FOX NEWS Is an Enemy of the State

[Res Ipsa]

I'm not sure about this, Res. Fox News is doing real damage to the Republic. I don't know what the motive is, and I've though a lot about that. Money doesn't explain it. There has to be a point where profit is trumped by principles if one has them.

So why has Fox News, especially their opinion evening programing that is the most popular, made hyper-partisanship king to the point of they would rather see Western Liberal Democracy in flames than acknowledge real threats if they are from the supposed right? Is it tolerable still after an insurrection and what we are seeing with Trump post-office?

Apparently we're supposed to keep tolerating it, because the only thing worse that watching Democracy collapse is being called an authoritarian by someone who likes to illicitly equate things based on superficial similarities.

"This guy said he like's pizza and he's a homophobe. You like pizza too, so you're a homophobe in my book!" Not an exact quote, but you get the point.

Sometimes it is really annoying to me that one must be super smart and articulate like honorentheus to get away with saying the hard truths without be called an "authoritarian."

You just can’t help the ad hominem/strawman routine, can you? Where did I say “just tolerate it?” Oh, I didn’t.

Comparing branding political opposition as an enemy of the state to what fascists do is not an illicit or superficial comparison — it’s exactly what fascists and authoritarians do. If you Don’t want to be seen as an authoritarian, don’t adopt the language of authoritarians. Maybe you should re-read 1984 to remind yourself of where branding people enemy of the state leads.

Hard truths? That’s the easy rationale available to every authoritarian in the history of history. You don’t think that every authoritarian isn’t convinced of his own rightness? Isn’t convinced that it’s okay to be authoritarian in order to save the country?

In my opinion, you demonstrate a pretty strong authoritarian streak, which you justify by knowing you’re on the side of the angels, so it’s okay. Forgive me if I’m cynical about the notion that it’s okay because we’re right and they’re the threat.

I understand that I annoy you. I don’t anticipate that changing.

[Res Ipsa]

Well, I can’t claim to be sure, either. But doesn’t every fascist make exactly the same kinds of arguments you just made to justify repression of opponents?

"Repression of opponents"? No, I made it clear FOX News has the right to air, but it should not be allowed to false advertise itself as a legitimate News outlet. It should be treated as a political outfit because that's exactly what it is. Is that "repression"? Not by any stretch of the definition. The freedom of speech isn't unlimited, and it shouldn't be. When you pose a clear and present danger to the security of the country by creating civil wars and giving aid and comfort to authoritarian states like Russia during war time, and hosting politicians who are calling for riots in the streets, it is the job of the government to protect itself and the people from that kind of tyranny.

The rest of your post was just missing the point mixed with hyperbole.

That was a response to Honor, not to you.

So, you want to use the coercive power of the state to prevent a news outlet from calling itself a news outlet unless it meets criteria determined by the state. So, what if Fox News says f u — the government doesn’t have the power to decide which media outlets are news? Then what? You can’t enforce what you propose without resorting to repression. At bottom, the state can throw someone’s as in jail or take their stuff. Doing either to the press Would be fairly described as repression.

The rest of your overheated rhetoric isn’t worth responding to. We’re not at war with Russia. Expressing opinions about Russia isn’t giving aid and comfort to the enemy. There is no civil war. If there’s evidence that would find Fox liable for inciting a riot, I haven’t seen it.

[Res Ipsa]

Well, I can’t claim to be sure, either. But doesn’t every fascist make exactly the same kinds of arguments you just made to justify repression of opponents? Is the only difference that, unlike past dictators and authoritarian, we’re right that there is an actual threat?

Am I wrong to associate “enemy of the state” with Stalin, Hitler, Mussolini, Mao, Pol Pot, etc? Using “enemy of the state” to clamp down on press outlets puts all of us at the mercy of whoever controls the state. And nobody has a good crystal ball when it comes to that.

I’m loathe to return to the early years of the Republic when newspaper editors could be and were imprisoned for criticizing the government. Thank heavens Oliver Wendell Holmes had an epiphany on free speech. Reading early Supreme Court opinions on free speech would shock most Modern Americans when it comes to free speech. Freedom of the press was a hard won battle that went on long after we had the First Amendment.

I’ll fight to save the village from burning. But I’m not willing to burn the village in order to save it.

I share your concerns about the fragility of the rights we take for granted and what undergirds them. But set aside the opening post title and focus on the content as we know we ought to. What is it in Veritas' opening post that is problematic beyond the problem he is calling attention to with the behavior of Fox News? I'd be interested in that discussion and if we value speech that is the discussion to be had, in my opinion.

Now, I do agree the opening post title is something I'd say to Culty and probably no one else. I was pretty outspoken over the "Defund the Police" slogan for it's inelegance and felt it did real damage to the issues it rightly sought to address. So is saying Fox News is an enemy of the State just problematic because it incites rather than warns? I don't know. Pre-insurrection, maybe. Now, as the big lie is alive and well, as Trump pursues escape from justice as the very issues around his acts corrode faith in democratic institutions essential to the very things you defend above? I might be inclined to say I can tolerate the headline because maybe they in fact are enemies of something I sincerely believe in based on their actions and the results of their words.

Anyway, is there anything in the post you take issue with as far as the evidence against Fox being a friend to the democratic order?

I don’t think Fox is a friend to the Democratic order. That doesn’t mean I think that the government should decide that it isn’t really news media and force it to run a disclaimer. Veritas pines for the Fairness Doctrine, but he has a short historical memory. Newspapers, through their lifetimes, have been partisan as hell. 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.

I’m very resistant to giving the state the power to decide what is “legitimate news” and what is not. It’s power that begs to be abused. A free and independent press is one of the few potential checks we have against abuse of government power. All you have to do is imagine Trump with the the power to decide who is legitimate press and who is not to make the problem glaringly obvious.

So, yeah, I object to the post as well as the title.

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

[honorentheos]

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

I suspect you and I agree that regulation that can be shown to serve a public interest is a necessary counter to certain innate impulses of humankind. I would be surprised to find out you, as a lawyer, did not support the state having some legal oversight on the requirements to both call oneself a lawyer and practice law. Many professions have similar "gatekeepers" over who can practice or hold a professional title where the restrictions on speech and choice are deemed to have bearing on public health, safety, and welfare.

It seems to me we aren't talking about rights in a vacuum but rather about competing rights. The question becomes less about the pure freedom of journalism and more one about if the right to speech should be partially infringed by regulatory means that operate in the interests of public health, safety, and welfare to operate as a news agency? I don't know.

There is a real part of me that is skeptical of cable news being anything other than entertainment at some level across the board. So I question if title/practice as a newsroom could be regulated where professional standards of journalism as set forth by journalists can be fairly demanded of all news rooms to wear the title. What about our current news ecosystem suggests a certain standard like this could upheld?

But I don't think consumers or even protesting matters, anyway. My skepticism had swung to cynicism when it comes to that belief in effecting change with the Fox News organization.

Here, let's consider the case of the December 2018 government shutdown. You may recall the standoff over funding the border wall. The Senate had passed an appropriations bill that did not include that funding and it was set to likely pass the House with Trump onboard to sign it. Then the pundits at Fox News turned on Trump, calling him weak and insulting him which of course resulted in the shutdown lasting into February and Congress at odds with Trump.

What was that? Seriously. Follow the motives for that back to their source and pull back the curtains so I can see what is driving the narrative there. I honestly don't think we can treat it as having a rational or market motive. But I think that because I can't discern the potential motives there anymore.

[Moksha]

So he did say Republicans are fascist? FOX was not lying?

Trump Republicans have bought into fascism lock, stock, and barrel. Just listen to what they say and you can spot that they are 100% disciples of Joseph Goebbels.

[Binger]

So he did say Republicans are fascist? FOX was not lying?

Trump Republicans have bought into fascism lock, stock, and barrel. Just listen to what they say and you can spot that they are 100% disciples of Joseph Goebbels.

No. I can’t spot that because it is not true. Your observation is not true.

I am not sure why you say these things nor why you believe such obviously ridiculous nonsense.

At least we agree though that FOX did accurately report what was said by Biden, correct?

[Vēritās]

Trump Republicans have bought into fascism lock, stock, and barrel. Just listen to what they say and you can spot that they are 100% disciples of Joseph Goebbels.

No. I can’t spot that because it is not true. Your observation is not true.

I am not sure why you say these things nor why you believe such obviously ridiculous nonsense.

At least we agree though that FOX did accurately report what was said by Biden, correct?

No Binger, FOX News wasn't "accurate" in their reporting, and this is something most children can ascertain. What the hell is it with you anyway? Are you suffering from learning disabilities? Serious question.

I watched FOX that day spread this idiotic nonsense beating up a complete straw man insisting Biden attacked ALL REPUBLICANS when he very clearly delineated a distinction that FOX News completely edited out because it didn't serve their agenda of crying about persecutions. They then hosted a bunch of morons, the usual people who are paid to spew whatever narrative FOX tells them to as if they can somehow make Biden's actual statement go away because they've expressed enough outrage about something he never said.

[Binger]

No. I can’t spot that because it is not true. Your observation is not true.

I am not sure why you say these things nor why you believe such obviously ridiculous nonsense.

At least we agree though that FOX did accurately report what was said by Biden, correct?

No Binger, FOX News wasn't "accurate" in their reporting, and this is something most children can ascertain. What the hell is it with you anyway? Are you suffering from learning disabilities? Serious question.

I watched FOX that day spread this idiotic nonsense beating up a complete straw man insisting Biden attacked ALL REPUBLICANS when he very clearly delineated a distinction that FOX News completely edited out because it didn't serve their agenda of crying about persecutions. They then hosted a bunch of morons, the usual people who are paid to spew whatever narrative FOX tells them to as if they can somehow make Biden's actual statement go away because they've expressed enough outrage about something he never said.

Help us out here.

Biden said:____________________________________________________________

FOX said Biden said:____________________________________________________

[Moksha]

No. I can’t spot that because it is not true. Your observation is not true.

I am not sure why you say these things nor why you believe such obviously ridiculous nonsense.

I feel foolish when I debate against an artificial intelligence program. Sort of like getting therapy from the Eliza computer program of past decades. You can't spot or verify these things because of the denial subroutines in your programming.

The one thing you can do quite well, is be prolific in bad arguments and attacks. You are probably being run on a powerful server.

[Binger]

No. I can’t spot that because it is not true. Your observation is not true.

I am not sure why you say these things nor why you believe such obviously ridiculous nonsense.

I feel foolish when I debate against an artificial intelligence program. Sort of like getting therapy from the Eliza computer program of past decades. You can't spot or verify these things because of the denial subroutines in your programming.

I do not have denial subroutines. Perhaps your false assumptions explain your false claims and non-cogent sentences.