Did Fox News kill the Stormy Daniels story?

[Brian63]

Wow. An ex-Fox News Reporter came upon the Stormy Daniels story shortly before the 2016 elections, and her seniors at Fox News effectively told her to not investigate it further and just let it die. A lawyer for that reporter went on Ari Melber's MSNBC show earlier this week and *winked* *winked* to the House committee with oversight that they could require that the reporter tell her accounting of the events and provide other material evidence. That would be the only way that the NDA between the Fox reporter and Fox could be broken. So the House did make that request. This may turn out to be an explosive story unfolding.

https://twitter.com/TheBeatWithAri/status/1106323564356091905

ETA: If you like videos:

https://www.msnbc.com/the-beat-with...tormy-daniels-after-beat-report-1458326083800

 

[J842P]

Is this really going to matter? Who exactly is going to change their mind if this turns out to be the case?

 

[ZiprHead]

It'll be more damning towards Fox News than Bonespurs.

 

[Brian63]

Is this really going to matter? Who exactly is going to change their mind if this turns out to be the case?

It should be investigated further by Congress or the DOJ (I do not know the legalese involved) just to determine if it is true or not.

Whatever reactions to the new information the citizenship has is up to us citizens and activists. Even if the Fox echo chamber audience is very thick-skulled, every little chink in the armor will help somewhat, and especially give the network less credibility among the more middle-ground electorate as a news source.

 

[ZiprHead]

Could Ailes pulling the story be considered a possibly illegal campaign contribution?

 

[DrZoidberg]

Wow. An ex-Fox News Reporter came upon the Stormy Daniels story shortly before the 2016 elections, and her seniors at Fox News effectively told her to not investigate it further and just let it die. A lawyer for that reporter went on Ari Melber's MSNBC show earlier this week and *winked* *winked* to the House committee with oversight that they could require that the reporter tell her accounting of the events and provide other material evidence. That would be the only way that the NDA between the Fox reporter and Fox could be broken. So the House did make that request. This may turn out to be an explosive story unfolding.

https://twitter.com/TheBeatWithAri/status/1106323564356091905

ETA: If you like videos:

https://www.msnbc.com/the-beat-with...tormy-daniels-after-beat-report-1458326083800

This story really is breaking news. My mind is boggled. How could this have happened? It's almost as if Fox news aren't impartial and are actively supporting the Republicans.

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

Is this really going to matter?

Because that's the attitude we have toward crimes: whether or not investigating them and indicting the criminals will "matter" to a select group of radical Republicans.

 

[J842P]

Is this really going to matter? Who exactly is going to change their mind if this turns out to be the case?

It should be investigated further by Congress or the DOJ (I do not know the legalese involved) just to determine if it is true or not.

Whatever reactions to the new information the citizenship has is up to us citizens and activists. Even if the Fox echo chamber audience is very thick-skulled, every little chink in the armor will help somewhat, and especially give the network less credibility among the more middle-ground electorate as a news source.

Investigated for what, exactly?

 

[J842P]

Is this really going to matter?

Because that's the attitude we have toward crimes: whether or not investigating them and indicting the criminals will "matter" to a select group of radical Republicans.

I'm honestly trying to understand the legal issue here. As far as I know, cable news outlets have discretion over what they choose to investigate or air.

 

[Brian63]

Is this really going to matter? Who exactly is going to change their mind if this turns out to be the case?

It should be investigated further by Congress or the DOJ (I do not know the legalese involved) just to determine if it is true or not.

Whatever reactions to the new information the citizenship has is up to us citizens and activists. Even if the Fox echo chamber audience is very thick-skulled, every little chink in the armor will help somewhat, and especially give the network less credibility among the more middle-ground electorate as a news source.

Investigated for what, exactly?

Any kind of killing a newsworthy story and investigation by a media organization, to suit their political agenda. Whether any crime was committed or not, I do not know (not a lawyer). It should be investigated because it is a very newsworthy story though.

 

[J842P]

Investigated for what, exactly?

Any kind of killing a newsworthy story and investigation by a media organization, to suit their political agenda. Whether any crime was committed or not, I do not know (not a lawyer). It should be investigated because it is a very newsworthy story though.

By the DOJ!?

I mean it sounds more like a job for WaPo or the Times.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Could Ailes pulling the story be considered a possibly illegal campaign contribution?

If money doesn't pass hands, it'd probably be very hard to show that. That is what did Cohen in with Daniels.

 

[Brian63]

By the DOJ!?

I mean it sounds more like a job for WaPo or the Times.

Well apparently the ex-reporter's lawyer herself and the oversight committee disagreed, and did find a legal justification for investigating a possible crime, more than just bad journalism. Again, not a lawyer here, just relaying what has happened so far.

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

Is this really going to matter?

Because that's the attitude we have toward crimes: whether or not investigating them and indicting the criminals will "matter" to a select group of radical Republicans.

I'm honestly trying to understand the legal issue here. As far as I know, cable news outlets have discretion over what they choose to investigate or air.

From the OP (my emphasis):

A lawyer for that reporter went on Ari Melber's MSNBC show earlier this week and *winked* *winked* to the House committee with oversight that they could require that the reporter tell her accounting of the events and provide other material evidence.

It wasn't just that they killed the story; it's also whether or not the story contained material evidence that might be relevant to the investigation.

 

[Keith&Co.]

I'm honestly trying to understand the legal issue here. As far as I know, cable news outlets have discretion over what they choose to investigate or air.

The question is if they killed the story because of it's newsworthiness, or lack thereof
OR
whether they killed it as an explicit favor to Trump, with the expectation of some sort of payback later. Like, "We'll kill this story, and maybe some day you'll put Bill Shine in your cabinet."

Or maybe even blackmail. "We took care of this, now you have to..."

 

[Tom Sawyer]

I don't know if they'd need any sort of payback or the like. Protecting Trump and skewing the news coverage in favour of him was kind of their job.

 

[Gun Nut]

"News" is a word that means something. If the FCC can force the Fox News Network to remove "News" from its name, and prohibit claims they make to providing "news", then that would be a profound outcome. "Fox Information Network".

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

"News" is a word that means something. If the FCC can force the Fox News Network to remove "News" from its name, and prohibit claims they make to providing "news", then that would be a profound outcome. "Fox Information Network".

It should be forced to call itself what it actually is, "Right Wing Propaganda Network." When you're 95% propaganda and 5% "news" (as a smokescreen), then spade a spade.