Napolitano pulled a "Fuck you, I'm out," on Fox Business. He delivered this piece and was fired as soon as the broadcast ended. His last show airs tonight. Other than the Ron Paul fanwank, his rhetoric was pretty admirable-- it was like a condensation of Chomsky's Media Control into a three minute diatribe.
Interesting - right after he sent out a message that was essentially "Hey guys, I know we all love Ron Paul, but could you please stop sending hateful messages to the guys that still pay my salary? Shit is getting real."
While I love a good rant, I don't believe we have settled into a two party system because the game was fixed. It's simply the result when comparing the left and the right they have more in common (when pressed on specific issues and not rhetoric) than they have differences. Two main choices ends up happening a lot in markets (Coke, Pepsi), and most voting Americans would rather be in one of the big two parties than vote for the odd man out that's not going anywhere.
I think it's more subtle than that. Americans, moreso than those in other Western democracies, have deeply conflated largely unrelated issues. With a two-party system, they cannot be disentangled.
In parliamentary democracies, arbitrary coalitions can be formed. Social liberals can ally with fiscal conservatives or what-have-you.
The Democrats and the Republicans are basically two static coalitions. The former are a coalition of centrists, social liberals, progressives, secular interests, moderate religious interests, and a multitude of others. The latter are a fairly strong coalition between fiscal conservatives and deeply religious conservatives/reactionaries.
I think it's more subtle than that. Americans, moreso than those in other Western democracies, have deeply conflated largely unrelated issues. With a two-party system, they cannot be disentangled.
In parliamentary democracies, arbitrary coalitions can be formed. Social liberals can ally with fiscal conservatives or what-have-you.
The Democrats and the Republicans are basically two static coalitions. The former are a coalition of centrists, social liberals, progressives, secular interests, moderate religious interests, and a multitude of others. The latter are a fairly strong coalition between fiscal conservatives and deeply religious conservatives/reactionaries.
I think the difference we would have with a parliamentary system is overstated. Your own statement mentions how both parties are already a coalition of different groups so the difference with a parliamentary congress would be minimal. Now if the Executive branch was pulled into that, that would be a bigger change, although I don't think it would be for the better.
As I mentioned I believe most people's views on specific issues tend to be closer together than their political labels (liberal, conservative, religious) would have you believe. I didn't say they were the same just that the differences expressed by the media and parties are exaggerated. That's why both parties have to play up their differences so loudly every election cycle.
If you weren't locked in a two-party system, there wouldn't be nearly the level of psychological divide. There are a ton of moderate conservatives whose policies line up with the democratic party but who vote Republican because they consider themselves conservative. If "conservative" wasn't a giant, inseparable block, you'd not have the issue of deadlocks forming so easily.
Napolitano pulled a "Fuck you, I'm out," on Fox Business. He delivered this piece and was fired as soon as the broadcast ended. His last show airs tonight.
Interesting - right after he sent out a message that was essentially "Hey guys, I know we all love Ron Paul, but could you please stop sending hateful messages to the guys that still pay my salary? Shit is getting real."
Ummm... yeah, a minor amount of research reveals that he was not fired. His show was canceled, along with two other Prime Time shows on Fox Business, as they revamped their Prime Time lineup. He is still working with Fox. The business decision to end the shows was likely made well in advance of this airing.
Dear Friends--
Many of you are not happy with the cancellation of FreedomWatch, and you have sent emails to my Fox colleagues expressing that unhappiness. In television, shows are cancelled all the time. Two of my former shows have been cancelled, and after each cancellation, Fox has rewarded me with more and better work. This cancellation--along with others that accompanied it--was the result of a business judgment here, and is completely unrelated to the FreedomWatch message. It would make a world of a difference for all of us, if you would KINDLY STOP SENDING EMAILS TO FOX.
I am well. Your values are strong. I will continue to articulate those values here at Fox. But the emails many of you are sending are unfairly interfering with my work and that of my colleagues here. The emails even violate our values because they interfere with the use of private property. I have accepted the cancellation decision with good cheer and a sense of gearing up for the future. You should as well.
As a favor to me, and as I have asked this past weekend, PLEASE STOP SENDING EMAILS TO MY COLLEAGUES AT FOX ABOUT THE CANCELLATION OF FreedomWatch; and please stop NOW.
So, yesterday I was on the subway coming home after work, and a generic hipster dude started giving a speech with some Ron Paul talking points (The Fed is evil, we need the gold standard, fiat currency, etc). Now, I normally don't get involved, being tired and in New York, but he didn't seem like a dangerous hobo, so I was working up the nerve to give a short comeback (and maybe get a few laughs from the train at his expense). Well, right before I was about to speak, he launched into a tirade about chemtrails.
Holy Crap, that Chemtrail shit pisses me off so much. It's probably my line as to whether I will engage you in intelligent conversation. (which I realize that line is ALOT farther then other people's)
Ummm... yeah, a minor amount of research reveals that he was not fired. His show was canceled, along with two other Prime Time shows on Fox Business, as they revamped their Prime Time lineup. He is still working with Fox. The business decision to end the shows was likely made well in advance of this airing.
I know, and not the message I was talking about, I meant this one -
It will be far more productive for my work at Fox and the work of my friends and colleagues here--many of whom share our values--if the email traffic to Fox toned down considerably. I will continue to voice the message of freedom in many more Fox venues, and you will hear that message, and we will do our best to alert you in advance of those venues and the times that I will be on them; and we will post those alerts right here on this site. PLEASE BE SURE TO WATCH THE FINAL FreedomWatch SHOW ON MONDAY FEBRUARY 13TH, ON FOX BUSINESS AT 8:00 PM, EASTERN TIME. You have been very strong in your views and generous in your comments about the show, but now is the time to relax and lay low and prepare for the future. God bless each of you.
So, yesterday I was on the subway coming home after work, and a generic hipster dude started giving a speech with some Ron Paul talking points (The Fed is evil, we need the gold standard, fiat currency, etc). Now, I normally don't get involved, being tired and in New York, but he didn't seem like a dangerous hobo, so I was working up the nerve to give a short comeback (and maybe get a few laughs from the train at his expense). Well, right before I was about to speak, he launched into a tirade about chemtrails.
It's not terribly surprising, but many(I'd even venture most) Ron Paul supporters are hard-core conspiracy theorists.
Napolitano pulled a "Fuck you, I'm out," on Fox Business. He delivered this piece and was fired as soon as the broadcast ended. His last show airs tonight.
Interesting - right after he sent out a message that was essentially "Hey guys, I know we all love Ron Paul, but could you please stop sending hateful messages to the guys that still pay my salary? Shit is getting real."
Ummm... yeah, a minor amount of research reveals that he was not fired. His show was canceled, along with two other Prime Time shows on Fox Business, as they revamped their Prime Time lineup. He is still working with Fox. The business decision to end the shows was likely made well in advance of this airing.
[[sigh]] Man, fuck Reddit. Can't trust them about anything even remotely related to Ronny P.
Five Republicans in the state senate are sponsoring a bill that would prohibit teachers from conducting themselves in any way in and outside the classroom that would get them fined if it were broadcast on TV. First offense gets you suspended one week, second two weeks, and third offense gets you fired. Oh yeah, and any teaching material that could be offensive as well can get you fired too.
No freedom of speech for you. No sex life for you either because for you there is no privacy any more. And who really needs sex education, or any discussion about free speech laws in social studies class?
Five Republicans in the state senate are sponsoring a bill that would prohibit teachers from conducting themselves in any way in and outside the classroom that would get them fined if it were broadcast on TV. First offense gets you suspended one week, second two weeks, and third offense gets you fired. Oh yeah, and any teaching material that could be offensive as well can get you fired too.
No freedom of speech for you. No sex life for you either because for you there is no privacy any more. And who really needs sex education, or any discussion about free speech laws in social studies class?
WOW. I would find so many ways to fuck shit up if this happened. In fact, judging from personal experience, teachers can be pretty clever, and I'm sure there will be some sort of backlash against this. The unions alone will be flipping out.
List of some (but not all) of their attacks on 'Murcan values:
- Hiring a feminist - Standing up for gay people who are under attack for being gay - Not liking Ron Paul or Mitt Romeny - Not having a Glenn Beck show - Being under the secret control of George Soros
List of some (but not all) of their attacks on 'Murcan values:
- Hiring a feminist - Standing up for gay people who are under attack for being gay - Not liking Ron Paul or Mitt Romeny - Not having a Glenn Beck show - Being under the secret control of George Soros
You get the idea.
That's altogether a good thing. Removing Fox's functionality as a far-right propaganda organ will go a long way in helping to assuage the wave of anti-intellectualism and thinly-veiled xenophobia that has been sweeping over the US under the guise of conservative politics.
That's altogether a good thing. Removing Fox's functionality as a far-right propaganda organ will go a long way in helping to assuage the wave of anti-intellectualism and thinly-veiled xenophobia that has been sweeping over the US under the guise of conservative politics.
Supposedly it's a ratings thing as demographics show that younger audiences are much more likely to be moderate to liberal and they need to move with the flow if they want to keep their ratings as is (or keep them from falling too much further -- they're still #1 in cable news, but they have been losing ground).
70% of viewers polled thought that Fox had "moved left"? HA. Left, that's funny.
Relative to how it used to be, the cancellation of Napolitano's show and some of the opinions Bill-O has been voicing are further left. It's progress towards the center, if Politico is right and that is their plan, but they've got miles to go before they get there.
I rather like the idea of a proper centrist news network. Waking up to the Beeb is such a comforting experience because I'm never blasted with how I'm supposed to feel when I turn on the news. If an American news network did that properly and intellectually (in other words, don't explain it to me like I didn't graduate high school, make people meet you in the middle for news), I'd never go elsewhere for TV news.
As a news editor, I can tell you that is not what people want, and when it is tried here it is ignored.
I believe it. The vast majority of people are stupid and just want an echo chamber and I know that. That's why I go for Al Jazeera and the BBC. Which, due to the inherent problems in getting "truly objective" reporting, likely still confirm biases I have in a much more subtle fashion than pundit shows. That said, I like not being able to detect that confirmation vs. having political views rammed down my throat and then tamped in with a jackhammer, the latter option being what Fox (and yeah, to a somewhat-lesser extent MSNBC) do all the time.
That's more or less the reason I don't watch any broadcast news in the states; network news sucks; most cable news is too preachy; and the few cable networks that are are far too dull, sugarcoat their stories, or dumb down their material to the point where it's worthless to me.
I just want clearer lines between reporting and opinion.
Impossible. While opinion shows are clear in what they are (who watches Hannity thinking it is news and not opinion ?) News shows are different in that opinions come through in how the news is presented and what stories are covered. While the story itself may not be opinion the collection of stories reported on can show an opinion.
All stories are biased because life is biased. In many cases, the media has an ethical duty to be biased. We don't tell both sides of the story on the KKK burning a cross in a black family's yard. There is no responsible "balanced" coverage of that event.
The problem comes when there are widely differing views on what the ethical charge should be.
I'm not saying there is NO clear line, Cremlian, but there is a smaller margin than most may believe between reporting and opinion. Reporters are people. They have inherent values. You can't expect them to be robots. Nor can you expect viewers/readers to dispassionately receive listings of facts without some kind of emotional color.
Comments
In parliamentary democracies, arbitrary coalitions can be formed. Social liberals can ally with fiscal conservatives or what-have-you.
The Democrats and the Republicans are basically two static coalitions. The former are a coalition of centrists, social liberals, progressives, secular interests, moderate religious interests, and a multitude of others. The latter are a fairly strong coalition between fiscal conservatives and deeply religious conservatives/reactionaries.
As I mentioned I believe most people's views on specific issues tend to be closer together than their political labels (liberal, conservative, religious) would have you believe. I didn't say they were the same just that the differences expressed by the media and parties are exaggerated. That's why both parties have to play up their differences so loudly every election cycle.
I know a lost cause when I see it.
Five Republicans in the state senate are sponsoring a bill that would prohibit teachers from conducting themselves in any way in and outside the classroom that would get them fined if it were broadcast on TV. First offense gets you suspended one week, second two weeks, and third offense gets you fired. Oh yeah, and any teaching material that could be offensive as well can get you fired too.
No freedom of speech for you. No sex life for you either because for you there is no privacy any more. And who really needs sex education, or any discussion about free speech laws in social studies class?
I just read the text of the bill. It's really just straight-up "NOPE. NO FREE SPEECH FOR YOU."
Yeah, they can't do that. I mean, they can do it, but it would almost assuredly be struck down eventually.
List of some (but not all) of their attacks on 'Murcan values:
- Hiring a feminist
- Standing up for gay people who are under attack for being gay
- Not liking Ron Paul or Mitt Romeny
- Not having a Glenn Beck show
- Being under the secret control of George Soros
You get the idea.
I rather like the idea of a proper centrist news network. Waking up to the Beeb is such a comforting experience because I'm never blasted with how I'm supposed to feel when I turn on the news. If an American news network did that properly and intellectually (in other words, don't explain it to me like I didn't graduate high school, make people meet you in the middle for news), I'd never go elsewhere for TV news.
That's more or less the reason I don't watch any broadcast news in the states; network news sucks; most cable news is too preachy; and the few cable networks that are are far too dull, sugarcoat their stories, or dumb down their material to the point where it's worthless to me.
The problem comes when there are widely differing views on what the ethical charge should be.
I'm not saying there is NO clear line, Cremlian, but there is a smaller margin than most may believe between reporting and opinion. Reporters are people. They have inherent values. You can't expect them to be robots. Nor can you expect viewers/readers to dispassionately receive listings of facts without some kind of emotional color.