Fox News Demands McCain Stop Using Fox Footage — But Lets Rudy Use It

Comments (31)

hit.and.run wrote on October 26, 2007 6:01 PM:

John McCain is a natural born loser. I think Wonkette had it best when they said 'old and in the way.'

Must be pretty infuriating, though, to watch that prick Giuliani prance about like the Devil on hot coals seemingly unscathed...

Peter Formaini wrote on October 26, 2007 6:08 PM:

NOt sure I see any conflict here.

If the footage falls outside the 'fair use' mandate for use of copyrighted material, FOX can license its use to whomever they please - and deny it to whomever they please.

If I owned material that required permission to use, I would also permit its use by, say, HIllary Clinton - and deny its use to, oh, say, Mitt Romney.

Seems logical to me.

audit the polls wrote on October 26, 2007 6:14 PM:

Why doesn't the calender ever include Kucinich? Tomorrow for example, Kucinich is in Florida for the weekend to address the state’s Democratic Party.

John Q wrote on October 26, 2007 6:22 PM:

"Peter Formaini wrote on October 26, 2007 6:08 PM:

NOt sure I see any conflict here."

Sure - no conflict if Fox acknowledges its support for Giuliani. But if it claims to be a fair and balanced" news source, then the conflict should be obvious. Of course, we know it isn't fair and balanced - and it's good that it continues to belie its claims in such obvious ways, so that more people will eventually see through it.

(Maybe you were being sarcastic too subtly for me to get it, Peter)

dasher wrote on October 26, 2007 6:29 PM:

I know nothing about the legal issues involved here, but I'm of the opinion that Fox may have made a mis-calculation here, if McCain can get anybody else in the MSM to cover this story.

Fox viewers don't see, or care about, Fox's blatant unfairness to Democrats, but I think they WILL care if they see Fox being blatantly unfair to McCain while obviously favoring Guiliani. I don't think their "worship the military above all else" demographic will approve of them bashing McCain.

hit.and.run wrote on October 26, 2007 6:34 PM:

Considering that the McCain footage in question that started all this was taken from a debate at which most if not all of the candidates appeared, there is something rather screwy about the whole thing.

I wouldn't make a fair use case out of this one, as it's obvious FOX* doesn't believe McCain is capable of carrying an election and is intent on doing what it can to keep him from getting a national nod.

If FOX* was upset that it's logo and name were being used (or perceived!) as a potential endorsement, then that I could understand, but if they have no problem there, obviously, then that copyright nonsense doesn't really stick.

*And by the way, I call it FUX news, but you know, whatever.

ravi g. wrote on October 26, 2007 6:42 PM:

I think FOX is saying the line was crossed by using a clip as part of a political ad, not as just reposting an unadulterated segment. (thought the excerpt to the letter sounds like they are accidentally overstepping)

Regardless, I think if FOX or any other station tries to stand on this position, of not allowing the candidates to use their own coverage, they are being ridiculous -- a disservice to our political discourse.

The candidates should put something in the contracts to appear on the networks.

PHB wrote on October 26, 2007 6:43 PM:

Looks to me like Faux has made a bit Faux pas.

Fox is can tell a candidate not to use its footage. Depending on the context the candidate may or may not have the ability to refuse under fair use.

What Fox cannot do is to make donations in cash or kind to candidates. If they allow some candidates to use their content and not others they are making a contribution in kind. That is a clear violation.

In most cases the debates have a 'no use in campaign ads' clause. I suspect that the McCain campaign almost certainly broke that rule unless the restriction was on only on the use of footage of other candidates.

Murdoch will back Giuliani to the hilt, he is repaying Giuliani's help in setting Faux news up in the first place by forcing NYC cable to carry it.

audit the polls wrote on October 26, 2007 6:44 PM:

Allowing your favorite candidates to use your footage is fine for say, The Simpsons, or The Green Berets. But an election debate? The Democrats definetely did the right thing when the canceled their debate on FOX.

Jake D. wrote on October 26, 2007 6:47 PM:

So, if Fox News can't help Rudy like this, then Comedy Central can't help Stephen Colbert in South Carolina either, right?

party-of-one wrote on October 26, 2007 7:29 PM:

Does anyone really care about internal Republican/Fox News squabbles? Get real.

audit the polls wrote on October 26, 2007 7:33 PM:

Jake D. wrote on October 26, 2007 6:47 PM:

So, if Fox News can't help Rudy like this, then Comedy Central can't help Stephen Colbert in South Carolina either, right?

Right.

Jake D. wrote on October 26, 2007 7:44 PM:

Well, that good to know, because South Carolina is the Alamo for John Edwards -- I would hate to see Colbert steal votes from the Breck Girl!!!

brianm0122 wrote on October 26, 2007 7:52 PM:

Could allowing the use of the footage be considered a campaign in-kind donation? If I was McCain, I would be on the horn to the FEC, demanding either that rudi pay for the footage, or get equal time on the network.

brianm0122 wrote on October 26, 2007 7:54 PM:

Another thing:

This shouldn't surprise anyone. Thompson-the-great-white-hope of the conservatives, has failed, so the word has come down from on high:

Rudi is our candidate! Everyone line up!

Peter Formaini wrote on October 26, 2007 8:04 PM:

John Q:

"Maybe you were being sarcastic too subtly for me to get it, Peter)"

Not in the least.

Note that I said 'aside from fair use'. That is the legal requirement that covers use of news footage freely without permission.

But if the content of a network is used in excess of the fair usage level, then it becomes a question of copyright infringement - and it has nothing to do with 'fairness' (which is what fair use is all about).

Once 'fair use' is exceeded, the question is, pure and simple, whether the owner of the footage wants to grant permission to use it or not - and that is perfectly open to political favoritism. It involves only the right to control the fruit of ones ownership of property.

So if FOX wants to grant use of their property over and above 'fair use' to Giuliani and not McCain, well - that's their right - just as The Advocate can grant use of its property to Ron Paul and not to Obama or Hillary, if they so choose.

And I see nothing wrong with it on any level. Networks are private entities and may support any candidate with their property that they wish (after allowance for 'fair use' doctrines.)

moondancer wrote on October 26, 2007 8:05 PM:

"Fair and Balanced" thats our wacky guys at faux news.

I guess it'll be fair when Hillary wins and revokes their broadcast license and press credentials, huh Jake. Just politics.

Dood wrote on October 26, 2007 9:13 PM:

John McCain is this election's version of Hey, It's My Turn To Be President.

Previous members include Ted Kennedy and Bob Dole. I'm sure you can think of others.

audit the polls wrote on October 26, 2007 9:36 PM:

Candidates of both parties should refuse to go on copyrighted shows. I doubt the other networks would pull this kind of thing, but why give them the chance?

audit the polls wrote on October 26, 2007 9:44 PM:

FOX is trying to influence the elections 24/7. They stole the 2000 election for Bush, and will try to do it again. This is what happens when rabid free market capitalists report the news.

Jake D. wrote on October 26, 2007 9:47 PM:

I thought Die Bold, Katherine Harris, and Justice Scalia stole the 2000 election for Bush? You're not reading one of those Grisham fiction books again, are you? Regardless, I doubt that FOX News is going to try to steal the 2000 election for Bush again (see 22nd Amendment).

Leon723 wrote on October 26, 2007 9:56 PM:

As Greg investigates this story, I think it is worth it for him to explore whether Fox did this at the request of the Hillary camp. Hillary might be playing her Rupert Murdoch connection; she's been cultivating it hard. The ad was the first in this season to lay a glove on Hillary in a way that was effective. Please, don't accuse me of thinking that the Woodstock Museum controversy is a real issue; it isn't; it's a classic bullsh*t issue. But a lot of less ideological voters are likely to see it as a pretty effective knock at Hillary (as well as an effective booster of McCain's two strengths: long time opposition to earmarks and of course courageous POW back in Nam).

Richard L. Adlof wrote on October 26, 2007 10:01 PM:

It is good to see that I am not the only one who confuses Clinton and Guiliani . . . I am disturbed that it is FAUX News though.

I wonder if it is cold-hearted of me if I can't give a shit about McCain getting dumped on by the FOX Opinioncast.

I, also, wonder if it is equally cold-hearted of me to wish misfortune, as in loss of fortune, on both Guiliani and the cable network in question.

Bad things should happen to bad people.

Anonymous wrote on October 26, 2007 10:28 PM:

Its true, i mean ususally its fox news tearing down mitt romney but now they are going after mccain. Really fox and sean hannity are nothing more than rudy's pr spin...

mari wrote on October 27, 2007 4:44 AM:

Of course we all know how even handed Fox news is. They cannot even report news accurately, let alone be even-handed about the election. They may think they can push Giuliani for President and then make their sickening "Fair and Balanced" claim, but only a dullard would believe them. Giuliani is not even worthy to sit in the same area as McCain. Good heavens, McCain actually got off his comfortable seat and fought for his country. Leave it to Faux to blab about patriotism and service and then badmouth McCain. Disgusting is all I can say.

p_lukasiak wrote on October 27, 2007 8:42 AM:

Didn't Murdoch hold a fundraiser for Clinton?

The McCain ad was completely anti-Hillary, which may be what got Murdoch/Fox's attention.

Spud1 wrote on October 27, 2007 7:02 PM:

Peter Formaini:

If your argument is correct, then why are we letting commerical interests host debates amongst candidates who want to be our next president? Don't the tapes of these debates really belong to the electorate? The debates should not be seen as a commercial enterprise, ad if they are, something is inheirently wrong here.

Richard L. Adlof wrote on October 27, 2007 8:10 PM:

Corporate Conspiritor Clinton is FOX!s favoite candidate and Guiliani is an acceptable fall-back.

A Clinton Presidency will remove ownership limits and give them fooder for another eight years of existence.

If McCain were to public profess a desire to abolish the Sherman Anti-Trust Acts and the FCC, he'd be their boy but even he is not that insane.

little peanut wrote on October 28, 2007 10:00 AM:

Isn't there something inherently illegal about any licensed network being overtly and demonstrably biased in favor of a particular candidate or political party?

Couldn't whomever is in power sue over this point and threaten their license?

Shouldn't licenses be required to state the networks 'intention' when said license is issued or approved?

Don't the airwaves belong "to the people"?

I know... stop laughing.

LaPopessa wrote on October 28, 2007 7:51 PM:

It's just one more reminder that the "fair and balanced" "news" network is neither fair and balanced, or a news provider.

pbg wrote on October 28, 2007 8:24 PM:

Mr. Adluf, do you honestly think that President Hillary Clinton, with supermajorities in both the House and Senate, would turn around and give blessing to the forces in the media who called her a murderer and a drug dealer and her daughter a dog?
Is that the impression you get from Hillary that she will lie down and support the people who insulted her in the most vile fashion,continue to call her 'Hitlery' and call her a calculating, cackling, screeching liar--because she got campaign contributions from Murdoch?
That's not the impression I get from her.

Post a comment

Name:
Email Address:
URL:
	Remember personal info?
Comments: (you may use HTML tags for style)