Does Fox News Coverage = Republican Campaign Contribution?

Post Reply New Topic

Does Fox News coverage = GOP campaign contribution?

January 26, 2010 5:41 am ET

With its open and aggressive cheerleading -- not to mention on-air fundraising -- for Massachusetts Republican Scott Brown last week, Fox News crossed yet another threshold in its unabashed transformation into a purely political entity. Now completely turning its back on producing any semblance of independent journalism, Fox News eagerly flaunts its role as GOP kingmaker.

That relentlessly partisan approach continues to raise fundamental questions about what role Fox News plays in our political culture and, thanks to its shameless GOP boosterism, whether the cable channel and its programming should fall under the jurisdiction of the Federal Election Commission. Meaning, does Fox News' gung-ho GOP campaign coverage double as a contribution to the Republican Party, a contribution that should be regulated?

The Commission defines "contribution" to include any gift of money or "anything of value" made for the express purpose of influencing a federal election. A key Commission exemption for decades, though, has been granted to the news media, since they have been seen as "neutral" and not controlled by political interests. Therefore their editorial product could not be considered a "contribution" or "expenditure" to any campaign.

The exemption was created, in the words of the Commission, to ensure "the unfettered right of the newspapers, TV networks, and other media to cover and comment on political campaigns," which makes perfect sense, since there's nothing wrong with newspapers endorsing candidates or columnists berating incumbents. The exception has allowed journalists (and more recently bloggers) to report and pontificate about campaigns without having to worry about federal finance laws and whether their editorial efforts cross the line into candidate contributions.

That approach worked well because for decades there has been both a spoken and unspoken understanding among professional journalists as to what kind of guidelines and standards ought to be upheld in the pursuit of the news. That was especially true of cable and network news broadcasters, who wield so much influence in our TV-centric culture.

As former Federal Communications Commission chairman Reed Hundt once wrote: "Part of this tradition is that broadcasters do not show propaganda for any candidate, no matter how much a station owner may personally favor one or dislike the other. Broadcasters understand that they have a special and conditional role in public discourse... Virtually all broadcasters understand and honor it."

But as we've been stressing for the past year, the radically transformed Fox News no longer plays by any discernable rules. I mean, allowing one candidate, on the eve of a special election, to repeatedly raise funds on the air? That's unthinkable in any other newsroom in America. Yet that's the platform Fox News opened to Scott Brown in his quest to defeat Martha Coakley in Massachusetts last week. That is, when Fox News wasn't regularly smearing Coakley.

So the question must now be raised: Is Fox News' relentlessly one-sided coverage the equivalent of a massive campaign contribution to the GOP? And based on some recent regulatory language used by the FEC, the answer might just be "yes."

Republicans file FEC complaint against talk show over endorsement

Nov. 5, 2004 -- The political committee working to get Republicans elected to the U.S. House filed a complaint to the Federal Elections Commission accusing California radio station KFI-AM co-hosts John Kobylt and Ken Chiampou of "criminal behavior" for attacking Rep. David Dreier (R-Calif.) and endorsing his Democratic opponent, Cynthia Matthews.

Campaign finance experts, however, say election law explicitly allows the media to make editorial comments -- whether it's Rush Limbaugh endorsing President George W. Bush, Al Franken backing Sen. John Kerry, or Kobylt and Chiampou pushing for Matthews.

Kobylt and Chiampou criticized Dreier's positions on immigration, promoting a "Fire Dreier" campaign and making on-air appeals for voters to elect Matthews. In its complaint to federal elections officials, the National Republican Congressional Committee said the hosts gave Matthews an unlawful corporate, in-kind contribution of more than $25,000.

If they are guilty, then the rest of the mainstream media is guilty of doing the same for the Democrats.

If they are guilty, then the rest of the mainstream media is guilty of doing the same for the Democrats.

Not really
maybe MSNBC
but most media is not aware of its bias Fox knows that it is a bias source
they actively promote republican causes.

Who still watches Faux News?

They are acting like a political action committee which is perfectly legal.

Here is the bottom line: The FCC "fairness doctrine" is dead.

ruveyn

But, is Fox News violating any FEC rules?

Have the courts so ruled? If not, the answer is no.

ruveyn

Not only that, but Fox News is calling the shots for the Republicans. Fox News did not want to include a homosexual Republican in its televised debates, and unfairly violated its own rules to exclude him.

http://www.dallasvoice.com/fec-begins-a ... 87964.html

No laws broken. If you find that not to your liking then don't watch.

News papers editorialized freely (see first Amendment). -Cable- channels can also. They are not bound under the same regulations as broadcast media.

If Fox News Channel transmits news of a fire that is news. If they transmit political opinion that is editorializing. Even a news organization that broadcasts only fact must necessarily be selective since not ALL facts can be broadcasts. Its choice of facts to broadcast can be slanted by political opinion.

What is the big deal here? We have multiple outlets. Mix them, match them, gather or batch them.

ruveyn

Not really
maybe MSNBC
but most media is not aware of its bias Fox knows that it is a biased source
they actively promote republican causes.

Why do you liberals always accuse fox news of everything