Not mentioned on Fox News, of course.

February 27, 2011 3:02 PM

Is Fox News boss Roger Ailes about to be indicted by a federal grand jury?

And yet, apart from a brief AP wire and this, the mainstream media barely mentioned it.

Bloggers, however, take a different view of the possibility that Ailes might see the inside of a cell. Barry Ritholz says yes. So does Freakoutnation. Former Fox News contributor David Corn wrote an item. HuffPo mentioned it, though only in passing. Daily Kos took a more cautious view. Other progressive blogs, such as Crooks and Liars, said nothing.

Is it because the unrest in Libya and Wisconsin is distracting the MSM nabobs, or is it because they fear Murdoch?

posted by metasonix (30 comments total)

I hope he does get indicted. Not sure why Roger Ailes is not in the news more.
posted by Katjusa Roquette at 3:05 PM on February 27, 2011

Oh please oh please oh please yes please yes indict please.
posted by at by at 3:05 PM on February 27, 2011 [6 favorites]

This sounds like the tip of the iceberg...
posted by chainlinkspiral at 3:07 PM on February 27, 2011

Ailes might see the inside of a cell.
He's white, rich, conservative and influential. Don't bet on it.
posted by TrialByMedia at 3:08 PM on February 27, 2011 [5 favorites]

90% of the "journalists" who Fox News derides do NOT want to anger Murdoch or Ailes, since they'll be the only people who can give them high-paying jobs after they get laid off. When it comes to making the payments on the big Manhattan apartment, propaganda's as good as journalism.
posted by oneswellfoop at 3:12 PM on February 27, 2011

Ah, the old "mainstream media" bugaboo. "MSM" ooh scary. This is an article in the friggin' New York Times. And that AP story? It's hardly a brief.

But obviously the MSM is completely ignoring this situation.

Which is something people all along the political spectrum say nowadays when they think THEIR key news item is being underreported.

Google news gives 294 items as of right now: http://bit.ly/ezV1wU
posted by chavenet at 3:14 PM on February 27, 2011 [12 favorites]

Is there any evidence that a grand jury has been convened? If not, this is premature.
posted by Ironmouth at 3:14 PM on February 27, 2011

If Ailes is indicted, the Bloviators will spin it as an attack by the socialist Nobama administration against brave truth-telling amurricans, the lapdog press will fall in line, Judith Miller will get leaned on, Ailes' attorneys will delay and delay and delay until after the 2012 election, and the whole thing will evaporate, allowing the Right to claim victory. Again.

I hope I'm wrong. Having a deeply cynical afternoon.
posted by BitterOldPunk at 3:17 PM on February 27, 2011 [5 favorites]

Oh no not the toothless tiger of a federal grand jury indictment, slinking around in the bushes outside an influential white corporate bigwig's fortified mansion, fat-boy must be pooping his drawers.
posted by tumid dahlia at 3:18 PM on February 27, 2011 [1 favorite]

What a despicable group of people. Regan, Kerick, Ailes, Murdoch, Guilinai...
posted by fixedgear at 3:19 PM on February 27, 2011

Crooks&Liars did in fact have a post on this here.
posted by Zhai at 3:20 PM on February 27, 2011

What a silly question this is. Laws only apply to liberals.
posted by Malor at 3:29 PM on February 27, 2011 [3 favorites]

From the NYT: "Of course, if it were to be released, the tape could be highly embarrassing to Mr. Ailes, a onetime adviser to Richard M. Nixon whom critics deride as a partisan who engineers Fox News coverage to advance Republicans and damage Democrats, something Fox has long denied."

I always thought it was Roger's frends and allies that made this claim. His critics merely think he is the spawn of the devil.
posted by el io at 3:35 PM on February 27, 2011

Chances are, if it's only mentioned on handful of blogs, it's probably not true. Remember when the news was that Karl Rove got indicted in the Scooter Libby thing?

Anyway, while what Ailes did is clearly illegal, this happened in 2004 and I've heard it mentioned that the statute of limitations has expired. But I would be pretty shocked if he were actually indicted.
posted by delmoi at 3:36 PM on February 27, 2011

Crooks&Liars did in fact have a post on this here.

C&L is not the internet at large, but a corner of the liberal news coverage. This has been noticed, but not carried far.

And it doesn't matter if you're liberal or conservative, but with or without influence and money. And boss of Fox News comes with a lot of clout.
posted by filthy light thief at 3:36 PM on February 27, 2011

He has to be guilty of something. Fox did a story on him yesterday and put (D-NEWSCORP) under his photo. They only do that for child molesters, Democrats and other perverts.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 3:36 PM on February 27, 2011 [3 favorites]

I find it both amusing and depressing that the primary reason Ailes was identified as the person encouraging Regan to lie to the Feds was because Regan's attorneys were pissed that they didn't get their cut of her $10.75 mil settlement.
posted by Mr Mister at 3:37 PM on February 27, 2011

Is Fox News boss Roger Ailes about to be indicted by a federal grand jury?

I don't know, and neither do you. Instead of making a FPP out of all the predictable traffic-generating speculation, why not wait until something actually happens?
posted by neroli at 3:46 PM on February 27, 2011

Blazecock Pileon: "He has to be guilty of something. Fox did a story on him yesterday and put (D-NEWSCORP) under his photo."

Please tell me you're joking about the (D) part of that. I know FOX does it all the time, but I've never seen them use a party affiliation label for someone who wasn't actually in politics (or let's say "elected").
posted by tzikeh at 3:48 PM on February 27, 2011

NY Times, WSJ, Guardian, Newsday, Boston Globe, Seattle Times, ...

Damn that Mainstream Media and their constant ignoring of the news.
posted by not_the_water at 3:49 PM on February 27, 2011 [6 favorites]

Wait, so you're suggesting that FoxNews has some sort of nefarious political agenda? Dunno, Sounds kinda thin to me...
posted by TheCoug at 3:49 PM on February 27, 2011

90% of the "journalists" who Fox News derides do NOT want to anger Murdoch or Ailes, since they'll be the only people who can give them high-paying jobs after they get laid off. When it comes to making the payments on the big Manhattan apartment, propaganda's as good as journalism.

Just for the record, this is complete malarkey.
posted by CunningLinguist at 3:50 PM on February 27, 2011 [3 favorites]

One can only hope something comes out of this. It's pretty clear that this isn't the only law he and his organization has broken over the years, but you only need the charges to stick once.
posted by OverlappingElvis at 3:51 PM on February 27, 2011

Oh please oh please oh please yes please yes indict please.

Eli?
posted by jpdoane at 3:52 PM on February 27, 2011

So, the story is... there might be a story? "Best of the web," heh, indeedy.

(Yeah, I coulda just flagged it and moved on, but this a particularly weak posting...)
posted by OneMonkeysUncle at 3:53 PM on February 27, 2011

What a silly question this is. Laws only apply to liberals the non-rich.

FTFY.
posted by ZenMasterThis at 3:57 PM on February 27, 2011

But Fox News is Fair complexioned and Balanced on their feet.
posted by Sys Rq at 3:58 PM on February 27, 2011

C&L is not the internet at large, but a corner of the liberal news coverage.

The OP does say "Other progressive blogs, such as Crooks and Liars, said nothing" which is not true, which was my point.
posted by Zhai at 4:10 PM on February 27, 2011

When I graduated from college, I moved out to NY to live with my then-boyfriend and to try to break into publishing. The job market was terrible, and I was getting increasingly desperate for work. My resume (such as it was) showed that I had done "PR" for various cultural groups and political organizations in college (i.e., I wrote music reviews for the campus radio station publication and made fliers for various left-wing student groups); through my employment agency, this eventually landed me an interview for an entry-level assistant with "an emerging political media organization," in the words of the agency rep. They wouldn't tell me specifically who the interview was with; I was merely told to wear my interview suit (oh god, my ugly early '90s interview suit) and bring a few copies of my resume to a specific midtown Manhattan address.

I must stop here for a moment and explain that I had been on a lot of interviews in that awful suit by that time -- editorial assistant gigs, museum office assistant gigs, marketing assistant gigs for various businesses -- and I had botched every single interview in one way or another. I screwed up the typing test (which is pretty much the main requirement for an editorial assistant), or I'd show up late after having left my resume on the train, or I'd be asked why I wanted to be a marketing assistant in a small manufacturing firm specializing in heating coils and I'd answer honestly that, actually, I didn't want to do any such thing; I was on my way to becoming a Famous Writer but that I needed a job in the meantime to pay off my student loans. I did not get any second interviews.

So I show up in my terrible suit at the address. And it's the Ailes Production Co.

Now, I was enough of a dyed-in-the-wool lefty at the age of 22 to know who Roger Ailes was; I was the kind of girl who had a Lee Atwater dart board in her dorm room, for god's sake. I grew up in a household where, when I was a small child, I was told that it was Nixon personally throwing garbage at the feet of the crying Indian.

I considered simply not going to the interview, but then I wouldn't be sent out for any other interviews by my job agency. So I decided that I would go in and fuck up. You know, just be so obviously poorly suited (and not just because of my bad interview suit!) for the job. Fine. It would be over, I would maybe go poke around the Strand for awhile, then go home. So I squared my shoulders, took a breath, and walked in.

The interviewer loved me. I was, he said, "refreshing and irreverent" -- indeed, I was "exactly what we're looking for." I couldn't lose. I kept putting all my money on double-zero and I'll be goddamned it didn't keep coming up double-zero. Finally, he stood up. Please let it be over, I thought.

"I'd like you to meet someone," he said.

"Oh wow," I said.

I was rapidly led through a corridor that included larger-than-life-sized portraits of various Republican icons, including Nixon and Reagan; I suspected but was being hustled down the hall too quickly to confirm that these portraits included eyes that followed you as you walked past. And then I was brought into the inner sanctum of Roger Ailes.

He extended his hand. Automatically (and to my immediate sense of self-loathing), I shook it. What could I say? What should I say?

"I hear you want to work for me!" Roger Ailes (ROGER AILES!) boomed.

"Oh, I don't know if you want me," I laughed nervously.

"Aren't you charming," Roger Ailes (ROGER AILES!) said. "You may be just what we need around here."

Inside my head a voice hollered think girl, think! There must be some devastatingly clever way to mention Willie Horton! Some brilliant monologue about saving democracy from the oligarchs to deliver!

"Oh wow," I said.

Finally -- I don't recall exactly how -- I managed to escape. I got to the street and burst into tears right in front of the homeless guy I passed on the way in.

"Bad interview?" he asked gently.

"Great interview," I sobbed.
posted by scody at 4:11 PM on February 27, 2011 [405 favorites]

OK, I really thought this post was too thin to stay. (I have a tendency to resent any headline that ends with a question mark.) But scody's anecdote makes this one a keeper. I withdraw my flag.
posted by neroli at 4:16 PM on February 27, 2011 [1 favorite]