28th May 2011, 11:09 PM
A Black Falcon Wrote:It wasn't much different then though...
People change!
Anyways, I read the article and I have much to say but I don't really have the energy to get into it too deeply. But maybe a few quick reflections are in order. It was interesting for sure, but I don't really much appreciate the writer's incredibly biased stance and his focussing on Ailes' physical characterstics and other unimportant details. Consider this bizarre description of the man: "The 71-year-old Ailes presents the classic figure of a cinematic villain: bald and obese, with dainty hands, Hitchcockian jowls and a lumbering gait." Are you kidding me? "Hitchockian jowls"? What godly purpose does this stereotypical illustration serve? It's just a simplistic way to establish him as somebody to be hated and feared as a relentless megalomaniacal right-wing operative bent on corrupting the political system and blatantly misinforming the public for his own selfish purposes. It's cheap, hackish-writing designed to inflame emotions based on preconceived notions of "evilness." Whatever. The writer later returns to Ailes ugliness, saying he is "balding" to cast him alongside Rush Limbaugh, as if their relationship wasn't already clear-and-present given their professional and personal history. It's completely inconsequential, but that's the type of character the author created, and it's a theme that pervades throughout. This isn't a fair or accurate depiction of either Ailes or Fox News, and the article lacks basic journalistic integrity.
Furthermore, I'm troubled by the villanous characterization of Ailes on the basis that he allegedly manipulated the power of television for his own personal gain, as if he was the worst and most evil person to ever encourage somebody to say something nasty or misleading, and how this was all part of a master plan to create a poisinous news empire laden on dishonesty and polemics. What immediately springs to mind in this regard is the infamous "Daisy" ad used in LBJ's presidential campaign, which came before Ailes.
<iframe width="480" height="390" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/63h_v6uf0Ao" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
It's said in the article how Ailes "minted" Chris Matthews at CNBC, who is so obviously on the other side of the political spectrum as Ailes' virulent conservatism. Maybe there's a side of him that's truly an entertainer and wishes to cultivate talent when he sees it?
Finally, a big "meh" to the charts. I hate quantitative stuff like that, especially alongside such a biased article. It lacks any meaningful judgement and there's so much room for methodoligical errors and deliberately skewing and presenting data to meet the ends of your established position.