Archive

Posts Tagged ‘music’

Everything Under the Sun by Justin Bass

October 19, 2012 Leave a comment

Transcription of Paul Krugman on CNBC’s Squawk Box, July 11, 2012

July 13, 2012 1 comment

Paul Krugman on CNBC’s Squawk Box, July 11, 2012

 

Transcription

Andrew Ross Sorkin: “Today we are inducting a Nobel laureate into the Squawk Box Book Club. We are proud to present a Blue Chip award. I think this compares with the Nobel. I don’t know how you think about this?”

Michelle Caruso-Cabrera: “Way better.”

Andrew Ross Sorkin: “The book: ‘End This Depression Now.’ Paul Krugman walks us through the Financial Crisis that triggered the greatest downturn since the Great Depression, and offers us ways to move forward. Paul Krugman joins us on set this morning. Of course, he’s also the author of ‘End This Depression Now’ and ‘The Return of Depression Economics’ and ‘The Great Unraveling.’ And we have your award (Nobel prize for economics). How does this compare? Do you remember  the morning that you found out you got the Nobel, and then you got this (the actual award)?”

Paul Krugman: “Can you do a Swedish accent? I think it would be a little bit more impressive.”

Andrew Ross Sorkin: “Is it a woman who calls? Or how does it happen?”

Paul Krugman: “It was some guy with an obviously fake Swedish accent. I didn’t actually believe it until it was up on their website about a half an hour later.”

Andrew Ross Sorkin: “So Paul, I want to talk about economics, and I want to talk about what’s going on in the world. But tomorrow we have Simpson and Bowles. Erskine Bowles, Alan Simpson on the show. And from everything that I’ve read and seen that you’ve said before, you’re not a fan of this. And historically, I will tell you, we get a lot of people who sit around this table and say ‘We’ve got to find a compromise in Washington [D.C.]. This is a good model. At least it’s a starting point.’”

Paul Krugman: “It’s a model that’s heavily tilted toward things that are not good ideas. It’s heavily tilted toward inflicting pain on the most vulnerable. It is obsessed with cutting tax rates. I mean, it’s not unlike the Republican side of it. It isn’t really a balanced proposal. It’s actually a proposal that’s very heavily tilted toward spending cuts, not enough toward revenue increases. I guess we could do worse, and, given the way politics are going, we might.

This is not a well-crafted proposal. And by the way, there are huge magic asterisks. If you think that they’ve actually solved the problem, it turns out that all of the big savings in Simpson-Bowles are all ‘Savings to be determined later.’ They don’t actually lay out how they’re going to control health care costs. And it is fundamentally about health care costs. And that does not become clear, the way they present it.”

Michelle Caruso-Cabrera: “Medicare, in particular.”

Paul Krugman: “Well, but Medicare is part of a broader problem, right? Medicare costs have actually grown a little more slowly than private insurance costs over the years.”

Michelle Caruso-Cabrera: “I’m talking about the federal government right now has Medicare, right? And Medicaid to some degree.”

Paul Krugman: “That’s right. But Medicare. If we could suddenly have French health care costs instead of American health care costs, our budget problems would be solved forever, right? It is about the very high cost of the U.S. health care system. And you cannot resolve our budget problem without resolving that. If you do resolve that, then this thing becomes a whole lot easier.”

Joe Kernen: “Paul, I was excited when you were coming in, because I view you as almost a unicorn. You really exist in real life. Sort of an ancient species or a new species. Because I try to understand where you’re coming from on some of this stuff. And I’m confounded when I read your pieces. And I’m hoping we can have a philosophical discussion.”

Paul Krugman: “Look, can I say something? We came into this [Financial] Crisis, and that’s what my book is about. Back then there were some very different views about how this thing was going to work, about how things were going to play out. People like me had one set of views. Other people had very different views. There were some predictions. A lot of people thought people like me were crazy…”

Joe Kernen (interrupting): Right.

Paul Krugman (continued through interruption): [Other people thought] we can have budget deficits without raising interest rates.”

Joe Kernen (interrupting): “But, but bigger picture Capitalism versus a Social Democracy model. And I was going to just ask you, there was a time when we had 8% of government as GDP [Gross Domestic Product]. Then we got up to 15%. Now we’re at 25%, and it will be at 40 or 50% eventually with entitlements, if they’re not reined in. Is there a maximum amount of government spending as a percentage of GDP below 100 that you would? What would it be? Is 25% ok for a percentage of GDP?”

Paul Krugman: “When I’m in Europe, I will actually lecture them. They should let their stores open on Sunday. They have too much regulation. But we have European economics. Look at Sweden, which has been sailing through this [Financial] Crisis beautifully. It’s close to 50% GDP.”

Joe Kernen (interrupting): “But, but, but there’s more people in Newark [New Jersey].

Paul Krugman: “Come on. It’s not clear what difference. It is possible…”

Joe Kernen (interrupting): “Would you put up the economic record of any part of Europe with the way we do Capitalism her over the last 200 years? Which one?”

Paul Krugman: “Oh, sure. Sweden again. Sweden was a poorer country than we were 200 years ago. If you’re looking for the last 30-40 years, you know Europeans don’t actually look that bad. They’re now screwing up because they made this terrible mistake of one currency without one government. But as of 2007, before this [Financial] Crisis hit, the previous 10 years had looked pretty good compared to ours, in a lot of dimensions.”

Joe Kernen: “You are a capitalist?”

Paul Krugman: “Yeah.”

Joe Kernen: “Is there some kind of modification to Capitalism? What would I call it?”

Paul Krugman: “I’m a Free Market Welfare State guy.”

Joe Kernen: “Wait a minute. A Free Market Welfare State.”

Paul Krugman: “I believe you let markets mostly run themselves. You have an economy that’s basically driven by market forces. But you collect taxes to provide a safety net. A pretty strong safety net.”

Andrew Ross Sorkin: “How big does the safety net have to be?”

Joe Kernen: “It goes back to our forefathers, who said ‘Limited government, low taxes.’”

Paul Krugman: “Really? I don’t actually remember hearing about that?”

Joe Kernen: “Nothing about that? Nobody?”

Paul Krugman: “No, I don’t think that’s in there [Constitution of the United States].”

* Mr. Kernen immediately grabbed the computer mouse in front of him and looked at his computer screen.

Michelle Caruso-Cabrera: “Let’s talk safety net. So Medicare, by the nature when you look at actuary tables, actually becomes a benefit for the rich. Medicare is for everyone. We have billionaires who sit on this set, and they get Medicare. And if you are poor, the actuary tables bear out that you will die likely before you ever get your first Social Security check or Medicare. So how big is the Welfare State?”

Paul Krugman: “That’s actually, that’s not actually right, by the way. It’s certainly not true. What matters is life expectancy at age 65, and that is higher for more affluent people. But think about how many billionaires are there? The amount of money you can save by means-testing Medicare turns out to be trivial. And, by the way, if you do means-test it, what you have done is increased marginal tax rates because you’ve said if you make more money then you will lose your Medicare benefit. That’s actually reducing incentives.”

Andrew Ross Sorkin: “I’m going to turn it around then. Is it trivial? I don’t actually believe this, but I’m doing this almost as a Devil’s Advocate. Is it trivial then to increase taxes on the wealthy, since the amount of money you gain in the same way?”

Paul Krugman: “No, that’s not true.”

Michelle Caruso-Cabrera: “The converse is not true?”

Paul Krugman: “No, the converse is not true. The amount of Medicare that we spend on the richest .01% of the population is a tiny amount of money. The amount of money we can gain in taxes is not a tiny amount of money, because they are very, very rich. The health care of a rich person doesn’t cost a lot more. Actually, it costs a little bit less than the health care of a poor person. The income of a rich person is higher, by definition. So there’s a lot more taxes.

So this is not true. We cannot solve our budget problems entirely by raising taxes on the rich. But we can make a significant dent by raising taxes on the rich. And we actually cannot make a significant dent by doing things like means-testing Medicare.”

Andrew Ross Sorkin: “You talk a lot about the bond vigilantes. And I’m curious, how much do you think we can spend to quote-unquote grow the economy, if you think that would work, before the bond vigilantes have a problem?”

Paul Krugman: “Well, first of all. I guess the question is. We have to look at history. There’s no easy way to do this by looking at spreadsheets. We look at the fact that Great Britain had debt levels as a share of GDP [Gross Domestic Product] much higher than we currently have, for most of the 20th century. Never a problem. We look at Japan, which people have been predicting bond vigilantes will attack for 20 years now. No problem. So it looks as if countries that have their own currency, that are stable, advanced democracies have the ability to run to levels.

You know, I don’t like, I don’t want us to get up to a Japanese level of debt. But there is no sign that we’re anywhere close. There’s no sign that we’re close to [???] points of GDP debt levels.”

Joe Kernen (interrupting): “People use the analogy: ‘When you jump off a building, you think you’re flying until you hit the ground.’ People say if we doubled to 4% on what we need to pay to fund our expenses that we’re already headed for Europe.”

Paul Krugman: “That’s. Even. You know. Think about Europe for a second. Think about the fact that Britain has levels of debt that are basically the same as ours. And are actually a bit higher than that of Spain. Britain (the Pound) is a safe-haven currency. They can borrow at pretty much the same rates we can. Spain is obviously in the news today. It’s not actually about the debt level. It’s about the constraints of that terrible mistake of a single currency created. It’s not about the debt level.”

Joe Kernen: “But, but there would come a time where it would be hard to get Chinese.”

Paul Krugman: “When the economy is doing well, you should be paying down debt. And I spent a large part of the last decade screaming about Bush and his tax cuts and his unfunded wars, saying that this is not what we should be doing. We should be trying to get our debt down.”

Joe Kernen (interrupting): “But.”

Paul Krugman: “But now is a time when we have an economic emergency where there really is no good alternative. If we try to balance the budget under these circumstances, all we do is throw ourselves into a deeper Depression.”

Joe Kernen: “What would be a number? What’s the maximum amount that the government should spend as a percentage of GDP [Gross Domestic Product]? Do you have a number for me? I’m just trying to figure it out.”

Paul Krugman: “Well.”

Joe Kernen (interrupting): “Well, I’m trying to figure it out. You know [hand gestures from Mr. Kernen].”

Paul Krugman: “Look, when it gets above 50.”

Joe Kernen: “When it gets above 50.”

Paul Krugman: “Then I start to wonder.”

Joe Kernen: “Government spending as a percentage of GDP [Gross Domestic Product]?”

Paul Krugman: “We have several European countries that are right at the 50 line.”

Joe Kernen: “But is there anything to the notion that money is treated better in the private sector, where there’s accountability and people minding the store?”

Paul Krugman: “There are some things that government does better that the private sector, like taking care of people who are in desperate need. Health care seems to be something. Health Insurance the government runs better.”

Joe Kernen (interrupting): “Do you see innovation continue if the government?”

Paul Krugman: “Of course. That’s. There are so many myths out there. Half the time, more than half the time, when anybody tells you about some great innovation, ‘That wouldn’t have happened under socialized medicine,’ it turns out the innovation was made in Europe or Australia, not here.”

Michelle Caruso-Cabrera: “A lot of the critics of that approach would say in Europe they have rationing. Let me finish. What happens is that you end up not giving care to the elderly as much as you would to younger people, because they’re going to live longer. They’re more deserving. What a lot of people here say is ‘Look, we all ration, right? We all have unlimited wants but limited means.’ And the question comes down to who will do the rationing? Will it be the individual or will it be the government? And should it be the person who is in charge of their own life to make their choices, and have good choices about health insurance rather than ceding to the government?”

Paul Krugman: “What planet are those people living on? As far as I can make out, it’s my insurance company, not me, who is making those choices. And I have insurance.”

Michelle Caruso-Cabrera: “Because it’s provided by your employer, right?”

Paul Krugman: “Right.”

Michelle Caruso-Cabrera: “Because it’s 3rd party payer. Will you acknowledge that? No?”

Paul Krugman: “No, when you get a private personal insurance policy, which by the way that market has never worked anywhere.”

Michelle Caruso-Cabrera (interrupting): “Because there is very heavy government intervention in that market.”

Paul Krugman: “No, that market has never worked well anywhere.”

Michelle Caruso-Cabrera: “It’s never functioned ever. It’s never been allowed.”

Paul Krugman: “It functions worst where there’s the least intervention. But, but this notion of rationing. The notion that. Look, everybody talks about hip replacements. It’s true that you have a longer wait for a hip replacement in Canada than here. Who pays for hip replacements in America? Medicare. This myth that the rationing is coming because we have a private system. We actually have less rationing because we spend more money. The French system has almost no rationing. It’s a very heavy government intervention…”

Joe Kernen (interrupting): “I want you to come back. I have questions about the two kinds of fairness. Somehow the government figures out outcomes, rather than a meritocratic system?”

Paul Krugman: “I think we could go on like this for a while.”

Joe Kernen: “Equal outcomes for our citizens?”

Paul Krugman: “No, but there’s a long distance between that and saying. I mean, if you had talked to people in 1925 and talked about the economy we had in 1955, with Social Security and Unemployment Insurance and these kinds of things, they would have said ‘This capitalism will collapse.’ In fact, the post-War [World War II ended in 1945] generation was the best economic growth we’ve had in a very long time.”

Joe Kernen (interrupting): “I’m scared of 50% government spending. I can’t go there with you.”

Paul Krugman: “But it’s not going to happen here, right?”

Joe Kernen: “You said you’d let it happen.”

Paul Krugman: “No, I said that’s where I start getting nervous.”

End of the interview.

_______________________________________________________________________________________

Read more:

http://video.cnbc.com/gallery/?video=3000101427

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/07/11/zombies-on-cnbc/

http://www.businessinsider.com/cnbc-host-blasts-paul-krugman-on-air-after-krugman-calls-him-a-zombie-2012-7

http://www.cnbc.com/id/15838087/

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/07/11/paul-krugman-cnbc_n_1664771.html

http://www.cjr.org/the_audit/daily_show_eviscerates_santell.php?page=all

www.businessweek.com/news/2012-07-11/peregrine-customers-claims-priced-at-25-cents-on-dollar

http://dealbook.nytimes.com/2012/07/10/regulators-charge-futures-brokerage-with-fraud/

http://money.cnn.com/2012/07/11/investing/pfg-wasendorf/index.htm

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/13/opinion/krugman-whos-very-important.html?hp

http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution_transcript.html

______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Rupert Murdoch…News of the World hacking cell phones and bribing police…Fox News…Harper Collins book publishers…20th Century Fox movies…Fox NFL…Fox Sports…The Soccer Channel…The Wall Street Journal…and much more!

July 16, 2011 Leave a comment

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/16/opinion/16nocera.html?hp

EXCERPT:

“The Journal Becomes Fox-ified

By
Op-Ed Columnist
Published: July 15, 2011

….The political articles grew more and more slanted toward the Republican party line. The [Wall Street] Journal sometimes took to using the word ‘Democrat’ as an adjective instead of a noun, a usage favored by the right wing. In her book, War at The Wall Street Journal, Sarah Ellison recounts how editors inserted the phrase ‘assault on business’ in an article about corporate taxes under President Obama. The Journal was turned into a propaganda vehicle for its owner’s conservative views. That’s half the definition of Fox-ification.”

______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-0716-rutten-20110716,0,7517076.column

EXCERPTS:

“Rutten: America’s Murdoch problem

Op-Ed

It would be outrageous if the U.S. ignored allegations that an American company used our territory as a haven from which to subvert the laws and democratic processes of Britain.”

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2011/jul/16/elisabeth-james-murdoch-family-crisis

EXCERPTS:

BEGINNING OF EXCERPT FROM THE UK GUARDIAN:

“Murdochs ‘in family fallout’ over crisis

Biographer claims Elisabeth Murdoch’s outburst was directed not just at Rebekah Brooks but also her brother James

….

A biographer of Murdoch, Michael Wolff, claimed that the tycoon’s daughter, Elisabeth, had said her brother James had “fucked the company”.

This week Murdoch denied she had said something similar about the ousted News International chief executive, Rebekah Brooks. But Wolff wrote on Twitter that those reports were “incomplete”: “She said: ‘James and Rebekah fucked the company.’ ” Wolff said Elisabeth made the remark on Sunday at a book launch for the political analyst Philip Gould, hosted by her husband, Matthew Freud, and the editor of the Times, James Harding.

END OF EXCERPT FROM THE UK GUARDIAN.

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Read more:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2011/jul/16/rupert-murdoch-news-corp-profits

http://www.forbes.com/feeds/ap/2011/07/16/general-broadcasting-amp-entertainment-eu-britain-phone-hacking_8568880.html

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/blogpost/post/fox-news-program-avoids-talk-of-murdochs-news-international-hacking-scandal/2011/07/15/gIQA1rV6FI_blog.html

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-07-18/news-corp-at-50-discount-shows-diminishing-murdoch-real-m-a.html

http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/fdda8360-b097-11e0-a5a7-00144feab49a,Authorised=false.html?_i_location=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ft.com%2Fcms%2Fs%2F0%2Ffdda8360-b097-11e0-a5a7-00144feab49a.html&_i_referer=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ft.com%2Fhome%2Fuk

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-hoyt-newspapers-20110717,0,4409495.story

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304567604576451732627388162.html?mod=WSJ_hp_LEFTTopStories

http://www.foxbusiness.com/markets/2011/07/17/british-police-arrest-former-murdoch-aide-rebekah-brooks-report/

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2011/jul/18/fox-news-rupert-murdoch-sunday-talk-shows

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/19/world/europe/19hacking.html?hp

Here’s what the Columbia Journalism Review reported in its April/ March 2010 issue:

http://www.cjr.org/cover_story/dumb_like_a_fox.php?page=5

Dumb Like a Fox

Fox News isn’t part of the GOP; it has simply (and shamelessly) mastered the confines of cable

By Terry McDermott

EXCERPTS:

But is it an arm of the GOP? Not unless you think Roger Ailes would actually work for Michael Steele. It is more likely the other way around. Steele, in some broader cultural sense, works for Ailes, who is without close contest the most powerful Republican in the country today. The national Republican Party has shrunk to a narrow base with no apparent agenda other than to oppose everything the Obama administration proposes. This extends even to opposing policies Republicans either created or once supported. In explaining these reversals, Republicans frequently say that their changes of position—for example, on deficit-reduction measures that they routinely dismissed when in the majority—owes mainly to changes in national circumstances. But the main circumstance that seems to have changed is their loss of formal power in Washington. This suits Fox perfectly, and gives heft to its self-definition as an insurgency….

Here are some more representative examples. They might seem chosen to make a point; they were not. They are admittedly impressionistic, but we think a fair sampling of what was on the air that day.

On the Senate compromise on health care reform:

MSNBC—Democratic Senator Ron Wyden of Oregon called it “a godsend.” Howard Dean said “the Senate bill really does advance the ball.”

CNN—Representative Barbara Lee, a California Democrat, called it “the type of coverage that they [her constituents] deserve.”

Fox—Neil Cavuto posed this question to independent Senator Joe Lieberman of Connecticut: “Senator, they just didn’t put lipstick on a pig? It’s still a pig, right?” Lieberman was noncommittal on the porcine nature of the compromise, but assured he would vote against it. Hayes of The Weekly Standard said, “it is absolutely insane.” Former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee said, “It is the lump of coal in our Christmas stocking.”

On climate change:

MSNBC—Jonathan Alter of Newsweek, addressing Sarah Palin’s claim that climate change is not necessarily the result of human activity: “Her bigger problem, if she wants to be a candidate, is that she’s on the wrong side of history. She’s on the wrong side of science. She’s on the wrong side of politics here.”

CNN—Kitty Pilgrim, CNN correspondent: “The United States is falling behind the rest of the world in what some see as the cleanest energy option available, nuclear power.”

Fox —Amy Kellogg, Fox correspondent: “. . . stolen e-mails suggest the manipulation of trends, deleting and destroying of data, and attempts to prevent the publication of opposing views on climate change . . . .”

We could go on, but the pattern would not change….

A close look at Fox’s operations seemed an obvious way to examine the claims and counter-claims. When I approached Fox to gain access to their studios and staff for a story about the nature of their news operations, I was told that if I wanted to do a piece on Fox, I should do a profile of Shepard Smith, their main news anchorman. I should be careful, they told me, to distinguish between Smith, a newsman, and their bevy of more notorious personalities—Bill O’Reilly, Neil Cavuto, Glenn Beck, and Greta Van Susteren*. They aren’t really news people, I was told; they are editorialists and ought to be analyzed as such. They are analogous, Fox suggested, to the editorial and op-ed opinion pages of newspapers, which ought not be confused with the straight news coverage.

The proposal to do a story on Smith was fair enough, but would not in any way address the central issue: Was Fox a political operation? I declined. A Smith profile would be a wonderful story for another time, I told Fox, but it wasn’t the story we felt relevant at the moment. That being the case, Fox “declined to participate” in my reporting, which is another way of saying I should go do something to myself and possibly the horse I rode in on, too.

I’ve been told worse, so I wasn’t offended, but this put the story in a bind. I had thought a reported story on how Fox assembles its daily programming would be useful. Doing a story on Fox without access and cooperation necessarily changes the nature of the story. So in lieu of talking to Fox, the main thing I did was let Fox talk to me. That is, I watched a lot of Fox News, and I must report the Fox spokeswoman was absolutely correct. Shepard Smith is an interesting guy. He is far and away the most charming personality on Fox. Not that this takes special effort. Generally speaking, Fox doesn’t do charm. O’Reilly, for all of his considerable talents, blew a fuse in his charm machine years ago, and it’s not clear Beck ever had one to blow. Let’s not even start on Sean Hannity and Cavuto.

Smith’s show—or, rather, shows; he hosts two of them every weekday—are absent much of Fox’s usual cant. They are odd in Smith’s own ironic, idiosyncratic way, but not so unusual that you couldn’t imagine them appearing on one of the other cable news networks. In sum, they seem a perfect rebuttal to Dunn’s critique….

There is no shortage of people eager to comment on Fox and the nature of its news. We thought it simpler and potentially more valuable to just watch its programs and see what they said. We decided to examine and compare the prime time cable news programming of a single day, and we picked December 10, a Thursday. The newscasts that day and the programming that surrounded them offer some clear testimony on the question: What is Fox News?

If you talked all day every day you’d say some pretty stupid stuff and, no surprise, the cable talkers are no exceptions. Much of what gets said, in fact, is just barely above gibberish. On his December 10 show, O’Reilly led with an attack on Dick Wolf, the creator of the Law & Order television franchise, for allowing a character on one of his shows to criticize O’Reilly by name. To buttress his rebuttal of Wolf, O’Reilly quotes—who better?—himself. Later in the show, he interviews fellow host Glenn Beck about President Obama’s Peace Prize, which Beck says was given as a sort of affirmative action award.

Beck: I used to believe in a meritocracy. I used to believe you would. . . .

O’Reilly: Earn things?

Beck: You would earn things. I have no problem with the president winning a Nobel Peace Prize.

O’Reilly: No, I agree he didn’t earn it, but so what? It’s Norway. You know? It’s Norway. You know what I’m talking about?

Beck: Well, now that you put it in that context.

O’Reilly: Right. And I love Norway.

Beck: You’re exactly right. Who doesn’t love Norway?

O’Reilly: I love the fjords.

Beck: Sure.

O’Reilly: I’ve been to Oslo.

Beck: I have never.

O’Reilly: Right. I believe I have some Viking blood in me.

Beck: Do you? I think you do.

O’Reilly: OK. So. . . .

Beck: I want him to wear the hat with the horns. Don’t you? Seriously.

O’Reilly: It’s Norway.

Beck: Send him the hat with the horns. He’ll wear it. But [singing] la la la la. [speaking] He’d do it.

O’Reilly: Easy, Mr. Fascination. Calm down.

There’s a loopy self-absorption to this that is peculiar to Fox and that derives from its origin narrative as the network for the unrepresented, for the outsiders. There is a strain of resentment, of put-upon-ness that pervades almost everything Fox puts on the air. Beck, in particular, was born to play this part….

On his own show that night, Beck spent fully two-thirds of his time in an agitated defense of himself against charges few would ever had heard of had he not spent so much time defending them.

No reasonable person would sincerely deny that Fox has a distinct bias favoring Republicans, and conservative Republicans especially. Even Fox used to admit as much. When he started the network, Ailes was straightforward in talking about his desire to redress what he saw as ideological bias in the mainstream media. He wanted to address the same “silent majority” his old boss Richard Nixon had sought to serve. This is nowhere more apparent than in the guests who appear on the network. On the day in question, other than short video clips of news conferences or other public appearances, Fox didn’t put a single Democrat on the air except as a foil for Republican or Fox commentators….

Although cable news is a comparatively small market, it is a small market with a much larger mindshare, mainly because the media are self-reflective, creating a kind of virtual echo chamber. It is also lucrative. Advertisers want exactly the sort of educated, higher-disposable-income audience news programming tends to attract.

Ailes has proven an extraordinarily acute businessman who has, according to an excellent piece by David Carr and Tim Arango in the January 9 New York Times, turned a fledging news operation that barely existed a decade ago into the runaway market leader in cable news and a profit engine that turns out more than $500 million annually for Rupert Murdoch’s global News Corporation.

Ailes’s most valuable insight was that sharp opinions do not necessarily chase an audience away. In fact, they seem to have created one. There is no worry of offending a broad audience, because there is no broad audience to start with anymore.

It’s worth noting that MSNBC languished in the cable news ratings competition until becoming more sharply opinionated, in that way becoming a left-leaning analog to Fox. It’s highly doubtful this change was due to political considerations. In other ways, though, MSNBC is not a Fox analog at all. Although its overall operation is sharply to the left of Fox, it offers a wider array of guests and doesn’t completely shut out Republicans. Matthews, for example, on the day in question conducted a friendly interview with two Tea Party Republican activists. The existence of Morning Joe, starring outspoken conservative Joe Scarborough, on MSNBC’s morning air offers further evidence.

Ailes, by his programming choices, sees no need to have a liberal counterpart to Scarborough on Fox. Why should he? He’s got the ratings, the money, and a political operation that is nearly pure in its adherence to contemporary populist Republicanism.

________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

O.S.T.R….Enjoy!

October 17, 2010 Leave a comment

Politics Schmolitics

October 16, 2010 Leave a comment

One Love

Arrgghh, what is left? What is right? What is wrong? What is a “conservative”? What is a “liberal”? What is a blah, blah, blah…

Just do me a favor and listen to the next time you hear the word “conservative.” Who said it? About whom? What does it mean/ imply about the situation and the person? And most importantly, after that word what topics of discussion ensue?

Consider it a scientific experiment: form a hypothesis, conduct a test, report your conclusions.

Whatever you do, please vote NO on Proposition 23. My job depends on it, literally.

Here’s to the Indian Summer in LA 2010

October 13, 2010 Leave a comment

I am thankful that John Lennon was here

October 9, 2010 Leave a comment

“Life is what happens to you while you’re busy making other plans.” – John Lennon