Is Wesley Clark helping or hurting Fox and Rupert Murdoch?

[socalover]

I am not interested in whether or not he would be able to transmit a liberal viewpoint.

My only question is whether him working for Fox would help or hurt the image of the network.

IMNSHO, I think to the average Joe, his presence will help validate Fox as being "fair and balanced". Anything that helps legitimize that news organization is not good for Democrats because we all know what Fox's ultimate agenda is.

What say you?

[bluedeminredstate]

1. This is the first I've heard of this!

My first reaction is distress - how can he take their dirty money? On the other hand, seeing a smart, strong liberal may be good for Faux viewers. Unfortunately, I don't think it will accomplish much and I'm very disappointed with Wes.

[Name removed]

10. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[socalover]

11. Sir/Mam, I do not have any agenda against Wesley Clark. I supported Clark

In the primaries, he was not my favorite but I am not here to dis Clark. This is my 2nd and last thread on the subject. If that is my agenda, find another post by me on the subject of Clark in my 145 posts. There are none. This thread is totally different to the last thread with me saying he sold out. I am not anti Clark, I am anti Fox news!

BTW, my other thread was rightfully locked because it ran its course, not locked because of content, again, this is a different subject all together to him selling out, because it is not what you want to hear does not mean it should be locked.

[ClarkUSA]

13. I don't believe a word you say - your actions here speak quite clearly

Why don't you answer #12?

[socalover]

14. Fine, that is your right..... n/t

[meppie-meppie not]

16. I supported Clark in the primaries too and I find him working for

Fox disgusting. I find it as disgusting as Bill Clinton's buddy buddy routine with the senior turd and his shilling for the GOP on Letterman concerning the DSM. I like Clark, I like Bill but I deplore their choices right now!

[Hugin]

2. I'm inclined to agree with you.

Sad to say.

Now... I'd be delighted if Clark had opted to
write for the Weekly World News.

[liberaliraqvet26]

3. Nothing will bring down fox...

Even if the network was losing truckloads of money murdoch, mellon-scaife and the rest of the RW hit parade will subsidize it.

They have been doing this for years with the rag known as the New York Post. That "paper" has lost more and more money every year, they practically give it away on the street. It will not go anywhere though because it is the only RW editorial page of the four NY papers. (except the Wall St Journal and the tiny New York Sun which noone reads)

Clark on Fox is a good thing for us. Who else would make a more credible trojan horse?

[Sparkly]

4. Did you not get enough answers in your last thread?!?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x1864879

[socalover]

6. This is a totally different thread/message/question.... n/t

[TorchTheWitch]

18. Was there something about this from the Moderator

that you didn't understand?


Moderator (1000+ posts) Sat Jun-18-05 12:35 PM
Response to Original message
88. Locking
This thread (and the topic as a whole) has run it's course.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x1864879#1865201

[Trajan]

5. Wes is in the midst of enemy territory ...

He is gonna clean thier clocks ...

IF Wesley Clark were the 2008 Democratic Party nominee: I would vote for him ....

Hey ! ... THATS IT ! ....

He is doing it to STRIP AWAY MODERATE VOTERS WHO WATCH FOX ! .... He wants them to VOTE for him ... It is a perfect way to access the fence straddlers ....

[liberaliraqvet26]

7. I will defend the good gereral till the cows come home in '08

This has been a hot topic here this week. I understand why some have reservations about it but realistically, Fox whether we like it or not has a lot of viewers. How does it hurt to have a credible, southern, clean cut, career military man who has a near perfect service record representing our side. Even though it is hostile ground I just cannot see how this hurts us. On fox they like to portray all liberals as leftover 60's hippie freaks, Clark's appearances are great because he is well respected throughout the country and defies this stereotype. Can you imagine how stupid the chickenhawks like Krauthammer, Hume, Barnes, Hannity and Pearle will look arguing military strategy with a four star general who ran the highly successful Kosovo operation with so few casulties. Many moderates and independents buy into the stigma that Dems are soft on national security and bad for the military. Even as bad as the recent polls have been for the rethugs they still have us beat in this area. Clark can put a democratic face on the military.

Fox unfortunatly is here to stay and we must do all we can to counter their spin. Wesley Clark is a smart man who can certainly hold his own against these kooks. Who else is better qualified to be our trojan horse?

[PurityOfEssence]

8. That's the principal point, but I agree

I've kept completely out of these threads until now, because of the highly-charged nature of it all. He's an honorable man and an asset to the party, and I think he's legitimately trying to take the battle to the enemy's territory. Sadly, though, this legitimizes Fox, and that's a very bad thing. They should remain vilified as nothing short of a propaganda organ for greed and selfishness, and this will help to bring them broad acceptance.

Time will tell, but I wish he'd stayed away from them; it'd be nice to be able to hold them up as an unwavering tool of privilege and to dismiss them roundly at every turn, while pointing out the cynical machinations of the reactionaries to subvert the media.

Having read many of these threads, though, I don't think he's gotten a particularly raw deal; to be in league with such swine brings some backlash, and although many have been quite harsh to him, many seem to be giving him a fair chance.

To those supporters who think he's being unfairly treated, I ask this: if John Edwards had signed with Fox as a legal consultant, would he have been given as much benefit of the doubt? My contention is that he would have been virulently attacked in the worst terms possible. Although Clark's taken hits, many of those of us who've opposed him for many reasons have either kept out of it or have restrained ourselves and talked of the tactical implications.

He's got a tough row to hoe here, though, and they're going to try to trip him up at every turn. Perhaps he'll be able to outfox them, and if so, that'll be a good thing.

Still, by agreeing to comment for them, he tacitly defines them as a "real" news source, and this legitimizes them. That puts my liberal teeth on edge: liberals accept the right of others with different opinions to have their say; conservatives silence and destroy everyone else. We need to make Fox such a pariah that they are seen as deliberate propaganda of hate. This move of his works against this.

[Tom Rinaldo]

23. This is a thoughtful post, and appreciated

I was out of town for a few days and have been playing catch up reading posts. You are right, in addition to some flak Clark has gotten a lot of support also. And I think you are also right that had John Edwards, or virtually any leading Democrat, become a commentator on FOX he would have gotten predictable flak also fro that choice. And some of that flak undoubtedly would have been way over the top, which is exactly what calling Clark a "sellout" who is whoring for the money, or morphing into a Republican through association, is.

But it is a fair question whether or not Clark is now "helping" FOX, though that question should NOT be asked in a vacuum, because this one action doesn't exist in a vacuum. If Clark "helped" Fox .5% while helping the Democrats 2.5% by skillfully representing them on FOX, some might accept that trade off. Personally I don't think Clark does hardly anything for FOX here. It's not like the old days when a station had to prove it was serving the public by offering a wide range of opinions or risk losing it's license. Fox has Democrats on from time to time simply because that is expected of them by everyone, including their right wing base. If it isn't Clark, it will be another at least nominal Democrat, so why not Clark, who actually can land some skillful punches?

I love Clark but I do not subscribe heroic powers to him of the sort that simply by him being on air at FOX a few times a week for ten minutes, suddenly FOX's image will be transformed into that of an objective news organization. In that regard, absolutely nothing will change. Clark is not FOX's new prime time news show anchor. He isn't doing TV promo ads for them. He isn't a FOX exclusive even. The people who love FOX will continue to. The people who hate FOX will continue to. A few hundred Democratic activists may tune into FOX now just to see Clark during his scheduled time slots, but that will hardly effect their ratings, and it won't change their image.

The Washington Times isn't going anywhere. The New York Post isn't going anywhere. Right wing radio jocks like Rush will be here for the long haul and so will FOX. Working class whites went for Bush over Kerry by 24 percentage points, and many of them watch FOX. They are not unreachable Republican core voters. To the extent that some leftists are ready to write off the white working class, then I say Thank God someone like Wes Clark isn't. Security concerns, and a false call to patriotism is part of how the Republicans stole those voters away from their true class interests. If we ever want to be the majority party again, we have to start reaching them again. I think Clark can.

[CarolNYC]

25. Fox's credibility

<<I love Clark but I do not subscribe heroic powers to him of the sort that simply by him being on air at FOX a few times a week for ten minutes, suddenly FOX's image will be transformed into that of an objective news organization. In that regard, absolutely nothing will change. Clark is not FOX's new prime time news show anchor. He isn't doing TV promo ads for them. He isn't a FOX exclusive even. The people who love FOX will continue to. The people who hate FOX will continue to. A few hundred Democratic activists may tune into FOX now just to see Clark during his scheduled time slots, but that will hardly effect their ratings, and it won't change their image.>>

Amen to this. As I said in another thread, I find this whole credibility agrument just absurd. I'd love for Clark to have so much power and influence that his occasional appearance as an analyst on a news network would instantly give them legitimacy to folks who don't current believe they are a legitimate news source but the idea of that is truly bizarre if you ask me.

[ClarkUSA]

9. Is AAR helping or hurting Clear Channel?

"One Thing Is Crystal Clear: Clear Channel is a subsidiary of Bush, Inc."
http://www.buzzflash.com/analysis/03/04/18_clear.html

I am not interested in whether or not AAR would be able to transmit a liberal viewpoint.

My only question is whether AAR working for Clear Channel would help or hurt the image of the media giant.

IMNSHO, I think to the average Jane, AAR's presence on the same airwaves as Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, and Bill O'Reilly will help validate Clear Channel and its hugely popular hate radio lineup as being "fair and balanced". Anything that helps legitimize that news organization is not good for Democrats because we all know what Clear Channel's ultimate agenda is.

What say you?

:sarcasm:

[PurityOfEssence]

12. Apples and oranges

AAR has control over its own content; when it buys time from a provider in the radio spectrum, it broadcasts whatever it damn well pleases, and does so under the aegis of its own stated mission.

When an individual hires on with an established network, he/she submits to the editorial proclivities of that entity and is at least tacitly endorsing the legitimacy of that entity.

AAR does as it pleases after paying for access. In the case of Fox, an employee may try to do whatever he/she pleases, but is subject to the editorial control of the employer.

This is a ridiculous argument, and one raised to give cover.

I give Clark the benefit of the doubt that he's trying to take the battle to the enemy, but he's spending personal credibility and capital to do so: he's effectively saying that Fox is a news organizaton, instead of hate-cheerleading.

[ClarkUSA]

17. No, it's apples and apples, given the OP's accusations.

Doesn't AAR give Clear Channel credibility?

After all, with AAR and the Jerry Springer Show, now Clear Channel can claim to be be truly balanced, not just the exclusive broadcasters of hate radio hosts extraordinaire Limbaugh, Hannity, and O'Reilly.

AAR does inoculate Clear Channel against charges of media bias.

Without ClearChannel, AAR would not have nearly the range they have to broadcast their progressive message. Ditto with The Jerry Springer Show.
They are now able to reach millions more people by using Clear Channel.

Is it mutually beneficial? Sure. But both AAR and Wes Clark understand that getting the message out by whatever means necessary is more important than anything else.

Wes Clark will speak to power at a place where he will reach a viewership that outnumbers any of the other networks. For me, reaching out to a crossover audience is a great idea. It will help us in 2006 if Wes Clark can continue to defend Democrats and their policies while dissing Bush/GOP's handling of the issues.

Thanks for giving Wes Clark the benefit of the doubt. That is exactly what I would do if it were Edwards, because they are both good Democrats getting a progressive message out to red/purple state voters.

:dem:

[CarolNYC]

26. "he's spending personal credibility and capital to do so"

Perhaps...but perhaps he cares more about what's happening to this country than about protecting his personal future...I know, it's not all that common in the political realm so sometimes it's hard to fathom when it happens...

[Coexist]

15. Is Joe Scarborough helping or hurting MSNBC

since "healthy young women don't just fall down dead"

[PurityOfEssence]

19. Helping

They hate pluralism and want to sustain the corporatist domination of this country.

There never was a Lori Klausutis. She didn't die in his office by blunt trauma on her head. She wasn't having an affair, and certainly not with him. Her husband's involvement with the military industrial complex doesn't mean anything. The fact that Gary Condit was DESTROYED at the same time due to a missing girlfriend while the media gave no attention at all to a dead body in this guy's office means nothing.

Scarborough helps MSNBC. Remember: Jack Welch tried to bribe a commentator on election night '00 to call the election, although General Electric has stonewalled releasing tapes of this. NBC is General Electric, one of the biggest military contractors. It is EASILY the most reactionary of the old three networks.

The fact that the coroner had been decertified in Missouri for falsifying autopsies, and the fact that he'd been appointed by Jeb Bush himself doesn't mean a thing. Nope. She was 28, very fit and a runner, yet it was just an undiagnosed heart valve problem that caused her to faint--all alone, mind you--and fall from a standing position to hit her head on a tabletop with enough force to kill her by blunt trauma. It's all perfectly obvious.

[ClarkUSA]

20. Is Keith Olbermann and Ron Reagan, Jr. helping or hurting MSNBC?

Is Aaron Brown helping or hurting CNN?

Damn them!

:sarcasm:

[rasputin1952]

21. Clark will kick ass wherever he is...FAUX will be in some pretty

deep stuff if they try to muzzle him....:evilgrin:

I still remeber vividly the, "don't you put words in my mouth", moment when Clark was livid at the neo-con media...He doesn't suffer fools lightly...:) I think he'll do just fine.

[TorchTheWitch]

22. ok, once again, I'll bite

I am not interested in whether or not he would be able to transmit a liberal viewpoint.

Your non-interest has clearly been evident. That said, how is transmitting a Democratic viewpoint to the masses of desperately uninformed viewers at Faux a BAD thing?

My only question is whether him working for Fox would help or hurt the image of the network.

YOUR image of the network or the average Faux viewer's image? How does a network BECOME "fair and balanced" without them putting in an opposing view? They now have one bonified credible person who has an opposing view... how is BECOMING more "fair and balanced" a BAD thing?

IMNSHO, I think to the average Joe, his presence will help validate Fox as being "fair and balanced". Anything that helps legitimize that news organization is not good for Democrats because we all know what Fox's ultimate agenda is.

Look, Faux is NOT going away - PERIOD. You have your choice of a Faux WITHOUT Clark there to put in a credible Democratic view, or a Faux WITH Clark there putting in a credible Democratic view, which is at least a start on becoming "fair and balanced". The average Faux viewer has NO IDEA that Faux is a rightwing mouthpiece and ALREADY believes Faux is a credible "fair and balanced" news source.

So what's your choice? Do you want Faux to remain a totally rightwing mouthpiece that the average Joe ALREADY believes is "fair and balanced", or do you want a Faux that offers a credible Democratic view through Clark who will edjucate the average Joe to start opening their blind eyes to the truth? HOW IS FAUX PUTTING A CREDIBLE DEMOCRATIC VIEW INTO THEIR NETWORK A BAD THING?

Really, I seriously want to know how we are supposed to ever get anywhere close to a fair and balanced media WITHOUT the networks offering a credible Democratic view?

With everything you've said on this subject, it is looking more and more as though you actually WANT the sad state of our media to continue as is. Do you seriously want to preserve Faux without any credible Democratic view just so you can look down your nose at them at the expense of getting the Democratic view out to the masses? IS THAT WHAT YOU WANT???

[sundancekid]

24. how does big dawg's hanging out with the poppy bush affect the image

and the hatred that the RW has for Bill ... so, does THAT help or hurt?? I'm using this example to point out your fallacies ... you have ONLY ONE answer in mind about FOX and damned be reason or non-shallow analyses;

have you ever thought of getting a real intellectual life, one that might contain real philosophical probing instead of sophomoric inquiries that are both disingenous and hit-and-run ??

[Moderator]

27. Locking

What we have here is a failure to communicate.

The rules state: "Do not start a new topic in order to continue a flame war from another discussion thread."

Thank you.