum like the Clintons. "
The Saudis own a significant chunk of News Corp, one of his major markets is in China/Asia, there's a huge chunk of business in western europe, and he's got significant interests in the middle east. How'd you like to do that juggling act?
FOX could be focusing on the "fair and balanced" garbage.
I find as a conservative to be watching less of FOX
broadcasts. O'Reilly is o.k. but disagree with him regularly.
H&C total waste unless they can Holmes.
Focus on thre FREE REPUBLIC instead. Best compilation of news and social issues.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
