It was one of those conversations you hear between people who rely on Fox commentators or Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, and others for their understanding of the world—one that is uninformed but vehemently defended. It shifted across several topics, frequently including the economy and how it was supporting “losers” who weren’t willing to work.
Finally, I could stand it no longer.
“Do you really want to elect people who take away from the poor—like getting rid of Social Security—and give tax breaks to the super-rich? You must watch Fox News,” I said.
The debater standing next to me—a big, burley fellow—turned on me with a fierce glower and I thought for a few seconds he was going to hit me.
“That’s our network,” he yelled. “It tells our side of the story.”
“What about telling all sides of a story?” I asked. And why does it have to teach you to hate the other side?”
I was pushing hard and he was beginning to show signs of apoplexy. I stood up and left the room before I said more—and in case he was thinking of pounding on me with his big fists.
Why would someone working for a modest wage not support candidates who favored programs that did something for the middle class? In a recent issue of the New York Times, Eduardo Porter wrote that the the right takes positions that fit other beliefs in the culture of these poorly-educated, poorly-paid white voters.
Many members of this group are racist and most oppose efforts to bring in any more immigrants.
Their favorite candidates at this point are Donald Trump and Ted Cruz, neither of whom favors policies that would help these supporters and both of whom have been called fascists, the ultimate far-rightists.
I am convinced the daily ridiculing, criticism, and scorn delivered to this group by Fox commentators, Rush Limbaugh, Glen Beck, and others do teach and reinforce the vehement opposition to those of different races, cultures, and political views. No, mainstream media don’t do that and the far rightists try to separate the public from these legitimate sources of information. This is an old trick long-used in brainwashing.
How does our country solve the daily outpouring of lies, half-truths, conspiracy theories and messages of downright hate when the first amendment gives the precious right of free speech. I recently read that on current events quizzes Fox viewers scored considerably lower than those getting their information from other sources.
Can we define some of what they present on their programs as hate speech? We have, in the history of our constitution, narrowed the area of protected speech by allowing child pornography to be prosecuted, for example. But political speech is vital to a democracy and it would be almost impossible to come up with a definition that would help more than it would hurt.
Maybe it’s better not to tamper with it. For a democracy to work at its best, we need well-informed citizens who understand the issues. We must rebuild our education system and stand up for education, insisting that budget cuts must be made elsewhere.
An educated populace will laugh off a Donald Trump, or recognize the fascist underpinnings of a Ted Cruz. If we don’t do this the situation we find ourselves in today will be paradise compared to where we will be in the near future.
Lewis Donohew retired from the University of Kentucky College of Communications in 1999 after nearly 35 years of service and having earned a national reputation as a communications scholar and researcher. Now down on his farm growing grapes and living close to the earth, he contemplates issues of the day from a lifetime of experience and a love of the land.