Skip to content

So what can we do about Fox News?

Yesterday I said I had an idea about how to fight Fox News. So what is it?

I'll tell you. Before I get there, though, I should emphasize that I'm a "do everything" kind of guy. Boycott Fox advertisers? I don't think it will do a lot of good, but sure. Try to get Fox News taken off basic cable, where we all pay for it? We'd all love to see that, but it's unlikely in the extreme. Call out their worst excesses regularly, as Media Matters does? Definitely a good idea, but obviously it hasn't had much effect. Find some mean billionaire to launch an obsessive war against Fox News? That would be great, if we could just find one.

So fine, Mr. Smart Guy, what's your idea? Here it is: Make it toxic to work for Fox News. From the CEO down to the receptionists, make life miserable for anyone who works there. Anything legal is fair game. They should be shunned. They should be protested. They should be treated as if they worked for the Klan.

Would it work? Beats me. But it's a new idea and it's worth a try. And if this sounds a little more . . . aggressive than you're used to from moderate me, it's because I think working for Fox is about like working for the Klan. And I think its effect on our country is about as bad. Being civil toward the gleeful political pillagers at Fox just isn't going to get us anywhere.

59 thoughts on “So what can we do about Fox News?

  1. arghasnarg

    I do shun them, when I have the opportunity. Which is unfortunately rare.

    Some Fox reporters set up in front of the Federal Building here in San Francisco a few months back; I live a few blocks from there and was walking past. They were flagging people to ask questions, and I just told them, "No. You're not news, you're here to piss on my city. Get bent, you shitbag trolls." They were utterly shocked.

    If you take an in-your-face approach like this, make sure you're talking to cable reporters, not local affiliates, who are not to blame (well, not nearly as much, there's still a problem there, but...)

  2. Yikes

    Kevin,

    You were on a roll up until now. As argh says, the opportunities are too rare, I would imagine Sean Hannity's invitations to non-Maga events dried up some time ago.

    No, the opportunity is to shun all Republicans, especially moderate ones, on the explicit ground that they are little better than Confederates.

    This will have no effect at all on Fox News, but if 3% of the 43% are vulnerable, this is how. Some of them, who knows how many, would be aghast at being in the same group as the Jan 6 knucklehead brigade. The key is to get them so ashamed that at least they don't vote, or vote libertarian or something.

    For something like 35% plus of the population I see no hope. Sort of like watching a fire, waiting for it to burn out.

    1. fnordius

      I think the point of this idea is not to only shun Hannity, but also his secretary, his makeup artist, his chauffeur, the staff electricians, the editors for the website, EVERYBODY who works for Fox News.

      The idea is to make it harder for them to hire new staff because no one wants to be ostracised. Web developers, camera crew, everyone should be leery of having NewsCorp on their CV.

  3. ScentOfViolets

    As always, I see the problem as one that can be solved by education. In this case, an education that incorporates training in separating the chaff from the wheat when getting information by cable, internet, etc. I don't think people appreciate just how valuable a service quality information curating is. I know I don't.

  4. akapneogy

    Fox and Trump and a lot of the social media are parasites that thrive on the gullible and the ill informed. There always were opportunities for parasites to prey on our society, but the synergy between disinformation, political power, foolish credulity and the profitability of pushing garbage has attracted all sorts of nefarious actors bent on making fortunes and stoking their outsized egos. Instead of a scatter-shot approach toward this media outlet or that politician, we will need to examine the total contours of the First Amendment as appropriate today and in the future.

    1. fnordius

      The thing is, the parasites need staffing. It's the grunts who work for NewsCorp that I see Kevin talking about that need to be shunned. If, say, you are a developer at a conference and a fellow dev mentions they work for NewsCorp or Fox News, give them a cold shoulder. let them feel they are unwelcome because of their employer.

      Make it a blemish on anyone's CV, worse than having worked for adult entertainment.

  5. D_Ohrk_E1

    In the absence of FNC chasing "alternate truths", others will fill the void. Did you forget that when FNC tried to pivot, OANN and Newsmax pulled in more eyeballs?

    Furthermore, look at it from an advertiser boycott standpoint: They only work for a short time before they all fail. The attention span of the modern, post-pandemic technophile (IOW, everyone with a smartphone and a social media account) is shorter than that of a gnat's lifespan.

    Besides, virtue-signaling conservatives will use the attacks as badges of honor and we already know that they live in their own echo chamber. All you're doing is appealing to the masses who live outside of that echo chamber.

    Your solution misses the forest for the trees.

    1. bbleh

      Well, if those in the echo chamber are ipso facto unreachable, then you talk to the (many more) who are outside it. This is about winning a working majority, not convincing everyone.

      But more to the point, I think what he's saying is, attack the transmitter, not the receivers, because there's too many of the latter. And then, IF that works (a big if), and another starts to grow, attack it in turn. A victory over Fox would be tremendous (and I actually question whether the OANNs of the world could take its place at all rapidly).

      But as I said, a big if.

      1. D_Ohrk_E1

        You're still missing the forest for the trees. This is a problem that is growing around the world. Countries moving towards autocratic regimes, driven by a populace polarized by, among other things, Putin's Russian propaganda machine.

        From my point of view, FNC isn't the root cause; FNC is the symptom of a sclerotic system that has been broken down enough to allow FNC to flourish and for these echo chambers to be built, reinforced, and made durable.

    2. MontyTheClipArtMongoose

      Like when the hateful libs forcibly removed Sarah Huckabee Sanders from that locavore restaurant in the Shenandoah Valley.

      Where was the leftists's sense of inclusion then?

  6. frankwilhoit

    They who read and run will call this the concentrated distillation of cancel culture.

    There is a connection between this idea and the eternal question of how, mechanically, to impose legal responsibility (criminal or civil) on an organization. There is an important difference between people who work for a corporation in a decision-making capacity and those who do not. And then there are the contractors of various kinds, some of whom are in on the decision making, some of whom vacuum the floors.

    And you have buried the lede by leaving the curation of the public discourse to the very last, whereas it is central, as shown by the fact that if we had that, Fox wouldn't matter. The history -- not just the intellectual history -- of humanity could be framed in terms of the gatekeeping of the public discourse, from scribes to Gutenberg to Northcliffe to Zuckerberg. We are now in an age where the gatekeeping of the public discourse has not even failed: the very idea that there ought to be gatekeeping has vanished as if it had never been. A handful of people are reaping unprecedented material reward from that, and a vast number of others are reaping unprecedented emotional rewards from suddenly-acquired megaphones for their primal screams. The former are not the problem. The latter are the problem. Rupert Murdoch is fighting the last war: he is a would-be Northcliffe, not a would-be Zuckerberg. And Zuckerberg literally has no idea what he is doing: he lit a firecracker and is watching it blow up the world in slow motion.

    The upshot is that the public discourse is going to have to be shut down entirely. It will shut itself down when the technology fails, or is put beyond use by the next war; but these are not things that we want to just wait for.

    1. bbleh

      I'll just note for the record that people said the same things, and far worse, about newspapers, which for their time were equally disruptive -- commercially, technologically, sociologically, politically ... you name it.

    2. philosophical ron

      Am I the only one that is increasingly thinking that allowing internet anonymity was a huge mistake?

      I do see that trying to correct it would be darn near impossible now, but a future where the people who give out websites would require and publish in a directory somewhere state-issued ID's of the owners and writers and the same for all commenters, so you could keep your cute screen name, and generally retain your anonymity if you're not being obnoxious, but no actual person could have more than one screen-name, which would be transparent if you are obnoxious, a future state like that would, I believe, see a lot less craziness and bad science and cult-formation than out present situation.

      I'm not a techie at all, I don't know who gives out whatever domains exist on the dark web, but that's got to be part of it too.

      1. philosophical ron

        And in the newspaper era, folks were generally using their real names, and the few who didn't were building brand images that needed to be consitent and publishable, and their identity was well known inside the newspaper offices.

        1. Joel

          In colonial America, it was common for writers like Hamilton to publish under pseudonyms. Yes, their identities were usually well-known, but it was pretty common.

      2. Anandakos

        PR, I gather you haven't noticed that the lunatics are PROUD of themselves. They don't give a rodents patootie about your opinion of their sanity. They think they're FINE and YOU are insane. Or, actually, criminal.

  7. ddoubleday

    That also just isn't going to happen, when it is a potential landing spot for reporters in other places. Jake Tapper called Fox "our sister network", for Chrissakes.

    Also, there was always a market for what Fox does, and OAN and Newsmax started taking some of their market share during their ever-so-brief period of sanity where they tried to say we shouldn't have an insurrection.

  8. cld

    Kevin's right, but n the end the only people left there would be characters like Tucker Carlson and Stephen Miller who would thrive on that kind of antagonism.

    I think a popular interest in a la carte cable packages is a serious thing that a lot of people really want to see for entirely different reasons, but it couldn't be true a la carte, you'd have to pick maybe 25 channels, but then a lot of people can just forget Fox and that would affect their bottom line.

    And more likely than a billionaire waging a jihad against Fox would be a billionaire forcing a takeover of Sinclair. A hopefully more benign type of billionaire.

    1. MontyTheClipArtMongoose

      While T. Swanson Carlson is kicking Gypsies in Budapest, U.S. State Department should revoke his passport.

      Make him like Tom Hanks's in the Terminal.

  9. Justin

    Don Lemon didn’t like it, but I think going after Carlson was awesome.

    CNN anchor Don Lemon ripped the man who accosted Tucker Carlson in a Montana fly fishing shop, saying he had no right to invade the Fox News host’s “personal space.”

    The liberal Lemon offered his surprising take during his CNN program “Don Lemon Tonight” Monday evening, when he devoted an entire segment to addressing the weekend encounter, which he said put him in a position “to maybe somehow have to defend Tucker Carlson.”

    “Let me tell you this: I don’t like it. I don’t like it when people do that because I would not want it to happen to me,” Lemon began after showing a snippet of the video, going on to caution, “I have mixed emotions because Tucker has done this to people before. Tucker said some really nasty and silly things about me, and the next day there’s paparazzi in front of my house, hiding, taking pictures.”

    Lemon continued: “We’re all on TV, we’ve been approached. We hear good things, we hear bad things from people. We don’t even know who they are, it’s part of the gig. Don’t you think this went a little too far, though?”

    No, I don’t.

  10. bbleh

    I'm all for it! As long as it doesn't cross the line from aggressive, antagonistic speech into threats or other criminality, by all means make their lives hell!

    As to the personalities themselves, nobody deserves it more, and they certainly have no "right" -- moral or otherwise -- to dish it out and not expect it to be served back to them. They want to vent their spleens publicly, they should expect it in return.

    And as to their enablers, no sympathy either: that excuse went out at Nuremberg. You're making the guns even if you're not firing them, so you get bombed too.

    They've had it both ways for too long. A little suffering will be good for their souls.

    1. Justin

      aggressive, antagonistic speech, threats, and other criminality is completely fine with me. I wouldn’t waste my time with it, but what you’ve described is what Fox News is already doing to us.

      You’re not taking this seriously enough.

    2. MontyTheClipArtMongoose

      Bill O'Reilly helped ensure George Tiller got murdered.

      I think it only fair Bill-O in turn get the Nicolas Cage in the Wickerman treatment.

  11. Special Newb

    On a personal level if you have old parents, quietly block their Fox News. Either use parental block or install a cable trap.

    1. HokieAnnie

      Hahaha, I love the idea. It would work with my parents except they wouldn't be caught dead watching Fox News, they stopped voting for GOP presidents back in the 1960s and when all the local GOP turned wingnut they stopped voting for them too.

  12. Vog46

    First the newspapers died
    Then TV came along and
    AM/FM radio started dying
    Now cable comes along and over the air TV is dying
    Now cable TV viewership is down

    The answer clearly is streaming even for an old fart like me
    But we want diversity
    The question is - do we know what is truth and what is not when streaming?

    I would suggest that serious news organizations buy up the bandwidth - just about ALL of it

    The rest of it is dying of old age anyway

    So, Kevin Drum - when can we expect to see Jabberwocky TV? With feature films like Bang the Drum slowly, and the Little DRUMmer Boy?
    Perhaps you could start a new career as a weather person !! Get yourself a green screen and stand in front of it Kevin!
    THAT day is coming, unfortunately.
    We will stream everything

    1. MontyTheClipArtMongoose

      I hope for some drummer content. Moon. Bonzo. Krups. Peart. Janet Weiss.

      ... KAREN FUCKIN' CARPENTER...

  13. Martin Stett

    Keep pushing streaming. Tell your friends about the benefits, refute the misconceptions--especially articles that add internet access to the cost of streaming, like you wouldn't have internet for any other reason.
    Talk up OTA broadcast. Once you pay for an antenna, if you haven't one already, that's it. With sub-channels I get forty channels in my mid-market area. It's like old time TV, or basic cable. Ads, but so what--it's free otherwise. The oldsters may enjoy seeing old shows or movies they haven't seen in decades. You may enjoy the 3-4 PBS sub-channels.
    FoxNews lives on cable fees. If you have cable, you're paying Carlson and Murdoch. If your cable company won't give you a Fox free package, dump them and start streaming--you'll wonder why it took you so long.
    Share this every chance you get:
    https://unfoxmycablebox.com/

  14. middleoftheroaddem

    Fox News is an irresponsible news source: however, I vehemently disagree with Kevin’s concept.

    Sure, Democrats can shun all Fox News employees: of course, Republicans will reciprocate and shun all MSNBC employees. We do not need more designed partnership and vitriol into of politics.

    A better strategy is for Democrats to talk to Republicans. While I live in a very blue state, but I was raised in a rust belt state that flip to red for Trump. I grew up with plenty of Republicans and personal persuasion, rather than shaming, might actually change a vote or two.

    1. Austin

      This is nice in theory but falls apart in practice. For example, what is the Democrat supposed to say when the Republican starts talking about the Jewish Space Lasers or the 5G Vaccine Microchips? I’ve volunteered in a few nursing homes before, and it’s really really really difficult to maintain a conversation with a completely insane person.

  15. Kalimac

    Isn't this shunning already being done? I know you can't prove things with fictional movies, but sometimes they reflect reality. In the movie Bombshell, Kate McKinnon's character is a secret liberal who works for Fox News, and when asked why she doesn't leave, she says she has to stay if she wants a job. Now that Fox is on her vita, she's toxic: nobody else will hire her.

  16. GrueBleen

    "They should be treated as if they work for the Klan."

    But wouldn't that just make them heroes to at least 40% of Americans ?

  17. DFPaul

    I doubt that elite disdain is kryptonite to them, since they love the disdain of elites.

    However, Tucker did have a meltdown at the guy who said Tucker was merely working for billionaires, so I would say ignoring them regularly as the "voice of Wall Street" is more likely to hit them where it hurts.

  18. Justin

    While you all debate shaming and shunning, the republicans are getting ready for war. Actual war.

    When will you learn?

    Less than a year after a pro-Trump mob stormed the US Capitol, nearly half of Republican voters (47%) say that "a time will come when patriotic Americans have to take the law into their own hands," per a new nationwide survey by George Washington University's School of Media and Public Affairs.

    https://www.businessinsider.com/47-percent-gop-voters-patriots-take-law-own-hands-poll-2021-7

    Go ahead and be mean to Fox News employees. It's the least you can do.

    1. Justin

      Republicans know how to do this.

      "Missouri Gov. Mike Parson (R) pardoned a couple that pleaded guilty to assault and harassment charges after they pointed guns at Black Lives Matter protesters last year."

  19. Vog46

    Of course we can say all the things we want, but in the end WE have to accept some facts.
    I think Trump was/is an ass.
    He failed at business
    He failed at marriage
    He groped women repeatedly - treated them like crap
    Besmirched Veterans and their families
    Made fun of people with handicaps
    Made fun of native Americans
    And the news media went along with it all - some condemned the behavior, some just reported the behavior, some encouraged the behavior

    But when push came to shove - for the first time in over 60 years most folks voted in Nov 2019. Record turnout. Hadn't seen this level since the 1960s. Here in NC we had 75% turnout - again a record
    And here in NC Trump won. Dem victories were limited to some state offices due to their good handling of COVID but overall conservative, in your face, lady grabbing, xenophobic, racist, idiots won the day. Yes, Biden won the WH and I am glad. But with record turnout we "saw" how many people LOVED Trumps attitude. We saw why people flock to FOX News - OAN, and Newsmax

    I recommended streaming will kill off cable news, and especially FOX. If the voter turnout is any indication I wonder if that is right? If people had to PAY for news would they voluntarily choose FOX? Would they spend a portion of their Social Security check on FOX, Sean Hannity, Tucker Carlson, and Laura Ingraham. I'm thinking they would.

    Unless we buy up the bandwidth and there are limitations to it - what else is there to do? Is it time for the female news personalities on mainstream new channels to go blond, and wear shorter skirts? Should we accept defeat? And go with the flow?

    We have elected the first black president, and first female vice president who also happens to be black and of Asian descent. But my main fear is that we will elect our first female President, but she will be a republican - and a darned conservative one, at that.

    Is it time to tap into what FOX presents us with every day? Or do we shut FOX down using whatever means we have ONLY to have them resurface, bigger, and bolder somewhere else?

  20. tchovi

    Kevin's suggestion is disappointing.

    My suggestion is create something like the MPA to rate all television programs. Every program which is rated R or higher will be accompanied by the following message after all commercial breaks:

    "Views expressed in the following program are opinion. It has been determined by the MPA that some of the content may be misleading or harmful to civil unity. Viewer discretion is advised."

    I guess that if the content of the program itself is not regulated or censored, such a thing will not encounter problems on free speech grounds.

    While we are cleaning things up, forbid pharmaceutical advertisements and create a similar rating system for radio talk programs.

    1. Austin

      "Every program which is rated R or higher will be accompanied by the following message after all commercial breaks" = won't survive SCOTUS challenge, as they earlier ruled that "crisis pregnancy centers" in California didn't have to tell women that walked in the door that they don't provide abortions. If a crisis pregnancy center is allowed to deceive women about what it is that they do there or what their goals are, I can't see why a news channel won't be allowed to deceive viewers about what it is that they do there or what their goals are.

      "forbid pharmaceutical advertisements" = won't survive SCOTUS challenge because money is "free speech"

  21. skeptonomist

    The media are still highly unbalanced. The MSM are mostly still in the bothsider mode, treating the claims of Democrats and Republicans as if they were both based in reality. There has been more tendency to call out Trump's lies in particular in print media, and MSNBC and CNN have swung somewhat to the left, but Republicans can still get on Sunday programs on broadcast news and get their opeds into the NY Times no matter how absurd their claims.

    Of course all media are supported by advertising, so there is a fundamental bias toward corporatist interests.

    It is not practicable to suppress Fox news and the others which would take their place, nor would this be constitutional. One way to counter the right-wing media is for the MSM to drop their bothsider approach and be more factual, even if they are accused of being on the side of liberals - which of course is already the case. Why couldn't some liberal billionaire(s) back actual leftist media, which would present, for example, the interests of labor? The collective interests of labor, that is wage-earners, have very little representation in the media.

  22. peterh32

    That’s it?! Just snub them? That’s the master plan? Here I thought you were cooking up something really sneaky…

  23. Caramba

    please write a letter to the board members. Same them politely.
    Most are not right wings. What are they doing there?

    Rupert Murdoch (Chairman)[3]
    Lachlan Murdoch (Executive Chairman)[3]
    Chase Carey[2]
    Anne Dias
    Roland A. Hernandez
    Jacques Nasser
    Paul Ryan

Comments are closed.