O’Reilly’s take on Roger Ailes’ death

I am slightly offended by Bill O’Reilly’s analysis of Roger Ailes’ rise and demise.

His assessment seems far too kind to the radical left and their objectives.

This quote comes by way of the Conservative Tribune

“We are living in a rough age, with technological advances changing behavior and perspective. The downside of that is turning us into a nation where hatred is almost celebrated in some quarters,” O’Reilly stated. “Roger Ailes experienced that hatred and it killed him. That is the truth.”

http://conservativetribune.com/oreilly-knows-killed-roger-ailes/

Except that analysis almost blames technology for the state of hatred of the left. No, actually it is an old hatred, just manifesting itself by any new means possible.

The left has long celebrated its vitriol and hatred — mainstreamed really since Reagan. Morality has nothing to do with it but the ultimate result of it is a valid charge.

However, I sense another book by O’Reilly, “Killing Roger Ailes,” is already under draft.

As I have said before, it seems only when ones own ox is publicly gored does one recognize the size of the problem. It suddenly becomes serious then. It’s always been dangerous.

Ed Show

The infamous mouthpiece of MSNBC has taken his roadshow to the courtroom. I don’t know all the details, but this article explains some of them.

Ed Schultz does courtroom drama about as well as he does his TV show. (Daily Caller)

A strange thing came out, the big mouth apparently wanted (or was ready for) to get a show on Fox. This gave me a vision of him sitting in a room making a deal with Roger Ailes That gave me my laugh for the day. See article for his run around on his partnership.

I’d love to know what that dialogue would have been. A little satire:

Roger: So Mr. Schultz, can you give me at least 3 format options for a show?
Ed: ah, humma, humma, will you settle for one?
Roger: well, that was not my question. Can you?
Ed: I got peeps for that. Well, I had peeps… before I said I didn’t. They will provide that….but I’ll deny they did of course… yea, we will have at least 3. I mean I will. Sure.
Roger: Give me a name for this show you’re hawking.
Ed: Ed’s Talking-heads show…
Roger: Are you committed to that name?
Ed: Sort of
Roger: So on a slow news day, Ed, what would you do for filler.
Ed: oh, that’s easy, I pick on and attack Republicans… you know, lots of material. It’s kind of my specialty.
Roger: And you have lots of experience at that?
Ed: you bet, haven’t you heard of me on Air America or somewhere,  before I called them “rotten business people”? I was up for the syndicated personality of the year…
Roger: Can’t say I have. Now what kind of contract were you looking for?
Ed: a big one that can cover my partners and me, the one’s I won’t have once we start. You know, seven figures and up ought to work.
Roger: But we have no idea if your show would even work in any of our slots.
Ed: Well, I’m flexible on anything except politics. So whatever fits.
Roger: I have to give it some thought. Who should I contact, you or your partners?
Ed: What partners?
Roger: hey, is this some kind of joke? I know, it’s like who’s on first, right?
Ed: yea the first slot works for us….I mean me… us is my wife and I.
Roger: Okay, Ed, you’ll be the first guy I ever fired before I hired.
Ed: I’m not sure when I … I mean we start?  It wasn’t my red hair, was it?
Roger: I don’t usually do this but here’s the number and address for MSNBC, I think you are going places.

After reading the article, it seems his courtroom cabal is not a settled science, and debate is not over. And all his schmoozing with unions doesn’t seem to help when he’s trying to cut an associate out of his picture.

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