Back to politics.
And some chap called Carl Bernstein has produced an article for amongst others the Grauniad about Murdoch and Ailes attempting to get General Petraeus to run for President.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/dec/20/bernstein-murdoch-ailes-petreaus-presidency
Of course, I have to quote a smidgeon, being who I am.
"McFarland clarified the terms: "The big boss is bankrolling it. Roger's going to run it. And the rest of us are going to be your in-house" - thereby confirming what Fox New critics have consistently maintained about the network's faux-news agenda and its built-in ideological bias.
And here let us posit the following: were an emissary of the president of NBC News, or of the editor of the New York Times or the Washington Post ever caught on tape promising what Ailes and Murdoch had apparently suggested and offered here, the hue and cry, especially from Fox News and Republican/Tea Party America, from the Congress to the US Chamber of Commerce to the Heritage Foundation, would be deafening and not be subdued until there was a congressional investigation, and the resignations were in hand of the editor and publisher of the network or newspaper. Or until there had been plausible and convincing evidence that the most important elements of the story were false. And, of course, the story would continue day after day on page one and remain near the top of the evening news for weeks, until every ounce of (justifiable) piety about freedom of the press and unfettered presidential elections had been exhausted."
Now David Petraeus doesn't to me seem too bad a chap. Obviously got into a spot of bother about keeping his trousers on, but aside from that an infinitely better choice than Mitt the dog-lover, or Santorum, the après-sex bodily exudation. But even so, it's the process that fascinates me. Imagine the scene:
Media Baron of unrivalled wealth, power, and influence: "I like the cut of that chap's jib. Let's buy him and make him president."
Servile lickspittle of a toadying nature very high in the confidence of Sauron Mouth of Murdoch: "As you say, my Lord. I'll get a Balrog McFarland on it right away."
pastorlenny reminded me the other day that money is speech, and free speech costs much more than the ordinary person can lay their hands on. So, given that it is Friday, I have a modest proposal: I think free speech can be monetized. Folk who are too poor, too stupid, or not glamorous enough to have "Free Speech" shall be denied access to it. They won't be able to air opinions unless they can prove that they are, I don't know, let us say, newspaper owners, Radio and TV station magnates, interweb moguls, advertising executives, or folk conversant with the law, or in possession of extremely large bank balances: excepting in rare circumstances of being an accessory to a newsworthy item.
I think that should solve all the problems there and then. Who wants to step on Rupert's toes, after all?
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/dec/20/bernstein-murdoch-ailes-petreaus-presidency
Of course, I have to quote a smidgeon, being who I am.
"McFarland clarified the terms: "The big boss is bankrolling it. Roger's going to run it. And the rest of us are going to be your in-house" - thereby confirming what Fox New critics have consistently maintained about the network's faux-news agenda and its built-in ideological bias.
And here let us posit the following: were an emissary of the president of NBC News, or of the editor of the New York Times or the Washington Post ever caught on tape promising what Ailes and Murdoch had apparently suggested and offered here, the hue and cry, especially from Fox News and Republican/Tea Party America, from the Congress to the US Chamber of Commerce to the Heritage Foundation, would be deafening and not be subdued until there was a congressional investigation, and the resignations were in hand of the editor and publisher of the network or newspaper. Or until there had been plausible and convincing evidence that the most important elements of the story were false. And, of course, the story would continue day after day on page one and remain near the top of the evening news for weeks, until every ounce of (justifiable) piety about freedom of the press and unfettered presidential elections had been exhausted."
Now David Petraeus doesn't to me seem too bad a chap. Obviously got into a spot of bother about keeping his trousers on, but aside from that an infinitely better choice than Mitt the dog-lover, or Santorum, the après-sex bodily exudation. But even so, it's the process that fascinates me. Imagine the scene:
Media Baron of unrivalled wealth, power, and influence: "I like the cut of that chap's jib. Let's buy him and make him president."
Servile lickspittle of a toadying nature very high in the confidence of Sauron Mouth of Murdoch: "As you say, my Lord. I'll get a Balrog McFarland on it right away."
pastorlenny reminded me the other day that money is speech, and free speech costs much more than the ordinary person can lay their hands on. So, given that it is Friday, I have a modest proposal: I think free speech can be monetized. Folk who are too poor, too stupid, or not glamorous enough to have "Free Speech" shall be denied access to it. They won't be able to air opinions unless they can prove that they are, I don't know, let us say, newspaper owners, Radio and TV station magnates, interweb moguls, advertising executives, or folk conversant with the law, or in possession of extremely large bank balances: excepting in rare circumstances of being an accessory to a newsworthy item.
I think that should solve all the problems there and then. Who wants to step on Rupert's toes, after all?