Teddy Roosevelt and the Death Knell of the Republic

by Nomad

It often surprises me how clear-sighted so many of our leaders of the past seemed compared to the muddled-headed ideas of the present day. The fight against oligarchy and corporate-rigging of our political system did not begin with this generation. We have walked this way about a century ago. However, because of the general ignorance of our own history, we have been deprived of the wisdom and support of our elders. 

Cable News in Decline: Here's Why Time is Running Out for Fox News

by Nomad

If the capitalist model is based on supply and demand, what will happen when there is nobody left to buy your product? That the situation facing Fox News.

Fox News, as one writer noted,  has built its success by "selling a conservative political product to an older audience."

The average age of the audience is over 68 years old. That's average, mind you. Not only are the Fox News viewers the oldest, they are also  the most misinformed. They are also likely to remain that way the longer they continue to watch. 

In many ways, tuning into Fox News is a lifestyle choice. The average viewer of the channel tends not to have an active agenda and can devote much more time watching television news. On the other hand, a younger audience would more likely spend more time on the Internet or engaging with people socially.

Frank Rich, writing for New York Magazine, called Fox News a politically conservative 'retirement community.' When looking at the long-term viability of the network, that's something to consider.

The Slow Sinking of the Viewership

Last spring it was reported that the ratings for the cable news channel for the ideal consumer (25-54 age group) is at its lowest point in 12 years. As one blogger pointed out:

The average age of Bill O'Reilly's audience is a shocking 72.1 years old. Well, Megyn Kelly (perhaps because of that hip "y" in her first name) has brought that figure all the way down to 71.7 years old. That's a decrease of 0.4 years—almost 5 months younger! At this rate, they should make it to that prime 25-54 demographic some time in the year 2525. (If man is still alive!)

Programming executives at the network must be scrambling for solutions. There was a recent shake-up in which Megyn Kelly replaced Sean Hannity in the prime time slot. 

But if they thought the Megyn Kelly would be the way to attract a younger audience, then the problem of who needs to be replaced goes much deeper than just anchors. 

All that programming sleight of hand did was make the old men salivate from the heady combination of sensational looks, perkiness, and mean-girl aggression.

As the blogger noted: young people are not going to tune in given that they are just going to be fed the same stream of lies, distortions, and evasions no matter who the talking head might be. 

So, the real question is: 

What happens when there aren’t enough young people tuning in to replace the elderly audience?

Ebola's Other Victims: The Orphans the Epidemic Left Behind

by Nomad

As the Ebola epidemic continues to claim lives in West and Central Africa, one of the indirect effect has been the children orphaned by the humanitarian crisis.

What does the future hold for these children? The answer lies in how much help they receive now.

Meet 8-year-old Lamin Borbor, one of the hundreds of orphaned children in Ebola-ravaged Sierra Leone. After losing both parents to Ebola, Lamin's new home is the Interim Care Centre (ICC) in Kailahun town, in the east of the country.  

In a recent news article, Lamin told a reporter for IRIN:

"I was brought here because I had nobody to take care of me. My parents died of the Ebola virus. but I have no fear [because] the people are taking good care of me at the centre."

Meanwhile Sierra Leone's Ministry of Social Welfare, Gender and Children's Affairs (MSWGCA) and international agencies struggle to find solutions for the orphans of Ebola. Although the Kailahun ICC is being managed by the government. the funding comes from organizations such as Save the Children and UNICEF. 

At this time it is the only center in Kailahun but a second facility for Ebola orphans has been opened last month in Port Loko, in the north of the country. Most doctors consider this to be ground zero for the epidemic in West Africa. At the moment, at least.

So how many children like Lamin are there? The exact numbers of Ebola orphans from all of the stricken countries is hard to place. (That's also true of the actual number of Ebola victims.) Three days ago, one UK charity, Street Child, released a report that estimates that in Sierra Leone alone it has left 7,000 children without parents. They also admit that that's probably a very conservative estimate.

A revised survey paints a far grimmer picture. Accounting for the current death toll, under-reporting of cases within the population, and data reports from local teams, the organization estimates there are at least 20,000 children in the region who have been effectively orphaned by Ebola – left with no-one to care for them. 

It is simply impossible to know. Many children living in rural areas may be unaccounted for, while many others end up on the street or are living with neighbors temporarily. Some parentless families are being raised by older siblings.

In contrast to the aid organizations' estimate, the IRIN news report:

Nationwide, more than 3,400 children have been directly affected by the virus, including at least 89 children who have lost one parent and more than 795 who have lost both parents to Ebola, according to the MSWGCA/UNICEF-led Family Tracing and Reunification (FTR) network. There are no accurate figures for the number of separated children, a spokesperson for FTR said.

Whatever the true figures, it is clear that the Ebola orphan crisis will become a long term social problem for a nation that already has more than its share of problems.

Here's Why Rudy Giuliani Would Rather Talk about Black-on-Black Crime than Ferguson

by Nomad

Remarks on the recent events in Ferguson, Missouri by Rudy Giuliani have caused a bit of a stir in the media. Some have charged him with showing his racist side. For those who know Giuliani's record as mayor of New York, nothing he has said is much of a surprise.

Rudy's Rude Remarks

As the former mayor of New York City Rudy Giuliani  earned a reputation as a hard-as-nails tough guy who cleaned up the city of crime. It's an image he likes to promote and it plays well with his conservative base. So when he was asked to comment on the recent events in Ferguson, Missouri, his remarks were bound to be blunt and to hit a nerve with some people. If that was his intention, then he certainly succeeded. 

On a TV news show, he told a black reporter that white police officers wouldn't be in black communities if "you weren't killing each other" and that "there is virtually no homicide in the white community." The word "you" is presumably short for "you black people."

The fact is that I find it very disappointing that you're not discussing the fact that 93 percent of blacks in America are killed by other blacks.

The Atlantic Monthly thoroughly decimated Giuliani's contention that police officers are the saviors of the black community. Journalist Ta-nehısı Coates wrote with a full helping of sarcasm:

It's almost as if killers tend to murder people who live near them. Moreover, it seems that people actually hold officers operating under the color of law to a different standard. This is an incredible set of insights, which taken together offer a revelation so profound, so far-reaching, that it must not be wasted on our shiftless minority populations.  

Unable to stop himself, Giuliani made other thoughtless statements. Following the decision not indict the police officer Darren Wilson, Giuliani said that he'd prosecute witnesses whose stories contradict Wilson's account. As if the police officer's account of the event - the defendant, in this case- was a standard by which all other eye-witness accounts should be judged. 

To be sure these were offensive remarks and they came at the wrong time. Yet, as any New Yorker will tell you, statements like this are pure Giuliani. 

Actually, as they would also tell you, the remarks hide an ugly truth about Giuliani.

Investor Revolt at News Corp: Will the Murdoch Dynasty be Dethroned?

by Nomad

After NewsCorp investors staged a revolt at the annual shareholders meeting last week, CEO and founder Rupert Murdoch barely managed to retain control over his company.
The source of the dissatisfaction revolves around the structure of the company, and the Murdoch family's ability to lead the company.

If reports are accurate, things apparently got hot and heavy at a recent News Corp shareholders meeting last week. According to an article in  The Sidney Morning Herald, Rupert Murdoch just barely survived a  revolt at the annual meeting of investors. At issue, was the Murdoch family control of the company, which sparked widespread displeasure among a large number of stockholders.

The company structure allows the Murdoch family to control around 40 per cent of the company's vote while actually owning 14 per cent of News Corp. In this way, they have been able to keep an iron grip on the company. That has,  as the article notes, lead "to accusations it is run more like a family fiefdom than a conventional public company." 

Furthermore, some investors charge that such a structure provides Murdoch family with significant control of News Corp while passing the risks onto the other investors. 
One investors at the meeting called it "“fundamentally undemocratic."

"This kind of governing structure may be exactly what we'd expect in Cuba or North Korea, but it is at odds with good governance practices here," Bill Dempsey, chief financial officer of the New York-based Nathan Cummings Foundation, told Mr Murdoch at Friday's meeting

Shareholders proposed that the company's controversial dual-class voting structure be reformed. They proposed scrapping the present structure and replacing it with a one share, one vote system. Although the motion was narrowly defeated, it was a sign that all is not well behind the ramparts of the News Corp fortress.

Notably, even one of the companies key investor, the Saudi Prince Alwaleed bin Talal, (worth an estimated $27 billion) also voted in favor of restructuring the company. It marked the first time in 17 years that Al-Waleed, News Corp's second largest single investor, has voted in opposition of Murdoch.