Monday Links and Open Thread

89 thoughts on “Monday Links and Open Thread”

  1. Your word choice in the Murdoch headline is very good. Murdoch did indeed revolutionize media. Not necessarily or primarily news or journalism, but media. With all due deference to the Angry Old Man Caucus here at JD, loudly and frequently proclaiming that all change is inherently bad and even evil, “revolutionize” is a word in Standard American English with a very positive connotation. It is not just a change in thought, but an active change which tends to produce tangible results. In turning news into something other than news and popularizing whatever the new product is, Murdoch bought into being the opinion entertainment genre and bequeathed it to a small but important segment of people who never found facts enjoyable or important in their lives. In the past, this non-news programming simply ignored facts. “I Love Lucy”, “Gilligan’s Island” …. But Murdoch saw the value in a far less expensive form of entertainment in which facts are not ignored but changed to reflect opinion, to reflect what a segment of viewers wished the facts to be. That is not to be discounted. Sure, there portends to be a certain danger to society in that, but it is a tightly controlled and contained danger. Cable news has peaked, or perhaps simply plateaued, at a surprisingly low level. So the news as what one wants facts to be is of no greater societal consequence. And, there is a certain therapeutic value to it. When we give Palinites, the Bundyites, the (Hal) Walkerites, the (Alex) Jonesites, the Duggarites, the Neocons, the Tea Partiers a safe and secure theatre in which to congregate, we have given the broader society an important escape valve. Alarming talk that seems to be a powerful steam force but eventually becomes merely the slow drip of condensation on the inside lid of the pressure cooker. That is revolutionary. If at times unpleasant, in the end harmless. All the while making money for investors ….

  2. At first, I was somewhat mystified by The Silencing. If it were a cookbook, it might be “How to Make Oatmeal With Instant Oats and Hot Water”. Why would I want that? But, when you go to Amazon and books are automatically grouped thematically, guess what you find? Powers, Coulter, Ham, Guilfoyle and Perino, in order and all at surprisingly low prices. A very good picture of what rightists hope is true. A continuation of FOX News themes when you’re on the beach this summer and don’t want to pay cellular charges on your Surface.

  3. Nothing in his accomplishments revolutionized the media like the creation of FOX NEWS and its subsequent domination of cable news. A cleaning out of the liberal earwax for a huge segment of the political spectrum crying out for a perspective unheard on their television. God bless Mr. Murdoch for that above all else.

    • You greatly minimize the accomplishments of a man who I think is fairly considered a titan in the Morgan and Rockefeller tradition. What he did in the UK market was a far more transformational change, albeit one which seems not destined to survive him. FOX News is more an impacting of ear wax for a small segment of the American viewing public who eschew hearing facts and reality, much as MSNBC is a different segment of the American viewing public. The importance of FOX News is more in the recognition that such a market exists and the subsequent exploitation of it. In other words, more as a business model than some great journalistic achievement. Essentially, the same as the original Rockefeller kerosene model. Much to be respected and admired, but not as some great energy advancement. A big glob of gunk in the gunk pool of American cable news.

  4. Kirsten Powers is apparently doing something right. She rankles both the left and the right. On the issue of illiberal liberals on college campuses squelching free speech, she sees this as a disturbing trend that has serious consequences. And she can back it up with copious examples each one more bizarre than the next. For her efforts there are those who call her a fake democrat and worse. Yes, let’s just chalk it up to her being a vacuous member of the thin gruel society known as the bimbos who work for FOX. Try to imagine that she works at another network and held the same views. Would she be given a platform to express these views? Would her viewpoint still be seen as nothing but mush?

    • So why is it acceptable that upwards to half of the Republican Party consists of RINOs (as adjudged by the rightists), but “we” are not allowed a singular DINO?

      • Because she’s not a DINO. She holds liberal positions save abortion. And she is classically liberal in her take on speech.

        • I agree that she IS classically liberal.
          Leftists can have all the DINOs they can tolerate or not.
          It’s the elitist snobbery that screams out when it comes to Powers.
          She is completely dismissed because of where she works.

          • And, what she says where she works. If she said the same things at AJAM or MSNBC or on NPR, I would be every bit as critical of her.

          • amusingly, you are correct. the republican party has moved far left of center. repeatedly proposing legislation to save dear social programs like SSI and Medicare. let us not forget that only the left would favor AIDs help to Africa or the prescription part d GWB legislation. yes, today we have left wing, and far loon left wing in the E.E.U.U. how droll.

          • I find few things as drôle as radical rightist paranoia. Thank you.

            I prefer “drôle” even when lazy Norte Americanos refuse to use the accent circumflex. A bit more modern.

          • No Cold War conservatives were all anti-corporate, socially liberal, pro govt remedies to social problems, and doves.

            You just called them extreme and repressive back then as a political tactic.

          • Actually, I didn’t. I never mentioned policies. The Country Club Republicans, of fond memory, were very much corporatists, were socially liberal (before the likes of George H.W. Bush jumped the shark to pander to the growing socially conservative base), never turned government into the great enemy of the nation and were, alas hawkish.

            I was talking more about the pure meanness and the intolerance, to which there are, of course, exceptions, you and Concha being shining examples.

            It seems to me that the best days of our nation, so far (there will be far greater days, I am sure) came under the Country Club Republicans and Northeastern Democrats.

          • Cecelia, I’ve never really thought the differences were all that ideological. The greater majority of Americans favor free enterprise solutions and personal freedom. They value tolerance. They prize faith, family and friends more than they do government. The distinctions are much more of attitude and approach.Conservatives value established and traditional practice in politics and society and take a cautious approach to any sort of change. Liberals are broad-minded (in the sense of a cafeteria of tradition and change), not fearing change and actively favoring reform and new idea, sometimes in partnership with the government. Change is always necessary. Race relations and gender-based discrimination healthcare and banking, all had to change.The greatness of our society is the spirit of change compels us into discussion in which liberals advance a cause, and conservatives refine and channel the change. The notion that conservatives invariably eschew bigger government and liberals treat traditions and principles as inconvenient are both simply hogwash.

          • The definitions for political ideologies seem to be on ball bearings and dependent upon who is patting themselves on the back or trying to impugne someone.

        • Yes, much as Holy Joe Liebermann was a DINO when he was “paling around” with McCain and Palin.

          • paling
            Also found in: Medical, Legal, Idioms, Encyclopedia, Wikipedia.

            pal·ing (pā′lĭng)
            n.
            1. One of a row of upright pointed sticks forming a fence; a pale.
            2. Pointed sticks used in making fences; pales.
            3. A fence made of pales or pickets.
            American
            Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fifth Edition. Copyright ©
            2011 by Houghton Mifflin Harcourt Publishing Company. Published by
            Houghton Mifflin Harcourt Publishing Company. All rights reserved.paling (ˈpeɪlɪŋ)
            n
            1. a fence made of pales
            2. pales collectively
            3. a single pale
            4. the act of erecting pales
            Collins English Dictionary – Complete and Unabridged © HarperCollins Publishers 1991, 1994, 1998, 2000, 2003pal•ing (ˈpeɪ lɪŋ)

            n.
            1. Also called pal′ing fence′. picket fence.
            2. a pale or picket for a fence.
            3. pales collectively.
            4. the act of building a fence with pales.
            [1350–1400]
            Random
            House Kernerman Webster’s College Dictionary, © 2010 K Dictionaries
            Ltd. Copyright 2005, 1997, 1991 by Random House, Inc. All rights
            reserved.

          • You’ll have to excuse me. I didn’t realize “palling” was actually word. I was borrowing the word (palling) from Sarah Palin, and didn’t check it out. My bad ….

  5. I watched the June 10th Daily Wrap via Roku.

    Pretty good. Only thing I’d suggest the show needs to do is to pick up the pace. With that I mean a less laid back feel rather than packing more issues into a show.

    • I think the content is good, high quality, better than most of what I see on any American cable news channel. The low production values don’t even bother me. And, I was fine with the pace. I tire of cable news rushing through stories and panel segments when the cable news networks have such an embarrassment of time on their hands.

  6. the ICN article is written, in how would one say it, a manner befitting someone that was ousted by all his clicks. living in a shunned world, after a tedious boarding school education. the result, amusingly, leaving one to feel educated, when indeed, all that has happened is the production of a pure nothingburger.

  7. So a single email from an associate of the intended recipient which he may or may not have received, may or may not have read, proves that the accusation was false. That’s a very, very low standard of proof, indeed.

    • Oh BS. When you have a publicist they are your eyes and ears for all communication. If the publicist decided not to respond it is as if you did not respond. Stossel knows how this works and so does the guy who hired the publicist. Hire a more competent CYA guy if necessary.

  8. So the Daily Mail guy who was denied the ability to be the print pool guy today for the Hilary campaign asked later in the day to be admitted to the YMCA (where an event was happening) to use the rest room and the Secret Service guy told him to go in the woods. Follow-up tweet – yeah and the local sheriff who’s monitoring the area around the YMCA will then arrest him for indecent exposure!

    My take: Hilary says to reporters “there’s a product I endorse called Depends, if I don’t like what you have to say, either hold it or wear Depends!”

  9. Today’s most popular links:
    5 need another apology
    4 Tom Shillue talks
    3 Kirsten Powers
    2 fabricates fake coverage
    And the most popular link in today’s links…
    1 Fireworks on FNC.

    • Not at all. We’re dealing with Tropical Storm Bill about to come ashore and head right up the IH 35 corridor. A loony old White dude effectively handled by the DPD is not much on our minds or in our conversation. Sorry to disappoint.

      • It would be wise if we took JDP’s own looney old white commenter from Texas less seriously here, folks.

Comments are closed.