Fox News executive attacks rival networks for focusing too much on Haiti and ignoring ?big stories in America.?
Last week, the Massachusetts Senate race boosted Fox News to a major ratings win, beating out the USA Network, the longtime top-ranked basic cable network in prime time. The LA Times’ Matea Gold notes that “in prime time, the network’s focus was on politics far more than Haiti.” Fox News Executive Vice President for Programming […]
Last week, the Massachusetts Senate race boosted Fox News to a major ratings win, beating out the USA Network, the longtime top-ranked basic cable network in prime time. The LA Times’ Matea Gold notes that “in prime time, the network’s focus was on politics far more than Haiti.” Fox News Executive Vice President for Programming Bill Shine responded by attacking other networks, especially CNN, for covering Haiti at the expense of “big stories in America”:
But in prime time, the network’s focus was on politics far more than Haiti. According to a news analysis by the Project for Excellence in Journalism, Fox News devoted 44% of its airtime to the Senate race and 16% to Haiti.
That was the case for MSNBC’s left-leaning prime-time commentators as well: The network spent 51% of its airtime on the Senate race and just 11% on Haiti. CNN chose the opposite route, devoting 67% of prime time to Haiti and 19% to the election.
“Look, what happened in Haiti was just horrific,” said Shine, who said the network devoted significant resources to covering the story and showcased the coverage throughout the day. “But there are also some big stories in America that we chose not to ignore the way that other networks seemed to.”
Fox News was one of the few networks that chose to not broadcast the Hope for Haiti Now benefit concert. Instead, Bill O’Reilly aired a segment about Sarah and Bristol Palin’s “body language” during their Oprah interview and Sean Hannity conducted an interview with Karl Rove on the Obama administration’s approval ratings and health care reform.
Lobbyists For Foreign Corporations Begin Fight To Ensure Foreign Money Can Influence American Elections
Last week, the 5-4 Supreme Court ruling in the Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission decision invalidated a sixty-three year-old ban on corporate money in federal elections. The ruling gives corporations essentially the same rights as individuals in their ability to spend freely on political advertising, even if those advertisements explicitly advocate the election or […]
Last week, the 5-4 Supreme Court ruling in the Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission decision invalidated a sixty-three year-old ban on corporate money in federal elections. The ruling gives corporations essentially the same rights as individuals in their ability to spend freely on political advertising, even if those advertisements explicitly advocate the election or defeat of a federal candidate. One consequence of this decision is that foreign corporations with U.S.-subsidiaries are likely to be able to now spend unlimited amounts on American elections.
Congressional Democrats, led by Rep. Alan Grayson (D-FL), Rep. Chris Van Hollen (D-MD), and Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY), are drafting legislation to curb the influence of foreign corporations and foreign governments following the decision. However, the National Journal reported today that corporate lobbyists representing foreign corporations are already organizing to defeat such a proposal. The Organization for International Investment, a trade group representing foreign banks, oil companies, and other foreign corporations operating in the United States, “lashed out” at Van Hollen’s proposals. “The concern over foreign influence in our political system is a red herring,” said Nancy McLernon, the head of OII.
McLernon — who previously worked for Citizens for a Sound Economy, a stealth “grassroots” corporate lobbying group now known as Americans for Prosperity and FreedomWorks — is wrong to assert that the danger of foreign lobbying is simply a distraction. For instance, Saudi Arabia has already signaled that the progressive effort to build a clean energy American economy is its “biggest threat”:
Saudi Arabia’s economy depends on oil exports so stands to be one of the biggest losers in any pact that curbs oil demand by penalizing carbon emissions. “It’s one of the biggest threats that we are facing,” said Muhammed al-Sabban, head of the Saudi delegation to U.N. talks on climate change and a senior economic adviser to the Saudi oil ministry. […] Climate talks posed a bigger threat, Sabban said, and subsidies for the development of renewable energy were distorting market economics in the sector, he said.
Presumably because of the Citizens United ruling, Saudi Arabian-owned subsidiaries operating in the United States can now spend unlimited amounts advocating the defeat of candidates who support clean energy legislation. According to a ThinkProgress investigation, foreign-oil backed lobbyists in America are already instigating efforts to kill clean energy legislation. Fortunately, President Obama is expected to address the issue of foreign corporations influencing American elections in his State of the Union address tonight.
