Read it and learn!
THE NEW PEOPLE'S REEDUCATION SERIES
"SAY IT LIKE PRAVDA!"
An exclusive and unbiased investigation into the highly paid operative of a foreign-born tycoon, a man who reengineered political and media culture and fomented a revolt that threatens the very stability of our country
By Tom Junod
Published in the February 2011 issue, on sale now
Today, here at Esquire — and only at Esquire, because only Esquire has the guts to tell you this story — we're going to tell you about a man you need to know a little better, maybe a lot better: a man named Roger Ailes. Maybe you've heard of Mr. Ailes. As the chairman and CEO of a well financed and admittedly antigovernment organization called Fox News, he made a reported $23 million in 2009, which, to do the math, was not just more money than you earned, it was more money than everyone related to you earned, combined, even if you count the sudden windfall that came your aunt Ida's way after she got five out of six in Powerball. Nice work if you can get it, Mr. Ailes — especially when that "work" consisted of nothing but advancing your own agenda at the expense of the president of the United States of America during a time of war. But that $23 million, outrageous as it sounds, is chump change next to the almost $1 billion in profits that Fox News — and even Mr. Ailes's most ardent defenders admit that he is Fox News — earned Ailes's foreign-born boss, Rupert Murdoch, aka "Koala Kong," in honor of the Australian heritage he long ago rejected in favor of more convenient American citizenship. So yes, you might have heard of Roger Eugene Ailes, because you read the newspapers, you read books, you stay informed (despite what members in good standing of the East Coast media elite like, well, oh, like Roger Ailes might say about you), but how much do you really know about him? For forty years, he has stood astride the intertwined worlds of media and politics like a veritable colossus, making sure the worlds of media and politics stay intertwined, the better to control them. He has used his considerable powers of persuasion to persuade us to elect presidents, and, if they're not following the "Ailes Agenda," to turn against them. At seventy years of age, when most hardworking American seniors have had enough of the rat race and are looking forward to spending some more quality time with the grandkids, Roger Ailes is at the height, perhaps the apogee, maybe even — some say — the very zenith of his power. Indeed, with most of the potential Republican candidates for president in 2012 on his payroll, he may be said to be just getting started. Hmmm. Maybe we don't know this Roger Ailes as well as we think we do. Maybe we don't know him very well at all, which is, of course, just the way he likes it.
Read more: http://www.esquire.com/features/roger-ailes-0211
Assuming that the author of this piece writes sincerely from the bottom of his bleeding progressive heart, what can explain his absurd lack of self-awareness in assigning all the sins his own camp is guilty of, to his real or imaginary enemies?
I would like to introduce a new term to the political discourse: PROGRESSIVE CHAUVINISM.
Wikipedia gives as good a definition of Chauvinism as any:
Chauvinism, in its original and primary meaning, is an exaggerated, bellicose patriotism and a belief in national superiority and glory. By extension it has come to include an extreme and unreasoning partisanship on behalf of any group to which one belongs, especially when the partisanship includes malice and hatred towards rival groups.
This phenomenon is not new - it was mentioned in Matthew 7:3 "So why do you see the piece of sawdust in another believer's eye and not notice the wooden beam in your own eye?" Or, in King James' version: "And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?"
I would add from my empirical observations that Chauvinism is accompanied by a very emotional belief in the divine right of one group of people who share a similar set of ideas, to be superior to everyone else. Chauvinists are completely devoid of self-criticism and self-awareness as they assume the right to teach the others. They believe that their own condescending attitude towards others is a sign of their own benevolence and when others are offended by it they take it as a sign of malicious lack of gratitude on part of the lower beings.
This is true of the Great Russia chauvinists I met in the Motherland, or the Shintoist chauvinists of the erstwhile Imperial Japan, or the Arab chauvinists who treat all others in the Arab world with disdain, or racial chauvinists one can observe in this country among both whites and blacks, or religious chauvinists - some of whom you may meet among Christians, but in modern times Islamic chauvinists are all the rave, spilling over the borders of their Ummah. And you can refer to feminist writings regarding the notorious "male chauvinism."
In "Imperialism, Nationalism, Chauvinism", in The Review of Politics 7.4, (October 1945), p. 457, Hannah Arendt describes the concept, speaking of The White Man's Burden:
Hannah ArendtChauvinism is an almost natural product of the national concept in so far as it springs directly from the old idea of the "national mission." ... [A] nation's mission might be interpreted precisely as bringing its light to other, less fortunate peoples that, for whatever reason, have miraculously been left by history without a national mission. As long as this concept did not develop into the ideology of chauvinism and remained in the rather vague realm of national or even nationalistic pride, it frequently resulted in a high sense of responsibility for the welfare of backward people.
It seems to me that for a while, in this country there have actually existed two nations: those who call themselves "the progressives" and everyone else (the latter mostly represented by conservatives).
Both these nations claim America to be their country and suspect the rival group of hate-driven conspiracies to destroy it. But, while subjectively they may be equal in their extremes, objectively speaking, it's the "progressives" who are indeed guilty of bringing this country to a ruin by imposing their chauvinistic policies on the rest.
Thus, to extract the lowest common denominator, we can remove the notions of nationality, sex, or religion, and what's left is the bare ideology.
You may call it elitism, but it's more than that - even though an elitist is more likely to be a progressive chauvinist than anything else.
The progressives are the bearers of a set of ideas that naturally translates into PROGRESSIVE CHAUVINISM, which results in their belief in the divine right to hold all the key positions in the society for its own sake, to treat "the other" as a lower being who needs to be forced to comply with superior progressive ways, the condescending attitude mixed with pity towards "non-progressives," and the righteous anger and the desire to destroy the "non-progressive vermin" should these "ingrates" dare be displeased or with, or even to reject the progressive hegemony.
In this case, the anger towards Roger Ailes comes from his audacity to destroy the prior progressive hegemony in the media, which the progressive chauvinists considered to be part of the general design of the universe.
In summary, the conservative-leaning majority of Americans is now being treated as a despised "minority group" by the chauvinistic progressive hegemonists - who, while being a physical minority, act very much like the "powerful oppressive majority" they claim to despise.
The reason why they don't see this as a contradiction is the above mentioned lack of self-awareness, which is a natural and objective consequence of being a chauvinist.
Let me illustrate my point with this graphic by Supercommissar Maksim:
THAT describes the elitist Liberals to a Marxist T. They know what we do not. They are by their own design and creation, superior to all others. There isn't, and could never be, any sawdust residing in their perfect eyes. . . only in those of the unwashed, lowly, non Progs.
Not only chauvinists, but also chauvinists who project their own bigotries and hatreds onto others.
On Teddy Roosevelt:
The Three Roosevelts: Patrician Leaders Who Transformed America By James MacGregor Burns, Susan Dunn page 95
Herbert Croly was the founder of The New Republic magazine. ["The new republic" being the Progressive concept of nationalism.] Herbert Croly argued for America's entry into World War I because the country needed the "tonic of a serious moral adventure," a war, to prevent the "real danger of national disintegration" by forcing the American citizen to elevate "national service" above "having his own way."
The early Progressives knew they were anti-individual, said as much, and were willing to draft the nation into war for the purpose of turning the country into a collectivist nation-state. Progressive Chauvinism on parade, so to speak.
Quote:An exclusive and unbiased investigation into the highly paid operative of a foreign-born tycoon...
I'm very impressed. When the introduction to the article is willing to make a bold statement such as this, I am compelled to view everything that follows as gospel (excuse the expression) truth, without question.
I guess Esquire decided "Faux News Sucks" wasn't having any effect so they decided to try a new approach.
Quote:In 1995, Turner agreed to sell Turner Broadcasting to Time Warner for $7.5 billion. The merger went into effect in October 1996 following approval by the Federal Trade Commission and the shareholders of the two companies. As vice chairman of Time Warner, Turner reported to that company's CEO, Gerald Levin. Turner assumed responsibility for running the merged company's cable networks, including Time Warner's Home Box Office (HBO) and TBS's Cable New Network (CNN), Cartoon Network, and Turner Classic Movies.
When the deal was announced, many asked how Tuner, who had been his own boss for 35 years could go and work for somebody else. His salary reportedly was $25 million over five years. Perhaps more important, he also became the largest shareholder in Time-Warner, then the world's largest media company, with more than $20 billion in annual revenues from cable television, films, books, magazines, music, and the Internet.
The merger set up a titanic brawl between Turner and another media mogul, Rupert Murdoch. The fireworks began in the fall of 1996 when Turner convinced Levin not to carry Murdoch's fledgling Fox News Service. In approving its merger with TBS, the FTC had ordered Time Warner to offer its millions of subscribers another 24 hour news service in addition to CNN. Instead of Fox News, Time Warner aired MSNBC, a joint venture between Microsoft and General Electric's NBC, whose softer format posed less of a competitive threat to CNN.
The refusal to carry Fox News meant that it would not be seen in New York City, where Time Warner enjoyed a near-monopoly with 1.1 million cable subscribers. Murdoch's news station thus would be invisible to the Madison Avenue advertising agencies and media chieftains whose decisions are worth millions to a cable network. To get around Time-Warner's lock on cable systems, Murdoch announced plans to invest $1 billion in a satellite TV service called Sky, which would offer both cable TV and local broadcast programming.
Time-Warner's decision was followed by a war of words and dirty tricks not seen since the days of William Randolph Hearst. When Murdoch retaliated by canceling plans to carry a Time Warner-owned entertainment channel, Turner immediately likened Murdoch to Nazi leader Adolph Hitler. Later he called Murdoch a "scumbag." Murdoch's New York Post yanked Turner's CNN from its television listings. The Post also dredged up the radical-chic past of "Hanoi Jane" Fonda, Turner's third wife. And it speculated publicly about whether Turner, reportedly a manic-depressive, was neglecting to take his lithium. Perhaps not entirely factitiously, Turner in September 1997 suggested that he and Murdoch settle their highly publicized feud with a boxing match. "It would be like Rocky, only for old guys, " said Turner.
Read more: http://www.answers.com/topic/ted-turner#ixzz1BkRt8ZXh
THERE IS NO PROGRESSIVE™ MEDIA POLITICAL CONSPIRACY COMRADES!!!! We have been
[temporarily insane Rooster from Faux News signal w/o tinfoil hat]
Comrade Tom Ja Know after last November:
Quote:When Murdoch retaliated by canceling plans to carry a Time Warner-owned entertainment channel, Turner immediately likened Murdoch to Nazi leader Adolph Hitler.
Yes, all the history books agree Hitler's greatest crime against humanity was refusing to carry TBS on the Nazi Broadcasting Company (NBC) network!
If someone remembers good sources, please post them here. We need a list of wild-eyed accusations of inflammatory rhetoric and also a list of examples where the progs were themselves guilty of the same inflammatory rhetoric and visuals to a much greater degree.
I put up a post not so long ago that had some examples of progressive inflamatory rhetoric. Here's the link.