Sloppy, Sloppy: Biography Casts Critical Light on Fox News Chief Roger Ailes

By
January 8, 2014

Roger-Ailes-FoxInteresting that the most scandalous charge in this New York Times item on an upcoming book on Roger Alies is denied both by Ailes and the individual in question.

Through a spokeswoman, Mr. Ailes specifically denied using an anti-Semitic slur against Mr. Zaslav.

Mr. Zaslav, now the chief executive of Discovery and one of the most powerful executives in television, also denied it. “We fought with each other and we fought with a lot of other people,” he said Tuesday in a phone interview. “But this allegation is false.” He added that he and Mr. Ailes were now friends.

Then at the bottom of the piece you find two corrections. It’s as if the liberals were slobbering all over themselves so badly at the thought of taking a shot at Ailes, truth and accuracy somehow got lost along the way. Imagine that!

An earlier version of this article misstated the parent company of the Fox News Channel. It is 21st Century Fox, not News Corporation. Also, the name of David Zaslav was misspelled in one instance. It is Zaslav, not Zazlav.

More via Biography Casts Critical Light on Fox News Chief – NYTimes.com.



AdSense 300×250
NewsMax Trending Now
Comments:
  1. […] Sloppy, Sloppy: Biography Casts Critical Light on Fox News Chief Roger Ailes Go to this article […]

  2. timb says:

    Yeah….if only that’s what Sherman based it on

    “That episode was promptly investigated, at NBC’s behest, by a partner from the firm Proskauer Rose, Mr. Sherman writes. The partner concluded in his internal report that he believed the allegation that Mr. Ailes made an anti-Semitic remark — an obscene phrase with the words “little” and “Jew” — was true. Bob Wright, the former chairman and chief executive of NBC who was Mr. Ailes’s boss at the time, is quoted in the book as saying, “My conclusion was that he probably said it.” Mr. Sherman also cites documentation from the investigation.”

    Cites documents and people who performed the investigation? What, Dan, did you just stop reading after the paragraph you quoted?