Posted on 05/13/2022 8:01:40 AM PDT by shadowlands1960
I'm releasing this exchange because it's the backstory to understand why Tucker recently had on Catherine Engelbrecht of True the Vote. She was instructed not to mention "2000 Mules" even though the movie was out and the whole discussion centered around the material in the movie
The story goes back to early February when I produced a teaser trailer for the upcoming film. Tucker invited Catherine to come on the show and she recommended they run the teaser trailer to go with her interview. Everything seemed all set until...
One of Tucker's producers--a guy named Alex--told me they couldn't run the 90 second trailer. They wanted to use just 45 seconds. Turned out they wanted to cut out my name, Salem Media, and any reference to the movie
So basically they wanted to steal our content and pretend like they had produced it. I politely said no. I had earlier clarified with Alex that they should either use the full teaser trailer or not. Yet my refusal to let them go ahead provoked the following exchange
"Dinish. Justin Wells here. VP and EP of everything in the Tucker world. I just want you to know that I/we won't forget your little stunt today. If you want to decide how much time to give content on the most watched show in America--then I suggest you produce one in the future..
"You f-ed over an important show and ally that was trying to do you a solid. Don't ever bother working on anything with us in the future. And never try to bully my team again. Today's move was short-sighted and dumb. Good luck with everything in the future."
My reply:
"Justin--I told Alex IN ADVANCE that we were offering the trailer as a single piece. I made it clear we did not want it cut. So there were no surprises here. No stunt. You guys want to take our content that we produce at considerable expense and effort...
"...cut out all reference to the film, and run with it as your story. That doesn't strike me as very fair or decent even if you do have "the most watched show in America." I simply told Alex we will try and place it elsewhere because our original terms were unacceptable to you"
Justin Wells:
"We booked Catherine ages ago. The segment came through her. The trailer and everything happened this week. We wanted to help you out. We would have made reference to the film. Absolutely...
"We would never cut out reference to the film and pass off your story as ours. Our content is far superior to yours. I'm quite confident in that. You live in a fantasy world. You f-ed with our booking on the day of a segment...
"I don't take your tactics/stunt or a-hole move lightly. If you want a full 90 seconds for your trailer then buy an add (sic) on the show for a full 90 seconds. No more free ads for you. Thanks for trying though."
My reply:
"Catherine is her own person. I produced the trailer and that was my only condition that I made clear to Alex. Use all of it or don't use it. He understood and said so. I am no party to any other discussions so where have I acted badly here?
"You knew what my terms were but decided to go a different route. That's fine. But I am at liberty, am I not, to hold to my original condition? I didn't mess up your schedule...
"You presumed you could just go ahead and cut the trailer and that I would give in and say fine. I'm producing this movie in conjunction with Salem Media and they don't want to have it cut.
"So this is not about who lives in a fantasy world. I don't and I'm not suggesting you do either. I'm just trying to make the case for the consistency and reasonableness of my position."
Justin Wells:
"Bulls-t. You've wasted enough of our time. We feel terrible for Catherine though. I didn't know what your terms were. You dumped them on us at the last minute. You and Salem are dictating how much of a trailer a news show runs that's trying to give you promotion?
"I suspect the Today show cut the Titanic trailer when they had Leo and Kate on back in 1996. Who are you to create bogus terms on length of promotional content when we're trying to help you out?
"Pathetic. There is nothing reasonable about your position. It's moronic."
I'll conclude with just a couple of observations about this sorry encounter. Contrast my attempt to be civil and decent throughout with Wells' abusive tone. Note also that Wells makes it clear ("I/we") he's speaking for both him and Tucker.
What corporation in America can get away with treating people this way? Remember I'm a regular Fox guest. I've been appearing on the network almost every week for a couple of years. Even so Tucker's team has no compunction about adopting this imperious, insulting tone
At the very least I believe I'm owed an apology by Wells and Tucker. If it's Wells acting on his own, and if this guy is so out of control that he can't deal in a civil manner with people, why does Fox keep him? He's giving the company a very bad name
Suzanne Scott the CEO of Fox needs to address this issue, not because of the exchange itself, but because it seems to be the explanation, or a big part of the explanation, for Tucker suppressing any mention of "2000 Mules" on the air
The movie is important because of the issues it raises. Without honest elections we're no longer a constitutional democracy. The country is at stake. Fox is an important force for good and so is Tucker. I'm hoping that both will rise above pettiness here and do the right thing
It should not be this way but people are going to be rude. You have to deal with it. In the the exchange the producer said he WAS going to mention the film. It comes down to Dineshs’ refusal to allow 45 seconds instead of 90. For example a show is like Tuckers, getting 90 seconds is huge. Imagine how much a 90 second add would cost. 45 seconds was a win. Dinesh dropped the ball.
Yep. He’s screwed up some good situations he’s had in the past as well. Might be a pattern.
While we’re at it, True the Vote is a nonprofit and Dinesh and Salem aren’t. I do wonder what the deal is with giving favored access to their findings to a for-profit endeavor. Does that violate its 501(c)3 terms? I am sure their attorney has vetted it, but there may be some fine lines somewhere.
“The segment would have generated a fair bit of interest in the movie, and would have been worth the edits.”
Not sure on that. If the edit used arbitrarily by FOX was used it opens the door to editing into a change of intent and content of the movie to change the story line of the movie that was produced by Salem Media for profit. It clears the way for influencing the movie goer to decline attendance thus cutting profits for Salem Media while garnishing profits on that sequence for FOX. And the only document that protects the use of copyrighted material is the Fair Use Doctrine and that does not allow for the collection of profits from the sequence by FOX. They shouldn’t edit it at all if they are going to use it or the interview not disclosing the full information of the film to include content, or companies within the production of release of the film. FOX is wrong here.
wy69
I doubt Salem would be that stupid, on the right terms.
Agree.
So its petty and shortsighted for the owner of a creation to exert control over its use? Because that’s what’s happening here.
And lest we all forget, the main stream media of which Fox News is a member, is NOTORIOUS for cutting and editing media to suit their agenda.
So Dinesh is doing the right thing is making sure that the context of what is shown is part of what is shown. He’s protecting the message in his creation as much as he is protecting the creation itself.
Bigger issue is Fox, which does not allow its hosts to discuss election fraud except to demean it like Brett Bair did with the Maricopa County forensic audit. Dominion’s lawsuit has muzzled Fox hosts.
Fox has banned Peter Navarro, Rudy Giuliani, and Mike Lindel from the network. 2000 Mules is a taboo subject. Give Tucker credit for at least giving Catherine a venue. And he has been courageous about J6. Hannity and Ingraham are scared rabbits easily intimidated.
But they didn’t want it the way it was cut
Quote
Dinish. Justin Wells here. VP and EP of everything in the Tucker world.
Those living and working in the all things Tucker world should step out into the real world some days
OK. I don’t see it that way but OK. I think it could have been handled by asking that the source of the clip be displayed in a banner or mentioned.
Making the issue about 90 sec vs 45 seconds when every second is budgeted for got the conversation way off track from the get go. Polite is not the same as understanding where the other guy is coming from & making it a win/win. I read the whole twitter exchange & Dinesh does not come off well. Many ways to work out a plan this was not one of them.
Dinesh should have taken what they could get. 90 seconds is totally unacceptable. That is longer than some guests get. The producer said they would have mentioned the film. Dinesh blew it.
Tucker does a lot of good….
They each do a lot of good. I'd prefer to see them working together.
LOL. The bias comes in where you are assuming what Fox would have done based on Dinesh projections. There is such a thing as balanced where you try & see both sides. Dinesh was not trying to work the situation out. From the twitter clip he was annoyed at the general shut out by the media and snapped out in a situation where he stood to gain exposure because he wanted to dictate all the terms. Better ways to get the source of the video referenced.
BTW I don’t even watch FOX. I watch an occasional Tucker segment if a website I follow includes the link in a story.
I am still lost.
How - exactly - did Fox and Tucker plan to take credit for content created by Dinesh?
Why - exactly - would they do that?
And, what is going on with the potty-mouth Fox VP? That conversation violated every rule of professional conduct.
Bottom Line - bizarre, all of it, from beginning to end.
DInesh hasn’t shared any details of what Fox communicated to him about the clip. Dinesh is pretty clearly the go-between and he’s not always been an honest broker.
Yes. It could have been handled better by all concerned. I think Dinesh thinking that Tucker’s producers were looking to take credit for his content was a bit paranoid. The language Wells used with Dinesh was unprofessional. So a bad day at the office for all concerned.
They talked about it here. Fox allows it on every show. Levin says they never tell him what to say. The issue here was Dinesh being RETARDED. The producer was rude as hell.
But showing the whole trailer was never going to fly. Take the chance. The producer said they would have mentioned the film.
Card stacking
Card stacking is a propaganda technique that seeks to manipulate audience perception of an issue by emphasizing one side and repressing another. Such emphasis may be achieved through media bias or the use of one-sided testimonials, or by simply censoring the voices of critics. The technique is commonly used in persuasive speeches by political candidates to discredit their opponents and to make themselves seem more worthy. The term originates from the magician’s gimmick of “stacking the deck”, which involves presenting a deck of cards that appears to have been randomly shuffled but which is, in fact, ‘stacked’ in a specific order. The magician knows the order and is able to control the outcome of the trick. In poker, a deck can be stacked so that certain hands are dealt to certain players. The phenomenon can be applied to any subject and has wide applications. Whenever a broad spectrum of information exists, appearances can be rigged by highlighting some facts and ignoring others. Card stacking can be a tool of advocacy groups or of those groups with specific agendas.
.
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.