Media Bias

[Sean Hayden]

Right, you'll defeat the barbarians at the gates while your media encourages the rot within.

What could possibly go wrong?

I think maybe, like I said initially, Fox is simply off limits.

--too bad really

[L'Emmerdeur]

I am intrigued by the idea of some action being taken against Fox News, and would like to hear ideas on the topic. I won't be coy regarding my opinion on the feasibility of federal or state governments having any say in the matter:

It is about the 1st Amendment. The Fairness Doctrine had managed to walk a constitutional tightrope, imposing on free speech only to the extent of ostensibly ensuring that more than a single view was heard on any given station. It was eliminated under Reagan. Once the Fairness Doctrine was thrown out, the way was free for straight-forward propaganda machines like right wing talk radio and Fox News.

I honestly don't see any way back in the near future. Thunderous outrage (not to mention genuine potential for violence) would meet even an attempt to reinstate the Fairness Doctrine. Politicians find that sort of thing rather daunting.

Yet I return to my request for some exposition on the topic of reining in Fox News and similar feculent teats that drip poison into the ears of gullible Americans.

[Brian Peacock]

Corporations are people and they have a right to an opinion. The only thing wrong with that is that the persona-corporate has far more power than regular people. Only law and regulation can push against an abuse of that order, so it probably starts with deciding on the social role and impact of the fourth estate and by citizens affirming and asserting a right to not be lied to by the powerful. How you achieve that in a post-truth digital environment is above my pay grade, but an education in critical thinking would be a start.

[Svartalf]

corporations have no such rights. the people who are part of them do, but as individual persons. the corp itself is just a conglomerate of financial and private interests, and should not be allowed to throw its financial weight around.

[Joe]

Right, you'll defeat the barbarians at the gates while your media encourages the rot within.

What could possibly go wrong?

I think maybe, like I said initially, Fox is simply off limits.

--too bad really

How melodramatic. When you wish to further engage on the topic, I'm at your service.

[Sean Hayden]

It was shorthand for the point I've made since the beginning. When you finally get it, let me know.

[Joe]

It was shorthand for the point I've made since the beginning. When you finally get it, let me know.

I already did, but based on your "shorthand," you seem to have missed it.

[Sean Hayden]

Then reiterate my point so that I know you've understood me.

[Joe]

I am intrigued by the idea of some action being taken against Fox News, and would like to hear ideas on the topic. I won't be coy regarding my opinion on the feasibility of federal or state governments having any say in the matter:

It is about the 1st Amendment. The Fairness Doctrine had managed to walk a constitutional tightrope, imposing on free speech only to the extent of ostensibly ensuring that more than a single view was heard on any given station. It was eliminated under Reagan. Once the Fairness Doctrine was thrown out, the way was free for straight-forward propaganda machines like right wing talk radio and Fox News.

I honestly don't see any way back in the near future. Thunderous outrage (not to mention genuine potential for violence) would meet even an attempt to reinstate the Fairness Doctrine. Politicians find that sort of thing rather daunting.

Yet I return to my request for some exposition on the topic of reining in Fox News and similar feculent teats that drip poison into the ears of gullible Americans.

With the business-friendly interpretations of the First Amendment, I can't see much progress to be had near term in regulating media outlets. Even if Fox could be put out of business, the internet has so lowered the barriers to entry that replacements would just spawn faster than governments can respond to them.

My only hope is that someone comes up with a more benign business model that is able to draw people away from Fox and the extremist news milieu. I don't see it happening without a lot of minds changing and can't see that resulting from anything good.

[Joe]

Then reiterate my point so that I know you've understood me.

Here's what I said

I'm sure Fox has had an impact, and I don't care for it, but I have reservations about the assumptions your questions are built around. I live in a GOP stronghold, and have everyday interactions with Trump supporters. I've seen no evidence these people's minds are crippled. We just disagree. Also, I don't know if the Fox phenomenon is a cause of their beliefs, or a profitable niche for people who hold those beliefs.

That said, symptom or disease, there's a national security threat, but how do you quantify it?

I don't usually call news organizations national security threats and I've never proposed ignoring Fox in favor of Russian espionage.

Now, reiterate my point so I know you've understood me.

[Sean Hayden]

Russia is a serious national security threat owing to its tremendous resources, and proven willingness to subvert American institutions.

[Joe]

Yeah, and they've been at it for almost a century, but the internet let them do their thing on a much broader scale, at a much lower cost. It's a double whammy. We have an enemy trying to trick us into tearing ourselves apart, while our biggest TV network is creating divisions they can exploit.

I almost miss the old USSR. If Fox were seen as helping them, they could be branded Communist tools, which would cost them their audience.

[JimC]

Communist tools are usually either hammers or sickles...

[Joe]

Communist tools are usually either hammers or sickles...

[Svartalf]

Communist tools are usually either hammers or sickles...

though the main use of hammers is to forge more sickles.