Good morning,
PLAYING US FOR FOOLS
If it wasn’t already clear, Fox News and its fellow-travelers have been playing the Republican base, and anyone else crazy enough to watch, for fools. Recent revelations in the Dominion Voting Systems lawsuit against Fox for defamation uncovered what we probably all knew about the Fox News entertainers in the prime time block. Emails and texts from Laura Ingraham, Tucker Carlson and Sean Hannity confirm that they didn’t believe the ridiculous, unfounded claims of former President Trump regarding the purported “stolen” election. Yet, they continued to spew what they knew were lies, in the hopes of maintaining their ratings. Here’s what Laura Ingraham said, “No serious lawyer could believe what they were saying.” Or how about Tucker Carlson on the claims against Dominion Voting Systems: “The software shit is absurd.” And Carlson’s producer to him: “I don’t think there is evidence of voter fraud that swung the election.”
What the disclosures reveal is that Fox knew they were perpetrating lies, lies which were damaging to the nation. But they also noted that many of their viewers, “very good people” believed the election lies. Rather than acting as journalists, the Fox team saw that, to maintain their ratings and the continuing fealty of their uninformed viewers, they would have to perpetrate and expand upon untruths. They were feeding their audience what the audience craved, acting not as journalists, but as entertainers and enablers.
Here's what The New York Times had to say: “The hosts Tucker Carlson, Sean Hannity and Laura Ingraham, as well as others at the company, repeatedly insulted and mocked Trump advisers, including Sidney Powell and Rudolph W. Giuliani, in text messages with each other in the weeks after the election, according to a legal filing by Dominion Voting Systems. Dominion is suing Fox for defamation in a case that poses considerable financial and reputational risk for the country’s most-watched cable news network.”
ABC News offers an inside view of the lies at Fox: “In mid-November 2020, host Tucker Carlson texted one of his producers that ‘there wasn't enough fraud to change the outcome’ of the election, and later said that Sidney Powell, one of Trump's attorneys and a vocal promulgator of election denialism, ‘is lying.’" Sadly, Mr. Carlson did not think it noteworthy to share his views on the subject.
Months later, on Jan. 6, Carlson called Trump "a demonic force, a destroyer," in a text message to the same producer.
Dana Perino, an anchor, called allegations of voter fraud against Dominion "total bs," "insane," and "nonsense."
In some cases, Fox News personnel raised red flags internally about their own colleagues. After host Maria Bartiromo tweeted about election fraud on Nov. 5, anchor Bret Baier pleaded to a network executive, "We have to prevent this stuff ... We need to fact check."
Meanwhile, The Washington Post reports how Fox resisted telling the truth in order to retain ratings: “’It’s remarkable how weak ratings make good journalists do bad things,’” the filing quotes Fox Washington news executive Bill Sammon as saying.”
WHY DOES A MEDIA OUTLET CHOOSE TO REPORT THE NEWS?
I’ve been thinking a lot about “the enemy of the people.” You know, the mainstream media, about which our former president and his acolytes complain every day. How we ever got here, where we doubt whether professional journalists are delivering us the news, is inexplicable and is highly dangerous to a functioning democracy.
It might be worth examining why news exists and what its objectives are. While there is a long history of media bias (often acknowledged), the primary objective in modern times is to deliver a relatively objective reporting and analysis of the news.
Traditional media outlets—AP, CBS, NPR, The New York Times, the Washington Post, do not exist primarily for political purposes. They report on a broad number of news topics and are not primarily focused on political news and certainly not on political advocacy. The mission of a newspaper, for instance, covers a wide range of services and sections, including sports, society, obituaries, business, and myriad other purposes. Most of us listen to the news because it provides us a wide variety of news reports but also a wide variety of other services and functions.
I don’t have the analytics, but I suspect conservative commentators are correct that journalists in the mainstream media share a left-of-center bias. Notwithstanding this perceived bias, they seem to make an effort to give a platform for opposing views (and, in some instance, giving a platform to known falsehoods like the 2020 election denial).
The “original sin” of conservative media is that its primary raison d’etre is not to report the news or provide a public service function. It is the outgrowth of a sense that there needed to be a conservative mouthpiece on the airwaves. Whether one views this as a response to a presumed left-leaning bias, the right wing media fundamentally is not in the business of even trying to be balanced. The very reason for their existence is in response to the broadly liberal (small “L”) media being deemed by some as carrying too much of a Liberal (large “L”) bias. So the purpose of the conservative media is not to be the newspaper of record, or even the news source of broad application—but a response to the perceived Liberal bias of the greater media landscape. Its very purpose is to propound a political belief system and further the political fortunes of the Republican party. If the Glenn Beck is to believed, or if the histories of Fox News are to be believed, commentators are chosen not for their journalistic abilities, but for their entertainment value and ability to mouth the views of Rupert Murdoch, et al. So long as this is the case, the conservatives listening to Fox News and conservative talk radio have self-selected a universe in which they longer receive the benefit of views from “the other side.”
A few may remember that Fox initially made a half-hearted attempt to offer more liberal views. Recall that Sean Hannity began his career in a “point/counterpoint” format with liberal foil, Alan Colmes. Then there was the hiring of liberal NPR correspondent, Juan Williams, who stood as a lone voice on many Fox panels. For the longest time, Chris Wallace offered a semblance of fair and balanced reporting, as did Shepard Smith. Today, however, it is difficult to find any views opposing the general conservative talking points. They are well coordinated with Republican leadership (lest we forget all the calls and texts from Fox correspondents and others directly to the White House on January 6th.
In the meantime, it sometimes feels like the New York Times and the major networks are bending over backwards to provide a “balanced view,” even when such “balance” incorporates the whacky, dishonest and treasonous views of those trying to overturn elections and deny the people of their choice at the ballot box. They get a hearing even after multiple recounts and inquiries into alleged problems yield no supporting facts. Conspiracy sometimes seems to get equal air time to proven facts, while nearly any view—regardless of how heinous, is given a platform and is claimed to be “presenting the other side.” This “other side-ism” elevates the absurd, unproven, and outright lies to equal stature with double-blind studies, established science, and demonstrable facts. I’m not sure that giving a constant mouthpiece to people furthering demonstrably false narratives is healthy for our democracy.
STAMP COLLECTIONS
Once the hobby of adults and children alike, the passion of FDR, King George V and Freddie Mercury, philately has become a dying hobby. I recall fondly collecting stamps of various shapes, colors, and sizes from places with exotic names. They contained fauna, flora, history, and art of other cultures from around the world.
There was a time in the not-so-distant past when we sent things by mail. There was regular mail and air mail. There were those thin blue letters that folded up and had stamps printed on them. There were stamps in rolls and on sheets. The corners of those sheets, with the numbers in various colors were “plate blocks.” These also were collectible. Then there were the stamps from foreign countries and the United Nations. One could travel the world, learn history, see pictures of famous leaders, and learn of flora, fauna, and sites from around the world.
Finally, there are the First Day Covers from the United States and the United Nations that my grandfather loved and signed me up to get on a regular basis. I still have years of First Day Covers and no one even slightly interested in sharing them.
I fear that, with the accessibility of the entire world, traveling there through the slow, deliberate collection of stamps, is going the way of all flesh.
Have a great day,
Glenn
From the archives:
Thin blue sheets , foldable with postage on them, were called aerograms. I used to send them from Africa.