# Is Fox News really all that bad? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [October 3, 2012, 9:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-fox-news-really-all-that-bad/636625 "2012-10-03T21:14:56Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 92
**Author:** ![LAZombie](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/b38774/32.png) [@LAZombie](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/LAZombie)\ **Post date:** [April 1, 2018, 4:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-fox-news-really-all-that-bad/636625/1821 "2018-04-01T16:47:59Z")
> [@Bryan\_Ekers](#): > > You’re calling for Constitution-busting legislation in response to an issue on which you have not done even minimal research? > > Sure, why not? The reason for asking for the cite is that I could not find a tweet by Ingraham that would elicit such vehement response and thought I was missing something. In fact, some people on this thread justified the response by citing Ingraham’s past history because the tweet isn’t offensive when one actually reads it. The liberal main stream has written headlines to create the illusion that Ingraham did something vile when what she actually did was very mild given that Hogg gave this information out willingly to gossip site TMZ. I think the average person would read the Ingraham’s tweet and also think it was not particularly offensive if at all for someone who has decided to become a public figure. ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [April 1, 2018, 5:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-fox-news-really-all-that-bad/636625/1822 "2018-04-01T17:06:20Z")
> [@LAZombie](#): > > The reason for asking for the cite is that I could not find a tweet by Ingraham that would elicit such vehement response and thought I was missing something. > > In fact, some people on this thread justified the response by citing Ingraham’s past history because the tweet isn’t offensive when one actually reads it. > > The liberal main stream has written headlines to create the illusion that Ingraham did something vile when what she actually did was very mild given that Hogg gave this information out willingly to gossip site TMZ. I think the average person would read the Ingraham’s tweet and also think it was not particularly offensive if at all for someone who has decided to become a public figure. If the average person doesn’t care, then the boycott won’t be effective. That it appears to be effective so far shows that many Americans care. And you’re still ignoring the very obvious unconstitutionality of your proposal. Free speech may not be a big deal to you, but it is for most Americans. ---
**Author:** ![eschereal](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/eschereal/32/18939_2.png) [@eschereal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/eschereal)\ **Post date:** [April 1, 2018, 5:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-fox-news-really-all-that-bad/636625/1823 "2018-04-01T17:21:27Z")
> [@LAZombie](#): > > In fact, some people on this thread justified the response by citing Ingraham’s past history because the tweet isn’t offensive when one actually reads it. Oh, so you have never heard of this thing called “context”. ---
**Author:** ![Robot\_Arm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/robot_arm/32/18280_2.png) [@Robot\_Arm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Robot_Arm)\ **Post date:** [April 1, 2018, 5:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-fox-news-really-all-that-bad/636625/1824 "2018-04-01T17:22:53Z")
> [@LAZombie](#): > > That’s it? Hogg was so offended by that tweet that he called for a boycott? And you said that Hogg insulted you. Let’s compare his statement to Ingraham’s and see which is worse, shall we? We just need you to tell us what it was. ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [April 1, 2018, 5:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-fox-news-really-all-that-bad/636625/1825 "2018-04-01T17:58:45Z")
> [@LAZombie](#): > > The reason for asking for the cite is that I could not find a tweet by Ingraham that would elicit such vehement response and thought I was missing something. Vehement? Cite? ---
**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:** [April 1, 2018, 6:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-fox-news-really-all-that-bad/636625/1826 "2018-04-01T18:12:32Z")
> [@Robot\_Arm](#): > > And you said that Hogg insulted you. Let’s compare his statement to Ingraham’s and see which is worse, shall we? > > We just need you to tell us what it was. I, too, am still waiting to hear how David Hogg insulted him. Also, I’m still waiting for Zombie to tell us what he thinks David Hogg and the Parkland kids are going to do to his precious guns that he loves so much, why he thinks that reasonable gun control of the kind that has existed throughout the civilized world for the better part of a century is such a threat, and why he thinks indiscriminate access to guns by all manner of lunatics is more important than children’s lives. ---
**Author:** ![asahi](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/asahi/32/8693_2.png) [@asahi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/asahi)\ **Post date:** [April 1, 2018, 7:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-fox-news-really-all-that-bad/636625/1827 "2018-04-01T19:27:14Z")
Guys, stop feeding the troll. ---
**Author:** ![eschereal](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/eschereal/32/18939_2.png) [@eschereal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/eschereal)\ **Post date:** [April 1, 2018, 7:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-fox-news-really-all-that-bad/636625/1828 "2018-04-01T19:57:55Z")
> [@Robot\_Arm](#): > > And you said that Hogg insulted you. Let’s compare his statement to Ingraham’s and see which is worse, shall we? > > We just need you to tell us what it was. I think it Hogg’s overall message, his drive for gun control. To some people, gun control itself is an insult in that they read it as saying “_You are not smart enough to have these shooty-toys!_” Hence, by advocating – **something** – he and his ilk is heaping derision on all the gundamentalists. ---
**Author:** ![drad\_dog](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/aeb1de/32.png) [@drad\_dog](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/drad_dog)\ **Post date:** [April 1, 2018, 8:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-fox-news-really-all-that-bad/636625/1829 "2018-04-01T20:40:54Z")
I hope Hogg finds a way to fold this in with his college and his life, and follows this bitch everywhere she goes, offering to debate her, on her “positions,” until she either says yes or dies. I am begging for them to have it out in public. We all need it in 2018. ---
**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:** [April 1, 2018, 8:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-fox-news-really-all-that-bad/636625/1830 "2018-04-01T20:47:09Z")
> [@asahi](#): > > Guys, stop feeding the troll. You are not permitted to accuse other posters of trolling or being a troll in this forum. I’m going to withhold a warning because a person isn’t specifically named, but that’s about the thinnest rationale possible. Don’t do this again. [/moderating] ---
**Author:** ![asahi](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/asahi/32/8693_2.png) [@asahi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/asahi)\ **Post date:** [April 1, 2018, 8:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-fox-news-really-all-that-bad/636625/1831 "2018-04-01T20:59:47Z")
> [@Bone](#): > > You are not permitted to accuse other posters of trolling or being a troll in this forum. I’m going to withhold a warning because a person isn’t specifically named, but that’s about the thinnest rationale possible. Don’t do this again. > > [/moderating] My bad and fairly warned - I was jumping from thread to thread and forgot for the moment that I wasn’t in the pit. ---
**Author:** ![asahi](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/asahi/32/8693_2.png) [@asahi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/asahi)\ **Post date:** [April 1, 2018, 9:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-fox-news-really-all-that-bad/636625/1832 "2018-04-01T21:16:48Z")
> [@LAZombie](#): > > That’s it? Hogg was so offended by that tweet that he called for a boycott? It’s a statement of fact. Hogg is a slightly above average student and thinks he can get into an elite university? I call white privilege on this one. In fact, I think the subtext of his anger is “why don’t you reject one of those 5.0 GPA 1600 SAT Asians and let me in instead.” Hogg simply isn’t qualified for admission into an elite university. There’s a bit of context missing here, such as the fact that in the tweet in question, she linked an article written by another notorious and unapologetic right wing publisher, the Daily Wire (Ben Shapiro’s rag). The Wire links a snippet of an interview featuring Hogg on TMZ. There’s no need for the Daily Wire or Laura Ingraham or Ted Nugent to open their pie holes and comment on Hogg’s academic misfortune. They could choose to have a debate about gun control if they want, but that’s obviously not something they’re interested in. They wanted to take delight in someone’s personal problems. There’s nothing illegal about it - they’re free to do that if they choose. They’re also free to face the consequences, and advertisers have come down on the side of Hogg. If there’s one possible problem with Hogg it’s that he’s risking a little bit of over-exposure. Eventually, he will end up stepping in controversy himself if given enough exposure and I don’t have a problem with him facing the consequences for it. But advertisers aren’t funding Hogg’s efforts; they’re funding Ingraham’s - well, they were. ---
**Author:** ![LAZombie](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/b38774/32.png) [@LAZombie](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/LAZombie)\ **Post date:** [April 2, 2018, 4:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-fox-news-really-all-that-bad/636625/1833 "2018-04-02T04:12:11Z")
> [@iiandyiiii](#): > > And you’re still ignoring the very obvious unconstitutionality of your proposal. Free speech may not be a big deal to you, but it is for most Americans. Yes, you are correct that boycotts are protected under the first amendment. However, the Supreme Court wrote in NAACP v. Claiborne Hardware Co., 458 U.S. 886, 916–17 (1982). “For instance, the First Amendment protects the right of individuals to engage in public protest for the purpose of \*\* influencing societal or governmental change\*\*, even if that protest activity causes economic harm.” My bold. My argument is that Hogg’s boycott has a vindictive motive not one of influencing societal or governmental change. Therefore, it is not protected by the First Amendment. Likewise in my restaurant owned by a mayoral candidate example, the boycott of the restaurant has no other purpose than to intimidate and create economic harm. The boycott must request that restaurant change its operation in some meaningful manner for it to be valid and not a malicious way to get rid of a political opponent. ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [April 2, 2018, 4:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-fox-news-really-all-that-bad/636625/1834 "2018-04-02T04:22:46Z")
> [@LAZombie](#): > > My argument is that Hogg’s boycott has a vindictive motive not one of influencing societal or governmental change. However, I would regard a method to encourage Fox News to be a responsible provider of news and not a loud and dishonest propaganda machine for the Far Right to be a legitimate and necessary “societal change.” (BTW, can you link to similar arguments you have posted, (possibly on other fora), that have challenged the propriety of various Fundamentalist boycott efforts to shut down shows on religious topics with which they disapproved? Just curious to see how your arguments compare over the years.) ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [April 2, 2018, 5:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-fox-news-really-all-that-bad/636625/1835 "2018-04-02T05:01:52Z")
Expecting consistent arguments to be advanced over a given period of time is so pre-Leader. A time when opinion was considered weak and groundless if it did not conform to the leaden restrictions of fact, or a leader thought unreliable if his opinions reversed themselves in the blink of an eye. The dull and tiresome policies of Obama reflected this sort of cramped and unimaginative thinking, as if tomorrow’s consequence flowed directly from today’s decisions. It is a fatal flaw to be predictable like that, to relentlessly follow a reasoned path to a reasonable action. But the Leader is a man of vision, he acts on instinct and intuition, he is not weakened by a slavish obedience to consistency. Remember, consistency is the knob-goblin of the weak mind. Some guy said that. ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [April 2, 2018, 8:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-fox-news-really-all-that-bad/636625/1836 "2018-04-02T08:50:54Z")
> [@LAZombie](#): > > Yes, you are correct that boycotts are protected under the first amendment. However, the Supreme Court wrote in NAACP v. Claiborne Hardware Co., 458 U.S. 886, 916–17 (1982). “For instance, the First Amendment protects the right of individuals to engage in public protest for the purpose of \*\* influencing societal or governmental change\*\*, even if that protest activity causes economic harm.” My bold. > > My argument is that Hogg’s boycott has a vindictive motive not one of influencing societal or governmental change. Therefore, it is not protected by the First Amendment. Likewise in my restaurant owned by a mayoral candidate example, the boycott of the restaurant has no other purpose than to intimidate and create economic harm. The boycott must request that restaurant change its operation in some meaningful manner for it to be valid and not a malicious way to get rid of a political opponent. Whether true or not (and it all depends on your definition of “vindictive” – I think Hogg quite clearly is motivated by a desire to influence society and government policy), this is irrelevant. People are free to say things for vindictive reasons if they want. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/the_other_waldo_pepper/32/12370_2.png) [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Other_Waldo_Pepper)\ **Post date:** [April 2, 2018, 10:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-fox-news-really-all-that-bad/636625/1837 "2018-04-02T10:34:04Z")
> [@LAZombie](#): > > Yes, you are correct that boycotts are protected under the first amendment. However, the Supreme Court wrote in NAACP v. Claiborne Hardware Co., 458 U.S. 886, 916–17 (1982). “For instance, the First Amendment protects the right of individuals to engage in public protest for the purpose of \*\* influencing societal or governmental change\*\*, even if that protest activity causes economic harm.” My bold. > > My argument is that Hogg’s boycott has a vindictive motive not one of influencing societal or governmental change. Therefore, it is not protected by the First Amendment. But your cite strikes me as useless: if it shows that the First Amendment protects the right of individuals to talk up a boycott for _that_ reason, wouldn’t you still need a cite showing that it doesn’t protect the right of individuals to talk up a boycott for this _other_ reason? From other Supreme Court decisions, I can tell you that some boycotts are illegal and some are legal — and, in the absence of one that bars this particular type of boycott, I’d of course figured we’d err on the side of free speech. Do you, by chance, have a cite that shows — well, not that some other type of boycott is legal, but that this one happens to be illegal? ---
**Author:** ![Mijin](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mijin/32/9369_2.png) [@Mijin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mijin)\ **Post date:** [April 2, 2018, 10:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-fox-news-really-all-that-bad/636625/1838 "2018-04-02T10:48:07Z")
> [@LAZombie](#): > > My argument is that Hogg’s boycott has a vindictive motive not one of influencing societal or governmental change. Therefore, it is not protected by the First Amendment. Likewise in my restaurant owned by a mayoral candidate example, the boycott of the restaurant has no other purpose than to intimidate and create economic harm. The boycott must request that restaurant change its operation in some meaningful manner for it to be valid and not a malicious way to get rid of a political opponent. A better example, since we’re in the FOX thread, is hannity’s boycott – and smashing up – of Keurig coffee machines. They are entitled to pull their ads for whatever reason they like. But Hannity’s revenge crosses the line into simple bullying (according to your logic, and my opinion). ---
**Author:** ![Fear\_Itself](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fear_itself/32/19637_2.png) [@Fear\_Itself](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fear_Itself)\ **Post date:** [April 2, 2018, 12:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-fox-news-really-all-that-bad/636625/1839 "2018-04-02T12:27:37Z")
> [@LAZombie](#): > > Yes, you are correct that boycotts are protected under the first amendment. However, the Supreme Court wrote in NAACP v. Claiborne Hardware Co., 458 U.S. 886, 916–17 (1982). “For instance, the First Amendment protects the right of individuals to engage in public protest for the purpose of \*\* influencing societal or governmental change\*\*, even if that protest activity causes economic harm.” My bold. > > My argument is that Hogg’s boycott has a vindictive motive not one of influencing societal or governmental change. Therefore, it is not protected by the First Amendment. Likewise in my restaurant owned by a mayoral candidate example, the boycott of the restaurant has no other purpose than to intimidate and create economic harm. The boycott must request that restaurant change its operation in some meaningful manner for it to be valid and not a malicious way to get rid of a political opponent. There is nothing in that decision that limits boycotts to those that influence societal or governmental change. Your cite is inclusive not exclusive. Nowhere did the court say boycotts for other reasons are illegal. ---
**Author:** ![Johnny\_L.A](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/johnny_l.a/32/1084_2.png) [@Johnny\_L.A](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Johnny_L.A)\ **Post date:** [April 2, 2018, 1:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-fox-news-really-all-that-bad/636625/1840 "2018-04-02T13:39:09Z")
> [@elucidator](#): > > Remember, consistency is the knob-goblin of the weak mind. Consistency is an [unattractive cocksucker](https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=knob%20goblin)? [spoiler]An Unattractive female who will give head to, or sleep with, any man, due to her being unsure when she will get any dick again. _“I was so drunk, I went home with a knobgoblin.”_[/spoiler] [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-fox-news-really-all-that-bad/636625.md?page=91) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-fox-news-really-all-that-bad/636625.md?page=93)