A reader recently asked, “Do you watch Fox News?” The answer: “Not if I can help it.” In fact, I’ve launched a one-woman campaign in my local area to get businesses that stream Fox News on their wall-mounted televisions to change the channel. I prefer not to subject myself to an atmosphere polluted by a steady stream of negativism, hostile rhetoric, aggressive body language, and extremist right-wing propaganda.
That said, I know that the negative emotionalism typical of Fox broadcasting appeals to many. In fact, I think it may even be addictive. Fox listeners often also find their way to right-wing, anti-establishment rants on the radio, listening to the likes of Rush Limbaugh, Michael Savage, and Lou Dobbs. There’s nothing like a steady dose of outrage to get the adrenalin flowing, and it’s a fact that some people become addicted to the rush.
Extreme right-wing rhetoric has found legitimacy in this country, largely because of Fox News and its cousin-in-print, the editorial pages of the Wall Street Journal. Together with hate-mongers on the radio, they’ve coined the phrase “liberal media” and made it stick to pretty much all media outlets that are in the least bit objective or balanced in their reporting of current events, lumping mainstream and left-wing sources together in an “us-against-them” world view.
Where do I get my news? From a wide variety of so-called “liberal media” sources—which is to say, anywhere but Fox News and the WSJ. (I do read articles from the WSJ when someone sends me a link; however, I pass if the author happens to be someone whom I consider to be completely unqualified on the subject or lacking in intellectual integrity.)
One reader has asked repeatedly where I get my information, so for the sake of full disclosure, what follows is a fairly comprehensive list—for now, anyway. (Those who don’t care may wish to skip the following paragraph.)
I like to begin my evening with a nice roundup of the day’s events on NBC Nightly News with Brian Williams. His “Making a Difference” segment, focusing on heroic actions by ordinary people, is always positive and up-lifting. For analysis of partisan politics, I often tune in to Rachel Maddow, who has a knack for explaining complex issues in plain, simple language. For in-depth analysis and news about science, technology, and the world, I listen to NPR. (I always make a point to be driving around at noon on Fridays, when “Science Friday” is on.) I like CNN’s in-depth reporting of big events, like the earthquake in Haiti. I’m rather obsessive about reading news headlines and articles on my mobile phone, regularly surfing sites like politico.com, Yahoo! News, Media Matters, The Week, and—yes—Fox (whose mobile news service tends toward some kooky human interest stories). I subscribe to a number of online newsletters from various organizations, including The Progress Report, salon.com, and The Southern Poverty Law Center. I get RS feeds from a variety of columnists (left, right, and center), including Thomas L. Friedman, Kathleen Parker, and Mike Madden. I occasionally check out the web sites for members of Congress who happen to catch my attention. For an outsider’s perspective on American culture and politics, I often read news from France and listen to the BBC. When I want background for something I’m writing, I may consult books or look for in-depth articles in magazines like The Atlantic or The New Yorker.
As for knowing what’s going in the alternative universe of Fox News, I sometimes log on to News Hounds (“We watch Fox so you don’t have to”) and catch unavoidable glimpses of the streamers when the channel is on in public places. Apart from that, I have a few right-wing friends who can usually be depended on to let me know how the spin doctors in the conservative media are interpreting national events.
I see and hear enough hard-core conservative talking points to understand how habitual consumers of extreme right-wing messaging might suffer from cognitive dissonance when exposed to mainstream media. It’d be enough to make anyone uncomfortable—and people who are uncomfortable tend to get angry. Perhaps the only way habitual Fox News watchers could really understand how the rest of us view the world would be to go cold turkey for a few weeks and watch and read exclusively news that hasn’t been—as the British like to put it—“sexed up” to please the conservative palate.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
16 comments:
Thanks for your informative posting, Jane. I'm glad to see that you include print media in your sources -- but I'd like to see a broader range of newspapers in that list. Now that most are available on line, they're pretty easy to check and thus get a relatively diverse perspective. One advantage of print (even if it's on-line) is that you can re-read, making it less confusing than depending on what you thought you heard or missing a key comment while you were distracted (not just "you, Jane" but anyone), and you can go back and review/compare articles.
I've been a fan of folk music for years and have noticed that most of the best folk songs are against -- whether it be the "corporate bosses" or war or a president's policies. Rhetoric, whatever its form, is mostly negative. As a counselor, I'm sure you are aware that it's a lot easier to speak against something than for it. But that negativism tends to fill a purpose -- it gives a voice to those who tend to feel disenfranchised and ignored by those in power. I think that's what Fox News and the talk radio programs do for those who feel that government is out of control and doesn't listen to them, particularly the conservative-leaning ones. They can call in to a talk show and feel that they are heard. Others supported Obama's presidential campaign for the same reason and were given a voice through skillful use of on-line networking. The fact that the Obama supporters tend to be more liberal and the Fox news viewers conservative really points to the feeling in this country that we're all outsiders unless we're members of the very small "ruling" class of elected officials and key bureaucrats. I think that's what needs to be addressed if this country wants to survive as a strong, unified force.
It's not just where we get our news but what use we make of the information we have and how we relate to each other that matters.
C. Jane, thanks for givings us all a view into the heart of true modern day liberal. I refer to your comment:
"In fact, I’ve launched a one-woman campaign in my local area to get businesses that stream Fox News on their wall-mounted televisions to change the channel".
Talk about censorship.
Whatever happened to the old-fashion liberal saying: "I do not agree with you, but will die defending your right to say it".
It looks like new liberal (or dare I say Marxist) saying is: "I do not agree with what you say and will die trying to shut you up".
A real nice bunch of people we are dealing with here! When and where will the next book burning be held, C. Jane you surely will want to be there to supply the lighter fluid and matches.
If someone's radio is blasting at the beach, I have a perfect right to ask them to turn it down or off. It's my air space, too. Likewise, CJ has a perfect right to request non-negative, non-partisan programming in public places. That's not censorship.
What people watch in their own homes is their business.
I've got a better idea. Let's eliminate television in public places (except for a few sites like sports bars) and see if we can get back to talking to each other.
Catlover, you're right on. The 'one woman campaign' and other previous statements to shut down all opposing views is quite disturbing.
That sort of attitude is found in places like Venezuela, for example.
Last year, Hugo Chavez shut down 32privately owned radio stations and proposed a law to punish "media crimes." This was just the beginning of his assault on another 200+ stations.
Just two weeks ago, Chavez ordered five cable stations shut down for refusing to broadcast his frequent speeches. He also said ""using Twitter, the Internet (and) text messaging" to criticize or oppose his increasingly authoritarian regime "is terrorism."
In a statement expressing concern about the closure of the radio stations, UNESCO Secretary-General Koichiro Matsuura said
"There can be no freedom of expression, or even democracy, in the absence of media pluralism."
Citizen Jane, you regularly call for the silencing of media that you don't approve of. It seems to me that the other contributors to this blog have never called for the shutting down of liberal media sources. (You may correct me if I'm wrong.)They will take the opinions with a grain of salt, and then try to dig for what the truth really is. But I don't remember a call for silencing anyone.
Maybe it's time to have a discussion about ideas and not the messengers.
Catlover, you're right on. The 'one woman campaign' and other previous statements to shut down all opposing views is quite disturbing.
That sort of attitude is found in places like Venezuela, for example.
Last year, Hugo Chavez shut down 32privately owned radio stations and proposed a law to punish "media crimes." This was just the beginning of his assault on another 200+ stations.
Just two weeks ago, Chavez ordered five cable stations shut down for refusing to broadcast his frequent speeches. He also said ""using Twitter, the Internet (and) text messaging" to criticize or oppose his increasingly authoritarian regime "is terrorism."
In a statement expressing concern about the closure of the radio stations, UNESCO Secretary-General Koichiro Matsuura said
"There can be no freedom of expression, or even democracy, in the absence of media pluralism."
Citizen Jane, you regularly call for the silencing of media that you don't approve of. It seems to me that the other contributors to this blog have never called for the shutting down of liberal media sources. (You may correct me if I'm wrong.)They will take the opinions with a grain of salt, and then try to dig for what the truth really is. But I don't remember a call for silencing anyone.
Maybe it's time to have a discussion about ideas and not the messengers.
Puh-leez. A citizen of a democratic nation expressing a personal preference is hardly the same thing as a leader of a totalitarian government shutting down TV or radio stations.
Hello?
Because of course Fox News is the only news network that is 'polluted by a steady stream of negativism, hostile rhetoric, aggressive body language, and extremist propaganda.'...
http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/thu-january-21-2010/special-comment---keith-olbermann-s-name-calling
Anonymous, I was merely suggesting that the 'attitude' of intolerance for diverse opinion is more similar to totalitarian regimes than the free-speech of a democracy, or say the more-voices-the-merrier attitude of a Libertarian.
Recent CJ postings railed against the free-speech ruling of the Supreme Court. Another recent blog ended with: "Fox may be out of business one of these days. And wouldn’t that be nice?"
And to backup CJ on this one... merely putting yourself out there as one of those people who would complain the tv was on Fox News instead of CNN or MSNBC or Bloomberg or whatever else is not censorship. It might be petty and silly - and the stores employees might make fun of you after you left, but it certainly is NOT censorship - in fact, I totally support it (that and Fox News drives me guano crazy).
If you are visiting a private business and you don't like what they have on thier television, you absolutely have a right to ask them to change it. And they have a right to tell you no. And you have a right to vote with your dollars and go elsewhere... that is not censorship - that is capitalism. It's actually not disturbing at all to me ... I sort of like living in that kind of society.
HOWEVER, if CJ decides to go lobby her local official and gets him/her to pass a law mandating what can and cannot be shown in stores for public viewing... well then that's censorship.
Wow. This topic certainly touched a nerve.
Thanks, Six. Well said. I hadn't thought of my little campaign as capitalism at work, but of course it is. And I certainly wouldn't support a law suppressing Fox, any more than I would want to criminalize pornography. In general, I don't believe in trying to legislate morality.
I stand by my assertion that "Fox News is the only news network that is 'polluted by a steady stream of negativism, hostile rhetoric, aggressive body language, and extremist propaganda.'" The key word is "steady stream."
Not to say that there isn't a certain amount of, shall we say, purple prose coming from the left. Chris Matthews yells too much, and by his own recent admission, Olbermann's rhetoric is occasionally "over the top." (I must admit, though, that Keith Olbermann endeared himself to me by finally explaining the origin of the "tea party" movement--the Mad Hatter's tea party from Alice in Wonderland. Now that makes sense!)
Thanks for reading our site! Fox News has always been a channel of divisiveness but since Obama took office, they have ratcheted up the incendiary rhetoric so that it's off the hate-o-meter.
The scariest part is that it's selling.
Ellen, I'm honored to hear from you. The work you folks do over at News Hounds is distasteful but important. To ignore lies, negative innuendo, hate talk and the like is to give them legitimacy. Thanks for giving voice to the outrage many of us feel at how the propaganda on Fox (as well as in other outlets of Rupert Murdock's News Corporation)is distorting the public discourse in America.
There are biased commentators on on other television channels, but there is no other source that specializes in promoting the anti-Democratic, anti-progressive, anti-government (and, in my view, anti-American)rhetoric that uses the cloak of conservatism to whip up populist outrage in order to further the interests big money and big business.
But it's a free country. All we can do is tell it like we see it and hope that some of the intelligent, educated Americans who are focused on Fox will choose to broaden their views by considering other sources, as well.
Now I'm done talking about this subject. For now.
I hope I am not to late to make a comment on this post.
Thanks Idna for the Chavez/Venezuela comparison I almost put that in my comment.
As to Anonymous: You are wrong on what the motive of C. Jane's one women campaign is. You bought right in to her all sweetness and light strategy, that it is all about "her" sensative ears not wanting to hear Fox News blaring away at her local watering hole. No! She does not want her fellow patrons hearing it. She does not want the patrons the next day or the next hearing it, she does not want anyone else ever hearing it.
You do not need a campaign to politely ask for the volume to be turned down when one is present, that would be easy. You need a "campaign" to permanently shut down a particular channel. That is censorship. She has a long history of supporting it.
Anonymous you say: it would be censorship if she ever lobbied local officals to shut down Fox News, and imply that would be wrong. Well, she does not need to lobby any offical. She has in place a President, ready to place new Supreme Court Justices that will make rulings that trump all local officals. We close to it happening.
Remember, she and the President and anyone he nominates to the Supreme Court think the Constitution should change with the times, that it is a living document. Remember, they think the First Amendment does not apply to certain groupings of individuals!
Another way to make my case here, think about this:
Fox News is just a visual/audio newspaper. (Kind of high tech newspaper, something B. Franklin could never dream of, right!) There are blocks of news and then blocks of editorial opinion and some ads. Just like your local paper. Now, change it up so that C. Jane is going around on "a one women campaign" to stop people from reading the local paper. No, one says she has to read it but she does not want anyone else to read it, obviously censorship. Of course her local paper is probably nice and liberal so there is no need to censor it, just that evil Fox News. Anonymous please comment!
It has been said here that C. Jane is an honest and not a disingenuous person. If that is the case, I call on her to come on here and admitt she is trying to block her fellow citizens from hearing certain "politcal speech". You can keep up your campaign C. Jane, as that is free speech as well, but at least be honest to us as to your motives. Comment requested please!
Very dangerous stuff we are talking hear folks be always on guard or we could lose this country.
PS
Yes, everyone I have just said her campaign is both free speech and a still type of censorship. Censorship only violates the First Amendment and is therefore illegal when the government does it. I just hope her campaign is not organized from somewhere within the govenment or we are all toast!
Well, Catlover, that's about the finest example of emotional "thinking" I've seen in a long time.
I'm not going to bother refuting your numerous unfounded assertions about my motives and my character--the assumption about my motive in asking MY gym and MY dentist to turn off Fox when I'm there and unable to avoid seeing and or hearing it, for example. (I'd do the same if they were playing a pornographic movie, and for much the same reasons.)
Those who've worked with me on committees to fight censorship in schools and libraries would be greatly surprised to hear that I have a "long history" of supporting censorship.
You claim that I "don't think the First Amendment applies to certain individuals," whereas my beef with the Supreme Court's decision is precisely that the First Amendment DOES apply to individuals, whose voices shouldn't be lost. (Sorry, but AIG and the health care conglomerates are NOT people.)
You call Fox a "visual/audio newspaper," which is patently ridiculous to anyone who knows about how various types of stimuli affect the brain. (And that's not even to venture into the question of what is "news.")
As to your last statement that "we must be always on guard or we could lose this country"--please see my more recent post regarding conspiracy theories.
Regular readers of this blog include members of both major parties, progressives, tea-party conservatives, and libertarians. It's my hope that we can look for some common ground.
Just so it is on the record:
C. Jane your last comment makes me think we have a "much ado about nothing" situation here.
You said in the OP "I’ve launched a one-woman campaign in my local area to get businesses that stream Fox News on their wall-mounted televisions to change the channel". By using the word campaign, I envisioned boycotts, picketing, letter writing, etc. Now you say, you "campaign" at your dentist's office. I do not think telling your hygienist what channel you want to watch while having your teeth cleaned is much of a "campaign". About like a butterflies belch in the hurricane that is Fox News.
Let's get you out there on the sidewalk marching back and forth with some signs or something.
As for you having a history of censorship, I was referring to your history on this blog. I have no knowledge of your outside activities. Look up the definition of the word censorship. You either do not know the meaning of the word or are in deep denial on the positions you take.
Calling corporations people or persons is a contrivance or maybe a metaphor used only to help explain the concept of how the Supreme Court views their speech. You seem repeatedly unable to grasp the concept. The correct term remember is a corporation is an "association of individuals".
Approach this subject from the side of speech. It matters not who the speaker is. Cease trying to silence any form of political speech. That is CENSORSHIP.
On the subject Fox News being flashy and over stimulating of the mass unwashed brains out there. Turn about being fair play I am sure you would support banning 90% of the movies coming out of Hollywood. After all they are in color, have music, flashy graphics, etc. and we all know "various types of stimuli affect the brain". We would not want any of that Hollywood leftists trash reaching our children, would we?
Let us keep looking for common ground.
Post a Comment