ChesusRice
Well-Known Member
How Fox News distorts the news - a primer:
1. Panic Mongering. - This goes one step beyond simple fear mongering. With panic mongering, there is
never a break from the fear. The idea is to terrify and terrorize the audience during every waking
moment. From Muslims to swine flu to recession to homosexuals to immigrants to the rapture itself,
the belief over at Fox seems to be that if your fight-or-flight reflexes arent activated, you arent
alive. This of course raises the question: why terrorize your own audience? Because it is the fastest
way to bypass the rational brain. In other words, when people are afraid, they dont think
rationally. And when they cant think rationally, theyll believe anything.
2. Character Assassination/Ad Hominem. - Fox does not like to waste time debating the idea. Instead,
they prefer a quicker route to dispensing with their opponents: go after the persons credibility,
motives, intelligence, character, or, if necessary, sanity. No category of character assassination is
off the table and no offense is beneath them. Fox and like-minded media figures also use ad hominem
attacks not just against individuals, but entire categories of people in an effort to discredit the
ideas of every person who is seen to fall into that category, e.g. liberals, hippies,
progressives etc. This form of argument if it can be called that leaves no room for genuine
debate over ideas, so by definition, it is undemocratic. Not to mention just plain crass.
3. Projection/Flipping. - This one is frustrating for the viewer who is trying to actually follow the
argument. It involves taking whatever underhanded tactic youre using and then accusing your opponent
of doing it to you first. We see this frequently in the immigration discussion, where anti-racists
are accused of racism, or in the climate change debate, where those who argue for human causes of the
phenomenon are accused of not having science or facts on their side. Its often called upon when the
media host finds themselves on the ropes in the debate.
4. Rewriting History. - This is another way of saying that propagandists make the facts fit their
worldview. The Downing Street Memos on the Iraq war were a classic example of this on a massive
scale, but it happens daily and over smaller issues as well. A recent case in point is Palins
mangling of the Paul Revere ride, which Fox reporters have bent over backward to validate. Why lie
about the historical facts, even when they can be demonstrated to be false? Well, because dogmatic
minds actually find it easier to reject reality than to update their viewpoints. They will literally
rewrite history if it serves their interests. And theyll often speak with such authority that the
casual viewer will be tempted to question what they knew as fact.
5. Scapegoating/Othering. - This works best when people feel insecure or scared. Its technically a
form of both fear mongering and diversion, but it is so pervasive that it deserves its own category.
The simple idea is that if you can find a group to blame for social or economic problems, you can
then go on to a) justify violence/dehumanization of them, and b) subvert responsibility for any harm
that may befall them as a result.
6. Conflating Violence With Power and Opposition to Violence With Weakness. - This is more of what Id
call a meta-frame (a deeply held belief) than a media technique, but it is manifested in the ways
news is reported constantly. For example, terms like show of strength are often used to describe
acts of repression, such as those by the Iranian regime against the protesters in the summer of 2009.
There are several concerning consequences of this form of conflation. First, it has the potential to
make people feel falsely emboldened by shows of force it can turn wars into sporting events.
Secondly, especially in the context of American politics, displays of violence whether manifested
in war or debates about the Second Amendment are seen as noble and (in an especially surreal irony)
moral. Violence becomes synonymous with power, patriotism and piety.
7. Bullying. - This is a favorite technique of several Fox commentators. That it continues to be
employed demonstrates that it seems to have some efficacy. Bullying and yelling works best on people
who come to the conversation with a lack of confidence, either in themselves or their grasp of the
subject being discussed. The bully exploits this lack of confidence by berating the guest into
submission or compliance. Often, less self-possessed people will feel shame and anxiety when being
berated and the quickest way to end the immediate discomfort is to cede authority to the bully. The
bully is then able to interpret that as a win.
8. Confusion. - As with the preceding technique, this one works best on an audience that is less
confident and self-possessed. The idea is to deliberately confuse the argument, but insist that the
logic is airtight and imply that anyone who disagrees is either too dumb or too fanatical to follow
along. Less independent minds will interpret the confusion technique as a form of sophisticated
thinking, thereby giving the users claims veracity in the viewers mind.
9. Populism. - This is especially popular in election years. The speakers identifies themselves as one
of the people and the target of their ire as an enemy of the people. The opponent is always
elitist or a bureaucrat or a government insider or some other category that is not the people.
The idea is to make the opponent harder to relate to and harder to empathize with. It often goes hand
in hand with scapegoating. A common logical fallacy with populism bias when used by the right is that
accused elitists are almost always liberals a category of political actors who, by definition,
advocate for non-elite groups.
10. Invoking the Christian God. - This is similar to othering and populism. With morality politics,
the idea is to declare yourself and your allies as patriots, Christians and real Americans (those
are inseparable categories in this line of thinking) and anyone who challenges them as not.
Basically, God loves Fox and Republicans and America. And hates taxes and anyone who doesnt love
those other three things. Because the speaker has been benedicted by God to speak on behalf of all
Americans, any challenge is perceived as immoral. Its a cheap and easy technique used by all
totalitarian entities from states to cults.
11. Saturation. - There are three components to effective saturation: being repetitive, being
ubiquitous and being consistent. The message must be repeated over and over, it must be everywhere
and it must be shared across commentators: e.g. Saddam has WMD. Veracity and hard data have no
relationship to the efficacy of saturation. There is a psychological effect of being exposed to the
same message over and over, regardless of whether its true or if it even makes sense, e.g., Barack
Obama wasnt born in the United States. If something is said enough times, by enough people, many
will come to accept it as truth. Another example is Foxs own slogan of Fair and Balanced.
12. Disparaging Education. - There is an emerging and disturbing lack of reverence for education and
intellectualism in many mainstream media discourses. In fact, in some circles (e.g. Fox), higher
education is often disparaged as elitist. Having a university credential is perceived by these folks
as not a sign of credibility, but of a lack of it. In fact, among some commentators, evidence of
intellectual prowess is treated snidely and as anti-American. The disdain for education and other
evidence of being trained in critical thinking are direct threats to a hive-mind mentality, which is
why they are so viscerally demeaned.
13. Guilt by Association. - This is a favorite of Glenn Beck and Andrew Breitbart, both of whom have
used it to decimate the careers and lives of many good people. Heres how it works: if your cousins
college roommates uncles ex-wife attended a dinner party back in 1984 with Gorbachevs nieces
ex-boyfriends sister, then you, by extension are a communist set on destroying America. Period.
14. Diversion. - This is where, when on the ropes, the media commentator suddenly takes the debate in
a weird but predictable direction to avoid accountability. This is the point in the discussion where
most Fox anchors start comparing the opponent to Saul Alinsky or invoking ACORN or Media Matters, in
a desperate attempt to win through guilt by association. Or theyll talk about wanting to focus on
moving forward, as though by analyzing the current state of things or God forbid, how we got to
this state of things, you have no regard for the future. Any attempt to bring the discussion back to
the issue at hand will likely be called deflection, an ironic use of the technique of
projection/flipping.
1. Panic Mongering. - This goes one step beyond simple fear mongering. With panic mongering, there is
never a break from the fear. The idea is to terrify and terrorize the audience during every waking
moment. From Muslims to swine flu to recession to homosexuals to immigrants to the rapture itself,
the belief over at Fox seems to be that if your fight-or-flight reflexes arent activated, you arent
alive. This of course raises the question: why terrorize your own audience? Because it is the fastest
way to bypass the rational brain. In other words, when people are afraid, they dont think
rationally. And when they cant think rationally, theyll believe anything.
2. Character Assassination/Ad Hominem. - Fox does not like to waste time debating the idea. Instead,
they prefer a quicker route to dispensing with their opponents: go after the persons credibility,
motives, intelligence, character, or, if necessary, sanity. No category of character assassination is
off the table and no offense is beneath them. Fox and like-minded media figures also use ad hominem
attacks not just against individuals, but entire categories of people in an effort to discredit the
ideas of every person who is seen to fall into that category, e.g. liberals, hippies,
progressives etc. This form of argument if it can be called that leaves no room for genuine
debate over ideas, so by definition, it is undemocratic. Not to mention just plain crass.
3. Projection/Flipping. - This one is frustrating for the viewer who is trying to actually follow the
argument. It involves taking whatever underhanded tactic youre using and then accusing your opponent
of doing it to you first. We see this frequently in the immigration discussion, where anti-racists
are accused of racism, or in the climate change debate, where those who argue for human causes of the
phenomenon are accused of not having science or facts on their side. Its often called upon when the
media host finds themselves on the ropes in the debate.
4. Rewriting History. - This is another way of saying that propagandists make the facts fit their
worldview. The Downing Street Memos on the Iraq war were a classic example of this on a massive
scale, but it happens daily and over smaller issues as well. A recent case in point is Palins
mangling of the Paul Revere ride, which Fox reporters have bent over backward to validate. Why lie
about the historical facts, even when they can be demonstrated to be false? Well, because dogmatic
minds actually find it easier to reject reality than to update their viewpoints. They will literally
rewrite history if it serves their interests. And theyll often speak with such authority that the
casual viewer will be tempted to question what they knew as fact.
5. Scapegoating/Othering. - This works best when people feel insecure or scared. Its technically a
form of both fear mongering and diversion, but it is so pervasive that it deserves its own category.
The simple idea is that if you can find a group to blame for social or economic problems, you can
then go on to a) justify violence/dehumanization of them, and b) subvert responsibility for any harm
that may befall them as a result.
6. Conflating Violence With Power and Opposition to Violence With Weakness. - This is more of what Id
call a meta-frame (a deeply held belief) than a media technique, but it is manifested in the ways
news is reported constantly. For example, terms like show of strength are often used to describe
acts of repression, such as those by the Iranian regime against the protesters in the summer of 2009.
There are several concerning consequences of this form of conflation. First, it has the potential to
make people feel falsely emboldened by shows of force it can turn wars into sporting events.
Secondly, especially in the context of American politics, displays of violence whether manifested
in war or debates about the Second Amendment are seen as noble and (in an especially surreal irony)
moral. Violence becomes synonymous with power, patriotism and piety.
7. Bullying. - This is a favorite technique of several Fox commentators. That it continues to be
employed demonstrates that it seems to have some efficacy. Bullying and yelling works best on people
who come to the conversation with a lack of confidence, either in themselves or their grasp of the
subject being discussed. The bully exploits this lack of confidence by berating the guest into
submission or compliance. Often, less self-possessed people will feel shame and anxiety when being
berated and the quickest way to end the immediate discomfort is to cede authority to the bully. The
bully is then able to interpret that as a win.
8. Confusion. - As with the preceding technique, this one works best on an audience that is less
confident and self-possessed. The idea is to deliberately confuse the argument, but insist that the
logic is airtight and imply that anyone who disagrees is either too dumb or too fanatical to follow
along. Less independent minds will interpret the confusion technique as a form of sophisticated
thinking, thereby giving the users claims veracity in the viewers mind.
9. Populism. - This is especially popular in election years. The speakers identifies themselves as one
of the people and the target of their ire as an enemy of the people. The opponent is always
elitist or a bureaucrat or a government insider or some other category that is not the people.
The idea is to make the opponent harder to relate to and harder to empathize with. It often goes hand
in hand with scapegoating. A common logical fallacy with populism bias when used by the right is that
accused elitists are almost always liberals a category of political actors who, by definition,
advocate for non-elite groups.
10. Invoking the Christian God. - This is similar to othering and populism. With morality politics,
the idea is to declare yourself and your allies as patriots, Christians and real Americans (those
are inseparable categories in this line of thinking) and anyone who challenges them as not.
Basically, God loves Fox and Republicans and America. And hates taxes and anyone who doesnt love
those other three things. Because the speaker has been benedicted by God to speak on behalf of all
Americans, any challenge is perceived as immoral. Its a cheap and easy technique used by all
totalitarian entities from states to cults.
11. Saturation. - There are three components to effective saturation: being repetitive, being
ubiquitous and being consistent. The message must be repeated over and over, it must be everywhere
and it must be shared across commentators: e.g. Saddam has WMD. Veracity and hard data have no
relationship to the efficacy of saturation. There is a psychological effect of being exposed to the
same message over and over, regardless of whether its true or if it even makes sense, e.g., Barack
Obama wasnt born in the United States. If something is said enough times, by enough people, many
will come to accept it as truth. Another example is Foxs own slogan of Fair and Balanced.
12. Disparaging Education. - There is an emerging and disturbing lack of reverence for education and
intellectualism in many mainstream media discourses. In fact, in some circles (e.g. Fox), higher
education is often disparaged as elitist. Having a university credential is perceived by these folks
as not a sign of credibility, but of a lack of it. In fact, among some commentators, evidence of
intellectual prowess is treated snidely and as anti-American. The disdain for education and other
evidence of being trained in critical thinking are direct threats to a hive-mind mentality, which is
why they are so viscerally demeaned.
13. Guilt by Association. - This is a favorite of Glenn Beck and Andrew Breitbart, both of whom have
used it to decimate the careers and lives of many good people. Heres how it works: if your cousins
college roommates uncles ex-wife attended a dinner party back in 1984 with Gorbachevs nieces
ex-boyfriends sister, then you, by extension are a communist set on destroying America. Period.
14. Diversion. - This is where, when on the ropes, the media commentator suddenly takes the debate in
a weird but predictable direction to avoid accountability. This is the point in the discussion where
most Fox anchors start comparing the opponent to Saul Alinsky or invoking ACORN or Media Matters, in
a desperate attempt to win through guilt by association. Or theyll talk about wanting to focus on
moving forward, as though by analyzing the current state of things or God forbid, how we got to
this state of things, you have no regard for the future. Any attempt to bring the discussion back to
the issue at hand will likely be called deflection, an ironic use of the technique of
projection/flipping.
