# How to effectively combat the Fox News propaganda machine? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [October 5, 2019, 5:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-to-effectively-combat-the-fox-news-propaganda-machine/841305 "2019-10-05T05:59:22Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![RioRico](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/f04885/32.png) [@RioRico](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RioRico)\ **Post date:** [October 5, 2019, 11:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-to-effectively-combat-the-fox-news-propaganda-machine/841305/41 "2019-10-05T23:46:28Z")
Mainstream media, with and without Faux, MADE Tramp, giving him billions of bucks worth of free coverage; and he has enriched them greatly, driving audiences to them. Commercial US media function to deliver eyeballs to advertisers. Faux delivers rabid audiences; not-quite-so-rabid networks deliver slightly less rabid audiences; in all cases, the audience is the product. Tramp delivers product. Do not expect media to kill their [del]orange[/del] golden goose. How to counter Faux propaganda? Reinstate a fairness doctrine on electronic media whether broadcast or wired. That worked when I was in radio (1970s). ---
**Author:** ![nelliebly](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/nelliebly/32/5422_2.png) [@nelliebly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/nelliebly)\ **Post date:** [October 6, 2019, 12:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-to-effectively-combat-the-fox-news-propaganda-machine/841305/42 "2019-10-06T00:50:04Z")
> [@HurricaneDitka](#): > > I almost never watch Fox News (I don’t have cable). The other networks have done plenty to [erode the trust the public (once) had in them all on their own](https://content.gallup.com/origin/gallupinc/GallupSpaces/Production/Cms/POLL/2edrgnvmrk2uhaoxiyymqw.png). Set aside the partisans for a moment; just look at the independents: 20 years ago, 55% of them trusted mass media. Today it’s only 36%. I don’t think independents got that way by watching Fox News 24/7. Do you? I hope you’ll read my post through. I’ll be as concise as I can. 1. Look at the poll (The link to the pdf is in the Gallup [article that contains your graph](https://news.gallup.com/poll/267047/americans-trust-mass-media-edges-down.aspx). That graph allows only three choices for respondents: GOP, Dem, or Independent. When instead respondents identified as conservative, moderate, or liberal, the percentages who had little or no trust were very different: 76% of conservatives 57% of moderates 36% of liberals Clearly, some conservatives self-identify as independents, not Republicans. And conservatives tend to watch Fox News. 1. Fox routinely lambastes “mainstream media” and clearly doesn’t consider itself part of the MSM. In fact, to both FN and Trump, _mainstream media_ is synonymous with _media critical of Trump._ 2. You’re also assuming the question meant respondents didn’t trust _any_ media, when [a Knight-Gallup survey](https://www.knightfoundation.org/reports/indicators-of-news-media-trust) last year found that > [@](#): > > Americans appear to differentiate the trustworthiness of news organizations — 67% say they trust only some news media organizations, but not others. Meanwhile, 1% say they trust all news media organizations, 17% say they trust most and 16% say they do not trust any. 1. Yes, many Americans distrust the media. And I agree that some media sources need to do better at accuracy. Fox News has an egregious record for inaccuracy, yet seldom if ever airs or prints retractions. It’s done far more than its share to poison the well. ---
**Author:** ![octopus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/octopus/32/3716_2.png) [@octopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/octopus)\ **Post date:** [October 6, 2019, 2:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-to-effectively-combat-the-fox-news-propaganda-machine/841305/43 "2019-10-06T02:56:01Z")
> [@RioRico](#): > > Mainstream media, with and without Faux, MADE Tramp, giving him billions of bucks worth of free coverage; and he has enriched them greatly, driving audiences to them. > > Commercial US media function to deliver eyeballs to advertisers. Faux delivers rabid audiences; not-quite-so-rabid networks deliver slightly less rabid audiences; in all cases, the audience is the product. Tramp delivers product. Do not expect media to kill their [del]orange[/del] golden goose. > > How to counter Faux propaganda? Reinstate a fairness doctrine on electronic media whether broadcast or wired. That worked when I was in radio (1970s). You think a so-called fairness doctrine can work with internet publishing and social media? I don’t see how you’d enforce that. ---
**Author:** ![Ambivalid](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/a5b964/32.png) [@Ambivalid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ambivalid)\ **Post date:** [October 6, 2019, 4:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-to-effectively-combat-the-fox-news-propaganda-machine/841305/44 "2019-10-06T04:22:19Z")
> [@HurricaneDitka](#): > > I don’t have a “rubric” and I don’t “grade” news organizations’ trustworthiness. Is that a direct-enough answer for you? You didnt answer anything. So, no, its not a direct-enough answer, since you didnt answer. Im surprised you’d ask me such a non-sequitur word salad tho. Do you need me to rewrite my question using fewer words and with fewer syllables? Because you either genuinely struggled with reading comprehension or you are trollling. Back up your claims mane! If you cant back up your challenge to the hive mind, then you arent challenging the hive, your just shaking it to get those in it angry and riled up. Which anyone, anywhere, can do without any truly held political beliefs or ability to defend the side he’s claiming to represent. ---
**Author:** ![Bone](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bone/32/407_2.png) [@Bone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bone)\ **Post date:** [October 6, 2019, 4:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-to-effectively-combat-the-fox-news-propaganda-machine/841305/45 "2019-10-06T04:27:07Z")
> [@Ambivalid](#): > > You didnt answer anything. So, no, its not a direct-enough answer, since you didnt answer. Im surprised you’d ask me such a non-sequitur word salad tho. Do you need me to rewrite my question using fewer words and with fewer syllables? > > Because you either genuinely struggled with reading comprehension or you are trollling. Back up your claims mane! If you cant back up your challenge to the hive mind, then you arent challenging the hive, your just shaking it to get those in it angry and riled up. Which anyone, anywhere, can do without any truly held political beliefs or ability to defend the side he’s claiming to represent. This is a warning for personal insults and accusing another poster of trolling. [/moderating] ---
**Author:** ![wolfpup](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wolfpup/32/10618_2.png) [@wolfpup](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wolfpup)\ **Post date:** [October 6, 2019, 4:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-to-effectively-combat-the-fox-news-propaganda-machine/841305/46 "2019-10-06T04:49:17Z")
> [@HurricaneDitka](#): > > If wolfpup can notice that CNN is “on the warpath” and “vehemently anti-Trump” then I imagine a great many independents and conservatives can detect the same bias. People know CNN isn’t playing it straight. > > If you don’t trust our fellow dopers, here are some additional cites: > > [NBC - Media bias against conservatives is real, and part of the reason no one trusts the news now](https://www.nbcnews.com/think/opinion/media-bias-against-conservatives-real-part-reason-no-one-trusts-ncna895471) > > [NY Post - Former NPR CEO opens up about liberal media bias](https://nypost.com/2017/10/21/the-other-half-of-america-that-the-liberal-media-doesnt-cover/) > > [WaPo - Why bias gets worse, not better, in the MSM](https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/right-turn/wp/2014/05/05/why-bias-gets-worse-not-better-in-the-msm/) > > [’60 Minutes’ Lara Logan Calls Out the MSM on Their Bias](https://newstalk1290.com/60-minutes-lara-logan-calls-out-the-msm-on-their-bias/) > > Would you like me to recount some of the MSM’s recent fuck-ups? I believe this is a poor characterization of the facts. Yes, I have the impression that CNN is definitely anti-Trump, but so what? They clearly distinguish news from opinion – the pieces they publish that are not straightforward news reports are clearly labeled “Opinion” or “Analysis” and most of what I subjectively perceive as anti-Trump bias comes from the quantity of those. And most importantly, _ **they don’t lie** _. They deal with facts. And I could easily say the same thing about other world-class news organizations, like the _New York Times_ or the _New Yorker_, which is in a class by itself for both journalism and literature. I’ll say it again: the problem with Fox News isn’t the bias, since there’s some degree of bias everywhere. The problem with Fox News, simply put, is that they lie. Like Trump himself, they lie often, egregiously, and shamelessly. When they’re not lying, they’re reporting half-truths by selectively omitting important facts. What legitimate news media are doing may or may not at times be considered biased, but what Fox News is doing is more akin to the propagandizing and censorship of totalitarian dictatorships. At times it’s so extreme that it’s downright comical, reminiscent of the Soviet-era _Pravda_ at its worst, or Baghdad Bob. As for all the links about alleged liberal media bias, there’s a nuance here that’s being trodden over. I think first of all, realistically we should substitute “contemporary Republican” for “conservative” in order for such an argument to have any merit even worth discussing. One has to wonder why such an alleged liberal – or anti-Republican – bias exists, if indeed it does. Are all journalists born with a genetic predisposition to liberalism? I would suggest what most journalists – and certainly all the ethical ones – have in common is a bias for facts and truth, not ideology. And maybe the problem with contemporary Republicanism is that it’s so far removed from reality (witness Trump’s incessant, habitual lying) that its survival now requires large dollops of deceit and spin, and hence the disconnect from institutions interested in reporting the unvarnished facts. And if this is true – and indeed even if it isn’t – the solution for Republicans to perceived liberal bias is to establish media with a Republican bias, not to establish media that constantly lies as a matter of standard procedure. Yet that’s what we find every time we look at Fox News, or Breitbart, or Newsmax, or anything that Rupert Murdoch has ever got his hands on. And those things are a danger to democracy, not because they elect Republicans, but because they engender a dangerously ignorant, uniformed public that is unfit to govern itself. ---
**Author:** ![madsircool](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/madsircool/32/3432_2.png) [@madsircool](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/madsircool)\ **Post date:** [October 6, 2019, 5:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-to-effectively-combat-the-fox-news-propaganda-machine/841305/47 "2019-10-06T05:38:50Z")
> [@RioRico](#): > > Mainstream media, with and without Faux, MADE Tramp, giving him billions of bucks worth of free coverage; and he has enriched them greatly, driving audiences to them. > > Commercial US media function to deliver eyeballs to advertisers. Faux delivers rabid audiences; not-quite-so-rabid networks deliver slightly less rabid audiences; in all cases, the audience is the product. Tramp delivers product. Do not expect media to kill their [del]orange[/del] golden goose. > > How to counter Faux propaganda? Reinstate a fairness doctrine on electronic media whether broadcast or wired. That worked when I was in radio (1970s). A FD cannot be instituted on non FCC regulated media. The government does not regulate its medium and the 1st Amendment prohibits them from abridging freedom of speech. ---
**Author:** ![Ambivalid](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/a5b964/32.png) [@Ambivalid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ambivalid)\ **Post date:** [October 6, 2019, 5:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-to-effectively-combat-the-fox-news-propaganda-machine/841305/48 "2019-10-06T05:41:19Z")
> [@Bone](#): > > This is a warning for personal insults and accusing another poster of trolling. > > [/moderating] Man, this is shitty. I thought i was careful not to call Ditka a troll, i tried to attack his posts and asked him, in response to his posting which asserted self immolation of the reputations of mainstream news sources as being the reason why people turned to FoxNews for trustworthiness in journalism, what rubric he used to score the trustworthiness of news organizations (you know, in order to inform this opinion). I also requested that his answer be a fully formed straightforward answer to a fully formed, straightforward question. How else can one make such a statement without there being some way to determine what influences viewership shifts in mainstream news sources? He was doing nothing more that giving his opinion, so i asked him how he arrived there. His utterly empty, snide response which was nothing more than a petty, irrelevant attack on my choice of two individual words used in my question posed to him, was basically just him ignoring me altogether. Because he had nothing to back up.his opinion. Nothing to back up his posts, the fact of which seemed to clearly delineate his posts in this thread from those who post in good faith. I dont understand how i could have tackled this problem any other way. And i thought i had taken steps to stay within the rules. I had taken a self imposed sabbatical of a couple weeks that had just ended like a day and a half ago. I was really getting engrossed in the threads and i have been enjoying myself. To get a third warning in _such_ short succession is deflating and i think im just going to leave. Something isnt jelling right with me and this board anymore. ---
**Author:** ![RioRico](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/f04885/32.png) [@RioRico](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RioRico)\ **Post date:** [October 6, 2019, 6:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-to-effectively-combat-the-fox-news-propaganda-machine/841305/49 "2019-10-06T06:57:06Z")
> [@octopus](#): > > You think a so-called fairness doctrine can work with internet publishing and social media? I don’t see how you’d enforce that. I don’t know how either. Can a rule specify fair time for varied opinions to be presented? Fortunately, I’m not tasked to write that. I recall listener-sponsored KPFK in early 1960s Los Angeles providing free airtime to many POVs: mainline Dems and GOPs, American Communists, Quakers, American Nazis, Catholic archdiocese, John Birch Society, Socialist Labor, Minutemen, Provos, more. All got scheduled half-hours. Nobody had to demand equal time. Commercial KHJ-TV ran a tamer version with less range and ranting - still entertaining. > [@madsircool](#): > > A FD cannot be instituted on non FCC regulated media. The government does not regulate its medium and the 1st Amendment prohibits them from abridging freedom of speech. [FCC](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Communications_Commission) was created by Congress “to regulate interstate communications by radio, television, wire, satellite, and cable.” Wired and wireless - I guess EPA handles smoke signals. 😉 Congress decides just what and how FCC regulates, and it has changed over time. Most standards are technical. Few are content-based. I note that regulation of social media is a hot topic worldwide now. We’ll see how it proceeds. The FCC’s basic mandate is to serve the public interest. How is that working? Ah, freedom of speech for all… except for incitement, libel, fraud, violent threats, false emergency or crime reports, false or medical adverts, limited government staff speech, mandatory workplace notices, etc. And beer labels - highly controlled. :eek: A media Fairness Doctrine need not censor, need not rule, “Don’t say A;” only, “For X bandwidth of Y presenting A, Z gets X bandwidth to present B”. Something like that. Policy wonks can work out the details. The benefit of following that rule? The medium owner can retain their valuable cash-cow license to use regulated space. Faux has stopped calling themselves Fair And Balanced so that’s one less lie. ---
**Author:** ![Sage\_Rat](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/sage_rat/32/399_2.png) [@Sage\_Rat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sage_Rat)\ **Post date:** [October 6, 2019, 8:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-to-effectively-combat-the-fox-news-propaganda-machine/841305/50 "2019-10-06T08:47:22Z")
I would say that there’s a general issue in the modern day that I’ll call the “free market problem”. The free market wants to give people what they want. If it does that, the people reward it and that reward money goes towards finding new and better ways to give people what they want. The central problems with that are that what people want isn’t always the best thing for them (or at least not when delivered in unconstrained dosages), “enjoyment” is addictive - regardless of source, it doesn’t have to be food or drug nor sex, and this system has a positive feedback loop with a shortening cycle as technologies like data mining come into being. Overall, this is a bigger problem than Fox. News media is not the only field where this problem is manifesting. And nor is it fair to say that Fox is the only problem child in the moment we live in and - whether that is true or not - it’s dangerous to say that it is the only problem child that can be produced or that the free market will only produce the issue on one side of the political spectrum. In general, the solution to this sort of thing - I hate to say it - is government intervention. The tragedy of the commons, races to the bottom, etc. are all problems which are solved by government regulation, oversight, incentivisation plans, etc. In terms of what that would look like, I would say that there’s a supply side solution that is problematic but would probably work and there are a variety of demand side solutions. On the supply side, the solution would be to use government intervention to make the news media be less entertaining, better researched, more factual, and more nuanced. The First Amendment rules a lot of possible options for “intervention” out, in the case of false and propagandic news. That I have been able to think of, it really only leaves incentivisation. Whether it’s an ideal methodology or not, I don’t believe that there is any solution - other than hoping that some quirk of the free market will kick in and course correct on its own - other than to have the government offer sufficient quantities of free money to the media as a reward for being truthful, non-biased, and having done proper in-depth investigation as to be worthwhile as to offset the funds coming in from the free market. I can detail how such a system would work that would resolve nearly all complaints with the general approach, if anyone is interested. The demand side solutions - trying to reduce interest in false media - are generally going to be less direct. Or, at least, all of the ones that I have thought of are. Possibly, education could help. If you teach kids when they’re young about how our diets are crap because of the free market problem, maybe they’ll be able to accomplish avoiding it. I don’t know. I do know that that’s an area where we’ve tried to deal with a free market problem through education, so the results of that will let us know for other things. But even if that does work, it only works for future generations and it will take some doing to accomplish since there’s going to be a lot of pushback against teaching, in schools, that kids shouldn’t watch Fox. Not to mention, again, the First Amendment. The more practical demand side solution (that I’ve thought of) is simply to make politics more boring. Too boring for people to be interested in it. In general, that means fixing voting systems to encourage bland, uninteresting candidates rather than provocative and exciting ones, reducing the amount of government drama that can be or is made public (e.g. by making the inner goings ons of government secret), etc. As addicts, that all sounds horrible of course. Fundamentally, the free market has discovered that we love team sports and melodrama. Making politics boring is like telling people that you’re going to swap out their football games with golf. Your addiction will convince you that it’s bad, undemocratic, helping corruption, etc. to change our systems in any way that would help to make politics more boring. Again, I can give recommendations, should anyone be interested. In general, I recommend working along all paths. That way if one fails, you still have the other. I would work on both the demand and supply sides, even if we have to accept with each solution that you can’t make everyone happy. Making people happy isn’t the goal here. In fact, removing a bit of happiness from the world is exactly the goal. ---
**Author:** ![HurricaneDitka](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/96bed5/32.png) [@HurricaneDitka](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HurricaneDitka)\ **Post date:** [October 6, 2019, 2:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-to-effectively-combat-the-fox-news-propaganda-machine/841305/51 "2019-10-06T14:06:50Z")
> [@Sage\_Rat](#): > > … In general, the solution to this sort of thing - I hate to say it - is government intervention. The tragedy of the commons, races to the bottom, etc. are all problems which are solved by government regulation, oversight, incentivisation plans, etc. > > In terms of what that would look like, I would say that there’s a supply side solution that is problematic but would probably work and there are a variety of demand side solutions. > > On the supply side, the solution would be to use government intervention to make the news media be less entertaining, better researched, more factual, and more nuanced. > > The First Amendment rules a lot of possible options for “intervention” out, in the case of false and propagandic news. That I have been able to think of, it really only leaves incentivisation. > > Whether it’s an ideal methodology or not, I don’t believe that there is any solution - other than hoping that some quirk of the free market will kick in and course correct on its own - other than to have the government offer sufficient quantities of free money to the media as a reward for being truthful, non-biased, and having done proper in-depth investigation as to be worthwhile as to offset the funds coming in from the free market. > > I can detail how such a system would work that would resolve nearly all complaints with the general approach, if anyone is interested. … I’m interested in hearing your explanation. First question: How are you going to keep the government from showering media outlets with free money in exchange for favorable coverage, and cutting off the spigot for media outlets that offer criticism? ---
**Author:** ![enipla](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/54ee81/32.png) [@enipla](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/enipla)\ **Post date:** [October 6, 2019, 2:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-to-effectively-combat-the-fox-news-propaganda-machine/841305/52 "2019-10-06T14:25:20Z")
> [@Banquet\_Bear](#): > > …Vote the fuckers out of office. > > Not just this current administration. Everywhere. Local council. Mayors. School boards. Fight for the Senate. Hold onto the House. This. I will be voting a straight Democratic ticket for a long time. It’s sad perhaps, as there are some good Republicans. But they have allowed this current mess. They need to really, really speak up or be voted out. The GOP needs to re-invent themselves, but I don’t know how in the world they would do it after Trump. Their strategy is to keep digging themselves into a deeper hole. Let them until they are so deep they cannot be heard. ---
**Author:** ![Apanthro](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/43a26b/32.png) [@Apanthro](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Apanthro)\ **Post date:** [October 6, 2019, 3:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-to-effectively-combat-the-fox-news-propaganda-machine/841305/53 "2019-10-06T15:15:23Z")
What happens after Trump is out of office? Whether due to term limits, impeachment or a first term loss. The Tea Party arose as a direct response to Obama’s election. GOP media has a predilection for lacking executive power, hell they thrive on it. Now that conspiracy theories and lies have been proven to work so effectively I can only see Fox News dialing it up to an 11. ---
**Author:** ![wolfpup](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wolfpup/32/10618_2.png) [@wolfpup](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wolfpup)\ **Post date:** [October 6, 2019, 4:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-to-effectively-combat-the-fox-news-propaganda-machine/841305/54 "2019-10-06T16:06:40Z")
> [@HurricaneDitka](#): > > I’m interested in hearing your explanation. First question: How are you going to keep the government from showering media outlets with free money in exchange for favorable coverage, and cutting off the spigot for media outlets that offer criticism? Do you want a serious answer? Because it’s not hard. The media outlets that receive this sort of government support are generally referred to as “public broadcasters”. In the cases with which I’m familiar, public broadcasters are required to adhere to the highest standards of journalistic integrity and objectivity far beyond the lowest-common-denominator standards of basic legality applied to commercial broadcasters. As for government interference, they are protected by a fundamental framework that establishes an arms-length relationship with the legislature that funds them, so that any kind of government meddling in editorial policy would violate the most fundamental terms of their charter. This is, indeed, how public broadcasting works in every major democracy except the United States, and indeed public broadcasters are funded well enough to function as major independent media that serve as a counter to the ills of commercial broadcasting and the drivel of social media. Republicans of course hate the idea, since the last thing they want is a counter to their disinformation agencies like Fox News that keep their political hacks in power. They have managed to keep the Corporation for Public Broadcasting and its subsidiaries, notably PBS, so poorly funded that it has to go out, hat in hand, begging for private support. Which is how David Koch, when he was alive, insinuated himself as a major influence over PBS. Public broadcasting in the US is the most poorly funded by far of any major democracy in earth, whether measured in per capita terms, or the GDP, or any other proportionate metric. American exceptionalism strikes again. ---
**Author:** ![wolfpup](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wolfpup/32/10618_2.png) [@wolfpup](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wolfpup)\ **Post date:** [October 6, 2019, 8:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-to-effectively-combat-the-fox-news-propaganda-machine/841305/55 "2019-10-06T20:20:26Z")
To follow up on the above, [here are some comparative numbers](https://www.documentarytelevision.com/public-television/public-television-funding-compared-across-18-western-countries/) on per-capita spending on public broadcasting. In 2011 Norway spent $180 per person annually, the UK $97. The average among the developed democracies was $82. Canada, sadly, lags far behind at only $33 per capita. And the USA, the richest country in the world? It spends _ **$3 per capita** _ on public broadcasting, a national embarrassment which means that compared to commercial media like Fox, public broadcasting is essentially non-existent. For those who wonder why many American voters are so astoundingly stupid and misinformed, and know more about Kim Kardashian’s sex life than about the views of their own senators and Congressmen and their Supreme Court justices, wonder no more. ---
**Author:** ![Banquet\_Bear](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/banquet_bear/32/373_2.png) [@Banquet\_Bear](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Banquet_Bear)\ **Post date:** [October 6, 2019, 8:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-to-effectively-combat-the-fox-news-propaganda-machine/841305/56 "2019-10-06T20:46:59Z")
…please note I am not saying or implying anything negative about the person who wrote the thread I’m about to link too: however it is an example of a point I made earlier. This thread popped up in Elections today. [https://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=883220](https://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=883220) It seems a bit random doesn’t it? A thread about Obamacare…today? A quick search of google news again shows nothing newsworthy has popped up. But I posted this yesterday: > [@Banquet\_Bear](#): > > Look at this tweet. > > [https://twitter.com/WhiteHouse/status/1180542170375303168](https://twitter.com/WhiteHouse/status/1180542170375303168) This is propaganda propagating. The OP may not have seen this tweet. But it became a talking point yesterday in circles that most of us here don’t take part in, don’t even know exist. It seems like the thread topic came out of nowhere but it didn’t. ---
**Author:** ![Snowboarder\_Bo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/snowboarder_bo/32/229_2.png) [@Snowboarder\_Bo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Snowboarder_Bo)\ **Post date:** [October 6, 2019, 9:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-to-effectively-combat-the-fox-news-propaganda-machine/841305/57 "2019-10-06T21:03:56Z")
> [@Ambivalid](#): > > Still kinda murky there. Even if we had an intact, independent free press, they wouldn’t have the power to save anyone They’d have the ability to offer us the right tools to potentially save ourselves. But even then, salvation would be a crapshoot. So you agree with **Banquet Bear** that the press isn’t going to save us; glad you found a succinct and direct way to say it. ---
**Author:** ![wolfpup](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wolfpup/32/10618_2.png) [@wolfpup](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wolfpup)\ **Post date:** [October 6, 2019, 10:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-to-effectively-combat-the-fox-news-propaganda-machine/841305/58 "2019-10-06T22:02:14Z")
I have no idea what the purpose of this line of discussion is supposed to be. It’s supposed to be a fucking democracy, at least in theory. That means that the voters have the power of self-determination, the power to set the future direction of the country. If half of them are too uninterested and apathetic to even bother to vote, and a substantial portion of the other half are misled, misinformed and uninformed dumbasses with no real understanding of the issues, then democracy ceases to function. For Fox News and the masters that it serves, this is a feature, not a bug. To quote the motto of the _Washington Post_, “democracy dies in darkness”. This is not so much a prophecy as an observation of the present. ---
**Author:** ![nelliebly](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/nelliebly/32/5422_2.png) [@nelliebly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/nelliebly)\ **Post date:** [October 6, 2019, 11:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-to-effectively-combat-the-fox-news-propaganda-machine/841305/59 "2019-10-06T23:39:54Z")
> [@wolfpup](#): > > I have no idea what the purpose of this line of discussion is supposed to be. It’s supposed to be a fucking democracy, at least in theory. That means that the voters have the power of self-determination, the power to set the future direction of the country. If half of them are too uninterested and apathetic to even bother to vote, and a substantial portion of the other half are misled, misinformed and uninformed dumbasses with no real understanding of the issues, then democracy ceases to function. For Fox News and the masters that it serves, this is a feature, not a bug. To quote the motto of the _Washington Post_, “democracy dies in darkness”. This is not so much a prophecy as an observation of the present. Right. I refuse to let it go down without a fight. My question is _how_. ---
**Author:** ![octopus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/octopus/32/3716_2.png) [@octopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/octopus)\ **Post date:** [October 7, 2019, 12:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-to-effectively-combat-the-fox-news-propaganda-machine/841305/60 "2019-10-07T00:10:36Z")
> [@wolfpup](#): > > I have no idea what the purpose of this line of discussion is supposed to be. It’s supposed to be a fucking democracy, at least in theory. That means that the voters have the power of self-determination, the power to set the future direction of the country. If half of them are too uninterested and apathetic to even bother to vote, and a substantial portion of the other half are misled, misinformed and uninformed dumbasses with no real understanding of the issues, then democracy ceases to function. For Fox News and the masters that it serves, this is a feature, not a bug. To quote the motto of the _Washington Post_, “democracy dies in darkness”. This is not so much a prophecy as an observation of the present. People _are_ exercising their right to self-determination. What is happening is that the choices the people make diverge from the choices that a self-selected elite think that the people should make. Why do you think McDonalds is more popular than Kale Hut? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-to-effectively-combat-the-fox-news-propaganda-machine/841305.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-to-effectively-combat-the-fox-news-propaganda-machine/841305.md?page=4)