• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

The Fox candidates

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
How much could this influence the timing of their candidacy? I can see the benefit of getting face time on TV and being paid for it. OTOH, I can also see the benefit of deciding/committing to run at the earliest possible moment. The longer you're on the sidelines thinking about it, the more staffers, donors, endorsers etc will be scooped up by other candidates. Until they decide/commit to running, they can't be on other networks either (or out giving campaign speeched), that's no advantage.

I can surely see the conflicts if you're running yet remain on TV. However, if you must quit once you decide to run, it's resolved. I watch a lot more news etc than teh average person, I haven't noticed any of these people now campaigning while still on Fox.

That fact alone has sparked buzz in political and media circles, particularly as it applies to Palin, a major ratings draw. Can she remain on Fox’s payroll if, while not formally a declared candidate, she’s visiting early primary states and assembling a presidential campaign in 2011?
Click to expand...

In spite of the author's assertion, that's not campaigning. That's all the normal part of figuring out IF you're going to run, is support there etc.

OTOH, if she IS now assembling (and I assume he means hiring staffers etc) a campaign that means she's decided she's going to run and should quit the Fox job.

Jeebus, for the longest time incumbants have been able to get all kinds of free face time on TV (while also being paid for it via their government salary) just by virture of their holding an office (just call a press conference for any old thing etc). Non-incumbants don't get this. Nobody considers this abuse of their position.

I don't see any real problem until it's shown that somebody has tried to be 'cute' and campaign for an office but use the excuse 'not really' because I haven't formally filed (completed the paperwork).

Fern
 
Last edited:
werepossum said:
Ah, the wisdom of Canada, where Al Jazeera is an impartial news outlet but FoxNews is a propaganda outlet. MSNBC (96 percent edge to Obama) is perfectly okay, but FoxNews (6 percent edge to Obama) is a right wing distortion machine! Only if all news outlets lean horizontally to the left and sing the same anti-hymn can the world be balanced and democracy be saved.

I especially like how the leftwing media is constantly talking about how these potential candidates are such jokes and now complaining that they can't interview them. I guess slamming them with liberal smear book authors doesn't bring in the ratings.
Click to expand...

Fail
 
Fear No Evil said:
Are newspapers who endorse a candidate a conflict of interest as well?
Click to expand...

Yes, I think it's clearly a conflict of interest. Why do newspapers endorse candidates?? Doesn't that fly in the face of journalistic objectivity and neutrality?

Why would a newspaper admit their bias? That just defies logic.
 
When they announce their bid for the presidency they should quit working for Fox. What other answer is there? Should Fox fire them on spec?
 
boomerang said:
So deal with it.

What is your "solution" to the "problem"?

Your motives here are transparent. You're concerned that the evil Republicans may get an edge over the just and good Democrats. Just say it and I'll respect you for it. Don't keep pussy-footing around it.
Click to expand...

The solution is they should quit.

I am not as shallow as you make me out to be and it looks like my motives are much less transparent than yours. If a former Dem congresscritter was working for MSNBC as a commentator or had their own opinion show and started to consider a political office run I would feel the same way.

It simply looks like a conflict of interest that could be resolved easily.
I'm sure Fox would quickly hire them back if they decided not to run.
 
Does this really matter?

The kind of people who watch Fox News are going to vote for the Republican candidate no matter who they are.

People who hate Fox News are going to vote for the Democrat candidate no matter who they are.
 
sandorski said:
The bigger issue, IMO, is the intermingling of Politics and Media into what is simply a "News" organization designed to be a Propaganda outlet. How long before MSNBC(or some other Organization) ends up doing the same? Fox is destroying the whole concept of a Free Press.
Click to expand...

Did you really just saw how long before MSNBC becomes a biased propaganda outlet?

How long until grass turns green and water turns blue?
 
Throckmorton said:
Yes, I think it's clearly a conflict of interest. Why do newspapers endorse candidates?? Doesn't that fly in the face of journalistic objectivity and neutrality?

Why would a newspaper admit their bias? That just defies logic.
Click to expand...




Candidates are endorsed by the EDITORIAL staff.

They are free to be subjective, biased, flatulent, cantankerous or any other damn thing they want to be.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top