The Antilogical Reasoning Of Glenn Beck

Posted by on August 12, 2009 at 3:03 pm. 5 Comments :

Glenn Beck has already solidified his position as the Evangelist of the Coming Obama-Pocalypse. Now he is pioneering a revolutionary new model for polemics that introduces a level of absurdity heretofore unimagined in the world of rational thought. It is a breakthrough that rattles the foundations of conventional discourse. In recognition of this achievement, Beck will forever be remembered as the Stephen Hawking of what I shall dub “Antilogical Reasoning” – or reasoning that contradicts its own premise. Perhaps the best example of antilogics is Beck’s recent comments as to whether President Obama is a racist:

“This President has, I think, exposed himself as a guy over and over and over again who has a deep seated hatred for white people or the white culture. I don’t know what it is […] I’m not saying he doesn’t like white people, I’m saying he has a problem. He has a…This guy is, I believe, a racist.”

Beck also employs antilogical concepts when he beseeches his audience not to engage in violence against their opponents, then describes those opponents as an imminent threat to everything you hold dear – your family, your country, your faith, your freedom. And just yesterday Beck antilogically asserted that eugenics was not coming to America, except for the fact that the forces that led to eugenics in Nazi Germany are all taking shape here with the obvious and inevitable conclusion that eugenics is coming to America. Textbook antilogica.

In making his case against eugenics, courageously confronting this nation’s powerful pro-eugenics lobby, Beck proffered a distinctly personal argument that moved him to tears, again. This time it was the thought of his cerebral palsy-stricken daughter who would not have been permitted to live under the vile Nazi regime. [Note: The first time Beck cried on his Fox News program was on the debut episode. Like now, he was thinking of his daughter whom he was reminded of while interviewing his first guest, Sarah Palin, who also has a special needs child] Beck then extended his argument to accuse Obama’s health care policy adviser, Dr. Ezekiel Emmanuel, of holding positions sympathetic to eugenics.

The allegations Beck made against Emmanuel were typical of his fact-free, hate-filled diatribes. Beck selectively cites passages from Emmanuel’s writings and deposits them about as far from any honest context as he can get. For instance, he alleges that Emmanuel supports rationing of scarce heath care resources based on age or the patient’s projected productivity or some other unspecified cost/benefit analysis. The truth is, Emmanuel’s writings referred specifically to critical situations that required the most difficult decision making. He was writing about cases where there might be a single kidney available, but three terminal patients in need of a transplant. Circumstances like that require a decision because the kidney cannot be allowed to go to waste. But it has nothing to do with government bureaucrats (or death panels) allocating care and pinching pennies as Beck implied. It’s a decision that requires an informed and sensitive bio-ethicist – exactly what Dr. Emmanuel is.

But Beck using his daughter with cerebral palsy as a prop to attack Emmanuel has an additional irony attached to it. You see, Emmanuel’s own sister has cerebral palsy. So it turns out that Beck is attacking a doctor who is uniquely aware of the hardships faced by those with special needs and their families. And if that’s not enough, Emmanuel is also Jewish, in fact an Israeli-American. This is the man that Beck is slandering with associations to Nazis.

Unfortunately, this sort of backlashing attack is not a unique occurrence amongst conservative fear mongers. An article in Investor’s Business Daily sought to denigrate the British National Health Service by asserting that someone with serious health problems would be discriminated against when being assessed for benefits. Remember Stephen Hawking?

“People such as scientist Stephen Hawking wouldn’t have a chance in the U.K., where the National Health Service would say the life of this brilliant man, because of his physical handicaps, is essentially worthless.”

However, the IBD missed a little factoid that may be relevant. Prof. Hawking happens to be British and has been cared for by their medical system for 45 years. In the wake of the IDB article, Hawking said…

“I wouldn’t be here today if it were not for the NHS. I have received a large amount of high-quality treatment without which I would not have survived.”

Realizing their mistake, IDB edited their article placing a note at the top that says…

“Editor’s Note: This version corrects the original editorial which implied that physicist Stephen Hawking, a professor at the University of Cambridge, did not live in the UK.”

That correction needs a correction. The problem with the original article was not that they implied that Hawking didn’t live in the UK. It was that they falsely claimed that Hawking “wouldn’t have a chance” due to his living in the UK. What’s more, IBD claims to have corrected the article’s mistake, but in fact they merely deleted the whole paragraph referencing Hawking (here is the Google-cached original). According to IBD, pretending that something you wrote never existed constitutes a correction.

So Obama isn’t a racist, he just hates white people. And you shouldn’t resort to violence, but you must fight back against the demons that are surrounding you. And eugenics isn’t coming to America, except that it is. And Glenn Beck isn’t a crazy, lying, paranoid, megalomaniac, he just plays one on TV.

On a side note, congratulations to Prof. Stephen Hawking who today received the Presidential Medal of Freedom in a ceremony with the President and 15 other recipients.

Find us on Google+
Advertisement:

Fox News Pulls The Plug On The President

Posted by on August 11, 2009 at 4:55 pm. 10 Comments :

Today’s town hall meeting in New Hampshire with President Obama was highly promoted by all the major television news organizations, including Fox News. However, when the event took place, Fox News decided to bail out of the live broadcast just as the floor was opened to questions from the audience. Both CNN and MSNBC broadcast the Q&A in its entirety.

Fox News likes to promote itself as “fair and balanced.” Anyone with a functioning cerebrum knows that that isn’t true, but the brazen nature of this programming bias deserves special recognition. Fox has unambiguously proven that they are the network of melodrama. A civil discourse on public matters, no matter how important, will always lose out to a wild police car chase (which was actually on Fox prior to the Obama town hall).

The moment that Fox chose to abandon the event was just after the audience started asking questions. What became immediately obvious was that Fox had no interest in continuing coverage because they concluded that the event was not confrontational enough. The first couple of questions were not the sort that would incite the frothing anger that has become a staple of Fox News’ coverage of the health care debate. Even David Bauder of the Associated Press recognized the barely hidden motivation of Fox:

“Fox News Channel cut away from President Barack Obama’s town hall meeting on health care reform Tuesday as he faced a far more polite crowd than has attended many meetings hosted by members of Congress recently. CNN and MSNBC carried the session in full […] The loud public debates have been a tonic for cable news networks during normally quiet August.”

If the AP gets it, you know it’s reached new levels of clarity. As the town hall progressed, the questions became more probing. They included inquiries into some of the most controversial matters that have characterized this issue: death panels, taxes, rationing, etc. But Fox News’ audience saw none of this despite the notice that anchor Trace Gallagher gave after they broke coverage:

“Any contentious questions, anybody yelling, we will bring it to you here.”

Well, that’s comforting. The striking thing about that statement, other than the fact that he did not adhere to it, is that it is an admission that Fox News is only interested in contentiousness and yelling. It is rather startling that Gallagher would make a promise to his viewers that amounts to a declaration that Fox will only present the President when he can be made to look embattled or unpopular. Fox never did return to the event.

Gallagher did, however, keep his promise to provide contentious programming. Much of the time that the Obama town hall was in progress, Fox News replayed arguments captured at town halls for senators Cardin and McCaskill. These shoutfests were aired with a little box in the corner showing Obama’s event minus the sound. So Fox made a deliberate decision to avoid the President’s newsmaking appearance and replace it with yesterday’s more pugnacious, albeit stale, news. The rest of the time was spent with Fox pundits predictably bashing the President even though they weren’t even listening to what he was saying.

It appears that the only way for Obama to get any airtime on Fox News would be to cater to Fox’s appetite for sensationalism and lead the police on a wild car chase. Or maybe to be caught having dinner with the OctoMom. Or better yet, lead the police on a wild car chase with the OctoMom, Michael Jackson’s doctor, and a piece of the Shroud of Turin.

This is, of course, all Obama’s fault. He should know by now that the one thing you never do if you want to be on Fox News is to be reasonable, intelligent, and honest. He should be ashamed of himself.


As Fox News Goes Up, The GOP Goes Down

Posted by on August 10, 2009 at 4:04 pm. 7 Comments :

Last month I published an article on how Fox News Is Killing The Republican Party. It explored in detail how the embrace of lunatics and their demented ravings, along with a misunderstanding of the television marketplace, was literally dragging the Republican Party down to some of its lowest historical depths:

“The more the population at large associates Republican ideology with the agenda of Fox News, and the fringe operators residing there, the more the party will be perceived as out of touch, or even out of their minds.”

Now Gawker has affirmed my analysis with a chart showing the divergent prospects of Fox News and the Republican Party. I took the liberty of modifying their chart to spotlight the period following last November’s election (amongst other things, like the demise of the GOP logo).

It couldn’t be much clearer. The post-election fate of Fox News is diametrically opposed to that of the GOP. The disparity has increased sinced November and shows no signs of letting up. Gawker sums it up nicely saying…

“Fox News’ viewership is up 45% over the last year, and it’s easy to see why: The ascendancy of a charismatic black Democrat has driven frightened, paranoid, enraged, nativist zealots into the ideological embrace of an outlet that habitually reconfirms everything they already believe. Watching Glenn Beck’s spell-binding sermons on Barack Obama’s racism is comforting to people who believe that their way of life-namely, one in which fatherly white Christians protect us from danger both internal and external-is under attack. So they do it more frequently. Tuning into Hannity et.al. becomes a life-affirming political act.”

Nuff said.


Don Imus Heading To Fox Business Network?

Posted by on August 10, 2009 at 2:59 pm. 2 Comments :

Industry sources are reporting that Don Imus is in talks with the Fox Business Network to simulcast his “Imus in the Morning” radio program:

“Several sources close to the show claim “Imus In The Morning” is close to a deal which would move the show to the Fox Business Network. According to these sources, RFD-TV is looking to drop the show due to financial problems at the network. Fox Business Network has reportedly shown strong interest in the show, and it could make the move as early as September 1.”

This is a de facto admission by FBN that they have failed to attract an audience capable of sustaining the network. They are approaching their second anniversary and still do not permit Nielsen to publish their ratings. That is an unprecedented situation that suggests that their ratings are embarrassingly bad.

Acquiring Imus would be a desperation play for eyeballs. While Imus suffered a devastating blow as a result of his “nappy headed hos” remarks, losing his top-rated radio program and the MSNBC simulcast, he still has a smaller but significant fan base. However, for a business network to hand over the prime morning hours as the stock market opens to a shock jock with no business credibility tells you that they no longer consider business news their mission. They are grasping for any viewers they can round up. Remember, this is the network that interviewd New York’s Naked Cowboy on their first day of broadcasting.

They haven’t come very far since then, have they?


Fox News: The Pop-Up Kiddie Book of TV News

Posted by on August 10, 2009 at 11:55 am. 1 Comments :

Everyone knows that Fox News is a delivery vehicle for rightist propaganda and disinformation. But did you also know that Fox News provides an object lesson on how to talk to viewers of Fox News (who would know better)? It requires a unique style of communication that has more in common with childrens’ books than with a mature dialogue of substance. Take for example…

Let’s set aside the tragic and senseless loss of a perfectly good cartoon beer. That, while unfortunate, could happen to anyone. I myself had an imaginary Klondike Bar get away from me last week. But there are more profound matters in evidence here.

In this video, Jenna Lee, an anchor on the Fox Business Network, employs a touch screen monitor to illustrate the complexities of the economy. Many television journalists use this technology, but most endeavor to have it enhance their presentation. They will display charts or other graphic objects and, through juxtaposition and visual association, they strive to clarify their reporting and add to their commentary.

Fox News, however, has different needs. They know that they cannot burden their enfeebled fan base with difficult facts and data. The Fox method is not to inform, but to simplify, so that even the most intellectually challenged viewer can grasp at least part of the report.

Notice how Lee takes advantage of the expensive video display she is using. When she gets to the part of her script that discusses the cost of cookies, she pulls a virtual cookie from her virtual shopping cart and enlarges it so that everyone watching at home knows precisely what she is talking about. Look at that, it’s a cookie! She does the same with the uncooperative bottle of beer. Sadly, she fails with the jar of peanut butter, so I wonder what the confounded home viewers must have thought without their visual aid. And when her screen froze I imagined something similar occurring in the brains of the audience.

On other TV news networks they generally presume that their audience knows what a cookie looks like and that explicit visual clues would be superfluous. But on Fox, no such presumptions are employed, and for good reason. Considering the fact that their audience still believes that President Obama is a foreign-born Muslim who advocates euthanasia for the elderly, and that Sarah Palin and Joe the Plumber are statesmen, Fox really has to gear their programming to the toddler demographic.

This is another explanation for the fierce loyalty of Fox News viewers. Where else can they get remedial news broadcasts that permit them to feel adequate and capable of (mis)understanding current events all by themselves?


GE And News Corp: The Saga Continues

Posted by on August 8, 2009 at 2:19 pm. 5 Comments :

As previously reported, executives at GE and News Corp have been attempting to broker a deal that would end the bickering between the networks and, mostly, Keith Olbermann and Bill O’Reilly. I continue to maintain that it would be a violation of journalistic ethics for the execs to interfere with the judgment of their commentators. But the brass at GE and News Corp don’t seem to agree with me.

The first attempt at a truce was broken within 48 hours by Olbermann who, on returning from vacation, skewered O’Reilly royally, just like the good old days. O’Reilly took up the gauntlet and, as per his routine, ignored Olbermann and went straight after his boss at GE, Jeffrey Immelt. The tactic of bypassing Olbermann and aiming at Immelt is said to have been personally suggested by Fox News CEO Roger Ailes. With the war on again, the combatants began to reveal some of their innermost thoughts – particularly Ailes who, according to the Washington Post, summarized the situation thusly:

Ailes offered a blunt, if slightly jocular, diagnosis of the problem. He could control his nutcases, Ailes said, but Immelt couldn’t control his.

That says so much. First, Ailes is acknowledging that his people are nutcases (as if we didn’t already know). And second, Ailes is admitting that he has the power to manipulate the content and views of the nutcases who host Fox programs.

GE has issued a statement saying that they haven’t “told anyone at NBC News or MSNBC how to report the news.” But the New York Times claims to have sources who said that, not only was there a deal that covered Olbermann and O’Reilly, but also…

“Employees of daytime programs on MSNBC were specifically told by executives not to mention Fox hosts in segments critical of conservative media figures.”

What I want to know is, how can you produce a segment critical of conservative media figures without mentioning Fox hosts?

Olbermann (and anyone in his position) deserves respect for standing up to interference from the suits in the suites. It is the ethical thing to do in the news business. You simply do not let them intrude on your news judgment, especially if your job is to provide analysis and opinion. Unless, of course, you’re Bill O’Reilly, who is a coward, and a puppet for Ailes, who has previously admitted that he has the ability to direct what is said by Murdoch-owned pundits on TV and in print (over which he has no executive authority):

“Ailes warned that if Olbermann didn’t stop such attacks against Fox, he would unleash O’Reilly against NBC and would use the New York Post as well.”

This was basically extortion on the part of Ailes who literally served notice on GE saying that, “If you stop, we’ll stop.” The objective by both the GE and News Corp executives has nothing to do with the pursuit of news. Rather, it is a self-serving plot to tamp down any criticism of the parent companies. They are looking after their corporate interest, not the public interest.

This whole affair is a near perfect illustration of why monolithic corporations, with vested interests in far flung business and government affairs, should not be permitted to own news enterprises.

Find us on Google+
Advertisement:

The Fox Nation Of Fanatics Fails Again: Health Care Edition

Posted by on August 7, 2009 at 10:26 am. 9 Comments :

As if it weren’t bad enough that Fox Nation populates its web site with right-wing hysteria and links to uber-conservative purveyors of propaganda, they have now demonstrated that their editors are (at least) as stupid as their readers are gullible.

Today I observed a graphic at Fox Nation linking to a column in the Washington “Moonie” Times written by Amanda Carpenter, an O’Reilly Factor frequent fluffer. The article itself was chock full of nuttiness that I’ll get to momentarily. First I need to point out that Fox Nation is so desperate to disparage its enemies that they will project whatever demon suits them into their coverage whether it’s there or not. Here is the graphic showing the groups they say are allegedly mobilizing against town hall protesters:

The National Endowment for the Arts??? Are they really mobilizing against town hall protesters? Were those artists who were crashing community centers and public halls where Tea Baggers were fighting to keep the insurance companies between you and your doctor?

The problem with this picture is that Carpenter’s article says nothing about the National Endowment for the Arts whose logo is prominently displayed in the upper-right corner. There is a passage that mentions the NEA, but she is referring to the National Education Association. Rather than ascertain the facts, Fox Nation saw an acronym that could just as well have belonged to a favorite foe of theirs, so they giddily inserted the wrong logo into their graphic. And they consider themselves to be a “news” organization. I suppose it’s easier to demonize artists than teachers. The only thing Fox Nation cares about is assembling the usual targets of their wrath – community organizers (ACORN), unions (SEIU), minorities (NCLR), and, of course, those subversive artists – for a public whipping.

As an artist myself, I wouldn’t mind seeing the Endowment get more actively involved in countering the thugs who are brazenly trying to shut down democratic discourse. I have long believed that the role artists have traditionally played in social movements has been diminished in this age of corporate controlled marketing and the cultural aversion to artists who speak their minds (i.e. shut up and sing). But for Fox Nation to falsely charge that the NEA is mobilizing against protesters (an absurd charge in any context) is slanderous. And it is especially egregious when the slander is the result of an idiotic editor who can’t figure out which organiztion he’s supposed to be hating.

The article itself is rich with ridiculous reportage. It’s premise is that there is something terribly wrong with the way that Democrats plan to respond to the right-wing mobs that are disrupting town hall meetings between congressional representatives and their constituents.

It has been well documented that the right is coordinating their protests through political and industry front groups like Conservatives for Patients Rights, Americans for Prosperity, and FreedomWorks. These organized creators of chaos have distributed instructions on how to cause a commotion. Participating in a productive and civil discussion is the farthest thing from their minds.

What makes this article exceptionally ludicrous is that Carpenter’s examples of what she characterizes as untoward behavior from leftie activists pales in comparison to what the Tea Bagging bullies have put forth. Let’s take a look:

Left-Wing Mob Right-Wing Mob
Ask the Member’s staff what would be most helpful and talk through a strategy for making sure the right messages don’t get drowned out by chaotic protesters. Artificially Inflate Your Numbers: Spread out in the hall and try to be in the front half. The objective is to put the Rep on the defensive with your questions and follow-up.
Address the [Member of Congress] directly with a positive message: Remember, these Members need cover and they are getting beaten up by right wing zealots in these meetings. Be Disruptive Early And Often: You need to rock-the-boat early in the Rep’s presentation, Watch for an opportunity to yell out and challenge the Rep’s statements early.
Don’t get into a shouting match with them. Instead, prep people on our side to keep raising the questions that we want answered. Try To “Rattle Him,” Not Have An Intelligent Debate: The goal is to rattle him, get him off his prepared script and agenda.

So while the left wants to be helpful, positive, and avoid shouting matches, the right wants to lie, disrupt and rattle the targets of their tantrums. Which side really sounds like a mob to you?

The fact that Carpenter and the Washington Times thought that it served their purpose to illustrate these differences just defies comprehension. And to complete the circle of the Murdoch-driven disinformation campaign, Carpenter appeared on Fox News this morning to make the same scandalous assertion that health care advocates are conspiring to be “helpful.” OMG!


More Glenn Beck Messianic Delusions

Posted by on August 6, 2009 at 10:08 pm. 3 Comments :

It is beginning to look like I may have to start a new blog just to document Glenn Beck’s growing collection of messianic tribulations. If ever a man was obsessed with his own vision of a doomed world that only he can rescue, it’s little Glenny B.

On today’s program he broadcast another plea to his disciples to be wary of any tales of his demise:

“You ever see those movies where they say, ‘I gave a note to my attorney, and if I’m found dead, open the note.’ I kind of feel like you’re my attorney. If I show up, you know, in Thailand, dead from auto-erotic asphyxiation, don’t believe it.”

This comes just weeks after he warned…

“If I’m ever in a weird car accident, or I commit suicide or something, after the media stops celebrating my death, could they check into it? Because I’m not suicidal. And I’m a pretty good driver.”

And it was just last week that he blew his secret dog whistle:

“I fear that there will come a time when I cannot say things that I am currently saying. I fear that it will come to television and to radio, and I will stop saying these things. Understand me clearly. Hear me now. If I ever stop saying these things, you will know why. Because I will have made a choice that I can only say certain things, and I haven’t lost all of the rights. But know that these things are true. And if you hear me stop saying these things, it’s because I can no longer say them to you. But hear them between the sentences. Hear them, please. I will be screaming them to you.”

So in the event that Beck is assassinated by zombie agents from the Gamma Quadrant, we are now all baptized as translators of the scripture that he has been screaming at us. It is an awesome responsibility, but one we undertake for the welfare of mankind.

Klaatu barada nikto!


Advertisers Dumping Glenn Beck After Racist Comments

Posted by on August 6, 2009 at 12:35 pm. 5 Comments :

Last month Glenn Beck appeared on Fox & Friends and accused President Obama of being a racist. He said…

“This President has, I think, exposed himself as a guy over and over and over again who has a deep seated hatred for white people or the white culture. I don’t know what it is […] I’m not saying he doesn’t like white people, I’m saying he has a problem. He has a…This guy is, I believe, a racist.”

Fox News released a timid statement intended to put some distance between the network and Beck, but it simultaneously gave Beck more leeway to spew his repulsive views.

Well, Media Matters is now reporting that members of the advertising community are beginning to regard Beck’s Acute Paranoia Revue to be an unacceptable platform for their ads:

Media Matters: Three companies who run ads during Glenn Beck — NexisLexis-owned Lawyers.com, Proctor & Gamble and Progressive Insurance — today distanced themselves from Beck. LexisNexis has pulled its advertising from Beck and says it has no plans to advertise on the program in the future. Both Proctor & Gamble and Progressive Insurance called the Beck advertising placements an error that they would correct.

It’s about time.

A couple of days ago I wrote about Beck’s plea for peace. I found it thoroughly disingenuous and was suspicious of the timing. This may explain it. Certainly his superiors would have put some pressure on him if they were getting cancellations on ads. Especially after releasing quarterly earnings that reported a $3.4 billion loss. Rupert Murdoch must be a very unhappy mogul.

It should be noted that Procter and Gamble is the biggest advertiser in the world. Now, we don’t know where these ad dollars are going. They may just be shifted to other programs on Fox. But over time the network will not be able to remove itself from the taint that people like Beck, Hannity, O’Reilly, Cavuto, and the phalanx of obnoxious contributors bring to the airwaves.

Color of Change had taken the lead in protesting Beck’s remarks with a petition that delivered 45,000 173,000 signatures. They are still seeking to apply more pressure to more advertisers. So go there and help out.

Update: Advertisers continue to bail on Beck:

LexisNexis Proctor & Gamble Progressive Insurance
S.C. Johnson Geico Clorox
Men’s Warehouse Sargento Lowe’s
State Farm Roche Sprint
Sanofi-Aventis RadioShack Airware Inc
Con-Agra Travelocity Ancestry.com
Wal-Mart Best Buy AT&T
CVS Allergan Blain Labs
Ally Bank Broadview Security Campbell Soup
Re-Bath Farmer’s Insurance DiTech
The Elations Co. Experion Johnson & Johnson
NutriSystem UPS Stores Verizon Wireless
Applebee’s Bank of America Bell & Howell
DirecTv General Mills Kraft
Regions Financial SAM (Store and Move) Travelers Insurance
Vonage Binder & Binder Capital One
Dannon Company Discover HSBC
ICAN Benefit Group Ins Infiniti Jelmar
J. McKenna Debt Counseling Mercedes-Benz Simplex Healthcare
AmMed Direct Citrix Online Concord Music Group
Diageo Eggland’s Best Equifax
Eulactol USA GetARoom.com Hoffman La Roche
Metropolitan Talent Management ooVoo Overture Films
Scarguard Schiff Nutrition Seoul Metropolitan Government
Subaru Toyota-Lexus Waitrose
Woodland Power Products

Click here to see the advertisers remaining with Beck. It’s pretty pathetic.


Would You Pay To Read Fox News?

Posted by on August 5, 2009 at 11:06 pm. 6 Comments :

Rupert Murdoch announced today that he intends to convert all of News Corp’s online news assets to subscription services. This news was released along with the quarterly earnings for News Corp that revealed a full year net loss of $3.4 billion, down from a profit of $5.4 billion.

If he thinks that he is going to recoup his losses by shutting the gates to his web properties, and sending that traffic to his competitors, he will be bitterly disappointed. News is not the sort of product that maintains exclusivity for very long. If there’s an earthquake in Peru or a celebrity dies, that information cannot be copyrighted and doled out by a privileged owner. And even when a reporter uncovers a major story after weeks of diligent and skillful research, as soon as it hits the streets it’s just more news and everyone else can pass it on to their audience.

The inherent value of a news enterprise is its credibility, its relationship with the customer, and its advertising reach. By erecting a wall between the publisher and the customer, both of the latter two items are severely squeezed. And if no one is consuming your product, credibility is hardly a concern. Nevertheless, Murdoch seems intent on his strategy for wringing revenue from his web visitors, but his arguments make little sense.

MURDOCH: The digital revolution has opened many new and inexpensive methods of distribution but it has not made content free. Accordingly we intend to charge for all our news websites.

Of course the truth is that it has made content free – at lease the majority of it, including most of what Murdoch publishes. Part of the reason it is free is due to the many new and inexpensive methods of distribution. If you remove costly production items like paper and presses and warehouses and trucks, you ought to be able to publish with significantly lower overhead. That means that advertising alone should be sufficient to be profitable. Television networks do it, and they have far greater overhead in production costs and celebrity salaries.

MURDOCH: Quality journalism is not cheap and an industry that gives away its content is simply cannibalizing its ability to produce good reporting.

Again, the media is a unique marketplace that has always given away its content in exchange for eyeballs that can be peddled to advertisers. And with regard to quality journalism not being cheap, that is something that Murdoch has never had to worry about since he doesn’t deal in quality journalism.

Murdoch has been a vocal critic of Google and other news aggregators who he says are stealing his product. He accuses them of benefiting from his company’s hard work without paying for it. But his Fox Nation is doing precisely the same thing by posting links to other news sites without offering them any payment either. So I wonder if he intends to start compensating those sites after he commences to charge for his own.

I still can’t see much of a market for online subscriptions to Fox News, Fox Nation, the New York Post, etc. Murdoch says that the fees charged by the Wall Street Journal are proof that the subscription model will work. But the differential between a subscription to the Journal and the Journal online is only forty cents a week. I suspect that that is not much of a barrier for Journal readers. Consequently, that may account for any success seen in that marketplace (although we don’t even know if there is any success because Murdoch will not release data on the Journal’s online only subscriber base).

In the end, Murdoch will just be doing a favor for all the other online news sites who learn to operate profitably without subscription fees. As the market matures there will be more and more of them. Advertisers will migrate to the web as it increasingly provides a superior return to fading newspapers. And since Murdoch is overweighted in dead-tree media, and his online acumen has been notoriously sub par (witness MySpace), this is just good news all around – the kind even I’d be willing to pay for (but don’t tell Rupert).