FOX NEWS Is an Enemy of the State

[Binger]

That was a hell of a post RI, and you make a convincing argument that government shouldn’t standardize content that news outlets claim is news. In fact when I get done posting this thought I’m going to re-read what you wrote.

I do think I see what Veritas is saying - there’s a clear and present danger to what FOX News is doing, that this is more than just making money something else is going on that’s driving Murdoch et al toward supporting authoritarianism. An example comes to mind. What is Trump (or the next MAGAfascist) probably going to do when/if they get elected to the Office? Well, they’re going to “tear it all down” by following what Trump already did:

First, install toadies in key positions. <- people who aren’t faithful to the US, but to the President because l’etat c’est moi.

Second, intimidate the career bureaucracy. <- Trump passed some crap making federal employees (or some subset of them, anyway) “at will” employees. This obvious what this means.

Third, co-opt the armed forces. <- Fire or retire the good ones, install Yes Men. The Armed Forces become an extension of the Presidential Office. Skulls get cracked in short order, and there’s nothing short of an insurgency that will stip this.

Fourth, bring law enforcement to heel. <- get a DoJ toadie to “defund the FBI” and install Yes Men who will lock up “enemies of the state.”

Fifth, weaponize the pardon. <- this allows openly criminal actors to bet away with anything if they kniw they’ll be rewarded with a pardon.

Sixth, the final blow: defy court orders <- what’s the judicial branch gonna do? Raise an army?

ALL THIS CAN ONLY HAPPEN WITH FOX NEWS’ SUPPORT.

Period.

Kevin sees the danger clearly. I get his fear. I felt it today when I saw the headlines and Doug Mastriano on stage with Trump. This crap is very real, and is happening only because FOX gives it oxygen. I’m with you, politically and ethically with regard to restraining free speech because goddamn that’s a slippery slope, but we’re *this close* to having Ajax’s wet dream manifest. Trump had a motherfucking portrait of Jackson hanging in his office for god’s sake.

I dunno. What do. Bing Bong’s Law is in full effect on the Right, and they’re going to ‘crazy like a fox’ themselves into a dictator if we’re not vigilant. But, yeah. FOX will be there cheering, jeering, and clapping all the way for good ratings?

I guess?

- Doc

This is all just a theory. Literally, this is docky's theory of a conspiracy that starts with FOX and ends with the end of democracy and the republic.

His theory of this conspiracy, while laid out in a numbered sequence, omits key things like the political activities of the DOJ and FBI, for example. It omits the role that social media has over traditional media. It omits the media players that he likes, including CNN and NPR and others, for example. It omits the reach of podcasts like Joe Rogan which are wider than the reach of FOX, for example. This also omits the credibility of agencies and media that were involved in quashing a story about a laptop or rebranding riots as "peaceful" and undermining the feminist movement by redefining "woman." The theory sounds more like an apology for why insane lunatic fringe progress BS is going out of favor for many Americans and why Americans' patience is wearing thin with the drama and nonsense of being called fascists and terrorists.

I happen to think that Res is a half-wit progressive lunatic when it comes to these ideological points, but he has a lot of company and he takes the time to try and make his half-wit progressive ideology explainable. It is certainly more interesting than baseless rants about FOX keeping an adult man (technically speaking) from talking to his parents, LOL.

[ajax18]

Why not? Why can't we have actual standards like we used to? Oh, because it will makes us Nazi Germany? Give us a break, Res.

This demonstrates such a level of ignorance about the history and meaning of freedom of the press that it’s hard to know where to begin. First, there are “standards” in the form of well defined limits on freedom of the press. Second, the Fairness Doctrine was an aberration in freedom of the press. It was constitutional only because the airwaves were deemed “public” rather than “private” and because there were a relatively small number of frequencies available for use. Technology has gone far beyond those justifications for governmental control over the content of TV and Radio News. Fox News is delivered through privately owned cable or fiber optic networks, so there is no equivalent of the “public” airwaves today. Nor is television limited to a few available frequencies today, so the scarcity rationale no longer applies. The vast majority of freedom of the press jurisprudence was developed with respect to the dissemination of newspapers and other printed materials. And there is zero chance that any Supreme Court would find an attempt by the government to determine which publications are and are not “news” and force the publisher to publish the state’s determination of which publications are “news” and which are not. And there is zero reason to expect that broadcast news will be treated any differently today. So, the reason we can’t have the fairness doctrine back has nothing to do with Hitler or Nazis. It’s because the founders saw the danger in giving the state the power to control the content of the press.

The relevance of autocrats totalitarians is that they provide us with historical lessons. You keep simply ignoring the role that government control of the press plays in the ability of autocrats to capture the state. Do you really want to give DeSantis, Mconnell, and McCarthy the power to decide which publications/programs are “news” and force the others to print/say we’re not news? If the answer is anything but an unqualified “yes,” that should be a clue that you don’t really want what you think you want.

Veritas pines for the Fairness Doctrine, but he has a short historical memory. Newspapers, through their lifetimes, have been partisan as hell.

Now you're just buying into the FOX News BS which it uses to justify their overtly partisan propaganda. The media was NEVER half as Liberal as FOX is Conservative.

Ah, your all purpose excuse for dismissing arguments you don’t like. How about you link to some of that sweet Fox propaganda about the historical partisanship of NEWSPAPERS. You can’t because it doesn’t exist. To be a partisan as newspapers have been historically, Trump would have to own Fox and Biden would have to own CNN. Politicians owned newspapers and used them to mercilessly attack their opponents. You’ve proved exactly what I said: short historical memory. Now, find me a case where the Supreme Court allowed the government to control the contents of those publications. I’ll wait.

Even FOX knew they had to push the envelope slowly. In the beginning they said they would be "fair and balanced" and they even had a show called "Hannity and Combs." But that gradually went away and nowadays they make no secret about being Republican headquarters. Their primetime hosts are showing up at Republican fundraisers, speaking at political rallies, applying for jobs with the Trump administration, former Trump administration personalities always end up getting side gigs on FOX, and vice versa. Why can't you just admit the obvious on this? At this point there is no hope in hell FOX can be expected to operate like a legitimate News outlet.

Your concept of “legitimate news outlet” has zero to do with freedom of the press. Do some research on newspapers owned by political candidates.

Look at the old battles between Hearst and his competitors. The partisanship in newspapers was blatant, and I’m sure you can find both sides accusing each other of lying or threatening the country.

There has never been anything remotely similar to the power of FOX news and its ability to create entire armies of hateful citizens, which is coming closer and closer to a majority who believe we're headed for a civil war. Thanks to FOX's constant indoctrination of millions of Americans, one in four Americans believe violence against the government is justified. That's a threat to national security.

Feel free to persuade the Supreme Court that the government be allowed to control the content of Fox News because it is persuasive. Given the media’s hyping of the divide between Americans, I’m not surprised that Americans would be worried about the prospect of a civil war. Or that some folks would tell that to a pollster to own the libs.

And Americans get to believe that violence against the government is justified under some circumstances. It’s in our national DNA. We’re a country that was born in violent resistance to government. Are you seriously taking the position that there are no circumstances under which you would take some kind of violent action against the government? You’d just peacefully comply with a fascist takeover of the American government? Regardless, what people tell a pollster is not a threat to national security. We don’t have thought crime — at least not yet.

And we're not even scratching the surface when you consider all the damage it did during the pandemic and the conspiracy nonsense it pushed that effectively killed tens of thousands of Americans who refused to get vaccinated.

And? At some point, people are responsible for their own bad decisions. No one is forced to watch Fox. No one is forced to believe what Fox says. I don’t like it. I think it’s tragic. But do you seriously believe that people who rejected the vaccines are going to look at a government mandated disclaimer and say “Huh. I guess the CDC is right. I’m gonna run right out and get me that shot?” Seriously? The people you’re talking about don’t trust the government to begin with. Why would you think they’d trust the government’s opinion about Fox News? The more likely result would be to inflame the people you’re scared of.

Sorry Res, but you're just flat out wrong.

Given the sheer number of opinions I’ve expressed in this thread, it’s almost a certainty that I’m wrong about something. But you’ve demonstrated almost no understanding of what I said, so it’s hard to evaluate your claim. I’m pretty sure I’m not wrong about the Constitutional basis of the fairness doctrine, the history of first amendment jurisprudence, and the partisan nature of newspapers in our history, and the role of governmental control of the press in the capture of government by autocrats. If I am, you sue haven’t offered any evidence to that effect.

There is no way around the fact that FOX represents a threat to this nation.

So you’re claiming I’m wrong about a claim I’ve never made? There should be some kind of word for attacking a position that the other party never took. That would be really handy.

Lots of things are threats to this nation. Being a threat, in and of itself, doesn’t mean the government is entitled to ignore the constitution. Again, lots of the people you are talking about view you and your political beliefs as a threat to the nation. How much power are you willing to give them to give the government to suppress the ability to communicate?

The evidence is overwhelming at this point. So much so that their "hard news" folks like Chris Wallace and Shep Smith have left the building because it has no room for actual news reporting anymore. It is a complete dumpster fire now full of nothing but partisan hackery and blind devotion to a push towards autocracy.

So? I’ve told you about the historical examples. The government lacks the constitutional power to fight partisan hackers or dumpster fires in the press by controlling what it publishes. The Supreme Court’s remedy for what you describe is more information — not governmental control of what the press says.

I’m very resistant to giving the state the power to decide what is “legitimate news” and what is not.

And yet, we regulate requirements to practice medicine, practice law, we set standards so not anyone who opens up a "school" can say they're accredited, etc. What country do you actually live in? Look around you. We regulate just about everything and for good reason. We also regulate speech. You can't stand in the middle of town square and scream racial slurs without being arrested. But you can go on FOX and say as much racist garbage as you want. Freedom of the press shouldn't be taken lightly, but "the press" doesn't apply to just anyone with a blog now does it? Why does the Press briefing never include people asking questions from GQ magazine or Sports Illustrated? Because they're not News. Same is true for FOX News. They manufacture news and use it to make Americans hateful, resentful and violent towards others. This is proven by the fact that every time they're being sued for defamation their lawyers argue in court that it is ridiculous to think people actually believe they're telling the truth. As the article I referenced shows, by presenting themselves as "news" as opposed to the political outfit that they truly are, they are able to rake in money from cable outlets in ways political outlets cannot. Why you think it should be OK for them to keep lying about who they truly are is beyond me. Their own CEO admitted as much. They're a political outlet, but because they have "News" in their name this means I'm subsidizing them whether I like it or not. As long as I'm subscribed to Direct TV (which I am because I want to watch all NFL football games) I'm paying FOX News money every month. They're making so much damned money that they can even run their prime time shows commercial free to serve their agenda of keeping their audience in the dark on current events. That's quite literally the OPPOSITE of what legitimate news outlets are supposed to do.

Nice rant. What you’re overlooking is the there is no Constitutional right to free doctor or free lawyer. That’s an important distinction. Here’s how limited the government is when it comes to the press: it’s unconstitutional to require a license as a condition of disseminating printed information. Now go make your argument to any liberal judge you can find that the government has the constitutional authority to tell the press what to print or regulate the content of publications. Maybe you’ll listen to them.

by the way, I’ve never said it’s okay to lie. I don’t think it is. But that says nothing about whether the government has the constitutional authority to do what you propose or even whether it’s a good idea. Right now, only one Supreme Court Justice has taken the position that lies have no Constitutional protection. So maybe you and Justice Thomas can put your heads together and persuade four other justices that government has the authority to decide what is true and block the press from publishing anything but the government determined official truth. Again, the Court’s remedy for bad speech is more speech, not government regulation of speech.

Pro tip: your problem with who your cable company includes in its packages is a first world problem with no Constitutional remedy. There is no legal or constitutional right to receive only those channels you want and no others. Besides, can’t you cut the cord and buy a football package though AppleTv, Amazon, Roku, etc.

On a personal note, I hold FOX News entirely accountable for the fact that I haven't been able to have an honest to goodness sincere conversation with either my Mom or Dad in the past 20 years. Because everything in their universe is filtered through FOX News outrage. Just recently, we couldn't even talk about my kids trying to get into a certain University without them going off on a rant about how Sean Hannity tells them about how the system is racist against White people! "They'll never get a chance to get in because the Liberals rigged the system against us." The school is actually 78% white and when I told them that they went off on me in front of their grandchildren about being a communist for not voting for Trump.

I’m genuinely sorry to hear that your family is divided by politics in this manner.

That doesn’t mean we can’t take steps to counter disinformation. But giving government control over the press isn’t gonna end well.

No one said anything about taking control. Good grief Res, you're better than this. I was very clear in what I said. There was a time when FOX News would never have been able to get away with all the damage it is doing to the fabric of American society. The question is how much damage should they be allowed to do before someone does something? Just in the past five years we've seen untold numbers of Americans die because of misinformation from FOX and we've seen a serial sexual predator and career con artist get elected President because, thanks to FOX, more people hate now Clinton than they do rape or adultery.

I honestly have no opinion on how good I am. But I simply disagree that what you are proposing is not government control over the press. As soon as we give the government the power to dictate what the press says, that’s control. And I think you’re foolish to deny it. Giving the government the power to control the freedoms guaranteed by the first amendment is a BFD, and we shouldn’t Kid ourselves about the cost.

There is an established constitutional limit on speech that presents a bona fide clear and present danger to the country. But there’s an immediacy requirement that it’s going to be tough for you to meet. When Biden used the bully pulpit to call out the MAGA republicans, was there blood in the streets or a ton of whining?

The insurrectionists who broke the law on January 6 are being prosecuted and many are doing jail time. Has the MAGA army attacked the Prison to liberate them? Or has there been a combination of bluster and whining? Federal law enforcement is all over militia groups. I’m not seeing any evidence that there is a genuine threat of civil war.

What I see is you fomenting fear and outrage in response to Fox stoking fear and outrage. I understand your outrage, especially given the situation with your parents. But what the country is faced with is a problem - a serious problem. And what we need is calm, thoughtful approaches to try and solve the problem rather than amp each other up with counter outrage. The last thing we need is to engage in government overreach because we worked ourselves into a panic.

Do you think the President is pushing his pants over Fox News? Do you see what he didn’t do? He didn’t try and use the coercive power of the federal government to dictate anything to the press. And note whose pissing his pants in fear? Hawkeye. Bullies can’t take what they dish out, and the reaction of the MAGAS to Biden’s speech indicates to me that most of them are blustering bullies. The F your feelings crowd has its fee fees hurt by stuff Biden said. Frankly I think that’s evidence that most of the threat is actually bluster. Where there is an actual threat, I think we let the FBI and DOJ handle that.

So, if you want to characterize my argument accurately, it looks like this:

1. What you propose isn’t constitutional.
2. There is no reason to believe that what you propose will make the problem better.
3. There is good reason to believe that what you propose will make the problem worse.
4. If Fox actually qualifies as a clear and present danger, the remedy is criminal prosecution, not controlling what they say.
5. There is only so much the government has the power to do in terms of saving people from themselves. (You don’t have to like it.)
6. I’ve suggested in a response to Honor a change that might pass constitutional muster and have some effect — conditioning the Tucker Carlson defense on running a disclaimer. I don’t know that it would be constitutional, but it has a much better chance than trying to force them to run a disclaimer. And it puts some pressure on the pocketbook.

My apologies for the typos, but it’s late and I’m posting from my phone.

Thanks for a great argument between classical liberalism and hard left communism. And no I'm not peeing my pants over Captain unity's incredibly divisive speech.

[Res Ipsa]

You’re welcome, although I think your description is off. The contrast is between classic liberalism and authoritarianism. The latter isn’t limited to either side of the political spectrum. While I don’t agree with some aspects of classical liberalism (the myth of the free market is, in my opinion, harmful rubbish), I do agree when it comes to speech, press, assembly, etc.

Freedom of the press is hard to grapple with when the press is controlled by a handful of rich guys. But the problems that causes do not, in my opinion, justify giving the government the power to tell the press what it must or must not say (within the recognized exceptions for obscenity, incitement of riots, etc.) I would be 100% fine with Biden calling out Fox in a speech by saying it is propaganda and not news. I am 0% fine with Biden forcing Fox News to tell its viewers that it is propaganda and not news.

And, respectfully, I disagree with you about pissing your pants (metaphorically, of course.) Your reaction to Biden’s speech was “they’re gonna put us in chains.” Yes, that’s pissing your pants. And watching all this whining about Biden’s speech from the MAGAS — the F your feelings people who’ve been driving around with big F Biden flags who worship a guy who cannot say a couple sentences without being devices — is the funniest and most pathetic thing I’ve seen in a long time.

Trump once called out liberals as fascists in a speech. We didn’t freak out. Because we knew it wasn’t true. This is a massive case of hit dog holla’

[ajax18]

You’re welcome, although I think your description is off. The contrast is between classic liberalism and authoritarianism. The latter isn’t limited to either side of the political spectrum. While I don’t agree with some aspects of classical liberalism (the myth of the free market is, in my opinion, harmful rubbish), I do agree when it comes to speech, press, assembly, etc.

Freedom of the press is hard to grapple with when the press is controlled by a handful of rich guys. But the problems that causes do not, in my opinion, justify giving the government the power to tell the press what it must or must not say (within the recognized exceptions for obscenity, incitement of riots, etc.) I would be 100% fine with Biden calling out Fox in a speech by saying it is propaganda and not news. I am 0% fine with Biden forcing Fox News to tell its viewers that it is propaganda and not news.

And, respectfully, I disagree with you about pissing your pants (metaphorically, of course.) Your reaction to Biden’s speech was “they’re gonna put us in chains.” Yes, that’s pissing your pants. And watching all this whining about Biden’s speech from the MAGAS — the F your feelings people who’ve been driving around with big F Biden flags who worship a guy who cannot say a couple sentences without being devices — is the funniest and most pathetic thing I’ve seen in a long time.

Trump once called out liberals as fascists in a speech. We didn’t freak out. Because we knew it wasn’t true. This is a massive case of hit dog holla’

I was referring to Joe Biden's comment to his black constituents about Mitt Romney "He's gonna unchain Wall Street. He's gonna put you all back in chains.*

Biden's speech and desires to criminaluze his political opponents and the 74 million people who voted against him is about as tyrannical and broad brush inaccurate as it gets.

And no I'm not scared of Darth Brandon.

[Res Ipsa]

You’re welcome, although I think your description is off. The contrast is between classic liberalism and authoritarianism. The latter isn’t limited to either side of the political spectrum. While I don’t agree with some aspects of classical liberalism (the myth of the free market is, in my opinion, harmful rubbish), I do agree when it comes to speech, press, assembly, etc.

Freedom of the press is hard to grapple with when the press is controlled by a handful of rich guys. But the problems that causes do not, in my opinion, justify giving the government the power to tell the press what it must or must not say (within the recognized exceptions for obscenity, incitement of riots, etc.) I would be 100% fine with Biden calling out Fox in a speech by saying it is propaganda and not news. I am 0% fine with Biden forcing Fox News to tell its viewers that it is propaganda and not news.

And, respectfully, I disagree with you about pissing your pants (metaphorically, of course.) Your reaction to Biden’s speech was “they’re gonna put us in chains.” Yes, that’s pissing your pants. And watching all this whining about Biden’s speech from the MAGAS — the F your feelings people who’ve been driving around with big F Biden flags who worship a guy who cannot say a couple sentences without being devices — is the funniest and most pathetic thing I’ve seen in a long time.

Trump once called out liberals as fascists in a speech. We didn’t freak out. Because we knew it wasn’t true. This is a massive case of hit dog holla’

I was referring to Joe Biden's comment to his black constituents about Mitt Romney "He's gonna unchain Wall Street. He's gonna put you all back in chains.*

Biden's speech and desires to criminaluze his political opponents and the 74 million people who voted against him is about as tyrannical and broad brush inaccurate as it gets.

And no I'm not scared of Darth Brandon.

Yes, you are. Only frightened people make ridiculous claims like that. You’re afraid because your movement has been publicly called out for what it is. After it’s become clear that the MAGAS have no intent to unify, they’ve been called out as pariahs. You’re afraid that people will see your cult for what it is. And that scares you to death.

[Doctor CamNC4Me]

A former President literally called a sitting President “an enemy of the State”.



- Doc

[honorentheos]

Perhaps it helps to frame the problem independent of the speech issue.

I see the problem starting with the premise that a democratic society that is established on shared principles and the rule of law requires those principles be valued by the members of that society. Once those give way, the social order collapses to the next lower rung of shared identity. This is often a combination of heritage and cultural history. Often folks who have "collapsed through" principles to identity don't recognize the difference or destruction because their own definition of what it means to be an American, Mexican, German, Japanese, etc., etc., always included their heritage and culture intertwined with vague ideas regarding late 20th Century democracy equaling "freedom". The distance between the tiers is minimal for many nations who are largely homogeneous such as many of our European and Asian neighbors. For others, especially the US, the distance is a planko board composed of historical changes and hard-fought progress.

This isn't isolated to persons on the right. The identity tier is almost always more fundamental to people's ideas of what defines their national identity and makes being a/an "X" mean what it means to them. It's fundamental to mine, where I see our base society of which I am part as pluralistic, religiously agnostic (meaning no religion, or lack thereof has priority of others), and diverse to include people who claim heritage from around the world. So the issue isn't that people live their lives with lofty idealism engaged. It just has to be present when stresses occur that threaten to balkanize people into their lower tier identities completely.

News outlets have always sought to capitalize on the divisions between those lower tiers. Usually it includes a profit motive to sell time in front of eyeballs via whatever medium is being used. And they have traditionally be motivated by influence in the form of advocating for certain political positions over others. Good, bad, or indifferent it's been that way since before and including Ben Franklin. And this includes news outlets, think tanks, and influencers across the political spectrum, time and, media.

In the 90s and 2000's, my opinion of Fox News was they were clearly targeting a WASP base with culture war leverage to benefit the neocon capitalists. They were selling product and their political influence made sense within a paradigm that still benefited from the stability of Western Liberal Democracy and it's principles.

I can't see that anymore. Are they selling product and buying eyeball time? Absolutely. But the influence motive is lost. We see this "WTF are you all thinking?" from folks who previously enabled the same media vehicles such as the Lincoln Project members. We talk about Mitt Romney and Liz Cheney as being only a handful of "principled" Republicans left because the stress became so great between the tiers they stand out as having reached to the higher tier to attempt to protect the integrity of the United States of America. As an Arizonan I never shared Jeff Flake's politics. But it turned out we both shared a belief in what made us Americans at that higher tier.

So what do you do when the issue isn't completing speech but the use of the freedoms of a liberal democracy to gut it and turn it into a authoritarian regime dominated by conflict and a coalition of second-tier identities?

I love peace and push for it over violence. But I'm not a pacifist. There is tension in believing in these rights and opposing views not being a moral issues to needing to protect the rights against those who would use them to destroy them.

I think Res is right that were the government to attempt to regulate speech it would fuel the authoritarian impulses of those who believe government is already oppressing them and politically weaponized against so-called conservatives. Conservatives being code for certain heritage and religious identities rather than any actual political ideology or fiscal policy. I don't know. It's a bad situation once Congress decided they won't agree with holding accountable the destruction of our Republic as a partisan matter. We are in a bad place.

So, really, I honestly would love for someone to explain the influence motive for Fox News. Because in my mind there is a point where an influence motive opposed to the higher principles of liberal democracy justifies reconsidering their access to the rights they may just be tearing apart.

[honorentheos]

As a tangential note I've heard more and more young people who disagree with the White Christian Patriarchy narrative of American identity who nonetheless accept that is in fact what composes our social order as "Americans". That upper tier of democratic principles doesn't exist let alone remain intact to be shared. Access to opportunity was a lie sold to enslave and manipulate. Our history is one of repression and protection of those in power. The resulting conversations are often more about needing to see the old order taken down and replaced with a new one that is built on different heritage and cultural identities. I consider that a failure as well.

[ajax18]

Perhaps it helps to frame the problem independent of the speech issue.

I see the problem starting with the premise that a democratic society that is established on shared principles and the rule of law requires those principles be valued by the members of that society. Once those give way, the social order collapses to the next lower rung of shared identity. This is often a combination of heritage and cultural history. Often folks who have "collapsed through" principles to identity don't recognize the difference or destruction because their own definition of what it means to be an American, Mexican, German, Japanese, etc., etc., always included their heritage and culture intertwined with vague ideas regarding late 20th Century democracy equaling "freedom". The distance between the tiers is minimal for many nations who are largely homogeneous such as many of our European and Asian neighbors. For others, especially the US, the distance is a planko board composed of historical changes and hard-fought progress.

This isn't isolated to persons on the right. The identity tier is almost always more fundamental to people's ideas of what defines their national identity and makes being a/an "X" mean what it means to them. It's fundamental to mine, where I see our base society of which I am part as pluralistic, religiously agnostic (meaning no religion, or lack thereof has priority of others), and diverse to include people who claim heritage from around the world. So the issue isn't that people live their lives with lofty idealism engaged. It just has to be present when stresses occur that threaten to balkanize people into their lower tier identities completely.

News outlets have always sought to capitalize on the divisions between those lower tiers. Usually it includes a profit motive to sell time in front of eyeballs via whatever medium is being used. And they have traditionally be motivated by influence in the form of advocating for certain political positions over others. Good, bad, or indifferent it's been that way since before and including Ben Franklin. And this includes news outlets, think tanks, and influencers across the political spectrum, time and, media.

In the 90s and 2000's, my opinion of Fox News was they were clearly targeting a WASP base with culture war leverage to benefit the neocon capitalists. They were selling product and their political influence made sense within a paradigm that still benefited from the stability of Western Liberal Democracy and it's principles.

I can't see that anymore. Are they selling product and buying eyeball time? Absolutely. But the influence motive is lost. We see this "WTF are you all thinking?" from folks who previously enabled the same media vehicles such as the Lincoln Project members. We talk about Mitt Romney and Liz Cheney as being only a handful of "principled" Republicans left because the stress became so great between the tiers they stand out as having reached to the higher tier to attempt to protect the integrity of the United States of America. As an Arizonan I never shared Jeff Flake's politics. But it turned out we both shared a belief in what made us Americans at that higher tier.

So what do you do when the issue isn't completing speech but the use of the freedoms of a liberal democracy to gut it and turn it into a authoritarian regime dominated by conflict and a coalition of second-tier identities?

I love peace and push for it over violence. But I'm not a pacifist. There is tension in believing in these rights and opposing views not being a moral issues to needing to protect the rights against those who would use them to destroy them.

I think Res is right that were the government to attempt to regulate speech it would fuel the authoritarian impulses of those who believe government is already oppressing them and politically weaponized against so-called conservatives. Conservatives being code for certain heritage and religious identities rather than any actual political ideology or fiscal policy. I don't know. It's a bad situation once Congress decided they won't agree with holding accountable the destruction of our Republic as a partisan matter. We are in a bad place.

So, really, I honestly would love for someone to explain the influence motive for Fox News. Because in my mind there is a point where an influence motive opposed to the higher principles of liberal democracy justifies reconsidering their access to the rights they may just be tearing apart.

Polls are pretty clear that it's democrats who only love or are proud of their country when they win. Stacey Abrsms never conceded the election in GA that she lost by 50,000 votes. Democrats haven't accepted the results of a presidential election they list since 1988. Biden's speech on accepting election outcomes was the height of hypocrisy after spending 4 years trying to overturn the 2016 election and bailing out and endorsing politically violent BLM protesters throughout the summer of 2020.

[honorentheos]

Polls are pretty clear that it's democrats who only love or are proud of their country when they win. Stacey Abrsms never conceded the election in GA that she lost by 50,000 votes. Democrats haven't accepted the results of a presidential election they list since 1988. Biden's speech on accepting election outcomes was the height of hypocrisy after spending 4 years trying to overturn the 2016 election and bailing out and endorsing politically violent BLM protesters throughout the summer of 2020.

It is absolutely true there are plenty of folks on the political left who have collapsed past the first tier as well. I noted as much and reinforced it in the post above. I don't think it's something that can be made as a blanket statement of either side, as simply demonizing the other is having collapsed through principles as values to identity as values as well. That isn't to whatabout the issue. It's a statement of fact about the nature of othering as undemocratic. Just as I think Republicans who fail to hold Trump accountable have abandoned the principles that make up the American promise, so do I also think anyone who simply refuses to accept the results of an election is no better.

But what you are doing above? That's not a defense of American values. It's partisan demonizing. It's also lazy regurgitation of taking points you learned from some outlet.

Think about what it is you stand for and ask yourself: Are these principles I can articulate? Or identities I feel are threatened?