Is this the beginning of the end of television's most despicable era?
Fox News Channel began its broadcasts less than a decade ago. Six years earlier, Rush Limbaugh was already proving, through radio, the existence of a vast audience hungry for commentary that countered the nation's entrenched, generally Democratic Party faithful, often loud and creepy journalism corps. Rupert Murdoch is not a political conservative. Creating an aura of conservatism was a business decision; but not necessarily a sustainable ruse.
It doesn't take much to pretend to be conservative in the US; which allows all political power to rest in the hands of just two parties. CNBC (and then MSNBC) are framed as politically liberal because they shill for the D-Party. It doesn't actually matter where the things they support might actually lie on realistic chart of the political spectrum. Fox presenters merely needed to repeat R-Party rhetoric to be labeled conservative.
It was clear from the beginning that Fox had a hard time finding competent conservative commentators. The O'Reilly Factor (originally The O'Reilly Report) was one of their first programs. It included guests involved in a wide range of topics that had been treated to purely one-sided “news” presentations in the past. When in over his head, host Bill O'Reilly would often tell his guests to “shut up” and then command that the interview was over. Critics have also pointed out that many interviews were taped before airing, giving producers the opportunity to edit portions in which O'Reilly was bested. That would put the “fair and balanced” rating for the show right up there with Crossing Over with John Edward. Despite O'Reilly's lack of knowledge, inability to discuss most topics, or even to carry out a civil interview, the show became one of the network's most watched. There seemed to be just one hard and fast rule. R-Party positions are good.
The marketing departments of big broadcasters understand the equation even if not everyone else does. (Which is why it still works to some extent.) Loud and creepy people on MSNBC, like D-Party operative Chhrris Mattthews and sports commentator Keith Olbermann, validate O'Reilly and others through bizarre and often perverse opposition using the least meaningful “activist” political terminology to evoke trained emotional responses from their viewers.
It's as though the only insight of big investors in the “news” business came from watching the 1976 film, Network and found their own Arthur Jensen's (corporate chairmen) to run things; who in turn cultivate versions of Howard Beale (insane news man that Jensen uses) to increase their ratings.
And yet; it's been working, apparently. So why am I suggesting the beginning of the end? It's been primarily the lack of choice that's been keeping the game afloat. Everybody's in it. Where else you gonna go? As I sift through Facebook comments, it's become increasingly apparent to me that “mainstream” big media posts are primarily used by people who are shilling for establishment candidates in either party, and they're becoming increasingly rare. There has been a steady trend in information from alternative Internet sources.
This challenge to big media dominance has been challenged by big media. Those sources may not be credible. But it's hard to be affected by such an argument coming from people who have no credibility. What difference does it make? Not everything on the Internet is a gem, but there are a lot of bloggers who are more knowledgeable, objective, and analytically gifted than the neo-Beales.
It seems the whole scam is hanging on a precipice. The breath that sends it tumbling may have already been forced through the bellows – Fox's battle with Trump. Their biased poll, alleging Trump was rapidly losing ground in the nomination race made it clear that Fox is not only not fair and balanced, but downright dishonest. Before that, it was very clear to a lot of people that Fox helped Obama to a second term by supporting Romney. It's also clear that Fox is now supporting established RINO candidates (again) who cannot win the general election, to help Hillary. The evidence gets stronger every day. As a finale for this article, I'll give you a good example.
Fox recently highlighted an interview between Hillary and Chhrriss Mattthews. That in itself might be enough to make the case. Mattthewws is a D-Party shill supporting Hillary. You can expect the duo to play out a nice, scripted pretend interview to serve as an unreported contribution to Hillary's campaign. This is just as true and certain as if we were talking about George Stephanopoulos interviewing Barack Obama, whether or not that sends a chill up his leg.
Mattthewws set Hillary up to characterize her politics in comparison with her fake clown rival, Bernie Sanders. Hillary gave a well-practiced, focus-group approved response, painting herself with a more reasonable, thoughtful, and understanding political persona. It was all very pseudo-presidential in a bent sort of way. Hillary's nose was in the air; denoting her claim to be above the Bern-rabble. Chhrriss now has the background needed to pretend that Hillary is politically “moderate”, an old game played time and time again in an effort to attract the largest group of American voters – the middle.
But first she has to win the nomination and consolidate America's socialists voters (most of which I would guess don't know what socialism is). Fox's article jumped in to help with that. Hillary can't state the difference between her “progressive” politics and socialism. That message falls on salted earth with Fox's stereotypical audience, people who won't change their minds about not voting for Hillary. But it saves Hillary from trying to talk out of both sides of her mouth to accomplish what the campaign needs to do; appeal to both middle and self-identifying far left voters at the same time.
Neither Fox nor MSNBC can take credit for inventing dishonest "news". Before they came on the scene, America suffered through two decades of Lying with Dan, i.e. the evening "news" program on CBS. There are adults living now who've never seen an honest news program. It's making people mad as Hell, and all I'm saying is that they just don't want to take it anymore.
Fox News Channel began its broadcasts less than a decade ago. Six years earlier, Rush Limbaugh was already proving, through radio, the existence of a vast audience hungry for commentary that countered the nation's entrenched, generally Democratic Party faithful, often loud and creepy journalism corps. Rupert Murdoch is not a political conservative. Creating an aura of conservatism was a business decision; but not necessarily a sustainable ruse.
It doesn't take much to pretend to be conservative in the US; which allows all political power to rest in the hands of just two parties. CNBC (and then MSNBC) are framed as politically liberal because they shill for the D-Party. It doesn't actually matter where the things they support might actually lie on realistic chart of the political spectrum. Fox presenters merely needed to repeat R-Party rhetoric to be labeled conservative.
It was clear from the beginning that Fox had a hard time finding competent conservative commentators. The O'Reilly Factor (originally The O'Reilly Report) was one of their first programs. It included guests involved in a wide range of topics that had been treated to purely one-sided “news” presentations in the past. When in over his head, host Bill O'Reilly would often tell his guests to “shut up” and then command that the interview was over. Critics have also pointed out that many interviews were taped before airing, giving producers the opportunity to edit portions in which O'Reilly was bested. That would put the “fair and balanced” rating for the show right up there with Crossing Over with John Edward. Despite O'Reilly's lack of knowledge, inability to discuss most topics, or even to carry out a civil interview, the show became one of the network's most watched. There seemed to be just one hard and fast rule. R-Party positions are good.
The marketing departments of big broadcasters understand the equation even if not everyone else does. (Which is why it still works to some extent.) Loud and creepy people on MSNBC, like D-Party operative Chhrris Mattthews and sports commentator Keith Olbermann, validate O'Reilly and others through bizarre and often perverse opposition using the least meaningful “activist” political terminology to evoke trained emotional responses from their viewers.
It's as though the only insight of big investors in the “news” business came from watching the 1976 film, Network and found their own Arthur Jensen's (corporate chairmen) to run things; who in turn cultivate versions of Howard Beale (insane news man that Jensen uses) to increase their ratings.
And yet; it's been working, apparently. So why am I suggesting the beginning of the end? It's been primarily the lack of choice that's been keeping the game afloat. Everybody's in it. Where else you gonna go? As I sift through Facebook comments, it's become increasingly apparent to me that “mainstream” big media posts are primarily used by people who are shilling for establishment candidates in either party, and they're becoming increasingly rare. There has been a steady trend in information from alternative Internet sources.
This challenge to big media dominance has been challenged by big media. Those sources may not be credible. But it's hard to be affected by such an argument coming from people who have no credibility. What difference does it make? Not everything on the Internet is a gem, but there are a lot of bloggers who are more knowledgeable, objective, and analytically gifted than the neo-Beales.
It seems the whole scam is hanging on a precipice. The breath that sends it tumbling may have already been forced through the bellows – Fox's battle with Trump. Their biased poll, alleging Trump was rapidly losing ground in the nomination race made it clear that Fox is not only not fair and balanced, but downright dishonest. Before that, it was very clear to a lot of people that Fox helped Obama to a second term by supporting Romney. It's also clear that Fox is now supporting established RINO candidates (again) who cannot win the general election, to help Hillary. The evidence gets stronger every day. As a finale for this article, I'll give you a good example.
Fox recently highlighted an interview between Hillary and Chhrriss Mattthews. That in itself might be enough to make the case. Mattthewws is a D-Party shill supporting Hillary. You can expect the duo to play out a nice, scripted pretend interview to serve as an unreported contribution to Hillary's campaign. This is just as true and certain as if we were talking about George Stephanopoulos interviewing Barack Obama, whether or not that sends a chill up his leg.
Mattthewws set Hillary up to characterize her politics in comparison with her fake clown rival, Bernie Sanders. Hillary gave a well-practiced, focus-group approved response, painting herself with a more reasonable, thoughtful, and understanding political persona. It was all very pseudo-presidential in a bent sort of way. Hillary's nose was in the air; denoting her claim to be above the Bern-rabble. Chhrriss now has the background needed to pretend that Hillary is politically “moderate”, an old game played time and time again in an effort to attract the largest group of American voters – the middle.
But first she has to win the nomination and consolidate America's socialists voters (most of which I would guess don't know what socialism is). Fox's article jumped in to help with that. Hillary can't state the difference between her “progressive” politics and socialism. That message falls on salted earth with Fox's stereotypical audience, people who won't change their minds about not voting for Hillary. But it saves Hillary from trying to talk out of both sides of her mouth to accomplish what the campaign needs to do; appeal to both middle and self-identifying far left voters at the same time.
Neither Fox nor MSNBC can take credit for inventing dishonest "news". Before they came on the scene, America suffered through two decades of Lying with Dan, i.e. the evening "news" program on CBS. There are adults living now who've never seen an honest news program. It's making people mad as Hell, and all I'm saying is that they just don't want to take it anymore.
