nipsen said:
...Well, unlike The Daily Show, Fox is fielding what they're doing in complete seriousness. Several of the anchors write books about how they see their "efforts" as being a counter point to the liberal bias in the "world", etc. And excuse their over the top appeals to aggressive xenophobia, even torture, by that logic.
As opposed to other networks that are proud of their "efforts" in indoctrinating millions of people into a single viewpoint using excessive propaganda and omission? Which is worse, the information peddler who offers all viewpoints in a biased manner, or the information peddler who only offers his own viewpoint to begin with? I watch Fox News. I haven't seen any "over the top appeals to aggressive xenophobia." I
have seen such appeals on MSNBC in their constant witch-hunts against so-called "racists." I bet you've never even watched two hours of Fox News in your life.
I don't have a problem with it existing as such. It's more that I'm concerned with the fact that people watch it and accept the world- view they are consciously selling, and tie it to a particular political platform and specific support for particular issues.
As opposed to all the news networks that
don't do that? If you think you're getting unbiased news somewhere, you're being duped, plain and simple.
I would have the same problem if John Stewart went around and evangelized for common health- care proposals the democrats would have - and consciously avoided any type of information about the actual proposals in favour of appeals to avoid thinking completely.
Um...you mean like he does every day?
And then justified it through his holy mission to "push back" the evil conservatives.
So the behavior is justified as long as you don't openly consider it a personal mission? The Inquisition would have been just fine as long as they had just done it because they wanted to and not under the banner of God?
I mean, I meet conservatives who are nice people in general - and they don't see the big fuss about torturing people who are obviously evil, and things like that. And I ask - why is it a good thing? How do you justify it? And I get - well, you have to do it sometimes, because it's the right thing.. you know. Don't we have to do it? We do, don't we - or else they wouldn't do something serious like that, right? We can't argue with these people, can we? ..It's just a severe indictment of the public political culture in the US.
Man, I love how you ignore all of the good arguments there are to focus on one confusing anecdote you probably heard one time. No wonder you hate Fox so much; it must really bother you that they present both sides in a sensible and cohesive way instead of setting up strawman arguments like all the other networks do.
How about "the civil rights of one man don't trump the civil rights of thousands?" Don't you think that's a pretty good argument?
So yeah, not really a position on politics, but on the process used to reach political standpoints, getting people to vote, etc. And..you know - Fox found a very welcome audience in some parts of the US that simply doesn't exist elsewhere. Again, that alone isn't an indictment of the content they are fielding. It's just an observation about how extremely shallow political appeals are part of serious campaigns for political office. And how it has an appeal in frighteningly large parts of the US.
But you refuse to acknowledge that every other network is doing the same damn thing because those
other networks are saying things you agree with. I understand and recognize that Fox is biased and is peddling a specific viewpoint and so do you. The difference between you and me is that you don't seem to believe that any other network is doing the same thing, and
that scares me because you seem like an otherwise intelligent person.
And no, it's not hyperbole to call what they're arguing for soft fascism. It's an appeal to how force solves anything, including differences of opinion - and they are doing a conscious effort to legitimize those views to people who don't know any better. People.. who would apparently vote for a guy who vows to make slavery a fun and patriotic activity, as long as it's only brown people and foreign looking evil dudes that does the slaving.
Fascism isn't about "force solving things." Fascism is defined by a strong, centralized government, moderate intercession into the marketplace, and a squelching of free speech and religion. The only political party doing any of these things is the Democrats.
