News reporting continues its slide into partisanship and deliberate subjectivity.
Many media outlets reported that Fox News won the ratings war over Donald Trump because more people watched the debate than watched Trump’s event for veterans, thus generating a conclusion such as Fox News did not need Donald Trump to earn high ratings or Trump failed to punish the network for its failure to remove Megyn Kelly from her position as moderator.
Such reporting propped up red herrings for readers, viewers, and listeners. Trump’s event to obtain donations for our war veterans was not a scheduled program and was only “covered” intermittently during the debate by Fox competitors MSNBC and CNN.
A comparison of the ratings for Thursday’s last debate before the Iowa caucuses and previous debates on Fox and on other networks provides the ratings gauge. In that regard, Fox News scored an audience of 12.5 million, almost half of what it had for its first Republican debate. The Jan. 28 debate earned the second lowest rating of all the debates on all the networks.
You decide what impact Trump’s dumping of the debate had on Fox News.
Is Megyn Kelly unfair? She did not have Trump to zero in on at Thursday’s debate, so she provided montages of flip flops by two candidates: Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio. Why montages of only those two? When we will see and hear tough questioning of Jeb Bush after montages of his stripping teachers of their rights in Florida, his government intrusion into the Terry Schiavo case, and his throwing brother George under the bus on Iraq, even as he painted a warm fuzzy about him at Thursday’s debate? The establishment certainly has its preferences, doesn’t it? Are Fox News and Megyn Kelly merely an arm of the establishment?
Why do Jeb Bush and some other Republicans and many Democrats keep insisting that Trump’s proposed ban on Muslims entering the country is bigoted, wrong, and won’t succeed? The duty of the president is to protect Americans. Banning the entry of a group of people who have spawned tens of thousands, if not millions, of terrorists who want to murder and destroy Americans and America cannot be considered bigotry, and thus wrong, because it is designed to protect Americans temporarily until effective vetting procedures can be created and applied.
When Bush or others object on the grounds that such a ban will prevent a common effort with Muslim countries to extinguish ISIS, he both leads away from the first objective (keeping terrorists out of these United States) and props up a false condition for an alliance: Muslim countries will not join us if we ban Muslims temporarily.
Muslim countries will join a United States led effort to eradicate ISIS because it is in their interest to prevent a reign of bloody terror in their own countries by ISIS and having ISIS take over their countries. In fact, even without the U.S. leading, Jordan and Saudi Arabia, for instance, are fighting the ISIS terrorists at the southern end of the Arabian peninsula.