refer to some of Fox News' policies as "Stalinist."  Stalin had between five and ten million people murdered.  Roger Ailes and Greta van Susteren, as far as a know, have had no people at all murdered.  I know you were not referring to the political or social policies of Stalin when you referred to Fox's policies as "Stalinist," but the analogy to Stalin's informational policies is grossly exaggerated as well.  Fox is not suppressing anything - it is a news organization, not a government.  There is a principle followed by many good journalists that any comparison of a person or organization to Hitler or the Holocaust must have something to do with Hitler or the Holocaust, and not be thrown about lightly for purposes of derogation.  The same principle ought to apply to the invocation of Stalin, Lenin, Pol Pot, Sadaam Hussein, etc.  If someone compared me to Stalin, I would be reluctant to put them on my show too. I understand. My first point was simply to illuminate a media blacklist by a propaganda outlet to prevent a real discussion of the issues so that one party's line remains unchallenged, except by Potemkin caricatures of the dumb left. My second point was that this has hurt conservatism as a political tradition. I should have left Stalin out of it - but the phrase is pretty commonly used as a now-exhausted metaphor to refer to airbrushing people out of various movements. And I should do better than exhausted metaphors. Another writes: Andrew, make no mistake: at the end of the day, Fox ignores you not because of the power of your argument, but because you can be a very unpleasant asshole when challenged by those with whom you disagree.  If I recall correctly, Hugh Hewitt devoted a full hour of his radio show to allow you to discuss your book back in 2006, and you spent much of the time calling him names ("pathetic pedant") and attacking him personally.  After the interview, you vowed you would never go on his show again, and created that stupid "Hewitt Award" raspberry.  Very mature.]]>