The NRA’s Prescription For A Safer America: Assault Weapons Everywhere

After a week of silence, the NRA has finally come forward to comment on the tragedy at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut. The spokesman for the gun manufacturer’s lobbying group was NRA executive VP Wayne LaPierre.

The speech was a rehash of familiar diversions the NRA uses to absolve themselves of any responsibility for the bloody consequences of the gun culture they advocate. Their obsession with a misreading of the second amendment (which they always ignore makes specific reference to “a well-regulated militia”) takes priority over every other right or freedom in America, including free speech and the right to life.

NRA Safer America

According to LaPierre, the real killers in America are the producers of movies and video games. And while LaPierre advocates regulating these forms of entertainment, he is adamantly opposed to the sensible regulation of the actual weapons that cause actual fatalities. This is consistent with the hypocrisy of right-wingers who claim to want government off their backs, unless it is to enforce some aspect of their theocratic morality. They chafe at federal efforts to rein in predatory bankers, but are thrilled when government keeps gays from getting married.

The NRA’s core argument against stricter regulation of the most dangerous types of firearms is that “The only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun.” The problem with that argument is that it requires everybody have a gun. And, of course, having guns did not help Adam Lanza’s mother. What’s more, statistics show that people with guns in their homes are more likely to be victims of gun violence than those without guns. Often the gunowners weapon is used against them by their assailant.

The only constructive suggestion in LaPierre’s remarks was to hire and station armed guards at every school in America. Aside from turning all campuses into war zones, that would not come close to solving the problem of violence in our society. There are also children at the beach, in shopping malls, at church, in restaurants, and parks, and playgrounds, and libraries. Would LaPierre propose to have armed security at every Chuck E. Cheese and Disney movie?

At one point in his speech LaPierre spun an absurd hypothetical asking what would have happened if there were an armed guard at Sandy Hook. His presumption is that the tragedy would have been averted. However, it might just as likely have resulted in the murder of the guard along with everyone else. Common sense tells us that the killer would be expecting the guard, but the guard would be surprised by the killer. Plus, would the guard be armed with equivalent firepower? If so, that means that all of the guards at the sites we decide to protect would be carrying assault weapons. Seriously? Assault weapons at Chuck E. Cheese and Annie’s Day Care and Toys ‘R’ Us? Surely, nothing bad would come of that.

The NRA approach to public safety would be a throwback to the wild west when everybody was packing heat and there were shootouts in the street. It would turn our society into a battle zone with frightened citizens scrambling to insure that their mode of protection was superior to any other they might encounter. There would be innumerable George Zimmermans patrolling our neighborhoods and slaughtering the innocent.

The NRA manages to find fault in everything but guns. LaPierre cited movies, video games, mental health, and even hurricanes, as the causes of “a recipe for a national nightmare of violence and victimization.” So we are victimized by hurricanes, but not by rapid-fire rifles with 30 round magazines? And at the top of his list was the media about whom he said…

“Throughout it all, too many in our national media, their corporate owners, and their stockholders, act as silent enablers, if not complicit co-conspirators.”

On this point I may have to agree with him. The media has been far too timid about addressing the practical issues surrounding gun policy in America. They are cowed by charges that it is “not the right time” to engage in this debate. But according to the NRA it is never the right time. Even now, LaPierre said that “There’ll be time for talk and debate later. This is the time, this is the day for decisive action. We can’t wait for the next unspeakable crime to happen before we act.” Let the absurdity of that statement sink in. He is saying that this issue is so important that we should act without any deliberation. We should just do something, but we must not, under any circumstances, talk about it first.

Always happy to do its part, Fox News has already signed on to LaPierre’s dictate of silence. It was recently disclosed that a Fox executive sent a memo to their producers ordering them to refrain from discussing gun control. And today, Fox is apparently still operating under that edict. They broke into the LaPierre speech late and left it before it concluded, cutting out a full third of the speech. Then they followed the aborted speech with a fiscal cliff panel. While they didn’t have time to show all of LaPierre’s remarks, they did broadcast in full remarks to the press by three GOP senators on a Benghazi report that was released two days ago.

I feel safer already knowing that Fox News and the NRA are aggressively campaigning for the rights of all Americans to live in a society awash with weapons designed for combat. Heavily armed guards in schools and bookstores can only serve to move this country closer to the utopian models of Somalia or Beirut sought by right-wingers where freedom reigns above all and government is small enough to drown in a bathtub.

Find us on Google+
Advertisement:

Fox Nation vs. Reality: Beauty Queen-a-Cide

The ignorant fables spun by the Fox Nationalists have frequently coasted off the rails of sanity. But none have diverted nearly as far off course as this article, linked to a story by CBS News, about how “Mexican beauty queen Susana Flores Maria Gamez and four others died in the brutal gun battle between Sinaloa cartel members and the Mexican military in November.”

Fox Nation

On the basis of information that a gun that had once belonged to an ATF official was found at the scene of this gun battle, Fox Nation asks “Did Holder’s Crew Kill A Beauty Queen?” That’s the sort of deliberately offensive and juvenile question that turns Fox viewers into raving ignoramusi. In their purposeful attempt to deceive, the Fox Nationalists failed to provide any details of what actually occurred, including the fact that the alleged “beauty queen” Gamez was reported to have been armed and fighting with the criminals in the drug cartel and was likely killed by the Mexican military.

Nevertheless, Fox portrays her only as a “beauty queen” and not as a drug trafficker, and accuses Attorney General Eric Holder of murdering her. There is no evidence that any gun associated with the ATF or “Fast and Furious” was responsible for her death, particularly in light of the fact that any such weapons would have been in the possession of her drug-running accomplices, not the law enforcement agents they were fighting.

So to answer Fox’s question: No, neither Holder nor his “crew” killed a beauty queen. However, a more accurate version of the story might have said that a shootout with the Mexican military may have resulted in the death of a female drug trafficker and her comrades.

Fox really had to stretch reality to turn this into an assault on Obama’s Attorney General. And they also had to turn a member of a drug cartel into a sexy fallen hero. But that’s what Fox does. It’s only purpose is to malign their ideological enemies and decorate their distortions with lechery and melodrama. I can almost see the next Fox headline about the Sandy Hook killer, Adam Lanza: Obama Attacks Recently Deceased, Mentally-Challenged, 20 Year Old Orphan.


Sarah Palin Drips With Envy Over Obama’s Selection As Time Magazine’s Person Of The Year

Last night Sarah Palin once again appeared on her old pal Greta Van Susteren’s show on Fox News. She was asked to comment on Time Magazine’s selection of President Obama as “Person of the Year.” And, what a surprise, the ego-driven Queen of the North could only find nasty things to say about Obama, who was chosen, not as an endorsement of his agenda, but as recognition of the reelection victory that illustrated the changes in America’s identity. Time wrote…

“We are in the midst of historic cultural and demographic changes, and Barack Obama is both the symbol and in some ways the architect of this new America. In 2012, he found and forged a new majority, turned weakness into opportunity and sought, amid great adversity, to create a more perfect union.”

Sarah Palin

Perhaps Palin was upset that the article accompanying the choice never mentioned her by name, but did note that her characterization of Obama’s tenure as “hopey/changey” was passe. Her sour grapes session criticized Time Magazine’s choice due to some vague, unspecified allegation that Obama doesn’t support the Constitution. She complained that he wants to change the Constitution, which is, of course, constitutional and is provided for in the document. It has been done twenty-seven times already. But she concluded with a statement I agree with wholeheartedly:

“Time Magazine, you know, I think there’s some irrelevancy there to tell you the truth. I mean consider their list of the most influential people in the country and in the world, some who have made that list – yours truly – that ought to tell you something right there regarding the credence that we should give Time Magazine and their list of people.”

She is referring to her place on the Time 100 back in 2010. The tribute to her was composed by washed-up schlock-rocker Ted Nugent, who continues to embarrass himself in public with demented, anti-American rants. And not to be outdone, Palin also embarrassed herself with Van Susteren in a discussion about the newly released report on the State Department’s handling of security in Benghazi, Libya.

Van Susteren and Palin both complained that there was no accountability for security failings, despite the fact that three State Department officials resigned shortly after the report’s release. And they both knew of the resignations because they mentioned them in the segment. Palin also asserted without support that “Americans were lied to.” She went on to whine…

“For the President even to get out there on a national stage and tell Americans untruths about this situation in Benghazi really begs you to ask the question, what else does he say and do that would be deceptive. I believe that it’s many, many things that he would say and do being deceptive.”

Neither Palin nor Van Susteren gave a single example of anyone being less than truthful. And neither did the report, which addressed the security situation in Benghazi, not the subsequent media frenzy Fox tried to incite.

It’s a little sad to see the pathetic scratching on the screen door by Palin who has all but vanished from public view. She is probably milking these appearances with Van Susteren because there is a high probability that her contract with Fox will not be renewed when it expires next year. And who else would have her? Her books don’t sell, her reality TV shows fail, and her own party is so ashamed to be associated with her that she wasn’t even invited to the Republican convention this year.

It may be fair (and balanced) to say that Palin is over – you betcha!


Mosque Arsonist Tells Judge: “I Only Know What I Hear On Fox News”

Here is a disturbing report from a local news broadcast in Toledo, Ohio. An Indiana man pleaded guilty to arson for having set fire to an Islamic Center in Toledo. He was sentenced to 20 years today and, in an exchange with the judge, revealed his motivation.

The judge asked him if he knew any Muslims or what Islam is. He said “No, I only know what I hear on Fox News.”

Fox News

The producers at Fox must be so proud of the prejudice they inspire with their overtly hateful coverage of any subject that deals with Muslims. Their scandal mongering a couple of years ago about the Park51 Islamic Center in Manhattan was evidence of just how biased the network is against Muslims. And numerous Fox anchors and guests have engaged in the slander that all Muslims are terrorists, or that all terrorists are Muslim.

This is a particularly interesting display of prejudice considering that the largest shareholder of News Corp outside of the Murdoch family (and a financier of Park51) is the Muslim Prince Alwaleed Bin Talal of Saudi Arabia. However, there are numerous examples of Fox News taking positions that are in stark contrast to CEO Rupert Murdoch’s publicly stated views. Either Murdoch’s control has been usurped by Roger Ailes or he has become senile and incognizant – or both.

It should not be surprising that one of their loyal viewers decided to commit what he thinks is an act of patriotism. After driving into their heads the notion that Muslims are America’s enemies, even when they are American citizens, congressmen, or soldiers, Fox’s audience has become indoctrinated by the prejudice that gushes from the network’s broadcasts. Now we know that a member of that audience has taken the next step in manifesting the hate that Fox manufactures. And it cannot be explained away as a legal tactic to avoid responsibility because he already pleaded guilty.

This is not the first time something like this has happened either. There was the story about a woman who threatened to fire all of her black employees if they voted for Obama, and she wrote “KKK” on their time cards. Her excuse? “I think I got crazy with FOX News, watching too much FOX News.” And there were at least two maniacs inspired by Fox’s Glenn Beck (here and here).

This is the predictable result of the feverish rantings that occur daily on Fox News. The anchors, producers, and advertisers are responsible for the harm that is done by people they knowingly incite to violence. This does not mean that Fox is directly responsible for the violence itself, but that they have some culpability for having infected their audience with the hateful lies that can lead to these measures. Hopefully someday one of their victims will be courageous enough to hold Fox accountable and make them pay a price for their hate speech.

How Fox News Deceives and Controls Their Flock:
Fox Nation vs. Reality: The Fox News Cult of Ignorance.
Available now at Amazon.


Ted Nugent’s ‘Culture of Contempt’ Is Repsonsible For The Newtown Massacre

Just when you thought you’ve heard it all, the sickening blather of the right-wing nuthouse crowd manages to scale to new heights of idiocy and hypocrisy.

Following one of the most horrific mass murders in this nation’s history, Republicans have rushed to the TV cameras and talk radio mics to blame the Newtown massacre on the absence of God in the classroom, the violence of video games, and/or too few firearms in the hands of teachers. The call for turning your child’s faculty members into an elementary school SWAT team has come from GOP leaders, congressmen and NRA spokespersons.

Now Ted Nugent, not surprisingly, has joined the fray. Nugent is on the board of the NRA and has a long history of worshiping weaponry. He was the host of a Discovery Channel special called “Ted Nugent’s Gun Country” (which Discovery just announced will have no further episodes). In his latest column for the “Moonie” Washington Times, Nugent, of all people, blasted what he called a “culture of contempt.” Adding that…

“The ugly and dangerous truth is that we live in an embarrassing, politically correct culture that exalts and rejoices in the bizarre.”

I couldn’t agree more. And Nugent is the perfect example of what is most embarrassing and bizarre in our culture. For Nugent to criticize the alleged contempt in society is something like Hitler criticizing anti-Semitism. Nugent is the guy who recently said…

Ted Nugent

“I vow that I will use our freedom to get these dirty c*ck-suckers out of the White House. The president is a bad man. The vice president is a bad man. They’re all bad people. If you don’t get that, you’re a dead motherf*cker.”

And…

“If Barack Obama becomes the President in November again, I will either be dead or in jail by this time next year.”

And…

“I was in Chicago last week I said, ‘Hey Obama, you might want to suck on one of these, you punk?’ Obama, he’s a piece of sh*t and I told him to suck on one of my machine guns. Let’s hear it for them. I was in New York and I said, ‘Hey Hillary, you might want to ride one of these into the sunset you worthless bitch.’ Since I’m in California, I’m gonna find Barbara Boxer she might wanna suck on my machine guns. Hey, Dianne Feinstein, ride one of these you worthless whore.”

Now Nugent thinks he can lecture other Americans on morality and virtuous culture? Nugent is a loathsome and hate-filled misanthrope whose wretched perception of reality is tainted by an all-consuming and diseased ego. He has no standing to judge other people or society in general. It is demented souls like his that contribute to what is worst in our society. And we would be far better off if he were to keep the promise he made a few weeks ago about being either dead or in jail. The sooner the better, Ted.


How Fox News Uses Labels To Distort Reality: NRA Edition

It is going on five days now that the NRA has maintained a media silence with regard to the Newtown massacre. Their Facebook and Twitter accounts went dark on Friday and have remained so ever since.

Today, however, Fox News reported that the organization is planning to make a statement soon. They posted this notice on their web site with the headline “NRA TO END SILENCE: Rights Group To Answer Gun-Control Lobby.”

Fox News NRA

That headline is a perfect demonstration of how Fox News deliberately prejudices their reporting to favor groups they support and disparage those they oppose. Fox identifies the NRA as a “rights group” when in fact they are registered lobbyists for the gun industry. Then they call gun control activists “lobbyists,” even though they represent only citizen efforts to reform gun safety legislation. That’s sort of like calling the Tobacco Council a smokers rights group, and the American Cancer Society anti-cancer lobbyists.

Fox News doesn’t seem to care about what the definition of a lobbyist is. So they attach the term, which has deserved negative connotations, to grassroots gun-control advocates in order to cast them in a negative light. And they refrain from properly identifying the NRA as the lobbyists they are in order to promote them more positively. This is an obvious rhetorical tactic to slant the impression they give to their audience. It further indicts Fox for their pro-NRA bias which became clearer yesterday when it was revealed that their program executives instructed their producers to refrain from any discussions of gun control.

And to top it all off, this bit of ironic ad placement was captured on Fox’s web site:

Fox News Bloody Shirt

Putting a woman in a bloody t-shirt adjacent to an article about a mass killing is surely no one’s idea of smart marketing. Of course, this occurred due to an automated ad placement by a third-party agency. However, this unintended and unfortunate juxtaposition tells a story that is consistent with Fox’s editorial philosophy. Twenty-seven people are dead in Connecticut, but according to Fox, so far as gun control is concerned, everything is fine.

Find us on Google+
Advertisement:

Fox News Opposes Ban On Assault Weapons But Imposes Ban On Talking About It

Never mind that Rupert Murdoch, the CEO of the Fox News parent company, supports taking “bold leadership” to restrict access to assault weapons, executives at Fox News have dictated that the subject of gun control is forbidden on their network. Sources told Gabriel Sherman of New York Magazine that…

“David Clark, the executive producer in charge of Fox’s weekend coverage, gave producers instructions not to talk about gun-control policy on air. ‘This network is not going there,’ Clark wrote one producer on Saturday night, according to a source with knowledge of the exchange.”

This is the sort of overt bias that is practiced at Fox News on a regular basis. There is nothing new about Fox demanding that their anchors and contributors follow the marching orders from the executive suites. They receive a morning memo informing them on the topics of the day and what their positions will be. Even loyal Fox associates like pollster Frank Luntz have revealed that failing to “comport with the outlet’s orthodoxy” will result in getting you blacklisted. Sherman’s sources went on to say that…

“During the weekend, one frustrated producer went around Clark to lobby Michael Clemente, Fox’s executive vice-president for news editorial, but Clemente upheld the mandate. ‘We were expressly forbidden from discussing gun control,’ the source said.”

Sherman noted that there was a bit of discourse on gun control on Fox News Sunday with Chris Wallace. However, he did not mention that the program airs on the Fox Entertainment Network, not Fox News (although it is repeated later in the day on Fox News).

This is how Fox directs the editorial content of the network. They have a heavy hand enforcing what people may, and may not, say on the air. It is not a coincidence that nearly everyone on Fox spews the same talking points throughout their broadcast day. It is by design and it is imposed by an editorial politburo that monitors the dissemination of their propaganda.

Roger AilesSince Fox CEO Roger Ailes is against gun control, then everyone at Fox must be. And if they think that discussing a subject is not in the interests of their agenda, then discussion is shut down. In this case, the network’s censorship is in lock step with the NRA, who have been maintaining media silence ever since the tragedy on Friday. The NRA’s Facebook and Twitter accounts have gone blank. And so has free speech on Fox News, not that it was ever there in the first place.

It’s also worthwhile to note that while Fox has banned all talk of gun control, they have not similarly banished talk of other explanations for the atrocity in Connecticut. For instance, they had no problemn with laying the blame on movies and video games. And Fox host Mike Huckabee was permitted to go on the air and blame the killings on the absence of God in the classroom. That’s is a particularly idiotic theory when you consider that other mass killings have taken place in churches where there presumably was no shortage of Godliness.


The Ugly, Asinine American: Donald Trump Links Wind Farms To Terrorism

If you thought that Donald Trump had embarrassed himself beyond the limits of human tolerance during the presidential campaign, you don’t know The Donald.

This is a man who continues to believe, despite all evidence, that President Obama is a Muslim from Kenya. He is a man who made a pathetic challenge to exchange five million dollars for Obama’s college transcripts. He is a man who thinks that Bill Ayers is Obama’s ghostwriter. He is man who called for a revolution because he thought, incorrectly, that Obama lost the popular vote. So what could he have done since the election to further affirm his world-class idiocy?

Donald Trump Ad

The ad above is part of Trump’s effort to kill a wind farm in Scotland near one of his golf courses. He thinks it will hamper the view of the snooty elitists batting little balls around his exclusive club. But it’s not enough that Trump’s dishonest and self-serving ad misrepresents the value of renewable energy resources, Trump goes further to associate an advocate of wind power with the terrorist who brought down an airliner over Lockerbie.

This is about as despicable an act of character assassination as you will ever see. And it is a naked attempt by Trump to further his own greedy interests at the expense of a public servant, Scotland’s environment, and the general concept of dignity. To top it off Trump Tweeted “Windmills are destroying every country they touch— and the energy is unreliable and terrible.” That’s not the least bit hypoerbolic. Just look at the trail of former nations that have been destroyed by windmills. Obviously Trump knows as much about energy as he does about Obama’s birthplace.

The desperation in making such wild and offensive claims is apparent. Trump is proving once again that the only thing he cares about is his own wealth and ego. It’s sad for the rest of the American populace that he is prancing around the world ruining people’s impression of America. If only there were a way that we could refuse to let him back in.


Has Roger Ailes Seized Fox News From A Senile, Incompetent Rupert Murdoch?

One thing that has been well established through decades of media domination by Rupert Murdoch is that his will was supreme in the organizations he ran. He made virtually every decision of significance with regard to management, economics, and personnel. And he was never shy about imposing his worldview to slant the editorial content of his properties, whether dealing with opinion or hard news.

Rupert Murdoch

Politicians around the world were once obliged to pay their respects to the “Dirty Digger” if they hoped to succeed electorally. When he purchased a newspaper or television network his ultra conservative bias would replace whatever he found when he got there. Believe it or not, the New York Post was once a liberal publication (which would make more sense in New York City than the right-wing, money-losing rag that Murdoch transformed it into). The once revered Wall Street Journal always had a conservative opinion page, but since Murdoch’s acquisition the news section has abandoned its thoughtful, long-form journalism in favor of something more of the “yellow” variety.

However, in recent months the Murdochian monarchy seems to have been sapped of its power. There has been none of the reverential genuflecting to the man whose anointment was once compulsory. There has been scant evidence of his presence in the political backrooms where influence is administered. Part of the reason for this apparent weakening of his reign may be the fact that he continues to be embroiled in a consuming scandal in the U.K. that began with the discovery that his reporters were hacking into the phones and computers of hundreds of people, including celebrities, politicians, and even a murdered schoolgirl. The scandal has expanded to include charges of bribery and corruption in Murdoch’s newsrooms as well as British government and police operations.

But those affairs, as troubling as they are, do not fully explain Murdoch’s receding influence. The GOP candidates for president all but ignored Murdoch in 2012. And his presence amongst opinion makers has been negligible. More significant is the fact that his own news enterprises are openly rejecting his counsel. The most recent example is his Tweet following the Newtown school massacre. Murdoch wrote:

“Terrible news today. When will politicians find courage to ban automatic weapons? As in Oz after similar tragedy.”

Technically, fully automatic weapons are already fairly strictly regulated. It’s the semi-automatic types that are all too easily acquired, sometimes without any registration or background check required. But it’s clear that Murdoch was addressing the access to the sort of weapons and large-capacity ammunition clips used in Newtown and other recent scenes of carnage.

However, Murdoch’s advocacy of legal action to constrain the availability of these weapons is not shared by his most prominent news vehicle, Fox News. Fox has not disguised its opposition to reasonable regulations, nor its support for extremist groups like the NRA and the politicians who carry their message. Fox has not only advanced the gun rights movement on their air, but they have contributed to disseminating the most absurd conspiracy theories that circulate in the media fringes. And all of this goes on despite being contrary to the views of Fox’s alleged master, Rupert Murdoch.

Another example is Murdoch’s support for a liberal immigration policy. Murdoch even initiated a campaign with New York mayor Michael Bloomberg for immigration reform that would include a path to citizenship for currently undocumented workers. However, his Fox News is one of the most virulently anti-immigrant news operations in the country. They repeatedly use the dehumanizing slur “illegals” to refer to undocumented immigrants, and they portray them as criminals and low-life parasites on society. That editorial bias directly contradicts Murdoch’s personal and public position.

There is also the subject of Climate Change, which Fox News regards as a hoax aimed at exerting some sort of tyrannical control over businesses and individuals. They provide a platform for unsavory characters with no scientific expertise who rail against the volumes of peer-reviewed studies that have affirmed the dangerous warming of the planet. Fox hosts like Sean Hannity frequently mock as ignorant anyone who buys into what he believes is a global warming scam. But you have to wonder whether he is including Murdoch in that group. Murdoch has explicitly acknowledged that Climate Change is real and is caused by human activity. He has directed his company to take decisive steps to mitigate its carbon footprint and he created a division to manage these efforts. Nevertheless, his view is ridiculed on his cable news network.

These examples demonstrate a stark difference between the powerful Murdoch of the past and the more impotent version of the present. This is not the same Murdoch who once declared that he had tried to shape the Bush administration’s policy on Iraq. It is not the same Murdoch who called off his journalists in France at the request of his business partner Prince al-Walid bin Talal of Saudi Arabia (the largest shareholder of News Corp outside of the Murdoch family).

Roger AilesThe frequency with which Fox News contradicts Murdoch is astonishing for an enterprise whose editorial personality has been so closely associated with that of its leader. It no longer appears that the Fox bias leans so strictly toward Murdoch. However, it does lean stridently towards Murdoch’s lieutenant, Roger Ailes, the CEO of Fox News. Ailes, a former Republican media consultant, has succeeded in turning Fox into the biggest source of revenue for Murdoch’s News Corp. He has also succeeded in turning Fox into a reflection of his own politics. The GOP candidates who brushed off Murdoch all paraded into Ailes’ office to get his blessing. And while Murdoch seemed to have little influence over the slate of candidates, it was Ailes who openly courted figures like Gen. David Petraeus and Gov. Chris Christie.

What might have been the impetus for this apparent transfer of power? Murdoch is not the sort of person to let go of the reins voluntarily. But at this time in the life of News Corp, there is an abundance of uncertainty. The phone hacking scandal has not only diminished Murdoch, but it has left the company without an obvious heir. Murdoch’s son James is as tainted by the scandal as Rupert. This leaves a power vacuum into which Ailes can insert himself. That objective may also be aided by Murdoch’s advanced age and possible infirmity.

The result is that Fox News continues to lean into far-right extremism, so much so that it openly contradicts the views of its chairman. It will be interesting to watch as this morality play proceeds. Should Murdoch decide to retire and pass the baton on to his children, Ailes may find himself in a bind. The only Murdoch in the company who is unscathed by scandal is his daughter Elizabeth. But she was an Obama supporter and her family viscerally hates Ailes. Her husband was quoted saying…

“I am by no means alone within the family or the company in being ashamed and sickened by Roger Ailes’s horrendous and sustained disregard of the journalistic standards that News Corporation, its founder and every other global media business aspires to.”

Ailes may be trying to consolidate his power within the organization, but without Murdoch’s support he is helpless. The Murdoch family has outright control of the company in their stock portfolio. In a Rupert-less News Corp it is likely that Ailes will decide to retire himself. Where the network would go from there is anyone’s guess.

However, this year there was plenty of chatter about how destructive Fox was to the goals of its patron, the Republican Party. The network took positions that alienated much of the public, including a growing Latino community, younger, more moderate voters, and women incensed by the overt insults and advocacy of legislation that regressed women’s rights by fifty years or more. That is not the way to win elections. Many in the conservative punditry for the first time criticized Fox as an obstacle to their agenda. That’s something that was done here long ago (see Fox News Is Killing The Republican Party).

The usurpation of the Fox News agenda is obvious and disturbing. Roger Ailes is installing himself at the top of the pile in opposition to his boss on some of the most important issues of the day. This can only lead to trouble. Visceral, personal, gut-wrenching, back-stabbing, explosive trouble. In other words: FUN!

In a second Tweet on the subject of guns, Murdoch called on the President take “bold leadership action.” That’s something that Murdoch hasn’t asked Ailes to do, nor has he done so himself. As the head of the top-rated cable news network Murdoch could arguably have more impact on this debate than the President. After all, anything Obama says about this is going to be dismissed by conservatives without even listening to it. However, Fox News speaks to them directly and they take their cues from the network’s stars. Therefore, Fox has a real opportunity to affect the debate and guide public opinion toward sensible legislation.

Ordinarily, I would not advocate that a news organization impose its views on their audience, but Fox is doing this already – only in the wrong direction. What they should do now, with Murdoch’s leadership, is correct their course. But don’t hold your breath. Ailes still appears to be in control, and Murdoch still seems to be incapacitated. If Obama does take “meaningful action” as he has suggested he would do, count on Fox News to bash him mercilessly for threatening to confiscate all guns and undermining the Constitution.


Cue The “Obama Plotted The Newtown Massacre” Conspiracy Theories

The nation is once again grieving the senseless loss of innocent life at the hands of a mentally unstable gunman. Compounding the tragedy, this time the majority of victims were children. As President Obama said this afternoon…

“As a country, we have been through this too many times. Whether it’s an elementary school in Newtown, or a shopping mall in Oregon, or a temple in Wisconsin, or a movie theater in Aurora, or a street corner in Chicago — these neighborhoods are our neighborhoods, and these children are our children. And we’re going to have to come together and take meaningful action to prevent more tragedies like this, regardless of the politics.”

Unfortunately, the politics will eventually seep into this as it always does. Gun rights advocates may try to evade a public debate by claiming that it is inappropriate to discuss responsible gun policy after a notorious crime, but in truth there is no better time. And waiting until the nation is crime-free would mean putting off the debate forever (which, of course, is their intent).

The President’s message explicitly addressing the need for meaningful action is bound to set off a flurry of paranoia from the Second Amendment set. It is just the sort of soundbite that triggers their imaginations. During the campaign, NRA president Wayne LaPierre wrote in a fundraising letter that Obama’s re-election would result in the “confiscation of our firearms” His proof of that was the fact that Obama had not taken any actions against gun ownership throughout his first term. To LaPierre, and many other right-wingers, that meant that Obama was lulling gun owners into a false sense of security and that Obama would proceed with the gun roundup in his second term. Of course, Fox News was a principle proponent of these conspiracy theories. Here are a few headlines from Fox’s community web site Fox Nation:

  • Obama Starts Pushing Gun Control
  • Obama: We’re Working on Gun Control ‘Under the Radar’
  • Obama May Use Executive Orders to Bypass Congress on Gun Control Laws
  • Obama to Push for New Gun Laws in Wake of Colorado Massacre?
  • Chuck Norris: Obama’s Stealth Gun Control
  • WSJ: Second Obama Term Could Kill Second Amendment

There were similar conspiratorial prophesies percolating in the midst of the “Fast and Furious” affair. Many conservative pundits and politicians believed the whole thing was a covert plot to impose stricter gun laws in the United States. Tea Party Nation founder Judson Phillips said as much on Fox News earlier this year.

“This was purely a political operation. You send the guns down to Mexico, therefore you support the political narrative that the Obama administration wanted supported; that all these American guns are flooding Mexico, that they’re the cause of the violence in Mexico and therefore we need draconian gun control laws here in America.”

So I’ll give it about forty-eight hours before some gun nut charges that Adam Lanza was an Obama operative sent to Connecticut to create havoc that would open the door for federal agents to clamp down on the rights of gun owners to possess assault weapons and other military grade munitions that our Founding Fathers could never have imagined. It could be Glenn Beck or Rush Limbaugh or Allen West or Michelle Bachmann. There are plenty of delusional crackpots on the right who could advance this theme. And if all else fails, the NRA could take it up themselves. Seriously…I wonder how long it will take them to run an ad like this:

NRA Ad

Today America is mourning again. We all send our condolences to the families of the victims. But the most meaningful thing we can do for them is to start tomorrow to insist that rational and reasonable steps be taken to prevent tragedies like this from happening in the first place. That means adopting a sane approach to gun ownership and compassionate access to mental health care. Not to do so would be to rub salt in the wounds of everyone who has lost a loved one to gun violence, and it would also be an invitation for more of these horrific events in the future. We need to stop this, and we need to do it now.