FOX NEWS Is an Enemy of the State

[Binger]

Three prominent journalists at CNN resigned on Monday after the cable news network was forced to retract and apologize for a story on its website involving a close ally of President Trump.

The article — linking Anthony Scaramucci, a hedge-fund manager and Trump confidant, to a Russian investment fund supposedly being investigated by the Senate — was removed from CNN.com late last week after the network decided it could not fully stand by its reporting.

The resignations are a black eye at a sensitive moment for the news organization, which has emerged as a regular target of Mr. Trump and his supporters. The president relishes dismissing the network’s coverage as “fake news,” and his closest advisers have accused the channel of harboring a bias against Mr. Trump.

They did not learn a damn thing, did they?

Zucker - Gone
Cuomo - Gone
Gollust - Gone
Stelter - Gone

And...... John Harwood is now gone.

Karine Jean-Pierre is not going to last much longer either.

Bias is not unique to FOX. And real bias is not just an enemy of the state, it is an enemy of net income too. See CNN.

[Res Ipsa]

Three prominent journalists at CNN resigned on Monday after the cable news network was forced to retract and apologize for a story on its website involving a close ally of President Trump.

The article — linking Anthony Scaramucci, a hedge-fund manager and Trump confidant, to a Russian investment fund supposedly being investigated by the Senate — was removed from CNN.com late last week after the network decided it could not fully stand by its reporting.

The resignations are a black eye at a sensitive moment for the news organization, which has emerged as a regular target of Mr. Trump and his supporters. The president relishes dismissing the network’s coverage as “fake news,” and his closest advisers have accused the channel of harboring a bias against Mr. Trump.

They did not learn a damn thing, did they?

Zucker - Gone
Cuomo - Gone
Gollust - Gone
Stelter - Gone

And...... John Harwood is now gone.

Karine Jean-Pierre is not going to last much longer either.

Bias is not unique to FOX. And real bias is not just an enemy of the state, it is an enemy of net income too. See CNN.

And when a Fox News reports false information, something similar happens, right?

Fox is the most politically politically biased of the cable news channels. They’ve made money hand over fist shilling for the MAGAS. Real bias, including making up a constant stream of BS is extremely profitable.

[canpakes]

Three prominent journalists at CNN resigned on Monday after the cable news network was forced to retract and apologize for a story on its website involving a close ally of President Trump.

The article — linking Anthony Scaramucci, a hedge-fund manager and Trump confidant, to a Russian investment fund supposedly being investigated by the Senate — was removed from CNN.com late last week after the network decided it could not fully stand by its reporting.

The resignations are a black eye at a sensitive moment for the news organization, which has emerged as a regular target of Mr. Trump and his supporters. The president relishes dismissing the network’s coverage as “fake news,” and his closest advisers have accused the channel of harboring a bias against Mr. Trump.

They did not learn a damn thing, did they?

Zucker - Gone
Cuomo - Gone
Gollust - Gone
Stelter - Gone

And...... John Harwood is now gone.

Karine Jean-Pierre is not going to last much longer either.

Bias is not unique to FOX. And real bias is not just an enemy of the state, it is an enemy of net income too. See CNN.

Interesting point.

When there’s a problem with reporting at CNN, a reporter is called out for it.

At Fox, outright lies seem to be rewarded with promotion, and telling the truth can get you fired. Remember the fellow who called AZ for Biden on election night?

He was right, and he was fired for it.

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/06/13/busi ... trump.html

When Chris Stirewalt watched rioters attack the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021, he was a journalist for Fox News, which was trying to recover from a ratings slump in the weeks after President Donald J. Trump lost his re-election campaign.

Two months later, Mr. Stirewalt was fired by Fox, where he had been a regular on-air presence as the politics editor.

The network gave no public reason for his dismissal. But Mr. Stirewalt, who before his ouster was one of the shrinking number of news journalists left at Fox News, was on the team that had decided to call Arizona for Joseph R. Biden Jr. shortly before midnight on Election Day in 2020, effectively declaring the race over days before the results would be settled.
On Monday, he discussed how he and the members of the Fox News Decision Desk relied on hard data to make that call, which deeply angered Mr. Trump and blunted his ability to falsely claim that he had won.

In the days after the election, Mr. Stirewalt was one of the Fox personalities who went on the air to defend the call as Mr. Trump attacked the network, and his supporters voted with their remotes, switching over to Fox rivals like Newsmax and the One America News Network.

Mr. Stirewalt described the decision as the product of a cautious and rigorous internal process. “We are careful about making calls,” he said the day after the election. “That’s why we have those protocols in place — so that we make good calls and that they stand up.”

Since his ouster, Mr. Stirewalt has become an outspoken critic of his former employer and what he has described as an information bubble that is doing a disservice to Trump supporters. He has called the notion that fraud cost Mr. Trump the election a “lie” and said that the former president’s initial success was in part the result of the “informational malnourishment” of his supporters.

(Continues at link above)

[Binger]

And when a Fox News reports false information, something similar happens, right?

Fox is the most politically politically biased of the cable news channels. They’ve made money hand over fist shilling for the MAGAS. Real bias, including making up a constant stream of BS is extremely profitable.

Remember this:

Discovery's merger with WarnerMedia took effect on Friday afternoon, creating a streaming media giant led by CEO David Zaslav.

The deal combines two treasure troves of content and foreshadows further changes in the streaming era.
The newly formed company, Warner Bros. Discovery, will begin publicly trading on Monday. Zaslav said he will hold a town hall event for employees of the combined company later in the week.
"I am confident that our collective energy and genuine love for these businesses and brands will build the world's most dynamic media and entertainment company," Zaslav said in a memo to employees Friday afternoon.

Perhaps you don't remember that. And, you may not think it is relevant.

Discovery bought CNN and installed their management group. Do I need to remind you what that means? That means this - Mythbusters, How it's Made, Dirty Jobs, Gold Rush, etc. That means families, workers and Americans. That means people that watch things that are not seeped in political BS and drama. That means the deplorables are their customers. And now everyone that has been promoted by Presidential decree from deplorable to Ultra Maga is most likely, a customer of the parent of CNN.

So, when an employee decides that they can crap on Americans they are crapping on the customers that are needed for a publicly traded company who is also the parent company of CNN.

In short.... Brian was correct about the collective, and his energy has been dismissed.

[Moksha]

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 thought a lot about that. Money doesn't explain it.

Trump was sold on Steve Bannon's idea of destroying the United States and building something new based on fascism. Trump employed the tactic of turning Americans against one another. The Murdoch empire bought into this idea and tried to help.

Am I the only one who knows of Steve Bannon's ideas?

[Doctor CamNC4Me]

Trump was sold on Steve Bannon's idea of destroying the United States and building something new based on fascism. Trump employed the tactic of turning Americans against one another. The Murdoch empire bought into this idea and tried to help.

Am I the only one who knows of Steve Bannon's ideas?

No.

[Res Ipsa]

Trump was sold on Steve Bannon's idea of destroying the United States and building something new based on fascism. Trump employed the tactic of turning Americans against one another. The Murdoch empire bought into this idea and tried to help.

Am I the only one who knows of Steve Bannon's ideas?

Nope. But I question whether Trump has any vision that extends beyond his own ego.

[Res Ipsa]

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.

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.

[Vēritās]

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.

The only thing demonstrated is your own inability to come to gripes with what I've actually said. And Now after reading your long winded, delayed response, it appears you're shifting your ground.

First, there are “standards” in the form of well defined limits on freedom of the press.

Which is what I'm talking about. Those limits need to be increased and more importantly enforced. Media isn't supposed to be allowed to flat out lie, but they do and get away with it because of lax laws that put stringent burdens on those needing to prove libel or defamation. But your initial suggestion was that merely regulating standards for what's news is nothing short of "authoritarian," and then when I demonstrate how we regulate just about everything else in our society you switch gears and say "oh but you don't have a constitutional right to those things. Well either more regulation = authoritarianism or it doesn't. You clearly stated that it does, but refuse to apply such a ridiculous standard to everything else we regulate. And you keep disingenuously framing what I've argued as something as a complete censor of FOX News when all I have suggested is that they not be allowed to call themselves News. And you also know that no Constitutional right is absolute. Your hand waving dismissal of my "rant" ignores my clear examples of how we regulate the freedom of speech which is also Constitutional.

The fact is you called me an authoritarian for merely calling a spade a spade, because you said Fascists do that. I never proposed "government control" of all media, I suggested something needed to be done to protect the country from the harm FOX has caused and continues to cause. But then in an ironic twist you get upset with me for basically spinning your own logic back only you by pointing out that your remark about media being historically "partisan as hell" is precisely what FOX News argues to justify their existence as a counterweight. So what does that correlation make you? I don't know. But this is all a straw man because no one is talking about mere partisanship. FOX News isn't just partisan, it is an enemy to this country because it WILLFULLY and KNOWINGLY propagates HARMFUL DISINFORMATION for the sole purpose of propping up a political party that is working hard to upend our Democracy. Oh, and yeah, because they make money hand over fist in doing so. And they're doing it out in the open and we're just sitting back watching our society wither away as more people get armed and we see an escalation in violent rhetoric as it corresponds to an escalation with violent riots.

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.

You called me an authoritarian or a fascist for merely saying something even honor seems to agree with. Own up to what you said Res. For whatever reason you don't respond this way to other posters who appear to agree with me. That tells me your problem with me has little to do with things I say.

You keep simply ignoring the role that government control of the press plays...

Again, who said anything about "government control of the press"? I even clarified what I said and you continue to beat a straw man. What I suggest is a minimal attempt to circumvent the harm FOX and other bogus outlets have done to this nation. Again, there are already standards that are in effect for news organizations, but they're only enforced internally at outlets like CNN. FOX has its own code of ethics but it doesn't even pretend to use them anymore. Their hosts violate their own policies all the time when they get involved in political campaigns.

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

The Fairness doctrine was just an example, and yes, it would still be helpful if it were never rescinded because Talk Radio kinda gave birth to FOX News. Hannity, Beck, Carlson, Limbaugh, Ingraham, etc. They all started as uneducated radio personalities.

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.

Again if saying something an authoritarian would say ("enemy of the state") makes me a fascist then what does mimicking FOX make you? "All purpose excuse"?

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.

FOX has always argued their existence was needed because all other media was inherently biased and Liberal, ESPECIALLY the friggin newspapers. My Step-Dad was a newspaper junkie growing up. I remember having to haul hundreds of pounds of used newspapers to the trash over the years. But shortly after 9/11 he canceled his subscription because Hannity told him the Atlanta Journal and Constitution was too Liberal.

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.

Not nearly as long as I'll need to wait for you to stop beating straw men apparently. You seem to think I propose Nauvoo Expositor 2.0 or something.

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?

Now you're just being obtuse. The polling suggests that this view isn't uniform across the timeline of US history, but that it is rather INCREASING, and mostly among you know who.

A majority of adults still say violence is never justified. But that number, 62%, is a new low, per the Post. Some 90% believed it was never justified in the 1990s.

The new poll found that 40% of Republicans and 41% of independents said violence can be acceptable, compared with 23% of Democrats. Forty percent of white Americans said violence can be justified, compared with 18% of Black Americans.

Flashback: The percentage of adults who said violence is justified was 23% in 2015 and 16% in 2010 in polls by CBS News and the New York Times respectively, according to the Post.

And? At some point, people are responsible for their own bad decisions. No one is forced to watch Fox.

JFC, no, but we're forced to live in the world FOX News creates. You realize we don't live in a vacuum. Every day I have to interact with the society I'm dealt. At this rate my grandkids will be living with fewer freedoms because of FOX News. This isn't hyperbole. It is already happening right before our own eyes with the abortion crap and the courts being turned into a religious court against the will of the people.

No one is forced to believe what Fox says.

But they do, and will continue to. So what's your point? There is no sign that FOX is letting up, but rather the opposite. Tomorrow a FOX News host could just go on a 20 minute commercial free rant explaining how virtuous and honorable it would be for Americans to rise up and end the Democratic party, using all sorts of metaphor and innuendo to suggest a violent, armed uprising.... and it wouldn't even surprise anyone today because that's basically all FOX is nowadays. And that host would likely get away with it because of all the ridiculous laws that make holding news outlets accountable for libel, slander and defamation damned near impossible.

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?

You amaze me sometimes, how you can be so obviously intelligent and informed and then say things like this. As if you're incapable of thinking more dimensionally, you you clearly are. No, that isn't the point Res. But it takes some truly strained logic to sit there and say millions of antivaxxers develop those views on their own, with no propaganda outlet to feed them fear, uncertainty and doubt. The correlation between the unvaxxed and Right Wing fanaticism has already been drawn.

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.

Again, anti-government sentiment isn't innate, it is taught. And it is taught by...? Exactly.

And stop spinning this BS about me being "scared" of people. Me being upset that a fake news outlet is almost singlehandedly upending our Democracy doesn't make me "scared of people."

But you’ve demonstrated almost no understanding of what I said, so it’s hard to evaluate your claim.

As if you would. You're the one who came at me over my OP and you misrepresented what I've said and engaged in hyperbole to beat straw men.

I’m pretty sure I’m not wrong about the Constitutional basis of the fairness doctrine

Never said you were.

the history of first amendment jurisprudence

Never said you were.

and the partisan nature of newspapers in our history

Never said you were.

the role of governmental control of the press in the capture of government by autocrats

Never said you were.

If I am, you sue haven’t offered any evidence to that effect.

I don't address straw man arguments because to do so would no longer make them a straw man.

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.

Of course you did. Not directly in those terms, but my OP was fairly innocuous and nothing truly outrageous as honorentheus explained, and you addressed nothing in the link I provided where my argument had previously been published. Instead you called me an authoritarian because in your mind, only an authoritarian would call something the enemy of the state. No Res, that's not something only an authoritarian would say. I asked you if true enemies of the state even exist and I don't think you answered it. If you did in the affirmative, then what's the problem with pointing them out? If you answer in the negative then you're just delusional.

You accused me of "branding" but is it really branding if it is true? By your own logic, you branding me an authoritarian for branding must also make you an authoritarian.

[Doctor CamNC4Me]

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