One Political Plaza - Home of politics
Home Active Topics Newest Pictures Search Login Register
Main
The Right Choice for TIME’s Person of the Year Is Ruining America
Dec 2, 2021 10:45:46   #
rumitoid
 
Politico
Jeff Greenfield
Thu, December 2, 2021, 2:31 AM

It was always the magazine’s intention to recognize impact, not virtue. When the exercise began in 1927, (the heroic, pre-anti-Semitic Charles Lindbergh got the nod), it based its choice on who, “for better or for worse... has done the most to influence the events of the year.” In the decades since, it has often triggered anger when it has named a figure regarded with widespread antipathy, even when the magazine made clear its own revulsion.. When Adolf Hitler was picked in 1938, TIME called him “the greatest threatening force that the democratic, freedom-loving world faces today,” whose conduct “left civilized men and women aghast.”

So it is no wonder who they chose this year: Rupert Murdoch.

His impact is indisputable. He owns a newspaper — the Wall Street Journal — whose circulation is second only to USA Today (and whose influence is vastly greater) and presides over the most-watched cable news network, which shapes the worldview not just of conservative viewers, but of a major political party as well.

But it is what he has done, or not done, with his power that “qualifies” him for TIME’s recognition.

In two critical areas — the integrity of the e*******l process and the response to C****-** — he has genuinely influenced society in ways beyond the power of even the president of the United States to counteract. Whether on purpose or by neglect, he has permitted Fox News to spread poisonous misinformation that has left the United States vastly more vulnerable to political and physical afflictions.

It’s not that Murdoch does not know that Donald Trump’s “Big Lie” falsehoods of a s****n e******n are meretricious. In a recent speech, he said “It is crucial that conservatives play an active, forceful role in that debate, but that will not happen if President Trump stays focused on the past.” (His private opinion of Trump is said to be far less tempered.)

But faced with the defection of some viewers to the more fevered segment of the right-wing media like Newsmax and OAN, Murdoch permitted Fox to double-down on the Big Lie. He has long made opinion, rather than straight news, the dominant feature of Fox, and lately that posture has been super-charged. He watched the analyst who (correctly) called Joe Biden the Arizona winner on e******n night get fired. Worse, he has let his network propagate the story that the J*** 6 Capitol i**********n was not an i**********n at all. Its most popular figure, Tucker Carlson, presented “Patriot Purge” on the network’s streaming service — a fantastical tale suggesting the r**t was a “false f**g” triggered by the FBI, and was a precursor to political persecution of Trump backers. (That was enough for two well-known conservatives, Jonah Goldberg and Steve Hayes, to resign as contributors.)

The consequences of this journalistic malpractice are more apparent by the day. A majority of Republicans believe the e******n was s****n, that Biden is not the l********e p*******t. An unhealthy segment believes violence may be the only way to “restore” the legitimate government. Any hope that there could be genuine bipartisan cooperation in Washington has become even more remote; American democracy itself feels frighteningly fragile.

At the same time, Murdoch’s influence has been so enormous and so destructive in fueling the p******c and its divisions. The steady stream of anti-v*****e and anti-mask propaganda emanating from Fox has cost countless lives. And what should be a public health consensus has been turned into protracted, bitter political warfare, where every local town council, every school board, runs the risk of angry brawls and death threats.

Does Murdoch know better? Of course he does; there’s a v*****e mandate at Fox that’s been in place for months. (Tucker Carlson also knows better, though he sometimes dodges when asked if he’s been v******ted.) But if Murdoch’s audience — and profits — depends on spreading baseless tales that only deepen the p******c, well, that’s what the market demands. (Notably, the Australian-born Murdoch’s British news outlets have taken a different approach to C***d, largely standing behind the Conservative government’s efforts to tackle the v***s.)

There are, of course, far safer choices for TIME. It can choose the scientists who developed and delivered the v*****es that are now protecting millions from the c****av***s. It can choose House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, who guided major legislation through the House with a barely-there majority.

But if it wants to really honor the founding premise of the idea, it can choose someone whose power has left his adopted nation in a profoundly different, and weaker state. It can and should choose Rupert Murdoch.
https://www.yahoo.com/news/opinion-obvious-choice-time-next-093150999.html

Reply
Dec 2, 2021 12:10:32   #
kemmer
 
rumitoid wrote:
Politico
Jeff Greenfield
Thu, December 2, 2021, 2:31 AM

It was always the magazine’s intention to recognize impact, not virtue. When the exercise began in 1927, (the heroic, pre-anti-Semitic Charles Lindbergh got the nod), it based its choice on who, “for better or for worse... has done the most to influence the events of the year.” In the decades since, it has often triggered anger when it has named a figure regarded with widespread antipathy, even when the magazine made clear its own revulsion.. When Adolf Hitler was picked in 1938, TIME called him “the greatest threatening force that the democratic, freedom-loving world faces today,” whose conduct “left civilized men and women aghast.”

So it is no wonder who they chose this year: Rupert Murdoch.

His impact is indisputable. He owns a newspaper — the Wall Street Journal — whose circulation is second only to USA Today (and whose influence is vastly greater) and presides over the most-watched cable news network, which shapes the worldview not just of conservative viewers, but of a major political party as well.

But it is what he has done, or not done, with his power that “qualifies” him for TIME’s recognition.

In two critical areas — the integrity of the e*******l process and the response to C****-** — he has genuinely influenced society in ways beyond the power of even the president of the United States to counteract. Whether on purpose or by neglect, he has permitted Fox News to spread poisonous misinformation that has left the United States vastly more vulnerable to political and physical afflictions.

It’s not that Murdoch does not know that Donald Trump’s “Big Lie” falsehoods of a s****n e******n are meretricious. In a recent speech, he said “It is crucial that conservatives play an active, forceful role in that debate, but that will not happen if President Trump stays focused on the past.” (His private opinion of Trump is said to be far less tempered.)

But faced with the defection of some viewers to the more fevered segment of the right-wing media like Newsmax and OAN, Murdoch permitted Fox to double-down on the Big Lie. He has long made opinion, rather than straight news, the dominant feature of Fox, and lately that posture has been super-charged. He watched the analyst who (correctly) called Joe Biden the Arizona winner on e******n night get fired. Worse, he has let his network propagate the story that the J*** 6 Capitol i**********n was not an i**********n at all. Its most popular figure, Tucker Carlson, presented “Patriot Purge” on the network’s streaming service — a fantastical tale suggesting the r**t was a “false f**g” triggered by the FBI, and was a precursor to political persecution of Trump backers. (That was enough for two well-known conservatives, Jonah Goldberg and Steve Hayes, to resign as contributors.)

The consequences of this journalistic malpractice are more apparent by the day. A majority of Republicans believe the e******n was s****n, that Biden is not the l********e p*******t. An unhealthy segment believes violence may be the only way to “restore” the legitimate government. Any hope that there could be genuine bipartisan cooperation in Washington has become even more remote; American democracy itself feels frighteningly fragile.

At the same time, Murdoch’s influence has been so enormous and so destructive in fueling the p******c and its divisions. The steady stream of anti-v*****e and anti-mask propaganda emanating from Fox has cost countless lives. And what should be a public health consensus has been turned into protracted, bitter political warfare, where every local town council, every school board, runs the risk of angry brawls and death threats.

Does Murdoch know better? Of course he does; there’s a v*****e mandate at Fox that’s been in place for months. (Tucker Carlson also knows better, though he sometimes dodges when asked if he’s been v******ted.) But if Murdoch’s audience — and profits — depends on spreading baseless tales that only deepen the p******c, well, that’s what the market demands. (Notably, the Australian-born Murdoch’s British news outlets have taken a different approach to C***d, largely standing behind the Conservative government’s efforts to tackle the v***s.)

There are, of course, far safer choices for TIME. It can choose the scientists who developed and delivered the v*****es that are now protecting millions from the c****av***s. It can choose House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, who guided major legislation through the House with a barely-there majority.

But if it wants to really honor the founding premise of the idea, it can choose someone whose power has left his adopted nation in a profoundly different, and weaker state. It can and should choose Rupert Murdoch.
https://www.yahoo.com/news/opinion-obvious-choice-time-next-093150999.html
Politico br Jeff Greenfield br Thu, December 2, 20... (show quote)

👍🏼

Reply
Dec 2, 2021 13:19:10   #
woodguru
 
rumitoid wrote:
Politico
Jeff Greenfield
Thu, December 2, 2021, 2:31 AM

It was always the magazine’s intention to recognize impact, not virtue. When the exercise began in 1927, (the heroic, pre-anti-Semitic Charles Lindbergh got the nod), it based its choice on who, “for better or for worse... has done the most to influence the events of the year.” In the decades since, it has often triggered anger when it has named a figure regarded with widespread antipathy, even when the magazine made clear its own revulsion.. When Adolf Hitler was picked in 1938, TIME called him “the greatest threatening force that the democratic, freedom-loving world faces today,” whose conduct “left civilized men and women aghast.”

So it is no wonder who they chose this year: Rupert Murdoch.

His impact is indisputable. He owns a newspaper — the Wall Street Journal — whose circulation is second only to USA Today (and whose influence is vastly greater) and presides over the most-watched cable news network, which shapes the worldview not just of conservative viewers, but of a major political party as well.

But it is what he has done, or not done, with his power that “qualifies” him for TIME’s recognition.

In two critical areas — the integrity of the e*******l process and the response to C****-** — he has genuinely influenced society in ways beyond the power of even the president of the United States to counteract. Whether on purpose or by neglect, he has permitted Fox News to spread poisonous misinformation that has left the United States vastly more vulnerable to political and physical afflictions.

It’s not that Murdoch does not know that Donald Trump’s “Big Lie” falsehoods of a s****n e******n are meretricious. In a recent speech, he said “It is crucial that conservatives play an active, forceful role in that debate, but that will not happen if President Trump stays focused on the past.” (His private opinion of Trump is said to be far less tempered.)

But faced with the defection of some viewers to the more fevered segment of the right-wing media like Newsmax and OAN, Murdoch permitted Fox to double-down on the Big Lie. He has long made opinion, rather than straight news, the dominant feature of Fox, and lately that posture has been super-charged. He watched the analyst who (correctly) called Joe Biden the Arizona winner on e******n night get fired. Worse, he has let his network propagate the story that the J*** 6 Capitol i**********n was not an i**********n at all. Its most popular figure, Tucker Carlson, presented “Patriot Purge” on the network’s streaming service — a fantastical tale suggesting the r**t was a “false f**g” triggered by the FBI, and was a precursor to political persecution of Trump backers. (That was enough for two well-known conservatives, Jonah Goldberg and Steve Hayes, to resign as contributors.)

The consequences of this journalistic malpractice are more apparent by the day. A majority of Republicans believe the e******n was s****n, that Biden is not the l********e p*******t. An unhealthy segment believes violence may be the only way to “restore” the legitimate government. Any hope that there could be genuine bipartisan cooperation in Washington has become even more remote; American democracy itself feels frighteningly fragile.

At the same time, Murdoch’s influence has been so enormous and so destructive in fueling the p******c and its divisions. The steady stream of anti-v*****e and anti-mask propaganda emanating from Fox has cost countless lives. And what should be a public health consensus has been turned into protracted, bitter political warfare, where every local town council, every school board, runs the risk of angry brawls and death threats.

Does Murdoch know better? Of course he does; there’s a v*****e mandate at Fox that’s been in place for months. (Tucker Carlson also knows better, though he sometimes dodges when asked if he’s been v******ted.) But if Murdoch’s audience — and profits — depends on spreading baseless tales that only deepen the p******c, well, that’s what the market demands. (Notably, the Australian-born Murdoch’s British news outlets have taken a different approach to C***d, largely standing behind the Conservative government’s efforts to tackle the v***s.)

There are, of course, far safer choices for TIME. It can choose the scientists who developed and delivered the v*****es that are now protecting millions from the c****av***s. It can choose House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, who guided major legislation through the House with a barely-there majority.

But if it wants to really honor the founding premise of the idea, it can choose someone whose power has left his adopted nation in a profoundly different, and weaker state. It can and should choose Rupert Murdoch.
Politico br Jeff Greenfield br Thu, December 2, 20... (show quote)


Trump would never understand that when he got it it was because he was the most appallingly despicable character in the history of this country, as the articles that accompanied covers.

Reply
 
 
Dec 2, 2021 13:32:14   #
kemmer
 
woodguru wrote:
Trump would never understand that when he got it it was because he was the most appallingly despicable character in the history of this country, as the articles that accompanied covers.

Trump had several f**e TIME covers made to hang in his golf resorts.

Reply
Dec 2, 2021 16:30:30   #
LogicallyRight Loc: Chicago
 
woodguru wrote:
Trump would never understand that when he got it it was because he was the most appallingly despicable character in the history of this country, as the articles that accompanied covers.


***it was because he was the most appallingly despicable character in the history of this country,
>>>Oh come on. I have seen the constant scribblings of all to many hating r****t bastards on OPP that were so sickeningly out in left field and beyond reality to ever believe that.

Reply
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.
Main
OnePoliticalPlaza.com - Forum
Copyright 2012-2024 IDF International Technologies, Inc.