Blog powered by Typepad

« Simply terrific! | Main | From your man in the pin-stripe suit and the bowler hat »

Friday, 23 October 2009


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

"intelligence quotient of a retard": must you write in subAmerican, David? Wot abaht the tongue of Shakespeare?


I think Axlerod and Emmanuel are bit smarter than you suggest but they are all culturally deprived.

Last year it was commented that Chicago had been under one party rule for five years longer than the unlamented Soviet Union. What Republican party there is happens to be a wholly owned subsidiary of the Democrats. This is the way they were brought up in the political process. They think this is bussiness as usual.

I do hope they are overstepping themselves.

The population of the United States of America is over 300 million. FOX News is watched by 3 million people with, shall we say charitably, "unorthodox" views.

Do the math, as our Yankee cousins would say.

Well, this one cousin who generally finds himself astride the fence that separates "The Great Divide" that is the relations between Presidents and the media, comes down firmly in David's camp (Oh woe! I never thought I'd find myself in such a precarious position).

However this isn't the first time - Lincoln (that first Republican President) issued orders to have his detractors actually imprisoned. And the detractors he issued his orders toward were not of the then "Party in Rebellion" rather those media outlets north of the Mason-Dixon Line.

And then there were the fellows on that other Republican's (perhaps his Quakerism had something to do with it) Nixon's "Enemies List."

But of course there were the Democratic precedents, FDR decreeing one of his more influential detractors being made to wear a "dunce cap" while attending press conferences. (The fellow apparently took it as a "Badge of Honor" and never missed a single one).

And, who can forget Cousin Bill?

For the UK reader who may find him/herself baffled by this last example - who might consider the "mascot" signifying the Democratic Party a mere donkey - a resounding "Nope!"

When Andrew Jackson was campaigning for the Presidency one of his media detractors thought deriding him as a "Jackass" was sure to sway the electorate. And "Ol' Hickory" swept to victory after adopting the Jackass as the symbol for the Democratic Party (it must be admitted that the roots of what was to become the Republican Party was, some 30 years later, directly owed to Jackson himself).

My point? Freedom of the press, actually I consider to be co-equal among the Constitutional pillars of our Republic (the US). A Commander-in Chief, Congress - both Houses - the Supreme Court, and the Free Press.

Any attack by one upon the other is liable to backfire - "The Law of Unintended Consequenses".

Aside from being just plain ol' dumb.

'DM', I stand reprimanded and trembling beneath your rebuke, but "tell truth and shame the devil (bit of Shakespeare, know wot I mean?) I rather like some American argot and in the haste of blogging it just slips out.

Bob, welcome to D&N. It wasn't the absolute size of the Fox News audience but the fact that it is, first, climbing up the ratings at high speed:

and second why encourage an enemy in the media to even greater efforts whilst simultaneously upsetting your 'friends'? In the words of my e-pal, 'JK',above, that's just "plain ol' dumb"

Hank, I was interrupted and forgot to respond to you.

"Chicago had been under one party rule for five years longer than the unlamented Soviet Union"

Let us all hope that the Republic doesn't go the same way!


Three million is a lot larger percentage of the adult population that pays marginal attention to political issues. The problem from the Administrtion point of view is not that Fox is talking to people who would never support them anyway, but

1) As a quality presenter of general news they have a viewership that extends well into those who don't really think about politics until an election and may now from opnions on facts and issues that the administrtion would not want them to consider.

2) Because FOX is a major news outlet that is covering items and presenting views that the other outlets would not normally cover for ideological reasons, the other outlets are having to mention the items it only in dirision, which makes many more people than FOX's viewership aware there is another viewpoint.

Remember the reason that FOX is doing well is not that they let people of a different point of view have air time, it is because they do quality (and often beter) work accross the board.

Just a small bit of disagreement Hank, your:

"Remember the reason that FOX is doing well is not that they let people of a different point of view have air time, it is because they do quality (and often beter) work accross the board."

I must admit I rather enjoy Shephard Smith, and on those occasionally rain-soaked gloomy fall days Glenn Beck provides a bit of sunshine in the form of his sheer lunatic bombacity - too many times some of the "Biggies" who shout from the rooftops of FOX simply get their history wrong.

Of course I must provide examples. Ann Coulter's insistance that Canada provided troops during Viet Nam. (Forgetting - apparently - that Canada provided refuge for "don't wanna" US troops). Then there's O'Reilly (who should likely be charitably overlooked given his apparently Irish roots). After American troops were accused of atrocities in Haditha, O'Reilly declared basically that since atrocities occurred in every war, (perpetrated by Americans) the matter should be overlooked. As his example he used Malmedy.

Admittedly he would have remained on my "things to do" list had he used Wounded Knee or even My Lai.

However, I must admit while not being a regular viewer of FOX, they do provide what I consider essential - a view from the other side. Necessary, I think, because only very rarely are things simply either "black or white" but rather a shade of gray.

The comments to this entry are closed.