Conspiracy Theory 101…
I wasn’t going to post this when I first read it this morning because it’s an opinion piece on FNC by a liberal idealogue which raises a red flag in my book (as would an opinion piece on the “liberal MSM” by a conservative idealogue). But I’ve received emails from both sides of the political spectrum on this article so I’m going to go ahead and post it. The Washington Post’s E.J. Dionne pens an opinion piece on the FNC/CBC Institute debates, FNC, liberal pushback, and Roger Ailes. Make of it what you will…
Ailes has been brilliant at having it both ways, insisting that his network is “fair and balanced” even as its right-tilting programming built a devoted conservative following that helped it bury CNN and MSNBC in the ratings.
While Ailes knew precisely what he was doing, his competitors flailed. They dumped one format after another, sometimes trying to lure conservative viewers from Fox by offering their own right-leaning programs. Loyal conservatives preferred the real thing and stuck with Fox.
My hunch is that Ailes, one of the toughest and smartest in a generation of Republican political consultants, sees his adversaries as playing the kind of political hardball he respects. It’s why he’s angry. The anti-Fox squad won a second round on Monday when Barack Obama and Hillary Rodham Clinton joined John Edwards in announcing that they would not appear at a debate to be sponsored by Fox and the Congressional Black Caucus in September.
The Fox debate saga is amusing, but it’s more than that. It marks a transformation on the left driven by the rise of Internet voices and the frustration of liberals at the success of conservatives in using a combination of talk radio, Fox
Why didn’t you want to post this yet had no problems posting the editorial from the WSJ? Hell the decision to post that oped was even more questionable considering that Fox broadcasts the Journal Editorial Report and both have a financial interest in each other.
Comment by Steve — April 13, 2007 @ 7:58 pm
That’s a bit of a stretch don’t you think? All the money the WSJ and FNC make separately makes whatever financial stake they share paltry by comparison…But yes, in principle, I do agree that the WSJ editorial should have at the least disclosed that they have a show on the network. The truth is that I vascillated over the WSJ piece too. But the difference was that nobody was emailing me asking about why I hadn’t posted it. That’s what happened this time. So I included an explanation in the entry.
Comment by Spud — April 13, 2007 @ 8:03 pm
I don’t mean to imply that the financial stake is huge, but it’s there.
Comment by Steve — April 13, 2007 @ 8:23 pm
Hmmm…the WSJ has a show on FNC, therefore ran a positive article. Smart move for the WSJ..they wouldnt want to lose their show now would they? BUT of course the WSJ is right leaning. that makes fnc and the WSJ like two peas in a pod.
Comment by Me — April 13, 2007 @ 9:15 pm
Spud did you get this out of sundays Doonesbury cartoon strip? Thanks for the Friday the 13th bad luck read of the day.
Comment by mike — April 13, 2007 @ 10:00 pm
I wonder why people emailed you about this. It’s not very original. It just repeats old liberal talking points. Nothing new. Am I missing something?
Comment by erljr — April 14, 2007 @ 12:17 am
Me:
Yes, the WSJ editorial page is right leaning. But have you read the rest of that paper? People like John Harwood, Jackie Calmes, Greg Ip, Michael Phillip and Justin Lahart are far from conservative. In fact they tried to lead a palace coup last year to get Paul Gigot fired.
Also, liberals like Jeff Birnbaum,, Al Hunt and Ron Suskind once were key players at the WSJ. Again, hardly right wing.
Comment by eddiebear — April 14, 2007 @ 1:56 am
Thanks erljr — I thought I was losing my ability to comprehend, I read it twice and just did not get it. I thought I would wait until everyone commented and see if that helped me.
Comment by Aunt Mary — April 14, 2007 @ 1:58 am
Why did you post this rehash Spud? Instead give us another 100 article links on Imus to ponder.
Comment by elmonica — April 14, 2007 @ 3:37 am
Looks like the Fox bench warmers can’t handle it.This oped hits it right on the head. If you read it twice and didn’t comprehend it, reading classes at your local adults night school may help with that problem. It will make for a much better contest in 2008 now that the Democrats found their brains and guts.
Comment by Ron — April 14, 2007 @ 10:59 am
Too bad they’re not using either of them, Ron.
Comment by ImNotBlue — April 14, 2007 @ 11:13 am
The only thing worse than reading E.J. Dionne’s opinion piece would be to have to listen to him lisp through it on some cable news show.
Comment by cella — April 14, 2007 @ 1:21 pm
Ron — Thanks for the reading class suggestion, I am touched at your compassion. I thought Dionne’s opinion was clear — my comprehension problem came when I was trying to connect Spud’s title, “Conspiracy Theory 101..”.
Comment by Aunt Mary — April 14, 2007 @ 1:56 pm
So we’re supposed to believe that the candidates boycotting FNC are qualified to be President of the United States, but they can’t handle appearring on a network where someone might actually ask them a real question?
Comment by Caufield — April 16, 2007 @ 8:10 am