Rupert and Roger’s (enter name here) Neo-Party

It is obvious to me –I’m probably alone here– that FauxNoiz, MySpace-Dammit and Noizcorp have decided that they want to become the next Third Party in US politics. Murdoch and Ailes have made their billions on this crapo business/political scheme and now they intend to take over the whole place.

Rupi & Rog already own their airspace. So they will stage their party’s campaign completely on-air. All sponsored by those profit-producing commercials that have flocked to the network -er- political party because of Schmucko Beck. Not that they sponsor Beck. They just want to sponsor him…

You see, they only need a catchy party name. What will it possibly be? Of course, they’ve employed the best and the brightest consultants in politics from K-Street. But I think they would benefit from an outside view — way outside, I’m suggesting GLOSSY NEWS readers here.

So…now, a little brainstorming help here.
• TeaParty is such a bought-and-paid-for has-been name. It’s been boiled to death by their own lead witches: Spalin, Mbachmann & Co’Donnell. Nothing more to say here, they have done it all by themselves. And it’s on video at a YouTube near you!

• Should it be an english-only name, not translatable into Spanish? …Book Party?
This will be the immigration plank of the party platform, so all immigrants (code Mexicans) will have to learn our language in order to understand it.

• Should “Fox” be part of the name? …Fox House Party?
Fox has long been Republican code for sex, no matter which cabin of the Republican party you live in, sex is a given in all politics. Bar none. Except gays. Per usual.

• Should it be a serious name like, but not, Republican?
Goes without saying. But let’s not fall back into the Bush/Cheney ditch. And keep those Tea Baggers at arms length at the least, you hear. Their kind of activity among serious people is treasonous behavior no matter how good it feels. Man up.

• Should it be a funny name like Democrat?
Come on, this is serious business here, see above.

• Should it have an animal mascot with stars across the middle? …Shark?
Definitely, but this time make sure the animal doesn’t look like, sound like, or make fun of the general characteristics of the party. Everyone knows the 800# elephant in the room isn’t a Democrat.

• Should it be a made-up, mispronouncable name like Xe?
This relates to the immigration plank above, so be careful here. If in doubt, send it through the Google translator before deciding.

• Should it be a descriptive name like “The Do Nothing Party”?
This is the “party as big as a tent” plank and has the best chance of drawing in a whole lot of fence-sitting independents – this requires a lot of thinking – call in a consultant.

• Should it be a retro party like Whigs?
This plank could be the powder keg that blows the convention sky-high.

• Should it be an old Indian historic name like The Utes? The Coyotés?
The Indian Vote Plank just might be enlarged to include Hispanics if they learn the language and pass the immigration test.

• How about a Millennial name, maybe mimicking Broadway musicals…Cripts? Sharks?
This would bring in the 18-34 age group of voters and train them to vote early in life and not wait until they are the average Republican…55-78.

Rupert and Roger’s Great Adventure Party is my working title — I like that GAP comparative acronym and using the real names makes it seem like they are so personal and cuddly. Marketing, after all. It’s more than empty suits and talking points; but still coming out ill-dressed for the party.

More to follow…Send emails if you have any ideas that would help.


18 comments on “Rupert and Roger’s (enter name here) Neo-Party

    • Just to be fair. This piece was written before the election results. But due to back up in stories, was just recently published after the election results, so technically, this ain’t sour grapes either. But keep searching Bargis, you’re bound to find them someplace.

  1. Olberman’s suspension shed light on an an interesting difference between Fox and every other news organization out there. While Fox considers it important to give millions to political campaigns, other MSM news outlets strictly forbid involvement.

    Should Olberman have been suspended when Hannity is not? Is it right for our newsmakers to have a personal stake in elections?

  2. Well a lot’s been written lately on FOX News. I fully understand that Liberals find FNC extremely annoying and maybe even dangerous.

    I don’t think FNC is ‘fair & balanced.’ It’s a right wing news source. That was a Murdoch business plan that’s paid off very well.

    I also think MSNBC is a left wing news source. I saw Chris Matthews say he considered it his duty to aid President Obama. That hardly sounds like impartial journalism to me.

    I was a wee lad when people like Huntley & Brinkley, Howard K. Smith and Uncle Walter ruled the TV news. Other than Cronkite’s Tet Offensive remarks, those guys were straight down the middle.

    Was modern TV journalism still of that caliber, Murdoch might not have seen a niche market to exploit.

  3. MSNBC is not the equal opposite of FNC. MSNBC gives Scarborough 15-hours of airtime a week. FNC doesn’t even try to be anything but hardline, unless you count the slogan, which is entirely untrue. They can kid themselves they’re fair, but balanced? Citation needed.

    Fans of FNC point out it’s the most trusted news outlet in the country. Yes, a poll did find that. I think it’s fairer to say it’s the most popular news outlet, assuming people watching it actually trust it. But you know Jon Stewart was named the most trusted name in news by Time… does that make it so? Is he even in news? Should he even be on the list?

  4. L-T, you’re right on the money with newsies of the past. They simply reported the news and left it up to the viewer to decide which was meaningful.

    Brian, you’re joking about Time, Inc claiming Stewart was ‘most trusted in news,’ right?

    I watch different news sources and make up my own mind. What I do find on FOX that I don’t find much on other channels is the pundits being equally represented from the left and right so viewers can form their own opinions.

    I recently (Wednesday night) watched ABC news do an interview with Nancy Pelosi. It was hosted by Diane Sawyer. The next night it was an interview with John Boehner, the incoming speaker. It was a night and day interview as far as the subtle manuvering of Sawyer. Even the lighting was set-up diffently.

    Pelosi’s intertview was soft-balled and Sawyer was touchy-feely about Pelosi’s ‘feelings about getting kicked in the ass.’ With Boehner, the question were direct, blunt, and business-like, but nary a smile on Sawyer’s face compared to those famous Sawyer furled eyebrows, and painful eye expressions ahe displayed with Pelosi.
    Certainly Sawyer and other news people have a right and responsibilty to examine Boehner, as he is taking on a crucial role in our leadership, but time after time, the interviews are biased in favor of liberals by certain news channels.

    Certainly MSNBC-ABC-CBS-NBC are notoriously left-biased and have been since the late 70s. Their practices are accepted by most liberals as a mainstream source and at times defended as truthful. So, why not FOX being on the right side? What’s the big beef? Can you not say that Brian Willimas and Chris Matthews didn’t directly help Obama get elected by overplaying liberal views and interviews vs how it covered other candidates?

    I think the problem is this…FOX is popular and has blown away all other cable news outlets as far as a primary news source. During the prime viewing time slots FOX garners more viewers than all cable channels comined and still beats them by 100% more! That shows many Americans trust FOX. That pisses off the left and they call it ‘un-balanced,’or ‘Faux News,’ or other silly names that never get lobbed at traditional news sources. I look at it this way…Not everyone who watches FOX is stupid. Maybe the left missing something here or maybe it just plain scares them that THEY don’t control ALL the media.

    Even this past election shows the trust Americans placed in getting their election news from what they preceive is a legitimate and trusted source. On the cable newtworks, FOX surpassed all others. On the newtworks, it was ABC who lead the ratings.

    I don’t watch Glenn Beck, because I think he’s bag of wind. I don’t watch Hannity because I don’t like raised voices and the shrillness of some people trying to make a point. I do watch O’Reilly at times and find him pretty interesting and his guests are usually well versed in subject. I also watch PBS News and Sawyer on ABC, though she is annoying with her ‘pained’ facial expressioons when she reports on some subjects. As far as the three networks, PBS and ABC are perhaps a tad…just tad…more centered. The rest suck.

    Actors like John Stewart, Bill Maher, and Stephen Colbert are mildly amusing. Either could easily replace any news anchor on MSNBC or NBC. Maybe Time, Inc likes actors as news sources.

  5. Well of course, I don’t think FNC is ‘fair & balanced.’ That Special Report show hosted by Bret Baier, pretty good journalism my opinion. The round table is balanced, and civility is practiced.
    O’Reilly actually does try for the middle, and gets grief from the Right for it, but he’s a poor discussion moderater.

    Most FNC programming is either overt or subtle punditry. MSNBC, yeah they have Scarbrough and Buchannan on, but their prime time bloc is solid Left punditry. I wouldn’t argue that MSNBC and FNC are exact mirror images. To me, looks like FNC was a conscious biz decision executed with precision. MSNBC looks more like some fumbling around, growing into target demographic choice.

    I can’t figure why anybody watches pundits. Should be evident? The more ubiquitous an individual’s media presence, the less time he/she has for learning and thinking.

  6. I already gave you the link for the TIME survey. America named Stewart as their most trusted news anchor. Come on baby, you know I don’t make big claims like that without citation.

    I can’t imagine how that would make it true. It’s like saying he’s the most trusted because he has a best-selling book. Jesus had a best selling book and I know plenty of people who wouldn’t even trust him with their salvation. (see what I did there?)

    I can’t agree with FNC allowing commentators from the left and right. They bring in fewer from the left, of lesser professional stature, and only to bring in weak arguments and then promptly concede that the conservatives are right.

    Agreeing with Liberties on the professionalism of FNC. Murdoch is no dummy, and his ventures rarely fail. MSNBC’s quality is best expressed by the ratings. I don’t mind Olbermann as a person, but I dislike his show for the reason I dislike all pundit shows. And as to how anyone could sit through a whole episode of Maddow and think it’s a good idea to do it again, I’ll never know.

    If you can’t see the bias of FNC, you are exactly their kind of people. You are not the majority, and thank imaginary christ for that, but you are a formidable, well organized minority.

    If Fox News doesn’t just say whatever the evil republicans want it to, why did Dick Cheney demand ALL tvs in his suite be tuned to it before he even got there? (and yes, that’s also a link to citation.) Because it’s his echo chamber.

    If you really want to understand the issues that matter, you’ll do like I do and get all your news from the town gossip. I’m at a disadvantage because mine is also the town drunk and the stories come out pretty convoluted and full of her personal issues. Even the spousal infidelity seems to wind up as a story about the government. She gets pretty heated, yelling and spitting. People love her, she’s a lot like Fox. (zing!)

  7. Uhm, I greatly fear that full fledged consensus may break out any moment.

    Jon Stewart actually IS the most trusted news source among much of 18-24 demographic. A thing I respect about Stewart is he has science writers on with their books. And no, it’s not particularly agendized science but just good scholarship.

    Journalism’s responsibility to educate got lost in the 1970’s.

    Punditry is a net loss to public discourse in 2010; I sincerely believe that, maybe I’m wrong. But even so? I’m personally less concerned about pundits than the boogerheads spending our tax dollars.

    What happened to journalism, I think began with Watergate, and McGovernites taking over the Dem party in 1972. Impulse understandable; results deplorable.

  8. Oh Liberties, don’t you know that science has a known liberal bias? You know who ELSE had scientists on staff?*

    I heard a story on the radio a few months back about partisan journalism. What it said, in a nut-container (shell or sack, I can’t recall off hand) is that journalism in America only became non-partisan with the advent of network television. Before that every paper had its unabashed bias.

    I don’t think bias in journalism is in-and-of-itself – a phrase I arbitrarily chose-to-hyphenate – a bad thing. I think when it masquerades as “the one truth” it runs the risk of being very damaging.

    The Daily Show is just one small part of a balanced news diet, which is likely why its viewers have been ranked as the most knowledgeable (link). Conversely, it is my perception (admittedly anecdotal) that FOX News viewers prefer to stick to a strict diet of conservative voices. It would certainly explain why FOX News viewers the lowest knowledge level of all news consumers.

    What’s up with all the sour patch comments lately. This is BT’s 4th post about sour grapes and/or figs. Do you have a dietary deficiency we should know about?

    * Everybody.

  9. Yes Mr. White. Wasn’t going to bring that up as have no wish to flaunt my historigcal credentialism, BUT? The norm of our Republic has mostly been unabashedly partisan news organs.

    We’ll all be fine, long as Americans mostly heed the warnings of Bokononism, as reported in Vonnegut’s ‘Cats Cradle.’

    Round and round and round we spin with feet of lead and wings of tin.

    And Bargis? I think many GN Liberals feel more comfortable around me than they would many chest thumping jackasses who esposue their own positions. They might not admit it, but they do.

    Smartass is a tribe. I’m proud to be a member. You too Bargis, should embrace your tribe FIRST, political passions SECOND.

    Now must hit the sheets. Next phase of my move back to TN starts early tomorrow. That’s the town where I once lived in a housing project.

  10. “The norm of our Republic has mostly been unabashedly partisan news organs.”
    I love my news organ. I don’t show it off in public as much as I used to though, damn smartass judge with his “court order”.

    “We’ll all be fine, long as Americans mostly heed the warnings of Bokononism…”
    I hardly think Chaz Bono’s lifestyle choice is pertinent to this discussion.

  11. If you want good, deep and pertinant news reporting go to Mother Jones and the Christain Science Montitor. Forget the rest.
    I’d say NPR too, but that would raise a fuss.

  12. You know what Freed? CSM has proved themselves time and again to be a solid, non-partisan, centrist news organization. It’s really remarkable that a news outfit with “Christian” in the name can be anything short of extremist, or totally biased towards that guy from that Heathers movie.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *