Regan says she was told to lie to protect Giuliani

[Suzie]

Regan says she was told to lie to protect Giuliani (http://rds.yahoo.com/_ylt=A0WTTkidGztHADIBYw7QtDMD;_ylu=X3oDMTBjcDR2NTN 2BHBvcwM2BHNlYwNzcg--/SIG=13hdsgnic/EXP=1195142429/**http%3a//www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-regan14nov14,1,6532034.story%3ftrack=rss) http://us.i1.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/i/us/sch/bn/nw2.gif (http://rds.yahoo.com/_ylt=A0WTTkidGztHADIBZA7QtDMD;_ylu=X3oDMTBjcDR2NTN 2BHBvcwM2BHNlYwNzcg--/SIG=13hdsgnic/EXP=1195142429/**http%3a//www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-regan14nov14,1,6532034.story%3ftrack=rss)
Los Angeles Times - Nov 14 12:53 AMIn a lawsuit against News Corp., the former publisher alleges that she had to keep quiet on an affair with the mayor's top cop. Former publisher Judith Regan filed a $100-million defamation lawsuit against Rupert Murdoch's News Corp. and other defendants Tuesday, alleging she was asked by company officials to lie to federal investigators in order to protect Rudolph W. Giuliani's presidential ...

Is Murdoch the reason why Fox News is supporting him so heavy? It sure would explain a lot.

[Jack_Savage]

Regan says she was told to lie to protect Giuliani (http://rds.yahoo.com/_ylt=A0WTTkidGztHADIBYw7QtDMD;_ylu=X3oDMTBjcDR2NTN 2BHBvcwM2BHNlYwNzcg--/SIG=13hdsgnic/EXP=1195142429/**http%3a//www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-regan14nov14,1,6532034.story%3ftrack=rss) http://us.i1.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/i/us/sch/bn/nw2.gif (http://rds.yahoo.com/_ylt=A0WTTkidGztHADIBZA7QtDMD;_ylu=X3oDMTBjcDR2NTN 2BHBvcwM2BHNlYwNzcg--/SIG=13hdsgnic/EXP=1195142429/**http%3a//www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-regan14nov14,1,6532034.story%3ftrack=rss)
Los Angeles Times - Nov 14 12:53 AMIn a lawsuit against News Corp., the former publisher alleges that she had to keep quiet on an affair with the mayor's top cop. Former publisher Judith Regan filed a $100-million defamation lawsuit against Rupert Murdoch's News Corp. and other defendants Tuesday, alleging she was asked by company officials to lie to federal investigators in order to protect Rudolph W. Giuliani's presidential ...

Is Murdoch the reason why Fox News is supporting him so heavy? It sure would explain a lot.


Judith Regan is the one who brought us the fraudulant "If I did it" from O.J., she has been ostrisized for her unethical publishing activities on several fronts. She is fuming about Fox on a whole bunch of Issues. I wouldn't want her support on anything. She carries a black mark on her name. No-no. No Suzy, she is an outcast, please beware of bringing her name up.
http://www.freeconservatives.com/vb/images/icons/goodluck1.gif

[Suzie]

Judith Regan is the one who brought us the fraudulant "If I did it" from O.J., she has been ostrisized for her unethical publishing activities on several fronts. She is fuming about Fox on a whole bunch of Issues. I wouldn't want her support on anything. She carries a black mark on her name. No-no. No Suzy, she is an outcast, please beware of bringing her name up.
http://www.freeconservatives.com/vb/images/icons/goodluck1.gif
Excuse me? You are warning me what names I can post now? Is that some kind of threat?

I mentioned Murdoch in my post not her. I posted a news story.

[Jack_Savage]

Excuse me? You are warning me what names I can post now? Is that some kind of threat?

I mentioned Murdoch in my post not her. I posted a news story.


Tell me what you honestly think? http://www.freeconservatives.com/vb/images/icons/bunny000.gif

[jayson]

All the more bad news for Ghouliani is all the more good news for honest Americans.

[Rhino]

Tell me what you honestly think? http://www.freeconservatives.com/vb/images/icons/bunny000.gifAbout what? She asked a question. And she didn't bring up Regan either.

[Rhino]

Is Murdoch the reason why Fox News is supporting him so heavy? It sure would explain a lot.Does Murdoch personally support Rudy? I'm not aware of it if he does. But even if he does, that doesn't necessarily mean he would steer the reporting that way. I wouldn't necessarily rule it out, but I wouldn't just assume it. I see support for Fred on Fox as well. Although they mention Rudy much more often, I think that is in large part due to the poll numbers. Media outlets are often driven by polls as opposed to principles. Although I'd like to see Fred mentioned more, I don't think I'd want a network being biased for him. I hate it when the other networks do that, and I wouldn't want Fox to fall into the same trap, even if it would mean supporting my chosen candidate.

[Suzie]

I agree, but it sure does seem like he has a bandwagon going there. Makes you wonder if some of these guys who have always been more conservative than Rudy has ever even thought about being are just trying to please the boss and singing the praises just to stay in good at FOX.

[DesertFox]

Murdoch needs to countersue for $10 hunnert gajillion muja lillian killian fee fie foe fillian buckeroozies.

[jayson]

Does Murdoch personally support Rudy? I'm not aware of it if he does. But even if he does, that doesn't necessarily mean he would steer the reporting that way.

Have you watched the Fox News debates? They give tremendous time to Rudy compared to all the other candidates, and let him break the most rules. I remember in one debate they let him talk for almost a minute over the 30 second limit, and not a single moderator said a peep at the time. But when other candidates spoke, the moderators would shut them up exactly at 30 seconds, sometimes even interrupting them at 27-28 seconds in.

I'm not going to claim that Murdoch gives the debate moderators marching orders... because that would just be an accusation and none of us will ever know whether it is true or not... but the coincidences are astounding and repetitious. But one thing is certain: Fox News has definitely been throwing their support behind Ghouliani.

[Rhino]

I haven't watched the debates.

[jayson]

I haven't watched the debates.

Well you haven't missed much.

[Venus de Smilo]

Does Murdoch personally support Rudy? I'm not aware of it if he does. But even if he does, that doesn't necessarily mean he would steer the reporting that way. I wouldn't necessarily rule it out, but I wouldn't just assume it. I see support for Fred on Fox as well. Although they mention Rudy much more often, I think that is in large part due to the poll numbers. Media outlets are often driven by polls as opposed to principles. Although I'd like to see Fred mentioned more, I don't think I'd want a network being biased for him. I hate it when the other networks do that, and I wouldn't want Fox to fall into the same trap, even if it would mean supporting my chosen candidate.
Regan has a huge ax to grind with Murdoch because they reneged on publishing her O.J. book because of public protest. Murdoch (Regnery Publishing) paid her off and told her to pound sand. because she was paid, she had no basis for a suit, so she's lashing out this way. I wouldn't be surprised if she was put up to this by a nice cash incentive or promise by Hillary's campaign operatives (or even Bloomberg?). The timing, coming on the heels of the Kerik indictment, is VERY suspicious to me.

This article was published by the L.A. Times, for pete's sake, and they are desperately afraid that if Rudy gets the nomination, he could possibly carry CA or give Hillary real trouble here. This is just an extension of the DBM's effort to take out the 'pub front runner, whoever it is. Since Rudy is considered the most electable 'pub and appeals to less conservative SoCal 'pubs, he's a real threat.

Who gives a damn who Regan or Bernie Kerik slept with?

I don't know if Murdoch supports Rudy or not. He did one or more fundraisers for Hillary, which suggests he doesn't. I haven't noticed Fox News supporting Rudy. What I DO see is Fox News NOT bashing the 'pub front runner like all the other media ARE doing.

[Rhino]

Well you haven't missed much.That's what I've heard.

[Venus de Smilo]

Have you watched the Fox News debates? They give tremendous time to Rudy compared to all the other candidates, and let him break the most rules. I remember in one debate they let him talk for almost a minute over the 30 second limit, and not a single moderator said a peep at the time. But when other candidates spoke, the moderators would shut them up exactly at 30 seconds, sometimes even interrupting them at 27-28 seconds in.

I'm not going to claim that Murdoch gives the debate moderators marching orders... because that would just be an accusation and none of us will ever know whether it is true or not... but the coincidences are astounding and repetitious. But one thing is certain: Fox News has definitely been throwing their support behind Ghouliani.
Debate moderators give the front runners more time, period, be it Fox, NBC, whomever. The news is made by what the front runners say and any fireworks between them, not by what the bottom tier have to say because nobody cares. The bottom tier candidates get more attention at college and other kinds of fora, but not when it comes to valuable TV time. Here's an example, and I'll use Fox just as you did: Think back to how much time Ron Paul got in the last Fox debate. He got a TON of time considering that he's polling at the bottom of the bottom tier - dead last. Yet, because he's controversial and ignites either humorous or angry responses from the others because he's so off-base with the party on the war, they give him more time than the other second tier candidates by far.

Why are shows like The View, Oprah and Jerry Springer popular? Because there's always conflict. Why was NBC News considering hiring Rosie O'Donnell? Because she's controversial. Controvery and conflict bring ratings.

Which candidates do all the media talk about the most? Rudy and Hillary, period. Right now, the media are doing their best to trash Rudy, and it doesn't matter if it's Rudy or Thompson or McCain. They will trash the 'pub front runner, whoever it is because THE MEDIA WANTS HILLARY TO WIN, plain and simple. We help them in their effort by constantly repeating what they say by posting it and agreeing with it because most here dislike Rudy. It's just more gullible 'pub foot-shooting.

[Jack_Savage]

About what? She asked a question. And she didn't bring up Regan either.


I guess I am missing something.


The name of the thread is "Regan was told to lie to protect Rudy" Couldn't be more clearer than that. My response was to beware of what Judith says. No. I don't think anyone would honestly think I was threatening Suzy. Honestly Rhino, were you confused about it?

I can't imagine how Suzy would be, but who knows, thats why I asked her the question.

[Suzie]

No-no. No Suzy, she is an outcast, please beware of bringing her name up

I didn't bring up her name it was in a news story I posted a question about.

[Venus de Smilo]

Murdoch needs to countersue for $10 hunnert gajillion muja lillian killian fee fie foe fillian buckeroozies.
Agreed. Looks to me like Regan's doin' Hillary's work for her. Hillary gets a double-whammy on this one - a hit on Rudy and Fox News all in one-fell swoop. It's a no-brainer, but here we go again jumpin' on Hillary's anti-Rudy bandwagon driven by the leftwing 'rat media.

[Jack_Savage]

I didn't bring up her name it was in a news story I posted a question about.

So when you were forming the name of the thread, what did you expect the responses to be about, Fred?

Look, I don't mind you challanging me and splitting hairs as you do. But lets not act like its some real issue. Ok?

[Suzie]

Well maybe if you quit telling people what they can post then we can discuss what it's about.

[Venus de Smilo]

I didn't bring up her name it was in a news story I posted a question about.
Regan's claims are the main subject of the story, seeing as how it's HER lawsuit that the story is about. Or are we limited to only discussing the allegations she's made because they're detrimental to a candidate you don't like?

[Suzie]

Regan's claims are the main subject of the story, seeing as how it's HER lawsuit that the story is about.
And I didn't defend her or the story. I asked a question about Murdoch.

[Venus de Smilo]

I agree, but it sure does seem like he has a bandwagon going there. Makes you wonder if some of these guys who have always been more conservative than Rudy has ever even thought about being are just trying to please the boss and singing the praises just to stay in good at FOX.
I think we should be pleased that there's at least one major news source that isn't trying to take the 'pubs down.

[Rhino]

The thread title was just a copy of the article title. I didn't think you were threatening her, but apparently she did.

[Suzie]

Well I have never liked Judith (if I am allowed to mention her name) and I was wondering if Murdoch has publicly endorsed Rudy which will give her ammo in this lawsuit.

[Venus de Smilo]

And I didn't defend her or the story. I asked a question about Murdoch.

Here's the question you asked in your opening post: "Is Murdoch the reason why Fox News is supporting him so heavy? It sure would explain a lot." "Him", meaning Rudy, right?

Your question assumes that Fox is supporting Rudy, first of all. I, as will others, contend that Fox just isn't bashing the 'pub front runner like ALL the other major media outlets are doing. Fox has a history of not bashing 'pubs, which is why conservatives such as you and I watch Fox News in the first place. Do you really think that Fox wholeheartedly and actively supports every single 'pub they mention? Do you grasp that all media outlets mainly report on front runners during election season and that that's how they maintain ratings? What would their audience be if they reported on Kucinich and Paul instead of Hillary and Rudy or Obama and McCain? How many viewers would they have? What the majority of people interested in this stuff care about is how things are shaping up in the big picture, not how some unknown is doing. There was little talk of Huckabee until he started making some inroads, but now he's mentioned regularly. Supply and demand.

It doesn't matter whether you actually mentioned Regan or not. She and her lawsuit, and the allegations it contains, are the main subject of the story you posted, despite the far-left LA Times article title that of course was intended as a direct hit at Rudy. The truth is that if it was directed at Thompson instead of Rudy, y'all would be screaming yer heads off about the unfair hit on Fred and it's just this fired and scorned woman's retaliatory allegations, etc..

But if Murdoch is not supporting Rudy, it deflates Regan's claims, which is good for Rudy, and that isn't wanted on this board. Since you and others have been unabashed in your Rudy bashing, I can understand why those who are willing to support him if he gets the nomination would be curious about why this was posted instead of a story (hard as they are to find, but they're out there in other than DBM publishings) that implies or alleges wrongdoing by Hillary instead.

Murdoch has sponsored fundraisers for Hillary, FYI, so it doesn't seem like he's rootin' for Rudy, to answer your original question. Maybe THAT should be looked at more closely by conservatives since it is an established FACT, rather than Regan's ALLEGATIONS.

[Venus de Smilo]

Well I have never liked Judith (if I am allowed to mention her name) and I was wondering if Murdoch has publicly endorsed Rudy which will give her ammo in this lawsuit.

No, he hasn't. As I said, he's held fundraisers for the demon. The media outlets' editors (and owners) don't usually endorse until just before the election. In fact, I don't know if they generally endorse in primaries or not. I pay so little attention to what the print media says that I don't know what they're doing with respect to primaries these days.

[Suzie]

That's what I was wondering, thanks.

[Rhino]

I wouldn't consider it a hit piece against either candidate. Now the lawsuit I might look at that way, but I don't really know enough about the allegations to make that determination. And it does matter whether Suzie actually mentioned Regan or not. Her question was about Murdoch, and the article was what made her curious, so it was quite germaine. She made no judgements about Regan, the lawsuit or hit pieces.

[Venus de Smilo]

I wouldn't consider it a hit piece against either candidate. Now the lawsuit I might look at that way, but I don't really know enough about the allegations to make that determination. And it does matter whether Suzie actually mentioned Regan or not. Her question was about Murdoch, and the article was what made her curious, so it was quite germaine. She made no judgements about Regan, the lawsuit or hit pieces.
Whatever, Rhino. The question assumed facts about Murdoch relating directly to the candidate that could only become a question if the allegations are accepted at face value, none of which comes into play without the story about Regan's allegations in the first place. The main subject of the story is the lawsuit, yet the question went directly to the candidate with an assumption confirming a relationship between Murdoch and Rudy which, in and of itself, gives credence to the allegations against the candidate.

[Rhino]

I don't see where the validity of the allegations would have any effect on curiosity about Murdoch. I can see where one might wonder whether they considered the allegations to be true or not. But, as you said, whatever.

[Jack_Savage]

Well maybe if you quit telling people what they can post then we can discuss what it's about.

well if thats what you got from my post, I suppose a clarifacation is called for. Heres what I got from your post; Judith Regan complaing about Fox News bending over backwards for Rudy and that she was suing Murdock (Newcorp) Acusing Murdock of asking her to lie.

My point was to beware (all those who got the same thing from your post) of what Judith has to say. Not put too much into her alligations.

When I first heard her speak a few years ago, I had no idea she was into publishing and the extent of her personal stake in the topics she talked about. But the more I hear her, she is appearing like a calculating fruit-loop. She comes off as someone trying to vent the pent up fury left over from the horrible experience resulting from her O.J. con.

So no, it was not my intention to tell you what to post. I don't think anyone but O.J. has told Judith Regan to lie.