Fox news – Merely Xtian

United States of Authoritarianism

People deprived of rights

Every day there are people being abducted by masked, armed men jumping out of minivans, trucks and cars. These people do not identify themselves; they do not show identification, badges, or last names. Their faces are hidden out of shame (while using the excuse of needing protection from the people they’re brutalizing). There is violence being brought against people who have done nothing wrong other than living their lives. We have rights, and they are being trampled on by the United States government. This is truly terrifying and a tidal shift, since if this can be done to anyone in the United States then it can be done to you. I realize that conservatives will say – “well that’s happening to people who aren’t citizens”. But those rights are supposed to apply to everyone, and we are all entitled to due process to prove it in a court of law, and are entitled to the presumption of innocence (innocent until proven guilty). Conservatives famously are unable to understand something until it happens to them. So let’s reframe it in terms they might be able to understand: What if it happened to you? What if some guy in fatigues, a mask, and weapon slam you to the ground and zip tie you despite your protest? If a person can just be targeted on the street and thrown into a van then it could happen to anyone. That means you, dear Republican – you, your spouse, or your children. They may also likely say that’s not going to happen to them because “I look like an American” (which translated from racist coding to English is: Americans are white, my skin is not brown/Americans don’t have an accent from another country). We’re just gonna ignore that white privileged and racist thought for now – but guess what? If ICE is being allowed to do this to anyone, then they can do it to you – there’s literally nothing stopping them. And since people are being assumed guilty and dragged away at a whim, we’ve already lost in a big way. Conservatives who disagree with this are being willfully ignorant.

Brainwashed

Conservatives have been brainwashed for decades which is in large part the reason they respond the way they do when they see people’s rights being trampled on or see the President sending in national guard to states to quell supposed “violence or insurrection”. The brainwashing capitalizes on their inherent racism they’ve refused to deal with. Conservatives have a comically over exaggerated sense of danger and crime regarding cities. This is just racial coding that exists generally as part of our culture of white supremacy but to those who watch Fox news and other conservative propaganda outlets it’s been weaponized to almost comically tragic proportions. They talk about cities as if they’re a literal war zone, clutching pearls at the thought of going anywhere near the city. And the targeting of cities is purposeful as it helps associate the places that vote overwhelmingly Democrat with negative associations like crime and corruption. When they see or hear of people abducted off the streets by government thugs they will immediately call on their brainwashed ideas that immigrants are mostly criminals or drug dealers. They are very much shielded from the visuals of normal everyday men, women, and children being dragged out of cars or grocery stores minding their own business. They are carefully shown by their media of choice only images of very selective video of someone fighting hard against being taken or someone who fits a stereotype that they commonly expect to see. I want to be clear – Republicans do not get a pass because they’ve been brainwashed. It’s easy enough to understand or figure out their beliefs are nonsense – the problem is that they choose to buy into it and don’t want to know any differently. You may wonder why people would engage in brainwashing – it’s simple really, it’s for the money. Conservative culture is ripe for grifting, just look at the fortunes amassed by Rupert Murdoch, Rush Limbaugh, and Sean Hannity. Sean Hannity recently bought a 2nd multimillion dollar beachfront condo for $14 million to merge it with the one next door into a single residence. And this just after recently purchasing a different beachfront property for $23 million. Unfortunately, it pays to sell division and anger at the expense of your country – unfortunately for us capitalism happily rewards it.

Military in the streets

Trump has wanted to turn the military against citizens for a long time, ever since his first term. He once asked if he could have the military shoot protestors in the legs. To the brainwashed, this sounds unbelievable that their “great” leader would do something like that without someone deserving it. Besides the fact that no protester could “deserve” it, it betrays a difference in understanding of who Trump is versus who the brainwashed conservatives see him as. Trump has an extremely fragile ego and juvenile personality. He can’t stand to be told he’s wrong and can’t handle people challenging him – which is one reason he surrounds himself with yes men.

His goal is to have the military do his bidding in attacking and controlling the citizens of the United States. Trump has no concept or respect for the constitution or the government it has tried to define in America – if you recognize that he’s essentially a selfish toddler that thinks he’s entitled to absolute obedience as a king then you understand him and his motives.

Hell on earth – complements of the “followers” of Jesus

The fact is that ICE’s tactics, the devastation to public health through the CDC, the corruption of the department of justice among so many other things I won’t name here are all part of an unleashing of hell on earth, especially to the least of these. I personally know many people who truly try to be faithful to Jesus’ teachings, and they were absolutely thrilled when Trump won the election of 2024. If they still support Trump, then it’s my sincere hope for each and every one of them that they are made to endure the hell that they’ve unleashed on others. Despite their own efforts and self imposed piety, they are as far from Jesus as if they had no faith at all. They can go to church all they like, pray as much as they can, tithe faithfully, read their bible religiously but it doesn’t mean anything. There are legions of atheists and agnostics all over the country who represent Christ better than any of conservative Christian would on their best red letter day. May every Christian who supports Trump be shown for the absolutely morally bankrupt hypocrite they truly are and may they never know peace.

What you can do

We need to stand up for our neighbors, fellow citizens, and those abducted by our government. It’s so important to join the fight against Trump’s authoritarian overreach. The conservative leadership’s reaction to protests, especially the “No Kings” protest is telling as it shows their hand. Mike Johnson, speaker of the house/human-snake hybrid/Christian hypocrite extraordinaire is spinning shameful propaganda, equating protestors with terrorists, in concert with the rest of the Trump administration. The fact that they are bothering to address it and spin propaganda shows how dangerous the movement is to them. Consider that during all 4 years of President Biden’s term, there were no nationwide protests. We’re not even into the first year of Trump’s term and I personally have been to at least 6 protests (and there have been others I haven’t attended). Conservative anger ginned up by their propaganda outlets doesn’t have a basis in reality, and it shows by the general lack of action (except for the Jan 6, 2021 insurrection, of course). While their anger is real, it lacks substance or a basis in reality; it’s a general malaise of temperament that affects the brainwashed.

These protests which occur throughout the entire country make this point subconsciously and directly to conservatives driving by. Even if they flip off all the protestors as they drive by in their huge overcompensator trucks, they are faced with the cognitive dissonance that something unique is happening. This is something that we haven’t seen before – or at least haven’t seen in the 2 or 3 generations since the Vietnam war. The protests bypass the Fox “News” propaganda echo chamber that Trump uses to fool the fools. They may try to tell themselves all the people out there are “paid protestors”, but they know deep down it’s not true. They are forced to confront it and they know something is wrong – and Trump can’t control that. In fact he hates not being able to control it. Furthermore, our protests will encourage others that may want to get out there and stand up but need a little encouragement from seeing others who feel similarly to how they feel. This is our act of solidarity, our message of hope to those being mistreated and trampled on. This is goodness standing up against the forces of corruption and the worst impulses humanity brings to the table. I’m going to be out there on 10/18/2025 – I hope to see you there too!

FDT

Why Republicans cherish the 1st amendment

Elephant burning 1st amendment, with American flag in the background. Generated with dreamstudio.ai

Frequently I hear conservatives going off about the attack on 1st amendment rights in America. But I’d like to cue my Republican readers into an open secret that most conservatives don’t realize: this is code for “I am being prevented from spreading a lie”. No doubt this statement will stir up some anger initially, but I challenge you to stick with me, as I’d like to share why I think this is true, and why understanding it can literally save American democracy. You should first know a little about myself; I grew up listening to Rush LImbaugh, and talking politics with my parents. I was raised an evangelical Christian with hard right values. I voted Republican down the ballot for 20 years and was through and through as Republican as you can get on any issue, from abortion, military support, faith in the police, and opposed to taxes at all costs. In 2016, I voted for the former president. I have argued the merits of conservatism for decades and really couldn’t understand why anyone would vote for the “other side”. I talk more about some of the things that have since changed my mind in other posts on this site, so please check them out if you are interested. My point in mentioning it here is to establish some credibility with you by showing that I’ve walked and lived in that conservative culture, and am thoroughly familiar with it.

Things conservatives believe

As a former conservative Republican, I am well aware of the headspace that is common to the majority of that group. When I was conservative, there were many things I believed. See how many you identify with:

Democrats want to kill babies/don’t care about human life

Democrats want “illegals” [sic] to become citizens so they will vote for them [Democrats]

Democrats are socialists

Democrats don’t love this country/are ashamed of this country/hate this country/think other countries are better than us

Democrats are passivists who will always oppose war

Democrats want to take away our guns – this way we can be unarmed and can’t resist government overreach/authoritarianism/destruction of America

Democrats don’t care about election security – and so can’t be trusted to hold secure elections (because they don’t agree we need all the security processes advocated by Republicans, they must have nefarious motives with regard to holding fair elections)

Democrats want to tax the rich out of existence.

Democrats want to increase my taxes to pay for their liberal programs/give it to poor/lazy/addicted citizens.

Democrats hate/don’t believe in God – this is why they often oppose things like school prayer, putting the 10 commands in public spaces/Christian statues/memorials in public spaces. This is also why they get upset when Islam and other religions are denigrated/treated less than in culture and media.

They want to destroy the family, as shown by their hatred of religion and embrace of LGBTQ+issues. They want to force everyone to accept things that they don’t agree with and want to limit people’s free speech to speak out about things that they disagree with.

Democrats don’t love their country / are not true Patriots. Evidence of this comes in the form of them criticizing the country for past wrongs which have lasting impact (slavery, colonialism) or holding the country to account for past wrongs. Also they don’t seem to encourage explicit displays of nationalistic pride and can be critical of wars we engage in. They also support leaders who prevent wars or utilize tools like NATO or the United Nations to hold countries to account instead of showing aggressors the sharp end of the spear.

Democrats, and especially Democratic politicians, despise this country, feel no pride or respect for its foundations, and want to erase what is and form a socialistic society, spurning the work of our founding fathers. Therefore, they cannot be trusted to govern at any cost, and must not be elected, no matter what.

Democrats are fine with racism against white people

I’m sure most, if not all of the above ideas resonate to some degree with you, if you are or have been a conservative at any point in your life. The list isn’t exhaustive, I know there’s more. Those are all things I have believed at some point in my life. And here’s the thing: Every single one of those things is a lie.

The lies are a feature, not a bug

Every single one of the false ideas presented above are categorically false. Leading up to the subject of the 1st amendment and its relationship to conservatives, we need to talk about the false ideas that conservatives share. And this is the part that will make you angry, but I ask that you stay with me for a short while so that you can judge whether there is any merit in my points. It’s not an accident that we all have believed many of these things. In fact, it’s required that we believe them if we want to remain a part of the Republican party. If your average voter were to question or cease believing these lies, they would have no reason to remain in the Republican party. The party needs the members to subscribe to the lies. I will say it another way: the Republican party as we know it would be destroyed if its members were to cease believing even some of those lies. Do you notice that I’ve not really said anything about Republican policy? It’s because their policies exist to serve the aforementioned lies. I can’t actually think of any policies which aren’t based on outright lies or are not built to drive a wedge between people. And that presents an enormous weak spot – as all those lies are easily proved false with an open mind, a lot of humility, and a little reading. As Stephen Colbert famously stated, “Reality has a well known liberal bias”. And so my proposition is that conservatism’s greatest weakness is the truth. Without these lies being used to justify their policy positions, the Republican value proposition drops to zero. There’d be no reason why someone should put a Republican in office, as everything they propose is to solve problems which don’t exist or have been twisted so much as to be unreliable to even try to engage with. Sounds kind of arrogant, I know. But let’s think a little more about what this might mean. If this is true, then we should expect that Republican leadership and media are well aware of this mortal danger. As such, we would expect them to do everything in their power to shore up support for and further these lies. I will show later how they do this. I will say upfront, they use some of the things that sets America apart as great (love of country, freedom of speech) and pervert them for their own gain to the detriment of the very country which gave it to them in the first place.

I am being prevented from spreading a lie

The 1st amendment is used by conservatives as a shield for misinformation. It’s a cynical tactic, for it pretends to love the things we have as citizens (the right to free speech), and then they abuse it to spread false information without regard for the truth. It’s cynical because rather than showing a love of country or freedom, it shows a willingness to abuse them for selfish gain. I will distinguish the leaders from the average citizens in how they utilize the lies. They both engage in it; but I believe that the leaders almost always do it intentionally, whereas the average citizens are more just repeaters of the nonsense they hear without discriminating whether what they are parrotting is true. But I think they all understand instinctively that unless they parrot the points, they’ll continue to lose people to more realistic positions. I’ll give a couple examples which follow a predictable pattern. It goes something like this:

1. conservative says something untrue

2. Someone controverts it or limits its dissemination

3. Conservative claims 1st amendment right is being infringed

Take as an example the various misinformation that flew around on social media around covid-19, masks, and vaccines. Information spreads like wildfire, and in this case it impacts people’s health/lives. There were countless back and forths in social media from people fighting with one another over the veracity of claims. In response, many of the social media companies began trying to supplement posts with additional context, which oftentimes would show that a post was misinformation or at best, point the reader at a verified and truthful source of information. Conservatives then cried censorship. Average citizens would joke about going to “facebook jail”, a reference to them posting something that they knew would either be flagged for removal or supplemented with supporting context. I’ve had conversations with Republicans who will complain that this violates their 1st amendment right. They have the right to post whatever they want. I’ve asked if they think they should post something that isn’t true, to which I’ve been asked in retort, “What is truth?” (Sidenote, as this is what Pontius Pilate asked Jesus before he handed him over to be executed, I have to question why he would be anyone’s role model). This person’s point though was reflecting another conservative trope, which is distrust of sources of information which are reliable, try to be unbiased, or are generally scientifically accurate. Ironically, often in response to the pushback they receive when posting a lie, they are emboldened to continue to try to spread it by any means necessary. Which serves Republican aims nicely. A corollary to this is the following: the bigger the lie, the more explicitly conservatives will say the 1st amendment is under attack. Take the 2020 election. Lies and misinformation were utilized heavily before the election even took place. The former president began suggesting months before the election that he’d only lose if there was fraud. (Obviously knowing from advisors that there was a good chance he would lose, he began hedging his bets ahead of time) It was well discussed in normal news outlets that election results would be delayed due to the high number of mail in ballots, etc. We all know the suspicion that conservative outlets and the former president cast on the fact that it took several days for the election to be called. After President Biden was called as the winner then the lies really began to fly. I’ve detailed in other articles some examples of these election lies and the ways that stupid video clips taken out of context were promoted by Republicans high and low to sow confusion and doubt. But for our purpose it is enough to mention that these posts too were being “facebook jailed”, removed, or just given accurate context. Fox News took part in it as well, and they were taken to trial for allegations of defamation against Dominion voting systems, a frequent target of social media posts and conservative outlets. In their planned defense of allegations of publishing false information about Dominion voting systems, would you care to guess what the defense was to be? Yup, 1st amendment, freedom of press – they planned to say that they were just reporting on newsworthy things that newsworthy people were saying about a company. They ended up not going to trial; Fox News settled with Dominion for $787 million – they knew they wouldn’t be able to hold their own in court of law where actual facts come into play. The former president has been indicted by the federal government on charges of conspiracy against rights, conspiracy to defraud the United states, obstruction of and attempt to obstruct an official proceeding, and conspiracy to obstruct an official proceeding. His defense, and the excuse continually stated in news cycles by the majority of congressional republicans and senators who support him? Freedom of speech. And they’re touting it more heavily than I’ve seen them do it before. The last thing they need is a public spectacle of their ecosystem of lies being dismantled in the courts. So it behooves them to cast as much doubt and stir up as much misplaced controversy as possible, lest their voters begin to understand the breadth of the lies that they’ve been led to believe. These are examples of the ways republicans will complain about their “right” to spread lies being infringed upon.

These aren’t lies, you just listen to too much fake news

In response to what my conservative readers are thinking, I’d like to say – go find out for sure. It really is super simple to do. I know that the topics around covid-19 and election are highly charged, so start with the simple ones that I led the post with. Go down the list and actually find out what Democrat positions are. I’m not going to do it here or now, but my hope is that you’ll at least be interested to know how the things you believe about Democrats are actually not really accurate. In so many cases, I believe we probably think similarly on many issues – what gets in the way though is the Republican lies, and to me this is the ultimate cynicism and hatred of America; to create and maintain lies that make people think they are completely at odds with their friends, family, and fellow citizens, and that for the sake of gain. They don’t have to act this way, but they’ve created a monster which is already out of their control and I fear will destroy our country. They created this monster to help them get elected and stay elected. It is used to create a brand that helps them to stand apart from others, and the lies are what they use to create the market demand. Destroy the lies and you destroy the demand. Attempts to destroy the lie will bring accusations of trampling on free speech. This is a defensive mechanism, and it is understandable; no one likes having their very essence attacked. For republicans, free speech is a trojan by which lies are smuggled. You may doubt this and wonder why anyone would purposely utilize lies to drive a wedge between citizens – you may feel that this wedge is truly a result of vastly different morals and beliefs. The key here is trying to figure out if the things you believe about Democrats are actually true. You may wonder what a way forward might look like. The alternative way that Republicans could engage in politics might look something like this:
1) Agree that gun violence needs to be addressed in meaningful ways, ways that would impact but not eliminate gun sales

2) Agree that systemic racism plays a role in people’s lives and that’s not fair; what can we do address this

3) Agree that it is improper for a president who loses an election to stir up the base, refuse to concede, and allegedly conspire against the citizens of the United States

4) Agree that abortion is a medical and personal decision, religious texts don’t address it, and we need to give doctors and women the latitude to make decisions which they are best equipped to do. In the absence of this, we must at least engage fairly and understand that even within a religion, there are various positions and no “one” right perspective on it. Religion tells its adherents what they may do – it shouldn’t be used to tell everyone else what they should do.

5) Agree that all citizens should be allowed and encouraged to vote; cease from trying to discourage and and prevent people from voting. Change your policies to appeal to more voters rather than trying to prevent those with whom you disagree from voting.

6) Agree that truth matters, and maybe that means each party’s candidates have very similar positions but differ slightly on how they’d prefer to make rules and laws. This would also mean there is less to distinguish you from a field of candidates, making your chances at getting elected or reelected greatly reduced.

There are many other ways beyond what I listed, but those are just to give a taste at how Republicans could move forward. The good news is that it’s actually up to you. Republican leadership, candidates who win primaries, etc, are a function of what the base of Republican voters believe. This is a direct result of the lies that people create, spread, and consequently, believe. We are all in a position to affect the latter two. Will you continue to give oxygen to lies on social media, or will you thoughtfully pause, research, and consider whether what you are consuming is true? Will you learn to identify the hallmarks of conservative lies – memes that generate strong emotions like rage and anger. Will you try to understand what Democrats really propose for rules and policy in the country, even if they aren’t rage inducing or conspiracy laced? Will you refuse to vote for extremists who lie to win at all costs, even if that means Republicans might not win for a couple of cycles until we clear out the nut jobs? And when you hear a conservative pundit or social media influencer mention free speech, will you ask yourself whether they mean deceitful speech or truthful speech? To love this country requires no less.

Republican’s house of cards

Republicans in this country are facing a threat to the perceived reliability of an important echo chamber. Fox “News” was brought to court by Dominion Voting Systems for the alleged charge of defamation with regard to “the big lie”. The details which came to light during the case’s discovery process present an existential threat to the ability of many Republicans to live under the false pretense that they’re the good guys or are fighting a good fight. And while Fox settled with Dominion earlier last week for $787 million, there’s still much value to be gleaned from what came to light during the process.

Through the discovery process, the public has learned about how Fox hosts and others behind the scenes have treated the ‘big lie’. It’s been shown beyond any doubt that many people at Fox “News”, like Tucker Carlson, Ruppert Murdoch, et al knew that the election fraud narrative was a myth, peddled to an audience all too willing to lap it up without question. Details from the case indicate that many at Fox “News” knew that the mass fraud claims were false, but also admitted to knowing that their audience would believe the nonsense they were peddling. To quote Carlson, regarding what Rudy Giuliani and Sydney Powel were saying about the election at the time: “It’s unbelievably offensive to me. Our viewers are good people and they believe it.” Other choice texts include Carlson calling Powell a “nut job” and admitting that he knows she was lying about the things she was saying. There are a lot of really great gems that you can read about on your own if you’re not already familiar with the revelations regarding the case. Here is a good place to start – which should give the interested reader a great springboard for other fruitful searches. The main idea is that the people at Fox “News” knew what all reasonable people at the time knew – that the election fraud lie was a conspiracy theory packaged and served to an audience who wanted to believe it. To their credit, Republicans at the time knew there was something untoward happening, and wanted the truth to come out; finally, with the details from the Dominion case, their wish was granted. Unfortunately for them, however, the details are revealing the failure of their worldview to detect faulty information sources and their own susceptibility to being taken in by things they want to be true. It is these revelations which I believe can act to topple the house of cards which the Republican worldview is based upon.
It would be tempting to view the Fox “News” scandal as a one off – that it was a mistake that might be treated as any other which can be forgotten and moved past. Sure, it puts egg on their face, and the face of any other “News” organization who reported on and encouraged “the big lie” – that the 2020 election wasn’t fair, legit, or legal. But I believe it should be viewed as more than that, and here’s why. It has exposed in bright flashing lights that right wing “News” outlets peddle information that isn’t true in service to ratings and money. This is more than the typically misleading and rage-baiting tactics that Fox “News” often engages in – this is them being caught red-handed taking advantage of their viewers gullibility. With the information from the case, we are getting an inside view of what makes them who they are, and how they operate. And here’s what makes this so interesting to me. A common feature of Fox “News” is accusing other outlets of being biased, and implicitly showing themselves to be the trustworthy alternative – and this isn’t an accident. The conservative worldview is married to the idea that mainstream news is actually biased against them – a perception which is helped by the abundance of facts and information which challenge the fictional narratives they hold. So right wing networks coddle their viewers by trying to present stories and certain facts in a way which makes them feel safe and won’t cause them cognitive dissonance. Fox “News” offers shelter to beleaguered conservatives, suffering from a mythical persecution narrative, giving them an echo chamber which amplifies the perceived danger from the outside. And so they get to feel like they know the truth about the state of the world, while also feeling like they are the good guys in a fight with the mainstream media and all the liberals that it is composed of. If you have a conversation with a conservative about the news or politics, it doesn’t take long to hear them expose their contempt for any mainstream source of information. This is because of a feature in their worldview that only they know the truth, that only they are smart enough to discern a source’s reliability, and therefore only news sources they choose are reliable. And not only that, but any other news sources which might happen to report things that are antagonistic to or disprove what they believe (i.e., if it makes them feel uncomfortable) are vigorously mocked as “fake” news. In this way critical thinking can be outsourced to their “News” sources and truth can be determined by the amount of anger they feel after seeing a misleading headline. That is to say, a part of the conservative worldview is a completely upside down view of what is considered reliable information. This is what allows them, after hearing a news report that says something negative about something they cherish, to dismiss it without batting an eye because they’ve already primed themselves to believe that “fake news” or “liberal” news is out to get them. So having the secrets of Fox “News” coming out in the open actually has the potential to cut the supply of a conservative’s lifeblood – the echo chamber that feeds them and keeps them enraged. It is this echo chamber that tells them they are being persecuted and that evil liberals are out to destroy “their” country. But the Dominion revelations present conservatives with a strong signal about the true nature of conservative “News” outlets. It signals that they are being played – they are being manipulated by sources which tell them what they want to hear, truth be damned. It signals that these “News” sources cynically believe their viewers to be gullible and think they are resources which can continue to be manipulated for profit. Since mainstream media has continually been calling out and presenting the falsehoods involved in “the big lie”, it also signals that they are better sources of information than what conservatives typically use. They’ve called out this lie from the beginning. This simultaneously hits the echo chamber in two ways – the first is that it shows the echo chamber isn’t reliable, and second is that the refrain which is typically echoed by conservatives – that mainstream media is “fake” news – also takes a direct hit as a falsehood. The impact here is significant because it has the potential to disrupt the way conservatives think and it gives them a great exit opportunity. Due to how black and white the signals are, how easily it can be observed, all it would take would be a modicum of due diligence for any conservative to choose to exit the misinformation chamber. The evidence is easily accessible, and so stark that all it takes is a desire to do so. A desire to ask themselves the scary question – “Is what I believe correct?” and then a willingness to take a peek. A brief look, with eyes open is all it would take to potentially change their way of thinking. The question is, will they look – will they be willing to question whether they might be wrong? Will they take this amazing opportunity they’ve been presented with to possibly verify and correct their perspective and worldview? I hope they will.

A mandatory vaccine for Republicans

hand with syringe, poised to inject. A medicine bottle sits in the background. — Photo from http://www.rawpixel.com

One of the things that most frustrates me is the hold that conservative media has on the Republican base in this country. I realize that the media is not the entirety of the problem (there’s also just a general stubbornness and an obsession with “whataboutism”). I say this as a former hard core Republican – fully admitting that they had me for quite a while. I was kept captive in large part due to my own ignorance and upbringing – having been raised in that context. In what follows, I’d like to share some techniques that helped me begin to understand how the conservative media works and how to discern levels of trustworthiness in your media consumption.

Are there things that are blatantly false or misleading?

When you read or watch a story, take the main point and look it up in multiple places. But when you do the search, don’t use language that assumes the story is true, or use terms that are “leading” in the search query. For example, this 11/4/2020 article on Fox News describes a situation in Michigan just after the election. The situation, according to Fox News, is one in which Republican vote challenges were being prevented from entering the building to watch the vote counting process. In the article, there are several images from a user’s social media feed. In that feed, which shows prominently on the page, you can see the user’s captions of various images, saying things like “disgraceful”, “Republican poll challengers are still locked outside”. Republicans across the social media landscape at the time seized on this, and I saw plenty of angry posts citing this as evidence that the integrity of the election had been violated. What I’d first like to point out is that this Fox News article is very intentional in both making sure that an extensive number of Tweets show prominently in the article and also that those Tweets are from a person involved with a Trump PAC. The user’s statements say things like “Detroit election officials refusing to let the public observe the counting process” and “this is a disgrace to democracy”, and “The crowd is now chanting ’Let us in!’, as many Republican poll challengers are still locked outside”. Without any other context or sources, the outcome of reading this article would be a stirring of emotion – for Republicans, anger, desperation and fear that Trump would be cheated. For Democrats, fear and shock a situation could be developing which would cast doubt on Biden’s imminent win. The question at hand is how to know if what we’re reading is false or misleading? What I did at the time that I was initially exposed to this story was to pause, and take a breath. I knew at that moment that I needed to suppress the emotions, temporarily at least, so that I could find out more information. This is key, so don’t miss this – holding the emotional response to something like this will pay dividends in learning to discern the truth. By keeping yourself emotionally withdrawn, you give yourself the space to use your rational facilities for the next step: look up other angles to the story. In this case, I did a non-leading web search of the following: “detroit tcf vote observers 2020”. Note that I said non-leading. This means the following searches would be bad: “republicans blocked by democrats in tcf building”, “disgraceful vote counting in MI”. Non-leading should be objective statements and devoid of emotion. The results that show up when doing a non-leading search allow one to gain a broader context of the situation. In the subsequent articles that I found, I learned that the law allowed each party to have 134 poll challengers. But in the building at that time there were more than 200 for each party present – so there was actually a surplus of poll challengers. Those other poll challengers outside weren’t allowed in because there were already plenty in there – not due to nefarious motives. So with this we begin to understand that the initial representation of the situation was wrong, and plainly deceitful. Upon reading some of these other articles, we learn that there were also Democrat poll challengers who were prevented from entering as well – an interesting fact omitted from the Fox News article. This lends more support to the idea that Fox News was being intentionally misleading. Here are some of the articles that came up for me in my non-leading search (article 1, article 2, article 3). I recommend trying to do this search on your own for practice if you are skeptical. At any rate, with this added context we see that the situation is quite different from what was described on Fox News (or social media or wherever else we might have heard about this situation). We can now give ourselves permission to feel emotions; and those emotions, regardless of which side you are on, will be significantly reduced, if not totally gone. Multiple positive outcomes result from this technique; we’ve prevented ourselves from being emotionally manipulated, identified an attempt at manipulation, and have made good faith efforts to validate that what we think we know to be true is actually true. There is a greater challenge for Republicans here, however. The story above virally spread throughout social media because conservatives are predisposed to believe this type of narrative – it is built into their worldview that this is something that liberals typically do. So rather than question its veracity, it’s used as a data point to enforce their prior beliefs – that is, it’s used as a confirmation of a false belief. So the path of least resistance for the conservative is to accept the story/video/post at face value as confirmation of what they already think to be true. The challenge is two-fold: first, they must make the choice to practice the technique above. Second, if and when they find that a story is misleading, they have to purposely make a note, mental or otherwise, that goes something like this: “My initial assumption was wrong and even though I wanted this story to prove that my beliefs are correct, it doesn’t. Therefore, I should question this belief”. Part of making that mental note involves remembering it; it is very easy to go on to the next story or half truth and just brush this under the rug as a one off discrepancy. By remembering this incident, and remembering that you can be wrong sometimes, you can temper future judgments. It can serve as a reminder to engage your critical thinking facilities before jumping to an emotional conclusion.

Will the article look at multiple perspectives?

In our example article above, the only perspective given is that of the angry crowd outside the TCF building in Detroit. There are no tempering alternative perspectives shared from either Democrats, city officials, or those inside. Included was a statement from the Michigan attorney general, but the statement is a general press release, and not focused on nor specific to the TCF building situation. The article states at the start that only Republicans are outside, which our other articles showed to be false; there were people from both sides of the aisle there who were being blocked from entering. The lack of perspectives and absence of any attempts to try to explain why the situation was happening should be taken as a warning sign or clue that the author might have a motivation beyond merely informing the reader of what is happening. It should be a warning that the author might be trying to manipulate the reader’s emotions in a sly way by giving a one sided view into the situation, using dubious sources of information (a Twitter account from someone who was a director on a Michigan based Trump PAC). It’s clear that there was only 1 perspective in the article, and no attempt was made to correct any incorrect understandings that readers may have had about the article. This calls into question the motive of the author, as well as why they would so transparently omit any other sources of information or perspectives which would serve to temper the interpretation of the readers. Be on the lookout for this trick – it lets Fox News amplify things which are not true, while claiming plausible deniability. They can in effect say “We didn’t say these untrue things; we just reported what some person said”. So a naive viewer might take the “reporting” at face value, and miss the warning signs that they’re consuming a one sided and manipulative narrative.

The more provocative a headline/story is, the more you need refrain from emotion

Headlines can often cause extreme emotions very quickly – take the headline of my blog post for instance. I wanted to grab attention, and to illustrate my point, produce a strong emotion from my more conservative readers. Now the headline of our Fox News article is “Locked-out Detroit Republican vote challengers furious over lack of access”. There’s a lot there, but the headline betrays the author’s goal: they want you to be as furious as the Detroit Republicans. They want you to identify with them as fellow Republicans who are being unjustly treated. Be careful of these types of headlines. The author is showing their hand from the start that it is their intent to manipulate you into feeling what they want you to feel. It also seems to me that they are showing how little they respect their audience, by telegraphing their intent so transparently. It is reminiscent of the way a dog will try to slyly glance in the direction that they are planning on running before they actually make their move. So it is with conservative media; they can’t help themselves from writing manipulative headlines – and they do it because it works. So when you are reading headlines on new sources, especially the conservative ones, try to be extra self aware when you feel your emotions rising; in most cases this is a warning that you are encountering something which is a) designed to manipulate a certain emotion/reaction b) one sided or lacking multiple perspectives c) lacking a full context, and therefore requiring some footwork by you to get the full story.

When a media outlet presents stories in the fashion outlined above, it raises a host of other questions. How often do they craft stories like this? What else might be missing from other stories you’ve read or watched? If there is information or context which fundamentally changes the emotional thrust of a story or video, and it is omitted, can you really trust this news source? How many attempts at emotional manipulation are too many before you call an information source “untrustworthy”? Most importantly, what do you currently believe to be true which can trace its origin to a half truth from one of these media sources?

If something makes you uncomfortable, it doesn’t mean it’s fake news

I think it’s really important to be upfront about something as you try to think through these issues and that is: this will feel uncomfortable. Sometimes it can feel devastating to learn that things you’ve thought were “for sure” are wrong or at least up for grabs. This is part of the process, and although it is tough, you will be better for it in the end. The reason I’m bringing this up is that for lots of conservatives, when they are confronted with something that doesn’t “feel” right, or goes completely opposite of what they thought they knew, the knee jerk reaction is to say that what they are reading is a lie, or more commonly, “fake news”. It has become something of a protective mechanism for people who are confronted with information they don’t like. But just because you don’t like some information doesn’t make it untrue or false! What you are feeling is your mind trying to make sense of conflicting information you are facing; your mind is trying desperately to find a reason to believe that what you formerly knew to be true actually still is. But it is your job to keep your emotions in check and keep your rational thinking in charge of things. It’s your job to look at the various angles, and decide when looking at the facts which narrative is most likely true (by seeing which narrative fits best with the given facts) regardless of where that leads.

It’s ok to be wrong

It’s worth repeating: it’s ok to be wrong – it doesn’t mean you’re a bad person or unintelligent. (But the same is not true if you persist in your way of thinking even after becoming aware that you were wrong) Some people have worked very hard at manipulating the feelings you have while consuming conservative news. If you believed something previously, and realized that you were mistaken, or misled, it’s not too late to turn around. It has happened to everyone at some point – we’ve all believed something with absolute conviction and then later found out it wasn’t true, or was only half true. Speaking from personal experience, it feels bad; like humiliatingly bad. But there’s a freedom in turning around and heading in a different direction. There’s freedom, if you feel led, to say “I was wrong, but I know better now so I’ll try to do better”. What matters is that going forward, as you encounter information, you do your best to get at the truth.

Be wary of emotional manipulation of various kinds. Sometimes it will attempt to goad you into feeling a certain way by trickery. Other times it will attempt to affirm your belief in a certain subject area. The article we discussed here did both: it attempted to make the reader feel fury, as well as confirm the reader’s suspicions about nefarious schemes to steal an election. Depending on your buy-in to conservative political views, it may feel disorienting as you begin to slowly notice the patterns of deception that are typically employed. You may also begin to wonder how you ever believed those things – in time this will be replaced with a feeling of relief (among others) – a relief in finally having a belief system which is more consistent with the truth.

The importance of being earnest (or how I learned to distrust Fox News)

During the fall of 2019, I was still a supporter of then President Trump. I had enthusiastically voted for him in 2016, and was excited by many of the things he talked about – it was thrilling to hear my viewpoint broadcast unfiltered to the masses, and there wasn’t anything the news media could do about it. Unfiltered and without any care to whether what he said was “politically correct”, it felt like a dream come true. I was so thrilled when he won the election, and laughed in derision at seeing liberals marching through the streets, with groups of people crying in despair. I was all in for Trump, and excited about his plans to Make America Great Again. I mostly downplayed the concerns that I heard in some corners of the internet – about his lack of experience, etc. I knew that presidents don’t necessarily have to be experts and that like business leaders, they know that in order to succeed they need to surround themselves with people who actually are experts. By surrounding themselves with people that they can trust they can effectively make wise and informed decisions. Besides, I figured he’d probably have the chance to add some conservative justices to the supreme court bench, and I knew that there was no chance I’d support any justices that Hilary Clinton might nominate. I typically enjoy consuming news – at the time I tried to more or less alternate between CNN and Fox news for my diet of news. For me, that reflects a change, because at earlier points in my life I tended to focus exclusively on sources like Fox News, only rarely making excursions elsewhere. I would usually do this when things I would read on Fox News would make me so mad or incredulous, I’d have to see how it was being reported elsewhere. I would wonder “how can people not care that the liberals want to do this or that? Don’t people care about this country?”. Often, the referenced articles wouldn’t have analogs on CNN, so I just assumed that CNN must be biased against the conservative viewpoint.

Trump’s first impeachment

By fall of 2019 I had started to read about undertones of an impeachment, and had heard about a phone call during which something inappropriate was allegedly done. I remember coming home from work one day and my wife wanting to know what I had heard about all this (she knows that I am a news enthusiast, and often asks me for “Reader’s Digest” versions of certain topics which she hasn’t had time to look into). I recall having to relay, with some sheepishness, that Trump had used his position of President of the United States, to withhold aid from Ukraine, and tried to leverage his power to get President Zelensky to bring about a prosecution of Joe Biden, Trump’s political foe. I felt embarrassed – this was someone who I supported, and he took the power and position that our country lent to him and used it to attempt to strongarm a country that needed our help. As an American, I was embarrassed, and as a believer, I was mortified. This was wrong, and there was no excuse for it. Interestingly, while I felt it was wrong, and felt impeachment would be a correct and good remedy if the allegations were true, it didn’t change my political affinity towards him; I would probably have no qualms about voting for him again in 2020.

I remember when the transcript summary finally came out. I figured this would put to rest whether there was any weight behind the allegations. As I read the transcript, my heart sank – what President Trump said, along with the fact that he had recently blocked aid from going to Ukraine in the period leading up to the phone call made it clear to me that he was in the wrong. I mentioned that this didn’t change my political affinity at the time. However, it did start to affect me in various ways which I don’t think I was aware of at the time. For one, my ability to honestly admit to myself that Trump had committed wrongdoing, was significant. It was born from my faith and walk as a believer, and the idea that acting with integrity matters, and covering up the truth is not acceptable. I mentioned that during this time, I consumed Fox News as well as CNN. Fox news articles during this time period (9/20/19 – 9/27/19) consistently and vigorously downplayed and minimized the situation. The big headlines on Fox News during this timeframe ranged from “This is going nowhere”, “Rudy warns Dems Ukraine-whistleblower story about to backfire on ex-veep”, “SEAN HANNITY: Breathless media mob parrots WaPo Trump story”, to “Source under scrutiny”. Those are all primary headlines from different days that week for Fox News. When the phone call transcript finally came out, underneath the giant “This is going nowhere” headline, from 9/26/19, there was a small link underneath it to a separate article, “Read the full transcript of Trump’s Ukraine call”. In contrast, the CNN articles during this time featured headlines such as : “The President’s pushback on the whistleblower makes no sense”, “White House considers releasing transcripts”, “Trump put hold on military aid before call with Ukrainian President”, “House launches impeachment inquiry”

Seeing the way that Fox News went out of its way to defend Trump rather than taking any of the allegations seriously served to erode my trust in them. You can see from the headlines that they try to deny the situation and shift blame to the accuser, rather than presenting the available information. It was clear that they had no interest in informing their readers of the facts, or of finding out whether or not the story was true. That demonstrated to me that for them, their preferred narrative and protection of their ideals were the most important concerns rather than informing people of the known facts around the situation.
I think it’s important to continually question and verify the things we believe. It’s even more important to be willing to admit when we’re wrong and to change course. There will always be room for different perspectives of a given topic, provided that the parties do so in good faith. I would argue that one element of arguing in good faith would be to consider other perspectives – but it must be done by you — it’s fine if you read/watch Fox New’s perspective on a situation or hear what they say someone has said – but once you do, you need to find the reporting from a different source – importantly, one that will not agree with your narrative. You cannot just take a summary – you need to verify that summary makes sense in light of the facts. For instance, say you become angry after being told what Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez has said about something. Go find out what she said both before and after the excerpt that you care about. Context is king, and I can’t count how many times after finding out the context of public figures’ statements that I realized that I was upset for nothing. Also, I encourage you to use the tool that I’ve used above – it’s called WebArchive and it lets you go back in time to see what websites looked like on different dates. You will see multiple times associated with a date – this represents when people have requested that WebArchive records what was there at the time. Find an event that you know something about – then compare how different new sources decided to portray, or not portray something. The unfortunate thing that I’ve learned is that sites like Fox News, and many other sources from which conservatives gather their information do not argue in good faith. The case above is one example of it. But I continually see bad faith argumentation in the way that certain people are portrayed as villains. Next time you hear something that Nancy Pelosi has supposedly said that makes you mad, look it up from a different source – preferably from what you might consider a liberal source. Then check a more neutral source. I’m confident that if you do this, you will notice what I noticed – which is that your initial shock or anger at some reported content will dissipate. You will feel a little resentful or humbled, because you will realize that those with a differing opinion likely have at least one good point which you know is probably correct. You will also realize that what you initially read wasn’t 100% accurate. Most importantly, you will realize that just because something comes from a liberal source doesn’t mean that it can be discounted wholesale. I realize that you will now be asking whether I practice what I preach. My honest answer is: sometimes. Unfortunately, the conservative movement as it stands today makes this a waste of time, which is why I don’t do it very much anymore. I don’t believe in enlightened centrism; this only works when both sides agree to argue in good faith. What I’ve found is that the conservative mindset at large is uninterested in determining whether it is actually correct or in need of reform – rather it proceeds from the notion that it is already correct and any calls for change or introspection are to be resisted. The idea that “both sides” are not the same is a hard one to accept, and offensive to some, I’m sure. If you’re unfamiliar with this concept, I encourage you to do some reading on it. There are a lot of great discussions regarding enlightened centrism on the web. My summary of it is that just because there exists multiple opinions about an idea doesn’t mean that they are all equally valid, e.g., flat earth theory, confederate views on slavery, white supremecy, etc. Some ideas inherently have merit, and some are outrightly abhorrent. I believe that if a person is committed to arguing in good faith, it puts them in a position to speak more honestly because of the implicit goal to find the best, wisest, and most reasonable outcome. I do think that there is value to be found by engagement with conservative ideas; however, to do that, they must come to the table and agree to participate in reality over rhetoric. I hope and pray for the day when that can happen.

An example of how Fox News pushes propaganda

I recently read a Fox News article and I was inspired to write about some thoughts I had on it. It was really shocking to see how brazen the propaganda was, but since it might not be obvious to everyone, I thought I’d share some of the reasons I believe it is. The article’s headline states the purpose is to inform the reader “CNN heavily promoted Rebekah Jones’ fake conspiracy accusing DeSantis admin of altering COVID data”.

What I’ll show is that Fox’s actual purpose can be understood as follows: “Cast doubt on Rebekah Jones, rip on Chris & Andrew Cuomo, and elevate Governor DeSantis to the Republican audience”. That’s a mouthful, but they cover a lot of ground in a super short article. I’ve outlined the article below:

State a sensational takeaway as headline (and then summarize someone else’s opinion)
Get to the true reason for the article, which is to take cheap shots against people/issues (which are not relevant to the article)
Omit things which should be included in a news article

Sensational takeaway

The article in question is about Rebekah Jones. Jones worked on the covid-19 dashboard for Florida, and was apparently fired for refusing to change the positivity numbers from 18% to 10% (the state’s target reopening metric). The article opens with Fox News giving readers a preview of what their true purpose is – attacking CNN. They frame the discussion by saying that all media outlets (especially CNN) swooned over Rebekah Jones based on her allegations, which seemed to indict Governor Ron DeSantis. They then take a rather strange turn, and start quoting from an article written by a conservative editorial magazine (National Review). It’s interesting because they can merely state what they’ve read in the article, like a book report. They can then relay whatever claims it makes without any liability for false statements/accusations, because they make it very obvious that the info they are reporting is coming from an article, which they label as a report. Something to note is that they do not call out or label what the National Review is, nor do they preface it with the fact that the report is actually an opinion piece, and not any researched journalism. I think this is dubious, but very clever — they can say anything, and ostensibly are protected from any potential libel, since they can claim that they are not saying it themselves. They also can covertly sneak in some opinions while dressing it as “news”.

The Fox contributor, Joseph A Wulfsohn, makes no effort to verify (or at least does not inform the readers of such efforts) any of the information that comes from the article which he cites, and he makes no effort to talk to Ms Jones herself, or anyone else involved in the story. In fact, there is nothing in the article which suggests that any of the information is actually verified, original, or newsworthy. For that matter, there’s also no evidence that the author performed any work related to the story at hand, other than counting how many times CNN ran reports about Ms Jones. It’s basically a written form of gossip (i.e., hey, did you hear what so and so said about so and so? Well, I’m not saying that X is true, but this is what I heard). Anyway, it is pretty clear this is not news. This is gossip, masquerading as news, but with a more sinister intent. The intent is to influence their readership by using their dubious position as a news source and peddling worthless and unactionable information.

Get to the true reason for the article

Once the author is done relaying what he learned from the opinion piece in the National Review, he segues into his primary purpose for the article, to rip on the Cuomo brothers. He transitions by mentioning that Jones has been interviewed by Chris Cuomo 5 different times. Here he says that CNN “pushed the narrative” (I think he meant to say “reported on”) that she was a victim of a police raid due to Governor DeSantis’ retaliatory action towards her for trying to tell the truth.

The author uses this point to bring up the super obvious fact that Chris and Andrew Cuomo are brothers, and that during interviews with one another, they tended to be pretty friendly toward one another. The brothers were “chummy” with each other, and the way the author writes this is clearly intended to draw scorn from the readers for this fact. He then goes on to relay how CNN has said complimentary things about Governor Cuomo’s handling of the pandemic in the past, and that now Chris is in a tough position due to the scandals now swirling around Governor Cuomo. (Pause here to appreciate how far from the headline topic we’ve strayed!) He finishes the article by stating with ridicule that Chris has said that he “obviously” cannot cover his brother – with the author implying that Chris is hypocritical for covering him during the early part of the pandemic. He fails to mention that Chris said in the next sentence that CNN has and will continue to cover the stories about this brother. It’s pretty obvious that it wouldn’t make sense for him to cover his brother’s troubles on air – this doesn’t seem unreasonable, although the author seems to understand that his audience will likely take the cue and scoff at this as typical hypocrisy. The author also appears to tip his hand to one final purpose of the article: to gently suggest to his readers that they should get on board the Ron DeSantis train. He does this by informing them that DeSantis’ “national popularity has been rising among Republicans”. This indicates to me a forewarning of who the author, and possibly Fox News will be backing in the next round of Republican primaries.

Omit things which should be included in a news article

One of the reasons I think that it is easy for readers to fall prey to Fox News articles is because it is difficult to detect what is actually missing from the articles, not just what they choose to include. For instance, the author doesn’t try to make any contact with anyone involved in the story — at all. This is a huge red flag – any normal news article or journalist will use sources of information, facts, interviews to describe the subject at hand. This article does none of that. The only source is an opinion piece by a highly partisan news source. Contrast this with a CNN article which outlines Jones’ arrest. The article has quotes from the FDLE which detail the reasons for her arrest and the charges which were brought against her. It also contains quotes from her which mention her perspective of why she was arrested, and the subsequent lawsuit she is bringing against the FDLE. There are then links to other stories which talk about DeSantis’ handling of covid-19, some from CNN, and some from other news sites. The point is, there are sources of information which show an attempt to give a good faith representation of what is happening from multiple perspectives, and the use of multiple sources allows the reader to get an understanding of the breadth of the issue while also allowing them to research pertinent points at a later time.

Another important aspect which is missing is a good faith attempt to look at things from a different perspective, namely Ms Jones’. For instance, after describing the “devastating piece” which Cooke wrote, a normal news article would then have also shared information which gives an alternate position or given some statements from someone who has reason to believe the report is false, or at least outline what problems there may be with the article. None of that is given, whatsoever.

Fox News took a very devious but clever approach to inducing suspicion in its readers all the while staying pretty safely away from making actual accusations or revealing any facts to corroborate what is reported. They used a gossip technique used by the expert gossipers – relay something dubious that they heard from someone else. They keep their hands clean (sort of), because they didn’t actually say anything false — they just told us what they heard or read somewhere. It’s devious because they are acting like it is news, but not actually doing any of the legwork associated with writing a real news article. They get website hits (and money from advertisers), and they promote anger, as well as their preferred partisan viewpoint, which continue to feed each other in an unvirtuous cycle. The casualty unfortunately will be our Democracy, if they continue to be successful with fooling their readers into believing the reality which they skew as I’ve outlined above. May they fail in their attempts, and may the eyes of their viewers be opened.