How Fox News Manufactures Fake Outrage

vrDrew

macrumors 65816
Original poster
Jan 31, 2010
1,317
11,838
Midlife, Midwest
Courtesy of Slate (read the linked article for more details and analysis)

Late night host Jimmy Kimmel appeared on CBS Sunday Morning this past weekend to discuss his recent monologues, and the fact that his approval amongst Republican viewers has declined.

So you don’t mind if Republicans turn off your show?” asked CBS Sunday Morning’s Tracy Smith.

“I don’t say I don’t mind,” said Kimmel. “I want everyone with a television to watch the show, but if they’re so turned off by my opinion on health care and gun violence then …
Not much actual news there.

But that didn't stop Fox from taking that clip, editing it down, and putting it into no less than five different Fox News shows this past Monday. Everything from Fox & Friends cheerful malevolence all the way to Sean Hannity nightly idiotfest.

As Slate puts it:
he point of this game, for Fox, is threefold: 1) to generate material that its hosts can discuss from emotional rather than cerebral standpoints; 2) to camouflage right-wing hypocrisies by spotlighting liberal ones; and 3) to shore up its viewers’ faith in and reliance on Fox News by attacking the credibility of opposing pundits. By these tactics a viewer can begin his day having no opinion whatsoever on late-night host Jimmy Kimmel and end it convinced that Jimmy Kimmel is a disingenuous liberal monster
Monday's nonsense was nothing out of the ordinary. Fox News does this pretty much every day. That is their stock in trade. It's cheap - they don't even have to do the hard, expensive work of booking a guest, and interviewing them. And the same pilfered interview - carefully edited down to a few seconds of sound bite - gets recycled throughout the day. Unless you literally watch Fox News all day, you'd have no idea they were recycling the same non-story.

This form of garbage "journalism" has been going on for more than twenty years. And it has poisoned the minds and souls of ~50 million Americans. Mostly older and whiter ones. But enough of them that we now have a serial bankrupt and sexual predator reality-TV personality as the President of the United States.

Thanks, Fox.
 

yaxomoxay

macrumors 68040
Mar 3, 2010
3,608
24,528
Texas
What definition of racist and ageist would include what he posted? Hint: Mentioning race does not automatically make racism. Same with age.
Nope. He added that the minds that Fox poisoned are mostly white and old. I expext sources to the claims, both on the ‘poison’ part, and the poisoned demographics. Otherwise it’s blatantly racist and ageist.
 

samcraig

macrumors P6
Jun 22, 2009
16,610
35,141
USA
Nope. He added that the minds that Fox poisoned are mostly white and old. I expext sources to the claims, both on the ‘poison’ part, and the poisoned demographics. Otherwise it’s blatantly racist and ageist.
It could simply be his opinion. Especially the poisoning part. If you want demographics of who watches FOX news, they are readily available.
 

yaxomoxay

macrumors 68040
Mar 3, 2010
3,608
24,528
Texas
It could simply be his opinion. Especially the poisoning part. If you want demographics of who watches FOX news, they are readily available.
No, that was a declarative statement with quantitative information (‘mostly’). Once again. I need the sources for this claim, which could be totally correct.

FOX news viewership demographics does not necessarily mean anything in relation to the ‘poisoned demographic’. You could have 95 whites and 5 blacks watching Fox, and only the 5 blacks are ‘poisoned’ (whatever it means) for all we know.
 

vrDrew

macrumors 65816
Original poster
Jan 31, 2010
1,317
11,838
Midlife, Midwest
Source, or your post is racist and ageist.
One of many sources:

The median age of the average primetime Fox News viewer is 68 -- five years older than MSNBC, and nine years older than CNN. Meanwhile, 92% of Fox News viewers are white, according to Nielsen. By contrast, MSNBC's audience is 67% white, while CNN's is 73% white.
Now that we've got the deflection out of the way, back to our regularly scheduled discussion of the issue: Fox News manufactures fake outrage among its (old, white) audience.
 

yaxomoxay

macrumors 68040
Mar 3, 2010
3,608
24,528
Texas
One of many sources:



Now that we've got the deflection out of the way, back to our regularly scheduled discussion of the issue: Fox News manufactures fake outrage among its (old, white) audience.
Viewership? That’s your source.
You said that a class (white and old) or two classes (white, old) are poisoned. That’s what you have to prove. Not that they watch Fox, but that they are ‘poisoned’. By demographic. And define poisoned please.
 

samcraig

macrumors P6
Jun 22, 2009
16,610
35,141
USA
No, that was a declarative statement with quantitative information (‘mostly’). Once again. I need the sources for this claim, which could be totally correct.

FOX news viewership demographics does not necessarily mean anything in relation to the ‘poisoned demographic’. You could have 95 whites and 5 blacks watching Fox, and only the 5 blacks are ‘poisoned’ (whatever it means) for all we know.
You know as well as I do that part was opinion. How do you quantify "poisoned." It's clearly his opinion. And your calling him out on it vs just stating you disagree seems like a waste of time for both him and you. My opinion, of course.

But to deflect a bit - I find it amusing that so many people hold others so accountable and yet give the President a free pass. Not saying you. But many on here. I find that pretty disconcerting.
 

LIVEFRMNYC

macrumors 604
Oct 27, 2009
7,433
8,606

yaxomoxay

macrumors 68040
Mar 3, 2010
3,608
24,528
Texas

samcraig

macrumors P6
Jun 22, 2009
16,610
35,141
USA
Again, viewership is not what he talked about it. At any rate: what is wrong with being old? Why being old is the “biggest problem” ? That’s ageism at its best.
I don't see ageism. If FOX's largest audience is older males... then that's who FOX is "affecting." He wrote "And it has poisoned the minds and souls of ~50 million Americans. Mostly older and whiter ones."

If FOX's demos are older and mostly white - then it's not ageism. It's a simple fact. If the demo skewed to under 30 - would it be ageism to say under 30?

Irony is - faux outrage at his comment on a thread about faux outrage. lol
 

vrDrew

macrumors 65816
Original poster
Jan 31, 2010
1,317
11,838
Midlife, Midwest
Viewership? That’s your source.
You said that a class (white and old) or two classes (white, old) are poisoned. That’s what you have to prove. Not that they watch Fox, but that they are ‘poisoned’. By demographic. And define poisoned please.
I've said that several million people watch Fox News, often as their major source of news and political information and opinion. I've said that, according to Neilsen rating data, most of these people are old and white. And I've made the case - courtesy of the Slate article - that they regularly poison viewers minds by manufacturing a highly distorted version of events.

You may argue the last. But the first - that Fox viewers tend to be old and white - seems incontrovertible. If you want to argue the case that Fox News viewers aren't predominantly old and white - then kindly cite a source.
 
  • Like
Reactions: hulugu

yaxomoxay

macrumors 68040
Mar 3, 2010
3,608
24,528
Texas
I don't see ageism. If FOX's largest audience is older males... then that's who FOX is "affecting." He wrote "And it has poisoned the minds and souls of ~50 million Americans. Mostly older and whiter ones."

If FOX's demos are older and mostly white - then it's not ageism. It's a simple fact. If the demo skewed to under 30 - would it be ageism to say under 30?

Irony is - faux outrage at his comment on a thread about faux outrage. lol
Nope, the fact is that they watch Fox, not that they are poisoned. First you would have to prove that Fox is actually ‘poisoning the minds’ (not that theoretically speaking I would disagree). Then you have to prove that the specific demographic is poisoned (going by his definition whatever it is.

As for outrage, no outrage on my part. I just find it improper.
[doublepost=1508338410][/doublepost]
I've said that several million people watch Fox News, often as their major source of news and political information and opinion. I've said that, according to Neilsen rating data, most of these people are old and white. And I've made the case - courtesy of the Slate article - that they regularly poison viewers minds by manufacturing a highly distorted version of events.

You may argue the last. But the first - that Fox viewers tend to be old and white - seems incontrovertible. If you want to argue the case that Fox News viewers aren't predominantly old and white - then kindly cite a source.
Never denied viewership demo. But that’s a different subject.
 

LIVEFRMNYC

macrumors 604
Oct 27, 2009
7,433
8,606
Again, viewership is not what he talked about it. At any rate: what is wrong with being old? Why being old is the “biggest problem” ? That’s ageism at its best; exactly what I was saying.
Nothing wrong with being old. But older people should expect backlash when they refuse change. "Make America Great Again" ...that phrase wasn't made for the youth. FOX news isn't playing on the fears of the youth, they are playing on the fears of the old.
 

samcraig

macrumors P6
Jun 22, 2009
16,610
35,141
USA
Nope, the fact is that they watch Fox, not that they are poisoned. First you would have to prove that Fox is actually ‘poisoning the minds’ (not that theoretically speaking I would disagree). Then you have to prove that the specific demographic is poisoned (going by his definition whatever it is.

As for outrage, no outrage on my part. I just find it improper.
But I've already stated that the poisoning is subjective and his opinion. So if you remove that - which you should - you really can't argue audience doesn't matter and/or that it's ageism. I see it as a logic fail. But carry on.
 

yaxomoxay

macrumors 68040
Mar 3, 2010
3,608
24,528
Texas
Nothing wrong with being old. But older people should expect backlash when they refuse change. "Make America Great Again" ...that phrase wasn't made for the youth. FOX news isn't playing on the fears of the youth, they are playing on the fears of the old.
Is change always good? Is it the new religion? I really don’t watch Fox except when I am at the gym where they have both CNN and Fox side-by-side, and usually I get bored after less than three minutes, so I am not sure what kind of fears they play on if I have to be honest. The one I miss (from MSNBC) is Keith Olberman, out of this world but not inconsistent!
[doublepost=1508338640][/doublepost]
But I've already stated that the poisoning is subjective and his opinion. So if you remove that - which you should - you really can't argue audience doesn't matter and/or that it's ageism. I see it as a logic fail. But carry on.
I disagree, but I think we’re both bored of repeating ourselves. Coffee is on me.
 

VulchR

macrumors 68020
Jun 8, 2009
2,329
10,254
Scotland
Sounds like what CNN does everyday. They still have Russia plastered all over there screen.
Well, of course they do. Ongoing multiple investigations into alleged criminal and dishonest behaviour by the campaign staff of the POTUS, complete with leaks...
 

LIVEFRMNYC

macrumors 604
Oct 27, 2009
7,433
8,606
Nope, the fact is that they watch Fox, not that they are poisoned. First you would have to prove that Fox is actually ‘poisoning the minds’ (not that theoretically speaking I would disagree). Then you have to prove that the specific demographic is poisoned (going by his definition whatever it is.

As for outrage, no outrage on my part. I just find it improper.
[doublepost=1508338410][/doublepost]

Never denied viewership demo. But that’s a different subject.
You really need proof for that???? o_O

The proof is in FOX's programming itself. FOX can't present what it's audience doesn't what to hear, they would have to ease out of that. Manipulation is not something that's overnight. FOX spent years and years on their ultra right agenda, now they are trapped into giving their audience what they expect.
[doublepost=1508339044][/doublepost]
Is change always good? Is it the new religion? I really don’t watch Fox except when I am at the gym where they have both CNN and Fox side-by-side, and usually I get bored after less than three minutes, so I am not sure what kind of fears they play on if I have to be honest. The one I miss (from MSNBC) is Keith Olberman, out of this world but not inconsistent!
I agree, not all change is good. But the refusal to even consider change is bad. And that's what FOX news and conservative media plays on.
 

vrDrew

macrumors 65816
Original poster
Jan 31, 2010
1,317
11,838
Midlife, Midwest
Is change always good? Is it the new religion? I really don’t watch Fox except when I am at the gym where they have both CNN and Fox side-by-side, and usually I get bored after less than three minutes, so I am not sure what kind of fears they play on if I have to be honest. The one I miss (from MSNBC) is Keith Olberman, out of this world but not inconsistent!
Then that is precisely why the Slate article is worth considering.

Because if you don't regularly watch Fox News, then most people have no idea how consistently and insidiously they build a fundamentally distorted vision of reality.

Look, all TV networks are guilty, to a certain extent, of hashing a story to death. I remember, a few years back, telling my mother that I had no interest in watching the BBC Six O'Clock news with her because I was pretty sure that Nelson Mandela would still be dead. (The death of Mandela and the events surrounding had been the main story on BBC for the previous five days.) The reasons why news networks do this have to do with economics. But in most cases the stories that get rehashed are a) fundamentally newsworthy and b) fundamentally factual.

Jimmy Kimmel's comments - as presented by Fox - are neither.
 

GermanSuplex

macrumors 6502a
Aug 26, 2009
963
9,937
Sounds like what CNN does everyday. They still have Russia plastered all over there screen.
They shouldn't cover an active investigation plus known interference in the election? Congress and the senate have held hearings, and continue to do so. If it wasn't for stuff being plastered over the screen, as you put it, there would be no interest in the story, and probably no investigative information by the press that has turned up what it has.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AlliFlowers

oneMadRssn

macrumors 601
Sep 8, 2011
4,741
11,031
New England
Nope. He added that the minds that Fox poisoned are mostly white and old. I expext sources to the claims, both on the ‘poison’ part, and the poisoned demographics. Otherwise it’s blatantly racist and ageist.
You didn't answer the question. I didn't ask for a summary of what he said, we can all easily scroll up and read the original post rather than your summary anyway. You just repeated the assertion that this his post is "blatantly" racist and ageist without at all applying the definition of what those words mean. Either you don't know what they mean, or you're trying to troll.

So I'll ask again. How is it racist?
 
  • Like
Reactions: samcraig