Aldrich V. Royce

Media Mogul

With its uncontested dominance in TV news, Omniscience Broadcasting is a critical — perhaps the critical — voice in determining the outcome of the upcoming election.

—————————

Hello, Mr. Royce.

Hello, thing that is not myself. You may start in the dining room.

Um...?

Aren't you a pathetic servant here to set up for the dinner party?

I'm a journalist.

Even more pathetic. Well, "journalist"why don't you grab a cloth and some silver polish and make yourself useful for the first time in your trivial existence.

I'm scheduled to interview you.

Very well, faceless cog, ask your questions. But I expect my cutlery to positively sparkle.

Sure. Let's start with this: There have been numerous complains that your election coverage is shamefully biased.

That's a rather aggressive tone for a servant.

Again, I'm a journalist.

Well, I hope you're a better journalist than a silver polisher. Just look at how tarnished that salad soup spoon is.

I'll try to do better. But what do you have to say about those bias complaints?

It is the laziest, most drearily predictable critique imaginable.

But that doesn't mean it's wrong, does it?

I take it that you grew up in a city whose drinking water had dangerous concentrations of lead.

Why do you think that?

The rank stupidity of your question.

There's no need to insult me.

It wasn't an insult, just an observation.

Fine. But please explain why the critique is wrong.

Very well, simpleton. Consider: If our network, for instance, ran a piece on how wonderful Heesen Yachts are, the lovers of Fincanieri Yachts would accuse us of bias, would they not?

Sure, I guess.

And if we did a piece about how wonderful Fincanieri Yachts are, lovers of Heesen Yachts would accuse us of bias, yes?

Yes.

But if we did a piece about how exactly, equally wonderful both Heesen Yacht Fincanieri Yachts were, do you know what would happen?

Peace and happiness throughout the yachting land? Or sea. I guess.

Ah-ha-ha-ha! To the contrary! Believing their yachts to be superior, the Fincanieri and Heesen lovers would both complain of bias! Moreover, the lovers of Lürssen Yachts would organize a boycott of our advertisers because we didn't mention them at all!

Wow. Everything seems so simple when you explain it with yachts.

That was just a random example. It works just as well with Leer Jets, luxury cars, and private armies, if you prefer.

So what you're saying is that everybody is biased, so by definition there is no such thing as "unbiased."

Ah-ha-ha-ha! You certainly seem to have gotten your money's worth out of your mail order philosophy degree! But you have it exactly wrong. Of course there is such a thing as unbiased.

And who determines what is unbiased?

We do.

But shouldn't you be giving your viewers the tools to make up their minds for themselves?

We are.

Right. By letting you do their thinking for them?

Yes. In fact, it is our new slogan. "Omniscience Broadcasting. Leave the thinking to us."

Well, I'm sorry to burst your billionaire bubble, but I am your equal.

You got your fingerprints on this caviar spoon.

Sorry, I'll wipe then off.

You had better, or I'll dock your wages.

You're not paying me.

And for good reason.

Anyway... regardless of whether or not there is bias, there is still the matter of fairness.

Ah, yes. "Fairness." The Communist Manifesto of emotions.

What does that mean?

Why shouldn't people be treated differently? Why shouldn't people have to work to get where they are?

...says the guy who inherited three-hundred-and-fifty television stations.

For your information, you waste of air molecules, I only inherited three-hundred-and-forty-nine stations.

So you bought one on your own. Talk about lifting yourself up by your bootstraps.

Well, it was technically a birthday gift, but they can be very taxing. I mean, emotionally taxing. Ah-ha-ha-ha! I don't actually pay taxes.

God forbid. In any case, you have to admit that you are being unfair to Marietta.

Can you give me an example?

Yes. The countdown clock.

What's wrong with it? It merely shows the months, weeks, days, hours minutes and seconds until Clem Boykins wins the election.

There! Right there! Do you see how you were being unfair to Marietta?

I do not.

You're calling the election for Clem months in advance!

No, you ill-bred star-nosed mole, we're not calling it; we're predicting it. And if you think that shrimp fork is clean enough for my guests, think again.

Sorry. But don't you think that by making that prediction, you are making it more likely?

Pollsters make these same kinds of predictions all the time, and yet no one accuses them of being "unfair."

That's different, though. Polling is scientific.

Oh, and I suppose you also believe that so-called global warming is scientific, too.

Yes, actually. It's extremely well-documented.

If global warming is so real, how come my ice maker still works?

Because... you know what, forget it.

I accept your surrender.

Fine. Let's talk about last week's debate. Here are some of the typical questions asked of Clem Boykins:

Is it too early to carve your face on Mount Rushmore?

If I have a son, I'm going to name him Clem. (Which isn't even a question.)

There is a rumor going around that you are very well endowed. Is that true?

Why is Marietta such a shrew?

And here are some of the typical questions asked of Marietta Weiss:

Do you still get your period, and if so, do you think it's fair for taxpayers to pay for your tampons?

Are you a man-hating lesbian or a man-hating heterosexual?

Can you give us a smile? No, a bigger smile. Not that big! There! Now you're a pretty princess!

Why are you such a shrew?

Do you really think that was OK?

Indeed I do, you antibiotic-resistant staph infection. The purpose of a debate is to draw out the differences between the candidates so the viewers can make an informed decision, and we certainly saw them stake out very contrary viewpoints, especially when it came to why Marietta is such a shrew.

It wasn't just the questions, though. Did you notice that Clem was allowed to talk as long as he wanted, while Marietta was frequently interrupted.

If she felt she was being treated unfairly, she should have said something to the moderator.

Clem was the moderator.

And he did a superb job! I can see why people want him to be president.

Oh, come on! He repeatedly referred to her as "Mental Marietta."

He really has an aptitude for politics.

It's just puerile name-calling.

And it is quite effective.

But Marietta has a six-point plan to—

(Yawns) Sorry, but no one wants to hear that woman droning on and on about "effective solutions."

I have to say, all of this reeks of misogyny.

Ah-ha-ha-ha! Whenever things don't go her way, she play the "woman card."Anything rather than admit that she is a subpar candidate. And speaking of subpar... those escargot tongs look extremely unsanitary. Like they were dragged through the dirt of a field hospital. Do them again!

As I've make clear, I don't work for you.

I said do them again!

Fine. But I'm not going to make napkin swans, so don't even ask!