Fox Will become Main News Source for Clear Channel
by Joe Flint for Wall Street Journal

Mon. Dec 6, 2004

News Corp.'s Fox News has reached an agreement to become the primary news provider
to radio giant Clear Channel Communications Inc.

The pact stands to greatly boost the radio presence of Fox News, which rolled
out its service last year, as it looks to compete with the much more entrenched
CBS Radio, a unit of Viacom Inc., and Walt Disney Co.'s ABC Radio.

Under the terms of the five-year deal, which starts next year, as many as 172
of Clear Channel's news and talk stations could eventually carry Fox's radio
service, which includes news updates of up ! to five minutes per hour and syndicated
talk shows by some of its cable news personalities, including Alan Colmes.

The Clear Channel partnership will give Fox News's nascent radio unit close
to 300 stations, including 37 in the top 40 markets. There are options in the
deal that could increase the number of Clear Channel stations affiliated with
Fox News over time. Fox News said that if all options are exercised, its service
could have more than 500 affiliates by mid-2005.

The teaming of Fox News and Clear Channel is sure to raise eyebrows among some
media-watchdog groups. With about 1,200 radio stations, Clear Channel of San
Antonio has become a lightning rod for concerns about consolidation in that
industry. Fox News, for its part, of ten is accused of having a conservative
bias, although Mr. Colmes is among the news operation's liberal commentators.

"We don't have a political agenda; what we have is an agenda to get the greatest
number of listeners for the longest period of time," said. Clear Channel Radio
Chief Executive John Hogan.

"The issue is choices and places to get news and information, and this doesn't
do anything to hamper that at all," said' Fox News Chairman and Chief Executive.
Roger Ailes. "In fact, it adds value."

Although the terms of the deal weren't disclosed, people familiar with the
transaction say Clear Channel will pay Fox News several million dollars annually
for the service. The all-cash deal marks a departure from Fox News's other radio
deals, which also included advertising time for it to sell. Clear Channel has
made a push to reduce the amount of advertising on its stations, which was its
primary motivator for do- ing a cash-only deal.

"This will expand dramatically our coverage, " Mr. Ailes said. He added that
the' boost in stations would allow Fox to expand its service's coverage and
staffing.

ABC Radio will absorb the biggest blow from the Clear Channel-Fox News deal,
according to Clear Channel's Mr. Hogan. While this deal doesn't necessarily
mean that Clear Channel would drop ABC, he indicated that likely would be the
case and that the bulk of the stations involved in this pact are affiliated
with ABC's syndicated news service. Even after losing these Clear Channel stations,
though, ABC Radio still will have more than 2,500 stations carrying its content,
and it remains the dominant player in the news-radio business. ABC Radio declined
to comment.

Besides its news programming, ABC Radio also syndicates the popular Paul Harvey
and Sean Hannity radio shows to Clear Channel, and those shows won't be affected
by the Fox News pact.

peas in a pod, together.

(anyone else humming the "Jefferton" theme in their head from "Tom Goes to the Mayor?"



Shmoo

I'll listen to Fox News on my TV, but not my radio.

Gotta love corporate media, its hand feeds us propaganda daily.
I enjoy www.infowars.com for my news. and www.prisonplanet.com

If it continues at the present rate we will have have one or prehaps two news channel feeds for both radio and tv. The government won't have so much to do then.

Main folks this hurts is the listener. No choices and easy to slant the news towards a single aspect of viewpoint. Whatever the agenda is.

Could you imagine what political coverage would be like in the media? Guess that part is already covered, if you don't want to play ball and present it their way then they will take the ball home and leave you without.

Gonna take one heck of a lot of wrangling to get things back to a reasonable choice. Can't think of anything that would begin to do that but antitrust. Just like the big oil companies of the 30's much of this needs broken up.

Certainly the music majors and Hollywood studios need it. They have far too much influance for the size of business they are. Anytime one group can affect the whole country in what laws are considered on a steady basis it is time to view that with the antitrust in mind.

I'm so glad the FCC is upholding its duty to make sure the airwaves contain diverse voices and localism.

Clear Channel has also reportedly put up billboards praising George Bush as "Our Leader". Saluting the billboards is still optional.

So far.

I stopped believing the news was impartle years ago. If you watch CNN they show their favorites and the same is true with Fox and MSNBC. Nothing new, when the news went from being the news and competing with TV shows for viewers it turned into another sitcom show to me. Just one that is based on current events.

Fox to Provide News to Clear Channel

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=494&ncid=762&e=8&u=/ap/20041206/
ap_en_tv/clear_channel_fox

SAN ANTONIO - Clear Channel Communications Inc., the nation's largest radio station operator, has picked Fox News Radio to be the primary source of national news for most of its news and talk stations, officials announced Monday.

The five-year agreement initially covers more than 100 radio stations.

Fox will provide a five-minute top-of-the-hour newscast, a nightly news broadcast, and around-the-clock dedicated national news coverage. In return, Fox News Radio will have access to news produced by San Antonio-based Clear Channel's news network.

No terms of the deal were disclosed. But Fox, a unit of News Corp., says if all options in the agreement are exercised, its radio service could have more than 500 affiliates by the middle of next year.

"Working this closely with a premiere national news provider for the majority of our news/talk stations makes overwhelming sense," said John Hogan, chief executive officer of Clear Channel Radio. "Because of the breadth of this relationship, our local news directors will get a more customized and higher quality national news product — and that's great for listeners."

"This deal positions Fox News to become a significant player in the radio industry and is another example of our commitment to the medium," said Roger Ailes, Fox News chairman and CEO.

Clear Channel, which operates 1,200 stations, has been getting its national news feeds from a variety of providers.

Shares in Clear Channel, slipped 8 cents, or 0.2 percent, to $33.07 in midday trading Monday on the New York Stock Exchange (news - web sites) — toward the low end of their 52-week trading range of $29.96 to $47.76.

Shares of News Corp. rose 1 cent, or 0.1 percent, to $18.18 on the NYSE. The stock has traded between $17.16 and $39.74 in the past 52 weeks.

George Bush will be my leader when he puts a chip in my brain that forces me to follow him. I wouldn't put it past him, mind you.
Infowars.com looks pretty good, I usually go to the infoshop news site http://www.infoshop.org/inews/
but infowars and prison planet look pretty cool.

I just stick with the Daily Show. That's real news. Mainly because there's audience reaction against what's really going on... which most of the time represents the country.

That's the way I look at it, anyway.

What's the matter, Lefties? Can't handle competition? Yessssss, the left's monopoly hold on the news media is being loosened. About time!

The left's monopoly on the news media?

Looking back over the past four years, it doesn't look as if any major media outlet was liberal enough to print the truth. This is why much of the nation believes that Sadaam himself flew at least two of the Sept. 11 planes.

Where is this great liberal media I've heard so much about? Please identify it, because every media orifice I see seems to be eating every little eggie Karl Rove dishes up.

Where is this great liberal media I've heard so much about? Please identify it, because every media orifice I see seems to be eating every little eggie Karl Rove dishes up.

George is right.

I don't know what your problem is, but you've suitably twisted the truth for some reason.

This news comes as no surprise: two evil media behemoths in bed together. What did you expect? Rush Limbaugh is already heard on over 400 radio stations across the country. And that's just him. Sean Hannity has got a radio show too. So does Bill O'Reilly and Laura Ingraham. Right wing talk radio is huge. So is right wing cable TV and right wing press.

Suitably Twisted, there is only one left-wing radio network in our country, and it isn't even a year old. It has only 40 stations - about a tenth or less of Rush's reach - but it is growing slowly. It's called Air America. That's the only radio talk station I listen to for news and opinion.

I can't stand the garbage that the right wing press -Washington Times, New York Post, NewsMax, Limbaugh, Fox, Sinclair, Weekly Standard, and so forth - spew out.

Oddly enough, Clear Channel does license several stations to carry Air America programming. I'm assuming those stations will thus be carrying right wing news with left-wing opinion. That won't work for very long on those stations - all their progressive listeners will complain.

Chalk up another victory, albeit small, for the right wing media.

:-:~ Phantom

considering a choice between the normal conservative talk show hosts and fox.. i would say fox spews more objective news.

Conservative talk show hosts which dominate the airwaves are far worse, they spew rabid falsehood and vicious invective.

Fox merely spins like a top.

Of course.. the last time i saw fox.. i was disgusted to hear them plainly villifying CANADA as the home of antiamericanism and an obstacle to american agendas.

It's beginning to remind me of clark's version of ISN from babylon 5.

In a kind of related story, "According to a new FCC estimate obtained by Mediaweek, nearly all indecency complaints in 2003—99.8 percent—were filed by the Parents Television Council, an activist group."

"Through early October, 99.9 percent of indecency complaints—aside from those concerning the Janet Jackson “wardrobe malfunction” during the Super Bowl halftime show broadcast on CBS— were brought by the PTC, according to the FCC analysis dated Oct. 1."
http://www.mediaweek.com/mediaweek/headlines/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1000731656

i say those people should take their martha stewart, 60's, "if the parents dont have two beds it shouldnt be on tv" attitude and start their own, socially backward, island nation state.

Get Over it: Geez doesn't matter who the president is, someone is going to complain...

SHIT, That idiot peanut farmer wanted to be your babysitter and take care of you. He probably would have taken complete control of your life had he not got caught getting his d**k wanked

"oesn't matter who the president is, someone is going to complain..."

Yeah, but it's always the same people.

And I almost agree with awehr -- but I think that if one group is almost the sole source of complaints, they should just create their own network and stop watching the other ones.

Either that or the networks should just dump all of their broadcast feeds and route through cable, thus eliminating the "airwaves" and any reason the FCC might have to exist (theoretically, but we know how reality works).

uhh, hey flake...Carter was the peanut farmer...where do you get your facts from? A box of cracker jacks?

Take another toke and go back to sleep.

I've already given up on the mainstream media. The FCC is worthless.

I don't want to imagine where we'd be without the interent - and where we'll be once they lock it down.

internet

George, I saw that story about the PTC. It's an outrage. Michael Powell has his ear cocked to a tiny minority of the American television audience. These people are pretty much against all TV anyway, so why should we listen to them? I agree - let 'em form their own network so we don't have to hear them.

FYI - those of you who have never heard of Media Matters, you should check it out. www.mediamatters.org

pinemikey, you are right on. Another conservative gets it wrong. (Rush Limbaugh does this kind of thing every day). I think ron77 should check his facts before he posts.

Phantom: The Media Matters article that George posted mentioned Jeff Jarvis. He's the guy who used the Freedom of Information Act to track down the complaints against the Fox TV show "Married in America" (which received a $1.2 million fine by the FCC).
http://www.buzzmachine.com/

Isn't it odd that the major scandals in the news business lately have been The New York Times and CBS News? Not Fox. Yet somehow I doubt there would be an uproar if CBS News sealed a contract for more radio outlets.

The asssumption underlying the criticism is that people should not be allowed another choice in radio news. This website is constantly decrying censorship, and the answer is, "If you don't like it, turn it off." If people didn't like Fox News, they would turn it off, and the Fox empire would crumble. Basically, it is an elitist point of view: You don't deserve a choice, because you are too dumb. You should only hear news that's in lockstep with the editorial board of the New York Times. The paper of record. Even if they do make up a story every now and again.

I'm beginning to hear this rather frequently from liberals, that most people believe Saddam was involved directly in 9/11, and this is the fault of Fox and conservative talk radio. Since I'm a regular listener of Limbaugh, I'm reasonably certain that this idea did not originate from him. Nor Michael Reagan. Nor Tony Snow. Have other conservative talk hosts actually made this claim? Fox News never made the claim either.

If the statistic is true, then people invented the idea themselves -- a spontaneous mass imagination of involvement. Because frankly, this is not what conservative news and radio has been saying. They were saying that Iraq had ties to al Qaeda (apparently not strong ties, but there were some meetings and some cooperation), Iraq harbored terrorists, it monetarily supported terrorism. In short, it was a "state sponsor" of terror. You cannot control terrorism without neutralizing state sponsorship. One may argue about the order in which terror sponsors must be dealt with, but they all must eventually be dealt with, sooner or later.

But I'm beginning to believe that this claim of so many believing Saddam responsible for 9-11 is actually bogus. What poll is being referred to? What EXACTLY were people in the poll asked?

"They were saying that Iraq had ties to al Qaeda (apparently not strong ties, but there were some meetings and some cooperation), Iraq harbored terrorists, it monetarily supported terrorism."

I'm curious, auto. Do you still believe that Iraq (Hussein) supported Al Qaeda?

"They were saying that Iraq had ties to al Qaeda (apparently not strong ties, but there were some meetings and some cooperation), Iraq harbored terrorists, it monetarily supported terrorism."

Something like 80% of the sept11 terrorists where saoudians. And saoudian arabia is where terrorists get their money.

(What the hell is the english name for this country? I can only remember the french one )

As far as ties go, we had them with the terrorist too. After all they were collecting money and taking advantage of bank sponcerings. It could be seen as a source of funds for them. One has to be careful when one vaguely refers to ties. Ties can be most anything.

"people invented the idea themselves -- a spontaneous mass imagination of involvement"

Yeah, and we know exactly who those people are: Bush, Rumsfeld, Rice, Rove, Wolfowitz...

And I like the reference to the New York Times as a "liberal" outlet. They bought the same WMD bullshit as everyone else in the media. I suppose the next one you'll claim is the Washington Post. If the Post's current staff had been working when Nixon was president, he would have finished his second term.

I shouldn't do this because you didn't answer my question first, but what the hell?

LITTLE ROCK - Arkansans are split on the question of whether Saddam Hussein was personally involved in the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, according to a new independent poll.

http://www.arkansasnews.com/archive/2004/10/24/News/307059.html

WASHINGTON, Oct 21 (IPS) - Three out of four self-described supporters of President George W Bush still believe pre-war Iraq had weapons of mass destruction (WMD) or active programmes to produce them, and that Iraqi President Saddam Hussein gave "substantial support" to al-Qaeda terrorists, according to a survey released Thursday

http://www.ipsnews.net/interna.asp?idnews=25967

Compared to the British opinion:

"More than two thirds of voters believe, from what they have heard so far in the Hutton Inquiry into the death of Dr David Kelly, that they were deceived by the Government about Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction."

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2003/08/24/npoll24.xml

A large majority of self-identified Bush voters polled believe Saddam Hussein provided "substantial support" to Al Qaeda, and 47 percent believe that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction before the US invasion. Among the president's supporters, 57 percent queried think international public opinion favors Bush's reelection, and 51 percent believe that most Islamic countries support "US-led efforts to fight terrorism."

http://www.boston.com/news/politics/president/articles/2004/10/22/divide_seen_in_voter_knowledge/

And despite claims by a former weapons inspector that Iraq had no illegal cache of weapons, half (49 percent) of those polled still believe Saddam Hussein’s regime played a direct roll in the September 11 terror attacks and a majority (55 percent, down from an even larger majority of 71 percent last summer) still believe Iraq had banned weapons prior to the war.

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/4120028/

Lachatte, I never believed Iraq supported al Qaeda. I've seen evidence of some meetings between them, some cooperation with regard to training terrorists, and Iraq may have harbored some al Qaeda fugitives. Support only in the minimal sense.

George, I'm not sure what question I didn't answer. Sorry if I didn't answer something. Maybe from another story thread? I don't always keep track of the old threads like I should.

Thank you for the documentation. Arkansans, it would appear, are particularly quick to blame Saddam for 9-11. Personally. I find that surprising. And generally a large number of Americans feel he gave "substantial" support to al Qaeda. That would not be my characterization.

But I'm still puzzled about why they thought this. I'm genuinely curious. I think the real reasons for going into Iraq do not involve WMD or any support Saddam may have given al Qaeda. No, it isn't oil. Part of it may have been to strategically isolate the other two terror-supporting states, Syria and Iran. Those two are now surrounded by territories hostile to their terrorist designs. Another part may be the optimistic hope that one democracy in the heart of Islamic Arabia may trigger political changes throughout the region. A third reason, as articulated by Tom Friedman in the NY Times, is that after 9-11 we simply had to bang an Arab country back, and hard. Afghanistan wasn't enough of a demonstration of our willingness to fight back. Whether anyone thinks these are sufficient justification or not, it is clear that WMDs and the Iraq-al Qaeda connection are far from the only justifications one might name. And they aren't the most important ones, IMO.

The unanswered question was to identify the liberal media.

Puzzled why people thought this stuff?
I think it has to do with the administration repeating it over and over during the run up to war and never admitting that it was wrong. There was even a little PowerPoint presentation by Powell at the UN to show how scary it all was.

Sadaam was bluffing. If Iran had known he didn't have any weapons, they would have got him before we did.

Identify the liberal media. OK. Who knew that was a tough question?

I live near Des Moines, Iowa. The only statewide newspaper in Iowa of any consequence is the Des Moines Register. Howard Kurtz wrote a Washington Post piece on August 23, 2003, with some hard data about the way Democrat and Republican administrations were presented in the news. Kurtz writes:

"The most dramatic finding was at the Des Moines Register, where the Clinton administration received 59 percent positive coverage, a figure that dropped to 31 percent for President Bush's administration. The Reagan administration fared worse at the Iowa paper, with coverage that was 28 percent positive, the study says."

Now *that's* liberal media. In the Des Moines Register, if it's gay or lesbian, it leads. If it presents abortion, illegal immigrants, government social programs in a positive light. It leads. If it is anti-war, it leads.

If it is fundamentalist Christian, if it presents self-reliance and capitalism in a positive light, if it shows a Republican administration in a positive light, it either doesn't show up, or it is on page 8D, somewhere near the bottom of the page.

Where I come from, the Des Moines Register sets the standard of liberal press for the nation. An honest liberal will admit that public education, government health care, "diversity" issues, environmentalism, deconstruction of traditional values and religion, global warming ("climate change" is now the new catch phrase as they cover their bets), and foreign policy geared toward negotiation instead of confrontation -- these are the issues most being promoted by liberals. When these issues get vastly more favorable coverage than the opposition view, you are looking at liberal press.

The Kurtz piece presents numerical support for what we all know in our guts about the New York Times, the Washington Post, and the three TV networks. They list to the port side.

One more thing. If the news you're watching reading seems more outraged at US military prison abuses than by the horrifying Arab terrorist beheadings, then you know you are in the presence of liberal media.

Y' can spot 'em a mile away. LOL

"If it is anti-war, it leads."
What is anti-war in your opinion, auto?
Reporting the number of Americans killed in Iraq? or (even more liberal) reading their names?

"...the Des Moines Register sets the standard of liberal press for the nation..."

Oh, please. Iowa is the country's hotbed of liberalism? I was there last year and the big news was a study of whether pig shit stinks.

The New York Times and the Washington Post have eaten every little eggie that Rove fed them, just like the rest of the nation's can't-draw-a-conclusion-must-only-parrot-what-they-told-us media. NO ONE questioned the war until it was too late.

Who outed the CIA agent the administration didn't like? I saw a column in the Times last week that, on the basis of a rumor in ANOTHER paper from an anonymous "senior-ranking official at the White House," was giving Sec. of Treasury Snow his pink slip.

As I said earlier, if the current Washington Post staff worked during Nixon's presidency, he would have served his second term. Bush could lie to these guy's faces and they would print it verbatim, or perhaps I should say "did."

This is the "liberal" media that the right is so afraid of? Good. You keep worrying about those communist reactionaries at the Times and Post. If they scare you, be very, very afraid.

Because you haven't even found the liberal media yet.

If you're in Des Moines and it's still around, take a look at the Planet. That will be a start. Then try Salon and Village Voice.

Because if you're reading 38% favorable stories about Bush, that's not liberal.

"Because if you're reading 38% favorable stories about Bush, that's not liberal."

Spoken like a true liberal.

Congratulations, you visited Iowa once. I guess that makes you an expert. I've lived in Iowa all my life, FWIW. The Register's tendency to eschew all things conservative is legendary. Though, due to a total failure of the Democrat party to field credible challengers, they did endorse a Republican Senator and some Republican House candidates this time around. But that only proves how horrible the alternative was.

Although Iowa was technically a red state this time around, it was by the slimmest of margins. It's more purplish than red.

Lachette: what is anti-war? Anti-war is anti- war. Duh. Why is it I have to explain the obvious? A casualty figure is not anti-war or pro-war. Anti-war is when a news organization expresses an opinion against war. Consistently. When it seeks to see the worst aspects of the war, and not report hopeful developments, that is anti-war. When it covers anti-war demonstrations as if they are holy convocations, that is anti-war. Getting the picture?

I've spent several years in Iowa, unfortunately. Used to run the advertising for all of the KMart stores in Des Moines, plus all of the Central Iowa stores from Ottumwa to Mason City. Worked very closely with the Register.

Going back just reminded me what a backward place it was.

Because every band in the state is apparently required to place the conservative theme song -- Sweet Home Alabama.

If you've lived your entire life in Iowa, you do not understand what the word liberal means, much less be able to identify one.

"Though, due to a total failure of the Democrat party to field credible challengers, they did endorse a Republican Senator and some Republican House candidates this time around. But that only proves how horrible the alternative was."

This is because all the liberals moved out years ago.

But here's what set me off -- "If the news you're watching reading seems more outraged at US military prison abuses than by the horrifying Arab terrorist beheadings, then you know you are in the presence of liberal media."

If you believe this, you are a fool.

Chopping off appendages and even heads is common in fundamentalist Islamic countries. Remember the Taliban? They were executing people at the soccer fields en masse, along with mutilations and torture.

We expected this behavior from them.

We also expected that American soldiers still followed the Geneva Conventions. We expected that as Americans, we were supposed to be on a morally higher ground and, even in the face of war, would not stoop to the level which were so graphically illustrated to us.

We're not the good guys anymore.

Auto said: "A casualty figure is not anti-war or pro-war. Anti-war is when a news organization expresses an opinion against war."
Then why did Sinclair Broadcasting refuse to air ABC Nightline's broadcast last spring?

"A casualty figure is not anti-war or pro-war. Anti-war is when a news organization expresses an opinion against war."
Then why did Sinclair Broadcasting refuse to air ABC Nightline's broadcast last spring?

Lachette, the answer is because they are biased in the other direction. Plain and simple. Our station aired it. We watched it. It did not change my opinion of the war. Nightline has tended to offer more balanced coverage of the war, so I can cut them some slack. As for Nightline's corporate masters, I'm not sure I'd be so charitable.

George, what you are saying then is that we should not hold Arabs to the same standards? That is bias. That's what I'm complaining about. But that again is something I associate with liberalism. Whatever the issue, America seems to come under greater attack for lesser offenses. I'm not saying that is classic liberalism as defined in the dictionary. But that is the attitude modern liberals seem to take, generally speaking. So it has become the default liberal position.

Even with the prison abuses at Abu Ghraib, we are still on a morally higher ground. To be unable to fairly compare that unfortunate affair to hundreds of thousands of Iraqis shot and dumped in mass graves, or screaming civilians having their heads sawed off is willful blindness. When you put those things in the balance, they do not balance out as equivalent offenses.

(Another example from the liberal playbook: Berate pro-life conservatives for not speaking out against war casualties. Even given that abortion and war casualties were equivalent situations, 40 million aborted fetuses hardly stack up equally against maybe 20,000 civilian casualties in Iraq.)

If I don't know what liberal media is, then what exactly is it, George? Does it have to be as extreme as Mother Jones or The Nation before it becomes officially "liberal"?

Truth is a matter of convenience
FOX gives the massess what they want,'The NEWS, fairly unbalanced'
Reality one, The masses want to hear good news, they want to hear that no matter how insignificant they may feel in the scheme of things, that they are someone who counts. Even if you have to fabricate bullshit to placate their little minds, fight a war against any impoverished country so you can be guaranteed a win. ( Of course this hasn't worked so well in Iraq but hey you can't have everything) and besides whose going to tell the masses that they've got big problems in the long term. Not FOX!! FOX keeps their short term brains happy. Ignorance is not just a state of mind, it's a disease and you know whose got it because they're the ones who are happy about the way things are.