Chris Wallace To Reince Priebus: ‘You Don’t Get To Tell’ The Press What To Do

Screen capture

TPM LIVEWIRE

Fox News host Chris Wallace on Sunday pressed White House chief of staff Reince Priebus to explain President Donald Trump’s comment that the press is “the enemy of the American People.”

“He said that the fake media, not certain stories, the fake media are an enemy to the country. We don’t have a state-run media in this country. That’s what they have in dictatorships,” Wallace told Priebus on “Fox News Sunday.”

Priebus responded by calling “unsourced” stories about turmoil inside Trump’s administration “total garbage.”

“If you’re going to come out with a story that says Russian spies are talking to your campaign, my God,” he said. “I mean, I think you should in some cases, or in most cases, actually have a named source.”

Priebus argued that the media has not covered Trump’s actions during his first month in office as closely as it has covered his notable failures.

“We covered all of that,” Wallace interjected. “Here’s the problem. When the President says that we’re the enemy of the American people, it makes it sound like if you’re going against him, you’re going against the country.”

He compared Trump’s response to critical media coverage to President Barack Obama’s response.

“You don’t get to tell us what to do, Reince! You don’t get to tell us what to do any more than Barack Obama did,” Wallace said. “I’ve got to say he never said that we were an enemy of the people.”

“He said a lot of things about Fox News, Chris. I think you ought to go check the tape,” Priebus said. “He took plenty of shots.”

“No, he took the shots, and we didn’t like them, and frankly we don’t like this either,” Wallace said. “But he never went as far as President Trump has, and that’s what’s concerning, because it seems like he crosses a line when he talks about — that we’re an enemy of the people. That is concerning.”

ESME CRIBB

Chris Wallace Fires Back At Priebus’ ‘Ridiculous’ Argument Over Crowd Size

Fox News screencap

TPM LIVEWIRE

“Fox News Sunday” host Chris Wallace asked White House Chief of Staff Reince Priebus to explain how “arguing about crowd size” will help the American people in a contentious interview Sunday morning.

“President Trump said in his inaugural address that every decision he makes will be to benefit American families. How does arguing about crowd size do that?” Wallace asked.

“It’s really not about crowd size,” Priebus replied. “What it’s about is honesty in the media.”

He said that “from day one” the media has been trying to undermine Trump’s legitimacy and cited a reporter who tweeted that a bust of Martin Luther King, Jr. had been removed from the Oval Office.

“The point is the attacks, and the attempts to delegitimize this president in one day,” he said.

“You talk about honesty, and say that this was about honesty,” Wallace said. “Well, there’s another issue, though, Reince, and that’s the President’s honesty, because two things that he said yesterday were just flat wrong.”

He showed side-by-side photos from Trump’s inauguration and President Barack Obama’s inauguration in 2009 to compare crowd sizes.

“Take a look at those pictures,” he said. “Which one is bigger?”

“Listen, you’re also not saying that that picture was taken before he was even speaking,” Priebus interrupted. “I could take a picture of the Mall right now—”

“I was there! I was there on the Mall!” Wallace said, speaking over Priebus. “I mean let me say first of all I think this is a ridiculous conversation, but there were huge areas. He said there were crowds all the way to the Washington Monument.”

“There was,” Priebus said. “I was sitting there.”

“Reince, there weren’t,” Wallace said.

“Yes there was,” Priebus insisted. “I was sitting there looking.”

ESME CRIBB

Watch the entire exchange below, starting at 0:54:

Newt Gingrich: Trump Should Use The CNN Confrontation As An Excuse To Break The Press

Fox News screenshot

MEDIA MATTERS

Newt Gingrich, a prominent supporter of President-elect Donald Trump and a Fox News contributor, would like to shatter the influence of an “adversarial” press. And he thinks Trump’s press conference confrontation with CNN reporter Jim Acosta has given the incoming administration the opportunity to dramatically reshape White House press interactions to favor journalists who will treat the president-elect more favorably.

During Trump’s January 11 presser, he lashed out at CNN  and demanded the network apologize for a recent report on his alleged ties to Russia, and Acosta repeatedly called out, seeking to ask a question in response. Trump replied by calling CNN “terrible,” castigating Acosta for being “rude,” and declaring, “I’m not going to give you a question. You are fake news!” Sean Spicer, who will serve as Trump’s White House press secretary,subsequently told Acosta that he would be removed if he continued to press for a question, and Spicer later demanded that the reporter apologize to the president-elect.

Team Trump’s efforts seem intended to both damage the credibility of CNN and cow other networks into shying away from similarly critical journalism — as Gingrich put it, to “shrink and isolate” the network. But the Fox News contributor wants the incoming administration to go even further and use the incident as an excuse to “close down the elite press.”

Gingrich laid out this strategy during an interview on Sean Hannity’s Fox News program, one of the most pro-Trump venues available. He urged Spicer to learn “a couple of big lessons” from the incident. First and foremost, he suggested that Acosta be banned from reporting on Trump events for 60 days “as a signal, frankly, to all the other reporters that there are going to be real limits” for proper behavior.

VIDEO LINK

But Gingrich’s recommendations went far beyond chastising Acosta. He urged Trump to stop prioritizing questions from major news outlets due to their tough coverage and confrontational attitude. Instead, he suggested that he “extend the privileges to reporters from out of town, folks that fly in from all over the country to be allowed to be at a briefing.” Those reporters, Gingrich suggested, would be “a lot more courteous” and “responsible” rather than being “adversarial.”

Gingrich went on to explain his theory of the press under the Trump administration. “You don’t have to think of The New York Times or CNN or any of these people as news organizations,” he explained. “They’re mostly propaganda organizations. And they’re going to be after Trump every single day of his presidency.”

“And he needs to understand that that’s the case, and so does Sean Spicer in speaking for him. And they simply need to go out there and understand they have it in their power to set the terms of this dialogue.” He added, “They can close down the elite press.”

Trump has already started to take steps like those Gingrich describes. During the 2016 campaign, he reportedly made a deal with the right-wing Sinclair Broadcasting Group, which owns television stations across the country, to provide more access to its stations in exchange for a promise from Sinclair to broadcast his interviews without commentary.

He took questions from sycophantic pro-Trump outlets Breitbart.com and One America News Network during this week’s press conference. Right Side Broadcasting Network, which has been described as “the unofficial version of Trump TV,” claims it will be in the White House press briefing room under the new president. Other right-wing outlets like Laura Ingraham’s LifeZette and Alex Jones’ conspiracy website Infowars could be next.

Alexey Kovalev, a Russian journalist who has covered Vladimir Putin’s annual press conferences, warned of the use of such tactics in a searing “message to my doomed colleagues in the American media” that he authored following Trump’s press conference.

“A mainstay of Putin’s press conferences is, of course, softball questions,” Kovalev wrote. These include both “hyperlocal issues that a president isn’t even supposed to be dealing with,” which nonetheless provide “a real opportunity for him to shine.” Putin also benefits from “people from publications that exist for no other reason than heaping fawning praise on him and attacking his enemies.”

“But there will also be one token critic who will be allowed to ask a ‘sharp’ question,” Kovalev added, “only to be drowned in a copious amount of bullshit, and the man on the stage will always be the winner (‘See? I respect the media and free speech’).”

Of course we are not there yet, but the precedent is unnerving. Gingrich wants nothing more than a cowed, broken press that exists solely to promote the Republican Party’s message. We’ll see soon enough how much of his advice Trump takes.

UPDATE: Gingrich is not alone in urging Trump to freeze out the press. Following Trump’s election, Hannity stated that “until members of the media come clean about colluding with the Clinton campaign and admit that they knowingly broke every ethical standard they are supposed to uphold, they should not have the privilege, they should not have the responsibility of covering the president on behalf of you, the American people.”

“In other words, the mainstream press should not be allowed to cover Trump,” New York University’s Jay Rosen wrote in response to Hannity’s comments. “A few years ago that was a bridge too far. Now it’s a plausible test of poisoned waters.” It looks like we’ll see more of those tests in the days to come.

MATT GERTZ

Hannity, Who Called For Assange’s Arrest, Now Believes Every Word He Says

Carolyn Kaster

TPM LIVEWIRE

Fox News is set to air the first part of an interview Tuesday night between Sean Hannity and Julian Assange, who Hannity has said in the past should be arrested for “waging war” against the United States.

“I believe every word he says,” Hannity told his Fox News colleague Bill Hemmer Tuesday morning, defending the WikiLeaks founder against criticism that he published documents that U.S. intelligence officials say were stolen by Russian-backed hackers in order to benefit President-elect Donald Trump’s presidential campaign.

Hannity flew to London to interview Assange at the Ecuadorian embassy there, where the WikiLeaks founder, facing an outstanding warrant for his arrest in Sweden over rape allegations, has holed up since 2012.

However, in December of 2010, Hannity had criticized the Obama administration on his show for not arresting Assange after WikiLeaks published a quarter of a million confidential U.S. diplomatic cables.

“Assange is apparently not done waging his war against the U.S., at least not yet,” Hannity said at the time.

After WikiLeaks began publishing documents hacked from the servers of the Democratic National Committee this summer, however, Hannity changed his tone.

During a September interview with the WikiLeaks founder, Hannity told Assange: “I do hope you get free one day.”

“In 10 yrs @wikileaks has gotten nothing wrong & no one’s been killed bc of the info released. #freejulianassange #freeinternet for all,” he wrote on Twitter in October.

Hannity addressed the about-face in the interview with Hemmer Tuesday.

“Look, I was a very early critic of him. He’s well aware that I thought he was waging war on the United States. My opinion on it has evolved in large part because of what I have seen that he has done in ten years. Nothing he has published has ever been proven false,” Hannity said. “Nobody’s even questioned the veracity or truthfulness of what he’s doing.”

MATT SHUHAM

Even Fox News Is Turning Against Trump; Calls President Elect WORSE Than Clinton (VIDEO)

Even Fox News Is Turning Against Trump; Calls President Elect WORSE Than Clinton (VIDEO)

Addicting Info

ADDICTING INFO

You know things are going badly for the GOP President-Elect when even Fox News begins to turn on him. In an interview with Fox’s Chris Wallace on Fox News Sunday, Trump was grilled about his conflicts of interest and about his similar accusations toward Hillary Clinton.

Wallace asked Trump about his campaign manager, Kellyanne Conway, telling CNN that Trump would continue his role as executive producer for Celebrity Apprentice in his “spare time.” as well as the fact Trump plans on keeping a stake in his real estate business while in the White House. “Isn’t that a huge conflict of interest, sir?” Wallace asked.

Trump’s response was that it was okay because everyone in the world knows he’s a big real estate tycoon and he denied that he will be involved in the management of the company.

To Wallace’s credit (and I don’t say that often), the Fox anchor countered that Trump “hammered Hillary Clinton over the Clinton Foundation and pay to play.”

Trump responded that that was “different because she takes massive amounts of money from foreign countries.” That’s not true, but Fox didn’t point that out.

Wallace continued, noting that Trump will also be making “massive amounts of money” because “foreign countries are already booking events at the Trump hotel in D.C.,” and that Trump has “business operations, deals with foreign countries…isn’t this on steroids.”

Trump was seemingly appalled, but Wallace went on, saying that foreign governments were trying to curry favor with the United States through Trump’s hotels.

Trump, though, made the claim that he is “turning down billions of dollars in deals” because of potential conflicts of interest, but he did claim that he didn’t know if he’d be “doing deals,” and said that “under the law (he has) the right to do it,” but he doesn’t want to.

Here’s the video:

It’s becoming increasingly clear that Trump is a danger, not just for domestic policy, but that he and his conflicts of interest present a real threat to the world. This issue is resonating with the American people, nearly 2/3rds of whom have expressed concern with Trump’s conflicts of interest. As for why Fox is waking up to that reality now, and not before the election, well, perhaps they see it as their ticket out of a wildcard Trump presidency. They would much rather deal with a President Mike Pence.

Wendy Gittleson

On Election Day, Trump Calls Running For President A “Waste Of Time’ (VIDEO)

ADDICTING INFO

Whether Republican nominee Donald Trump actually ever wanted to be the next President of the United States has been under speculation for a while now, especially with rumors about a Trump TV network surfacing as his campaign came to an end. It probably doesn’t help that Trump celebrated Election Day by dissing his own presidential campaign, perhaps in early acceptance that he might come out of this defeated.

In an interview with Fox and Friends on Tuesday morning, Trump decided to spend Election Day telling Americans that his campaign might very well have been a big waste of time for him. His exact words were:

“If I don’t win, I will consider it a waste of time, energy and money.”

 Seriously, could Trump be any less deserving of America’s future? His rival, Hillary Clinton, would never have called her campaign a “waste” and understands what an honor it is to lead this country. To imply that he might have better things to do with his time is extremely disrespectful and ignorant of Trump, which is hardly surprising when you look back on how awful his campaign was. You can watch Trump diss his own campaign below:

What Trump’s family members said on Election Day wasn’t much better. On MSNBC’s Morning Joe, Donald Trump, Jr. seemed to already be accepting defeat as he spoke about what the Trump family would do after the election. Trump’s son said:

“[If he doesn’t win,] we go back largely to doing what we’re doing. But I think hopefully he was able to create enough of a movement that forces people in the political elite, people in that political class to truly represent their people.”

These interviews clearly show that Trump doesn’t understand the responsibility or honor that comes with being the commander-in-chief. We’ve never had a less worthy presidential candidate, and he doesn’t deserve to be elected.

By Vera

Fox’s Jeanine Pirro: Comey Disgraced And Politicized The FBI

CROOKS AND LIARS

Hell must have frozen over because I actually agree with something Fox’s wingnut “judge” Jeanine Pirro had to say. I disagree with her about whether or not Clinton should have been indicted, but she’s actually right when it comes to Comey politicizing the FBI.

Here’s more on her latest rant from Fox’s blog:

Saturday on Justice, Judge Jeanine Pirro said that FBI Director James Comey’s decision to send a letter to Congress notifying them of the discovery of further email evidence in the probe into Hillary Clinton’s alleged mishandling of classified information “disgraces and politicizes” the bureau.

“[This] is symptomatic of all that is wrong in Washington,” she said.

“One of the most revered agencies in our nation’s history–now seen as putting its finger on the scales of justice–should not now be front and center,” Pirro said, “You know I support Donald Trump and want him to win, but whether it’s Hillary Clinton or anyone else, Comey’s actions violate not only longstanding Justice Department policy…but the most fundamental rules of fairness and impartiality.”

Pirro discussed her own similar situation involving the DOJ: In 2006, she ran on the Republican/Conservative/Independent ticket for New York State Attorney General.

“In the home stretch of a statewide campaign, the Justice Department and the FBI violated their own policy against making public statements that could affect an election, and announced to the press they were opening an investigation of me,” she said.

“It was mean-spirited and nothing came of it, except the adverse publicity cost me at the polls.”

Regarding Clinton’s case, Pirro said that if Comey administered a thorough investigation, “we wouldn’t be in this mess.”

“Hillary Clinton should have been indicted a long time ago–she and Bill’s scandals have done nothing but soil our nation’s image,” she said.

By Heather

Megyn Kelly said Trump might be a ‘sexual predator.’ Then things got very intense.

Fox News Screen capture

THINK PROGRESS

‘You are fascinated with sex and you don’t care about public policy’

There are two weeks to go until Election Day and tensions are flaring on Fox News.

In an interview with Newt Gingrich, Fox News’ Megyn Kelly suggested that Donald Trump might be a “sexual predator.” She based this on things he’s said (“We saw on that tape Trump himself saying he likes to grab women by the genitals and kiss them against their will”) and the many women who have came forward alleging Trump has sexually assaulted them.

Gingrich, one of Trump’s most prominent supporters, become livid.

“You are fascinated with sex and you don’t care about public policy,” Gingrich, who has been married three times, told Kelly.

“I’m not fascinated by sex,” Kelly replied, “but I am fascinated by the protection of women and what we are getting in the oval office.”

Things went downhill from there.

Gingrich tried to change the topic to allegations against Bill Clinton, daring Kelly to call the former president a “sexual predator.”

Kelly noted that she’s hosted Kathleen Willey, who claims Bill Clinton sexually assaulted her in 1993, on her show.

But, Kelly added, Bill Clinton is “not on the ticket.”

With that the segment was over.

“You can take your anger issues and spend some time working on them,” Kelly told Gingrich before going to a commercial break.

Judd Legum

Fox’s Judge Jeanine Pirro Says Black Lives Matter Is “Based on Something That Is Not True”

Fox's Judge Jeanine Pirro Says Black Lives Matter Is

Image Credit: Getty Images

Whoa…did I misconstrue this article?  My take-away from this is that ‘Black lives DON’T matter’…period…end of story!    Clearly and sadly…she is not alone in her thinking. (ks)

IDENTITIES.MIC

During her appearance on The O’Reilly Factor Friday, Fox News contributor Jeanine Pirro argued that the entire Black Lives Matter movement is “based on something that is not true.”

Fox News host Eric Bolling raised the issue of people chanting “Black Lives Matter” as the families of slain police officers spoke to people attending the Democratic National Convention.

Pirro grew angry. Here are her remarks, transcribed in full:

“And I have to tell you, Eric, I have a real problem with that. The whole concept of Black Lives Matter, the genesis, it began in Ferguson with Michael Brown and with Trayvon Martin. Trayvon Martin, the defendant was acquitted. In Ferguson, with Michael Brown, they didn’t even bring charges up against him. The Justice Department couldn’t bring anything against him. So, it was based on a lie, ‘Hands up, don’t shoot.’ Now, this whole Black Lives Matter movement is based on something that is not true.”

Pirro later argued that Brown was a “thug” who “reached for a cop’s gun.”

Her remarks were part of a larger conversation spurred by Bolling, in which he asked why the families of the victims of violence against police were not invited on stage with the Mothers of the Movement. Pirro said there is “no moral equivalency” between the people who died because of America’s police brutality epidemic and police officers who died in the line of duty.

Pirro, herself a judge, seems to believe that a person being acquitted or not having any charges brought up against them means they did nothing wrong. She says Black Lives Matter is based on a lie because George Zimmerman was acquitted and Michael Brown’s killer didn’t get indicted. Pirro also repeated several times that Ferguson was the birth of the Black Lives Matter movement, though it actually began earlier, following the acquittal of George Zimmerman.

Fox's Judge Jeanine Pirro Says Black Lives Matter Is "Based on Something That Is Not True"

Source: Mic/YouTube

Pirro also decried “vigilante justice” and people killing police officers “because they’re white.” However, as Mic‘s Jamilah King previously wrote, the shooting of Dallas police officers is exactly the kind of vigilante justice that Black Lives Matter fights against.

King wrote that Black Lives Matter is founded on the “belief that the violence aimed at black people in America is so endemic, so pervasive, that it underlays the violence that disrupts every other community in our country. If we refuse to address the disregard for black life, we make it all too easy to disregard other lives — and yes, that includes the lives of police officers.”

By Mathew Rodriguez

 

 

Fox seeks to extend cable news domination in post-Ailes era

Getty Images

THE HILL

Fox News dominated the cable news landscape for 20 years under Roger Ailes, but faces questions about whether it can extend its reign going forward.

The shocking departure of Ailes amid allegations of sexual harassment has left Rupert Murdoch, the 85-year old executive chairman of 21st Century Fox, in charge. But with a myriad of other major media properties to attend to and age considerations, Murdoch’s role running day-to-day operations out of Nee York will only be in an interim capacity.

A source familiar with the situation says it will be “multiple months” before any permanent successor to Ailes is decided upon.

The same source says there’s no rush to make a decision because current to management at the network is stable in the hands of Murdoch, Bill Shine ( executive vice president of programming) and Jay Wallace (executive vice president of news and editorial).

Rivals of Fox see an opportunity, while longtime political fans of the network, who saw it buttress the conservative political movement, are openly worried the network could shift under new leadership.

Murdoch’s sons, James and Lachlan, serve as co-chairmen and CEOs of Fox News’s parent company, and could use Ailes’s departure to reinvent the network.

“Fox News will be going through a dramatic transformation as it figures itself out without its creator,” said James Shepard, chair of the Communications Department at California State University, Fullerton.

“In the short term, I suspect we will see minimal turnover and experimentation,” he said. But in the long term, we may see softening of the most radical elements of programming and perhaps see more ‘fair and balanced’ news.”

Sky News in Britain, which is also operated by the Murdochs, doesn’t have the edge of Fox News in the United States. If there is a change, Shepard says it will be a sign that “the Murdoch sons want to put their stamp on the company by importing practices from Sky News in Britain.”

Shepard’s view isn’t necessarily a majority opinion.

The cable news network makes its parent company millions, and some think that alone means there will be no change.

Research firm SNL Kagan estimates Fox News generated $2.3 billion in ad sales alone last year. Pivotal Research analyst Brian Wieser says the operating profit for Fox News was $1.6 billion in fiscal 2015. That’s nearly 25 percent of 21st Century Fox’s overall operating profit.

“At this point Fox News is such a fine-tuned and well-oiled machine, I think even Mickey Mouse could step in and keep it running, says Doug Spero, associate professor of communication at Meredith College and TV veteran who includes ABC, CBS and NBC on his resume.

“They attract the same demos year after year and they’ve dominated with their prime-time lineup. Bill O’Reilly has been number one for years,” he said.

“As the saying goes, ‘If it ain’t terribly broken, don’t terribly fix it.’ Would they change the ideology or content? I don’t think so,” says Spero. “They’ve carved out their audience and if you’ve got the market, why mess with it? If the cash register keeps ringing, I can’t imagine the Murdoch family will allow that to stop.”

Fox has easily been number one in cable news for the past 15 years.

The network even recently finished at the top of all cable channels, including ESPN.

The competition with CNN and MSNBC hasn’t even been close, with Fox oftentimes at least beating the two audiences combined in both total viewers and the key 25-54 demo.

At the same time, many of Fox’s stars are aging, and it is not clear younger stars such as Megyn Kelly will stay with the network.

CNN has been making gains lately under industry veteran Jeff Zucker (who ran NBC before eventually going to CNN in 2012) and is clearly in a better positions of the two networks below Fox to make a serious challenge.

But is Fox vulnerable to a challenge?

The momentum of election years — particularly this one with the ratings gold that is Donald Trump — doesn’t always carry over into election off-years.

MSNBC, for example, finished second to Fox News after the 2012 re-election year of President Obama. The network finished so strong that MSNBC President Phil Griffin made the bold prediction that MSNBC would catch Fox in the ratings by the end of 2013. The exact opposite happened, with MSNBC falling backwards and behind a struggling-at-the-time CNN instead.

The key for both CNN and MSNBC, at least in terms of being truly competitive with Fox, is to have the kind of talent and compelling content foundation to keep audiences tuning in after the votes are counted on Election Day.

“Ailes has built a very strong machine. No one can deny that he’s built an empire at Fox News,”” says television veteran Doug Spero. “Yes, it’s bigger than one man, but it’s basically his baby. At this point, it’s so solid I don’t think it’ll budge even two ratings points even after he’s gone.”

Ailes was undeniably Fox’s most valuable employee.

But who will guide Fox News into next year and beyond?

Outside observers differ over whether the company will look outside for leadership.

Some media analysts see the top candidate as Bill Shine, Sr. EVP, Programming of FOX News and FOX Business. Under Shine, the business network has been enjoying its best 18 months in its history since he was promoted to handle the day-to-day operations in late 2014, even beating rival CNBC on some occasions, once an unthinkable feat.

Shine has been with the network since its inception in 1996, working his way up the ranks from producer to senior programming executive.

Jay Wallace is also seen as a strong contender for the job, having recently been promoted to executive vice president of news and editorial in April. Wallace replaced the now-departed Michael Clemente, who left the network last week for reasons — according to the network — unrelated to Ailes’ departure.

Wallace has also been with Fox News since Day 1, having started out as a tape coordinator. He now oversees daytime and weekday news programming.
The third and final serious contender internally is John Moody, executive vice president and editor. Moody has been with the network for four years and is Rome bureau chief for Time Magazine.

Another name making the rounds is David Rhodes. The current president of CBS News extended his contract last year through 2019.

But if the goal of the Murdochs is to use the Ailes departure as impetus to reinvent Fox News into a more traditional news outlet, Rhodes, 43, may be a viable option (if not costly given the existing contract) since he is also a former Fox News executive.

But David Parsons, a public relations executive for more than 40 years, with a focus on corporate and crisis communications, says another name with an impressive resume should be considered.

“I would see the candidate being embraced as having direct news experience, still young enough to navigate the digital world and all – someone like David Westin, former head of ABC News from 1997-2010,” says Parsons. “He was well respected and well liked, knows the political ropes and the talent handholding that are a big part of the picture.”

Chad Wilkinson, a longtime cable news producer and President of Liberty Media Strategies, sees Fox strongly considering a change but ultimately keeping with what’s worked for the past two decades in turning to Bill Shine, the EVP for programming and Fox Business.

“In the short term, I think Rupert taps Bill Shine to run the operation,” says Wilkinson. “
“Shine is respected by the staff and has done a strong job leading Fox Business since Kevin Magee has exited.

“Long term, I think Murdoch thinks long and hard about (CBS President) David Rhodes, but ends up staying the course with Bill Shine,” Wilkinson continues, adding, “Fox News is a money maker and staying the course with someone that knows the operation and what made it a success will win the job.”

By Joe Concha