Posted on 09/03/2016 7:16:13 AM PDT by drewh
In an extensive article within New York Magazine, mostly outlining the rather sordid details of Roger Ailes, readers may also note specific confirmation of something we outlined in August of last year (2015). Fox News owner Rupert Murdoch instructed Fox News executives to take down Donald Trump.
(NY MAG) […] Murdoch was not a fan of Trump’s and especially did not like his stance on immigration. (The antipathy was mutual: “Murdoch’s been very bad to me,” Trump told me in March.) A few days before the first GOP debate on Fox in August 2015, Murdoch called Ailes at home. “This has gone on long enough,” Murdoch said, according to a person briefed on the conversation.
Murdoch told Ailes he wanted Fox’s debate moderators — Kelly, Bret Baier, and Chris Wallace — to hammer Trump on a variety of issues. Ailes, understanding the GOP electorate better than most at that point, likely thought it was a bad idea. “Donald Trump is going to be the Republican nominee,” Ailes told a colleague around this time. But he didn’t fight Murdoch on the debate directive.
On the night of August 6, in front of 24 million people, the Fox moderators peppered Trump with harder-hitting questions. But it was Kelly’s question regarding Trump’s history of crude comments about women that created a media sensation. He seemed personally wounded by her suggestion that this spoke to a temperament that might not be suited for the presidency. “I’ve been very nice to you, though I could probably maybe not be based on the way you have treated me,” he said pointedly. (read more)
This is interesting on many levels, but more importantly for a few very specific confirmational aspects.
Last year many people were struggling to understand what was going on within Fox News. Many people saw the bias; even more people grew outraged at what they were witnessing; but unfortunately many people would not (or could not) accept what was brutally obvious.
Additionally, when CTH outlined the specifics of the factional alignment that was coming from this directive, multiple entities within the “conservative blog-o-sphere” claimed we were advancing some form of ridiculous conspiratorial analysis.
The last third of an earlier CTH outline, during this event timeline (July/August ’15), specifically warned Trump –in advance of the first debate– that Fox News had this intention. (Scroll down to the part of Megyn Kelly HERE).
Additionally, within the cited New York Magazine article you’ll note that Lachlan Murdoch personally instructed Harper Collins Publications, another Murdoch business, to give Megyn Kelly a $6,000,000 advance on a $10 million book deal. In 2015 when we found out who Kelly’s publisher was, we presented that specific prediction – again, in the face of much antagonism. However, we were correct.
Why is this confirmation important?
If you go through the timeline, and look at the confirmation in the NY Mag, you’ll note the specific group within Fox News who formed the internal Pro-Murdoch/Anti-Trump Fox coalition. They are: Bret Baier, Megyn Kelly and Chris Wallace.
Not coincidentally these key Fox hosts were the ones specifically directed to take down Trump –AND– the three anti-Trump amigos on the Fox Debate Panel.
Rubio debate 2
Wallace, Baier, Kelly and (circled) Fox News VP Political Executive Bill Sammon – during debate preparations. Bill Sammon is the father of Marco Rubio’s National Campaign Spox, Brooke Sammon. Senator Marco Rubio was also the preferred candidate of Rupert Murdoch because of his immigration position.
Secondly, if you think about Baier, Kelly and Wallace beyond the scope of the debate itself, you might also begin to remind yourself –and cross reference in your mind– which Fox shows consistently highlight (what later became known as) ‘the #NeverTrump punditry‘.
Thinking specifically about Fox News and Brett Baier, Megyn Kelly and Chris Wallace. Now think about which shows give continual voice to: Brit Hume, Stephen Hayes, Charles Krauthammer, Bill Kristol, George Will, Jonah Goldberg, Ben Shapiro, Rich Lowry, Glenn Beck, Dana Loesch, Katie Pavlich, Chris Stirewalt and Guy Benson.
Never trump crowd
What you realize is the 2015 #NeverTrumper’s (pictured above) were/are almost exclusively booked for appearances on Rupert’s Three Amigo’s: Bret Baier (Special Report), Megyn Kelly (Kelly File), and Chris Wallace (Fox News Sunday and Special Report).
These three Fox Hosts are the primary voices behind the Rupert Murdoch anti-Trump faction within Fox News. Remember when Donald Trump pulled out of the second Fox News debate:
Megyn Kelly tweet Stirewalt
Another key aspect to keep in mind is that Rupert Murdoch doesn’t operate alone. There are other media entities, not as big but still influential, that follow the exact same set of directives. The Salem Media Communications group is one example (Hot Air, Human Events, Twitchy, Red State, Hugh Hewitt et al), and iHeart Radio is another.
Just like Murdoch at Fox News, Salem Media Communications and iHeart Radio hold the same ideological objectives. Every entity within those enterprises is part of the same synergistic networking group. Politically, Club 4 Growth and a host of other PAC’s and political enterprises are funding mechanisms aligned in ideology and providing financial support to the aforementioned political media sales force.
As more and more people awaken to the reality they become increasingly self-aware. With that awareness comes a realization that conspiracy theories are quite often not just theory.
patriot
ps. Do you still think Chris Wallace should moderate the third presidential debate? …Knowing full well that the person who determines his income, Rupert Murdoch, has been specifically identified as giving instructions to Chris Wallace to take down Donald Trump?
And I would say the entire performance backfired spectacularly. Instead of ruining Trump’s chances, it increased his popularity as he wittily fought back against the sneering and hateful Kelly! After that debacle, there was no way I was gong to turn against Trump. And I doubt I’m alone in that regard.
Murdoch miscalculated bigtime. Hello, President Trump!
Then you must be watching some other Fox News Network.
The one I watch is obviously pro-Trump from early morning to late-night.
None -- zero, zip, nada -- are clearly pro-Hillary.
Of course, they do have pro-Hillary analysts and even some reporters, but none host a show and most get beaten up pretty severely by the hosts.
As I said, Megyn Kelly & Chris Wallace don't do anything for me, but I wouldn't call them obviously pro-Hillary.
I actually believe that both Hannity and the Judge are true Trump supporters.
I’d like to know who the anchors were who had their makeup nibbled off by Ailes.
Of course they’re not pro-Hillary.
They are obviously anti-trump and spend their time posting negative information about him.
“...the current management arrangement is just a stopgap until the election. “As of November 9, there will be a bloodbath at Fox,” predicts one host.”
Looking forward to the next shoe drop.
(Great article! Thanks drewh.)
Great Links. I was tweeting and posted these payments to Rigel Strategies payments as they were released. So glad this author followed up on the identity of Rigel Strategies.
Have the moderators pledged to adjust the Hildabeast’s oxygen mask, empty her catheter bag and change her diaper?
Hannity, especially, from the start has never made a secret out of his dedication to conservatism (and support of Republicans) and he has not wavered. In other words they knew what they were getting in Hannity. And remember he was a part of Hannity and Colmes when Colmes was demoted to contributor. So somebody liked Sean. In the case of Jeanine,some of the same reasons may apply, Im not sure.
Ok, but how do they get away with it?
The ONLY people who say that are Democrats.
Pining for the good old days of Law and Order and those who cared about it
When you are filthy rich what is left to do? Puppet Master.
The “conservative blog-o-sphere” seems to be part of the problem. A lot of so-called “conservatives” are part of the problem IMO. What is a “conservative” anyway? What is a “liberal”? Well, a liberal is a Leftist, so quit calling Leftists something that has to do with liberty, because they stand opposed to liberty.
What is a “conservative”? Well, that’s a tougher question. There are a lot of “conservatives” who are just what the term implies - lovers and keepers of the status quo - the “establishment” - exactly what the problem is these days. Then you have others, maybe more like myself, who love liberty, hate the status quo, and want to see the status quo and the establishment blown up. That has nothing to do with the meaning of the word “conservative” but has everything to do with the word “freedom.” So I’ve quit calling myself a conservative and I’ve replaced “liberal” with “Leftist”.
So in this case, the so-called “conservative blog-o-sphere” is part of the problem because a lot of so-called “conservatives” are actually establishment hacks who have little interest in liberty and the Constitutional rule of law that demands 80+% of the federal government be dismantled.
Quote:
“As I said, Megyn Kelly & Chris Wallace don’t do anything for me, but I wouldn’t call them obviously pro-Hillary.”
You can’t see what everyone else plainly sees.
FNC is hideous. Hannity, the Judge, Guilfoyle, Tucker, and Crowley need to get the hell over to Fox Business before its too late.
I DESPISE tge faux conservative Wallace. Like father, like son.
Great post by the way.
I don’t know that much about the “Conservative Treehouse” but I’m beginning to be impressed. Starting to look like these conservatives are the ones that love truth and freedom. Wish they would identify themselves as something more like “Liberty Treehouse” a bit like the idea of watering the tree of liberty at our founding.
The obvious question in all of this which I have been asking for a year is why does the Right let the Left run the Right’s show? That’s like committing suicide in front of a live audience. How stupid.
The second obvious question is why does the Right let the Left run the Presidential debates? Again, that’s like Trump standing up in front of a firing squad before a live audience and watching Hillary yell, “Fire!”
Rupert and his worthless sons should have their citizenship revoked and deported back to Australia. That is if Australia will take them back.
To me, Wallace looks like a weasel. Really. Amazingly, when I saw tapes of young Wallace in the Reagan years he looks relatively normal. But his visage has changed remarkably over the years into looking just like a weasel. Can’t stand him.
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.