Current Events > Trump reportedly 'screamed' at Murdoch earlier this year over 'unfair' coverage

(+) Yeah! (+)

https://www.salon.com/2020/09/10/trump-screamed-at-fox-news-owner-rupert-murdoch-in-humongous-blowup-over-unfair-coveragereport/

President Donald Trump reportedly "screamed" at Fox News owner and media mogul Rupert Murdoch earlier this summer over alleged "unfair" coverage of him.

Trump and Murdoch had the "humongous blowup" during a phone call, a new article by Vanity Fair's Gabriel Sherman revealed.

"Trump yelled that Fox's coverage is unfair and the polling is fake," a source told Sherman, adding that "Rupert defended the network's standards and polling."

According to the report, Trump blames Murdoch for airing critical segments about his presidency. Fox News national security correspondent Jennifer Griffin recently independently verified key parts of a bombshell expos in which advisers close to Trump revealed to The Atlantic that he had called U.S. military heroes killed in combat "losers" and "suckers."

"Sources who've spoken with Trump told me Trump thinks Murdoch wants him to lose," Sherman wrote.

Individuals close to Murdoch told Sherman that the Fox Corporation co-chair believes Trump will lose in November. Murdoch seems more concerned with navigating his empire through a post-Trump political world, according to Sherman.

"This is about business for Rupert," one source told Vanity Fair.

Murdoch's son, James, and daughter-in-law, Kathryn, each gave $615,000 to the Biden Victory Fund in June, according to Federal Election Commission filings. The next month, James stepped down from the family's News Corp. media empire, citing editorial disagreements.

The first presidential debate, scheduled for Sept. 29, will be moderated by Fox News host Chris Wallace, who is one of the few exceptions to the network's widely perceived political cronyism to the president.

"Any Republican who thinks Wallace will go easy on Trump is badly mistaken," a former White House official told Vanity Fair. "He's no joke."

The Trump campaign had angled for Bret Baier, Hugh Hewitt or Martha MacCallum network hosts perceived as friendlier to the president. In July, Wallace challenged Trump on coronavirus statistics and the president's boasts about his "person; man; woman; camera; TV" cognitive test results.

"Well, it's not the hardest test," Wallace said. "It shows a picture and it says, 'What's that?' And it's an elephant."

"No. No. No. You see, that's all misrepresentation," Trump responded. "Because, yes, the first few questions are easy. But I'll bet you couldn't even answer the last five questions."

"Well, one of them was count back from 100 by seven," Wallace said. "93 . . ."

Wallace is spurned among pro-Trump hosts on the opinion side of Fox News, according to Sherman.

"Chris hates Trump. He's a passionate Democrat," one network personality told him. Wallace has said that he registered as a Democrat in order to have more impact in local elections in Washington. (Fox News host Tucker Carlson has also copped to the same move.)

Sherman said a Fox News spokesperson dismissed concerns that Wallace was out to get Trump, pointing out that he had also made positive remarks about the president and been critical of Democratic opponent Joe Biden.

Trump, apparently unhappy with recent Fox News coverage, has taken to promoting competitor One America News which has positioned itself significantly to the right of Fox as a preferred, "fair and balanced" alternative.

"Fox News is not watchable during weekend afternoons. It is worse than Fake News @CNN," Trump tweeted Aug. 16. "I strongly suggest turning your dial to @OANN. They do a really 'Fair & Balanced' job!" he added, quoting Fox News' retired motto.

A Fox News spokesperson did not immediately reply to Salon's request for comment.

---

Trump's meltdowns make me giggle.

---

a true alpha

---

It's like he doesn't understand news media's job is to report news. He just wants a propaganda source.

---

screaming like a bunkerboy

ScazarMeltex posted...

It's like he doesn't understand news media's job is to report news. He just wants a propaganda source.

His friends Putin, and Kim get their propaganda sources, why not him?

---

ScazarMeltex posted...

It's like he doesn't understand news media's job is to report news. He just wants a propaganda source.

He's spent his whole life having people tell him what he wants to hear, and never being challenged on anything. He quite literally does not understand it.

---

Murdoch was probably like "I can buy you and everything you own 5 times over. Shut up you fake billionaire"

---

ScazarMeltex posted...

It's like he doesn't understand news media's job is to report news. He just wants a propaganda source.

Lmao at thinking any of those outlets just report the news

---

"Sources who've spoken with Trump told me Trump thinks Murdoch wants him to lose," Sherman wrote.

Individuals close to Murdoch told Sherman that the Fox Corporation co-chair believes Trump will lose in November. Murdoch seems more concerned with navigating his empire through a post-Trump political world, according to Sherman.

"This is about business for Rupert," one source told Vanity Fair.

As far as I am concerned, that is it. The end.

---

It has always been about business for Rupert. He doesn't give a fuck about politics as much as people think he does and will always take the path of most money. People like Hannity and Beck are true believers but Rupert is not. James has had ties to the Clinton foundation for years even before the 2016 election.

---

I just want to put it out there, Rupert Murdoch is a massive piece of shit with a stranglehold on Australia's entire news media landscape. The Murdoch press, working with the mining industry, is arguably the most powerful entity in Australia - when they join forces, they're capable of toppling governments. Before we get to any semblance of "poor widdle Murdoch, fighting for press freedom against tyranny :(" - Rupert Murdoch and Newscorp IS tyranny. The shitfight between Newscorp and Google - the reason this whole "YouTube might be banned in Australia" headline is happening - is proof of that, since they essentially want to government to grant them access to Google's algorithm so they can profit off of it whenever they want and beat out the competition.

Saying that - the President of the United States telling the head of a media empire that their coverage isn't satisfactory and that they need to be more positive about him is absolutely horrifying, and it only goes to show how close America is to slipping into fascism under the Republicans. You can't just tell a news company to stop telling bad news about you as the leader of a country. That's not acceptable.

This really is indefensible on Trump's part. I hope this Fox News moderator takes him to task.

---

Saying that - the President of the United States telling the head of a media empire that their coverage isn't satisfactory and that they need to be more positive about him is absolutely horrifying, and it only goes to show how close America is to slipping into fascism under the Republicans. You can't just tell a news company to stop telling bad news about you as the leader of a country. That's not acceptable.

oh okay, thanks for letting us know that this is the first horrifying and unacceptable thing President Donald Trump has done. Yell at a billionaire on the phone.

---

LikeImmolation posted...

Saying that - the President of the United States telling the head of a media empire that their coverage isn't satisfactory and that they need to be more positive about him is absolutely horrifying, and it only goes to show how close America is to slipping into fascism under the Republicans. You can't just tell a news company to stop telling bad news about you as the leader of a country. That's not acceptable.

oh okay, thanks for letting us know that this is the first horrifying and unacceptable thing President Donald Trump has done. Yell at a billionaire on the phone.

He didn't say anything about first

---

pathetic
---

Smackems posted...

Lmao at thinking any of those outlets just report the news

Bro that's the point. They just report shit that happens. If that doesn't coincide with what he believes in, it is automatically "fake news".

Mans is in his own little world and would love nothing more than than to be living as an emperor in an echo chamber.

---

Tyranthraxus posted...

He didn't say anything about first

No of course not, he was too busy digging the monocle out of the martini glass about Trump yelling at a billionaire on the phone and how horrifyingly over the line thati s.

I mean good God, what, you been living under a rock since 2016?

MrMallard's house at breakfast:
"Oh my WORD! President Trump yelled at a Billionaire on the phone today! That is just over the line and horrifying!"

"What, the guy who is having unmarked cars kidnap 19 year olds off the streets like this is Somalia isn't exactly a nice and comforting guy on the phone? Oh okay, pass the bacon."

---

Marginalizing what he did as "yelling at a billionaire" is being real fucking dishonest.

---

Imagine what he would have twittered if it was revealed that Obama had complained to Murdoch about unfair coverage.

---

Marginalizing what he did as "yelling at a billionaire" is being real fucking dishonest.

No, no it's not. He yelled at a billionaire on the phone to stop giving such unfair coverage.

Everything is unfair to Donald Trump. The Media. The way COVID "ruined his economy". The unfair "biggest witchhunt in history" about spying on people in his campaign who were meeting with Russia, all of it.

This is par for the course, and by giving credence to this in saying "This is just over the line" makes it seem like you are, by extension, condoning the past 4 years of things as not being over the line. That includes:

Children in cages
Seperating families
Letting states die of COVID because they vote Democrat
trying to play blackmail ball with Ukraine for political gain against an opponent

I could go on, but honestly I'd rather have just stopped at children in cages. I say good day to this bullshit "HOW HORRIFYING" crap.

---

LikeImmolation posted...

Children in cages
Seperating families
Letting states die of COVID because they vote Democrat
trying to play blackmail ball with Ukraine for political gain against an opponent

All things that we'd have never heard about if this:

LikeImmolation posted...

He yelled at a billionaire on the phone to stop giving such unfair coverage.

Was successful.

---

So wait, wait, wait...just so I get this straight (and yes I know my writing style is a bit abrupt and seems holier-than-thou)

By your logic.
Rupert "GOP Frontman" Murdoch
The guy who created Fox News, a wing of the Republican Party
Being yelled at as unfair and being told to stop broadcasting fake polls and news that harm the current Republican President
.....is equal to a media blackout in which no other channel, including another billionaire Ted Turner's CNN, would ever have any news to report on and it'd be 1950's USSR where the only things we have to read are state-owned propaganda?

---

---

If the government tells you, a press outlet not to cover something, and you comply, that's called a media blackout.

---

Tyranthraxus posted...

If the government tells you, a press outlet not to cover something, and you comply, that's called a media blackout.

That's...not what a media blackout is. That's called collusion and is, in fact, against the law.

---

The inverse is also against the law actually. Government telling someone to COVER something - and them complying.

A good example that comes to mind is the Pat Tillman story. In 2003 Pat Tillman was reported as being killed by insurgents and it was a heartwarming and heroic story right in the midst of the Iraq War when we needed it.

...we, of course, later found out Pat Tillman died to friendly fire by his own dumbass American colleague and the entire story was just there for nationalism during a time of war.

^ That collusion of reporting what was fake, when it was known to be fake, was illegal - which is why the government covered it up

---

LikeImmolation posted...

That's...not what a media blackout is. That's called collusion and is, in fact, against the law.

EDIT: I just realized by saying "Against the law" I am inferring someone would go to prison for it......... When I saw "Against the law" I mean the kind that go to the Supreme Court and get struck down as Unconstitutional. Not the type of "against the law" where we have a media frenzy and watch the trial.

The supreme court can only rule on laws passed by congress. They cannot declare obscenities yelled at by Trump over the phone unconstitutional. Nor can anyone compel Murdoch to cover something he voluntarily does not want to cover whether because he's intimidated (not likely) or being paid off (very likely).

---

The supreme court can only rule on laws passed by congress.

Constitution of United States of America 1789 (rev. 1992)
Amendment 1
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Nor can anyone compel Murdoch to cover something he voluntarily does not want to cover whether because he's intimidated (not likely) or being paid off (very likely).

Constitution of United States of America 1789 (rev. 1992)
Amendment 1
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

...
...
...
New York Times Co. v. United States, 403 U.S. 713 (1971
President Richard Nixon had claimed executive authority to force the Times to suspend publication of classified information in its possession. The question before the court was whether the constitutional freedom of the press, guaranteed by the First Amendment, was subordinate to a claimed need of the executive branch of government to maintain the secrecy of information. The Supreme Court ruled that the First Amendment did protect the right of The New York Times to print the materials.[1]

---

It really does bring me joy knowing how absolutely miserable Trump is
---

1971:
President tells newspaper mogul "You can't do this because it would hurt me"
Goes to SCOTUS
is ruled illegal

2020:
President tells newspaper mogul "You can't do this because it would hurt me"
???
???

---

Constitution of United States of America 1789 (rev. 1992)
Amendment 1
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Constitution of United States of America 1789 (rev. 1992)
Amendment 1
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.


---

Right, you said...and again I quote "the supreme court can only rule on laws passed by congress"

the 1st amendment of the Constitution is a law passed by congress O_O...but thank you for posting the Amendment twice for all to see O_O

---

LikeImmolation posted...

the 1st amendment of the Constitution is a law passed by congress

The 1st amendment existed before the states ratified the constitution. Congress didn't even exist.

The constitution also isn't legislative law. It's not something that can be passed by congress even today. It can only be amended through ratification by 3/4ths of the states in a vote held by the public. There's even a way to amend the constitution while completely bypassing the congressional convention.

Nixon was told use of his executive authority was unconstitutional and executive authority is a law passed by congress. Screaming obscenities over the phone is not a matter of constitution. There's nothing in the constitution that says "you can't yell at people"

---

LikeImmolation posted...

Murdoch seems more concerned with navigating his empire through a post-Trump political world, according to Sherman.

Tyranthraxus posted...

The 1st amendment existed before the states ratified the constitution. Congress didn't even exist.

The constitution also isn't legislative law. It's not something that can be passed by congress even today. It can only be amended through ratification by 3/4ths of the states in a vote held by the public. There's even a way to amend the constitution while completely bypassing the congressional convention.

Nixon was told use of his executive authority was unconstitutional and executive authority is a law passed by congress. Screaming obscenities over the phone is not a matter of constitution. There's nothing in the constitution that says "you can't yell at people"

lol I woke up and saw you were still going.

i don't care anymore. it's the weekend, imma go live life

---