I feel like it’s probably only for my own sanity that I point this out, but Fox News could have covered Trump’s speech. They could have covered it honestly — pointing out that there was no evidence, pointing out that Trump’s “evidence” didn’t even say what he said it said, that this is coming from someone who has said “We need to stop all voting” and “We need to get rid of the ballots.”
That is a thing they could have actually done. That a real news organization would have done.
And yes I know they never would — spare me the obvious. I’m not saying it because I’m naive. I’m saying it because even though I know where the bar is I refuse to forget where it should be — to participate in the soft fascism of low expectations, to rework a phrase.
Oh my goodness! I really enjoyed this article. Perhaps it’s my desperate need to tune in to levity wherever I find it or your choices were intentional, but either way there are some jabbing jewels of funny sarcasm here!! Thank you!
I copied some of course!
1. You can be sure Fox didn’t ignore Trump’s speech out of journalistic integrity, because that’s not Fox’s brand.
2.While Trump has provided the personality for the fascist movement Fox supports, it’s obvious that the Murdochs view him as a liability to the cause.
👉He’s too overtly corrupt, too focused on gilded statues, too damn crazy. He revs up the resistance.
3.” It was only after Trump proved his staying power
👉and DeSantis showed his lack of charisma that Fox re-boarded the Trump train.👏👏🤣
4….. NY Times has a Euphemism Desk
….
There are more here that made me smile and chuckle … while delivering serious commentary.
I feel like it’s probably only for my own sanity that I point this out, but Fox News could have covered Trump’s speech. They could have covered it honestly — pointing out that there was no evidence, pointing out that Trump’s “evidence” didn’t even say what he said it said, that this is coming from someone who has said “We need to stop all voting” and “We need to get rid of the ballots.”
That is a thing they could have actually done. That a real news organization would have done.
And yes I know they never would — spare me the obvious. I’m not saying it because I’m naive. I’m saying it because even though I know where the bar is I refuse to forget where it should be — to participate in the soft fascism of low expectations, to rework a phrase.
Love “Euphemism Desk”! 😂
Firing Bartiromo was the only thing FOX could do.
Rupert Murdoch has done incalculable damage to our country (and others). Fox’s demonization of “the other,” the cruelty, the lies—what a legacy.
Oh my goodness! I really enjoyed this article. Perhaps it’s my desperate need to tune in to levity wherever I find it or your choices were intentional, but either way there are some jabbing jewels of funny sarcasm here!! Thank you!
I copied some of course!
1. You can be sure Fox didn’t ignore Trump’s speech out of journalistic integrity, because that’s not Fox’s brand.
2.While Trump has provided the personality for the fascist movement Fox supports, it’s obvious that the Murdochs view him as a liability to the cause.
👉He’s too overtly corrupt, too focused on gilded statues, too damn crazy. He revs up the resistance.
3.” It was only after Trump proved his staying power
👉and DeSantis showed his lack of charisma that Fox re-boarded the Trump train.👏👏🤣
4….. NY Times has a Euphemism Desk
….
There are more here that made me smile and chuckle … while delivering serious commentary.
Thank you
💙🇺🇸💙
Love the article, Mark.