You're kidding, right?
She's not raising money for pet adoptions or make a wish. She's talking about going on a network that markets itself as 'news' and expecting their help in raising campaign funds. She's saying what many of us already know -- Fox is not a legitimate news network. They are the opposite of fair and balanced.
Will the tea party folks hear this?
Your post seems to indicate all hope is lost... We're totally screwed.
Well - now I have to ask if *you* read the article?
This is what it says:
Guest: Sharron, how are you doing as far as the fundraising?
This is the question that she answers.
Sharron Angle: It's going really well. If you're interested in just the Internet part of that -- and of course I've been criticized for saying that I like to be friends with the [press]
Here she is saying that the:
1) internet leg of fund-raising is going well.
2) People give her a hard time because she 'likes to be friends with the press'
-- but here's the deal: when I get a friendly press outlet -- not so much the guy that's interviewing me -- it's their audience that I'm trying to reach. So, if I can get on Rush Limbaugh, and I can say, "Harry Reid needs $25 million. I need a million people to send twenty five dollars to SharronAngle.com." The day I was able to say that [even], he made $236,000 dollars. That's why it's so important.
Here she is saying:
1) I'm not true, deep friends with Fox News people.
2) I use the interviews as an opportunity for free publicity that I don't have to pay for.
3) It works. In my interview I can mention where to send funds - and people who are watching do choose to send funds.
Somebody...I'm going on Bill O'Reilly the 16th. They say, "Bill O'Reilly, you better watch out for that guy, he's not necessarily a friendly"...Doesn't matter, his audience is friendly, and if I can get an opportunity to say that at least once on his show -- when I said it on Sean Hannity's television show we made $40,000 before we even got out of the studio in New York. It was just [great]. So that's what I'm really reaching out to is that audience that's had it with Harry, and you can watch that happen when I go on those shows. Go on my website, it starts coming in. We have an automatic...when you put your name in there and it doesn't tell how much you gave, but it tells your name and where you're from. And so you can just watch it; it just rolls like this. In fact, with Rush Limbaugh we put it all down. We couldn't take the ticker going fast enough. And we've pulled in over [3,000,000] dollars just from that kind of a message going out.
Here she's repeating - giving another example of how interviews are acting as free-publicity that she doesn't have to pay for.
So the real question is: what's shocking about this to you?
Do you think that, all this time, Obama and others have just been gracing television and news shows *just for fun* - or perhaps they *all* do it *because it's profitable to their campaigning*
Yes - the more people *talk about you* and *mention you* and *show your interviews and your face on tv* and even *air your soundbites on the radio* the *more audience-money you'll bring in*
It has ALWAYS been like that.
Did you expect something else to actually be happening?
Public-exposure (public relations) is a KEY component. . . they could either pay out thousands and thousands for PAID advertisements - or just occasionally go on TV and get to people for FREE. And if the do BOTH - OMG! The exposure is just astounding and so are their campaign-contributions.
It's not WRONG
It's not NEW
It's not SHOCKING
It's not UNETHICAL
It is just the WAY things WORK.
I have an entire chapter in my Government book which discusses this type of thing - it's an interesting subject and, no, it's nothing for the FCC to care about. She didn't in *any* way say "Fox or CNN aren't real news stations . . . and I'll tell you why . . . and then reveal damning facts"
News Stations have their interest which they seek to further and preserve by having people invited on.
And politicians have their own, separate interests which they seek to further and preserve by accepting the invitation to come on said shows.
I think you're just shocked by something you never thought of before.
Did you really, genuinely believe that every time Obama, McCain, Pelosi, Bar and anyone else in the political game didn't consider 'this will benefit me and my campaign efforts if I go on tv and talk to them" ?
And just by posting *this post* of yours and pointing out her website you're giving her yet *more* free and unsolicited exposure (which they bet on) - thus spreading her campaign-money taking avenues further, to more people. You're becoming a part of the cycle and system that you seem shocked by. And they don't care - because they're the ones benefiting in the end.
Want someone to go away? The best thing you can do is NOT talk about them.
