Fox News The Shadow Government?

[msquared]

https://www.yahoo.com/news/former-trump-aides-detail-just-101330063.html

Well it seems like Trump took his marching orders from unelected Sean, Lou, Laura and Jeanine.

And we all know who they take their orders from.

So Ruppert Murdoch was running the country.

[TheDrake]

Unelected people put ideas in the heads of leaders all the time, don't they? Taking an order is a little different than being egged on. Presidents get egged on by donors, lobbyists, special interests, many sources.

No need to blow it out of proportion, from the article:

The Fox News stars would offer Trump advice on policy and personnel, but "a lot of it was PR — what he should be saying and how he should be saying it; he should be going harder against wearing masks or whatever."

It's not like they were dictating foreign or domestic policy.

Isn't it worse that he was being advised by Mike Lindell and Jared Kushner?

[msquared]

The difference I see is two fold. First, they are "reporters" and are advising the President. Second, at least we knew Jared was an advisor.  Was it public knowledge how much influence these people, who are supposedly objective, had over a sitting president?

[TheDrake]

No it was a complete mystery when he was calling into their shows constantly that he might also be listening to them and regurgitating their talking points.

The problem with them being reporters is mostly one of journalistic integrity, which we also already knew Fox hosts didn't have.

[Grant]

https://www.yahoo.com/news/former-trump-aides-detail-just-101330063.html

Well it seems like Trump took his marching orders from unelected Sean, Lou, Laura and Jeanine.

And we all know who they take their orders from.

So Ruppert Murdoch was running the country.

1.  As Drake mentioned, most of the President's advisor's, specifically his cabinet, are all unelected individuals.  Nothing special here except that Sean, Lou, Laura, and Jeanine could be considered more of a shadow cabinet than a shadow government. 

2.  These people were just as much suckups as they were advisors.  Look what happened on Jan 6.  Hannity and Ingrahm are begging Lord Babyhands to make a statement and The Perfect 4th Grade Communicator sat on his hands.  If they advised Chattegrabber to resign, he likely would not.  I don't believe their "influence" was almighty. 

3.  Rupert Murdoch is like 90 years old.  Why need a boogyman? 

Yes, Fox News pundits had an inordinate amount of access and influence on the Presidency than CNN or MSNBC ever had on a Democratic president.  That's because they were his chief flatterers with the most outreach.  He was the type of person that loved having his ass kissed and loved the people that did it.  He didn't get that from his cabinet.  They're not professional suck-ups.  Of course he is going to love Sean Hannity more than Mike Pence when Sean Hannity is kissing his ass every night in front of millions.  Yes, I don't think it is good, but it goes hand in hand with L'Orange's personality.  No, it doesn't make Fox News a shadow government. 

PS- Don't forget all the times The Perfect Caller would rant about Fox News when Shepherd or Wallace or Baier would air something he didn't like.  Murdoch isn't some giant malevolent spider in the middle of a web.  You don't need a Bond villain. 

[Fenring]

Actually I prefer the prior line of thinking, trying to trace lines of power to and from the President. I don't see why 'news' people and media moguls should be dismissed as potentially having significant influence. Anywhere the $$ flows it can mean real power politics. Not that this project is really doable, at least not without an amazing amount of research. But the thought is essentially valid of wondering which sorts of people whisper in the President's ears.

[rightleft22]

Rupert Murdoch is like 90 years old.  Why need a boogyman?

I go with acumens razor. Murdoch might lean right but his motivations appear to be all about profit without consequence. He just doesn't care about journalistic integrity, at least not if it gets in the way of profit.
I base that on no direct knowledge of this person only on how I view the output of his action or inaction as it concerns his media empire. 
   

[Grant]

I go with acumens razor.

WTH is that?  Is it some kind of Gillette?

Getting kind of tired of people whipping out "razors" every time to justify lazy thought. 

Murdoch might lean right but his motivations appear to be all about profit without consequence. He just doesn't care about journalistic integrity, at least not if it gets in the way of profit.
I base that on no direct knowledge of this person only on how I view the output of his action or inaction as it concerns his media empire.

All that without any direct knowledge?  Pretty impressive.  I mean, what knowlege is this based off at all?  Are we talking about anything not written by the Grey Hooker? 

[Fenring]

Murdoch might lean right but his motivations appear to be all about profit without consequence. He just doesn't care about journalistic integrity, at least not if it gets in the way of profit.
I base that on no direct knowledge of this person only on how I view the output of his action or inaction as it concerns his media empire.

All that without any direct knowledge?  Pretty impressive.  I mean, what knowlege is this based off at all?  Are we talking about anything not written by the Grey Hooker?

Haha, I like that we're in a fanciful age where claims like "corporate mogul operates on profit motive above other concerns" requires some kind of mathematical proof to be accepted. Used to be a time people took this sort of thing for granted, wonder what happened...

[rightleft22]

All that without any direct knowledge?  Pretty impressive.

I thought I was being clear and upfront that I was speaking out of my ass.
I don't know the man personally so can only base a impression (that could be wrong) by what I've seen via documentaries and the like.
He doesn't come off as a boogie man that wants to rule the world, just his empire, influence measured in profit 
I can't even judge if its right or wrong of him to do so.
Its not how I would want to run a media empire and still feel good about myself, which one of many reasons why I don't have one or why I would never be able to achieve what the man achieved.

A wise man would say nothing, but I am not that either. Just my 2 cents that isn't even worth that. At least I'm not pretending otherwise.

[TheDrake]

@TerrifiedIn2022: Fox news has influenced the President!

William Randolph Heart (deceased): Amateurs.

[TheDeamon]

The difference I see is two fold. First, they are "reporters" and are advising the President. Second, at least we knew Jared was an advisor.  Was it public knowledge how much influence these people, who are supposedly objective, had over a sitting president?

Most of those mentioned aren't reporters. They're political commentators. I know Hannity has never claimed to be a reporter himself, although he has had reporters work for him. Hannity will identify as part of "the media" though.

[alai]

Haha, I like that we're in a fanciful age where claims like "corporate mogul operates on profit motive above other concerns" requires some kind of mathematical proof to be accepted. Used to be a time people took this sort of thing for granted, wonder what happened...

Because that principle used to be consistent with "assume the worst of people".  Then we (and allegedly they) thought of yet-more-concerning motivations.

[alai]

Getting kind of tired of people whipping out "razors" every time to justify lazy thought.

If this is the most tiresome trope you regularly run into here, you're a fortunate man indeed!  When else?  On the "turtles all the way down" thread?  Where it was complained that a well-known philosophical razor was...  not philosophical enough, somehow.

[alai]

Most of those mentioned aren't reporters. They're political commentators. I know Hannity has never claimed to be a reporter himself, although he has had reporters work for him. Hannity will identify as part of "the media" though.

Ingraham might have Notions of Herself as being a journalist (I see her wikipedia page does, but no source for that evidence to the naked eye), but indeed, that's not the "side of the house" she or the rest of them work for at Fox.  The distinction is one might hrrrrrm at -- and I suspect its lost on much of their viewership, DJT included -- but they're pretty insistent on it.  So not entirely down to how they "self-identify".

[alai]

Isn't it worse that he was being advised by Mike Lindell and Jared Kushner?

Yes.  Though they're both pretty bad.

Mind you, the distinction is perhaps really that the Kushner and Lindell cases are both bad for government (because of the familial conflict of interest, and Bad Craziness, respectively), whereas with the broadcasters, it's largely bad for the media itself.

[Fenring]

Haha, I like that we're in a fanciful age where claims like "corporate mogul operates on profit motive above other concerns" requires some kind of mathematical proof to be accepted. Used to be a time people took this sort of thing for granted, wonder what happened...

Because that principle used to be consistent with "assume the worst of people".  Then we (and allegedly they) thought of yet-more-concerning motivations.

Oh? And what would those be?

[alai]

Oh? And what would those be?

In reality?  I don't claim to know.  Windows into souls!  Hence the qualified nature of what I said.  As speculated, well, how lurid do you want?

But "power" would be an obvious candidate.  Insofar as that's even distinct from "money".  Certainly there's a conversation rate between the two.