As some know I have an odd fascination with "conspiracy theories" and the individuals that propagate them. Not that I believe so much that the con nutters are delusional, though some clearly are, it's the psychology behind it. Kind of like the fascination I also have with serial killers, I want to know and understand what makes them tick. I have yet to figure it out in both cases.
I do agree with the authors assessment in regards to Fox News being the primary impetus behind the rise in "popularity" of various theories. But I think the author also misses the importance of the inter-web as well with all the various platforms available to get ones message out.
Television is important to be able to drone on-and-on the message you want received but I believe it is when one can interact in some form with the message bearer that carries the weight of success. Social media platforms like Facebook and Twitter have been a boon to the causes on the fringe. My personal feeds are just loaded with crazy stuff at a constant rate. Stuff that is just begging for attention. Television is just to easy to tune out, the inter-web is with you 24/7 (if you allow it to be).
__
Here's what's key: Twenty years ago the far-right Foster tale was told mostly from the fringes. Word was spread via emerging online bulletin boards, snail mail pamphlets, faxed newsletters, self-published exposes, and VCR tapes, like " The Clinton Chronicles," which portrayed the president as a one-man crime syndicate involved in drug-running, prostitution, murder, adultery, money laundering, and obstruction of justice, just to name a few.
At the top of the Foster-feeding pyramid stood the New York Post, Rush Limbaugh's radio show ("Vince Foster was murdered in an apartment owned by Hillary Clinton"), and Robert Bartley's team of writers at theWall Street Journal editorial page, who spent eight years lost in a dense , Clinton-thick fog.
Notice the hole in that ‘90s media menu? Television. Specifically, 24-hour television.
Now, fast-forward to the never-ending Benghazi feast of outrage. Today, that far-right tale is amplified via every single conservative media outlet in existence, and is powered by the most-watched 24-hour cable news channel in America. A news channel that long ago threw away any semblance of accountability.
So yes, Fox News is what's changed between 1994 and 2014, and Fox News is what has elevated Benghazi from a fringe-type "scandal" into the pressing issue adopted by the Republican Party today. ("Benghazi" has been mentioned approximately 1,000 times on Fox since May 1, according to TVeyes.com)
[,,,]
Now, Fox acts as a crucial bridge between the radical and the everyday. Fox gives a voice and a national platform to the same type of deranged, hard-core haters who hounded the new, young Democratic president in the early 1990s. Fox embraces and helps legitimize the kind of conspiratorial talk that flourished back then but mostly on the sidelines. The Murdoch channel has moved derangement into the mainstream of Republican politics.
How Fox News Dresses Up Extreme Right-Wing Conspiracy Theories as News | Alternet
No comments:
Post a Comment