I think the Murdoch/Clark question is the wrong way around

[Nikki Stone 1]

My question is what do Murdoch and FAUX get from having Clark on board.

And don't tell me "balance"--these jokers wouldn't care about balance if they lost every little hair in their inner ears.

So the question remains, what is Murdoch's game here?

[Texas_Kat]

1. Nikki, you probably didn't know

This same subject was discussed a little earlier. The thread got locked.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x1865233

[Nikki Stone 1]

3. You're right, I didn't know

Sorry if this is a dupe. I am curious about Murdoch's angle here.

[The Traveler]

2. And, I must ask also, what is Clark's objective

I suspect Murdoch's objective is to marginalize a man who could be a potential threat to Republican power. I speculate that Clark's objective is to get an audience with the voters who extend that power. Counter exagerration and hyperbole with calm reason. All that.

I don't trust FNN, but it may well be that Clark is executing a thrust into the heart of the right wind propaganda machine. We will have to wait and see a) if that is his real intention and b) how successful that effort may be.

[Clark2008]

4. Well, if the groans from the Freeper faction are any indication

then he - in just one night - was quite successful in disarming Insannity.

:)

[Nikki Stone 1]

7. But what does that gain for our buddy Rupert?

Not that groaning Freepers aren't enough. :)

[Nikki Stone 1]

5. I am only concerned about Murdoch's goals here. Marginalization?

To give the impression that he has co-opted Clark?

[The Traveler]

19. Possibly that

I think it just starts there.

I really don't trust these guys. They control the format, the timing, provide most of the context. If you will, they define the ring into which Clark, a boxer of rhetoric and logic, must enter.

I think the intention is to, as much as possible, neutralize Clark as a viable candidate and Democratic advocate. Get him to make another highly nuanced statement which, taken out of context and repeated 10,000 times, will create the perception among Democrats and middle class voters that he is not a viable candidate. Think "Dean Scream". Think about how Clark tried to explain that given the information the administation had given Congress, he would have probably voted for the resolution .... and think of how the press truncated that to "Clark would have voted for the resolution" and repeated the distortion ad nauseum.

Remember how way back when Clark was trying to tall us that in military circles the buzz was that the policy was being fixed. The DSM provides confirmation of his story ... but back then his comments were dismissed as "kind of weird".

Having seen a clip of his first appearance on Hannity, I have to give the round to Clark. But that was only the first round. The people behind FNN are ambitious and not very ethical. Don't expect a fair fight.

[Nikki Stone 1]

22. I can see your point

"Get him to make another highly nuanced statement which, taken out of context and repeated 10,000 times, will create the perception among Democrats and middle class voters that he is not a viable candidate. "

That would be exactly the way it would shake out. And FAUX would own the footage.

[Coexist]

15. Clark is smart enough to know that the far left

will probably embrace the Dem. candidate because the right has been so scary - especially after the Gore/Nader thing.

He knows that there are moderate Dems and Reps that watch Fox - I think he is getting his name, his opinions and the Dem view out there with the conservative talking points

[Pepperbelly]

6. I think it Ailes, not Murdoch.

I think that you are looking at the wrong sociopath.

[Nikki Stone 1]

8. Some background would be helpful.

B-)

[dr.zoidberg]

9. The answer's simple, IMO.

I believe that the answer is that the money is good. That is also the reason Colmes is on Fox as well. The money would have to be good because it can't be fun to put up with Hannity every night.

[xray s]

10. Murdoch's objective is to make money

Fox News is losing viewers. Clark brings in liberal/Democratic viewers. That brings in advertising revenue.

It really is that simple.

[Nikki Stone 1]

11. How bad are FAUX's numbers?

I didn't realize the fundies had slipped in their daily propaganda viewing habits.

[xray s]

12. Down 58% in six months in 25-54 demo.

from Kos
http://yogo.dailykos.com/story/2005/5/18/233145/470

April '05 marks "the sixth consecutive month where FNC declined versus prior month in M-F, primetime P25-54 (every month since

Nov '04)," CNN's press release says. The 25-54 demo is coveted by advertisers. One insider called it a "downward spiral." FNC still has more demo viewers than CNN, though (443k vs. 304k in April).
Here are FNC's month-by-month weekday primetime averages in the 25-54 demographic:

Oct. 04: 1,074,000 /
Nov. 04: 891,000 /
Dec. 04: 568,000 /
Jan. 05: 564,000 /
Feb. 05: 520,000 /
March 05: 498,000 /
April 05: 445,000

This is a 58% drop in 6 months

Also: In April 2005, FNC's weekday primetime demo average decreased 25% compared to the year-ago, while CNN increased 27%

[Nikki Stone 1]

13. That's an unbelievable drop.

Was there any speculation as to why those figures went down so damned quickly?

[Double T]

14. TV Ratings Go As The Bush Pole Numbers Go............

D
O
W
N!!!!!!

[Nikki Stone 1]

16. That would nice if it were proven but I wonder if FAUX did any internal

polling?

[Donna Zen]

17. Murdoch

The Clark blog, as you can well imagine, has wondered about this as well. One of the posters there is reporter from Australia, and according to her, Murdoch looks out for number one at all times. Several years ago, Murdoch became disenchanted with conservative party and threw his weight behind the labor party. Bing-bang-bing! The conservatives fell. They are back now, but when Ruppert wanted to, they fell from grace.

Now Murdoch wanted unfettered media empire, and bush promised him just that. But lately, the bush FCC has been giving Mr. M fits. Really. Another poster provided some info about the latest deals that Ruppert doesn't like.

The other piece of this was a conference ($2,500 per head) held in California in April, with a panel that included both Murdoch and Clark. Please remember that Wes has a petition out to stop censorship and it is directed at the FCC. (Wes hates censorship). They may have known each other for a while, or maybe not. We of the Clark blog have no inside knowledge.

One other thing, right after 911, there was a newspaper article discussing the positioning of the various military analyst. It said that CNN had won the big prize: Wes Clark. Later, the WSJ also would comment that of all of the military talking-heads, Wes was the best. It is no surprise that Murdoch would have courted Wes. What surprised me was how partisan the discussion became with Hannity.

I hope Wes' contract is tight, really, really, tight. A fox blurb said that Geraldo (famous for making shit up) will be discussing Clark's views about Gitmo.

I don't like Clark being on fox, it makes me feel kinda sick. But truth be known, CNN can often be much worse, they just add more sugar to the poison. Nevertheless, everything that I'm hearing is that Wes is serious about getting our message to the masses. He's the perfect pitch sales person for us, but this is very dangerous. Even without all of the junk that has been the work of fools on so-called progressive boards, this has been a very hard week.

Anyway, now you can connect your own dots.

[Nikki Stone 1]

20. Ah. dots....

This was really informative and things are making a little more sense now. What kind of grief did the FCC give Murdoch? Was it with the new guy, Kevin Martin? Michael Powell left in the early spring.

I agree with you about CNN. They have been absolute crap since Time Warner took them over.

[Donna Zen]

23. bush favorites

Right now there is some problem over satellites. It is not about Murdoch expanding his empire, as it is about bush advancing things for Murdoch's competition.

Also, Murdoch is not a republican, he is more of a libertarian. Thus, he too, hates censorship. Notice, it was Murdoch's rags in England that switched from the Tories to Labor and ushered in the days of Tony.

[Nikki Stone 1]

24. Satellites

I remember a congressional hearing...Damn. I lost it.

This really interests me because I remember reading something about a Congressional committee and satellites. Something international?

Damn. Damn. Damn.

[Gloria]

26. Clark's next two appearances seem to be on the FOX News Live show,

not one of the evening shoutdowns....This, hopefully, will mean he will not be relegated to the Hannity crap and will get a chance to do some real talking some of the time.....

6/19 6:10 pm ET
6/21 2:00 pm Et

[Nikki Stone 1]

27. So he'll actually be useful as a war commentator, expert

..

[snowbear]

18. It's all about the money honey... $$

On one of Al Franken's programs recently, they had the guy who reports on Media Matters.

He briefly talked about Murdoch and his theory that Murdoch was more a man of GREED than of partisan politics. Or at least as of LATELY-- (and especially when it comes to one of his many commodities, Faux news)

He said that Murdoch wasn't blind to the fact that Americans are experiencing a sense of change; that more and more are rejecting the reasons Bush gave for going to war in Iraq.

If you think about it.. Murdoch owns a LOT of publications that crank out anti-Bush stories. Not in the United States (yet) - but who knows where he'll go if Faux keeps sliding.

Hell.. He even owns the crack-pot paper in Florida that exposed Limbaugh!

I haven't seen him start to openly support Democrats (aside from NM Governor Bill Richardson).. He donated to his re-election efforts..

But who knows?!?

:shrug: Anything is possible.

[Nikki Stone 1]

21. It's scary that this man's personal whim can shift the political scene

I suppose I should be glad that Murdoch is losing money so he loosens up on the neocon monopoly of his station, but Christ! all that power in the hands of one ruthless sonovabitch.

[Stinky The Clown]

25. I'm not so sure his whims move politics so much as he senses trends and

gets on top of them before they break.

Much as I dislike Faux ... and in fact can't really even bear to watch it ..... I'm not so sure they set the trend as much as saw it early and got on board. The trend in media was Limbaugh, et al. In that regard Faux is very much a Johnny Come Lately.

And of late, this country has been feeling tectonic shifts. To be sure the rumblings are low and slow, but they're there.

Here's Stinky the Clown's barometric metric:

When either of these happen, the change is real. A) Faux fires a notable RW spittle flecker ..... or ...... B) Faux gives an hour show to someone like Amy Goodman or Randi Rhodes or Stephanie Miller.

Corollary (minor indicators of the impending change): They hire more people like Clark and allow them to speak their minds with the RW volume turned down so their voice levels are matched.