I don't like when someone messes with something that is better left to turn out on its own. And when the chief motive is financial gain, it's a thousand times worse.
Did someone at Fox News Channel contrive the whole debate set-up scheme mainly to put more advertising revenue in the network's pockets?
If so, the first candidate to ‘buy’ into it may be Chris Christie.
Yesterday, nj.com reported on the New Jersey governor’s $250,000 ad buy on Fox News:
And, today, the same source reported on an additional buy via Christie’s super PAC, America Leads, bringing the governor’s total to $1 million in Fox News advertising:Gov. Chris Christie's newest television campaign video includes a $250,000 ad buy to the news network hosting the first Republican presidential debate, the campaign confirmed.
Christie's ad, titled "Protect America," will air nationally on Fox News, campaign spokeswoman Samantha Smith confirmed. Christie's camp is spending $250,000 on the national ad buy.
Advertising on a national venue like Fox News, in August, makes no sense for a candidate if the target audience is in primary states with first votes being cast months from now.Gov. Chris Christie and a group supporting his presidential campaign plan to spend close to $1 million dollars for ads on Fox
News, the television channel sponsoring a Republican candidates debate next month.
The PAC declined to say how much it would spend on the ad buy, but a person familiar will the details who was not authorized to discuss the cost said the American Leads plans to invest about $750,000 in the ad buy.
The Christie campaign is spending $250,000 on the ad titled "Protect America," that will appear on Fox News, campaign spokeswoman, Samantha Smith confirmed.
However, if your goal is to get onto a debate stage based on performance in national polls focused on likely GOP voters, there is only one place a candidate should be spending his or her money: Fox News.
Is this potential to turn the debate structure into a money-maker for Fox mere coincidence? Some are beginning to ask that question, albeit liberal sources so far.
On Friday morning, Media Matters posted an article entitled, "Chris Christie Spending Big Money To Get Into Fox News Debate" with the opening:
Raw Story reports on Rachel Maddow's program highlights that evening:New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie is reportedly purchasing $250,000 of advertising time on Fox News in an attempt to help secure a place at the network's August 6 debate. Christie's ad buy is more evidence that Fox News' debate -- the first of the presidential cycle -- is proving lucrative for the network.
And today, the morning after, Daily Kos writes:While the younger Paul is having trouble raising money, Maddow said, supporters for New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie have bought $250,000 worth of advertising time on Fox News in an effort to boost his national profile ahead of the first GOP candidate debate.
The conservative network has already said it would allow just the top 10 candidates in the polls to participate, Maddow said, effectively forcing them to buy national ads instead of focusing on traditional campaign events in Iowa and New Hampshire.
“It’s a great racket that Fox has set up,” she said, adding, “Ka-ching! Must be very nice for Fox.”
Will the GOP have more boldness than a local Fox affiliate is allowed? Might they seize upon this -- whether it can be proven or not -- as a way to insist Fox take their profit margin out of the equation by allowing all candidates on the debate stage? Or might the party pull its candidates, not wanting the selection of their potential nominee to be determined by a network more interested in lining its pockets than giving every credible candidate his or her chance in front of all the American people?
As the current Fox debate format is becoming less and less popular among the candidates and the people, it's something the party should consider. Holding Fox to account in a way that brings all candidates to the debate would be welcome by practically everyone involved -- except Fox News.