The Fox Effect: How Roger Ailes Turned a Network into a Propaganda Machine

by David Brock

  Perhaps nobody on the Fox News payroll was more brazen about his political activities than Dick Morris, who regularly promoted the efforts of his Super PAC for America and other campaign committees on Fox shows.

  Karl Rove topped them all, raising more than $50 million through his new groups American Crossroads and Crossroads GPS, and running more than 27,000 ads targeting Democrats around the country. Other than the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and AFSCME, few outside groups could claim that kind of footprint in the 2010 election.

  This widespread behavior drew a clear contrast between Fox News and MSNBC, which suspended those who violated the network’s rules against partisan activities. The disparity betrayed not only Fox’s lack of journalistic standards but also its ideological bias: virtually all of the political work done by the network’s contributors benefited the Republican Party.

  A result of Fox’s hiring its “contributors” was to enable their partisan activities. Political work is often more intensive and less lucrative than the private sector. But Fox contributors are paid handsomely. Their cushy network gigs afforded the Republican heavyweights more time to spend on their political projects, which in turn made them more relevant as on-air contributors.

  Tellingly, none of the left-leaning contributors on Fox News were as politically active or influential as their Republican counterparts.

  With all of the political work of its employees, it was hardly surprising when Fox’s parent corporation itself decided to directly invest in Republican organizations. In mid-August 2010, Bloomberg News broke the story that News Corp. had donated $1 million to the Republican Governors Association (RGA), making it the group’s largest corporate donor. The RGA’s only other seven-figure donation came from libertarian billionaire and notorious right-wing funder David Koch.

  While political contributions from large corporations are not unusual, a gift of that size from a publicly traded company was extraordinary. Moreover, such contributions are typically balanced, as corporations attempt to win influence with politicians on both sides of the aisle.

  For instance, in 2010 General Electric’s PAC, at the time the parent company of MSNBC, gave $30,000 apiece to the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, the National Republican Congressional Committee, the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, and the National Republican Senatorial Committee. News Corp. did write checks for several thousand dollars to Democrats, including Senators Harry Reid and Chuck Schumer, but none of the contributions rivaled its gift to the RGA.

  Fox’s parent company had crossed an ethical boundary. According to Kelly McBride, an expert on media ethics at the Poynter Institute, “[Political contribution by news companies] reinforces the notion that the media organization itself has a political bias. For the consumer who wants non-partisan news, they are less likely to seek out that source.” She added, “To be perfectly ethical, they should not make the donation—you are compromising the appearance of fairness.”9

  News Corp. saw no problem with its actions. As spokesman Jack Horner wrote in an e‑mail to Politico reporter Ben Smith, “News Corporation believes in the power of free markets, and the RGA’s pro-business agenda supports our priorities at this most critical time for our economy.”10 News Corp. was no longer afraid to acknowledge its political agenda.

  Rupert Murdoch offered a different explanation for the contribution, saying, “It had nothing to do with Fox News. The RGA [gift] was actually [a result of] my friendship with John Kasich.”11 Kasich was the former Fox News host who would go on to be elected governor of Ohio.

  In September, Politico reported that News Corp. had also donated $1 million to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. Despite the role of local chapters nationwide, this was not simply a gift to a business-friendly trade association. The Chamber was in the midst of a $72 million negative ad campaign targeting Democrats. The commercials, which were funded in part by Fox News’s parent company, included some of the most dishonest ads of the cycle.

  For example, an ad running in Arizona attacked Democratic representative Gabrielle Giffords, stating: “But Gabrielle, your change has meant massive job loss. Unemployment has doubled since you took office. You voted with President Obama ninety percent of the time; for government-run health care and an energy bill that would raise taxes and kill more than forty thousand Arizona jobs.”12 These misleading claims distorted Giffords’s record and the impact of the policies she supported.

  Another ad targeting several endangered Democrats included various falsehoods about health care reform: “Unemployment. Spending. Debt. Washington’s broken and [insert name’s] policies are making it worse. [Insert name] voted for Nancy Pelosi’s trillion-dollar big-government health care. And [insert name] voted to gut Medicare by five hundred billion dollars. More than [insert population/state] seniors face reduced benefits because of [insert name]. Government-run health care, Medicare cuts.”13

  Finally, some of the ads were simply derisive, such as this attack on Florida representative Alan Grayson: “Tired of big-mouth politicians ignoring our big problems? Alan Grayson is the most extreme. [GRAYSON:] ‘Die quickly. The Republicans want you to die quickly. Die quickly.’ But when it comes to Nancy Pelosi, big barker Grayson turns into a lapdog. Obamacare, job-killing energy taxes, union giveaways. Good boy, Alan.”14

  Between August 1 and Election Day, the Chamber paid to broadcast more than twenty-five thousand political attacks.15 The magnitude of the Chamber’s campaign push was likely part of the reason News Corp. wasn’t eager to disclose its gift. When asked if he expected the company’s political contributions to become public, Murdoch said, “The RGA we did,” but “we didn’t expect the other one.”16 Why would a news organization feel the need to keep its giving a secret? At the company’s annual meeting in October, Murdoch finally admitted the company’s motivation, saying it was “in the interest of the country and of all the shareholders … that there be a fair amount of change in Washington.”17

  With the company’s blessing, Fox News hosts didn’t feel the need to conceal their support for the Chamber, either. In response to accusations that the Chamber was using foreign money to fund its electoral activities, Glenn Beck announced, “I would like to make this the biggest fund-raising day in the Chamber’s history.” After pledging to contribute ten thousand dollars on his own, Beck said, “So put your money where your mouth is. If you have a dollar, please go to GlennBeck.com or to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and donate today. Let’s break all records. Let’s show these people that we—we actually believe in something different than what Barack Obama and Joe Biden are saying.”18

  Beck’s efforts paid off. That day, the Chamber received more than $312,000 in online donations, the organization’s largest single-day haul ever. The Chamber was appreciative of Beck’s support, with spokesman Tom Collamore writing, “We just wanted to say thank you to Mr. Beck and his many loyal listeners who believe in our mission of protecting and advocating for the principles of free enterprise. And for those of you who didn’t have a chance to contribute yesterday—or who want to contribute again—just click here.”19

  Glenn Beck’s advocacy for the Chamber wasn’t his biggest contribution to the Republican campaign effort. His “Restoring Honor” rally on August 28 brought the conservative movement to Washington, D.C., for a pre-election conclave.

  He had announced the rally the previous November at a retirement community in Florida. In front of a crowd of approximately twenty thousand, Beck proclaimed:

  Next year, we’re holding—I’ve divided the country up into seven separate regions, and I’m having conventions around the country. They’re education conventions. You’re going to get up early on a Saturday morning and you’re going to go to bed late. And you are going to learn about history, you’re going to learn about finance, you’re going to learn about community organizing. You’re going to learn everything we need to know. If you want to be a politician, we’re going to teach you how to be a politician … We’re going to do seven of these,
is the initial thought. And then, come August 28—I would like you to make your plans now—to join me at the feet of Abraham Lincoln in Washington, D.C.”20

  The event was supposed to be part of Beck’s “100-year plan” to stop the “ticking time bomb” that progressives had set in motion a century earlier to create a “socialist utopia.”21 From there, it morphed into a fund-raiser for the Special Operations Warrior Foundation. The charity’s tax status required the rally to be nonpolitical, so it became about “Restoring Honor.”

  Throughout the summer, Beck promoted the rally nightly on his show, proclaiming that it would be a “historic” day, signifying a “turning point in America” that your “children will remember.” Beck claimed that in planning the event, he did not recognize that August 28, 2010, was already historic: it was the fortieth anniversary of Dr. Martin Luther King’s “I Have a Dream” speech, which was delivered in the same area where Beck intended to hold his event. When he became aware of his oversight, Beck decided to hijack the civil rights hero’s message, claiming the scheduling error was “divine providence.”22 Beck went on to assert that his rally would “pick up Martin Luther King’s dream that has been distorted and lost and we say, we bought it when he first said it, it is time to restore it and to finish it.”23

  In addition to Beck’s flacking, others on Fox News promoted the event as well. In a segment devoted to the Reverend Al Sharpton’s criticism of Beck, Fox & Friends directed viewers to Beck’s website for more information about the rally. Bill O’Reilly also hosted Beck to defend the event’s timing and message. It was during this interview that Beck claimed, “I don’t think black people own the legacy of Dr. Martin Luther King.”24

  When August 28 finally arrived, it was obvious that Beck’s rally was far from nonpartisan. The Tea Party Patriots provided four hundred volunteers to satisfy the National Park Service’s requirement for a permit. Additionally, the National Rifle Association, FreedomWorks, Americans for Prosperity, and other conservative groups participated by promoting the rally, holding corresponding events, and even bussing members to Washington, D.C.

  Beck also relied on Republican politicians to help pay for the event. Senator Orrin Hatch and Representative Jason Chaffetz, both of Utah, joined Beck at a Salt Lake City fund-raiser in July. Beck also auctioned off a personal tour of the Capitol with Michelle Bachmann, which raised $27,500 toward “Restoring Honor.”

  Furthermore, Beck was unambiguous about his political motivations. “On August 28, I’m going to Washington, D.C., and I’m going to be at the feet of Abraham Lincoln and facing the Washington Monument,” he said. “Everybody tries to fix the capital. I’m telling you, the capital will fix itself if we just stand between Washington and Lincoln and try to be those people. Restore honor in the country, and we’ll be fixed.”25

  The actual event was an odd mix of a religious revival, a political protest, and a celebrity parade. On the night before the gathering, Beck announced the creation of the “Black Robe Regiment.” He explained the next day, “The Black Robe Regiment is back again today. These 240 men and women of all faiths are standing here today … These 240 men and women from all faiths represent thousands of clergy that we couldn’t fit into this area that are amongst you now—thousands that have come here to the Mall to stand with America and God. And those thousands that are here represent 180 million people.”26 Beck’s regiment primarily consisted of anti-gay members of the clergy, one of whom later publicly fantasized about the president begging for forgiveness for destroying America.

  Breaking Beck’s pledge to keep politics out of it, featured speaker Sarah Palin took a not-so-thinly veiled shot at the president. Referencing Obama’s statement that his election would “fundamentally transform” the country, Palin said, “I must assume that you too, knowing that, no, we must not fundamentally transform America as some would want, we must restore America and restore her honor.”

  Beck capped the day with an odd prediction. “Somewhere in this crowd—I know it. I have been looking for the next George Washington. I can’t find him. I know he is in this crowd. He may be eight years old, but this is the moment. This is the moment that he dedicates his life, that he sees giants around him. And twenty-five years from now, he will come not to this stair, but to those stairs. And he can proclaim, ‘I have a new dream.’ That must be our goal: to raise the next great monument.”27

  While the blend of religion, politics, and theater was somewhat confusing, the real impact of the event had been bringing tens of thousands of right-wing voters to Washington, D.C., giving conservative advocacy groups such as FreedomWorks a golden opportunity to organize and train activists for the election fight ahead. These would be the activists on the ground that would help the GOP win on Election Day.

  After Tea Party darling Christine O’Donnell shocked the political world in September with her primary victory in the Delaware Senate race, Sarah Palin imparted some sage wisdom to the newly minted Republican nominee. Appearing on The O’Reilly Factor, Palin advised O’Donnell to “go with her gut, get out there and speak to the American people, speak through Fox News and let the independents who are tuning in to you, let them know what it is that she stands for, the principles behind her positions.”28

  That weekend, O’Donnell canceled interviews on CBS’s Face the Nation and Fox News Sunday at the last minute. Apparently, even Fox host Chris Wallace represented too tough a challenge for the candidate, who opted instead for an interview with Sean Hannity a few days later.

  Here are just a handful of the softball questions Hannity posed during the sixteen-minute interview:

  “There seems to be, if you look at Lisa Murkowski, and a lot of other races, Charlie Crist, as an example, I’m almost calling it the sore loser syndrome. Is [Mike Castle], what is your take on him?”

  “You made an appearance [on Bill Maher’s Politically Incorrect] talking I guess about a boyfriend when you were a teenager … saying that you had dabbled into witchcraft. Why don’t you explain to people, what was that about?”

  “[Maher is] promising to keep bringing out old tapes, and other people promising to dredge up old comments that you’ve made, what is your reaction to that?”

  “One of the things I’ve noticed is that there is, in this campaign, I don’t hear any Democrats running on health care, running on the stimulus, their support for Obama, Reid, and Pelosi. So, what are we to make of the attacks against you?”29

  At one point, Hannity brought up another bit of guidance from Palin, saying, “Governor Sarah Palin tweeted and I thought she gave you some interesting advice and I want to get your take on it. ‘Christine O’Donnell’s strategy, time’s limited, use it to connect with local voters who you’ll be serving versus appeasing national media seeking your destruction.’ ”30

  “She’s absolutely right,” O’Donnell replied, explaining that her campaign was taking national media appearances “off the table”31 to focus on local events. Hannity was the exception. Indeed, even on Fox News, his show was a uniquely welcoming place for Republicans.

  O’Donnell’s cancelation and subsequent appearance on Hannity raised questions among many in the media. “I would like to see us in a position where candidates don’t get to pick and choose which shows they go to,” said Kevin Smith, president of the Society of Professional Journalists. “Tough questions have to get asked. I think the voters in Delaware would like to see that.”32

  Christine O’Donnell should never have been the Republican nominee. The Party had a clear shot at capturing the seat previously held by Vice President Joe Biden. Congressman Mike Castle, the former governor who had represented Delaware’s at-large district in the House for seventeen years, was the frontrunner in the race. He was a moderate who was popular among independents. Meanwhile, the Democratic Party had failed to recruit a top-tier candidate, such as Joe Biden’s son Beau, and nominated a little-known county executive named Chris Coons.

  In any other year, Castle probably would have sailed into the Senate
, but he was the victim of bad timing. While Delaware was a moderate state, the Republican Party was dominated by Tea Party supporters who didn’t care about O’Donnell’s lack of experience or her thirty-point loss to Biden two years earlier. They were also willing to ignore her sketchy personal history, which included an IRS lien against her for more than $11,000 in back taxes and allegations that she had used campaign funds for personal benefit.

  O’Donnell’s victory revealed a fissure in the Fox News family. Karl Rove bemoaned O’Donnell’s nomination, saying that “this is not a race we’re going to be able to win.” This provoked a response from Palin, who retorted on The O’Reilly Factor, “Some of these good old boys—and I have nothing against Karl Rove personally, you know he’s the expert—but Bill [O’Reilly], some of these folks, they are saying that people like Christine O’Donnell and others, Tea Party Americans, can’t win because they don’t want them to win, because they know that … these folks are gonna shake it up. And they are going to do what’s right for America, not necessarily what is right for a political party machine.”33

  In a trend that also played out in Alaska, Palin was able to best Rove in the primary, but the general election would be a different story. Within days, it became obvious that Rove was right.

  As the official organs of party support realized her campaign was a lost cause, O’Donnell began using their lack of enthusiasm and financial support to raise money on her own. There was evidence that at least some of the division among Republicans was kabuki theater. Indeed, The Huffington Post’s Howard Fineman reported on a strategy meeting at which O’Donnell told Republican officials, “I’ve got Sean Hannity in my back pocket, and I can go on his show and raise money by attacking you guys.”34 Hannity’s program was a platform to raise money from the Tea Party crowd—and to pressure the Republican establishment to fall in line.