As Sully pointed out, Megyn was actually one of our best hopes at Fox, right? She was the one, for instance, who mocked Karl Rove on election night about his math just being about making Republicans feel good, and I think there was another instance, too. If Megyn should be replaced by a penguin, then it should be a whole station of penguins!
It's something of a commonplace among certain First Amendment hawks that the point of "free speech" is to create a kind of "open marketplace" where ideas can compete, with the "best" ideas winning out by means of some selection process that they never bother to explain. (Legal scholars can be sloppy that way.)
FoxNews, and the OP's cited discussion - not that I need to pick them out here; all of the cable news channels engage in this kind of thing - gives the lie to this idea. What they help to show is that there are selective processes that give life to and promote ideas that are far from the "best" ideas, at least insofar as we assume (as implicitly assumed by the above-mentioned hawks) that the "best" ideas are the ones that are true, valuable per se, etc. What FoxNews helps to demonstrate, in other words, is that perfect nonsense is also very long-lived, profitable even. FoxNews - and again, this is probably true of all the cable news channels - exist to and build their business models around the fact that people prefer to have their preconceived, uninformed worldviews confirmed, rather than defeased, refined, or otherwise improved.
Given this, one might be reasonably concerned about the coming period of unrestrained campaign spending that the Supreme Court is about to usher in. Even if we feel we are compelled, by the Constitution, to throw off the reins of legislation when it comes to financing our campaigns, I think we might genuinely be concerned about what might result when the most compelling and most frequently trumpeted viewpoints influencing elections are those that simply vindicate (rather than challenge) the ways that various demographics view themselves.
This demonstrates only that there is a problem caused by the existence of selective processes that favor the views of the wealthy, not that free speech or the marketplace of ideas is fundamentally flawed. As I've said many times, a free market is not a functional market. In matters of speech as well as in matters of finance, the government's role should be to regulate the market with the aim of keeping it functioning like a textbook market.
There was nothing wrong with his work, he had some decent technical skills, it's just hard to make a living a painter anywhere without a patron - even for the greats.
no subject
Date: 2013-12-14 09:20 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2013-12-14 09:32 pm (UTC)best hopes at Fox, right? She was the one, for instance,
who mocked Karl Rove on election night about his math
just being about making Republicans feel good, and
I think there was another instance, too. If Megyn should
be replaced by a penguin, then it should be a whole
station of penguins!
no subject
Date: 2013-12-14 11:37 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2013-12-14 10:20 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2013-12-14 10:28 pm (UTC)and even on news channels. A great country is America!
no subject
Date: 2013-12-14 11:52 pm (UTC)FoxNews, and the OP's cited discussion - not that I need to pick them out here; all of the cable news channels engage in this kind of thing - gives the lie to this idea. What they help to show is that there are selective processes that give life to and promote ideas that are far from the "best" ideas, at least insofar as we assume (as implicitly assumed by the above-mentioned hawks) that the "best" ideas are the ones that are true, valuable per se, etc. What FoxNews helps to demonstrate, in other words, is that perfect nonsense is also very long-lived, profitable even. FoxNews - and again, this is probably true of all the cable news channels - exist to and build their business models around the fact that people prefer to have their preconceived, uninformed worldviews confirmed, rather than defeased, refined, or otherwise improved.
Given this, one might be reasonably concerned about the coming period of unrestrained campaign spending that the Supreme Court is about to usher in. Even if we feel we are compelled, by the Constitution, to throw off the reins of legislation when it comes to financing our campaigns, I think we might genuinely be concerned about what might result when the most compelling and most frequently trumpeted viewpoints influencing elections are those that simply vindicate (rather than challenge) the ways that various demographics view themselves.
no subject
Date: 2013-12-15 01:38 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2013-12-15 05:17 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2013-12-14 11:05 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2013-12-14 11:15 pm (UTC)I'm surprised that he was this good.
no subject
Date: 2013-12-15 04:09 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2013-12-15 06:31 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2013-12-16 12:42 am (UTC)And, topical TV pundits notwithstanding, if anyone is going to paint mary and babby jesus white, it'd be Hitler.