Re Murdoch and Trump: Who’s zoomin’ who?

~ odd man out ~ 1 Comment

Swamp Rabbit was replacing a plank on the front porch of my shack while I read aloud from Jane Mayer’s comprehensive takedown of Fox News:

…As the President has been beset by scandals, congressional hearings, and even talk of impeachment, Fox has been both his shield and his sword. The White House and Fox interact so seamlessly that it can be hard to determine, during a particular news cycle, which one is following the other’s lead…

“Ain’t technology grand?” the rabbit said. “Who knew back in the day we’d have a president who tweeted Fox News stories like they were gospel? Who knew what a tweet was?”

Mayer noted in her lengthy article that 88-year-old Aussie billionaire Rupert Murdoch launched the Fox television network in the 1990s and hired Roger Ailes to create for it a conservative news station that would mimic his “unapologetically lowbrow” tabloids. Under Ailes, Fox and its talking heads perfected a hatefully paranoid style that won the hearts and minds of poorly educated, anti-elitist white people all over the country.

Swamp Rabbit hammered a nail through the new plank and into a crossbeam. “The best part of the article is where Mayer explains that Murdoch was the guy who turned Trump into a tabloid star forty-some years ago, even though he knew Trump was an idiot.”

I disagreed. “The best part is where Mayer says Murdoch unknowingly invented Trump’s base. He didn’t like it when Trump ran for president, but Fox viewers did.”

Ailes had been wary of cozying up to candidate Trump and had reportedly told Murdoch, “Trump gets great ratings, but if you’re not careful he’s going to end up totally controlling Fox News.”

But Murdoch eventually warmed up to the idea of a President Trump, especially after Ailes was forced out of the picture (sexual harassment allegations). A source told Mayer, “[Murdoch has] always wanted to have a relationship with a President — he’s a businessman and he sees benefits of having a chief of state doing your bidding.”

So is Trump a useful idiot for Murdoch, or has Murdoch merely fooled himself into thinking this is so? Which of these ugly old white men is the true master of the right-wing media universe?

“What’s it to you?” the rabbit said after driving another nail into the porch floor. “Ain’t neither of them chumps gonna help you get this shack back in shape.”

Footnote: Life is better in the movies. My idea of a media mogul is Orson Welles as Charles Foster Kane — a charming and dynamic dreamer who wanted to save the world until he was corrupted by power. The real-life Kane is Murdoch, a cold-blooded misanthrope who, like Trump, is (in Mayer’s words) “devoid of almost any ideology besides self-interest.”

Should Illinois change the way child custody works?

~ susie
Photo by Baylee Gramling on Unsplash

Child custody is one of the most contentious aspects of divorce. As such, one would think Illinois has clear laws on the books indicating how parenting time should be divided between two divorcing spouses. However, it does not. Currently, the way time is split up among the parents remains at the judge’s discretion during court proceedings. A fathers’ advocacy group, Illinois Fathers for Equality, is trying to change that.

They want visitation time split up equally between both parents, with each parent spending 50 percent of their time with the child, and some lawmakers agree. House Bill 185, which would allow for the equal division, is now up for debate. If passed, both parents would automatically receive equal visitation time. If a judge decided to deviate from that idea, they would have to provide a clear reason for it.

“Right now, it is at the judge’s discretion, and the judge must take into consideration what is in the best interests of the child. A judge does not even have to give a reason for their decision” says Brian W. Reidy of Reidy Law Office, LLC. “The question becomes whether one person’s opinion should determine what is in the child’s best interests.”

At face value, the argument seems sound. The question becomes, is 50/50 visitation time always what is right for a child?

The argument against the bill is that it benefits parents rather than the child. It does not take into account the whole picture, simply assuming that equal time is in the best interests of the child. While that time is being divided though, the child is shuffled from place to place, adding a sense of instability in their world.

Of course, arguments for the bill refute that idea by saying it is in the best interests of the child. Failing to allow for it actually makes the child more insecure about their life and family. Children divide their time equally among the parents during the marriage. Disrupting that and significantly eliminating the amount of time they spend with one parent is a much bigger and more difficult change than being shuffled around town.

So, what side of the debate is House Bill 185 going to fall on? While lawmakers are still debating it, it looks as though it may have the same fate as a similar bill in 2018 that did not get passed. The General Assembly’s website shows that only 2,500 individuals currently support the bill, while 3,300 oppose it.