Why are Fox News personalities ranging from Bret Baier to Brit Hume all torching Donald Trump today? Why is Fox allowing him to? Because Trump is finished, and even Fox’s audience is starting to figure it out, and Fox has to keep pace with that in order to keep its audience.
As always, you don’t need to give anyone at Fox News any credit for finally torching Donald Trump. Fox isn’t doing it for the right reason. But this kind of thing is a reliable harbinger of how public opinion is shifting, even when it comes to the other side.
Fox News does not exist to help Republicans get elected. Fox News is a for-profit corporation that exists to drive revenue and ratings. Its right wing approach is just a means to an end for driving ratings. Its goal is to make money, not to help its “side” win elections.
Trump is ten days into a DOJ Espionage Act indictment and he’s maybe twenty days from another DOJ indictment for January 6th, and maybe forty days from a Fulton County RICO indictment. He’ll have four criminal trials well before the election. Four!
Even right wingers are about to start putting it together that he’s simply not going to be politically viable. And because he can’t even provide an answer on why he kept the classified documents, he’s making it so much harder for right wingers to keep the faith with him.
And so even as Fox News viewers are increasingly scratching their heads and wondering “why didn’t the idiot just return the boxes,” Fox News has to match that same tone in order to keep its viewers staring at the screen all day.
After all, (approximately) eleven billion other Republicans have all jumped in the 2024 presidential race, because they know Trump is toast, and half of them are now bashing Trump for not returning the boxes. Fox News knows its audience is hearing that.
So Fox News is just doing what all soulless for-profit mega corporations do whenever they see their target market shifting in a certain direction: they match their target market’s tone so that they can retain that market.
Remember, this is never about whether anyone at Fox News is has “grown a spine” or “deserves credit” or “is still bad.” Who cares? What matters is that Fox’s sudden anti-Trump shift is a *very clear* indicator that right wing audiences are also shifting away from Trump.
Nor does it matter that some Fox News personalities like Hannity will try to hang in there with Trump a bit longer than the rest of the network. Again, who cares? This isn’t about who at Fox is “good” or “bad.” It’s about Trump falling so far that even Fox is now tiptoeing away.
If you only follow politics so you can feel outrage, you’ll be so desperate to spin this into “but Fox is still bad” so you can keep feeling outrage toward Fox, you’ll miss the entire point, which is that Trump is toast.
Of course the outrage addicts on our side don’t want to hear that Trump is toast either, because they’re afraid that when he goes down, they won’t be able to feel as much outrage toward him going forward. And their only reason for living is to get to feel outrage.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Those of you accusing Trump of faking mental incompetence are ALMOST right. He *is* mentally incompetent. He’s been roughly this senile in every public appearance for the past two and a half years. He’s been a goner for awhile. And no, it won’t magically keep him out of prison.
I know that some of you don’t Trump to be senile, for two reasons:
- You’re afraid it’ll get him off the legal hook. But that’s not how it works, so stop worrying about that.
- You’re afraid you won’t be able to hate him as much if he’s senile. But you’ll still hate him plenty.
Besides, he’s senile whether you want him to be or not, so you might as well just work with the fact that he is. These days he consistently presents as early onset dementia at the least. If you’ve seen it in people around you, then you know it, and you see it in Trump too.
WaPo with a bullshit story about Garland letting Trump off the hook. NYT with a bullshit story about Garland giving Trump a deal. Must be Monday. But today is different, since Garland’s DOJ will likely indict Trump again within weeks or perhaps even days:
For reasons I spell out in the article, the political media generally spends Mondays bullshitting us with scary ghost stories about how Trump is going to get away with it all. But if today’s bullshit fest seems seems over the top, it’s for a reason.
The DOJ’s 1/6 probe appears to be at a stage where Trump could be indicted at any time. Could happen this week, or news could break this week making clear that indictment is next week, etc,
Then what’ll happen to Bullshit Monday? Today could be the media’s final Bullshit Monday!
The 1/6 committee did a ton to educate the public. But the DOJ’s 1/6 Trump probe got underway well before that, based on the timing of DOJ subpoenas and such. It is a false claim that the 1/6 committee “forced” or “embarrassed” the DOJ into action. Just factually false.
I’m not defending the DOJ. They don’t need my help. I’m defending the factual truth, which is supposed to matter.
Major news outlets are now hyping a version of events that would have literally required a time machine in order to be possible. It’s just embarrassing. So harmful.
DOJ criminal probes aren’t a reality show. They’re not carried out in public for good reason: it’s about getting a conviction.
Congressional committee hearings are something of a reality show. They’re trying to get the public’s attention in order to influence public opinion.
The NY Times has cranked out its own line of scary bullshit today, with an article designed to trick you into believing that the DOJ is considering giving Trump a cushy plea deal. But the article itself is all just hypothetical. DOJ would never even consider such a thing.
The article's premise is that because the documents are so sensitive, the DOJ won't be able to properly prosecute Trump, and will have to let him off the hook with a cushy deal. But it's all sourced to people not involved with the case, saying "here's what I THINK could happen."
Other legal experts have spelled out over and over how these kinds of trials are handled, how the evidence is handled, now it doesn't keep a conviction from happening, and how this is a non-story. But the NY Times needed some outrage inducing clickbait today, so here we are.
If you want proof of how thoroughly the media uses outrage addiction to manipulate us, look no further than how many folks on our side have been goaded today into demanding that Merrick Garland resign because he’s “doing nothing,” just days after he indicted Donald Trump.
If you want more proof, just wait til Garland indicts Trump for 1/6. Then give it a week after that, and the media will *still* find some new bullshit angle for goading folks on our side into angrily ranting about how “Garland is doing nothing.”
It’s not about Garland. His feelings aren’t hurt. He doesn’t need defending. His actions will ultimately speak for themselves one way or the other.
It’s about how the *media* has brainwashed so many on our side into having such mentally ill reactions to mere mention of Garland.
In its own backward way, the media may have just tipped off that it expects the DOJ to indict Trump for 1/6 very soon. The media is suddenly milking the “Garland is doing nothing” narrative so cartoonishly, as if expects it’ll soon cease being able to get any mileage out of it.
We see this a lot, where something is obviously going to ultimately happen, but the media spends the whole time chasing ratings by insisting it’ll never happen.
Then the media concludes that it’s about to happen, and they’re never sure what to do about it.
Some news outlets will try to cover their asses by suddenly acting like they always told you this thing was going to happen.
Other outlets will decide to take one more big bite at the ratings apple by suggesting more hyperbolically than ever that the thing will *never* happen.