Thread by @onthemedia

1/9 THREAD: Last week’s show was dedicated to mitigating the type of harm caused by clips like this:

https://twitter.com/ndrew_lawrence/status/1359676426736332800?s=20

2/9 We wondered: does Fox News need to be neutralized? Or maybe radically ostracized? And if, in a democratic society in which free speech is foundational, is that an outcome we really want?

3/9 @bobosphere: “Both questions are premised on the belief that whatever Fox has been since its 1996 launch – a megaphone for wedge issues, fear mongering, lies, conspiracy theories, personal vilification, culture wars – has poisonously mutated.”

4/9 As @nandoodles explained to Bob, simply by telling brands that their ads were ending up on Breitbart, @slpng_giants was able to make far-right outlets far less profitable:

5/9 BUT, as it mutated, applying this strategy to Fox’s advertisers probably won’t work…@GoAngelo on the “dirty secret” about the network:

6/9 That means as long as your cable bundle includes Fox, you are underwriting Tucker. Guess how much Fox makes annually per cable subscriber, even those who never watch it?

7/9 Now, as the former president stands trial for incitement, his lawyers are waving around the 1st Amendment. But what does the 1st Amendment mean for Fox? Could they also be found guilty of incitement? wnycstudios.org/podcasts/otm/s…

8/9 And *wipes dust off book* 50 years ago “The Fairness Doctrine” marked an attempt by the government to minimize partisan propaganda...with less than stellar results. Could we maybe do that again? @pastpunditry says probably not:

9/9 Check out the full episode “Slaying the Fox Monster” here: wnycstudios.org/podcasts/otm/e… END/