17 thoughts on “Stay Classy, Fox News!

  1. I do. You reap what you sow. Classy has gotten the right nowhere, and has in fact led to some significant setbacks, so, now it’s time to fight just as dirty as the other side.

      • 7th grade is one year I’ve pretty much blotted out of my memory for precisely that reason. I know some of what I am saying is skirting the rationalizations that ethics is a luxury we can’t afford right now and these are not ordinary times. Unfortunately, to allow this country to be essentially destroyed by the other side is also an unethical result. This is a tough one.

      • At what point does it go from being classy to unilateral disarmament? I’m not sure, but I think with Stelter (who is a potato), we’re so far past that dividing line that we’d need the Hubble telescope as opposed to a rear-view mirror to see it.

        Stelter has spent a large part of his time at CNN attacking Fox News, calling for the censorship of any outlet to CNN’s right.

        I’ll quote from Kurt Schilchter’s October 25 column about the Alec Baldwin incident, “If you want to go gentle, cool, and if you want to go hard, okay. After all, the rules are the rules, and there can only be one set of them. In the world I would want to live in, we would all be at Option A, whispering a silent prayer for the hurting – and I did. But this is not the world we live in, and none of us are under any moral obligation to pretend we do.”
        https://townhall.com/columnists/kurtschlichter/2021/10/25/the-alec-baldwin-conundrum-n2597927

  2. I am 100% with Steve-O-in-NJ on this one. I have stood up and for ethics all my life, but perhaps it isn’t a luxury we can afford right now. In war, do we consider ethics?

    • Sure we do. But the difference between ethical and non ethical is blurry, particularly on the margins.

      There are hard lines. If someone picked up a gun and mowed a path through CNN’s news because CNN was spreading disinformation, that’s obviously not ethical. Then there’s a spectrum of obviously unethical things until you get to things that are situationally unethical, and then you get to a spectrum of things that are arguably unethical, and then you get to a spectrum of things that are arguably ethical, or just ethical.

      I don’t see this as particularly bad. Jack is big on kindness and civility, and I think this is generational… I don’t ascribe to this school. If someone is damning me with faint praise, or insulting me with a lot of flowery, overblown rhetoric, taking the high road is obviously the more ethical path, but it’s also just as obviously the least effective path, and when you’re talking about control of the levers of power, and sculpting the culture of a nation, I don’t think you can ethically roll over and die.

      I’m big on responding in kind. You’re civil with me? I’m civil with you. You’re an asshole to me? Prepare the nuclear option. Brian Stelter has no credibility. He’s on a Network that has no credibility. CNN employees spent their entire day, every day, running around their glass house hucking rocks, they don’t get to bitch about what blows in.

    • Yes, ethics are considered *always*. War does, however, adjust the priorities we attach to certain values, therefore driving different answers to questions that would have been answered otherwise.

      I think that the Left wholeheartedly hates the American experiment as defined by the Founders and pursued by those who love liberty in the present day. I think they have declared an insurgency against the American system and have waged a guerilla war through Big Law, Big Education and a Corporate-Political marriage for several generations now.

      I think those who oppose this attempted Coup of America will have to re-arrange some priorities and engage in a kind of “war ethics” to oppose the Left. But I share Jack’s concern that in fighting the monster we do not become the monster.

  3. Generic insults and mockery are not helpful, because they don’t cut at the actual issues. Satire, sarcasm, and condescension, when used properly and with dignity, can get issues out in the open. The only downside is that they take critical thinking, wit, and restraint to pull off effectively.

    Sometimes you have to be understated in order to get people to ask the right questions. For example, they could say something as simple as, “Biden’s travel bans are being praised as a precautionary measure, continuing Biden’s trend of making popular decisions that were unpopular when Trump made them.” Then they could list a few examples. That constitutes a shot across the bow without sacrificing any credibility.

  4. Relentless mockery is one of the tactics that has been deployed in the battle between left and right for a while now. In some respects it seems to be working for the right, but in others it is causing problems. The whole world doesn’t need to turn into Twitter. Blunt honesty is a better tactic than juvenile mockery in some venues. Politicians, news anchors and newspapers would be more trustworthy, and thus more effective, if they stuck with blunt honesty. Old people aren’t going to like voting for people who express themselves with sarcastic memes and potty mouths. Looking at this from a strictly practical perspective I don’t think this is an effective venue for Twitter-trollesque rhetoric.

    Ethically, I think this is only defensible if it is an effective tactic for battling the totalitarians on the left. I don’t think the majority of Fox News viewers are young enough to appreciate such juvenile rhetoric. What is the goal? To desensitize older people to Twitter trash talk? That isn’t a particularly ethical goal. I don’t think it is a particularly effective goal either. Leave the juvenile rhetoric to the publications young people read and watch. Stick with blunt honesty everywhere else.

    • I think Mark Levin had some really effective insults, like calling Hillary “her thighness” or “Hillary Rotten Clinton.” Now take your choice: Sleepy Joe, Dementia Joe, Zombie Joe? How about “Congresswoman Pull-start” for Omar?

  5. An interesting side light to the picture above: I watched a segment by Tucker Carlson in which he basically said that Chris should have helped his brother because he was family, and that’s what family does.

    Now I will say that he wasn’t defending Chris’s statements on CNN or him lying to his viewers, just that he thought helping his brother was what he should have done.

    And yes, I think he was serious about it. I’m sure the clip is still out on You Tube.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.