Roger Ailes Make America Great Again

Opinion

Roger Ailes and the liberal myth of the conservative genius

What The Loudest Voice misses about the conservative machine

July 2, 2019

The Roger Ailes we see at the very beginning of Commencement's The Loudest Voice is already fully formed. Start, we see him lying dead on his bathroom floor in 2017, speaking directly to the viewers and predicting how he will be remembered, in complete mastery of his narrative; a few seconds later on, we flash dorsum to see him negotiating his deviation from NBC in 1996, in training, every bit we shortly larn, to forming Fox News for Rupert Murdoch. He already has a plan: a well-conceived theory of politics and media, a set of ideological axes to grind, and a media mogul to aid him practice information technology. But as the get-go episode brings Play a trick on News from conception to birth, what's striking is how consequent he is, how unconflicted, adamant, and resolute. Different Adam Mackay's 2018 Vice, for case — a more than conventional biopic that shows u.s. Dick Cheney's rising from youthful dissolution to national power — The Loudest Voice's Roger Ailes begins with a plan then we see him make information technology into reality.

But what is the "it"? Although the vii-role miniseries charts the ascension of Play a joke on News confronting the eventual fall of its CEO, it's easier to be absorbed into the show's spectacle than to derive whatsoever particular insights from information technology. The miniseries is in love with its antihero — Russell Crowe'due south charisma rumbles powerfully through the prosthetics and makeup — and though I've merely seen the get-go 3 episodes, I expect that his eventual downfall for sexual harassment and abuse will make proficient utilise of the character'due south layers of repulsion and attraction; his sexual advances are often crude and unwelcome — and his rage and cruelty in punishing subordinates is violent — simply he's likewise a magnetic leader, with no shortage of devoted followers (of both genders). And yet the camera's infatuation with the character has a mode of focusing the gaze on him to the exclusion of the rest of the world. In the first episode, nosotros see Fox News as information technology was to him; in the second, nosotros run across 9/11 and the aftermath every bit he saw information technology; and in the tertiary, nosotros see the beginning year of Barack Obama's administration through Roger Ailes' eyes.

Why? There'south no incertitude that Ailes is an interesting figure, one of the central architects of modern American politics. Every bit a Boob tube producer in the 1960s, for case, he offset impressed Richard Nixon with the importance of the medium, and used that risk coming together — on the set of The Mike Douglass Testify — to enter politics, serving equally Nixon's media consultant on his outset successful run for the presidency, in 1968. Theodore H. White's bestselling book Making of the President, 1960 had established the conventional wisdom that television had lost Nixon his offset presidential race to John F. Kennedy; Joe McGinniss' The Selling of the President 1968 would chronicle Nixon's eventual victory by describing, in part, the crucial role played by Ailes and other media-savvy immature men that transformed his image. Ailes would continue to parley the fame and notoriety of that volume into consulting work for the entire who's-who of modern GOP presidential politics, from Ronald Reagan through the Bushes to Donald Trump. When Rupert Murdoch was looking for someone to help him build a right-wing cable news channel to rival CNN, he looked to Ailes, who congenital information technology into a GOP kingmaker.

If The Loudest Voice is to exist believed, Fox News is a pure reflection of Ailes' ego, genius, and monstrosity, a televisual manifestation of his single-minded rage, paranoia, and countless appetites. Whatever Fox News is to you lot, this miniseries suggests, is because of Roger Ailes, and who he was.

I've just seen the first 3 episodes — the kickoff of which aired on Lord's day — merely I'thousand non sure The Loudest Phonation is to exist believed. For one thing, while the miniseries is (roughly) based on Gabriel Sherman's 2014 biography of Ailes, The Loudest Voice in the Room, what'south striking isn't so much what's been left out every bit what has been centered. Ailes spent iii decades as a television producer and political consultant and ii decades as CEO of Pull a fast one on News, just the miniseries is only really interested in those last ii (and mostly in the final x years of his life). And these are Roger Ailes' virtually important years, the culmination of a lifetime spent politicizing media and turning politics into a testify; given the series' framing, it seems likely that the latter half will focus heavily on his personal downfall after former Play tricks & Friends co-host Gretchen Carlson filed a lawsuit for sexual misconduct, one of many whose stories of corruption at his hands began to exist told. Simply are they our most important years?

I expect the balance of the miniseries volition exist interesting boob tube, but information technology's strikingly uninterested in the stories that don't paint Ailes equally the only significant amanuensis or driving force. The Ailes envisaged past Tom McCarthy — who wrote and produced the show — is and so magnetic that he seems to pull other people's stories into his ain: the miniseries gives the impression that Ailes sells his vision of Fox News to Rupert Murdoch — who initially planned something very dissimilar — but every bit Sherman and others have explained, a fairly recognizable version of the network already existed, and Murdoch's plan for a right-wing culling to Ted Turner's CNN was well in line with his unabridged global project. Ailes put his stamp on the network and carried information technology forrard, of grade, simply he was not Fox News' singular genius. For example, it was Chet Collier — whose work on the Westminster Dog Show was a much more impressive achievement than The Loudest Vox implies — who screened prospective hosts with the audio muted, and who Sherman quotes equally declaring that "viewers don't desire to be informed, they want to experience informed." The show attributes both to Ailes. Collier was too a liberal — at least relative to Ailes — and the initial Play a joke on News lineup was much less of a bastion of conservativism than it would somewhen get (as Ailes' influence grew). But the miniseries wants to tell the story of Play tricks News as if information technology emerged, fully formed, from the brain of its leader and figurehead.

It didn't. "Nosotros Report. You Decide." was a slogan developed by an ad bureau, for example, and Ailes did non — equally the terminate of the tertiary episode implies — coin the phrase "Make America Great Again" in 2008; it was a re-purposed Ronald Reagan line when Trump uttered information technology. Ailes might have helped information technology get from point A to point B — having consulted for both candidates — just making him the only story risks obscuring the wide conservative project that stretches from Nixon to Reagan to the Bushes to Trump. The Play tricks News claim to be "Off-white and Counterbalanced" — in specific opposition to what they declared to be an otherwise uniformly biased left-fly media — sounds familiar in an era where Trump declares the remainder of the media his (and the American people's enemy), but Ailes didn't invent that phrase either: Nixon believed himself to be besieged by a hostile liberal media, in strikingly similar terms, and when Ailes was cutting his political teeth in the Nixon administration, he was also absorbing that philosophy of right-wing politics, 1 of many who did. If he was a link in that chain — and an important one — he was far from alone.

Why requite Ailes such centrality? Why push to the sides all the much more interesting people that he worked with — starting with every elected GOP president since Nixon — and focus only on him? Indeed, why make this miniseries at all, which is the question that's been buzzing in the back of my head the entire time: Why exercise liberals want to make biopics mythologizing GOP figures and why do liberals desire to lookout them?

It'due south impossible, afterward all, not to compare The Loudest Voice to Vice — last twelvemonth'southward biopic on Cheney — and nigh reviewers do. They cover such similar ground, with such similar tools, and they seem to do it for such a similar audience (and from such a similar perspective), that there feels like a collective sensibility at piece of work: outspoken liberals who bury themselves in conservative demonology (quite literally in the case of the prosthetics that Crowe and Christian Bales wear). Only if yous are a fan of Play tricks News, or of Dick Cheney, you'll probably observe them both to be a product of the kind of left-wing media bias that Ailes built an empire on complaining almost. So what is the role of such entertainment? If it'south odd to hear liberal audiences cheering for conservative talking points delivered by Stephen Colbert, at to the lowest degree The Colbert Report placed the grapheme and then firmly within a satirical framework that those cheers could be for the satire, non the sense, of his words. And though Vice is a deeply unsatisfying picture — with a foreign absence at its center where you'd have expected the truth of Dick Cheney to be — Adam McKay makes Dick Cheney's center donor into the moving-picture show's narrator, so that the movie can, in the cease, be about his absence as a person, the vacuum at his eye.

Russell Crowe'due south Roger Ailes is the opposite of the vacuum. Christian Bale's opacity was perfect for the legendarily reclusive, soft-spoken Cheney, but Crowe's Ailes is impossible to take your optics off; he's fully believable, nuanced, and layered, with depth and contrast; equally repellant equally he is charismatic. He embodies the part, brings it to life; he makes you believe in a singular genius who invented Fox News — and in a sense, our unabridged present reality — out of his own nighttime imagination.

This is, of course, a fiction. But I doubtable it'south the reply to the question of why this story of a person we beloved to hate is and so hard not to watch: Play a joke on News continues, day subsequently twenty-four hour period, just Roger Ailes' story has come to an end, reassuringly then. Telling the story of the latter, perhaps, might aid u.s.a. forget about the old; if the one human being who created all of this has gone, then maybe ... all of this volition follow?

To put information technology some other way, we come away from watching this story feeling informed, even if nosotros aren't, even if nosotros're only pandered to and reassured. But every bit someone once observed, isn't that what all television viewers desire?

Roger Ailes Make America Great Again

Source: https://theweek.com/articles/850467/roger-ailes-liberal-myth-conservative-genius

Share this post