Please turn on javascript in your browser to play chess.
Debates Forum

Debates Forum

  1. Standard member vivify
    rain
    18 May '17 14:05 / 1 edit
    http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-39963887


    The ex-chairman and founder of Fox News Roger Ailes has died aged 77, his family says.
    A statement from his wife Elizabeth said she was "profoundly sad and heartbroken", calling him a "patriot".

    Mr Ailes ran Fox News for two decades and is credited with transforming it into arguably the most powerful voice in conservative media. But he stepped down last year after a number of female employees accused him of sexual harassment. At the time he said he was resigning because he had become a "distraction".

    Mrs Ailes' statement said: "During a career that stretched over more than five decades, his work in entertainment, in politics, and in news affected the lives of many millions.
    "And so even as we mourn his death, we celebrate his life."
    Before joining Fox, he served as adviser to several US presidents, from Richard Nixon to George Bush Senior.
    Mr Ailes became founding boss of Fox News in 1996, which is owned by Rupert Murdoch's 21st Century Fox.

    After leaving the company he reportedly helped Donald Trump prepare for the debates during his presidential campaign.
    There have been warm tributes from conservative media
  2. 18 May '17 15:08
    Applying Bayesian statistics, my estimation of the likelihood of a benevolent deity existing has marginally increased.
  3. Subscriber Sleepyguy
    Reepy Rastardly Guy
    18 May '17 16:48
    Originally posted by KazetNagorra
    Applying Bayesian statistics, my estimation of the likelihood of a benevolent deity existing has marginally increased.
    What's Bayes' theorem say about the likelihood of you being a prick dancing on someone's grave?
  4. 18 May '17 16:56
    Originally posted by Sleepyguy
    What's Bayes' theorem say about the likelihood of you being a prick dancing on someone's grave?
    I apologize to any of Roger Ailes' relatives and friends who may be reading RedHotPawn and are offended by my joke.
  5. 18 May '17 17:25
    Originally posted by Sleepyguy
    What's Bayes' theorem say about the likelihood of you being a prick dancing on someone's grave?
    what, because someone has ceased to breathe we're supposed to forget he was an ashole that the world is objectively better without?

    roger ailes made the world worse. he didn't improve it until his death. he will be remembered as the no morals creep that made fox into a lie spewing machine and occasionally he harassed women just because he didn't think of them as persons but objects for his amusement.

    he is dead and i am glad and your sanctimonious indignation means squat to me.
  6. 18 May '17 17:42
    Originally posted by Zahlanzi
    roger ailes made the world worse. he didn't improve it until his death. he will be remembered as the no morals creep that made fox into a lie spewing machine .....
    Much as I would wish to blame the media for everything, the fact is that those that feed the media are just as guilty. Giving patronage to media is what pays the bills and as long as we are more interested in click bait, scandal, controversy and other such things than the truth, then they will continue to feed their viewers with just that. Fox is hardly unique in this regard, even CNN and other so called 'respectable' outlets manufacture controversy for public consumption at the expense of truth.
  7. Subscriber mchill
    cryptogram
    18 May '17 18:47 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by vivify
    http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-39963887


    The ex-chairman and founder of Fox News Roger Ailes has died aged 77, his family says.
    A statement from his wife Elizabeth said she was "profoundly sad and heartbroken", calling him a "patriot".

    Mr Ailes ran Fox News for two decades and is credited with transforming it into arguably the most powerful v ...[text shortened]... debates during his presidential campaign.
    There have been warm tributes from conservative media
    A statement from his wife Elizabeth said she was "profoundly sad and heartbroken", calling him a "patriot".

    I don't wish death on anyone, and I'm sure he was good to his family. I would challenge the "patriot" label though. A decisive and dirty minded old man perhaps, but not a "patriot".
  8. 18 May '17 19:09
    Originally posted by twhitehead
    Much as I would wish to blame the media for everything, the fact is that those that feed the media are just as guilty. Giving patronage to media is what pays the bills and as long as we are more interested in click bait, scandal, controversy and other such things than the truth, then they will continue to feed their viewers with just that. Fox is hardly u ...[text shortened]... ed 'respectable' outlets manufacture controversy for public consumption at the expense of truth.
    that's like saying that little old ladies that get scammed by con artists out of their retirement money are just as guilty as the con artists themselves.
  9. Subscriber no1marauder
    It's Nice to Be Nice
    18 May '17 19:21
    Matt Taibbi's "obituary" of Ailes in Rolling Stone is unsparing:

    He is on the short list of people most responsible for modern America's vicious and bloodthirsty character.

    We are a hate-filled, paranoid, untrusting, book-dumb and bilious people whose chief source of recreation is slinging insults and threats at each other online, and we're that way in large part because of the hyper-divisive media environment he discovered.

    Ailes was the Christopher Columbus of hate. When the former daytime TV executive and political strategist looked across the American continent, he saw money laying around in giant piles. He knew all that was needed to pick it up was a) the total abandonment of any sense of decency or civic duty in the news business, and b) the factory-like production of news stories that spoke to Americans' worst fantasies about each other.

    Like many con artists, he reflexively targeted the elderly – "I created a TV network for people from 55 to dead," he told Joan Walsh – where he saw billions could be made mining terrifying storylines about the collapse of the simpler America such viewers remembered, correctly or (more often) incorrectly, from their childhoods.

    In this sense, his Fox News broadcasts were just extended versions of the old "ring around the collar" ad – scare stories about contagion. Wisk was pitched as the cure for sweat stains creeping onto your crisp white collar; Fox was sold as the cure for atheists, feminists, terrorists and minorities crawling over your white picket fence.

    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    So they tuned into Fox, which made ripping Hillary and other such overeducated, cosmopolitan, family-values-hating Satans a core part of its programming.

    But invective, like drugs or tobacco or any other addictive property, is a product of diminishing returns. You have to continually up the ante to get people coming back. So Ailes and Fox over the years graduated from simply hammering Democratic politicians to making increasingly outlandish claims about an ever-expanding list of enemies.

    Soon the villains weren't just in Washington, but under every rock, behind every corner. Immigrants were spilling over the borders. Grades were being denuded in schools by liberal teachers. Marriage was being expanded to gays today, perhaps animals tomorrow. ACORN was secretly rigging vote totals.

    Hollywood, a lost paradise Middle America remembered as a place where smooth-talking guys and gals smoked cigarettes, gazed into each others' eyes and glorified small-town life and the military now became a sandbox for over-opinionated brats like Sean Penn, Matt Damon and Brangelina who used their fame to pal around with socialist dictators and lecture churchy old folks about their ignorance.

    The Fox response was to hire an endless succession of blow-dried, shrieking dingbats like Laura Ingraham, author of Shut Up and Sing, who filled the daytime hours with rants about every conceivable cultural change being the product of an ongoing anti-American conspiracy. Ingraham even derided muffin tops as evidence of America's decaying values.

    Ailes picked at all these scabs, and then when he ran out of real storylines to mine he invented some that didn't even exist. His Fox was instrumental in helping Donald Trump push the birther phenomenon into being, and elevated the practically nonexistent New Black Panthers to ISIS status, warning Republicans that these would-be multitudinous urban troublemakers were planning on bringing guns to the GOP convention.

    The presidency of Donald Trump wouldn't have been possible had not Ailes raised a generation of viewers on these paranoid storylines. But the damage Ailes did wasn't limited to hardening and radicalizing conservative audiences.

    =====================================================================

    Ailes trained Americans to shop for the news as a commodity. Not just on the right but across the political spectrum now, Americans have learned to view the news as a consumer product.

    What most of us are buying when we tune in to this or that channel or read this or that newspaper is a reassuring take on the changes in the world that most frighten us. We buy the version of the world that pleases us and live in little bubbles where we get to nurse resentments all day long and no one ever tells us we're wrong about anything. Ailes invented those bubbles.

    Moreover, Ailes built a financial empire waving images of the Clintons and the Obamas in front of scared conservatives. It's no surprise that a range of media companies are now raking in fortunes waving images of Donald Trump in front of terrified Democrats.

    It's not that Trump isn't or shouldn't be frightening. But it's conspicuous that our media landscape is now a perfect Ailes-ian dystopia, cleaved into camps of captive audiences geeked up on terror and disgust. The more scared and hate-filled we are, the more advertising dollars come pouring in, on both sides now.

    http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/features/taibbi-roger-ailes-was-one-of-the-worst-americans-ever-w483013

    Whew!
  10. 18 May '17 20:10 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by Sleepyguy to KazetNagorra
    What's Bayes' theorem say about the likelihood of you being a prick dancing on someone's grave?
    What's the likelihood of Sleepyguy *not* 'dancing on the grave' of a dead person hated by right-wing Americans like himself?
  11. 19 May '17 07:50
    Originally posted by Zahlanzi
    that's like saying that little old ladies that get scammed by con artists out of their retirement money are just as guilty as the con artists themselves.
    No, it isn't. That's a terrible analogy.
    Its like saying the audience at a bull fight killed the bull just as much as the Matador did.
  12. 19 May '17 09:36
    Originally posted by twhitehead
    No, it isn't. That's a terrible analogy.
    Its like saying the audience at a bull fight killed the bull just as much as the Matador did.
    audience at bull fights know what they are there for. they paid a ticket to see a bull be slowly killed in a barbaric fashion and the arena provided just that.

    you think fox viewers want to be deceived? they tune in to Fox because they are promised, by fox, that there is the only place to get the truth. That fox is a news network giving them the news. They put their trust in Fox, which then proceeds to crap all over that trust. Like a con artist promising a gullible old lady he will take care of her money.

    Still think it's a terrible analogy? It's a rhetorical question, i don't need the answer. Unless you want to be treated as i treat whodey or quack. In that case i don't mind explaining it again and again, in increasing condescending manner.
  13. Subscriber Wajoma
    Die Cheeseburger
    19 May '17 09:49
    Originally posted by Zahlanzi
    audience at bull fights know what they are there for. they paid a ticket to see a bull be slowly killed in a barbaric fashion and the arena provided just that.

    you think fox viewers want to be deceived? they tune in to Fox because they are promised, by fox, that there is the only place to get the truth. That fox is a news network giving them the news. Th ...[text shortened]... ck. In that case i don't mind explaining it again and again, in increasing condescending manner.
    All news sauces are biased. Take your favorite resauce, cracked humor magazine.

    That's the way it is.

    That's the way it should be.

    Occasionally you get some organisation comes along making grand claims about neutrality, they may even start out with best intentions but....
  14. 19 May '17 11:29
    Originally posted by Zahlanzi
    you think fox viewers want to be deceived?
    Yes. And I think you too are well aware of the short comings of the media you watch.

    they tune in to Fox because they are promised, by fox, that there is the only place to get the truth.
    Nonsense and you know it. I have never met a Fox follower that actually believed half the stuff on it.

    Still think it's a terrible analogy? It's a rhetorical question, i don't need the answer.
    Not really surprising give that you know full well you are talking nonsense.

    Unless you want to be treated as i treat whodey or quack.
    I really don't care how you choose to treat me. It won't change the fact that you are wrong - and clearly know you are wrong.

    So what is your favourite news source? Do you trust it? Do you feel betrayed by it, or are you blindly lapping up what it feeds you?
  15. 19 May '17 11:32
    Originally posted by Wajoma
    All news sauces are biased. Take your favorite resauce, cracked humor magazine.

    That's the way it is.

    That's the way it should be.
    To some extent I agree and to some extent I disagree. I think all news sources should be honest about their bias, and should show their bias when it exists rather than trying to pretend to be neutral when they aren't. The whole 'we have to show both sides of the story' is one of the biggest mistakes the media ever makes.
    But I disagree that strong bias is the way it should be. I think we should find better ways to fund the media so as to reduce some of the bias.