June 11, 2005
Jonathan Alter Perfectly Captures The Right Wing Method Of Operation
Boy does Jonathan Alter fillet the usual tactics employed by Roger Ailes and the rest of the right wing bully squad with the this post at The Huffington Blog:
I got a little insight
today into how the bullies at Fox News play the game. In this week's
Newsweek, I wrote a column under the headline "If Watergate Happened Now."
The satirical conceit was that I was writing a column looking back at
the successful completion of Nixon's second term. In a light vein, I
sideswiped lots of people in today's media culture by way of explaining
why the scandal never came out and Nixon survived in office. At one
point, I wrote: "Those of us who hoped it would end differently knew we
were in trouble when former Nixon media adviser Roger Ailes banned the
word 'Watergate' from Fox's coverage and went with the logo 'Assault on
the Presidency' instead."
Well, it turns out
Mr.-Dish-It-Out apparently can't take it. Today I heard that his
stooges were out peddling a story to the press that I was guilty of a
conflict-of-interest and should have disclosed in my column that I
twice unsuccessfully sought employment at Fox News and now do part-time
work under contract to NBC News and MSNBC.
The facts: Five years ago,
I once had a conversation with Ailes in his office about going to Fox
but I never pursued it after it was clear he just wanted me on his air
as a liberal punching bag. When I told him I was a centrist on many
issues and didn't care to be announced as a liberal every time I
appeared (his terms of employment), our discussions ended.
As it happens, I also
bashed MSNBC in this week's Watergate column ("When 'Firebombing
Brookings: Good Idea or Not?' became the question-of-the-day on MSNBC,
Liddy's radio show got a nice ratings boost."). MSNBC apparently has a
thicker skin than Fox.
Many of the people at Fox
are fine journalists and executives. But whomever was assigned to
spread the "dirt" on me must have noticed that, while disclaimers are
often appropriate (And I've disclosed my relationship with MSNBC on
many occasions), in the middle of a satirical piece it would have been
unnecessary and ridiculous. They were just trying to shiv someone who
had the temerity to make fun of their boss.
Speaking of disclosure, I
don't recall Ailes disclosing that he worked for Nixon, Reagan and
other GOP candidates when he writes an op-ed piece or goes on TV. He
somehow never gets around to mentioning that while President of Fox
News, he wrote a letter to President Bush offering his advice on how to
handle 9/11.
There's a lesson here.
Ailes is a very talented TV producer (and, by all accounts, an
unusually good boss) who has brought his bare knuckles political skills
to the media world. When he's attacked, he hits back harder, whatever
the facts. His m.o. is distraction. He either unloads a barbed
soundbite or hides behind his munchkins and assumes his
anonymously-sourced counterattack will just fuzz up the issue and make
people focus on something other than the fraudulence of his claim to
being "fair and balanced." He assumes his adversaries are patsies who
will be easily cowed into silence. This time, he assumed wrong.
Ailes certainly doesn't want to
deal with facts. Facts are too inconvenient and, in the World of Fox,
unnecessary. The right wing mafia (my earnest apologies to the mafia)
is solely goal-oriented. Achieve the objective of domination by any
means necessary. The basic tenets of journalism are of no value because
these are not useful in advancement towards the desired outcome of
preeminence. Rules are for others to be followed. Honesty and
admittance of errors are for the saps who believe such is somehow
beneficial and appropriate.
And as for 'fair and balanced,' I learned long ago that if you have to
say something like that, well, there's a reason for having to do so.
top
RSS feed
|