Michael Stuart Kelly

Roger Ailes is out at Fox When?

Recommended Posts

Roger Ailes is out at Fox When?

Just a short time ago, Gretchen Carlson's contract was not renewed at Fox and she immediately filed a sexual harassment suit against Roger Ailes personally.

Today he resigned.

His resignation happened on the same day Donald Trump will be accepting the Republican nomination for president.

Dayaamm!

That was a little too quick. And that was a little too coincidental.

I wonder what's cooking for real...

Michael

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ailes's letter to Murdoch (from here, although this link will probably change since it is a Drudge placeholder link).

Quote

AILES STEPS ASIDE AT FOXNEWS; WILL REMAIN AT PARENT COMPANY AS ADVISER
Thu Jul 21 2016 16:10:43 ET

Letter from Roger Ailes To Rupert Murdoch
**Exclusive** 

Dear Rupert, 

With your support, I am proud that we have built Fox News and Fox Business Channels into powerful and lucrative news organizations that inform our audience and reward our shareholders. I take particular pride in the role that I have played advancing the careers of the many women I have promoted to executive and on-air positions. Many of these talented journalists have deservedly become household names known for their intelligence and strength, whether reporting the news, fair and balanced, and offering exciting opinions on our opinion programs. . Fox News has become Number 1 in all of cable because I consistently identified and promoted the most talented men and women in television, and they performed at the highest levels. 

Having spent 20 years building this historic business, I will not allow my presence to become a distraction from the work that must be done every day to ensure that Fox News and Fox Business continue to lead our industry. I am confident that everyone at Fox News and Fox Business will continue as the standard setters that they are, and that the businesses are well positioned for even greater success in the future. 

I am proud of our accomplishments and look forward to continuing to work with you as an adviser in building 21st Century Fox 

All the best, 

Roger. 

Michael

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎21‎/‎07‎/‎2016 at 7:40 PM, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

Roger Ailes is out at Fox When?

Just a short time ago, Gretchen Carlson's contract was not renewed at Fox and she immediately filed a sexual harassment suit against Roger Ailes personally.

Today he resigned.

His resignation happened on the same day Donald Trump will be accepting the Republican nomination for president.

Dayaamm!

That was a little too quick. And that was a little too coincidental.

I wonder what's cooking for real...

Michael

 

Do you think it's all that Machiavellian, Michael? ?  Maybe nothing else is cooking for real but his goose.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, caroljane said:

Do you think it's all that Machiavellian, Michael? ?  Maybe nothing else is cooking for real but his goose.

Carol,

I see people who habitually play dirty with others start to untangle amongst themselves.

It's reasonable to assume they are playing dirty with each other.

:)

Michael

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here are a couple of posts I made on the Trump thread about Ailes leaving Fox News. I'm repeating them here for reader convenience.

On 7/20/2016 at 0:25 AM, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

I need to open a separate thread (or somebody else can do it) for this Fox News mess (the sexual harassment suit against Ailes by Gretchen Carlson with Megyn Kelly pile-on), but I'm putting the following article here in the Trump thread for one reason only.

The top talent (Hannity, O'Reilly, Van Susteren, etc.) is thinking leaving with Roger Ailes if he gets ousted from Fox and, as the news reports are saying, they are considering making a new cable news channel.

And guess who has enough money to start a new cable news channel, hmmmmmm? 

:)

Exclusive — Megyn Against the World at Fox: Anchor Rebellion, Creation of Competitor Network Looms Amid Ailes Ouster Rumors

 

On 7/20/2016 at 3:36 PM, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

They still have John Stossel, who has his own show, and Andrew Napolitano as a regular guest. But I'm not too sure Roger Ailes's fundamental value and approach all along has been to sell a party line. I think it was to take advantage of a neglected market niche where he sympathized with the ideology. The market was there but nobody was serving it. That may not seem like a huge difference, but it is the difference between massive success and little or no audience. (I've listened to enough Rush Limbaugh, who also appeared early to serve this neglected niche, to know he gets this, too.)

For instance, here's a quote from The Loudest Voice in the Room: How the Brilliant, Bombastic Roger Ailes Built Fox News--and Divided a Country by Gabriel Sherman (pg. 95-96).

Quote

Years later at Fox News, Ailes would talk fondly about his theatrical experience. "Whenever he can, he gets into the conversation that he produced Hot l Baltimore," a senior Fox executive said.

Creating the Fox News afternoon show The Five, Ailes found his inspiration on the stage. "He said, 'I've always wanted to do an ensemble concept,'" a close friend said. "He said, 'I wanted a Falstaff, and that's Bob Beckel. I need a leading man, and it's Eric Bolling. I need a serious lead and that's Dana Perino. I need a court jester and it's Greg [Gutfeld], and I need the leg. That's Andrea Tantaros."

This use of distinct archetypes and using them for different emotional appeals (buffoonish vanity for the audience to deride, masculine mystique to admire, down-to-earth reasonableness, light comedy and female sex appeal) is the thought process of an artist and marketer, an entertainment businessman, not so much an ideologue.

I looked around today to see if there were any developments and saw that Trump was standing by Ailes without commenting on the scandal too much (see here). The important thing I learned is that Trump and Ailes still telephone each other regularly (see here). Also, check this out on Politico: Trump on Ailes: 'A lot of people are thinking he's going to run my campaign'). Trump is refusing to say if Ailes is helping his campaign in any capacity.

Nobody's talking about a new conservative news network with Trump backing it and Ailes running it, though...

Yet...

Hmmmmmmm...

Michael

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

Here are a couple of posts I made on the Trump thread about Ailes leaving Fox News. I'm repeating them here for reader convenience.

 

I looked around today to see if there were any developments and saw that Trump was standing by Ailes without commenting on the scandal too much (see here). The important thing I learned is that Trump and Ailes still telephone each other regularly (see here). Also, check this out on Politico: Trump on Ailes: 'A lot of people are thinking he's going to run my campaign'). Trump is refusing to say if Ailes is helping his campaign in any capacity.

Nobody's talking about a new conservative news network with Trump backing it and Ailes running it, though...

Yet...

Hmmmmmmm...

Michael

Maybe a fun new project if he loses election. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 hours ago, caroljane said:
On 7/21/2016 at 4:40 PM, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

I wonder what's cooking for real...

Do you think it's all that Machiavellian, Michael? ?  Maybe nothing else is cooking for real but his goose.

40 million dollar goose eggs. 

But the inner workings of FoxNews are so deeply occluded at times that Secret Plots and circle-within-circle power ploys are fun to consider. 

Here's the way I see it:  the Alpha management of FoxNews falls to temporary head Murdoch the Elder.  Scuttlebutt says one of his two partner-sons was appalled at the smirch on the network being uncontained (Cosby! Clinton!), leaving a Gretchen Carlson bomb ticking, and was disgusted that the network retreated behind a wall of denial and testimonials. It was seen as a slow bleed following the first bomb. Now, the sexual harassment bomb defusion in re Carlson is underway a full step apart from the network. The top roost is cleaned.

It was this son that insisted on an 'independent' inquiry, to which contributed other women in and of FoxNews -- not the on-air claque backing Ailes who swore his innocence, but in-house credible voices (otherwise stilled by contract confidentiality or non-disparagement fine print), or  former reporters who had been cowed by the legal arms of FoxNews.  The inquiry found truth enough to seal Ailes' fate.

Will this make a difference to the FoxNews machinery between now and Inauguration Day?  I wonder.   I  can't see any large changes or even medium changes. I don't see resignations or revolutions or anything like that. Why change anything this successful?  (perhaps skirts will lengthen, pant-suits on ladies will appear here and there. But)

-- will it make a difference in the nitty-gritty? Well,  Ailes is rightly appreciated for his strong message management, his day-to-day thoroughness in tactics and strategy, his nimble and forceful governance of the 'angle of attack' in each story block becoming news. Will we see a discordance or a confusion or a drift away from central goals in news-gathering and reporting and editorial?  I don't think so, but Michael might be right that under the surface (sources said) high drama percolates and grand plots are afoot.

I do note that Ailes' departure buy-out agreement included a wall-to-wall restriction on 'competing' with FoxNews.   He will simply get jowlier and snakier and retreat to the shadows, I imagine, his network career wrecked.   Inside the Trump camp, no doubt a calculation on whether to tie themselves formally to Ailes in any way.

My political cortex says: Much good Red Hat news that Ailes has Trump's ear, and can offer his tactical/strategic 'issues' genius on the QT.  That will offer political Viagra in the short term as he figures out how to settle with Carlson.

On 7/19/2016 at 10:25 PM, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

The top talent (Hannity, O'Reilly, Van Susteren, etc.) is thinking leaving with Roger Ailes if he gets ousted from Fox and, as the news reports are saying, they are considering making a new cable news channel.

And guess who has enough money to start a new cable news channel, hmmmmmm? 

Well, who? And why should Has Enough Money bother? Why not stick with existing moneymakers? I expect you suppose the FoxNews talent will begin jumping at some point. I would say after the election, if ever.

Apropos ...

On 6/16/2016 at 1:14 PM, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

[M]ore like a passel of hogs than a flock of dainty cockatoos

Ruthless!

Here's a sad and instructive piece that quotes from a disgruntled former (let-go) FoxNews employee who gained 600,000+ smackers by settling a complaint against the network sex-me-up, go-places ethos.  

In the end, the mediator ruled in Bakhtiar’s favor, instructing Fox to pay the $670,000 remaining on the three-year contract she signed with the network on July 13, 2006. Additionally, Fox had to cover Bakhtiar’s legal fees, “which were enormous,” she says.

Even if wholly untrue, this behind-the-scenes fuckme unpleasantness, and larger stains like Ailes smuty-slick can stick.   But not to Trump.

And here is some naggy, naggy, nasty, 'insider-Not' grousing and kvetching that might show some of The Plots ...if not The Deal. From the infuriated-all-the-time folks at RAWstory and the slightly less enraged Slate.  They disagree with me, the churls.  

Slate: 

Many people see Fox News as a cynical production of people who know better. But you seem to be saying that people believe in what they are doing or their leader. Maybe those aren’t exclusive—

No, they aren’t mutually exclusive. The culture of sexual harassment is widely known at Fox News. The whole idea that it is a family values network is incredibly cynical, and everyone knows that. But the fear and psychological control that Ailes had over his employees—if he says the sky is green and not blue, even very intelligent people, maybe even liberals, tend to start believing it. He has this charismatic, cultlike power to shape a corporation in his image. And that’s why Fox, whatever it becomes, is going to be very different. There is no executive in American media and politics who has that charisma and that ruthlessness, and, as these allegations have shown, the kind of darkness of his mind to control women and people.

[...]

For people who have only heard of James Murdoch through his role in the phone hacking scandal, to see him as, relatively speaking and aside from the women who came forward, the good person in this thing is striking. What do you think drove him: hatred of Ailes, fear of the company’s reputation, or actually some sort of moral revulsion?

I think a combination of all of those. James Murdoch is, by my reporting, extremely turned off and horrified by the concept of a Trump presidency, and he sees the politics of the right-wing populism fueled by Fox News as a catalyst that allowed Trump to become the Republican nominee. He’s been wanting to get Ailes out.

[...]

What do your sources tell you on the state of the Trump-Ailes relationship? You recently reported that Trump was advising Ailes.

The relationship is close. It’s complicated, but it’s close. The two guys have known each other for decades. They are both New York media power brokers who have gone way back. And, you know, they have had tension. Roger Ailes is used to controlling events and when he doesn’t control events, he gets very angry. When the Trump­–Megyn Kelly feud happened last summer, Ailes couldn’t control Trump. That’s why Ailes and him clashed; it wasn’t about ideology. The point is that their relationship is still good. They speak, by my reporting, very regularly. Yes, Trump did talk to Roger Ailes after Carlson filed her lawsuit and gave him advice on how he should navigate the crisis.

RAWs: 

I get messages all the time from people who have known Ailes for decades who say that when they hear a Trump speech they hear so many echoes of Ailes. There is a scenario where Ailes could advise Trump and be on the phone with him, giving him talking points and media strategy, and he wouldn’t have to take a formal role.

There are two things. Does Roger Ailes want a comeback? If he hitches himself to Trump and Trump loses, does he want his epitaph to be that he was kicked out of his company amidst a wave of really disturbing and frankly gross sexual harassment allegations and hitched himself to a potentially losing presidential campaign? Or does he want to go away quietly, hope this blows over, and maybe in a couple years write a book or do something to try to rehabilitate himself?

 

Edited by william.scherk
Minor spelking

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

William,

I predict the following about Ailes and the sexual harassment stuff.

This is a smokescreen and will fizzle after its use is over. Poor Gretchen will either have to go hard left, or be ground up into professional oblivion and banished to country church circuits. I think she has been played, to be honest, and she doesn't realize it yet.

Roger Ailes is not Bill Cosby, but the media is trying to do the same thing to Ailes they did to Cosby, and here's the important part--in the same way. That will be their undoing. It's one thing to attack the talent (Cosby) with the media. It's another to attack one of the media puppet-masters (Ailes) with the media. Those are two different games with different rules.

The only person I know of who has launched an effective attack on Ailes with the sex thing, one that has a strong potential to stick, did not realize how powerful he had done it, so I suspect he will not repeat it. 

Cenk Uygur was on a self-righteous tirade against Ailes (who he hates more than anyone, apparently) and started spouting out the cases he knew about where women described their experiences with Ailes. Thundering at the video and shuddering in disgust, he let 'er fly with something like the following:

After he told her she had to do it, he loosened his belt off his fat belly, lowered his pants and showed her his genitals. AND SHE SAID IT LOOKED LIKE RAW HAMBURGER WITH BLUE LINES RUNNING THROUGH IT. YEEEEEEEEEEECHHH!!!

:)

That's one hell of an image. Once you have seen that, even if only in your mind, you can't unsee it. Not if you are thinking about what Roger Ailes looks like when you imagine it.

That works. That sticks.

I predict the legal thing won't.

Michael

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From Ben Shapiro at the Daily Wire, commenting on the new Trump campaign chief, who just stepped aside at Breitbart.

7. Trump’s Campaign Strategy Could Be The Launch Of A New Media Outlet. Because Bannon’s ambitions extend to Steve Bannon, he’ll tell Trump he’s doing a fantastic job even if he isn’t. That’s how Bannon Svengalis political figures and investors – by investing them in his personal genius, then hollowing them out from the inside. There’s a reason Sarah Palin went from legitimate political figure to parody artist to Trump endorser, with Steve Bannon standing alongside her every step of the way. There’s a reason Breitbart News went from hard-charging news outlet to drooling Trump mouthpiece. Bannon emerges from all of this unscathed. So what’s next on his agenda? If Trump wins, he’s in a position of high power; if Trump loses, Bannon could head up a new media empire with Trump’s support and the involvement of new Trump supporter and ousted former Fox News head Roger Ailes. Look for Sean Hannity to be a part of any such endeavor.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

William,

Ya' think Ben Shapiro would ever say anything good about Steve Bannon after he lost his power struggle to Bannon at Breitbart?

Ben Shapiro belongs to the Sore Loser wing of the Republican Party--the ones who sign pledges they never intend to keep.

:)

btw - I think he's right about the future media empire funded by Trump, although I don't think Trump will do that only if he loses. The prospect of starting a new news network with Roger Ailes is just too good a media opportunity, even for a president.

Apropos, despite the snarky things Shapiro said about Sarah Palin, have you noticed that all things surrounding her get placed with The Donald? For example, she was the person who set him up with Jeff Sessions. There's a lot more to their relationship than gets into the news.

Also, I think it's odd how many of the mainstream media people ignore this stuff as they sing ecstatic self-congratulatory victory songs about the demise of Sarah and Roger and so on...

:) 

Michael

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/17/2016 at 0:11 PM, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

William,

Ya' think Ben Shapiro would ever say anything good about Steve Bannon after he lost his power struggle to Bannon at Breitbart?

Ben Shapiro belongs to the Sore Loser wing of the Republican Party--the ones who sign pledges they never intend to keep.

:)

Ben Shapiro is young, hardcore, a quick mind, an able writer, and good on TV and radio. He quit his job, and decried the teat-lip relationship between the bosses and the candidate. I take your point about a power-struggle, if you mean that if you quit you are a loser (to your former boss), and thus forever pockmarked by the Label Gun.  Sore Loser ... sort of fits Shapiro, especially if you wish to disenfranchise his argument against the teat-snout relationship.

Quote

btw - I think he's right about the future media empire funded by Trump, although I don't think Trump will do that only if he loses. The prospect of starting a new news network with Roger Ailes is just too good a media opportunity, even for a president.

Ailes presumably cannot found a new network in competition with FoxNews, if you believe the talk about undisclosed termination deals.  And I posted the opinions of Shapiro because they could let people punch their confirmation ticket. 

There would be some obvious parallels to Berlusconi pointed out in that eventuality. I mean, if Putin gets to appoint the heads and set policy at Russian networks, and if Berlusconi had family ownership of the top Italian TV network, with its policy firmly in his bag ... then a certain kind of table is set.

Do you want a Presidentially-affiliated/staffed/owned/managed/directed TV channel or vertical media business? Yes, if you think like Yanukovich or Putin or every other autocrat. 

Mind you, if the Clinton Foundation and George Soros started a new media company with control on Madame President's desktop, in that faint chance that Mrs Clinton wins, what then?  Is it weird and corrupt and probably illegal? 

Quote

Apropos, despite the snarky things Shapiro said about Sarah Palin, have you noticed that all things surrounding her get placed with The Donald?

We probably have a difference of opinion on her influence within the Trump orbit. She wasn't slated for Cleveland. Nobody on FoxNews calls her up anymore. She has been shut out.   In some ways, she has served her purpose for Mr Trump and can be let dry, despite Bannon's earlier work on her behalf.  I hope I am wrong that Trump will shut her out of the campaign and not share a stage with  her between now and November. She is at least entertaining.  But, being fair-minded, I will look deeper for her policy footprint, and her background 'selection' helping out.  I mean, it could be that Sarah Palin herself talked Bannon into jumping into the campaign's top job (CEO to chairman is dog to couch in this set-up). 

Nah.  But of course I could still be wrong and she gets an appointment on a Trump administration list. 

Quote

[Eg] Jeff Sessions. There's a lot more to their relationship than gets into the news.

That is a nice come-on. Do they talk?  Is she on the Put-Through call screen? Does she send him notes?  Is she in the "Let's all vet this" circle?  Was she consulted on the VP choice? Is she going on a speaking tour?  Is she doing some adult-learning courses?

Quote

Also, I think it's odd how many of the mainstream media people ignore this stuff as they sing ecstatic self-congratulatory victory songs about the demise of Sarah and Roger and so on...

:) 

Michael

It is easy to ignore 'this stuff' if you mean ignore the influence of Sarah Palin on and in the Trump campaign.  She grouses now and again about the evul media who has shut her out, but I always think that is a loser's dodge. She ain't news. She doesn't get any more topical. She is a bit of a crank at times.  Her last few public mediatized excursions have been painful for all involved.

But back to Roger. He would probably join Paul Manafort on the "The campaign pays me nothing" list. I think Manafort is still in the loop as an administrative chief, and that new guy CEO will blow new wind into the campaign's modern arms (alt-media, non-legacy media, the Churn). He is likely then to be a content-developer more than a traffic cop.  The lines he pursues can be run on all lines in the organization, and even Paul Manafort will do this on-point message-running.  He is not afraid of a race that gets (Ukrainian-style) "dirty." 

The other notable movement in the Trump campaign was elevating a Lady to the top, at least in nomenclature. This woman is now the campaign Manager. On a dream flow-chart, she would be the day-to-day enabler and persuader on all the acts of the day coming through from Manafort and the New Breitbart Baas.  

Some rumour has it she will travel with the candidate, but that ain't necessarily so. She will up her job as 'surrogate' because she is okay on TV and has professional experience as a pollster.  Having Mr Trump's ear to interpret his internal polls to him, getting the nod from him for the broader Breitbart strategy devised by the new CEO, and serving as a command centre for the multiple echelons of the campaign, that is what Corey Lewandowski did, sans polls.

But back to Roger. He is said to be helping 'prep' Trump for the debates. This is interesting. If he treats Trump like 'the talent' and runs him through the rehearsal machine that is a modern 'prep,' his efforts are gold. He will have anticipated every Clinton jab or statistic, and given Trump drills in how to execute his 'kills' before the debate audiences. 

One hanging chad here is that who the heck knows what a 'winning' debate performance will be next month?   My lizard-Plus brain tells me that Mr Trump just has to 'act' better than Mrs Clinton, parrying her thrusts, undeviating from his broader, structured arguments, just get prepped like a perfect machine. That is where the chad falls.  It will be intriguing to see if there is any hoopla emerging from the campaign around the time the other candidate has gone into the bunker for her prep work.

I have no idea on any of this last bit. I expect that a winning debate performance for Mr Trump will be scored like a prize fight.  He should, if Trump lore and mythification is real, dominate and dismiss Mrs Clinton in the eyes of the audience. It should be a free ball each time. 

And Roger?  I think he and Steve and Stone and Paul and Michael Cohen are all laughing.  Whatever the outcome, they will have had the time of their lives. Roger Ailes and the others will wear the 'skunk' of Trump only in proportion to his loss/win.  But with zillions of dollars, they couldn't care less about the skunk, since one way or the other, they are shielded from consequences. 

What exactly does Roger Ailes 'lose' if Trump loses to Clinton?  Nerp, I'd say.

Oh, and ... speaking of fatties:

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
46 minutes ago, william.scherk said:

I take your point about a power-struggle, if you mean that if you quit you are a loser (to your former boss)...

William,

That's not what I meant. I meant sore loser like Ted Cruz, Jeb Bush, etc., all of whom Ben Shapiro would have loved to see nominated. They signed pledges they had no intention of honoring and acted like sore losers when they lost. I believe Shapiro is a bit like that. Their intellectual currency looks like ideology, but, for them, it's really all about power and privilege for their particular tribe and fuck the rest.

48 minutes ago, william.scherk said:

Mind you, if the Clinton Foundation and George Soros started a new media company with control on Madame President's desktop, in that faint chance that Mrs Clinton wins, what then?

They could call it Current 2 TV or something and maybe get Al Gore to run it? :evil: 

There's an exit strategy with this plan, too. There are always Arab with oil money around somewhere to buy it for a whopping shitload of money if the project tanks. :)

50 minutes ago, william.scherk said:

It is easy to ignore 'this stuff' if you mean ignore the influence of Sarah Palin...

I'm fine if you ignore it.

I follow this stuff, so I always see her appear in the background at key moments. For instance, Trump himself talks about her influence at times. (He always says, "We love Sarah," too. :) )

I only speculate, but I have a feeling that her staying in the background is on purpose and that Trump wants to rehabilitate her image re the press. Palin was unable to punch back when they did to her what they are now trying to do to Trump. McCain's people kept her muzzled, so she got branded through sheer repetition and what, in persuasion, is called "social proof." This means if most people in a group keep saying the same thing, even if it is only an opinion, others are likely to hold that opinion as truth without examining it. (Racism and other forms of bigotry work that way.)

The mainstream press knows this and, for smooth operators who know how to grease all the wheels, it can brand people who do not fight back, and even many of those who do. And reporters love this power, too. Even in Brazil, I recall being around reporters who bragged about their capacity to make winners and losers at will (I knew quite a few due to my productions). 

I think Trump is going to put Sarah on his cabinet, then let time pass a little. The press will then take her seriously as events unfold. And they always change when power is involved. For example, Joe Biden went from a party joke and punch line to a serious contender for the Democratic nomination if he had wanted it. Why? Because he was in power for a few years--a position he achieved on Obama's coattails without the aid of the press.

Michael

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, william.scherk said:

But back to Roger [Ailes]. He would probably join Paul Manafort on the "The campaign pays me nothing" list. I think Manafort is still in the loop as an administrative chief, and that new guy CEO will blow new wind into the campaign's modern arms (alt-media, non-legacy media, the Churn).

Wrong.  We learn Paul Manafort has stepped down as Chairman.  

Re:  Steve Bannon hand in glove with Manafort.:

Quote

[Bannon] is likely then to be a content-developer more than a traffic cop.  The lines he pursues can be run on all lines in the organization, and even Paul Manafort will do this on-point message-running.  He is not afraid of a race that gets (Ukrainian-style) "dirty." 

Wrong again, William. Heads had to roll.

Quote

The other notable movement in the Trump campaign was elevating a Lady to the top, at least in nomenclature. This woman is now the campaign Manager. On a dream flow-chart, she would be the day-to-day enabler and persuader on all the acts of the day coming through from Manafort and the New Breitbart Baas.  

Well, this is still likely to be true --  absent Manafort -- but who is going to be doing the jobs Manafort did up until today?

Regarding a team Bannon/Ailes glamour corps, apparently those two have had an imperfect  relationship, according to Bloomberg.

Quote

Trump’s own diagnosis of his campaign’s shortcomings led to this unusual prescription—which is the diametric opposite of what most Republicans have been counseling for their embattled nominee. “The campaign has been too lethargic, too reactive,” says a senior Trump official. “They wanted to bring in someone who understood new media, understood digital. It’s not going to be a traditional campaign.” Trump was frustrated by Manafort’s efforts to contain him and angry about his plummeting poll numbers. With Bannon in the fold, the source adds, Trump will feel free to unleash his inner Trump: “It’s very simple. This is a change election. He needs to position himself as anti-establishment, the candidate of change, and the candidate who’s anti-Washington.”

The shake-up is an ominous development for Republican elected officials alarmed at Trump’s collapse and the effect he could have on down-ballot races across the country. In recent years, Breitbart News has bedeviled Republican leaders, helping to drive out former House Speaker John Boehner and, more recently, making life difficult for his successor, Paul Ryan. Last fall, at Bannon’s insistence, Breitbart reporters visited Ryan’s Wisconsin home (which is surrounded by a wall) and published a story shaming him for not endorsing Trump’s proposal to erect a wall along the Mexico border.

[...]

Bannon has also clashed with another senior conservative figure recently brought into the Trump fold: former Fox News Chairman Roger Ailes. Last fall, after Trump attacked Fox News host Megyn Kelly, Bannon and Breitbart News took Trump’s side in the bitter divide between what Bannon calls the “establishment Republicans” at Fox News and the populists who have flocked to Trump and Breitbart. According to someone who spoke to Ailes at the time, the anger directed at Fox grew so intense that Ailes asked Bannon to tone down Breitbart’s criticism of the right-leaning network. While Trump and Kelly later reconciled, Bannon still nurses a grudge against the Fox host whom he’s accused of “treachery” and criticized in a July 29 Breitbart essay for posing in “a risqué nightgown and sexy poses” for GQ magazine.

If I was wrong about Manafort's being able to work with the newly elevated powers in the Trump campaign, I could be wrong about the Ailes role behind the scenes. Officially, according to Hope Hicks, Ailes has no formal or informal role in the campaign.  It's not like she would bend the truth, right?  Remains the perception and the rumour ...

Cue two days of stories about  Re-Rigging Mainsails on the good ship Trump.  Someone smirking today is Corey Lewandowski, paid CNN staffer -- he is being taxed with explaining the Meaning behind the departure.  More below ...

steve-sack-minneapolis-star-tribune.jpg

At Politico:

Quote

As far as laying blame at the feet of Manafort for Trump's post-convention drop in the polls, Lewandowski said that "many people would question the reasons for Mr. Trump traveling to specific states, whether that be Connecticut or whether that be Wisconsin, what the field team looked like, what the ground game looked like."

"I mean it’s been widely reported that it has not been a robust ground effort in states like Florida, that that had not been laid out yet. You cannot blame the candidate for those things," Lewandowski said. "Those things fall squarely on the staff at some level of building up the field teams and hiring the people." [...]

Asked about a report that Manafort did not want to become a distraction to Trump over the recent stories regarding his consulting work with the pro-Kremlin party of former Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych, Lewandowski said he did not have any further information about the nominee's thinking. [...]

"I think what you have now with Kellyanne Conway is a messaging expert, someone who’s going to relay those bullet points to Mr. Trump about some of the issues at the Clinton campaign and Hillary Clinton have done."

I think the Russian/Ukrainian/oligarch/criminal hoopla doomed Manafort. I will admit to being unsure about the longer-term effects of the shake-up at the top (pivot? presidential? prompter? TV ads? GOTV?).

It is a perfect time to reiterate that national polls right now may mean next-to-nothing, state polls right now slightly more, that the race will become more predictable after the three scheduled debates. If I ignore polling 'reality' right now, it is a fine and rational position to take.  See you in late September or early October.  Even the most doubtful that current polls capture a credible sample of opinion, even you will be giving polls more credibility on, say, October 10.

The take-home message today is " Trump was frustrated by Manafort’s efforts to contain him and angry about his plummeting poll numbers."

michael-de-adder-halifax-chronicle-heral

 

And here is Sarah Palin throwing shade at Paul Manafort, making an obvious allusion to his Kremlinesque portfolio of clients.

palin-tweet.JPG

-- and some more 'insider' gossip on the departures board at Trump HQ ...

Edited by william.scherk
Fine-tuning, added Sarah Palin tweet, added 'insider' gossip

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A long, long article at New York magazine, The Revenge of Roger’s Angels: How Fox News women took down the most powerful, and predatory, man in media.

Many people I spoke with believe that the current management arrangement is just a stopgap until the election. “As of November 9, there will be a bloodbath at Fox,” predicts one host. “After the election, the prime-time lineup could be eviscerated. O’Reilly’s been talking about retirement. Megyn could go to another network. And Hannity will go to Trump TV.”

The prospect of Trump TV is a source of real anxiety for some inside Fox. The candidate took the wedge issues that Ailes used to build a loyal audience at Fox News — especially race and class — and used them to stoke barely containable outrage among a downtrodden faction of conservatives. Where that outrage is channeled after the election — assuming, as polls now suggest, Trump doesn’t make it to the White House — is a big question for the Republican Party and for Fox News. Trump had a complicated relationship with Fox even when his good friend Ailes was in charge; without Ailes, it’s plausible that he will try to monetize the movement he has galvanized in competition with the network rather than in concert with it. Trump’s appointment of Steve Bannon, chairman of Breitbart, the digital-media upstart that has by some measures already surpassed Fox News as the locus of conservative energy, to run his campaign suggests a new right-wing news network of some kind is a real possibility. One prominent media executive told me that if Trump loses, Fox will need to try to damage him in the eyes of its viewers by blaming him for the defeat.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/21/2016 at 4:40 PM, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

Just a short time ago, Gretchen Carlson's contract was not renewed at Fox and she immediately filed a sexual harassment suit against Roger Ailes personally.

And bang, Roger Ailes settles his Carlson suit for a reported 20 million smackers.  The details come from an Associated Press story, here via Breitbart:

Quote

 

NEW YORK (AP) — Former Fox News Channel anchor Gretchen Carlson has settled her sexual harassment lawsuit against Roger Ailes, the case that led to the downfall of Fox’s chief executive with stunning swiftness this summer.

In a statement Tuesday, Fox parent company 21st Century said that “we regret and apologize for the fact that Gretchen was not treated with the respect and dignity that she and all of our colleagues deserve.”

 

Also from AP via Breitbart, Greta Van Susteren is out of a job:

Quote

 

NEW YORK (AP) — Greta Van Susteren is out as a nighttime host on Fox News Channel, replaced temporarily by Brit Hume starting Tuesday.

Fox did not publicly explain Van Susteren’s abrupt exit after 14 years, although a person close to the situation who spoke on condition of anonymity described it as a financial disagreement. Van Susteren was not immediately available for comment, and the news wasn’t reflected on her popular blog or Twitter feed.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Twenty million? One other woman has already come forward, and I bet a lot more women will now come forward too. Ailes really sounds like a predator.

I saw an internet story about a Playboy bunny shown kissing Hef, who used her phone to film a lady with her clothes off at the gym and then she body shamed her on the internet. Now that is the type of "crime" that should be punished because it is as bad as a peeping tom. And cyber bullying should be a crime. I don't care if the FBI or the NSA needs to be called in to find the perps who won't give their names, and I don't care if it does broaden government's scope. Make it a horrendous crime and it will lessen teen suicides and unearned shame. I was reading about someone who posted sexual pictures and replaced the real woman's face with another women he or she hated. That is very wrong.

Friar Pete 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Peter said:

Twenty million? 

Roger got a reported forty to sixty million as part of his termination agreement with FoxNews and the Murdochs. The personal suit was settled relatively quickly, I think -- he was barred from the Fox premises on July 21.

And now, one-third less rich and one-third as sexually appealing, he is in the Trump kitchen cabinet, if you can believe The Media.  Apparently he is part of the team 'prepping' Mr Trump for the debates. What a gig. What a man. What a team.

 

Edited by william.scherk

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, william.scherk said:

And bang, Roger Ailes settles his Carlson suit for a reported 20 million smackers.

William,

That's a funny way to put it.

In the story I read, Fox News, not Roger Ailes, settled with Carlson and is paying the 20 million smackeroonies. They are going to try to recover it from Ailes, but good luck with that. Ailes is not too happy they settled, even though the suit was against him. The condition for Fox settling is that Carlson committed to never bringing suit against other Fox talent or employees. Notice that Fox, not Ailes, issued the apology to Carlson.

Also, Ailes has hired attorney Charles Harder (the guy who wrecked Gawker in the $140 million Hulk Hogan suit and got the Daily Mail to cry uncle and retract a story in a $150 million suit for Melania Trump). He's going after The New Yorker and Gabriel Sherman first. More news should follow over time.

That's the gist of the stories I read.

If I didn't know better, I would insinuate from your wording that Ailes has been shamed into submission or something. :evil: 

About Greta, she had a clause in her contract that said if Ailes ever left Fox, she was free to go if she wished. Ailes had that clause put in the contracts of all the top talent he hired for Fox News, including O'Reilly, Hannity and others.

I would need to look up the conflict of interest stipulation, that is, how long these celebrities would have to stay off-air before they would be able to work for a competing cable (or other broadcast) news organization, say, a new one run by Roger Ailes, but I suspect it's not long.

Michael

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:
7 hours ago, william.scherk said:

And bang, Roger Ailes settles his Carlson suit for a reported 20 million smackers.

William,

That's a funny way to put it.

In the story I read, Fox News, not Roger Ailes, settled with Carlson and is paying the 20 million

Thanks for the corrective attention. The suit was settled -- according to the unreliable New York Times -- by the parent company of FoxNews.  The details are replaced by speculation, and the 21st Century Fox corporation statement leaves plenty of room for imagination. I don't know if Ailes will pay some or a portion -- one of his lawyers denied that outright. He may have had some 'padding' applied in his own secret settlement after 'resigning.'  I mean, that in his contract or termination documents, the parent company was bound to pay some of his legal bills. According to the Hive at Vanity Fair:

Though Carlson’s case is against Ailes personally, Fox is essentially his insurer for any settlement, according to two people familiar with the arrangement, and discussions between Ailes’s legal team and 21st Century Fox’s legal team became very tense regarding how much Ailes might pay in a settlement. (At press time, it was unclear how much Ailes was personally on the hook for.)

The suit was, as noted upthread, filed against the individual.  Here's a snapshot of the civil complaint ..

coverNoteCarlson.png

 

-- the Corporate announcement and striking apology:

Quote

“21st Century Fox is pleased to announce that it has settled Gretchen Carlson’s lawsuit.  During her tenure at Fox News, Gretchen exhibited the highest standards of journalism and professionalism. She developed a loyal audience and was a daily source of information for many Americans. We are proud that she was part of the Fox News team. We sincerely regret and apologize for the fact that Gretchen was not treated with the respect and dignity that she and all of our colleagues deserve.”

Ms. Carlson issued the following statement:

“I am gratified that 21st Century Fox took decisive action after I filed my Complaint. I’m ready to move on to the next chapter of my life in which I will redouble my efforts to empower women in the workplace. I want to thank all the brave women who came forward to tell their own stories and the many people across the country who embraced and supported me in their #StandWithGretchen. All women deserve a dignified and respectful workplace in which talent, hard work and loyalty are recognized, revered and rewarded.”

-- this part is unclear ...

2 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

He's going after The New Yorker and Gabriel Sherman first. More news should follow over time.

According to that same gang of elitist manipulators and assholes, Ailes' camp is making noises about Gabriel Sherman, yes.  Gabriel Sherman works for New York magazine

I get the impression you think Gretchen Carlson may be full of shit regarding her harassment suit.  Or that the settlement might be spun to exonerate Ailes in some way.  Me, I find the settlement clear supporting evidence that the 21st Century Fox investigation did not 'clear' Ailes.  Since we are told in various The Media that Carlson recorded conversations with Ailes ... it can be assumed by a non-Trumpnotized person that Ailes is a dirty old pig who got caught trying to gain sexual attention from his subordinate employees.  That is what I meant to insinuate.  You may infer to your tastes.

Does it disgrace a man to be believed the kind of person who offers his great bulking seventy-six year-old charms to his pretty female employees  -- the old "Suck my dick and go places"  gambit?  

Me, I think Ailes has plenty of Ick Factor. 

Here's a fairly informative post from the Lawnewz site

Quote

“New York Media and Gabriel Sherman were contacted by Charles Harder on behalf of Roger and Elizabeth Ailes, asking that we preserve documents related to the Ailes, for a possible defamation claim. The letter sent by Harder was not informative as to the substance of their objections to the reporting. Sherman’s work is and has been carefully reported,” Lauren Starke, a spokesperson for NY Mag said in a statement to LawNewz.com.

Sherman is best known for his series of articles accusing Roger Ailes of sexually harassing multiple woman. He’s been a constant thorn in the side of Fox News ever since publishing Ailes’ unauthorized biography. The network even reportedly had a massive opposition research file on Sherman. In the journalism world, he’s been praised for exposing the alleged culture of sexual discrimination at Fox News.

In recent days, Ailes’s two other attorneys also stepped up their attacks on Sherman. “Gabe Sherman is a virus, and is too small to exist on his own, and has obviously attached himself to the Ailes family to try to suck the life out of them,” Mark Mukasey, who is representing Ailes in a sexual harassment case, said in an interview with The Daily Beast. .

It is not clear if Harder will file a lawsuit against New York Magazine or Sherman. However, Harder has been in contact with the magazine.

If at least some of the rumour and speculation about Trump TV is based in reality, it is not at all clear how Ailes would get around his own non-compete clause with FoxNews ..

Edited by william.scherk
Details! more details. Zzzzzzzz

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, william.scherk said:

I get the impression you think Gretchen Carlson may be full of shit regarding her harassment suit.  Or that the settlement might be spun to exonerate Ailes in some way.

William,

Neither.

I merely think the smug progressive pundits I have seen got the implications wrong. (One, for example, is Cenk Uygur.) They frame it like Roger Ailes is now out of the media business and they practically congratulate themselves for taking him out. 

I think it is highly likely they will get an unpleasant surprise, both about Ailes himself and about how little the public cares about the Carson suit (or their attempts at shaming) when Ailes reemerges. At such time, these pundits will yawp, but the public will watch what the public will watch. And Ailes knows what the public likes to watch...

If I sound impatient, it's with smug distortion of reality by people who imply they are the cause of effects far remote from them while ignoring the rest of the reality surrounding the situation. If they were children, I would find it cute, like a young little girl trying to walk in her father's house shoes as she sings a march offkey like only cute little girls can. As adults, I find it disconcertingly embarrassing for some reason (meaning I feel embarrassed for them.)

It's not just progressives, either. In this Carson-Ailes case, I've gotten the same feeling I do when I've seen Randian fundamentalists smugly talk about moral hygiene and the total destruction of someone they condemn when that someone came into some temporary trouble or other.

Maybe it's style.

I say, warp reality if one must. But being smug about it is so painfully gauche...

:evil:  :) 

Michael

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, william.scherk said:

If at least some of the rumour and speculation about Trump TV is based in reality, it is not at all clear how Ailes would get around his own non-compete clause with FoxNews ..

William,

This is the kind of language that gets passed off as fact these days. And this is part of my criticism.

I checked this thing out and it was so instructive (especially for the reader), I think it is worth commenting on.

Please pardon if it looks like I'm getting on your case. I'm not. It's the persuasion stuff that really interests me, especially how the progressive media has blown a hole in its chops and is committing suicide as it thinks the public is too stupid to not notice it's selling a turkey as a songbird. Sadly for them, the public is not as stupid as they think.

Let's look.

 

1. You said: "... it is not at all clear how Ailes would get around his own non-compete clause with FoxNews..." This implies that a situation actually exists and it is locked down. I mean, there's that legalese and stuff, "non-compete clause." And it's "his own" to boot. Wow that sounds impressive, so much so it must be fact. :)  

In this context, the phrase, "it is not at all clear how..." is particularly weaselly. It seems like it says something but doesn't say anything at all.

 

2. But let's look at your source and see if a situation really exists. You link to an article on The Daily Beast by Lloyd Grove dated July 21, 2016. Here is what Grove said in that article about a non-compete clause for Ailes:

Quote

Depending on the terms of his departure from Fox, Ailes might have agreed to a non-compete clause that would sideline him for a period of time from the television business or from joining or launching a rival outlet to Fox News and Fox Business.

If, however, Ailes managed to avoid those golden handcuffs, industry observers said he could very well do just that (although Bloomberg’s Lucas Shaw reports that Ailes did sign a non-compete provision, an assertion confirmed by The Daily Beast, though details were unclear).

Depending on the terms? Might have agreed? Details were unclear? 

What's worse, "industry observers" think he could very well reemerge at a different network?

Those are the grounds for positing--as fact--"his own non-compete clause"

Dayaamm!

And heh. Double heh.

Oh well, there's that. Let's see the link in the quote from the Gifted Grapevine Broker and Proselytizing Pulpiteer of all things media, Mr. Grove.

 

3. It goes to a Twitter tweet by Lucas Shaw back in July.

Well, that's impressive. A media gossip reporter tweeted something. And it's right there on Twitter, too. Back in July. So I guess it must be true.

:evil: 

But wait! There's more!

 

4. Go to the Bloomberg article in the tweet by the Purveyor of Purloined Postulate, Mr. Lucas Shaw. Notice that the article is by the one and very same, so the source is impeccable. He says this: 

Quote

As part of his resignation, Ailes agreed to a no-compete commitment, a person with knowledge of the matter said.

I mean, if "a person with knowledge of the matter" said it, who am I to cast stones?

:evil: 

But wait! I'm not done, yet!

 

5. The headline and sub-headline of Lloyd Grove's Daily Beast article is: 
Roger Ailes Can’t Build a Fox News Rival...Yet
The ex-chairman signed a non-compete clause when he was forced to resign, but industry insiders say he could easily secure funding should he want to set up a rival network.

A clickbait headline says something out there on the Internet. And it's a headline and all, so I'm glad that's settled. With such irrefutable proof that it is true, I don't see how anyone could doubt it. Man, is their a lot of truth flopping around all over this story. I mean, with spin like this, who needs facts?

:evil: 

 

Did I mention smug progressive pundits earlier?

Let me add Lloyd Grove to the list, maybe Lucas Shaw, too...

And if you ever meet them, please tell them that there are less painful ways to commit suicide.

:) 

Michael

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/24/2016 at 2:37 PM, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

I predict the following about Ailes and the sexual harassment stuff.

This is a smokescreen and will fizzle after its use is over. Poor Gretchen will either have to go hard left, or be ground up into professional oblivion and banished to country church circuits. I think she has been played, to be honest, and she doesn't realize it yet.

Update the predictions!

11 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:
17 hours ago, william.scherk said:

I get the impression you think Gretchen Carlson may be full of shit regarding her harassment suit.  Or that the settlement might be spun to exonerate Ailes in some way.  [Me, I find the settlement clear supporting evidence that the 21st Century Fox investigation did not 'clear' Ailes.  Since we are told in various The Media that Carlson recorded conversations with Ailes ... it can be assumed by a non-Trumpnotized person that Ailes is a dirty old pig who got caught trying to gain sexual attention from his subordinate employees.  That is what I meant to insinuate.  You may infer to your tastes.]

William,

Neither.

I merely think the smug progressive pundits I have seen got the implications wrong. 

I am left wondering what you think about the suit.  The response says nothing about the Ailes suit and his behaviour. It is unclear what you think about the central issue of Ailes's  sexual harassment of Gretchen Carlson. 

Quote

If I sound impatient, it's with smug distortion of reality by people who imply they are the cause of effects far remote from them while ignoring the rest of the reality surrounding the situation. 

Ailes was the cause of the events I have in mind.  His own behaviour led to his 'resignation' and departure. 

-- I appreciate your attempts to pierce the veil of Ailes' confidential settlement and departure agreement with 21st Century/FoxNews.  We will agree that the situation is unclear, and that Trump-Ailes TV network reality is similarly veiled.  

Edited by william.scherk

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, william.scherk said:

I am left wondering what you think about the suit.  The response says nothing about the Ailes suit and his behaviour. It is unclear what you think about the central issue of Ailes's  sexual harassment of Gretchen Carlson.

William,

I don't think much about it.

When something is totally wrong, I find it hard to get outraged as if only part of it were wrong.

I have seen both men and women victimized in business by sexual manipulation. When the Social Justice Warriors start becoming outraged about women who throw themselves at powerful men, then blackmail them, I might get more excited. 

Here's the real situation. Did Ailes abuse his power to get sexual favors? I believe so. Did many of the women who now strut in public in the role of "a virgin called Mary" throw themselves at Ailes to get favors when they were pretty little things? I believe so. As I told you offline, I personally know one of Bill Cosby's accusers and she ain't nothing like what she comes off as now.

Here's what I think is the most likely story about Gretchen Carlson. It's only speculation since I don't know her personally, but it comes from years of living, loving and looking. 

I think in the beginning, when Carlson was still riding high from her Miss America days, she was probably loose sexually. Maybe not sleeping around, or maybe so, but very likely at least flirting or insinuating herself to the right person when she had some interest on the table.

Then the pretty woman disease started hitting her. I made up the name pretty woman disease and it is one of the reasons I am not as attracted to pretty young woman as I used to be. (Besides, Kat might get pissed. :) )

What this means is that a pretty woman eventually starts getting older and the opportunities that opened to her without even asking when she was a pretty little thing are suddenly going to new pretty little things who seem to come out of nowhere and she starts getting passed by. And that pisses her off. She feels trapped. But she's got weapons she's developed over the years. That's the setup for this story.

I'm not saying this is right or wrong, but it is something I have observed and it is ubiquitous in the halls of power in all types of organizations the world over.

Now for the development of the story. How she responds as she gets older can turn into pretty woman disease or something else. In the pretty woman disease version, she starts blaming anyone and everyone for the gradual change in her new opportunity situation and starts becoming irritated when men express pleasure at female beauty. When it gets extreme, she can see all compliments on her beauty from all men as attempts to hit on her, as disrespect, or as sexual harassment, etc.--and she extends this to a generalization to mean all compliments on beauty from all men, meaning the pig man wants to bed the victim woman at all costs, period. 

Carlson shows signs of this pattern. She's even got a healthy dose of religion for moral backup. I wonder if she were as devout in her youth as she now is. (I honestly don't know, but I speculate she was not.)

By writing this, I've just now realized that sensing this pretty woman disease vibe is the reason I've never resonated with Carlson. I only started watching her a few years ago and that would be when the bad part started showing.

This doesn't turn Roger Ailes into a saint, but his likely abuse of power to get sex doesn't make her the poor little victimized "virgin called Mary."

(btw - As an aside, I like that phrase. It comes from early silent film days when the top-selling archetypes where often called the swashbuckler, the tramp and a virgin called Mary. :) )

There are reports that Carlson has tapes of Ailes's advances. Lots of tapes.

So think about it. If this is true and if Gretchen really is a "virgin called Mary" archetype, Ailes would have to be the stupidest man on earth to keep making failed advances over and over, or the most inept at wielding power to not get the payoff. I don't know about you, but to me, Roger Ailes does not appear to be stupid or inept at wielding power.

I just don't see how a lot of tapes (if they are as damning as people are claiming) can be made unless Carlson strung him along in some way. In other words, unless she played the corporate sex game to win in some fashion. Notice, Megyn Kelly says Ailes hit on her once in the beginning, then stopped. Why would he stop with Megyn, but continue with Gretchen? From my observations over life, I say the reason is called saying no and meaning it (without fanfare).

But think about this. Roger Ailes haters love Gretchen Carlson's suit not because they love her. I don't think they give a fuck about Gretchen Carlson. They just hate Roger Ailes. 

So I don't see a morality play unfolding in this case except in the attempts by Ailes haters to make it one. The name of the game at the top is money, sex and power. That is the default playing field. Some people manage to become exceptions, but their existence doesn't destroy the normal. This has been the case throughout all of human history. 

That's why I'm not morally outraged or much interested.

I think both Ailes and Carlson played the game in the beginning, both knew what they were doing, then life happened and Carlson started getting older. (Don't forget, I speculate.) So she fought back in a manner she found open to her and she won.

If you want to know the truth, I don't think she hates Ailes nor do I think Ailes hates her. They are both seasoned enough to know there are winners and losers on the playing field and she won that round.

But the outcomes come with their own realities. Ailes left Fox. That doesn't mean he's going away like his critics crow. If Trump wins (or even if he loses), this is probably a job promotion. As for Carlson, she'll probably squeeze this for all she can get while the getting is good (starting with a cool 20 million) and she is right to do so. Why? Because I don't see her TV career developing much elsewhere. If she wants to keep doing shows, I think she'll become like Paula Zahn doing true crime cable TV out in cultural Siberia, or maybe Grandma's Favorite Recipes or something. 

Or could it be that the Social Justice Warriors over at CNN or MSNBC will now invite Gretchen Carlson to become a prime time anchor because this whole affair has been all about their love for her and her work and their commitment to righting the wrongs of the victimized? I won't be holding my breath. :) 

Michael

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think that Michael is right and I am wrong here -- his salient criticism of a line in my post deserves a fuller answer.

17 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

 

On 9/6/2016 at 4:07 PM, william.scherk said:

If at least some of the rumour and speculation about Trump TV is based in reality, it is not at all clear how Ailes would get around his own non-compete clause with FoxNews ..

1. You said: "... it is not at all clear how Ailes would get around his own non-compete clause with FoxNews..." This implies that a situation actually exists and it is locked down. I mean, there's that legalese and stuff, "non-compete clause." And it's "his own" to boot. Wow that sounds impressive, so much so it must be fact. :)  

In this context, the phrase, "it is not at all clear how..." is particularly weaselly. It seems like it says something but doesn't say anything at all.

Yup.

Quote

But let's look at your source and see if a situation really exists.

Quote

Depending on the terms of his departure from Fox, Ailes might have agreed to a non-compete clause that would sideline him for a period of time from the television business or from joining or launching a rival outlet to Fox News and Fox Business.

What's worse, "industry observers" think he could very well reemerge at a different network?

Those are the grounds for positing--as fact--"his own non-compete clause"

To my eyes, it is still quite plausible that the  Murdochs included terms that prevent Ailes from directly competing with Fox products.  I think it is in the corporation's interest -- Ailes was the Man, the Top Dog, and no one can deny his powerful effect on the news business.  He made their network what it is. What is in his executive mind, his many talents, his ability to use his power -- these are important, potentially damaging to Fox were he to man a rival. To my reckoning, Murdochia will want to preserve their network as Top Dog in the 24/7 cable news biz. Preserving it could very well mean denying Ailes the ability for 'retribution' ... those are my rough and ready reasons to believe such a clause exists -- though we cannot know the details, as they are confidential.

 I get the impression you tend to think that such terms are implausible in the context of Fox culture, or in the cable news industry -- or quite unlikely on other grounds. I could probably write more intelligently about why such clauses are unlikely in this case.  But I accept your pertinent correction, and would redo the whole sentence:

If at least some of the rumour and speculation about Trump TV is based in reality, it is not clear to me how Ailes would get around a purported non-compete clause with FoxNews .

Quote

A media gossip reporter tweeted something. 

Lucas Shaw works for Bloomberg. He writes on media.  That makes him and everyone who writes about media a purveyor of mere gossip ... ?

Now, there is much to argue about in terms of 'inside' sources, anonymous sources, the editing processes at various organizations, and so on. I would  agree with you that journalists have invented their sources and not been caught by their editors. I understand that you and I kind of rely on a personalized 'circle of trust.'  All  or almost all mainstream/legacy outlets, the big five networks and their subsidiary news channels -- these are outside your circle of trust. They can be presumed to be biased, manipulative, dishonest, compromised -- as a group, a blob.  Their products are unreliable. 

So, I get that you may think a Shaw or a HuffPo writer are not to be trusted from the get-go.   And I get that you seek corroborating and contradicting reports for analysis.  And I take your point.  It is a good one.  

What might turn this issue to a profitable Non-Gotcha field is considering the variables about the bigger uncertain and rumoured development -- the contours of a putative Trump+Ailes+Hannity+O'Reilly+etc network.

  • Will such a network come together under a Trump administration in the White House?
  • Will it  cost as much as FoxNews start-up costs to get it carried by cable?
  • If there isn't any non-compete clause in Ailes' termination agreement, what form might Ailes' involvement take?
  • If there is a non-compete clause in the agreement, what might it mean for Ailes' involvement.

And so on.

17 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

[tell the gossips Shaw and Grove] less painful ways to commit suicide

Okay. The two gossips may not be under The Cone or circle, but are they really marked out for near-future (career/reputation) death in your mind?  I think I will go meet with the two churls (on Twitter) and take their vital signs. 

Quote

Go to the Bloomberg article in the tweet by [...] Mr. Lucas Shaw. 

Quote

As part of his resignation, Ailes agreed to a no-compete commitment, a person with knowledge of the matter said.

I mean, if "a person with knowledge of the matter" said it, who am I to cast stones?

Well, you can reject any such as-told-to 'gossip' and speculation as entirely tainted, unsupported, ignorable, wrong, unwarranted -- or simply lacking. You know better than the danged gossips, Michael. That is why we love you.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, william.scherk said:

I think that Michael is right and I am wrong here...

William,

I want to add to this. That is not your fault.

You lean one way and I lean another. Hubba hubba and who cares when the standard is objectivity?

But here's the thing. We always tend to imitate the language of the people we agree with and ignore their excesses. This comes from the bias. (btw - We are all biased in some way or another. There's a part of our brain that demands this whereas another part demands objectivity.)

The reporters from your leaning were quite subtle in this case. But when all they have are weaselly-worded non-sources about harsh accusations, and they are adept at trading them up the chain (the Ryan Holiday technique that Grove and Shaw are doing), it's easy to fall into the trap of adopting their tone.

That's what I think you did.

It's not just you, either. When I get watching too much Alex Jones, I probably start sounding like a paranoid conspiracy theory crusader. :) 

I try to catch myself, but it seeps in at times. Welcome to the human race.

:) 

Michael

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...