INSITEVIEW- - tom shugart's weblog

Friday, January 03, 2003

Miscellaneous Chilling; Football; Fox; and Equality of Derogatory Genital References

Backatcha after a nice little layoff for New Year’s—a delicious time to do absolutely nothing except watch movies and football, and hang out with a few friends. The perfect time to let everything go, including blogging. I know, I know, blogging’s supposed to be for fun and not an obligation, but there are times when it feels like the latter, so I pushed it away, along with all the other responsibilities.

I’m a little embarrassed after telling everyone what a great team Iowa was. They completely wilted in the Miami heat and cast disgrace upon the Big Ten in their humiliating loss to USC. The same thing is probably in store tonight for Ohio State.
While they won’t have the Miami humidity to contend with, there’s that little problem of the Miami team—a more terrifying specter than the weather.

Meanwhile, John Edwards has announced for the presidency, and I happened to be watching Fox News, which is a hell of an admission on my part since Fox News turns my stomach. What can I say? I guess there are times when I like to inflict pain on myself.

Anyway these two cocky, insufferably opinionated news anchors (are there any other kind on Fox?), were snickering about Edwards’ line about being the champion of the little guy. Edwards may be full of shit like most pols, but this isn’t what the anchors were snickering about. They just thought it was ridiculous that someone would use that as a platform, as if there’s something wrong about being for the little guy.

And Roger Ailes, the pres. of Fox News and former mudslinger-in-chief ( remember Willie Horton?) for Bush Senior, has the gall to maintain that Fox provides balanced coverage. Fox’s idea of balance is to bring in some hapless liberal to be “interviewed” by Bill O’Reilly who then proceeds to harangue the guy and interrupt his every sentence.

At the end of the “interview,” O”Reilly smugly congratulates the guy for having the guts to appear and proclaims, “We gave you your say, and that’s what we like to do here at Fox—let all voices be heard.” Who are they kidding? God, Harry Truman, the supreme champion of the little guy, wouldn’t have had a chance in today’s atmosphere.

Anyway, while watching this travesty, it occurred to me that the description of the male and female Fox anchors that would come most easily to me would be the derogatory genital references—the five-letter-word-beginning-with-P for the guy; and the four-letter-word-beginning-with-C for the woman. I find it interesting that if I were to apply the genital reference to the guy, nobody would raise an eyebrow. If, however, I were to do it with the female anchor, I might risk offending some folks. That’s my fear at least. Is this just old-fashioned fuddey-duddedness on my part, or is my fear well taken? And if it is, why the seeming inequality?


Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home