Fox Goes All Out

On the crazy side, it seems all the left has to do is get the DNC to say it will not allow Fox News to have any debates in the primaries. That causes Fox to do all sorts of pandering stunts, presumably to get on the good graces of DNC and Democrats. Fools gold.

They come out and publicly flog Judge Jeanine for “anti-Islamic” statements. Then they hire Donna Brazile as a contributor. What, Hillary wasn’t available? Doesn’t Fox learn?

So that’s all Democrats have to do to bait Fox? But peeing in the wind is usually risky.

And then there was Light

My editorial juices have been running a little low lately, and I have been tapped out of ideas feeling, as Solomon said, that there is really “nothing new under the sun.”

My friend Pepp recently wondered if Shakespeare was alive today, what he would say? That got me thinking with all that is going on today, he would have a field day or go crazy. One or the other.

Then I saw this article in the Federalist by someone that caught my attention. It was sincere, only by a self-described liberal who had awakened to the media bias during the election. I hope you check it out. From that point of view it is informative.

Up until now I figured it was mostly a lost cause, but this person gives me a little hope that there is life out there after the liberal bubble. (her own term) Though it made me think of the countless others I see on social media. I could almost write one profile to include them all. These are your typical liberals from not-so informed to hard line Marxists. And there often is not that much that separates them.

Anyway, so predictable that you can expect their words. I’m beyond, way beyond, feeling sympathy. I mostly accept that they are not reachable anyway, which seems a fool’s errand to try convincing them of anything. It is what it is, as they say.

But this piece gave me renewed hope for some of them. (I am not going soft or gushy) For a moment, I considered their point of view, or perspective. I know what they think. I may not know the why in many cases. I know the what though.

Their view of the media, their positions, their favorite candidates and policies, even their dislikes, and best what sets them off. Maybe that is a study in psychology in itself. Considering their perspective did reveal something I hadn’t thought much about.

One of the triggering things to them is always conservative media. Fox News is akin to poison to them. More than anything else they love to bash Fox, almost as much as Trump. That is the key.

Now think for a minute what that person thinks and feels, not their ideas. Well, Fox is the worst thing that came along. And if you were they, it is Faux News and always lying or agenda driven. However, it is the central problem. That means all other mainstream media is okay but Fox is the problem.

So that presents a simple view. One just has to believe Fox is wrong and everything else is, well, right. It is not hard to take that there is only one enemy, maybe a few marginal others, while everything else is friendly and honest to you. They don’t try to lie to you.

Doesn’t that make things so much easier thinking only Fox News is wrong? Sure, then you accept everything else as authentic at face value. You can accept it. You don’t have to be suspicious and question what comes from Mainstream Media.

Go a step further and you can accept all our institutions as good, except on their structural racism thing. Other than that everything is on the up and up and the media all have pure motives because, after all, they agree with most everything you think and believe.

It’s much easier and simpler that way. They are on your side. Everyone is looking out for you too. No, they don’t really like America, or that antiquated patriotism. The government is your friend, or should be. The government shouldn’t even believe in an exceptional America or us first. Blame America first is cool.

But then there is always world globalism which is basically on your side too. It’s a rosy-eyed view but the enemies are caricatures backed into corners. They are the flat-earthers and the like. But the general “mainstream” (i.e. liberal stream) all thinks and believes much like you. And those are the people who get to authority, because we stick together and get them there.

I figure that is so much simpler, it’s an easy way out, and lazy. In that backdrop you’d have to think that coming out of that la la land would be a challenge. It’s much easier to stay and believe in that illusion. Or keep believing, as Obama said. You don’t need critical thinkers, you just need lock-steppers.

So now isn’t that a crazy way to look at things? But you don’t have to think or worry about things except those creatures in the corner infringing on your paradise. Then there was Obama who confirmed to them all that they owned this phony paradise. Now they are flailing at anything that might distrurb those happy thoughts. They’ve already infested everything and everywhere of importance so that they are embedded and radicalized. All of it is based on your ideological worldview that you all accept, voluntarily of course.

I followed it out because it really makes the case of an easier less-complex way of looking at things. Well, you can be suspicious of those outside that bubble. You may question their motives all you want. Make fun of them, mock them, call them names, they are like animals anyway.

Still it is an easier lifestyle. Corporations and even markets should be in your favor. Everything should be in your favor because your are the ideal people. And within being a member of that society you can do anything. Those outside it should be questioned and accused on every little thing. You have an exemption card. You don’t want to leave.

It just gets me that all you have to know is that Fox is wrong. Everything and the media is right. They are the intellectual betters so don’t need to question anything except Fox. And in that situation it seems the only way to change that thinking would be on their own. You or I could probably not convince them. So they have to see it. It must be their doing.

Reference article in The Federalist: http://thefederalist.com/2017/11/30/im-liberal-agree-sean-hannity-american-journalism-dead/

Right Ring | Bullright

Trump might skip next debate

Trump might not appear in Thursday’s debate hosted by Fox News with Megyn Kelly.

Newsmax  

Trump May Skip Fox Debate for Own Town Hall

GOP presidential front-runner Donald Trump might skip Thursday’s debate on Fox News Channel and hold his own televised town hall at the same time if the network doesn’t drop Megyn Kelly from its team of moderators, his campaign manager tells New York magazine’s Gabriel Sherman

Trump has been calling on Fox News to drop Kelly, who is scheduled to moderate with two other Fox anchors, Chris Wallace and Bret Baier. The trio moderated the first GOP debate of the season, in which Kelly and Trump sparred over a question about his treatment of women. …./

Article posted at http://www.newsmax.com/t/newsmax/article/710694

In lieu of Fox debate he may do his own Town Hall. No statement from Megyn Kelly, “yours truly,” about the news. Or shall we now call it “The Yours Truly Debate?”

Trump Fox hit parade keeps rolling

Ordinarily I might not be as critical of Megyn Kelly. But then there is nothing ordinary, really, anymore. This is not an ordinary election, these are not ordinary times, these are not ordinary people involved either. The circumstances here are not ordinary at all. It is serious stuff too.

But then as I criticized Candice Crowley for her moderator failures, I also am critical of Megyn Kelly’s. Fair is fair. She sensationalized the program and turned it more into reality TV than an episode of Celebrity Apprentice. Or maybe that was the role she thought she was playing? She begs for that comparison. The only reason the record number of people/viewers means anything is the heightened interest in the process. But not to Fox. Maybe Fox did well with sponsors, ads and eyeballs, or bottom lines. Good for them. Cha-ching cha-ching! But that doesn’t change the fundamental purpose of the event. Then they doubled down on that theme afterward by high-fiving each other.

That is just inappropriate behavior — no matter how well the event went or not. We had the coverage of Katrina non-stop. We had the Gulf War coverage, originally in 91-92 Even that was not sensationalized this way, as a historic major achievement. Need I mention 9/11? We didn’t see this much self-congratulation over those. No, instead they, Fox, became an inseparably integrated part of the story — a major one. Even the CNN Crowley incident, and their defense of her, was not this sensationalized by their own network.

Media covered natural disasters, riots, trials and OJ Simpson. Yet this was over the top, especially concerning a serious debate in above serious times. They turned it into their personal reality side show. Ironic that Trump was at the center of it. If they did want to cover all the candidates, with a modicum of equality, they failed focusing their attention on Trump and then themselves — personally and as a news organization. They put themselves front and center. They over-engineered it.

Then Fox complains about the viewers’ outcry after, as another news story. Poor Fox victims. It was not just one question or the one answer, it was laced through with the same sensational theme. And we don’t really need extra sensationalizing in this current reality. We have quite enough already. Then to turn that all into some success for Fox, I don’t understand that logic.

I think we are witnessing a media meltdown. When they can’t cover a major event like this without turning it into some side-freak show, then we are in a tailspin. Instead of discussing solutions to problems, they are busy compounding more layers of problems on top, mediopolizing. We evidently can’t even have the semblance of an objective process. We expect it from much of lamestream, Fox has just gone the way of the limousine media. Yet, its funny that their big problem is Trump. After South Carolina in 2012 you would have thought they would have been self-conscious of that. No, rather they played it up into a reality circus.(who knows where their research came from) Is viewer numbers and their TV personalities all they care about? Winners – Fox, at what cost? Losers – we the people, especially conservatives and Republicans. But P/C will rule with Democrats. They pander to Dems so they can still get interviews from them.

On a previous post Lafayette Angel came up with an idea of doing debates ourselves. That’s a heck of an idea. I could see conservatives doing that — not like CPAC or summit — it seems possible and attractive. Go around them. Then I had the thought it really wouldn’t affect media because they would critique it how they always do anyway. Just that they would not control the process. And why can’t we do focus groups, too? I think Lafayette Angel has something there. I’d like to say, “media, you’re fired!”

If Trump offended someone, then Fox broke their heart over objectivity. So they didn’t see this coming, like 10 miles away? Dumbass award goes to Fox.

RightRing | Bullright

Sage wisdom on Democrats

BurtPrelutsky.com — Burt spelled it out perfectly:

“It doesn’t happen too often, but every once in a while someone forwards something to me from the Internet that I haven’t seen before and that actually grabs my attention. In this case, it was a series of ways that one could easily identify a liberal. I mean aside from asking them if they happen to be journalists, judges, social workers, teachers, professors, illegal aliens, actors, musicians or convicted felons.”

“Here it is, with a few of my own modifications:

(1) A liberal is someone who thinks Republicans are waging a war on women, but that the Muslim world isn’t.

(2) A liberal is someone who says to a pregnant woman: “Don’t smoke, it’ll hurt your baby,” but tells her it’s quite okay to abort that same baby.

(3) A liberal is someone who thinks Fox News lies, but Obama doesn’t.

(4) A liberal is someone who lives in a gated community or behind a high wall, but says that a border fence won’t work.

(5) A liberal is someone who wails about “corporate welfare,” but thinks it’s great that Obama bailed out General Motors to save union contracts and blew a billion tax dollars on certain-to-fail green energy companies in exchange for campaign contributions.al

(6) A liberal is someone who protested the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and proclaimed the Patriot Act fascistic, until Barack Obama took office.”

 

I’ll add a couple of my own:

A liberal wants to keep abortion safe, legal and always an option; but salt needs to be heavily regulated and restricted.

A liberal thinks a woman’s body is her own, and permanently enslaved to the DNC.

A liberal thinks overpopulation is a huge problem, but open-border immigration is not.

A liberal thinks a Court decision on abortion is “a right” and “law of the land”, but the second amendment is not.

A liberal thinks that “Congress shall make no law” means Congress shall make laws and regulate.

A liberal thinks “we have to go spend money to keep from going bankrupt.”

A liberal thinks its greedy to keep your own money but taking it from others is not. — (paraphrasing Thomas Sowell)

——-

As  Thomas Sowell puts it:

“I have never understood why it is “greed” to want to keep the money you have earned but not greed to want to take somebody else’s money.” —
Thomas Sowell, Barbarians inside the Gates and Other Controversial Essays

RightRing | Bullright

Cable news recession

It is the best topic besides corrupt politics in DC, but goes hand in hand with it. The media and their “news” coverage these days deserves all the ridicule it gets.

Pew: MSNBC Loses Quarter of Primetime Audience

by John Nolte 26 Mar 2014 | Brietbart

According to Pew, year-over-year numbers show that the business of left-wing cable news is in trouble. The cable news viewing audience overall declined for everyone, but MSNBC lost 24% of its primetime audience. CNN dropped 13%. Fox only lost 6%.

Those percentages are even more graphic when you consider how few viewers CNN and MSNBC have to begin with, especially when compared to Fox News. Fox beats both of its left-wing competitors combined with 1.75 million viewers. Only 619k tune into MSNBC, while CNN comes in third (for the fourth year) with 543k viewers.

Daytime viewership was especially bad for MSNBC. Both CNN and Fox News increased viewers over last year: 12% and 2%, respectively. MSNBC lost a whopping 15.5% of its daytime audience.

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Journalism/2014/03/26/pew-msnbc-loses-quarter-primetime-audience

They are all losing, including Fox. The only explanation I can think of is less people are watching and/or more people are unplugging from cable. The shocker is that MSNBC could beat CNN in anything. But it demonstrates no matter what, there are some dumb people out there and that sensational attacks work — even if anchors get canned for saying the raunchiest things they can think up.

Other meaningless commentary: another symptom of the sick media is the cable news war. MSNBC is forever attacking Fox. Fox responds attacking MSNBC’s and NBC’s sycophant coverage. The White House defense team spends the balance of their time attacking Democrats’ number one enemy — besides the Koch brothers — Fox news. And Fox covers the Left’s media antics.

It’s sort of a self-serving war. they all complain about each other and CNN just jumps on anything that looks like a story it can use. (I’d love to attend one of their meetings) So their critiques become the theme. It’s reality news.

Are people keeping score though? If the Nixon era was the low point of politics, then this one is determined to set a bigger low in media coverage, even if its about… themselves.

On the positive side, no one wants to miss a train wreck.

RightRing | Bullright

“Not a Smidgeon…” let us count the ways

Obama did it again, spouting clear falsehoods — known in most places as lies. But then compared to Benghazi and then Obamacare’s sales pitch, maybe he thought this was just a minor non-truth lie. The rancid “phony scandal” material just keeps on oozing out, like toxic waste, from this administration. (thanks to Dave for the info)

The Bastid in Chief was unequivocal in telling O’Reilly on Super Bowl Sunday:

“President Barack Obama again denied any wrongdoing by the IRS over their targeting of conservative tea party groups, telling Fox News’ Bill O’Reilly there was “not even a smidgen of corruption” in the way the tax enforcer processed tea partiers’ 501(c)4 paperwork.”

Time to make the donuts …and the stories. Those crickets chirping about that claim in media could not be louder. Right, it’s only Fox driving the ‘phony scandal’. Wow, Fox must be awfully good to have set all this up. Maybe MSM will tell us that story how Fox concocted and promoted all this stuff?

IRS smoking gun awakens sleeping giant

‘Fox isn’t guarding henhouse. Fox has set up the deep fryer’
by Bob Unruh | WND Exclusive

A member of Congress is warning that it’s time to “prosecute” the IRS, and a top-flight legal team is planning an investigation – with the possibility of a request for congressional hearings – after discovering from a WND report that the IRS sends small exempt organizations to a major progressive think tank to have tax details processed.
“We’re going to be conducting an investigation,” said attorney Kevin Snider of the Pacific Justice Institute. “If there’s something that’s questionable, we’re going to ask for congressional hearings.”
He said the government needs to have a standard “above reproach” and exhibiting “complete neutrality” for its operations, especially in work such as that conducted by the IRS, which already has been facing criticism for its admitted targeting of conservative organizations.
The warning about a prosecution came from Rep. Michele Bachmann, R-Minn., who said, “WND did the investigation the IRS refused to do.”
“The IRS fox isn’t guarding the henhouse,” she said, “The IRS fox has set up the deep fryer for immediate carcass processing! Served ‘progressive style’!”
She continued, “The people to Holder: Time to prosecute!”
WND’s report revealed the IRS contracts with an avowedly “progressive” organization, the Urban Institute, supported by George Soros to process data filed by smaller tax-exempt groups.
The president of Urban Institute, also, is Sarah Rosen Wartell, who is the co-founder of the Center for American Progress. That widely is considered ground zero for the development of many of the Obama administration’s progressive policies.
For certain organizations with limited income and charitable goals, the IRS directs them to file with that supposedly “nonpartisan” organization, where employees have a record of donating nearly 100 percent of their political contributions to Democrats.
Officially, the Urban Institute advocates for totally socialized medicine, carbon taxes and amnesty for illegal aliens.
Cleta Mitchell, a top-flight Washington attorney, told WND, “If true, this is a violation of federal law. And since most of the tea-party groups have annual revenues of [$50,k000] or less, this would redirect their filings to a group whose mission is fundamentally at odds with tea-party organizations.”
She continued, “Federal law strictly prohibits the disclosure of confidential taxpayer information to persons outside the IRS. It is a felony to disseminate the information.
“Surely this cannot be happening. Surely,” she said. “This would be well more than a ‘smidgen’ of corruption.” …/
Read more: http://www.wnd.com/2014/02/irs-smoking-gun-awakens-sleeping-giant/

How about a pant load of corruption…. make that a boat load? But don’t expect the lamestream to cover the “phony scandal” without “a smidgeon of corruption”– so says the king, who’s chief political hack said Government is so big and vast Barry couldn’t possibly know what’s going on. Who could keep up with all that…corruption?

Yet he made the bold claim, “not a smidgeon”, putting it all on the line — what’s left of it.

Just like Clinton stood wagging his finger saying “I did not have sexual relations with that woman”. Just like Robert Torricelli pounded the podium denying corruption; just like that pile of cash found its way into William Jefferson’s freezer; just like Anthony Weiner said his on-line account was hacked.

Funny how the American people always draw the wrong conclusions about those odd circumstances.(sarcasm) Oh, and just like Obama now says that he clearly called Benghazi terrorism the morning after — but never did — before they went out blaming the video. Ooooooh that smell, can’t you smell that smell?

The really sad thing is that anyone in the world could believe him. Remember the blockbuster musical the Lion King? Well, this is the saga of “The Lying King”.

A big H/T to Dave for forwarding the article.

RightRing | Bullright

How to make a story out of thin air

What do you do when you need something but there is no story? Well, if you are Gawker or HuffPo, take aim at Fox News. Nearly anything will do, for Leftinistas of Lap Dog Inc.

How exactly do you create a story? Just imply something sinister or secretive about Fox News. That should be easy.

We now know what it reportedly takes to keep a fired Fox News executive from spilling the beans on all the juicy inner workings at the network: about $8 million.

That’s the figure that Gawker said Brian Lewis, the ousted former consigliere to Roger Ailes, was paid by Fox News in a recently uncovered settlement.

Gawker, which reported the figure on Monday, described the payment as “hush money.” The site’s report is just the latest in a long-running story of intrigue inside one of the most secretive and cutthroat companies in the media industry.

So Lewis was a right-hand to Roger Ailes. Now that’s a story in itself for the Leftinistas. So he was paid money to not release information. Unless I missed something, a lot of people are paid money or sign non-disclosure agreements.

The cable news business is highly competitive. What prevents Mr. Lewis from, say, walking over to another network and spilling the details about Fox’s business? Or to reporters? This would. Hence, its really a non-story. But it does feed MSM vultures with fodder for conspiracy theories.

Such an arrangement would also prevent Brian Lewis from writing a tell-all book about Ailes and the inner workings at Fox. Seems more of a normal business practice to me. And the 8 million is probably about the amount of a book deal.

Now we come to the objectionable part. Did Lewis regret taking the money? I’m sure he won’t have a hard time spending it. It appears to be a lucrative deal for both Lewis and Fox. The article calls it hush money, or the price of silence, implying tons of secrets and juicy details the money is designed to protect – as prima facie on the 8 million.

The people who have no problems with calling for a 22.00 minimum-“living” wage, have their pants in a bunch at someone getting a lucrative non-disclosure arrangement. What’s the real problem? Are they just upset they cannot know all the inner workings of Fox? No doubt. Would those details be beneficial to someone? Probably. And would Brian Lewis stand to benefit by sale of information? Probably. So Fox gave him a sizable amount to keep information confidential. Is anything wrong with that? I don’t think so.

Still, it makes good headlines and filler for Leftinistas. On the other hand, these media darlings are not directly paid hush money to not report dirt on Obama’s regime. They do that for free. So does someone being compensated piss them off? What about finding a former Obama operative to dish dirt? Nah, that might be asking for trouble. But anyone who worked at Fox, there is market for that info. (and such would be a good reason for a non-disclosure agreement.)

They add that Fox has a history of large payouts, under “something of a cloud”, when someone leaves. Wow, that sounds downright scandalous. Beam me up, Scotty! I think they made the case for a non-disclosure.

We now know what it takes to make something a story at Gawker or HuffPo – Fox News.

[Ref: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/12/09/fox-news-brian-lewis-payment_n_4414656.html ]

RightRing | Bullright