Given the constant drone about the bias in the media, you would expect that when a story breaks concerning a multinational coporation offering to bankroll a run at the Presidency, then they might put it on the front page , rather than well inside in the "Style" section? "So now we have it: what appears to be hard, irrefutable evidence of Rupert Murdoch's ultimate and most audacious attempt thwarted, thankfully, by circumstance to hijack America's democratic institutions on a scale equal to his success in kidnapping and corrupting the essential democratic institutions of Great Britain through money, influence and wholesale abuse of the privileges of a free press. In the American instance, Murdoch's goal seems to have been nothing less than using his media empire notably Fox News to stealthily recruit, bankroll and support the presidential candidacy of General David Petraeus in the 2012 election... " http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/dec/20/bernstein-murdoch-ailes-petreaus-presidency
Wow. You know, I wish I could say I was stunned, but sadly....I'm not. Okay, not totally true. I am stunned that the "liberal media" hasn't taken this and run with it. I've never doubted that Murdoch and Fox news were utterly corrupt, (thus my non-stunned status at reading about it); but I should think that any other media outlet would see this story for what it is. Thanks for the thread!
Why is it any worse for Fox to do that than, say, Goldman Sachs? Are you just now finding out that corporations buy politicians?
Just my humble opinion, but America has always had this little tradition of journalists' policy being neutral, reporting the news, certainly not using their position to buy politicians and then use their position to slam their bought candidates opponents over and over and over. And I think the referenced article made an excellent point. If NBC---ABC or CNN, pretty much anyone BUT Fox had done this, Fox would be all the hell over it like stink on poop.
