Assie: "And now let's talk about the stock market responding to the conflict going on in the Middle East. Fred?"Next Ass-tard had two women on to discuss a really hard-hitting piece of news: The New York Times is cutting costs and firing some employees. "Some people say" that it's because consumers are punishing the paper for leaking government secrets.
Fred: "What's so important is what the President just said about Lebanon..."
Assie: "No, no, Fred. Stick to the market, please!"
Fred: "Fine. I think oil is up because of XYZ."
Assie: "Great. Tom?"
Tom: "President Bush did a great job telling people how Iran has no business poking its fingers in Lebanon. He needs to stand up to Syria and Hezbollah and he's doing it. It's just great."
Assie: "Super. Steve?"
Steve: "Am I the only one who thinks that sometimes the market responds to earnings, not just what's going on in the Middle East?"
[Long pause.]
Tom: "Come on! We all know Iran equals oil!"
Fred: "Yeah. Prices are rising because Israel is finally fighting on the second front of the war on terror, and the market respects that."
Steve: "I'm just saying..."
What say you, black GOP spokeswoman?
BGS: Obviously it's because the paper is consistently anti-American, anti-war on terror, and anti-Bush. People want to read the news, and that's not what the times does.And you, white liberal talk-show host?
WLTSH: Actually, it's because they're competing with things like the Internet. The Wall Street Journal's doing it, too.Ye Gods.
BGS: No, no, because the Journal hasn't fired any employees, and the Times' subscriptions have been dropping for the past two years, right when they started leaking classified documents. [Ed. comment: Because the Times has printed nothing else in the past two years, right? And because no other news sources have leaked anything, right? Wait, I forgot, Bush by definition cannot "leak" anything, he can only "declassify" it. Thanks again, Fox.]
WLTSH: No, that's not right.
BGS: Excuse me! Excuse me, I think it's supposed to be fair and balanced on this show, ok?
King Ass-o-mon: WLTSH, how do you respond to some of BGS' points? Also, we have a graph showing the Times' subscription going down. (whee! Some grad student just made rent!) Thoughts?
WLTSH: [Pause.] I just think you're all smoking crack if you say this is because of leaking govt. secrets.
BGS: Excuse me? I am not a crack addict, ok? Let's just get that straight.
WLTSH: [Shrug]
Ass-taro: All right, thanks ladies, always great to have you!
Hey, breaking news! Hussein Ibish and Charles Krauthammer! Let's see what they have to say...
Oh, snap! Ibish accidentally interrupted Krauthammer while he was in the middle of a long rant, and Kraut-ster fires back with, "If you could hold off on your Katyushas for just a moment". Damn! And then Ass-wipe cuts Ibish off because they're out of time! Ah, the joys of the 2-minute talking point circle jerk.
3 comments:
undermining the war on terror by giving away information on government programs didn't likely help the times circulation and doubtlessly drove away people who otherwise weren't paying attention to conservative complaints about the paper
more realistically though the times has been flailing for a while, it's gone through scandals, it has little credibility and for all the reams of paper is really mostly fluff. the internet kills a lot of its market and the times wasn't doing that great even before the internet.
I doubt it helped them with readers who were "iffy" regarding their subscription (it probably helped them with some of their more left-wing readers, but they aren't likely to order two copies a day to "reward" the editors), but the frustrating bit was that the segment treated all of the more substantive (and frankly, interesting) reasons why the Times would be struggling- particularly in regards the changing nature, and medium, of information and news exchange in the 21st century- as left-wing communications major conspiracy theories. Heaven forbid people actually learn something on the news if it means sacrificing a cheap (and stupid) political shot.
This isn't a practice exclusive to Fox, of course (which is why I, like many other people, now watch television news largely for entertainment, not information). It just happens to be the easiest target.
their left wing readers think the times is in the pocket of the bush administration so well aren't likely to be rewarding them
the times like many old line liberal outlets find themselves being seen as too left wing by conservative and too right wing by progressives and wind up getting it from both ends
Post a Comment