FOX NEWS is the MEDIA OUTLET FOR WHITE SUPREMACISM

[_Kevin Graham]

Fox News is pushing white nationalism because the Murdochs want it to

Fox News has traditionally treated bigotry as a core part of its business model. But since the political rise of President Donald Trump, the network’s commentators have adopted talking points that had previously been the province of hardcore white supremacists. The reported manifesto of the gunman who murdered 22 people at a Walmart in El Paso, Texas, on Saturday is all but indistinguishable from transcripts ripped from its prime-time shows. This shift is not an accident but a programming decision, one the network has pursued even as its hosts’ racist rhetoric has triggered costly ad boycotts.

Rupert Murdoch and his son Lachlan Murdoch are ultimately responsible for this toxic programming. Rupert, chairman of parent company Fox Corp., laid the foundation for the shift. He then ceded much of the day-to-day authority to Lachlan, who maintained that heading as the Fox Corp.’s executive chairman and CEO.

Fox is feeding its audience a poisonous stew of bigoted, xenophobic conspiracy theories because that is what the Murdochs want the network to do.

A New York Times Magazine investigation found that in recent years, the Murdochs’ media empire has been “instrumental in amplifying the nativist revolt that was reshaping governments not just in the United States but also across the planet,” with their outlets fueling xenophobia and ethnonationalism to achieve political aims in the U.S., the United Kingdom, and Australia.

In the United States, that meant taking advantage of a rare opportunity to reshape Fox News following the removal of network co-founder Roger Ailes and the swift departures of longtime network hosts Bill O’Reilly, Greta Van Susteren, and Megyn Kelly.

Stepping in as acting CEO to replace Ailes, Rupert responded to the vacancies by giving Tucker Carlson and Laura Ingraham their own prime-time shows.

Carlson, a Rupert favorite, had already amassed a staunch following among white nationalists for his denunciations of diversity and fervent airing of white grievances.

Ingraham had also fixated on the perils of immigration and multiculturalism, using her platforms as a talk radio host and Fox contributor to push the Republican Party to the right on those issues.

As prime-time hosts, Carlson and Ingraham turned their shows into clearinghouses for white supremacist talking points about an “invasion” of migrants, screeds about the systematic “replacement” of white Americans by people of color through immigration, and dire warnings that if something wasn’t done soon, the nation would be imperiled.

In short, Rupert thrust two of the network’s most anti-immigrant personalities into its biggest spotlight and they’ve performed as expected, moving the network closer to Lachlan’s reported goal of solidifying the family’s empire as “an unabashedly nationalist, far-right and hugely profitable political propaganda machine.”

The result has been programming that courts high viewership from Fox’s core audience but also repeatedly led major companies to pull their ads rather than risk associating their brands with bigotry.

Lachlan has been the public face of the company, defending Fox amid criticism from other journalists and advertiser boycotts.

Ingraham’s show drew controversy and bled advertisers throughout 2018, particularly after she tweeted an attack on Parkland, Florida, school shooting survivor David Hogg, compared detention centers for immigrant children to “summer camps,” and warned that thanks to immigration, “massive demographic changes have been foisted upon the American people, and they are changes that none of us ever voted for, and most of us don't like.”

Asked about the criticism the network was taking during a November appearance at The New York Times’ DealBook conference, Lachlan claimed that the “biggest critics of Fox News are not watching Fox News” and argued that people should be more tolerant of the opinions of the networks' hosts.

Just a month later, Carlson embroiled the network in a firestorm after he argued that immigration makes the United States “poorer, and dirtier, and more divided.” When the dust had settled, two dozen companies had pulled future spots on his show and its ad load was slashed.

The cycle repeated itself earlier this year.

In March, as Fox prepared for an unprecedented early sit-down with ad buyers, controversies involving bigoted comments by Carlson and fellow Fox host Jeanine Pirro brought more devastating headlines and fleeing advertisers.

Two months later, Lachlan again defended the company, telling Wall Street analysts that the ad boycotts were having no effect and that even if they did, “it wouldn't affect the way we program that channel.”

And now there’s a national debate over how Fox’s inflammatory programming was echoed in a white supremacist terrorist’s manifesto -- one that has triggered not internal reflection at the network, but a circling of the wagons. Earlier this week, Carlson delivered another defensive rant on his show, asserting that the idea that white supremacy is a problem in America is a “hoax” and a “conspiracy theory used to divide the country.” The Murdochs stayed silent.

https://Twitter.com/BFriedmanDC/status/ ... 86048?s=20

The Murdochs appear to have been every bit as supportive of their hosts’ bigoted commentary in private as they are in public. After Carlson drew criticism for claiming that immigrants make this country “dirtier,” Lachlan reportedly sent him “personal text messages of support.” Rupert reportedly criticized Ingraham last year -- for apologizing for her comments about Hogg, which he thought made her appear “weak in the face of negative public sentiment.”

So the Murdochs are the reason Fox’s weeknight prime-time block features segments that are distinguishable from white supremacist YouTube videos only in their production values. The harder question to answer is why. The family has built an international media empire that wields substantial political power on three continents.

Are they actual nationalists who truly agree with Carlson and Ingraham that an invading force of minorities is putting the nation at risk? Or are they simply motivated by instrumentalism, happy to have their employees make those arguments because it bolsters their influence over right-wing governments which then support policies that bolster their own economic standing?

In the end, it hardly matters: Fox has spent the last few years diving ever deeper into a cesspool, and there’s no sign the network plans to change course.

[_Kevin Graham]

Holy crap, check out this video with side by side rhetoric between Carlson and other White Supremacists.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_cont ... YjHgYg025s

[_Gunnar]

Hi Gunnar,

I'm glad you didn't vote for Trump and will not vote for him next year. Nevertheless, this last post of yours has reinforced my opinion that you are either willfully blind or cognitively impaired. But even if, despite all the evidence, Trump is not a dyed-in-the-wool white supremacist himself, can there really be any serious doubt that he deliberately panders to racists and white supremacists, and that at least some white supremacists take heart from his rhetoric and regard him as one of their own?

I bolded the last part as the the portion of your statement we could agree on. Just look at what you read. I haven't posted anything that is racist, charged or really problematic other than you disagree with it. But you respond with words like "cognitively impaired"? "willfully blind?". That isn't rational, that is emotional. It is unnecessary. You should embrace disagreement to sharpen your political opinions. Surely you don't believe you are just right and that's that do you?'

I'm glad you agree on the bolded part, but I don't take back the "cognitively impaired" and "willfully blind" part. Based on your posts subsequent to this one, it is clearer than ever that it is you who is being irrational, not me. Emotional? Of course I'm emotional! There would be something wrong with me if I did not get emotional and angry about Trump's pathological dishonesty, misogyny, bullying and deliberately divisive race baiting! The evidence of his racism and white supremacy attitude already presented on this thread is only a tiny fraction of the evidence available, and it is incomprehensible to me how any intelligent, well informed individual can fail to see that! The best evidence of that comes from his own, lying, stupid mouth! If I knew nothing about Trump except what I have heard him actually say and the well documented examples of some of the things he has undeniably done, I would still be convinced he is a racist, white supremacist--not to mention a crook and a scam artist!

Obviously many of these mass shooters do! Do you deny that?

Yes. I do. I believe it reduces a very complex matter to a boogeyman simplicity. But I don't believe you are willfully blind or cognitively impaired. Thanks for the post.

mikwut

How can you deny that when several of these mass murderers have actually expressed approval of Trump, and professed to being inspired by him and/or his hateful rhetoric? I'm gratified that you don't believe I am willfully blind or cognitively impaired, but I can't honestly say I don't believe the same of you!

However, when it comes to cognitive impairment, you don't hold a candle to Donald J Trump, I'll give you that! Get a load of his incoherent replies detailed in this video detailing his recent interview with The Washington Post. You might also want to look up the complete interview as written up in The Washington Post. Trump's complete cluelessness about even the simplest concepts of environment and climate change is both hilarious and frightening!

[_EAllusion]

Fox News is pushing white nationalism because the Murdochs want it to

Fox News long has had periodic racist segments. The election of Obama sent that into overdrive. There's more "terrorist fist jab" and "hip hop BBQ" bits than any one of us can remember, I'm sure. The station also has long had racist themes floating about: Democrats are keeping blacks on the welfare plantation, etc.

But something happened in the past few years where by-the-numbers white supremacist rhetoric started being more and more mainstream on the station with Carlson and Ingraham leading the charge. We're talking Stormfront level commentary barely laundered through plausible deniability. This is an interesting potential explanation for it. I had just been attributing it to the rise of the alt-right in general followed by the rise of Trump influencing right-wing messaging.

[_EAllusion]

Mikwut -

Trump keeps enthusiastically retweeting Katie Hopkins. He does so on racial issues. He did so just yesterday, which has drawn in some national media attention:

https://www.newsweek.com/who-katie-hopk ... mp-1453506
https://www.businessinsider.com/who-is- ... hes-2019-7

Katie Hopkins is a reoccurring fox news guest / white supremacist who, among other things, has called for a "final solution" for Muslims. She's compared migrants to cockroaches in a piece calling for the use of gunships to stop them. And that's the tip of the iceberg. She's essentially an Ann Coulter of Britain.

This is not just using the same words as her. Trump has specifically praised her and amplified her views on multiple occasions.

[_canpakes]

Mikwut -

Trump keeps enthusiastically retweeting Katie Hopkins. He does so on racial issues. He did so just yesterday, which has drawn in some national media attention:

https://www.newsweek.com/who-katie-hopk ... mp-1453506
https://www.businessinsider.com/who-is- ... hes-2019-7

Katie Hopkins is a reoccurring fox news guest / white supremacist who, among other things, has called for a "final solution" for Muslims. She's compared migrants to cockroaches in a piece calling for the use of gunships to stop them. And that's the tip of the iceberg. She's essentially an Ann Coulter of Britain.

This is not just using the same words as her. Trump has specifically praised her and amplified her views on multiple occasions.

mikwut - regarding EA's comment above - can you tell me how ideas and actions take root and proliferate?

[_Some Schmo]

This thread reminds me of the old days, talking to mopologists. They too loved to accuse everyone who disagreed with them of not wanting "substantive" conversations.

It's pretty damned funny, when you think about it. It's an adolescent ploy. I can't argue with reality, so I'll pretend it's beneath me.

[_EAllusion]

It was recently uncovered that the state department currently has in its employ a leader in Washington D.C.'s white nationalist community. SPLC was responsible for uncovering it:

https://www.splcenter.org/hatewatch/201 ... determines

He posts on a white nationalist forum called "the right stuff" under the name Coach Finstock. This article from SPLC then goes into painstaking detail documenting his white nationalist connections and beliefs, which are as abhorrent as abhorrent gets.

The list is extensive and I encourage anyone interested in reading the full article. The specific item that is getting the most play in coverage of this is when he went on a white nationalist podcast and discussed his desire for a white ethnostate armed with nuclear weapons to make the world tremble. Because who doesn't react to "what if the Nazis had nukes?" counterfactual history with, "It would've been awesome!" For me, it's where he discusses the common white nationalist theme that they need to infiltrate the police and military that is most chilling. But with dozens of examples to pick from, perhaps you can find your favorite.

This isn't the first time that overt white nationalists exposing the most hateful, dangerous beliefs that exist have been uncovered in the Trump admin. What's interesting here is the Trump admin is reacting to the story by doing nothing beyond confirming it is legitimate. Presumably, he will be forced out at some point, but their approach to dealing with the story as it lingers out there is quite something. It's pretty easy to immediately cut your losses on this one.

[_mikwut]

Hi E -

Let me be clear on my stance. Over the last decade in particular tremendous changes have and continue to take place in our country. The Democratic Party is as we speak redefining itself. I can remember like yesterday looking up immigration positions on congressmen and women and presidential candidates in the last couple elections. The positions democrats are taking aren't even close to what they were just a few years ago. For example, Elizabeth Warren, who I really like outside of a couple things I'm struggling with with her (honesty) voted yes for 700 miles of border wall in 2013. Trump's wall is more extensive in proposal but how is his racist and hers not? And why can't I just get the pitch for what is the best solution outside of racism? Now she is seemingly advocating for open borders if repealing 1325 establishes that and there seems to be a moral veneer to it that I have missed a revolution or something if I don't just just get that like murder is wrong. That is just one example on an issue. I am for the best position on border security which I consider a real issue. I was asked previous by I think perfume what I would be saying if the border crisis existed to the north. I meant to respond to that. It would make no difference. Too much change (and populace in some areas) into a culture from another can be harmful to the incoming country. Having roads to citizenship is very important. Having the economy of the matter settled and reducing harm to our own citizens is good legislation. I don't think (I could be wrong) there is a base of white supremacists that would appeal to either parties hopes of winning in 2020. I believe that language is used in opposition of finding some kind of compromise to many issues easily and lends itself to being tainted as racist or what a white supremacist would say. I think taking advantage of that that overlap is harmful to our country. It is also harmful to getting a democratic president elected in 2020 because it will appear as just a smear tactic to Trump's base and turn them off and it will do the same to independents like me that each party really needs. I watched Kevin's Tucker side by side video and don't agree with some things but that isn't proof of white supremacism. I disagree with Tucker that white supremacism is a hoax, it is a real problem but it doesn't make my top 10 and that doesn't make me a racist.

Katie Hopkins is a provocateur kind of like Milo. They walk the razor thin edge of right wing rhetoric. She is a raise yourself up by your bootstraps ideology on steroids. She attacks what she perceives as victimhood whether it be I'm gay I'm a victim, I'm trans I'm a victim, I'm a certain ethnic race I'm a victim., I'm fat I'm a victim. Doesn't appeal to me but doesn't make her a racist either. And why bother labeling her as one when she opens herself up for criticism that wouldn't even be controversial like just being a mean nasty bitch.

mikwut

[_EAllusion]

Katie Hopkins is a provocateur kind of like Milo. They walk the razor thin edge of right wing rhetoric. She is a raise yourself up by your bootstraps ideology on steroids. She attacks what she perceives as victimhood whether it be I'm gay I'm a victim, I'm trans I'm a victim, I'm a certain ethnic race I'm a victim., I'm fat I'm a victim. Doesn't appeal to me but doesn't make her a racist either. And why bother labeling her as one when she opens herself up for criticism that wouldn't even be controversial like just being a mean nasty ____.

mikwut

If Katie Hopkins, a person who has a lengthy trail of overt racist statements, including racial slurs, racial stereotyping, support of racist policies and organizations, and ironic but not ironic calls for literal violence against racial minorities, doesn't count as racist because "she's just trolling" then I'm not sure anyone can or should qualify as a racist in your view. You've set the bar so high, no one can meet it.

This doesn't solve the underlying problem here, though. Suppose we have to invent a new term to describe what Katie Hopkins is. Let's call it schmacist. If someone is schmacist, that's also really bad, and it's exceptionally bad if our President is a schmacist who gives aid and comfort to schmacists thus bolstering their influence and power. President schmacist is bad.