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?
All of the things in this article were discussed then. I remember saying on this board the Meygan Kelly bookadvance was payment for her part in the attempted take down.
This event began the transformation of how many view the GOPe, Fox, Conservative Media - They over played their hand and walked right into Trumps trap.
Trump is beginning to look like the only billionaire I don’t want to puke on. And eff the Koch brothers too.
Maybe.
But the real fact is that Fox News is almost uniformly pro-Trump, certainly in any Trump v. Hillary contest.
The number of obviously pro-Hillary reporters or analysts you can count on a few fingers (let's see... Juan, Alan, Jennifer... who?).
I was not "pro-Trump", but favored somebody more genuinely conservative, like Ted Cruz, so I found Fox's reporting **surprise** Fair and Balanced.
Today I have no problems with any of the analyses from 90% of Fox's conservative personalities.
Sure, Megyn & Chris do nothing for me, but most of the others seem fine.
So it's just inconceivable that any Fox conservatives would favor Hillary over Trump.
Fox has veered hard left the last couple of years; I rarely ever watch them anymore. We need a true conservative(honest) tv network badly.
Wasn’t Murdoch pissed because the Trumps remained friends with his wife after his divorce?
Just a guess, but I’d say that they see Hannity as preaching to his followers, not able to change hearts and minds, and Judge Jeanine is filler on a night when no one watches FNC anyhow.
Since they live in the same bubble, they no doubt believe the powerful words of Brett, Meg, and Chris are the ones that can really influence people.
“For most of us here, we already knew this.
It was an obvious Trump set up.
Starting with the hack debate moderators, to the talking heads afterwards and through Frank Lutz’s fake focus group.”
The entire night was a pre-arranged set up of Trump.”
Remember those on FR with severe TDS denying the above and attacking Trump and us for saying “No thank you to Faux re their lynching masquerading as a debate.”
I wonder how many of us stopped watching Faux after their Iowa planned lynching of Trump!
Fox and the other channels are giving Trump reason NOT to give them a penny for advertisement.
Why when they have so many neverTrump people on?
Replace Chris Wallace with Lou Dobbs.
Either one will be left on the floor sucking their thumb, feeling the butt hurt, wishing they were anywhere but there.
How do Hannity and Judge Jeanine get away with criticizing
Hillary and defending Trump?
Pre agreed upon token support to keep us watching as we won’t get their attack dog styles on other channels..
I cannot abide most Fox shows because they are so obviously anti-Trump.
The only hosts who give Trump a good turn are Hannity, Pirro, and Dobbs.
Regan occasionally.
How do Hannity and Judge Jeanine get away with criticizing
Hillary and defending Trump?
You left out Lou Dobbs. His anti-0zika and ILLary and pro-Trump commentaries have been epic.
Lou or Maria Barteloma should replace Chris Wall-A$$
Fair & Balanced, donchaknow?
Fox's Trump & Hillary supporters are usually clearly identified ahead of time.
Allegedly impartial analysts -- UVA's Larry Sabato comes to mind -- do not reveal their own views, but nearly always respond to the pro-Trump views of the shows' hosts.
A typical question to Sabato goes like this: "Larry, you've studied all the polls, so what does Trump have to do now to overcome Hillary's lead?"
Sabato never tells us who he favors, but he does answer such questions, objectively, imho.
I think Murdoch and Fox have been taken down by Trump. LOL!
Same with talk radio. I listen to the pro-Trump hosts like Mike Gallagher and turn off the lukewarm people, don’t trust them after all that happens.
I saw Wallace discussing politics on a you tube video and his whole look has changed. He appeared to be squinting and beady eyed. He’s acting like his job depends upon him being a radical craven kook.
I also saw that Fox morning show on you tube as they interviewed Trump’s son and the Brian guy, who used to play the good humored cut up guy is now Mr. Serious Left wing politics. How boring.
Great suggestion!
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.