#Roger Ailes

[tomorrowusa]

« In all its ugliness, Fox News is not, as Michael Wolff would have it, Roger Ailes' runaway distortion of what his boss ordered up. It is Rupert Murdoch's very own Dorian Gray portrait. And Donald Trump, on the rise once again, is Murdoch's Frankenstein monster. »

— Tina Brown at The New Statesman casting a couple of biting literary references at Rupert Murdoch and his far right media empire.

Ms. Brown had been editor of Vanity Fair, The New Yorker, and The Daily Beast.

[warningsine]

[gayestpiano]

frankly i love celebrating the deaths of shitty people

[oldshowbiz]

1969.

A producer from The Dennis Wholey Show resigns to go to work for the Republicans.

[offallmaps]

watching this series on Roger Ailes.

fuck.

men are disgusting.

they say women with daddy issues are the joke. men with daddy issues are literally what is wrong with this world.

I hate this species. I hate them.

WHAT THE FUCK IS WRONG WITH MEN?!?!?!

[hezigler]

Watch "Why No One Trusts The News" on YouTube

"The greatest failure of our democratic republic is that of the fourth estate."

[msclaritea]

Check out this thread at Thread Reader App. https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1677669822388219904.html

"Since 1970, Rupert Murdoch's toxic Sun had published images of topless 'glamour models' on Page 3.

In 1983, Sam Fox became the youngest Page 3 model in The Sun, when aged just 16 she first featured topless with the headline 'Sam, 16, Quits A-Levels for Ooh-Levels'.

It wasn't until 2003, with the passing of the Sexual Offences Act, that the minimum age for women posing on Page 3 was raised to 18.

The Sun ceased publishing topless Page 3 images in Ireland edition in 2013, in the UK in 2015, & on its website in 2017. https://t.co/r27ZiZWrd3Page3.com

Katie Price - Latest news and gossip - The SunKatie Price has been known on the celebrity circuit for many years, starting out her career as a glamour model…http://Page3.com

Although feminists had for many years criticized the feature, The Sun had always vigorously defended Page 3.

The Sun introduced the feature in 1970, which boosted its readership & prompted the Mirror, Sunday People, & Star to begin featuring topless models on their own Page 3.

Page 3's mainly male defenders portrayed it as 'a harmless British cultural tradition', but it drew criticism both from conservatives, who tended to view it as soft porn inappropriate for inclusion in newspapers, & feminists, who argued it objectified women & perpetuated sexism.

Some politicians—notably Labour's Clare Short, Harriet Harman, & Stella Creasy, LibDem Lynne Featherstone, & Caroline Lucas—made efforts to have Page 3 removed, although other politicians eg Nick Clegg & Ed Vaizey, expressed concern that such a ban would compromise press freedom.

The Sun vigorously defended the feature. Typically representing Page 3's critics as prudes, spoilsports, or ideologues, it also routinely portrayed female critics as physically unattractive and jealous of its Page 3 girls.

When Clare Short in 1986 tried to introduce a bill banning topless models from British newspapers, The Sun ran a "Stop Crazy Clare" campaign, distributing free car stickers, calling Short a "killjoy", printing unflattering images of her.

The grotesque must-read of the yearNick Davies' book about media bosses making MPs and celebrities pander to them is essential reading for the politically informed.

The Sun polled readers on whether they preferred to see Short's face or the back of a bus. Murdoch's News of the World ran bogus stories suggesting Short was involved with porn, tried to buy old photos of her as a 20-year-old in a nightdress, & published other smear stories.

"Sun turns on 'killjoy' Short in Page 3 row

The Sun has launched a scathing personal attack on Labour MP Clare Short, branding her a 'killjoy' and 'fat and jealous' of its Page 3 girls, writes Ciar Byrne."

Rebekah Brooks was reported to be against Page 3, & was expected to terminate it when she became editor in 2003. Upon assuming her editorship, she defended it, calling its models "intelligent, vibrant young women who appear in The Sun out of choice & because they enjoy the job".

When Clare Short stated in a 2004 interview that she wanted to "take the pornography out of our press", saying "I'd love to ban [Page 3 because it] degrades women and our country", Brooks targeted Short with a "Hands Off Page 3" campaign.

Sun turns on 'killjoy' Short in Page 3 row

The Sun has launched a scathing personal attack on Labour MP Clare Short, branding her a 'killjoy' and 'fat and jealous' of its Page 3 girls, writes Ciar Byrne.

The Sun's campaign included printing an image of Short's face superimposed on a topless woman's body, calling Short "fat and jealous", and parking a double-decker bus with a delegation of Page 3 models outside Short's home.

https://www.theguardian.com/media/2013/mar/10/anti-page-3-the-sun-campaigner

Sun turns on 'killjoy' Short in Page 3 rowThe Sun has launched a scathing personal attack on Labour MP Clare Short, branding her a 'killjoy' and 'fat and jealous' of its Page 3 girls, writes Ciar Byrne.https://www.theguardian.com/media/2004/jan/14/pressandpublishing.politicsandthemedia

The Sun also called Harriet Harman a "feminist fanatic" and Featherstone a "battleaxe" for their opposition to Page 3.

In February 2012, the #Leveson Inquiry heard arguments for and against Page 3.

Women's advocacy groups argued that Page 3 demeaned women and promoted sexist attitudes, but Sun editor Dominic Mohan called the feature an "innocuous British institution" that had become "part of British society".

Sun editor defends Page ThreeThe editor of The Sun newspaper, Dominic Mohan, has defended the continued use of topless pictures on page three.https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/16927925

Lucy-Anne Holmes began campaigning against Page 3 after noticing during the 2012 Summer Olympics that the largest photograph of a woman in the nation's best-selling newspaper was not of an Olympic athlete but of "a young woman in her knickers".

No More Page 3 campaigner Lucy-Anne Holmes on her battle with the SunKira Cochrane: First offended by the newspaper's topless models at the age of 11, she wants Rupert Murdoch to remove the featurehttps://www.theguardian.com/media/2013/mar/10/anti-page-3-the-sun-campaigner

The campaign got 240K signatures & support from trade unions, universities, charities, women's advocacy groups & 140+ MPs.

It sponsored two women's football teams, Nottingham Forest WFC & Cheltenham Town LFC, who played with the "No More Page 3" logos.

No More Page 3 campaigners sponsor another women's football teamNotts Forest Ladies support call for Sun to end topless photoshttps://www.theguardian.com/media/greenslade/2014/feb/19/page-3-sun

In 2012, Lynne Featherstone called for a ban claiming it contributed to domestic violence against women. Then–deputy PM Nick Clegg said "If you don't like it, don't buy it, you don't want to have a moral policeman or woman in Whitehall telling people what they can & can't see".

Then–prime minister David Cameron also declined to support a ban on Page 3, stating during an interview with BBC Radio 4's Woman's Hour: "This is an area where we should leave it to consumers to decide, rather than to regulators".

Cameron refuses to back ban on Sun's Page 3 topless imagesPM says it is up to consumers to decide whether to buy the Sun, as he sets out plans for greater regulation of online pornographyhttps://www.theguardian.com/media/2013/jul/22/cameron-no-ban-sun-page-3

After becoming The Sun's editor in 2013, David Dinsmore confirmed he would continue printing photographs of topless models, calling it "a good way of selling newspapers".

On 20th January, 2015, Murdoch's Times reported that the tabloid was "quietly dropping" Page 3.

But on 22 January, The Sun appeared to change course, publishing a Page 3 image of a winking model with her breasts fully exposed and a caption mocking those who had commented on the end of the feature. The Sun did not feature Page 3 thereafter.

In a TV debate with Harman & Germaine Greer, Harman said: "In 100 years' time, if you look back at the newspapers of this country, & you see women standing in their knickers with their breasts showing, what would you think about women's role in society?"

No More Page 3 campaigner Jo Cheetham: Sexism in the media is less in your face, but it’s still thereA decade after taking on The Sun’s topless models tradition, Jo Cheetham talks to Imy Brighty-Potts about her new book, and why she quit social media.https://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/books/the-sun-sexism-laura-bates-page-jessica-ennishill-b2295544.html

The #NoMorePage3 campaign was widely acclaimed, described by one MP as a “seismic victory”. Activist Katherine Sladden wrote, “No other campaign has done as much to inspire a new generation of young feminists.” It is still actively campaigning

No More Page 3: how a feminist collective took on a media behemoth to challenge everyday sexismThe campaign to stop newspapers publishing topless photos of women relied on a special brand of emotional energy.https://theconversation.com/no-more-page-3-how-a-feminist-collective-took-on-a-media-behemoth-to-challenge-everyday-sexism-156478

The British government never enacted legislation against Page 3.

In the mid-90s, The Sun began printing Page 3 photos in colour as standard. Captions, previously containing suggestive double entendre, were replaced by a listing of models' first names, ages, and hometowns.

After polling readers, The Sun in 1997 ceased featuring models who had undergone breast augmentation. In 1999, it launched the Page3 .com website, featuring additional photos of current Page 3 models, archival images of former Page 3 models, & other related content.

In the UK, the Sexual Offences Act 2003 raised the minimum age for topless modelling from 16 to 18.

This legal change meant that all topless images of 16- and 17-year-old models that had previously been published on Page 3 became potentially illegal content.

In 2020, Channel 4 produced an hour-long documentary, Page Three: The Naked Truth, to mark 50 years since The Sun first introduced Page 3.

#dontbuythesun #FuckRupertMurdoch #Leveson2

Just two weeks ago, Rupert Murdoch's Fox paid $12MILLION to settle two lawsuits alleging “systematic chauvinism” & a “misogynistic environment that permeates Fox News”, where “female workers are verbally violated on almost a daily basis by a poisonous & entrenched patriarchy”.

[justinspoliticalcorner]

Matt Gertz at MMFA:

Somewhere — probably in hell — Roger Ailes, the Richard Nixon acolyte who co-founded Fox News, is smiling at the Supreme Court’s decision in Trump v. United States. The majority’s ruling is another strike against the institutions that brought accountability to Ailes’ old boss over the Watergate scandal. And Ailes’ fingerprints are all over the result.

The court’s decision gifts presidents with extraordinary immunity from criminal prosecution that will hamstring the prosecution of Donald Trump over his 2020 election subversion plot. Chief Justice John Roberts, writing for himself and the other five justices appointed by Republican presidents, declared that Trump and other presidents “may not be prosecuted for exercising his core constitutional powers, and he is entitled, at a minimum, to a presumptive immunity from prosecution for all his official acts.” Roberts stipulates that Trump’s efforts to pressure Justice Department officials to support his false claims of election fraud fall under the former category, while the then-president’s attempts to get then-Vice President Mike Pence to throw out electoral vote slates are an example of the latter.

This is a new and radical doctrine. The majority defies “an established understanding, shared by both Presidents and the Justice Department, that former Presidents are answerable to the criminal law for their official acts,” as Justice Sonia Sotomayor notes in her dissent. “Consider Watergate, for example,” Sotomayor continues. “After the Watergate tapes revealed President Nixon’s misuse of official power to obstruct the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s investigation of the Watergate burglary, President Ford pardoned Nixon. Both Ford’s pardon and Nixon’s acceptance of the pardon necessarily ‘rested on the understanding that the former President faced potential criminal liability.’”

Observers are noting — in horror or with glee — that Nixon would likely have been immune from prosecution for Watergate under the majority’s doctrine. That’s not a coincidence, but the result of a decades-long effort by the right to delegitimize and defang the institutions that stymied the Republican president — the press, the Congress, and the criminal justice system.

Ailes was part of a generation of Nixon aides who blamed the supposed depravations of liberal journalists for driving Nixon from office. Rather than accept that the former president had committed crimes and abuses of power, they organized and strategized, building the right’s massive parallel information ecosystem.

Fox is the crown jewel of that apparatus. As the network grew and solidified its audience over the years following its 1996 launch, it evolved from a right-wing propaganda machine to a GOP power center. But part of Fox’s key function is preventing Republican presidents from suffering the indignities of another Watergate. And no one has benefited more from that effort than Trump, as demonstrated by the aborted efforts to secure accountability for his attempted coup.

[...] Here, too, we see the ramifications of Ailes and his Fox apparatus. His network helped elect Presidents George W. Bush and Trump, who appointed five of the six justices who signed on to the opinion. And the three Trump appointees in particular were heavily supported by Ailes’ foot soldiers during their nomination fights, smoothing their way to the bench. Nixon’s depravities made him vulnerable to the press, Congress, and the criminal justice system. But thanks to Fox, Trump has a level of protection his predecessor lacked.

Matt Gertz wrote yesterday in Media Matters For America that Monday’s Trump v. United States SCOTUS ruling is a win for autocrats and corrupt politicians such as Donald Trump and the late Richard Nixon.

The late Fox “News” co-founder Roger Ailes has his bloodprints all over this ruling, as the reason of creating a GOP propaganda organ like Fox was to prevent another scenario in which Nixon was forced to resign as a result of Watergate.

[dontcallittimetravel]

Happy deathday to Roger Ailes, whose greatest crime against humanity was not dying much, much, much sooner

[warningsine]

[newsindustrygenderinequality]

Gretchen Carlson's Story, Final Part

In the Gretchen Carlson vs. Roger Ailes Sexual Harassment case, Fox News paid Carlson $20 million as a settlement. It is to be noted that Roger Ailes was granted $40 million from Fox News for his departure from the network. He also did not have to pay any amount towards the $20 million given to Gretchen Carlson. Though this settlement seemed to be Fox News’ quick and easy fix for the numerous wrongdoings, it sparked a crisis in the network.

Host, Greta van Susteren, immediately left following the trial. This timing of the two events could be coincidental, or so Fox News claimed it to be, but signs pointed to no.

The outcome of this case, though it was only a small win, was the catalyst necessary for women to come forward and feel seen for their own past experiences in the newsroom.

[oldshowbiz]

1974.

Roger Ailes to collaborate with Robert F. Kennedy Jr.

[personal-blog243]

I have never been sexually abused, but I’ve been thinking about how it’s weirdly hard to get people to care about sexual abuse or other crimes unless it fits a certain narrative or perpetuates a pre-existing bigotry….

. if you acknowledge sexual abuse in the film/tv industry then anti semitic people will say it’s because Jewish people control Hollywood 🙄.

. If you acknowledge sexual abuse in the music industry then people will focus on the black men in rap music and perpetuate racist stereotypes

. Sexual abuse in the Catholic Church is now more widely known, but there are still people who will use that to feed into religious conflicts between Catholics and Protestants and perpetuate conspiracy theories. Abuse in Protestant groups and in other religions has yet to be covered in the same way.

. LGBT people are disproportionately likely to be victims of abuse but are being called groomers???

. People blame cases of incest on if they are from the American south 🙄

. Most cases of abuse are against children, but also FULLY GROWN ADULT WOMEN have also been speaking about sexual misconduct for SEVERAL DECADES and are still being blamed on their clothing and called “unlikable” for making a fuss 😤

It’s just so sad that at least one of these narratives always pops up whenever a man can actually even get convicted which is still rare. When will people realize that the root of this is problem is hierarchy of power and not whatever group of people you don’t like.

[thebreakfastgenie]

To a certain extent I don't mind the memes about everything being Ronald Reagan's fault but it does bother me after a certain point because I think it's important to understand that the roots of that movement existed before him if you want to apply that historical knowledge to future action. An awful lot of things actually started with Nixon. And as awful as both of those guys were as individuals, they were part of a larger movement. You have to understand the far right to beat the far right and I care a hell of a lot about beating the far right. Pinning it all on Ronald Reagan as a final boss who's dead now makes me nervous.